D&D 5E What Would You Put In a 5E Red Box?

[am181d]

Well, no, because there is no repeat playability from this option. The game should be self-contained, and for me a key aspect of D&D is that you should be able to create characters and fantasy worlds straight out of the box. It's a central tenant of the gameplay. Even if there are greater levels of development or whatnot, what you are suggesting is like trying to sell a single choose-your-own adventure book in effect. Take the creativity out of D&D and it's removing it's central appeal to me.

Some thoughts:
1) It's exactly as replayable as the Pathfinder card game
2) It's exactly as replayable as "Insert Random Video Game Title Here"
3) The sale model would be to graduate them to either "Adventure 2" or the Advanced Guides
4) Technically, you could run additional games off the base set: you would just need to use the characters and monsters included
5) This is the first time I've heard adventures (an essential part of every addition of D&D going back to the beginning) as "a single choose-your-own adventure book" -- you are perhaps lacking the perspective that choose your own adventure books were inspired by tabletop RPG adventures
6) FINALLY: Of course this product doesn't appeal to you, because you are not the target audience -- I would think "not appealing to diehard gamers" is a feature, not a bug

 

[TrippyHippy]

Some thoughts:
1) It's exactly as replayable as the Pathfinder card game
2) It's exactly as replayable as "Insert Random Video Game Title Here"

No it's not. Their are clear structural differences between the play experiences of those games and RPGs. Try playing the same RPG scenario over and over with the same character's and see how far that gets you! Card games and computer games can be repeat played in this way because they focus on other aspects other than roleplaying - tabletop rpgs like D&D, can't. An extended campaign, even over several levels, has no repeat playability and it detracts away from a core creative aspect of what D&D is.

3) The sale model would be to graduate them to either "Adventure 2" or the Advanced Guides

The sale model is crunk. People would play it, complete it and potentially never play another game again. "Oh, would you like to play D&D with me?"…"Played it already!". Also, the onus gets fixed on the quality of the scenario itself rather than the open plains of the customer's own imagination. Again, if they don't like the scenario, that's one potential customer lost.

4) Technically, you could run additional games off the base set: you would just need to use the characters and monsters included

'Technically' isn't good enough for a core set. You have to have it explicitly being played under the premise that the key element is your own creativity in character and world design, rather than gamers hopefully stumbling on the idea. These things are critical aspects of why gamers like D&D - take them out of the core game and you are denying new gamers this appeal.

5) This is the first time I've heard adventures (an essential part of every addition of D&D going back to the beginning) as "a single choose-your-own adventure book" -- you are perhaps lacking the perspective that choose your own adventure books were inspired by tabletop RPG adventures

They are a different mode of play. Heck, Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Magic: The Gathering were inspired by D&D, but they aren't great examples of RPGs.

6) FINALLY: Of course this product doesn't appeal to you, because you are not the target audience -- I would think "not appealing to diehard gamers" is a feature, not a bug

The point is, in terms of marketing the core concepts of D&D, this product wouldn't have any target audience. Give new players an authentic D&D experience, not something that is nominally similar to it.

 

[steeldragons]

To be fair, the title of the thread is "What Would YOU Put in a 5e Red Box?"

None of us have any reason or cause to say "no, you wouldn't." What someone else wants or doesn't want is not really cause for debate, in light of the title and [I think] spirit of the thread.

 

[am181d]

'Technically' isn't good enough for a core set. You have to have it explicitly being played under the premise that the key element is your own creativity in character and world design, rather than gamers hopefully stumbling on the idea. These things are critical aspects of why gamers like D&D - take them out of the core game and you are denying new gamers this appeal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the "core set" thread. The point of the Red Box is to be an intro/gateway product for non-gamers.

Consider that there are a LOT of elements of role-play that are only loosely related to one another:

1) character creation
2) role-play (PC to PC and PC to NPC interactions)
3) rules-based game play (combat, skill use, casting spells, etc.)
4) leveling
5) running the game (what we would typically call DMing)
6) writing adventures

Most people who play D&D will be exclusively players, and they will spend most of their time doing #2 and #3 above. So the purpose of an intro product, I submit, is to let people figure out if they enjoy #2 and #3. (And squeeze in some of #4 because that shows progression.)

