Could this be the future format of 4th Edition D&D?

[Mark Hope]

As far as I can see my idea only benefits and expands the roleplaying experience, it does nothing to deteriorate it.

So what do I do if I want to run a game with pirates and dinosaurs, and your Dungeons & Pirates set or Dungeons & Dinosaurs sets aren't out yet? Do I have to wait for the rules for those add-ons to be released? Seems pretty limiting if I do. And if I don't, and can just design those things myself with the core set, why should I bother buying them when they do come out? Where's the added value? What does your model offer me that I don't have already?

You see, for it to be worthwhile switching over, the system needs to be fundamentally different from 3.5, or there's no point switching over. And if it is fundamentally different, then it is also fundamentally flawed by virtue of its limited, modular nature. Simply put, I'd be buying into a limited system that requires me to buy additional modules in order to expand my game. 3.5 doesn't require that - its add-ons are optional. Yours (as you have described them) are not.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Hey there Upper Krust

I was thinking about that, I just wonder if the brand is seen as too limiting. Also as a name Dungeons & Pirates is far more catch than Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Edition.

I'm with you all the way up until this. They'd never drop the D&D brand name and logo. Never. To do so would be suicidal.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey crazy_cat!

UK - You seem to be proposing several different ideas here - and interchanging between them as you see fit.

I have kept the same idea from the start, feel free to show otherwise.

If the proposal is that WOTC maybe invent a D&D Lite or DDM based game that can be aimed at kids, potential new players and teh public at large and is an intro to D&D (The full RPG) then I can sort of agree with the idea in principle

Okay and while we are doing that, are you suggesting we also bring out a new pen & paper 4th Edition?

although I think the way you envisage it working is not actually a financially viable one (and I seriously doubt that D&D can actually be made into a mainstream game - RPGs are a niche hobby)

But boardgames and (some*) card games are mainstream. Therefore we dress up an RPG in the guise of a boardgame to get it into the mainstream). Targeting certain interests (Pirates, Dinosaurs, Vampires, Robots, Ninjas, Wizards) to appeal to different tastes.

*Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh?

A seperate game aimed at kids - now thats a better idea. Seperate brand, but build loyalty to WOTC as a bigger brand, then steer the new consumer on to D&D or DDM or Magic or whatever.

Won't work in my opinion. If you approach the matter half-heartedly it is doomed to failure. If its just seen as a stepping stone to something better then you fall into the same problems which dogged sales of Original D&D after AD&D came out.

Personally I would continue supporting 3.5 with occasional products. But I would market this new idea as 'Dungeons & Dragons' for all intents and purposes.

Some of your ideas actually trivialise the brand and thus devalue it (I mean Dungeons & Dora - are you serious?

Deadly serious. Dora is an explorer, an adventurer if you will. Therefore the idea has merit. Although I just noticed the catalogue already lists a Dora boardgame, so the idea might be too close to an existing product to warrant creation.

If anyone at WOTC R&D suggested that I hope suspect they would be sacked for having such a ridiculous thought)

While someone suggesting Monster Manual VI would no doubt be promoted for their imagination and foresight.

Your question posed in the poll is "Should D&D become like this?" based on the ideas in your first post.

Yes, although obviously I tried to be as succinct as possible.

The response so far is that 96% of the admittedly small and admittedly non representative sample of ENWorld users have voted against your proposals.

In fact to date a grand total of 4 (including you) out of 182 voters so far have agreed that "YES...I would like to see D&D evolve into this" which suggests to me that if these proposals were implemented by WOTC they would lose alot of existing customers.

I half expected a skewed poll for a number of reasons.

Firstly, a lot of people fear change.
Secondly, there are a number of elitists/purists who simply can't entertain the notion.
Thirdly, there are a number of hypocrits who can play an RPG with board/minis, but can't play what I am suggesting, which is exactly the same thing.
Fourthly, people have their own preconceptions of a boardgame, and thats probably clouding some opinions. What I am suggest is an RPG with board pieces/minis/cards, but people see the word boardgame and they immediately think HeroQuest or D&D Basic Game.
Lastly, its a massive shift from what people are used to, its not just different, its a radically different approach, but I think thats the most logical direction for the game to take.

