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

[Upper_Krust]

Hey crazy_cat!

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.

When is more complex 'better' though? If the number of 'moving parts' in 3rd Edition is slowing down the creative process and shrinking the time spent actually 'playing' then you have to ask whats going wrong.

Are people who already use miniatures (or counters) and battlemats (or dungeon tiles) in their game not playing 'D&D'?

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

But what if they like the taste of Coca-Cola, but don't want the sugar fattening them up?

Can people not have the option of a simplified version of the rules, D&D 'Lite' if you will.

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.

Big gamble for WOTC - if it works they make lots of cash, but its a big if - losing the existing players and sales and not replacing them, let alone expanding upon them, basically kills D&D.

I call that outcome a bad thing, and I suspect most at WOTC would to.

Has the D&D Boardgame killed D&D...no.

Did the Basic game kill it...no.

Can a pen & paper version of 4th Edition be a success...no, because there is no great incentive for merely more of the same, but tweaked. How the heck can you sell a 4th Ed. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book? The 3rd Edition book is 90% fluff as it is!

Therefore either Wizards of the Coast do something different, or they shut up shop. Its as simple as that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Nonlethal Force!

No, it shouldn't. I'm strongly adamant in my stance that an RPG can use miniatures (and is often better for it!) but it is never a board game. If you want D&D the board game then make one.

A question I seem to be asking a lot "Are people who play D&D with minis/battlemats not playing D&D?"

But please don't call it an RPG or pretend that it is one.

But roleplaying is all about pretending.

But then again, all I want out of a gaming system is the ability to tell astory. Whether that story is told at the table top or in my Story Hours (Free read, click on the links below!) is irrelevant. I have a mode in 3.5 to put believability in the story. When WotC shifts to 4.0 all that means is I can start spending my money on something else!

Okay, reading between the lines your buying it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Dykstrav!

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.

So if I open my catalgue and there are six different monopoly board games, does that help or hinder the monopoly brand?

Incidently looks like:

Basic Set Monopoly
Deluxe Set Monopoly
Travel Monopoly
Disney Monopoly
Simpsons Monopoly
2006 Fifa World Cup Monopoly (thats soccer for you yanks)

What I am suggesting is no different from that type of brand extension. However, D&D is ultimately far more collectible because each set (I am proposing) is not merely a stand alone game but also an extension to every other set!

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.

There are virtually no rules to memorise (cards remember) and you could teach someone everything they need to DM a game, let alone play it, in 5 minutes. Thats not something you can say with current D&D or any MMORPG game!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey MerricB dude!

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

I've been taking a look at reviews of Descent and I have witnessed a number of flaws in its design. Some of which are highlighted in this thread:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/133475

However, on top of that Descent as a brand name doesn't really capture the imagination like Dungeons & Dragons so it won't have that market penetration.

Neither does it have such a rich history of material to draw upon.

Also it doesn't have pre-painted miniatures.

 

[Nifft]

So if I open my catalgue and there are six different monopoly board games, does that help or hinder the monopoly brand?

Basic Set Monopoly
Deluxe Set Monopoly
Travel the Planes Monopoly
Abyssal Rat-Lord Monopoly
Limbo-Dance Slaadi Monopoly
2006 Tiamat's Tea-Party Monopoly

Yeah, I'd buy those.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Elrith!

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.

See above, I already explained it will have most of the core features present in current D&D only simplified and devoid of book-keeping.

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.

But if you can get the boxed set into the mass market that won't be a factor. Whereas you'll never get pen & paper RPGs into the mass market.

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.

Probably because of three things. Firstly, they were not supported strongly enough, secondly because they were seen as a sideline to D&D rather than as the core game, lastly my marketing strategy is better than theirs.

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_.

Exactly, it was a better game, better supported.

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.

I don't think variety is the problem. Its more a case of the number of 'moving parts', a lot of which are so trivial that they just self-perpetuate the book-keeping and minutiae. Its simple to create a PC or NPC but it is fairly time consuming.

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.

See above. The complexity is not in variety.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey 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).

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

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.

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

 

[tx7321]

I'd expect major simplification (having gone to the extreme with 3E and 3.5) perhaps a move toward doing away with all archetypes (building exactly what you want). I also don't think we'll see a turn toward Heroscape. That horse has come and gone, its old news. I'd expect the franchise to continue focusing on table top "role play" as well, and a big line of figs to go with it. I don't see them going to a board game (when they can make alot more money off $30 hard cover books) and tons of minis (way more then would fit on a board).

Remember, 4E only has to be different enough to get its existing market to buy new books. So expect a ton of support material for it to follow (so you'll need the core books if you want to play them), and 3E will be a distant memory a year after its released (as far as WOTC is concerned). I'm sure they expect a bump out of 4E, but I doubt there expecting anything like 3E (though better then 3.5).

 

[crazy_cat]

UK - You seem to be proposing several different ideas here - and interchanging between them as you see fit.

If the proposal is that WOTC maybe invent a D&D Lite or DDM based game that can be aimed at kids, potential new players and teh public at large and is an intro to D&D (The full RPG) then I can sort of agree with the idea in principle - although I think the way you envisage it working is not actually a financially viable one (and I seriously doubt that D&D can actually be made into a mainstream game - RPGs are a niche hobby)

A seperate game aimed at kids - now thats a better idea. Seperate brand, but build loyalty to WOTC as a bigger brand, then steer the new consumer on to D&D or DDM or Magic or whatever.

Some of your ideas actually trivialise the brand and thus devalue it (I mean Dungeons & Dora - are you serious? If anyone at WOTC R&D suggested that I hope suspect they would be sacked for having such a ridiculous thought)

Your question posed in the poll is "Should D&D become like this?" based on the ideas in your first post.

The response so far is that 96% of the admittedly small and admittedly non representative sample of ENWorld users have voted against your proposals.

In fact to date a grand total of 4 (including you) out of 182 voters so far have agreed that "YES...I would like to see D&D evolve into this" which suggests to me that if these proposals were implemented by WOTC they would lose alot of existing customers.

For the record I also disagree withy alot of the statements you're making as though they were gospel truth - they are simply your opinions and don't support any arguments or ideas you are putting forward any more than my opinions automatically mean that you are wrong just because I disagree with you.

When is more complex 'better' though? If the number of 'moving parts' in 3rd Edition is slowing down the creative process and shrinking the time spent actually 'playing' then you have to ask whats going wrong.

I don't actually think 3.5 is broken. I like it, and I like having rules and options. I can ignore them if I want.

Are people who already use miniatures (or counters) and battlemats (or dungeon tiles) in their game not playing 'D&D'?

Options are good. Making the minis and board compulsary components in the way you suggested changes the game from being an imagination based RPG to being a board game.

Can a pen & paper version of 4th Edition be a success...no, because there is no great incentive for merely more of the same, but tweaked. How the heck can you sell a 4th Ed. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book? The 3rd Edition book is 90% fluff as it is!

Any evidence to back this opinion?

Therefore either Wizards of the Coast do something different, or they shut up shop. Its as simple as that.

Evidence?

 

[Nifft]

UK - You seem to be proposing several different ideas here - and interchanging between them as you see fit.

Well, he does propose multiple versions for different roles.

-- N