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

[Raven Crowking]

Is it good enough to be valued at 20 bucks? Have no idea.

I think so. I also think that the Essentials books are reasonably priced.

Of course, that "I think so" assumes that you will find the product fun to play; no product is a good value for everyone, regardless of the price!




RC

 

[CharlesRyan]

If I was an old guarde being luered back, I'd be PO'ed because what they seem to be selling is nothing like what I'd remember.

If you were old guard and you picked up the box, you're probably thinking "Wow! I remember this!"

You admire the box as nostalgic memory rolls over you. And then you turn the box over and see the back. You then think one of two things:

1. Hey, this isn't the same thing. Oh, well. Or,
2. Hey, looks like they've made a new version. Cool, I'll check it out!

In case one, you walk away. No harm, no foul, no reason to feel ripped off.

In case two, you plunk down your 20 bucks knowing that you're buying something new and keen to see how D&D has changed in the last 25 years. Given your look at the box and your knowledge that everything in the whole world has changed in the last 25 years, you don't feel ripped off to find a game that's different in mechanics, but the same in the overall experience.

Where's the problem?

 

[Hussar]

Does anyone buy anything that's 25 years old and expect it to be the same? Other than a few perrenials like Monopoly or Othelo, I think it's pretty rare to actually expect something that I did 25 years ago to be the same today.

Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason. If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it? The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason. So, if the game was the same as it was 25 years ago, why would it draw them back in?

To put it rather bluntly, the game didn't have enough draw to keep its customers. Why put out the same product in the hopes that somehow it will magically bring the customers back? After all, the same product had nearly 20 years (1980's and 1990's) to bring those lapsed gamers back into the fold and failed to do so. Why on earth would anyone continue to throw the same product back at the wall in the hopes that if you do it just enough times, it will bring people into the game?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Apart from rpgs, most games sold today are the same as -- or very close to -- what they were 25 years ago. One would assume that, if someone doesn't already know that they made a new version, that would be low on the list of expectations for a game.

Or, to put it another way, apart from rpgs, what game can you think of that has changed substantially over the last 25 years? My old copy of Hoyle is as relevant today as it was when it was printed!

If the target market is people who were interested, but are not hardcore gamers, then they are probably not expecting a new version without a new name. I.e., they might know that there is a Dungeons & Dragons and an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, but would probably imagine that these names still carry the same meaning now that they did then.

That was certainly my experience talking to lapsed gamers when I co-owned Golden City Comics. YMMV.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To put it rather bluntly, the game didn't have enough draw to keep its customers.

What is your basis for this claim? AFAICT, there are still substantial groups of people playing just about every version of D&D imaginable. Due to the retro-clone movement, I can go to Hairy Tarantula and buy print modules for OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord today. Some really, really great ones, too!

If the lapse of some customers meant that a line had no draw, well, I know several lapsed 4e players, lots of lapsed 3e players, and even one or two lapsed RCFG players. In all these cases, I am sure that the draw of the game still exists.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Pick up any video game and tell me that RC.

Again, other than the Milton Bradley style board games, I'd say most of the game change pretty significantly over time.

Axis and Allies?
Risk?
Talisman?

Or, hey, Games Workshop?

Yes, I did say there were perenial games that never change. Sure. But, a great many of the board games just go out of print and new titles take over.

Then again, there is the presumption here that if something is different than before, that will turn away potential returnees. My point is, the same thing, published for the better part of two decades, couldn't bring them back. The Basic set, whether Mentzer or the Red Box, couldn't keep people at the table. They just didn't do it. If they had, then why are there all these lapsed gamers?

So, why would we even want to throw the same thing back in the ring when it failed to keep people in the hobby? Why not try something new since doing the same thing over and over and over again failed?

 

[Hussar]

What is your basis for this claim? AFAICT, there are still substantial groups of people playing just about every version of D&D imaginable. Due to the retro-clone movement, I can go to Hairy Tarantula and buy print modules for OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord today. Some really, really great ones, too!

Irrelevant. These people are still playing, so, obviously, they're not lapsed. However, the game failed to keep significant numbers, and that's what WOTC is trying to draw back in.

If the lapse of some customers meant that a line had no draw, well, I know several lapsed 4e players, lots of lapsed 3e players, and even one or two lapsed RCFG players. In all these cases, I am sure that the draw of the game still exists.


