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

[Nifft]

As an add-on or simplified mini-game to exist alongside D&D, this sounds cool.

D&D Minis fulfils the same role -- it exists alongside D&D, rather than replacing it entirely.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Quartz]

Interesting concept, but I think Nifft has it. That said, I think WotC would do well to apply your 'Dungeons and X' naming convention to its existing products. What kid wouldn't buy 'Dungeons and Dinosaurs'?

 

[Ranger REG]

What kid wouldn't buy 'Dungeons and Dinosaurs'?

Hopefully my future children wouldn't.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Advanced D&D, as in AD&D?

4E AD&D no less!

 

[JVisgaitis]

I've been pretty vocal in the other threads on this. I think that there is room to improve on the basic D&D intro game, but I wouldn't want this to be 4e.

 

[helium3]

The only part that I had a visceral reaction to was "Dungeons & Doughnuts."

 

[cthulhu_duck]

UK, I'm going to quote what you wrote in the other thread -

I am suggesting that in lieu of a pen & paper 4th Edition we bring out a boardgame called Dungeons & Dragons.

Your reasoning seems to be that a boardgame, with an advanced rulebook for in depth rpg play could succeed the existing tabletop rpg, which uses 'boards' as a supplemental mechanism.

I'm not sure who you think the market for this would be?

 

[Sir Elton]

I don't like D&D's flaws, but I don't want D&D to become like this either.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I don't think I would switch systems at this point.
But if they just re-released the core books with the new format/ruleschanges and a way to completely 100% convert a 3rd edition character to 4th without any real loss in capability (I saw alot of this from 2E to 3rd; Dual-classed characters got the shaft), I wouldn't mind too much.

 

[Shadowslayer]

It's a very interesting crossover product. I particularly like the idea of selling PC miniatures. However, if Wizards called this D&D, they would be abandoning the RPG field.

Funny, they used the D&D name for the Minis game and the sky didn't fall.

I like Upper Krust's idea for the most part, though I see the individual sets being sold with packs of tiles rather than a board. Call it something Like D&D Adventures - Valley of the Dinosaurs, or something like that.

But as the full blown next version of D&D...I don't think so. (But if the two were compatible, you might have something.) No matter how it was presented, the rules wouldn't be as rich as the full blown version. I don't think you could do that and have the boxes sell at a reasonable price.

I call BS however on the notion that it would somehow not be an RPG anymore. Many of us are using battlemaps and tiles already. Its not limiting. And besides, I feel that the RPG business is in decline because game companies haven't been creative enough with the presentation of their games. The RPG "genre" of games suffers from too narrow a focus IMO.(WOTC seems to be the first to actually show some innovation with it)

When you get down to it, the play experience is pretty much the same with most RPGs to date...guys sitting around a table with books, character sheets and dice. RPG companies have to start pushing the envelope a bit if they want these games to still be widely played in the years coming. WOTC has made more strides in the last 3 years with respect to game materials than the entire RPG industry has made since 1974. Upper Krusts idea is a good thought in a different direction, if you consider a game-in-a-box as a way of thinking outside the box.