D&D “Essentials” as a product line = making it less daunting to get into the game?

[Jhaelen]

Common sense.

Common sense is a myth.

Still, there is some truth to your comparison of the 4e Red Box with a demo version of a video game.
I'm not sure that your conclusion that it's a flawed approach is correct, though, because there is some other element to it:
Have you ever seen a Pre-Release-Bonuspack for a video game? I actually once bought one of those, and they sold out _extremely_ fast. You basically get even less than from a playable demo version of the game. It just contains some goodies that you can use once the full version of the game is released. And that's certainly something that is true for the 4e Red Box as well!

1983: Wanna generate abilities? Here's how you roll the dice for that!
2010: You are a human fighter. Your strength is 18.

Well, I never liked rolling for abilities. I much prefer point buy or using standard arrays, so: good riddance!

1983: Here's a list of equipment. Pick anything you want - and can afford!
2010: You can either have a greatsword or a greataxe. Yeah, that's it.

Wait! Wasn't (O)D&D the game where are all weapons were basically identical and did 1d6 damage?
If so, it's more like:
1983: Here's your weapon! You may call it whatever you like!

In other words: 2010 =/= 1983

To sell well _today_, a Starter Box may need to offer different things than 27 years ago.

 

[Obryn]

you avoid the question. It's not that we assume non-gamers are too thick to get into Essentials. The question is whether Essentials has made it eaiser for them to get into D&D. Do you think the product proliferation and naming of the books has made it easier? Yes? Tell us why. Thanks.

Sure you do. You're assuming a new player won't be able to figure out what they buy to start playing D&D. I think that's incorrect, and that your average new player would probably combine web research with reading comprehension with asking people for advice.

Anyway - what step of "getting into D&D" are you talking about here? There's the attention-grabbing phase, the choice of books, the decision to purchase, the learning of rules, the actual enjoyment of play, and the decision to continue doing it. You can't conflate all of them together and expect a single answer.

I think the new books grab your attention pretty well. They're very attractive, and a small enough size they're not intimidating. More to the point, the Starter Set is pretty eye-catching and immediately noticeable; the whole "START WITH THIS" theme is evident.

Like I said, the new books lay out pretty clearly what you'll want as a player or DM. But maybe people could get confused, too. I have no idea on this count, and neither does anyone but WotC, I'd expect.

The decision to purchase is probably a bit easier - especially for players. $20 is an easier impulse buy than $35 or $105.

The rules are laid out in a much friendlier fashion than the original 4e core, IMO. The start of Heroes of the Fallen Lands pretty much lays it all out in a very readable format. So getting into D&D is easier here, IMO.

And continuing to play? No idea. The red box is limited, but the rest of the Essentials line is brimming with ideas. What's more, the DM's kit and Monster Vault have what I understand are pretty good adventures. I don't have the DM's kit, but I expect a lot of the main book is devoted to making and running your own games.

-O

 

[Aurumvorax]

Wait! Wasn't (O)D&D the game where are all weapons were basically identical and did 1d6 damage?
If so, it's more like:
1983: Here's your weapon! You may call it whatever you like!

In other words: 2010 =/= 1983

To sell well _today_, a Starter Box may need to offer different things than 27 years ago.

Weapons did 1d6 points of damage but I wouldn't call them identical. A dagger hit AC 2 on a roll of 12 from 2d6 while a two-handed sword (get this greatsword business outta my face!) hit AC 2 on a roll of 7 from 2d6. A person with a dagger could also make 3 attacks against a person with a two-handed sword, always attack a 2-hander first even if the 2-hander won initiative, and even parry the 2-hander's attacks.

 

[Beginning of the End]

You failed to answer my question, so, no, it hasn't been explained to me?

If you literally can't understand the different between a demo and an expansion pack, then I'm afraid your next best recourse is a dictionary. I'm not here to serve as your private English tutor.

Have you ever seen a Pre-Release-Bonuspack for a video game? I actually once bought one of those, and they sold out _extremely_ fast. You basically get even less than from a playable demo version of the game. It just contains some goodies that you can use once the full version of the game is released. And that's certainly something that is true for the 4e Red Box as well!

I see where you're going with this. But if I asked NCSoft, "What should I buy to start playing Guild Wars?" Their marketing department is not going to say, "A pre-release bonus pack!" The whole thing is packaged and even explicitly labeled as bonus material.

It's not that we assume non-gamers are too thick to get into Essentials.

Sure you do. You're assuming a new player won't be able to figure out what they buy to start playing D&D.

Repeatedly telling someone that they're saying something that they are simultaneously denying that they're saying is a real dick move, Obryn. Such mendacious behavior also works better if you don't quote the person saying exactly the opposite of what you claim they're saying.

 

[Hussar]

Weapons did 1d6 points of damage but I wouldn't call them identical. A dagger hit AC 2 on a roll of 12 from 2d6 while a two-handed sword (get this greatsword business outta my face!) hit AC 2 on a roll of 7 from 2d6. A person with a dagger could also make 3 attacks against a person with a two-handed sword, always attack a 2-hander first even if the 2-hander won initiative, and even parry the 2-hander's attacks.

What game would this be, because it certainly isn't Mentzer Basic which is what 1983 is talking about.

 

[BryonD]

I'll tell you exactly why.

