D&D 5E A $20 Starter Set. Cool!

[Agamon]

Would such a $20 starter set be a "lost leader" for WotC?

"Loss leader" And no, I doubt it. Probably a very, very tight margin, but I think the goods will reflect the price. Likely something to interest truly new people to the game. But it's not aimed towards those of us that post on RPG forums.

I would be happy to be proven wrong, though.

 

[delericho]

"Loss leader" And no, I doubt it. Probably a very, very tight margin, but I think the goods will reflect the price.

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC ran a near-zero margin on their new Starter Set. I would be surprised if they actually lost money on it though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC ran a near-zero margin on their new Starter Set. I would be surprised if they actually lost money on it though.

Whatever the price point, it should include more than just a big BUY THE CORE BOOKS advertising pamphlet. Replayability, even within a limited scope of levels/options will make or break this product.

 

[delericho]

Whatever the price point, it should include more than just a big BUY THE CORE BOOKS advertising pamphlet. Replayability, even within a limited scope of levels/options will make or break this product.

Oh, I agree. I've posted at length on starter sets in the past, and one of my big criticisms of them is that too often they've been little more than tasters pointing towards the 'real' game. So, yeah, it should be a decent-sized game in its own right.

(Have I mentioned how much I like the Pathfinder box? IMO it's the closest we've come to a starter set done right in decades.)

 

[Agamon]

Whatever the price point, it should include more than just a big BUY THE CORE BOOKS advertising pamphlet. Replayability, even within a limited scope of levels/options will make or break this product.

Depends what you mean by replayability. All RPGs, regardless of size, have that. The DM could create low level adventures forever if the players don't mind not going above the (likely very) low level limit of the game. A very creative DM could even just extrapolate new rules himself without buying the books, I suppose. But in the box, there probably isn't any build choices for PCs, just static pre-gens, plus a short adventure.

I'd bet the farm that this is simply an intro product for newbies with little value to anyone that has a decent level of experience with any version of D&D. They are smart in releasing it before the main books, because they know that a bunch of us vets will shell out for it just to get a look at the basic rules, but it'll sit and collect dust after that (or make a good gift for a kid).

 

[Agamon]

Oh, I agree. I've posted at length on starter sets in the past, and one of my big criticisms of them is that too often they've been little more than tasters pointing towards the 'real' game. So, yeah, it should be a decent-sized game in its own right.

(Have I mentioned how much I like the Pathfinder box? IMO it's the closest we've come to a starter set done right in decades.)

Yeah, I complained at first at the price. I was hoping for value from it for me. But, having thought about it, an intro box you can put in a big box store to get kids into the game has value, to the brand if not to me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Depends what you mean by replayability. All RPGs, regardless of size, have that. The DM could create low level adventures forever if the players don't mind not going above the (likely very) low level limit of the game. A very creative DM could even just extrapolate new rules himself without buying the books, I suppose. But in the box, there probably isn't any build choices for PCs, just static pre-gens, plus a short adventure.

I'd bet the farm that this is simply an intro product for newbies with little value to anyone that has a decent level of experience with any version of D&D. They are smart in releasing it before the main books, because they know that a bunch of us vets will shell out for it just to get a look at the basic rules, but it'll sit and collect dust after that (or make a good gift for a kid).

Re-playability means just that. Can you generate a character? There doesn't need to be build options included but players should be able to create basic characters. Likewise there should be a selection of monsters & treasures for the DM to use in creating new adventures. A few levels as a limit is just fine. Moldvay basic limited advancement to level 3 and there was material for tons of campaigning in just that box, all low level of course.

Most importantly, when players were ready to move on to higher levels, the info in the basic box didn't become junk.

The 4E redbox was the worst offender in all categories here. What rules it did come with weren't compatible with the material it was meant to lead to. One of the very first things in the Essentials books was a little note saying that if you had started with the redbox too bad, you will have to make a new character. You just paid $20.00 for nothing more than ad copy to get you to buy this-thanks sucker.

No matter if its newbies or veterans, those who purchase a starter set should get some kind of GAME for their money and not just a one-use pick a path adventure book.

 

[darjr]

if it can be used by folks to play in a game with others that are using the phb then it brilliant. as an example, I have players that wouldn't get a 50 phb but would get this, and that would have others in the group pick up the phb where they otherwise wouldn't, because we'd be playing it

 

[bogmad]

Would such a $20 starter set be a "lost leader" for WotC?

I was thinking the same thing. Of course, it's pure conjecture, but it's possible they're willing to sell these starter sets at a loss in the interest of making it back when folks pick up that $50 PHB.

 

[Agamon]

Re-playability means just that. Can you generate a character? There doesn't need to be build options included but players should be able to create basic characters. Likewise there should be a selection of monsters & treasures for the DM to use in creating new adventures. A few levels as a limit is just fine. Moldvay basic limited advancement to level 3 and there was material for tons of campaigning in just that box, all low level of course.

Most importantly, when players were ready to move on to higher levels, the info in the basic box didn't become junk.

The 4E redbox was the worst offender in all categories here. What rules it did come with weren't compatible with the material it was meant to lead to. One of the very first things in the Essentials books was a little note saying that if you had started with the redbox too bad, you will have to make a new character. You just paid $20.00 for nothing more than ad copy to get you to buy this-thanks sucker.

No matter if its newbies or veterans, those who purchase a starter set should get some kind of GAME for their money and not just a one-use pick a path adventure book.

I think there's a fine line of making this an product that you'll keep using, and making it necessary for everyone to buy to play the game. I'd personally sacrifice to the former to avoid the latter.

It's tough to compare this to Mentzer Basic. Moldvay's B/X and Metnzer's BECMI are stand alone games, not beginner versions of AD&D (though many people at the time treated them as such). Now, Holmes Basic is intended to lead into AD&D, but then again, if you do, you leave the basic game behind.

Something simple to teach the game at a low price point to those not sure if it's the kind of thing they'd be interested in is what they're going for. Hopefully it's better than 4e RB, but at that price, it's not going to be PF BB, either.