RC

No, there's a difference in having "no" draw and "not enough" draw. If the game had enough draw, then people wouldn't have dropped it. That's pretty obvious to me. That people dropped it, meant that it didn't have enough draw for them. Perhaps they found something they enjoyed more, perhaps it was time related, whatever. For whatever reason, the game did not hold them enough for them to make the effort to remain in the hobby.

Now, we're talking about a product with a lifespan of almost two decades between Holmes, Mentzer and Red box Basic D&D. That's nothing to be ashamed of. It did very well.

But, assuming that simply bringing it back will draw players back is wishful thinking. It lost. There's no other way to put it. It didn't have the staying power to keep its audience to the point where it was economically viable to continue putting the game out.

Thus, it didn't have enough interest in it to keep it going.

So, why would bringing back the same game suddenly cause these people, who didn't stay with the hobby when they could have easily back in the day - it was pretty widely available - suddenly cause them to stop and say, "Hey, gee, I should get back into this thing that I stopped doing fifteen years ago because I lost interest in it"?

 

[billd91]

Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason. If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it? The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason. So, if the game was the same as it was 25 years ago, why would it draw them back in?

That's a mighty strong assumption. There are many factors that can keep a player from playing a game with as much of a time commitment as D&D. How many of us had a harder time finding game time as we became adults with jobs, spouses, mortgages, and kids? Some of us still find the time to play, yes, but plenty don't and I'm not about to say it's because they didn't really like the game.

 

[Scribble]

I'm going to stop you there for a moment.

If your main point is that the Red Box is more than an ad you pay for, I agree with you.

That's what sparked my comments- so... good?

If your main point is that the Red Box is a good deal for an adventure, then I disagree.

Of course, as to the second case, if you need new dice, tokens, and a box, then I will concede that these are value-added extras. I don't think that the Red Box is overpriced -- it is priced low enough that, even as a non-4e player, I find the price attractive. Especially in regards to other WotC modules, as you noted.

Yes... This is pretty much the point I was making. It's a good deal for what it is, which i not just an "ad with bling," and compared to other current adventures of the same type (intro) it's a good deal.

Subjective preferences can change this in the buyer's mind sure. (If you don't like the game system, or the story, or the art, or the company...)

But objectively? This is a good deal.

Just like a box of wine (which holds about 5 bottles) costs less then some of the single bottles I buy.

Objectively that's a better deal. More wine- less money!

Subjectively the wine in that box makes me want to wretch, so I'm willing to pay more for less wine.

If you dislike the product based on your own subjective opinions... Right on- move on play what you want an all that... But that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

The Red Box really isn't designed for my consumption. As I said, I would have been disappointed had I bought in on the basis of the commercial. And I can easily imagine that someone, thinking of buying it for his kids or grandkids, might mistake it for a product he once knew. I dislike that a lot.

Yeah I agree it wasn't designed for your consumption. It's designed for a completely new unexperienced person who has never even played D&D.

It's a great deal especially for say, a parent who's kid hears about D&D and just : "Has to has to has to have it I want it more then any thing its the only thing I'll ask for ever I sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!"

This gives them something they can pay a low cost for, and the kid can try the game without any other commitment, and find out if their kid is really into D&D, or will "have to have to have to have to have this new video game it's the only thing I'll ask for I sweeeeeeaaaaarrr!!!" something else tomorrow.


If they did something similar, for an experienced player... Even if it was simply including all the monster tokens I would need for that particular adventure with it... That would be awesome.

I have found the re-usability of some of the classic modules...

I'm not going to get into a debate about playing styles, or edition preference, or whether or not old adventure were better- my point is this adventure is the same as other current adventures, with extra added bonus items.

Also, I feel that even if they did include say, the full rules for character generation in the new red box, it wouldn't sit on the shelf any less than it does now, since it would be just a repeat of content already found in the full essentials line.

 

[CharlesRyan]

Someone who dropped the hobby 25 years ago did so for a reason. If they really liked the game back then, would it not be fair to assume that they wouldn't have dropped it? The game wasn't good enough for them to stick with it, for whatever reason.

The market research is pretty unequivocal: Very few people leave D&D because they stop liking it. The overwhelming majority leave because of lifestyle changes that separate them from their established group or make the RPG time commitment impractical: Changing or leaving school, moving, getting married, having children, etc.

That said, the broader point (that lapsed players are open to new mechanics) is quite valid; in my (anecdotal) experience, not a single lapsed player returning to the game was surprised or concerned about the fact that the game had evolved.