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

[ShinHakkaider]

You know I don't even think existing roleplayers are the most important demographic to be honest. Hypothetically speaking they could only make up a small percentage of your overall sales?

I agree with this, I also don't think that exisiting roleplayers are the most important demoographic either, but they ARE an important demographic. A demographic that you'll be alienating with your idea. If youre gonna push this idea there has to be some sort of middle ground.

Also I'm still waiting to hear someone come up with a better idea for 4th Edition, or explain how a pen & paper 4th Edition can be a success.

Just becasue no one here can or is willing to post a "better" idea doenst mean that your idea is THE ONE. I think the poll results have shown that you'd be alienating a large portion of the exisiting user base. You seem soley concerned with grabbing the newbie and youre right to do so, but not at the expense of the older more experienced heads.

IThe obvious idea is to target the mainstream. But to do that you need to adopt the boardgame format and have simpler rules (which doesn't still mean you can't include an Advanced Rulebook).

Bwhahahahahahahahaha!!!! Boardgames are mainstream (I mean other than Monopoly / Risk and Trouble?) I'm sorry last time I checked the kids were playing this newfangled invention...I think they call them video /computer games.

I mean D00d, ask the average person in the street and they've probably heard of Monopoly, Risk, Life and Trouble. Hell ask the average person and they might have actually heard of D&D. Settlers of Catan, not so much. Descent, not so much. World of Warcraft, probably at least a news story or two about it. And you want to go the boardgame route? If youre looking for a real paradigm shift you'd go CRPG. But we're trying to avoid full on defection to CRPG's arent we?

What I am simply saying is that there is no need for a pen & paper 4th Edition.

Maybe, but there's no need to turn D&D into a boardgame either.

To be absolutely fair, I do like some of your ideas for a 4th Edition package. But the parts of it that I like I've already incorporated into my 3rd edition games.

 

[Cam Banks]

What I did say to you was to go check out the D&D Boardgame (I also gave the link to this in my opening post) because that would be the basis for what I am suggesting. Even though I have a number of improvements in mind over the D&D Boardgame rules.

Not an easy thing to check out, given that it's only available in Europe.

From what I can tell, it's essentially a Hero Quest clone with adversarial GM, hardwired characters, simple dice, and so forth.

But I don't have the time to type out an entire Rulebook free of charge.

Wow. I so don't need you to do that. I just need you to tell me what you think the difference between 3.5 and these rules you're imagining are going to be. The onus is on you, really.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey pogre!

I have stated many times I thought the new D&D should incorporate cards and incorporate miniatures even more heavily. Essentially, UK is discussing a boxed set with cards, tiles, and simplified rules with a set of expansion rules. I think they should add a little terrain while they're at it, but that's just me.

I just wonder how expensive that would be? Heroscape seems to have a large number of terrain tiles which look very attractive, however I don't see D&D adopting the hex tile - then again you never know.

The key I think would be a set of collectable cards with feats, abilities, etc. An item with random collectability every player would want. Collectable minis and collectable cards might make this thing a goldmine. Hasbro already has a great model for a lot of this with D&D miniatures and Heroscape.

That could certainly be a feature, although I would keep the randomness of monsters to maybe a very small subset (6 random minis out of 30 for example) within each boxed set.

Asking if this is the wave of the future on ENWorld is a little like asking folks on an Advanced Squad Leader board if they like Flames of War. RPG grognards like us are not willing to do it for the most part.

But it probably would sell better for WOTC.

It's a great idea and it could work.

I just don't see a better direction for WotC to go in.

I know a D&D boardgame with a couple of expansions was released in Europe - Paizo had some for sale at one time - how were those?

The boardgame was well received, but I am not sure about the expansions. I think its always better making each set a playable game in its own right.

There are some reviews here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/6366

 

[JVisgaitis]

Hey Upper_Krust! Round 2 I suppose...

You know I don't even think existing roleplayers are the most important demographic to be honest. Hypothetically speaking they could only make up a small percentage of your overall sales?

There is a huge part of the market that buys the core books and that is it certainly, but discounting existing players in a market where getting new players into the game is a monumental task is very nearsighted and foolish IMO.

Also I'm still waiting to hear someone come up with a better idea for 4th Edition, or explain how a pen & paper 4th Edition can be a success.

Why do you think it won't be a success? A lot of people here don't want a new edition next year, and no matter how much they kick and scream when its released they'll buy it. The marketing people at Wizards aren't stupid. Take a look at a starter set of miniatures for Dreamblade for example. On the box there is a sticker that says, "All New Game Design". You know why that's there? Because "All New" is the second best marketing term aside from "Free". Trust me, they know what they are doing and they know how to sell another edition.