So for someone to vote in agreement with me, they need to first get beyond all the above.

For the record I also disagree withy alot of the statements you're making as though they were gospel truth - they are simply your opinions and don't support any arguments or ideas you are putting forward any more than my opinions automatically mean that you are wrong just because I disagree with you.

I'm happy to address any pertinent points anyone wants to make on the matter.

I don't actually think 3.5 is broken.

Never said it was broken. But it is daunting to casual gamers and new gamers. It does have far more book-keeping than previous editions and preperation time (for DMs especially) is greatly magnified over previous incarnations of the game.

Those are the facts.

I like it, and I like having rules and options.

...and how is what I am suggesting any different in that respect.

I can ignore them if I want.

I don't believe you can ignore aspects of 3rd Edition without balance going out the window. You can ignore supplemental books and content, but you can't ignore the fundamentals of the core rulebooks. The game is simply not that modular.

Options are good. Making the minis and board compulsary components in the way you suggested changes the game from being an imagination based RPG to being a board game.

Purists can always ignore the board and minis if they so wish. But they are an attractive component that will help shift the game in the mass market.

Any evidence to back this opinion?

Evidence?

3.5 is all the evidence thats needed. They resold 4 books. Its also a matter of common sense.

If 3.5 was all that and a bag of potato chips where is the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3.5?

Where is the incentive for buying a 4th Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting hardcover if you already have the 3rd Ed. version? There simply isn't any, and thats going to be the case for most books.

 

[Greg K]

I

Now you can argue well is Krusty saying that if you had 1st/2nd Ed. there was no incentive to buy 3rd Edition. But thats not true. 3rd Edition was a move into full colour, glossy pages which took advantage of modern publishing methods. As a product when placed beside 1st/2nd edition peers it looks far more professional.

If the third addition changes were simply just full colour, gloss pages, that to me would have been a stupid reason to upgrade- and personally, I could do with them if it keeps the price down.

Secondly 3rd Edition was an update of 20+ year old rules (remember that 2nd Edition was barely little more than D&D 1.25 - if even that). So it had 20 years worth of playtesting and feedback.

This was the reason to upgrade- better core mechanics

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Mark!

So what do I do if I want to run a game with pirates and dinosaurs, and your Dungeons & Pirates set or Dungeons & Dinosaurs sets aren't out yet? Do I have to wait for the rules for those add-ons to be released? Seems pretty limiting if I do.

...and thats anymore limiting that waiting for Oriental Adventures, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Manual of the Planes, Epic Level Handbook etc.

Remember also that the Core Rulebooks are three books. Thats the equivalent of 2-3 boxed sets right there.

And if I don't, and can just design those things myself with the core set, why should I bother buying them when they do come out? Where's the added value? What does your model offer me that I don't have already?

...and thats anymore limiting than releasing Psionics Handbook, Draconomicon, Hordes of the Abyss, Forge of Fury, Dungeon Magazine...whats the incentive to buy those...

Why buy anything when you can make it yourself? The first and most obvious reason is convenience. The second reason is quality. The third reason is variety. The fourth reason is collectibility (of miniatures in particular).

You see, for it to be worthwhile switching over, the system needs to be fundamentally different from 3.5, or there's no point switching over.

Totally agreed.

And if it is fundamentally different, then it is also fundamentally flawed by virtue of its limited, modular nature.

How is it then fundamentally flawed?

Simply put, I'd be buying into a limited system that requires me to buy additional modules in order to expand my game. 3.5 doesn't require that - its add-ons are optional. Yours (as you have described them) are not.

I fail to see how my format is that much more limited, especially when contrasted against 3 core rulebooks, which in terms of pricing is 2-3 boxed sets.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey A'koss!

4e... My thoughts.

Rules:
I think there are plenty of clever ways the core rules could be streamlined and simplified in areas but it really does need to break some new ground in order to make it distinct from 3e.

Yes, because a 4th Edition taking the exact same format won't sell.

How? Topic for a different discussion… And I definitely agree the brand the name (Dungeons and Dragons) should not be diluted by a myriad of variations on it.

Bah!