As far as DM's go: You need at least one person to cover #5 above, because the game needs a DM, but the DM never really HAS to learn #6. If the DM wants to run more games, they can either:

A) keep on buying published adventures to run forever
B) buy more books to find out how to create their own adventures

Obviously I understand that this goes against the prevailing wisdom.

 

[MoonSong]

- A single sheet explaining the contents of the box
- A How to play booklet.
- 4 self contained pre-gen booklets of the iconic races and classes at 1st, 2nd and 3rd level, including explanations of what everything means and the included spells.
- A solo self-teaching random dungeon adventure for 1 player.
- 2 basic adventures, 1 of them for 1st level characters and the second one covering 2nd and third level. Adventures should contain everything needed to guide the DM to run them.
- A Character sheet block with 20 or 25 sheets
- Obviously dice.
- a 96 page softcover player book, covering 20 levels worth of material for the 4 iconic classes and races, those versions having no bells and whistles, and limited to 5 or 6 spells per level.
- a 96 page softcover DM/monster book, including enough overall advice and iconic monsters and magic items.
- and in the bottom of the box a piece of advertising on what to do if you crave for more.
All of this inside a thick cardboard box that can endure the rigors of time

Finally a deluxe version would add even more dice, a dry-erase map, carton cutouts, thrice as much pregens going up to 5 level, a couple of premium adventures, rep´lace the sofcovers with hardcover versions and include a pair of softcovers one with no bells and whistles versions of some other popular classes and races and the other with even more monsters and treasure plus an overview of the FR, DS and Eberron settings as examples on how to develop your own campaign setting, all inside of a wooden or tin box.

Notice that the contents of both player book and DM book would mostly not be reprinted inside the trinity, except for the minimal amount needed to make them work by themselves. so the PHB wouldn't contain the write up for the big 4 classes, only subclass options and a table telling you what they replace on the basic versions, however what it would have would be the XP table and some key spells and equipment that other classes need too so it wouldn't be unplayable without the basic box (and of course it would have the rest of the classes and races with half dozen subclasses each too). This way you make the box a worthy investment for everybody.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't the "core set" thread. The point of the Red Box is to be an intro/gateway product for non-gamers.

Consider that there are a LOT of elements of role-play that are only loosely related to one another:

1) character creation
2) role-play (PC to PC and PC to NPC interactions)
3) rules-based game play (combat, skill use, casting spells, etc.)
4) leveling
5) running the game (what we would typically call DMing)
6) writing adventures

Most people who play D&D will be exclusively players, and they will spend most of their time doing #2 and #3 above. So the purpose of an intro product, I submit, is to let people figure out if they enjoy #2 and #3. (And squeeze in some of #4 because that shows progression.)

As far as DM's go: You need at least one person to cover #5 above, because the game needs a DM, but the DM never really HAS to learn #6. If the DM wants to run more games, they can either:

A) keep on buying published adventures to run forever
B) buy more books to find out how to create their own adventures

Obviously I understand that this goes against the prevailing wisdom.

I'll certainly correct you in terms of what I have argued already (check my posts).

I am saying that doing an 'introductory' game that deliberately denies certain aspects of gameplay, or requires the use of other purchases to be complete is not a product worth making. You cannot arbitrarily stipulate which aspects of the game new gamers will like - and by denying them these aspects, in what may be their only attempt at playing the game, you are reducing you chances of getting them interested in the game.

Character generation and world creation are fun parts of the game, not chores that newbies cannot possibly handle. Moreover, if you take them out of the game you're not really getting an authentically 'complete' D&D experience.

The previous 4e attempt at the 'red box' was a seriously flawed product. The Pathfinder Beginners box was significantly better.

 

[am181d]

I am saying that doing an 'introductory' game that deliberately denies certain aspects of gameplay, or requires the use of other purchases to be complete is not a product worth making.

