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

[GX.Sigma]

I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by calling it a "starter set." Isn't it supposed to appeal to new buyers? If you call it a starter set, it makes people think "Oh god, this game is so complicated that it needs a $20 box just to explain the rules before you buy the real game." If you just call it Dungeons & Dragons (or D&D basic set), then people will think "D&D for only $20? I've always wanted to try that!"

Unless it is a $20 box just to explain the rules before you buy the real game, in which case people will be right to avoid it.

 

[delericho]

I find it amazing the PFBB is held up as the gold standard for starter sets. IMHO, that distinction goes to the 81 and 83 Basic boxes.

While the '83 Red Box was great (I can't comment on the '81 version), it's also 30 years old. As such, it's of limited use as an example, because a lot of people simply haven't been gaming that long.

Besides, actually, the contents of the PF set are actually better than the '83 Red Box - 5 levels instead of 3, 12 character options instead of 7, plus a battle map, pawns, and pregenerated characters.

The one big weakness of the PF set (and, in fairness, it is a pretty big one) is the omission of the AoO rules, which mean that combat has a rather different feel in the BB versus the 'real' game. I'm not sure how they could have done that better, but, yes, it's an issue.

They were actual games, with supporting adventures and expansions.

The PF Beginner Box is an actual game, and has supporting materials. Indeed, it has additional adventures and a DM kit available for free.

B3 Palace of the Silver Princess
B4 The Lost City
B5 Horror on the Hill

Quite a few more, but hopefully this is a decent enough selection to contrast it against a Beginner Box that was a single-use game from a company that had no intentions of supporting it as anything but a gateway to a similar but not-quite-the-same game.

Again, there are supporting materials available, both from Paizo (including free adventures) and also from third-party publishers. And where the Red Box had the B-series of adventures, the Pathfinder set can be used with any low level Pathfinder adventure, of which there are many (the user may need stats for the additional spells, feats, monsters, and magic items... but those are also available online for free).

Beyond that, yes, it would be good if Paizo would support the Beginner Box with its own dedicated line of adventures and, even better, an equivalent of the Expert Box. But, unfortunately, the market just isn't there - it really does seem that people either advance to the 'real' game in short order or they just walk away.

 

[an_idol_mind]

The only thing that prevents me from being terribly excited/interested in a D&D starter set is that WotC has a pretty terrible track record over the past 15 years when it comes to these.

 

[frogimus]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] I just checked the Paizo site, and it looks like they actually added some things in the year since I tried the BB.

With that, I respectfully leave this side debate as any additional points I make are off topic and potentially fall into "edition wars".

OnTopic: I hope this set is a Basic Set in that Basic is a proper subset of Standard.

 

[adamc]

The only thing that prevents me from being terribly excited/interested in a D&D starter set is that WotC has a pretty terrible track record over the past 15 years when it comes to these.

That's a pretty good reason, actually. I think the way to bet is that WoTC will match past performance.

 

[fjw70]

I am hoping the Starter Set title was a placeholder for B&N and not the official title for the product.

 

[pemerton]

If there isn't much replayability in the Starter, they will end up alienating even more potential players. The starter should be the real game, not some downscaled version.

The 4E redbox was the worst offender in all categories here.

<snip>

You just paid $20.00 for nothing more than ad copy to get you to buy this-thanks sucker.

My understanding - but perhaps I'm wrong - is that WotC was quite happy with the performance of the 4e Essentials red box, but that it didn't act as an "on ramp" to more purchases.

This tells us at least one thing: WotC reqards that on-ramp as pretty important. Replayability of the starter set is no good from WotC's point of view if purchasers aren't motivated to pick up more product!

It also suggests another thing: that the move from "basic box" to 300 page game is a big deal. [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has posted quite a bit about this recently, drawing on commentary in Hasbro annual reports (I think?). Quick playability is an increasing priority in games customers, it seems. (Sounds plausible to me.)

One implication of this, I think, is that the starter set will not be sold as a loss-leader for the PHB - because the evidence of Essentials is that the purchasers won't follow the lead!

And taking this thought the next step, the interesting question for me is not so much what will be in the starter set, but rather what other products will they produce that can keep people buying who bought the starter set but don't want to upgrade to the PHB? Because it is replayability if you make more purchases, not self-contained replayability, that matters to WotC.

 

[frogimus]

Nice insight [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. To elaborate on my quoted text, I think the Intro/Starter/Basic should be like the classic Red Box in that it is a complete game up to a capped level, then one may take their existing Character Sheet into the Standard game without the need to make a different Character Sheet.

So, replayable in that you get more than 1 or 2 sessions of play. Replayable to the point you desire to progress to a $50 PHB.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6775038]frogimus[/MENTION] - my best guess (which may not be very good) is that they will want a line of ready-to-run adventures as the supplement for the starter set. My thinking is that this fits with the whole "an adventure in 1 hour" thing that Mearls has talked about.

That way the game is replayable, but you have to keep forking out to WotC to keep playing.

How that works for PC building, world-building etc I'm not sure. The supplements might have pre-gens, or bonus features of some sort, that integrate with the starter set rules.

I agree that compatibility with the PHB is important, so you can migrate if you want to. But I don't think that's all they will be relying on.

 

[frogimus]

That sounds horrendous.