Basic D&D rides again!

[spacecrime.com]

can someone explain why exactly the already existing D&D boxed set introductary game (I forget its exact name) fails to fill the bill of a 'low entry bar' into D&D

Actually, I think the Adventure Kit does a pretty good job at what it's supposed to do.

What needs to be improved -- and I stress that I mean this in the " I think this can be done better" sense, not the "this is done wrong" sense -- is that I've seen parents and kids get just a little bit lost when they try the game for the first time, and that plastic miniatures would be a lot more appealing then the current set of character and monster tokens.

cheers,

 

[MerricB]

Perhaps this has been dealt with in this thread already (OT--I hate these long threads ), but can someone explain why exactly the already existing D&D boxed set introductary game (I forget its exact name) fails to fill the bill of a 'low entry bar' into D&D, in terms of being a low-cost, rule's light game aimed at younger/less experienced players?

My main objections to the Adventure Game are as follows:

* It doesn't cover character creation at all.

This is a fairly major one. I've just been corresponding with an 17-year old who has only just picked up his first D&D PHB after playing one session of D&D. He has been utterly confused by character generation. The multiplicity of options is the biggest factor in this.

I really feel there needs to be a simplified form of character generation in the Basic set. You should have pre-generated characters - no problem - but also something to introduce the idea of creating your own characters. At the moment there's a big step between the Adventure game and the PHB - too big, IMO

* It covers only levels 1 and 2.

In 3E, those levels go by so fast...

Levels 1, 2 and 3, please.

From WotC's point of view:

* It is expensive to produce, and makes very little profit

Back during that mortality.net interview with Ed Stark before 3.5 was released, a question was asked of him about the Basic set (which I'd posed). He explained that the dice are incredibly expensive, and by the time you add everything else, there's very little profit to be made. That, and it doesn't sell that much.

* It's not flashy enough.

It's scary how much people will spend on their children these days. I liked the Adventure Game because it was cheap, but have a look at the production values that went into the LotR RPG introductory sets! When you compare it to a bunch of other board games (like Civilisation, Risk, etc), the little cardboard tokens begin to pall.

You and I aren't the main targets of this, remember. To a certain extent, something that can be acquired cheaply isn't valued as much.

Sad, but true in my experience.

Anyway, those are my reasonings. I hope they made some sort of sense. Anyone else got some thoughts on this?

Cheers!

 

[thalmin]

My main objections to the Adventure Game are as follows:

* It doesn't cover character creation at all.
This is a fairly major one. I've just been corresponding with an 17-year old who has only just picked up his first D&D PHB after playing one session of D&D. He has been utterly confused by character generation. The multiplicity of options is the biggest factor in this.

I really feel there needs to be a simplified form of character generation in the Basic set. You should have pre-generated characters - no problem - but also something to introduce the idea of creating your own characters. At the moment there's a big step between the Adventure game and the PHB - too big, IMO

No character creation keeps the introductory rules to about 8 pages. While character creation needs some simplification, and more introduction, it isn't needed for the Adventure set.

 

[thalmin]

Perhaps this has been dealt with in this thread already (OT--I hate these long threads ), but can someone explain why exactly the already existing D&D boxed set introductary game (I forget its exact name) fails to fill the bill of a 'low entry bar' into D&D, in terms of being a low-cost, rule's light game aimed at younger/less experienced players?

The existing set is an intro to D&D 3E, the new set will introduce people to 3.5.

 

[MerricB]

No character creation keeps the introductory rules to about 8 pages. While character creation needs some simplification, and more introduction, it isn't needed for the Adventure set.

So, in that case, I should dissuade people from playing 3.5E because there isn't a good way of them learning how to create characters?

Cheers!

 

[thalmin]

So, in that case, I should dissuade people from playing 3.5E because there isn't a good way of them learning how to create characters?

Cheers!

I agree the process needs better handling in the PHB, but I don't think it could be handled easily in the intro set, unless they were to add an additional "Now Try It Yourself" book, probably requiring somewhere around another 32-64 pages. Not a bad thing, maybe too expensive to add to a $10 product?

 

[MerricB]

I agree the process needs better handling in the PHB, but I don't think it could be handled easily in the intro set, unless they were to add an additional "Now Try It Yourself" book, probably requiring somewhere around another 32-64 pages. Not a bad thing, maybe too expensive to add to a $10 product?

I don't think we're looking at a $10 product any more. I fully expect the new Basic set to be about $30 - with miniatures, dice, and three rulebook pamphlets.

Cheers!

 

[mmadsen]

My main objections to the Adventure Game are as follows:

• It doesn't cover character creation at all.
• It covers only levels 1 and 2.
• It is expensive to produce, and makes very little profit
• It's not flashy enough.

I agree with all of those -- except the last one. I was quite impressed with the pre-printed characters, the map, and the cardboard counters. The rulebooks were simple, but pleasing.

 

[MerricB]

I agree with all of those -- except the last one. I was quite impressed with the pre-printed characters, the map, and the cardboard counters. The rulebooks were simple, but pleasing.

It should be noted that the last isn't my objection - it is rather an objection that I think Hasbro would have to it. The adventure game looked fine to me, but unfortunately I think you need "more" in this day and age.

Cheers!

 

[bubbalin]

Were you one of a group of people who had never played a RPG before? So everyone, including the DM, was a complete newbie?

Cheers!

My first game was with me GMing, it was star wars D20, and only two of the other players had played before, which was AD&D when they were 10. We did okay...
I read the book and I played the game. But I admit I am pretty good with maths and quite literate. (Or so I like to think)
It's not D&D, and it was only one book, but still, it's close enough...

On the other hand, character creation was a pain. It took us pretty much an entire afternoon and evening to create the characters. i just recently helped two new players build characters for D20 stargate, and that took 2 hours each. (Though that has heaps of options from the word go.)

I see the need for a basic set. There are too many old farts in this hobby.