Is there anyone here who sees a pen & paper 4th Edition selling as well as 3rd Edition? Logically how the hell can it expand the market? It can't! 4th Edition in the same hardcover format will simply fragment the market.

First off, I don't believe they'll call it 4th Edition. I'm banking on Dungeons & Dragons Revised. Secondly, I think it can do really well and certainly be as successful as 3rd Edition. But they can't just sit on their laurels and release the same game. I think they'll do what RyanD said they'll do and release a 3.5 on steroids and clean up a lot of the rules. They'll tie in a subscription format with great electronic support and use things like the Delve Format to make the game more miniature friendly. Just the phrase "Brand New Dungeons & Dragons" at your FLGS will be enough to sell tons of copies. That's what brings people in, something brand new they can start following from the very beginning.

Therefore, surely the next big thing has to be different both in terms of content AND format.

Who says it won't be different? I just doubt that it will be changed to the capacity that you are suggesting in that I think it will still be 3 core books with electronic support and support in other areas.

What I am simply saying is that there is no need for a pen & paper 4th Edition.

Dude, you're starting to go off the deep end. I'd love to see the malice generated by that poll. People in here are annoyed because they think it'll be a strict boardgame and you have like 4% of the vote. Its a roleplaying game for crying out loud and its the father of pen & paper games. Trying to take pen & paper away from D&D is like trying to take a beard from a dwarf!

What I don't agree with is marketing the boxed set idea as a stepping stone to D&D 3.5, because then its going to be seen as inferior and fail.

Um, okay. How do you figure? All the people out there who know NOTHING about what a roleplaying game is are going to look at a very cool looking boardgame at Walmart that they can play with the whole family and think its inferior because its not like something they know nothing about? Sorry, try again.

So you can't call it - D&D Basic, or D&D the Boardgame or D&D Lite, even if it is all of the above, because they all have negative connotations.

The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game doesn't sound negative to me. It implies adventure which is something everyone can relate to. Almost exactly like what you were talking about when you were defending your Dora idea. How is it negative?

Looks like I'm getting bad as you with quoting line by line...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Morning

Hello again Mark!

You see, none of these issues relate to the central issue of the discussion as I see it. I am saying that I am happy with 3.5. I am not happy with the idea of starting over from scratch with another system that doesn't offer me anything that I don't already have.

Totally agree. Which is why I don't see a pen & paper 4th Edition being too successful.

If you want to sell me on your idea, you need to stop telling me how 3.5 is no better or worse than your model. You need to show me how your model will roxxor my soxxorz. So far, you haven't.

I have outlined numerous ways in which I think this format is superior. But you just dismissed all of them (which is fair enough if they don't appeal to you). So I can only conclude that you can't please all the people all of the time.

Er, no. And furthermore, why should I ditch a system that I am happy with, just to switch over to a new system that requires me to buy modular components all over again. Note that, at present, the fact that 3.5 has lots of optional books is not a problem for me - because I already have those books. Why should I ditch them and buy a whole bunch of more stuff that doesn't offer me anything new?

That may be the case, but I couldn't give two hoots about those people, or their problems with the system. I'm not having any real trouble with it. End of story.

Exactly, and you'd say the exact same thing to 4th Edition no matter what format it takes. To you 3rd Edition is perfect.

You're missing the point here. As noted above, I already have a modular system that I can use and abuse as I see fit. I see no benefit in buying into a new one, the benefit of which is quite unproven.

Well if you think 3rd Edition is perfect then you'll never need buy any other RPG as long as you live. Good luck to you I say.

Anyway, enjoyable as this discussion is, it is starting to get a bit circular from my perspective. No offense, but you're really not selling your model to me.

It has a number of strong selling points in my opinion - simply that none of them appealed to you.

Pointing out that 3.5 shares many of the characteristics of your model doesn't help your argument - it hurts it. I'm just not seeing the added benefit of your model, given the options and materials that I already have. As I've said before, though, I think it's a good idea for a gaming product, and you have a tip of the hat from me for the thought and effort you have put into it. I'm stepping out of this now mate, otherwise I'm gonna keep going around and around until my head spins and I throw up ...

Not a pretty sight

All the best Mark mate. I appreciate the feedback.

 

[Mark Hope]

To you 3rd Edition is perfect.

Nah, Torg is perfect. 3.5 just hits the D&D sweet spot for me ...

All the best Mark mate. I appreciate the feedback.

Any time . Cheers!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Cam!

Not an easy thing to check out, given that it's only available in Europe.

