D&D is now in (exceedingly awesome) commercial form

[Beginning of the End]

Who is Justin Alexander and why should I care about his hilariously wrong opinion?

He's a guy on the internet. So are you. I didn't say, "LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF GOD TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK." I said, "Here's a guy saying some that I think makes sense." You guys need to learn some perspective.

They also sold AD&D hardbacks at the same time, and history shows that the vast majority of AD&D players started out with some form of the Basic Box. I understand you're trying to draw some kind of distinction between 80's era TSR and 4e-era WotC, but I'm not seeing it.

I'm not sure how you can fail to see the distinction. It's fairly clear-cut: The BECMI Basic Set was designed as part of an extendable game system in which the Basic Set would never be discarded. Yes, there was also AD&D. There was also Boot Hill and Gamma World and a bunch of other TSR games. But that's different than a pay-to-preview product.

And, yes, there was the 1977 Holmes Basic Set. (Although that product included full rules for character creation.) And the post-1991 TSR Basic Sets. And TSR's AD&D First Quest boxed set. And the 3E Basic Games. Nobody's saying the pay-to-preview product originated with WotC or 4E. There's a long history of them.

And it's a long history of failure.

The BECMI Basic Set was massively successful compared to other products of its kind. So successful that, 20 years later, WotC is trying to recapture its success in a very literal way. Why is that? What was different about it? What separated it from the other dozen basic sets and basic games that TSR and WotC have released over the years?

It wasn't pay-to-preview.

Maybe you're right and that distinction is irrelevant. It's certainly possible. But literally everything else about that boxed set has been replicated time and time again... and failed time and time again. So maybe at some point, WotC will think about trying the one thing about that boxed set that they haven't done in 20 years.

Also: Yes. There are people who were introduced to the game through pay-to-preview products. That doesn't actually negate the larger question of comparative effectiveness. There are plenty of people who played DragonDice. That doesn't mean it was a huge hit. I literally can't think of another game in the entire universe that works like this: "Buy this version of the game that's been designed for obsolescence after a handful of plays (at most) and is packed full of advertisements for the real version of the game. And once you buy the real game, this product is designed to be stuck in the closet."

Computer games have demos... but they generally don't charge you for them.

Board games have expansion packs... but when I buy Arkham Horror: Kingsport I'm not expected to throw away my copy of Arkham Horror. The expansion is specifically designed to increase the utility of the base product.

 

[Nymrohd]

I found it tacky and certainly a put-off. I find the Essentials campaign itself tacky as well. Attend Ye Gods? I thought the marketing department of MtG was worse (Infinite ways to say here I rule? Are you frickin kidding me?) but I guess they either share personel or are competing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Keep in mind it leads the to 4e ESSENTIALS. Different but old school flavoured 4e. So, not so misleading.

I was initially intrigued by the Essentials line. Not so interested after examining it closer. I would still be disappointed.

Similarly, I may not play Monopoly often, but if I picked up a box advertising Monopoly, getting as great a divergence between what I remember Monopoly being and what is presented, I would also have a sense of disappointment. There would be a real WTF moment. If I ended up liking the new product, great. But I would still feel that I had "been had".


RC

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Okay- G-E-N-I-U-S IDEA:

Up until now, they have been WANTING to sell these books for 30$ each, and since you need at minmum 3 books thats 90 bucks. Hard to get people to plop down that much cash on something they have NEVER done/[layed before. Hence why they sell a lil demo/starter and let people decide if they want to make the big commitment. BUT WHAT IF...they did it THIS way:

The ideal "RedBox" could contain quickstart rules and the like, and a sample adventure for lvls 1-2 BUT the materials within a "mini" monster manual, DMG, and PHB contain enough class progression charts/items/spells/etc to carry a character all the way to 5th.

It contains materials such that if players wanted they can make their OWN characters and their OWN choices from scratch. Likewise, the DM after running the companion adventure (lvl 1->2) would be encouraged to go off and CREATE his own stuff -the DMG advises you how, and warns you of pitfalls but never tells you what to do. You play up the fact that they are the Dungeon MASTER. Sure, your first time doing this may be messy, but thats how life is. Emphasize CREATIVITY, and that ANYTHING could happen. Along the way over the next 3 lvls; you could advertise MODULES (each sold seperately) for lvls 3-5; exactly what the newbie group needs. You dont have to run modules, but they can make things easier and contain cool stuff.

BUT WAIT!

While you're in the FLG what do you see? Why, look its NOT random/bullcrap D&D Mini's where you dont KNOW what you're getting -but a COMPANION Mini Pack (sold seperately) that go with EACH module (sold seperately). WOW thats hella better than the wimpy pogs that came with the First Box -but they're seperate you DONT have to buy them to play the module (but why wouldnt you?), they exist to make the module and your Home Campaign BETTER. Now, THE KEY difference is that they are NOT RANDOM and thus always USEABLE and WORTH buying. And not ONLY that but if you ACTUALLY want to play the miniatures skirmish game, you know EXACTLY what you have to buy and in what # to get what you want for your army JUST like Warhammer 40K or other games. Each one contains a squad of some sort, a cool feature controller/leader and some minions or people under him.

Now -the newbie group is up to lvl 5th; they dont know how to progress their characters any further, and they've explored many or most of the options in the lvl 1-5 monster manual. Now what?

A NEW BOX! Lvl 5-10th; Companion Adventure (5-7) more modules for those lvls; and minis packs (sold seperately) for those modules and for use with the minatures game, etc, etc. Four Boxes would spread out the CORE material for lvls 1-20. As it has been in the past (If I understand) today, the MINIMUM 3 core books have full progression 1-20 and a full range of CRs. IF YOU SPREAD IT OUT....you should make it cheaper than $90 Bucks just to actually get started, AND you make it necessary to buy each box for core rules. FURTHERMORE -you may not want to start a new game at lvl 1 (I dont like starting at lvl 1 myself) BUT if you do-you will need that First Box. That First Box WAS a pre-view, but it was also part of what compromises a necessary Core set.

