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

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Rothe!

Pretty much my views as well.

UK's ideas sound very good from a marketing perspective.
When it comes to whether it is "D&D" that will come down to what's in the rule books. OD&D had far simpler rules, still D&D, so making things simpler / harkening back to prior editions is not so bad; especially if the base can be upward compatible for people who want the more complex rules.

Much of what I see recommend is "simply" packaging with the game aids that make it play more smoothly and inspire. With these built in aids the game may not need to be simplified as much as one might think.

Totally agree. It could still have virtually all the same features.

The box set could also be kept cost competitve by selling hard copy of the basic/mist frequently used rules, with all the advance/additional rules on an included CD. Maybe also on this CD are "card" templates so people can create there own. (I haven't read all posts so my apologies if already suggested).

I was thinking this too.

As an aside, people could use the cd to create their own cards and class boards, then send them to WotC who could print them out (for a small fee) in the same laminated card/professional style as the official stuff.

In the end it harkens to the days of Basic D&D with the box set, including dice and an adventure. That sold very well IIRC compared to the three book format.

As this thread shows, you have some marketing hurdles. The package should appeal to adults, i.e., that the art and layout on the box should not scream 12 and under is our target demographic. Rather a family game appeal for adults, with a bit of this really for older kids appeal (16+) to get youngers kids (9-12) to want to play to be "older." As we can see, much is in a name. Dungeons & Pirates not as good as D&D: Pirates Edition. The former conntating a younger target audience than the latter.

Perhaps I could have been wrong about the nomenclature. Your idea makes sense.

Just my 2 cp.

Thanks for the feedback mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Black Moria!

Upper Krust: You wanted to know why I support the concept you are putting forward but not call it D&D 4E.

As I stated, the changes (if I understand your concepts) are too large, which makes it a paradigm shift.

True.

This might not be the best illustration but there is a significant difference between American baseball and English cricket, but they both have someone who pitches a ball, someone waving a stick with the purpose of hitting the ball and the concept of running 'bases' or an analog of bases to score. However, to call cricket some bastardized version of baseball is fighting words to cricket fans and vice versa. A majority of cricket fans would never watch a baseball game and vice versa for baseball fans. Why? While conceptually similar in concept, they are completely different games and it very uncommon to find a fan who likes both.

The current edition of D&D and its predecessors were principally pen and paper games with 3e marrying miniatures more closely by supporting them with rules. You can still play 3.5e without miniatures if one chooses and they are by no means absolutely mandatory. And previous versions of D&D had players using miniatures, just without more miniature focused rules.

Your concept changes D&D from a principally pen and paper game which supports miniature use to a boardgame concept which minimizes pen and paper and makes miniatures absolutely mandatory. Depending on impedimentation of the concept, even more stark changes in rules are probably necessary. But here is the rub - its NOT the same game now, just like baseball and cricket are not the same game, despite having a ball, bat, a hitter, and a pitcher(bowler).

Changing the paradigm of D&D from its pen and paper roots to a boardgame concept for 4e is tatamount to saying - this season we are playing by American baseball rules but next season, the rules of baseball will be played by English cricket rules. And that explains why the majority of voters in your poll are dead against it.

I knew most people here would be against it, but in this case I think its change for the betterment of the game as a whole.

I like your ideas but called it D&D: The Next Generation or D&D: Gen X or whatever. Just don't call it 4e because it is now a very different game now.

I wasn't going to call it 4th Edition though.

 

[XO]

Dumbing Down?

Dumb and dumber? is that what is in store for us?

How about this version of D&D: a 52-card playing deck with "purty pictures" and we each play one card at a time. Whosoever has the highest value card wins the hand. Win more hands, win the game...

Fascinating...

We could even have a deck "with chainmail bikinis" for guys and a deck with chainmail codpieces for gals.

Barf!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Zendragon dude!

I'm not saying it's a terrible idea, just a terrible idea as a replacement for D&D- any edition. As a separate board game it might work, ala Talisman.

As past history has shown though. A half-hearted approach or setting it up as an 'introduction' to something 'better' will kill it before it gets off the ground.

As for Wizards not releasing any more product, Wizards will always release product to make money.

Exactly. So if Wizards of the Coast perceive a pen & paper 4th Edition won't make money beyond the core rulebooks, where do they go from there?

I know people who bought the core 3 and nothing else. Homebrew campaign world that's been going since 1st edition. We play different continents and some different times, but you don't need Wizards supplements to play.

I agree. The problem facing WotC is that 4th Edition needs to be something different otherwise it won't sell past the core rulebooks (in my opinion that is).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shin!

Yeah, but he's already stated that he knew the results would be skewed due to certain factors. Which begs the question: why put up the poll in the first place especially on THIS particular forum.

I'm not saying that he doesnt have the right to, just that if he's gonna discount the results of the poll because it's not the desired result then why put it up to begin with?

I'm not discounting the results, simply stating that I anticipated the outcome and certain reservations people would have...all of which are understandable.

However, I wanted to open the subject for discussion because I think 3.5 is slowly but surely painting itself into a corner and I am just curious how WotC are going to bail themselves out of it, or indeed, how people here think they will bail themselves out of it.