Eseentials has a Red Box that will appear on the shelves of non-traditional locations for RPGs. That's Number 1.

There has been a lot of playing up of this point. The two lines of reasoning seem to be that the nostalgia of the old red box will have a huge effect and that there are throngs of people oblivious to D&D will discover the game and flock to it.

I think both those lines of reasoning will end up having negligible impact.

The marketplace of the 1970s was almost completely unlike the marketplace of today. Both in general with the comparison of a handful of tv channels and XYZ retail outlets compared to on-demand and the internet, and specific to gaming with D&D being a "new thing" that a lot of people had never heard of compared to online fantasy roleplaying saturating the market and direct references to tabletop D&D being a mainstream media shorthand for snickering at geeks.

The numbers of people oblivious to D&D are negligible and the people who somehow still are oblivious to it are not going to be high yield for new players.

In the 1970s there was only a certain fraction of society that was truly a potential gamer. The majority of the population was never going to be interested, and no box color could change that. The same thing is true today. But also, of those 1970s players, a not insignificant portion would have dropped D&D in a second if some of the alternatives present today had been present then. The same thing is true today, except those alternatives ARE present. The fraction of society playing tabletop D&D will never be what it was in the 1970s to 1980s.

What is important is marketing. There still within these groups remain a very large number of people happy to play D&D OR to do something else. And marketing will nudge that fraction into D&D. And lack of marketing will permit steady flow away from D&D. This is very good marketing and that helps at every level. But it isn't due to nostalgia or new discovery.

Without simplistically equating or isolating, 3.5 and Essentials clearly have both distinctions and points of strong commonality. One point of commonality is that they provide a second round of spit polish "new shiny" on an established product. And confusing the impact of that alone for any other bigger significance, and particularly long term significance, is a mistake.

 

[Windjammer]

The marketplace of the 1970s was almost completely unlike the marketplace of today. Both in general with the comparison of a handful of tv channels and XYZ retail outlets compared to on-demand and the internet, and specific to gaming with D&D being a "new thing" that a lot of people had never heard of compared to online fantasy roleplaying saturating the market and direct references to tabletop D&D being a mainstream media shorthand for snickering at geeks.

While this point is made pretty frequently - of D&D having more competition from other media nowadays - I found this review (Part 1, as of minute 6:40) to be pretty revealing. Why the remake, why did the remake have the "Action Heroes!! 11!!!" flavor written all over it? The answer can in part be extended to the 3rd to 4th edition overhaul in D&D.

 

[BryonD]

While this point is made pretty frequently - of D&D having more competition from other media nowadays - I found this review (Part 1, as of minute 6:40) to be pretty revealing. Why the remake, why did the remake have the "Action Heroes!! 11!!!" flavor written all over it? The answer can in part be extended to the 3rd to 4th edition overhaul in D&D.

I agree with his point, but it is a different point than the one I am making.

The D&D BRAND is absolutely powerful and known. Putting GURPS out in a red box wouldn't have the same effect because the brand recognition is critical.

BUT, that doesn't change the fact that people who played D&D in the 1980s but WOULD have played WOW instead if they had had the choice, DO have the choice now.

 

[Beginning of the End]

BUT, that doesn't change the fact that people who played D&D in the 1980s but WOULD have played WOW instead if they had had the choice, DO have the choice now.

I think this is pretty much indisputable.

For players who enjoyed D&D primarily because it offered them tactical combat, there's really no question that computer games offer the superior experience: Better graphics. Integrated soundtrack. Calculations done for you. Faster gameplay. You can play solo; you can play with your friends in the same room (LAN party); you can play with friends across town or across country; and you can even casually and quickly start playing with complete strangers.

Similarly, if you're looking to experience a railroaded fantasy story, then games like Final Fantasy -- with immersive worlds created by hundreds of dedicated artists -- are going to deliver the same selling points in a much slicker package.

Where tabletop RPGs still kick ass -- and will continue to kick ass for years (and probably decades) to come -- is in instantly responsive environments. Computer games simply cannot provide the immediate flexibility of letting you do anything and take the story anywhere.

Which is why WotC's belief that D&D's salvation is in carefully balanced and prepackaged encounters leaves me scratching my head. I don't find D&D4 particularly WoW-like, but it's certainly trying to compete with WoW on WoW's home turf in a battle that I don't think it can possibly hope to win.

 

[Hussar]

BOTE - I believe you're missing the point of those pre-packaged encounters. They're not designed with someone like you or me in mind. People who have been playing for years and can, and do, create their own material all the time and have years of experience letting us develop encounters that we can be pretty sure will be fun for our players.

Instead, these are designed for the fifteen year old DM who's maybe been playing for six months and simply doesn't have the experience to go it on his own.

Will you have fantastic sessions using this pre-packaged stuff? Probably not. They're too generic and too fixed for that. Just too vanilla.

OTOH, will you have absolutely terrible sessions with this? Again, probably not. Presuming the DM follows what's written, the group should have a good enough time.

And that's what this is about. Not about providing fantastic times. But, about providing good enough experiences that keep the players coming back. Because, when you drop stuff out there that might be fantastic, it generally has a much larger chance of being really, really bad.

It's all about providing a certain experience and trying from the design and presentation end, to ensure that the end users have that experience.

In other words, it's trying to minimize the impact of individual DM's.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing, I think, depends on your opinion of individual DM's.