After the 4 Boxes are released, all future releases are HORIZONTAL expansion rather than vertical, expanding upon each of the 4 Core Boxes content. This model I think, emphasizes the CREATIVE aspects of playing the game, AND gets people used to the IDEA of buying more, and more material rather than expecting to make just ONE purchase.
----

Now, my thoughts on the commercial? LOVED it. I myself only started playing late in 3.5, but the I know about D & D's history, and the fact that it has history says something to me. I dont think its old or dated, but its ENDURED for a reason and will continue to do so. The 'oldschool' ness of it stirred some good feelings in me.

As for the 'Attend ye gods,' I swear thats a line out of the illiad...

EDIT: IT IS!

"and all the gods gave ear " Attend, ye gods and ye goddesses ; let none of female deities, and none of male, presume to cancel my word, but all of you give consent thereto that I may bring these doings to an end" -Zeus; The Illiad translated into English Prose (1891; John Purves)

 

[Stoat]

The advertisement is badass. It is obviously aimed at the same demographic as Metalocalypse and similar Adult Swim cartoons -- men in their mid-20's to mid-30's who probably don't have much first hand experience with the D&D of the mid-1980's.

Also, the advertisement is badass.

 

[filthgrinder]

It wasn't pay-to-preview.

Computer games have demos... but they generally don't charge you for them.

If only WotC put out quick start rules and an entire adventure for free on their website.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Try DnD
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/QuickStartRules.pdf
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/H1.pdf
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Khybers_Harvest.zip

Oh, hmm. I guess they did.

 

[MrMyth]

Justin Alexander talked once about the lack of a gateway product for D&D. And he recently followed that up with a discussion of how the Starter Set perpetuates that track record of failure.

What I find amusing in those links is that, in the first, he says the 4 issues are that:
-There hasn't been a game packaged to look like a game to the average customer;
-There hasn't been a version packaged to sell through mainstream stores;
-The entry cost for the game has been too high;
-The investment time of reading the books is too much.

And he mentions that the solo play adventure is a super awesome thing.

So, along comes the Red Box, which absolutely addresses the first two issues, and has a solo play adventure.... none of which he mentions at all in his follow-up post. So I'm going to say that 'reader bias' is informing his opinion a lot more than any accurate review of the facts.

I do understand his points about it not containing a full game - but it does contain enough to get a new group playing, for a couple levels, at a very cheap entry point. That seems a good goal for a starter set.

A $20 product that would actually completely replace the rest of the game? It's a nice thought, but I'm not sure that's a product that WotC wants to produce.

Honestly, for me, I do wish the Starter Set had a few more things: Maybe a small section that details character creation without needing to go through the solo adventure, along with some more info for the DM on creating their own adventures. I think there is room for it to have a bit more replay value while still leaving the appeal of expanding to the rest of the game.

But dismissing it as pure fail? Yeah, not so much.

 

[Ourph]

The BECMI Basic Set was massively successful compared to other products of its kind. So successful that, 20 years later, WotC is trying to recapture its success in a very literal way. Why is that? What was different about it? What separated it from the other dozen basic sets and basic games that TSR and WotC have released over the years?

It wasn't pay-to-preview.

Let's be clear, the "B" in BECMI was massively successful... at driving people to the AD&D hardbacks. The "ECMI" section of the line was never even close to AD&D in terms of popularity, despite the fact that most AD&D players in the 80s started with some iteration of the Basic game. Let's also be clear that there are multiple differences between the original Red Box and it's later iterations, other than the expandable nature of the BECMI series. No other Basic/Starter D&D set since the Mentzer box has 1) been sold in mainstream retail outlets and toystores like Wal-Mart, Target, Sears and Toys'R'Us; and 2) been in release at a time when D&D was already massively popular (i.e. numerous news stories, TV commercials, school gaming clubs, Saturday morning cartoon, etc.). To claim that the expandable nature of the game past the contents of the Basic Box was at the root of the Basic game's success is, IMO, ignoring a large body of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Mark CMG]

Let's be clear, the "B" in BECMI was massively successful... at driving people to the AD&D hardbacks.

That's the sense I always had of that. I wonder if a poll here in general regarding whether someone came at AD&D 1E from "the B" would find that to be true, as well. Or would it find that most that started with "the B" continued with the BECMI? What would be the best way to word it?


Anyway, this thread continues to suggest to me that people who already play the current edition feel the red box will bring in new players, sometimes via older players, and people who don't play or like the current edition seem to be saying they aren't interested. We'll have a good sense of the truth of it after it has been out for three months. People should ask the managers of local Target stores how they are selling, as well as the larger gamestores, after they have been on the shelf for a while. If we get a few dozen reports back that are all one way or the other, we'll probably have a good sense of it.

 

[Zil]

That's the sense I always had of that. I wonder if a poll here in general regarding whether someone came at AD&D 1E from "the B" would find that to be true, as well. Or would it find that most that started with "the B" continued with the BECMI? What would be the best way to word it?

Our group started with AD&D back in 79-80ish and then dabbled with BECMI mainly for the modules which weren't that difficult to convert.

Much later on (93-94) I ran a game using the D&D Rules Cyclopedia combined with the 2E monstrous manual, 2E Might Fortress rules, and the 2E psionics book which is probably the only time we actually played using any of the BECMI rules.

So.. all the red box stuff doesn't really mean all that much to me from a nostalgia perspective. However, all the fiend folio art work in the commercial certainly does, but it also comes across as being rather cornball.