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

[Lorgrom]

I will pass on this glorified board game.

 

[MerricB]

The biggest trouble is that this game already exists. It's called Descent.

Cheers!

 

[Dykstrav]

I think that trying to grow D&D as a game by dumbing down the rules and adding more visual and physical props to what is at heart (and always has been) a quite complex game of imagination is to mis-market the game.

If people want to play a simpler board or card based game then they can.

To re-invent and re-brand D&D as this game for everybody is I suspect a fairly surefire way to alienate most of the existing players (and hence the market) for no actual assurance that anybody else will actually like the new hybrid game you've invented.

This is spot-on. If someone tried to make a game for everyone, it would fall flat. I'm amazed that the d20 system has crossed genres so well as it has.

I understand a company's desire to sell more copies of a game. This is done by attracting new players. Unfortunately, anyone who might be attracted to the game with a simpler rules set would probably find just about any rules too complicated to bother with reading and memorizing and go play a MMORPG instead.

 

[el-remmen]

Looks like a neat introductory form of D&D that can exist along side normal book publishing and expansions.

 

[Elrith]

Hmm

Interesting concept, but:

1 D&D has no where the learning curve of other games. Lots of moderately succesful games like Ars Magica and Shadowrun are more complicated, while D&D dominates the market, in part because character creation and development is linear and choice, not point-based. The trick is balance. If the game is too simple, you master it too quick and lose interest, too hard and you never start. As the PHB is all a player needs (and all any DM should expect them to read, along with basic setting stuff) the learning curve is low, but long.

2 Boxed sets cost more to produce. This is why WOTC and 99% of companies no longer do them, or if they do, its a rare event.

3 There have been repeated attempts to make an accessible or easier D&D, back in the late eighties and through the early ninties, TSR repeated released Basic D&D in various forms, including boxed sets containing maps, minis (or were they tokens, its been over a decade) on through the comprehensive products that built off of the re-released game and boxes (i.e. the Rules Cyclopedia).

These were great ideas, but you'll notice the trend didn't hold. That's part of why WOTC dropped the A in AD&D...as history has progressed, AD&D became the only D&D people _bought_.

All the reaction against "feat bloat" or the proliferation of PrCs and so on is more a symptom of the way in which WOTC has cast its products as official and their use of F.A.Q. and rules updates to counteract the effect that the original spirit of RPs had: DMs were free to do what they wished. We all tinker and we all use house rules.

The hundreds of feats out there doesn't trouble me much because I, as an individual, stopped buy the majority of 3.5 books, especially the Complete series, because they offer little game advice or new direction. The reason White Wolf did so well in the early 90s (and brought in new blood to the hobby without competing with TSR for players) and why Green Ronin, Mongoose and Malhavoc have (or did in the case of Monte's imprint, sadly) stabalized in the wake of the inevitable d20 bust, is becuase these companies offer new directions for players.

Well that was long winded...

 

[ssampier]

Eegads no. Please don't turn my RPG into a board game. They are two different things, for two divergent markets (some overlap there, obviously).

I do think the D&D basic game needs a bit more pizzaz, but destroying a game to make it "market-friendly" can only spell disaster. I think there was a Wizardy game years ago that tried to make the CRPG 'new player friendly' and it was a disaster. I can't imagine a PnP RPG would any different.

 

[Vigwyn the Unruly]

Now on the other hand, I'd be interested in buying a boxed set that was sold essentially as a "dungeon kit" that contained an adventure, including the battle maps/dungeon tiles and the miniatures that go with it. I could see the Sunless Citadel of the Forge of Fury selling well this way. Maybe even an Undermountain series with expansions released twice a year or so.

Yes, this is a GREAT idea! (As part of 3.5, that is, not as a stand-alone game.) In fact, I purchased *both* of the Basic Game boxed sets for this very reason. You can play as is--with everything already included--or make any changes you see fit as the fancy strikes you. All fun, no prep time unless you feel like it.

This is an ideal way for me to play D&D, and I suspect it is for a lot of other people, too. I hope WotC continues to release products like this. I will buy every last one of them at $25 a pop or even more.

AND, it has not stopped me from purchasing other products. I continue to purchase source books, Dungeon Tiles, some minis, etc. So I think this would be a win/win for WotC.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I voted no.

Frankly, people have been worried about the approacing doom of DnD/RPGs for a while, and it hasn't happened.

In 1999, people were predicting the end of RPGs over the next decade as the Internet and computer games were going to take over.

This hasn't come about.

WotC can certain damage it's product, though. I think if they drop the OGL, that will do more damage to their product's saleability than any number of WoW subscriptions.

My vision for 4.0:

1 - Better capability-for-capability balancing of the classes.

2 - Bad/unclear 3.5 rules (all areas) cleaned up in their wordings by more exacting use of known and defined game terminology.

3 - Broken 3.5 material disposed of en masse. (Bye, bye wraithstrike, duskblade, etc.)

4 - Known problems handled. (I recall an EnWorld topic I viewed years ago, long before I joined. It was a list of spells from 3.0 with known difficulties that had not been changed in the move to 3.5, leaving them with their existing problems.)

5 - The abandonment of thin hardback books. That is just ridiculous.

That's it. Nothing fancy. No major changes. Just clean it up so we don't have to mess up our books with errata or argue over FAQ interpretations.

 

[Mark Hope]

Looks like a fun boardgame. As an RPG with the scope I demand from D&D? No.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

I don't foresee there ever being a "Dungeons & Pirates", "Dungeons & etc etc" ad infinitum, simply because it dilutes the brand name.

Sure, there could be a "Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Edition", but not a brand that calls itself "D&P".