You can download pdf of the rulebooks here (the link I gave in my opening post):

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/6366

From what I can tell, it's essentially a Hero Quest clone with adversarial GM, hardwired characters, simple dice, and so forth.

Yes, although I have solutions to most of its shortcomings (you can only ascend to level 3, etc.)

Wow. I so don't need you to do that. I just need you to tell me what you think the difference between 3.5 and these rules you're imagining are going to be. The onus is on you, really.

I have stated this on multiple occasions:

1) Less/No Book-keeping, meaning more play time.
2) Faster game.
3) Easier to create for.
4) Less daunting to new players.
5) More visually attractive.
6) Collectibility.
7) Better from a tactical viewpoint.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shin!

I agree with this, I also don't think that exisiting roleplayers are the most important demoographic either, but they ARE an important demographic. A demographic that you'll be alienating with your idea. If youre gonna push this idea there has to be some sort of middle ground.

I don't think I am alienating them as much as this poll suggests. A lot of people have the mistaken impression of what I am trying to 'push'

Just becasue no one here can or is willing to post a "better" idea doenst mean that your idea is THE ONE.

Then lets just say its the current best idea.

I think the poll results have shown that you'd be alienating a large portion of the exisiting user base. You seem soley concerned with grabbing the newbie and youre right to do so, but not at the expense of the older more experienced heads.

I think ANY 4th Edition is going to be at odds with a large portion of the existing userbase.

Bwhahahahahahahahaha!!!! Boardgames are mainstream (I mean other than Monopoly / Risk and Trouble?) I'm sorry last time I checked the kids were playing this newfangled invention...I think they call them video /computer games.

I didn't say boardgames were as popular as videogames but they are certainly mainstream. Roleplaying games are not mainstream.

Maybe, but there's no need to turn D&D into a boardgame either.

I think there is a need to do it if you are Wizards of the Coast, because its the best alternative they have.

To be absolutely fair, I do like some of your ideas for a 4th Edition package. But the parts of it that I like I've already incorporated into my 3rd edition games.

Out of curiousity - what bits?

 

[ivocaliban]

I don't use minatures now and I don't ever plan on using them. Any game that incorporates them to such a degree that they're part of the package is not a game I will purchase. I was worried about this direction from WotC with the release of the Minatures Handbook. I can clearly state that if the product you've suggested becomes the status quo of gaming...well, at least I'll have a fatter wallet.

Furthermore, it seems clear to me that the vast majority does not care for what you've proposed. To state that they merely have a mistaken impression of what you're trying to present is really an insult to the intelligence of the people on the boards. I know we are living in an age where public opinion is often ignored, but it is quite clear to me that this is not a step most gamers are willing to take. It certainly isn't one that I would support.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Out of curiousity - what bits?

3. Player Boards/Cards: These eliminate the need for paperwork and book-keeping, as well as being an eye-catching visual component.

I use Paizo's item cards as well as the Item cards from TOGC. Also I promote the use of thier (TOGC) Status, Buff and Spell Cards in my game. Thier easier to reference and less distracting than flipping through a book, in my experience anyway. With the Spell cards the Players literally choose their spells and have thier effects handy when it's time to cast them.

With the Buff cards you just hand them out to players whose characters have been...well buffed.

The Paizo item cards I use in conjunction with the TOGC cards. I hand out the relaively featureless TOGC cards (which is not a slight against the cards at all) when the players find some item. When they have the item identified if it's magical I swap the TOGC card with the Paizo item card. On the back of the Paizo card I have a little label with the items abilites and so forth. If it's a regular item they just keep the TOGC card.

Right now I'm waiting for TOGC to come up with Feat Cards or at least a blank template so that I can fill in my own. Over on the WOTC site they had maneuver cards for their Tome of Battle book and I thought that was a great idea for quick reference. As long as it's not made into a collectable thing I'm all for the idea of using cards for the game.

2. Board Pieces/Miniatures: Reversible, different size/shaped room and corridor sections, pre-painted miniatures.

I use mini's and counters for my game. I also use battle mats and am a big fan of WOTC's Dungeon Tiles.


My problem with these things being incorporated into a basic set has less to do with my use of them and more to do with you being determined to alienate the existing customer base by basically forcing them to buy this extra stuff that they dont want or need if they want to upgrade. While I may find these things useful, there may be ten players who HATE that stuff and won't buy your product. And really that's only part what I object to in your presentation. The other part is the dilution of the D&D brand name, which is, and I really dont understand how you can't possibly see this, damaging to the actual product. Like I said, people who've never played Dungeons & Dragons have at least HEARD of Dungeons & Dragons. To essentially take that away ultimately causes more harm than good in terms of trying to get your product out there.