I don't understand this statement. Clearly, an introductory game is a success (and therefore worth making) if it is:
A) broadly accessible
B) enjoyable
C) encourages purchasers to seek out more product of this type

There's nothing about these requirements that demands that the introductory version of the game cover EVERY aspect of game play or be entirely self-contained. (Indeed, it would be a fairly poor introductory product if no one who bought it ever felt the need to buy anything else.)

You cannot arbitrarily stipulate which aspects of the game new gamers will like -

It's not arbitrary. The core of the role-playing experience is what happens at the table on game day. That's a very clear and considered dividing line.

and by denying them these aspects, in what may be their only attempt at playing the game, you are reducing you chances of getting them interested in the game.

Who are you afraid we're excluding? The player who doesn't like playing the game, but loves creating characters? The DM who doesn't like running the game, but loves crafting adventures? I'm not convinced that this is a significant or sustainable portion of the market.

For people who love playing the game, but want to create their own characters, there's a book for them to buy. For people who love running the game, and want to create their own adventures, there's a book for them to buy.

For people who REALLY want to start out creating characters or creating their own adventures, they can just skip the "Adventure Box" series entirely and go straight to the core books.

Character generation and world creation are fun parts of the game, not chores that newbies cannot possibly handle.

Sure, but it's an extra level of complexity that prospective role-players have to take care of before they can get to the heart of the gaming experience: actually sitting at a table and playing the game.

That's the point at which they'll determine if they like RPGs or not. If they don't like that experience, your intro product has failed, regardless of what else you provide in it. If they like role-playing, then you can provide them next steps.

The goal is to get a product into the hands of as many customers as possible that will help them answer the question "Will I enjoy tabletop RPGs."

Moreover, if you take them out of the game you're not really getting an authentically 'complete' D&D experience.

The goal of an intro box is not to appeal to some Platonic ideal of what a role-playing game should be. It's to find new gamers.

I mean, it's just common sense: If you have a friend who thinks maybe they MIGHT be interested in playing an RPG, what do you do? You invite them to a session, you give them a character to play for the afternoon, and you let them see if they enjoy it or not. This is that experience, in a box.

(But with an adventure that covers many sessions, and rules for leveling up -- per the original specifications.)

 

[am181d]

Oh, and another idea for folks to not like:

The cover of the box shouldn't have fantasy art on it. It should have a picture of people (maybe a family or TV-ready teens?) sitting around playing the game.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I don't understand this statement. Clearly, an introductory game is a success (and therefore worth making) if it is:
A) broadly accessible
B) enjoyable
C) encourages purchasers to seek out more product of this type

It's not a success if people don't come away with a clear understanding of what the tenants of the game are, or the potential scope that D&D has. It's not a success if they end up playing it once, thinks that is all that D&D can offer and never play it again.

If you provide a game that you wish to sell with integrity to any audience it needs to be self contained, and in the case of D&D needs to highlight features it has that other games do not provide.

World design and character design are hooks rather than a liabilities in the game, and they need to be celebrated not sidelined. Moreover, playing D&D without this creative involvement consigns new players to not getting a true D&D experience.

If I had picked up the Redbox some 25 years ago without being made aware that I could create my own characters and play in an interactive fantasy entirely made up of our own group's shared imagination, I would have never given the game a second thought again. I actually believe that, despite D&D being a household name, most of the general public do not understand what D&D is and what being a 'roleplaying game' means. Most people just think its some sort of board/war game with miniatures, using a watered down Tolkien-setting. The actual scope of creativity of D&D is actually it's most significant selling point - indeed it's what makes the game historically significant.

I don't want to keep repeating myself on this thread, so from now on if people want to debate it with me on this issue please excuse the reference I will make to my past posts instead.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Oh, and another idea for folks to not like:

The cover of the box shouldn't have fantasy art on it. It should have a picture of people (maybe a family or TV-ready teens?) sitting around playing the game.

I'd keep the iconic cover as it stands, but I'd definitely have a family scene playing the game on the back. Good idea.