Do not ignore the digital revolution – be the guiding hand in it. Build a lush online gaming experience for your players. Allow them to buy digital versions of adventures that you can run in virtual tabletop games (chat and message board style). Offer a free service with X amount of functionality and a pay for service that offers all the goodies and eye-candy for your online games.

I accept the need to explore the digital experience, but thats not at the point where it should be the focus of Dungeons & Dragons.

A purely pen & paper 4th Edition won't sell, so it can't be the focus of the future.

Therefore the only other option is to take the boardgame route.

Miniatures:
Here’s where I would focus no small amount of attention. While the game would not require miniatures, the idea is to make them so attractive (especially to newcomers) that you wouldn’t want to play the game without them. The first order of business - increase the grid scale from 1” to 1.5” and increase the size of the miniatures appropriately. The new 4e line of larger miniatures would fall under two banners…

Too expensive and alienates all the existing miniatures market.

1. The “Baseline” Miniatures Line: Pre-painted, well-made and affordable. Their larger than normal size will allow for better detail than their smaller cousins, making them more attractive on the new tilesets/battlemaps.

2. The “Masters” Miniatures Line: As you might guess - a high quality line that is a clear cut above in detail, color… and naturally, price. For humanoid figures there would be limited pose-ability with hands and arms free for “accessories”. One of the biggest drawbacks to standard miniatures has always been finding one that matches your character. With the Masters Line, you could buy box sets of accessories to gear up your mini (weapons, shields, magic items, legendary artifacts…) to have at least some customizability. McFarlane toys to produce?

I like the idea of customisability, but you can to this with 25mm minis - see Space Crusade as an example. The marines had interchangeable weapons.

Masters Line monsters come with their own “Monster Card” with a picture of the beast on one side and the relevant stats on the back. Appropriate monsters come with a variety of gear. Giants for example could come with a “boulder”, a sword and a club.

I would support something along those lines, but in limited scope PC minis rather than monsters/NPCs.

D&D – The Animated Series:
Time to build those marketable icons. Forget about movies, at least to start. Animated is the way to go. The title of the show should focus on a brand you want to create under the D&D banner (eg. Greyhawk, etc. or something entirely new), rather than D&D itself. You do want to associate it with D&D but at the same time you want to distance yourself from it a little at the same time.

A Driz'zt cartoon might work...?

The series should be “semi-dark” in nature (but not too grim for the young teens) but mature enough that adults will enjoy it too (complex relationships and personalities). That is, a little more mature than the JLU, but not animated Spawn dark. After you gain some momentum, tie in with the merchandising… minis, books, comics, larger scale action figures, board games and supplements to the RPG proper.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Greg!

If the third addition changes were simply just full colour, gloss pages, that to me would have been a stupid reason to upgrade- and personally, I could do with them if it keeps the price down.

This was the reason to upgrade- better core mechanics

I listed both reasons - I fail to see the need to kick me in the nuts about the first one.

 

[Aaron L]

Hey AaronL!



Why not?

I will NOT pay for or use miniatures. I will not play a roleplaying game that sacrifices character detail for simplicity, or requires use of prepackaged characters. I will not play a roleplaying game that sacrifices possible character actions for simplicity. I will not play a roleplaying game that requires use of a board.


What you are describing is an advanced version of Dragon Strike or, like Psion said, Hero Quest, which were great board games, but nothing I would EVER play instead of a real roleplaying game.

 

[Wombat]

While I agree that a certain level of simplification is needed to the rules if there is going to be any attempt to "grow the market", the idea of making the game evern more like a boardgame is absolutely repugnant to me.

I got into rpgs to get away from board wargames and miniatures battles; one of the greatest problems I see with current thinking is the attempt to make D&D just another set of miniature skirmish rules, all dungeons, all the time.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Mark!

UK, you've made statements like this a few times in this thread. I'd like to see you back them up with some hard facts.

Well its obviously opinion based on common sense. But at the same time people are quick to illustrate its just my opinion without actually tackling the point I am making.

What is the incentive for a 4th Edition pen & paper beyond perhaps the core rulebooks?

History shows us that when they brought out 3.5 they didn't re-release all the 3rd Edition books in the new format!