D&D 5E Introductory game first?

[Jan van Leyden]

Why not use the model which was outlined very early? Do a Basic came with independent add-ons. An introductory game, though, isn't needed for us.

Maybe they'd do it to gain a foothold in the mass market. In this scenario, publishing it before the real thing might be okay, if only to to ease the burdon of distributing too many products at once, and into different channels.

 

[Blackwarder]

I think that reading this might be helpfull:

D&D Next Goals, Part One
D&D Next Goals, Part Two
D&D Next Goals, Part Three
D&D Next Goals, Part Four

It's from one year ago but I think that they are still sticking to it, the most relevant one to this thread is in the second part.

Warder

 

[ccooke]

If you look at the playtest, it's already following this approach. Based on the L&L articles, the "basic" game will have a limited set of classes - maybe just the main four, but maybe more. The basic version will pick one subclass - almost certainly the simplest, most general version available for each class (So the Warrior Fighter subclass, for instance). It will probably only have the core four races, ift will probably bake a single default Background into each class and it'll have no feats at all...
... and a character built with it will be playable and balanced in the Advanced version. Switching from Basic to Advanced just gives you a lot more options.

That's the idea they've talked of, at least, and it's well-balanced* enough right now that it looks reasonable.

* I'm not saying the game is perfectly balanced right now. It isn't. It's good enough, though, that my players who don't *want* to break the game can have fun with it without worrying much. The game definitely needs some maths love, but I'm happy enough with the playtest so long as they fix it for release.

 

[Mercurius]

You've already hit dealbreaker #1 for me; I'll just wait for the 'real' game (because it's the one everyone will actually play once they realize that the "intro" product is already outmoded).

But who's going to buy all three of those, if there's overlapping material? And how much more "SPACEWASTERAGE!!!" does WotC really want to evoke for having all that overlapping material?

I dunno, man, I don't see this model working if all three versions are for sale, even if some of it is only online. And I don't think we'll see another major free release. I can see a "Basic Set" and a "trinity" working together if the Basic Set is 100% compatible and basic enough to start a group at a low cost and complexity level. But I won't spend money for three copies of the same material, and I'd find it irksome to have to spend $25 or more to get a small number of options that are only in the Basic Set or what have you.

I do like the BECMI model suggestion- that would work for me, assuming that the "B" box (book, whatever) had all the low-level stuff- not just "basic four", but the paladin, ranger, etc.

OK, I can agree with you. I was reminded of those silly "Wizards Presents" books that preceded 4e. They didn't include any rules, but they were a lot of filler and a rather expensive preview of the game without saying much of anything.

I'll go back to my original hope: that WotC offers a "basic game" in the form of a box set or two, and an "advanced game" the form of hardcovers and modular options. I like the idea of the introductory set coming out first if it is both complete in and of itself, and it is easily convertible to the more "advanced" version.

 

[the Jester]

OK, I can agree with you. I was reminded of those silly "Wizards Presents" books that preceded 4e. They didn't include any rules, but they were a lot of filler and a rather expensive preview of the game without saying much of anything.

I actually enjoyed those, but unfortunately, a lot of the potential within them seemed to be discarded by the time 4e actually came out. In particular, the promise that the art would have a lot more worldbuilding in it was exciting, and then proved very disappointing, as most 4e art was just... muddy-looking.

(Honestly, I can't tell most 4e modules apart at a glance. I need to read the title. Compare to 1e adventures, when each was distinctive and colorful and it was simply impossible to mistake G1-2-3 for S1.)

I'll go back to my original hope: that WotC offers a "basic game" in the form of a box set or two, and an "advanced game" the form of hardcovers and modular options. I like the idea of the introductory set coming out first if it is both complete in and of itself, and it is easily convertible to the more "advanced" version.

I can get behind this, with that caveat that the "basic" and "full" systems really have to be 100% compatible, not just mostly so.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, that was my point earlier. Basic wasn't a basic version of Advanced. Not in the paradigm the phrases are used now. In no way was any version of OD&D an introductory set for AD&D.

That's why I noted the difference between "introductory game" and "basic game".

No version of OD&D was intended as an introductory game for Advanced, yes. But functionally, I think it acted in that role for many people - they start with the Red Box that they got for X-mas or a birthday. Anecdotally, that box was a big deal - a non-gamer won't try to figure out which game book they'd buy as a present, but a self-contained box is less confusing to an uninitiatied (and indeed, uninterested) purchaser. Thus initiated, many them moved on to AD&D - again, anecdotally.

I think Basic is exactly what put the idea of "introductory game" in people's heads.

 

[fjw70]

It is important to not have an introductory product. A basic set that is a complete game by itself that can serve as an introduction is great though.

I agree with the BX or Mentzer comparison to AD&D.
This time basic and standard/advanced need to be 100% compatible.

 

[Iosue]

I think that reading this might be helpfull:

D&D Next Goals, Part One
D&D Next Goals, Part Two
D&D Next Goals, Part Three
D&D Next Goals, Part Four

It's from one year ago but I think that they are still sticking to it, the most relevant one to this thread is in the second part.

Warder

Yup, this. And it's worth noting that Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle was a dry run at the kind of basic product Mearls describes. A mini-campaign that takes you up to level 10 with the core rules, including chargen. Somewhat railroad-y, with lots of "read aloud" text. Just the kind of thing to take neophyte players and DM through their first campaign, with enough rules that they can start all over again with their own creations.

Such a set would be meant for both the mass-market and folks who like a B/X level of complexity and depth. Essentially, an even more integrated version of the D&D/AD&D distinction.

As a side note, and I know it's an impossibility, but I really wish that the B/X-BECMI-RC line was known as "Expert D&D" rather than "Basic D&D". The Basic rules were always but a small part of the game, with the lion's share of levels and full rules for adventuring in all environments in the Expert rules. Unfortunately, people hear "Basic" and think "Red Box", with all the limitations that implies.

 

[Mistwell]

If they get the intro game done first, like 6 months sooner than the "Advanced" game, then yes I hope they release it first as I'd like to be playing the basic game for those three months.

Otherwise, I am not sure I care which comes first. I will buy the Basic game to try and get new players into the game, and if I like it I may even just stick with the Basic game for our campaigns. But I think the odds are I will use the Advanced game for our campaigns and just buy the Basic as a gift and to use to DM new players.

But, I'll end up buying both anyway.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Yup, this. And it's worth noting that Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle was a dry run at the kind of basic product Mearls describes. A mini-campaign that takes you up to level 10 with the core rules, including chargen. Somewhat railroad-y, with lots of "read aloud" text. Just the kind of thing to take neophyte players and DM through their first campaign, with enough rules that they can start all over again with their own creations.

Such a set would be meant for both the mass-market and folks who like a B/X level of complexity and depth. Essentially, an even more integrated version of the D&D/AD&D distinction.

Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle reminds me of another product in the same sense: D&D4E's version of Gamma World.

There you had a basic set of rules plus an adventure... following by two more boxed sets that expanded both the rules and the campaign started in the first boxed set.

(And I thought that they did a pretty good job with Ghosts too. If 5E adventures are like that - or like Legacy of the Crystal Shard which I also really enjoyed - I will get the adventures even if I have no interested in the rules.)