I also just wanted to get a few ideas out of my head.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cam!

Let's take the new model UK is suggesting for the moment and subtract the pretty packaging elements (board, minis, etc) which, as he says, many people are already sort of using.

Okay.

What else is different from 3.5? I mean, you have rules included in this boxed set, so how do they differ from what has gone before?

It sounds like you want me to type of the Rulebook for you.

I really don't have the time for that (unless you are someone from WotC ready to hire me).

That not being the case I am still happy to answer specific questions.

There's a good chance whatever changes you'd like to make are just as important to those who are against this development as the additional packaging elements are.

True.

So, rather than continue to discuss the brand and the marketing side of things RE: getting people to notice the game through game components, which may or may not be helpful and interesting (and which could easily be done with the current rules as they are), I'd like to hear more about what actual rules changes are being proposed. That's where my freelance work comes from!

Well, it would help if you had a passing familiarity with the D&D Boardgame...?

While I have a number of pertinent changes to that game in mind it does introduce a few good ideas.

I have already studied that game and I believe I have solutions to all its problems/shortcomings.

 

[ssampier]

Hey ssampier!

So people who play D&D with minis/battlemats are not playing 'your' game.

I'm not suggesting we destroy anything to make it market-friendly.

There's a difference between the RPGs and board games, since you obviously can play RPGs without a battlemat and minis (I don't use mini or battlemat and I know many people don't). Board games don't work well without, well, a board. Monopoly without the tokens and Park Place is not quite Monopoly (I realize they change the names in the theme Monopoly but it's still Park Place).

Change it to make it market-friendly then. Emphasis mine.

 

[ssampier]

...

I have a feeling that IF DnD is changed into anything close to what your suggesting. The same reaction (except on a much larger scale, see the voting responses) will happen. Perhaps good for a new setting or two, but the majority will keep using older editions for actualy playing. Or worse yet, completly change games and leave DnD in the dust like they did with Gamma World, etc.

I don't want D&D to go this way, obviously.

I haven't played the basic game (of any edition). How complex is the D&D basic game?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Ey oop ..

Howdy!

I don't want separate games in their own right. I want the whole shebang, .

But the three core rulebooks are not the whole 'shebang' if they were, they wouldn't sell other supplements - now would they.

and I'm not bothered about the cost (well, within reason, heh). I have a strict but broad cost vs. usefullness index. If it meets my needs, I'll buy it. You nailed the issue on the head with "I would concede that a single boxed set won't give the options of 3 core rule books.".

A single core rulebook doesn't give the options of three either.

I have no trouble with characters or NPCs. I know that some do, but I cut my teeth on converting hundreds and hundreds of 2e Dark Sun critters over to 3.0 and then 3.5, so it's already a doddle..

I didn't say it was difficult (although it is daunting for new players and casual gamers), merely that it was more time consuming than it needed to be.

Sure there is. I haven't seen what your model looks like - maybe it looks like tacky garbage. I know what my props look like, and they're gorgeous. Works of art, mate ....

Well I think we could use the existing prepainted minis as a benchmark to how well they will look. As for the board pieces and cards I would take a look at the D&D Boardgame (for the cards) and something like Descent (with regards the room/corridor pieces).

You may be right here. But you can make 3.5 quicker and with less book-keeping, so that's not a selling point for me..

How can you do that?

I'm not seeing this one. With maps, mats and minis, our group has no trouble with this. I'd like to hear how you see your model as being an advancement over what we currently have.

So just to clarify, you never buy anything outside the core rulebooks.

No thanks. You forget - I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just offering responses to your suggested model. So I'm not bothered if you agree with or accept what I am saying. I will say, though, that I run games for my kids (who are 5 and 8) with no feats, skills, special combat options or the like. The game runs fine - much like a Basic or Expert game from the old days. Balance is fine. Maybe you find that kind of thing hard to do. Not me..

I think a lot of people find the book-keeping side of things taxing to do, have a read back over this thread if you need convincing of that. Again, its not that its hard, simply that its more of a chore than it should be.

Again, no thanks. I've stated clearly enough above (for my liking) where flexibility is lost through the piecemeal modularity of your model.

But you just stated that 3.5 was already modular and piecemeal enough for you to downsize it for your kids.

You accept as much when you say "I would concede that a single boxed set won't give the options of 3 core rule books." That's what I'm talking about.

But you need the core rulebooks - they are not optional. So really you can't compare 3 rulebooks to one boxed set.

If you compare them to three boxed sets then its a different matter.

(I'm not trying to be contentious here mate, btw . I'm just really not needing to convince you of anything - just responding to your suggestions.)

Thats okay dude I am enjoying the discussion.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Howdy!
But the three core rulebooks are no the whole 'shebang' if they were, they wouldn't sell their supplements - now would they

The three core rulebooks are enough to run the game. If someone bought the three core rulebooks and used those and never bought another book after that they'd still be able to play D&D. So yeah, three core rulebooks are the whole shebang.

The supplements are there simply to make money for the company and to do some of hte work that players and DM's dont wont to do for themselves.