• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

Should D&D become like this? (read below first)

  • YES...I would like to see D&D evolve into this

    Votes: 17 4.7%
  • YES...I like the idea but NOT as a replacement to D&D

    Votes: 55 15.1%
  • MAYBE...I still need convincing

    Votes: 21 5.8%
  • NO...I don't like the sound of this

    Votes: 266 73.1%
  • Something else, post below

    Votes: 5 1.4%

  • Poll closed .
I think the question on the lack of marketing of the D&D boardgame should really be why didn't Hasbro (the publishers IIRC, not WOTC) do some sort of marketing campaign?

There may be answers there of course that might not be wanted - like the mass market not wanting 'role playing games' ...

Upper_Krust said:
cthulhu_duck said:
Upper_Krust said:
If we can create a roleplaying game that covers the same ground as 3rd Edition, but is simpler, then the simpler one is better designed.
That's a subjective opinion, not gospel truth.
I disagree. Complexity for its own sake is a bad thing. But again, don't confuse complexity with variety.

Opinions over 'better design' tend to be both personal and subjective. That's what I'm getting at.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Numion said:
I don't understand why someone would want to get rid of, or marginalize, the character sheet. It's an important part of personalizing your character - not just because it stores the information on your character (for which there could be different methods), but because it's written by the player.

It's also about ownership - since my first character sheet, these characters are ones that I've felt a connection to - and in turn, they've helped me form a connection with the game, and with roleplaying games in general.

I've never felt that way about any monopoly piece. Nor a HeroQuest figure.
 

This is a truly horrible idea.

It is a terrible idea on a personal/gaming level for me and I would not buy a new edition of D&D of that nature. A sampling of reasons:

1) I do not play with miniatures, battlemats or cards and will not pay for them. As long as they are an option to buy for those who want them, I am satisfied, but if they are forced upon me... no thanks!
2) Required use of miniatures, battlemats or cards would make me abandon the game, as would rules that truly force you to use them implicitly by making it a wholly different game if you do not.
3) I dislike the idea of the boxed set format, which cannot be efficiently stored in a bookshelf, though this point is less important than the others.
4) The nature of the game would be much more limiting based on module than D&D is based on rulebooks. D&D core rulebooks allow you to emulate almost any fantasy situation you desire, though of course with not as much detail as with additional rulebooks. Based on what I read about your system here and on the thread where you initially proposed it, the thematic modules would only allow you to simulate the themes presented therein. This is a huge minus for myself and this alone would be sufficient reason not to purchase the game.
5) The visceral nature of the game you propose is a major minus, since unlike D&D it has to be played around a static table, whereas D&D can be played on the go or anywhere else.

Apart from my personal aversion to the game you propose, were it to actually become the next version of D&D, it would almost certainly kill the D&D brand and WotC (unless they could recoup their losses from Magic the Gathering or other activities).

First of all, there is no evidence that it is in some kind of crisis. Contrary to your previous statements, 3.5E sold fine in terms of core rulebooks, as did the supplement books that followed it, some of which mostly rehashed 3.0E material. Given those facts, it is rather mysterious how you arrive at the conclusion that people will simply not buy 4E D&D if it is of the PnP variety. Although I suspect that when 4E does come out, some people will indeed stick with 3.5E, it will likely do sufficiently well to be comercially successful.

BTW: Since you mentioned that you have not seen/hear anybody say/write/type that they will buy a 4th Edition of D&D if it is PnP, let me be the first to do so: I will buy a 4th Edition of D&D.*

*Provided that:
1) It remains a PnP game
2) I like the rules presented therein more than the current crop of rules
3) The price is reasonable (current prices, for example, would be fine)

D&D is the dominant game in the PnP RPG market and is doing well. Yet, your proposal seeks to essentially destroy this advantage and remove D&D from its niche into the board-game market, where it does not have any advantage over existing incumbents and where its brand-name does not hold as much water. The proposals outlined in your first post would alienate a vast section of existing player-base - that is people who are very important for introducing new players to the game. Look at the poll for evidence, sure it is not representative, but when only 3.66% of the quite significant number of responses are in favour of evolving D&D in the direction you proffer, you know the idea is not a winner.

As the poll shows, many D&D players are liable to dislike the changes you make. Equally, or even more importantly, though, is the perception your idea creates that the game you are proposing is a board game, rather than a roleplaying game with board game elements. This is an inherent part of your proposal, as it is exactly its purpose, since that is how you intend to attract new players to the game. It is, however, also its major weakness and would discourage a large number of RPG players from getting such a game and at the same time it would give the game little to compete with other, more established boardgames.

U_K, you are a creative person, but it seems you simply latched on to this idea too strongly. The overwhelming opposition to your proposal should not make you defensive - that will not win people over to supporting the idea. If you want to play the role of a designer, it would be more prudent to look at the results of this poll and try to evolve the game in a completely different direction.
 

Aus_Snow said:
Hey UK, could you post some of the evidence that has provided the basis for your various conclusions [as implied via your claims]?

Thanks.

Seconded. You still never answered what makes you think this is the only option for WOTC.
 



Hey Aus_Snow! :)

Aus_Snow said:
Hey UK, could you post some of the evidence that has provided the basis for your various conclusions [as implied via your claims]?

Thanks.

Can you be specific? Which conclusions exactly?
 

VictorC said:
This could be the worst idea that I've ever head.

samir3.jpg


"Yes, this is horrible, this idea."


Man. Even Samir doesn't like it.
 

Hey cthulhu_duck! :)

cthulhu_duck said:
It's also about ownership - since my first character sheet, these characters are ones that I've felt a connection to - and in turn, they've helped me form a connection with the game, and with roleplaying games in general.

I've never felt that way about any monopoly piece. Nor a HeroQuest figure.

I'm not saying you couldnt have character sheets (in fact I am sure I have said I would actually include blank character sheets in the box), I am just saying I don't think you need them as standard.
 

Hello again! :)

cthulhu_duck said:
I think the question on the lack of marketing of the D&D boardgame should really be why didn't Hasbro (the publishers IIRC, not WOTC) do some sort of marketing campaign?

An interesting parallel is to compare the support for Heroscape (also by Hasbro) with the support for the D&D Boardgame. Not saying that Heroscape is mainstream, but it is certainly better supported. Then again that could just be because the philosophy to date implies things like D&D Basic and D&D Boardgame are merely introductions to something else rather tha full fledged product lines in their own right.

cthulhu_duck said:
There may be answers there of course that might not be wanted - like the mass market not wanting 'role playing games' ...

Well thats why you have to dress it up like a boardgame. :p

cthulhu_duck said:
Opinions over 'better design' tend to be both personal and subjective. That's what I'm getting at.

I agree to an extent. I still say that if you can achieve the same thing with less 'moving parts' then its better design.

Now of course that brings up the level of sophistication you want in the game. As I mentioned before, better to have 10 magic weapons that do different things than 100 types of +1 weapon.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top