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

[RFisher]

I voted "YES...I like the idea but NOT as a replacement to D&D", but in truth I'm past caring about whatever the brand owner does with it.

While the idea outlined sounds fun, I'd be in line a lot faster to buy an upgraded Magic Realm.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey ssampier!

There's a difference between the RPGs and board games, since you obviously can play RPGs without a battlemat and minis (I don't use mini or battlemat and I know many people don't). Board games don't work well without, well, a board. Monopoly without the tokens and Park Place is not quite Monopoly (I realize they change the names in the theme Monopoly but it's still Park Place).

Change it to make it market-friendly then. Emphasis mine.

What I am suggesting is an rpg with board/minis/cards as standard. The board/minis would be relevant for tactical play and even then could plausibly be optional.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Ranger REG!

Occam and his Razor deeply offend the collective "intelligence" of the D&D fan community.

I disagree. If you can create a game that covers all the same ground as D&D but its far simpler, then its hands down better designed.

17-27 age group is not a small demographic. Granted, not many are in college or pursuing higher education of the normal intelligence level, but they'd like to pretend they do. Sort of like wearing fake horn-rimmed glasses to look smart. Geek faux.

Its a smaller demographic than 10+

I dunno. Is assassination allowed in the rules?

Only character assassination.

Ah, do you have Tweet's mensa-like insight? No gamer is more overly complex than Tweet.

I don't see being overly complex a strength.

At the same time, no gamers want to touch a rulebook that begins with "See Carlos. See Carlos roll three d6s..."

Which is why we wouldn't start it like that.

Hey, I'm just reciting what happened when WotC asked us if they want an easy-to-understand ruleset ... affectionately asking if they should dumb down the rules. We said no in 1999, and in 2000, we got rules-heavy. Sure, in light of this we got some competitors offering rules-lite RPGs but they haven't reach the popularity of 3e.

Obviously they don't have the brand strength tomatch D&D in terms of sales.

Don't Dumb Down, Smart Up. The rules should not be for Joe Average. The rules should be for Stephen Hawking.

Lets just hope he buys enough copies of 4th Edition to keep the company in business then.

 

[Upper_Krust]

In response to my question of I'm not sure who you think the market for this would be?

Well, based on the poll results, #1 in your list aren't in the market for this.

I think this product will be attractive to those Roleplayers wanting:

A) D&D with less book-keeping, and thus more time spent playing (Players),
B) D&D thats far easy to create for (DMs)
C) D&D that plays much quicker (Casual Gamers)
D) D&D with less rules and thus is less daunting (New Gamers)
E) D&D with a tactical setup as standard and thus easier to follow.

#2 already have products - and products which are aimed at boardgamers.

So by your logic, if someone already owns one boardgame there is no incentive to ever buy any others?

#3 - I don't believe the market for D&D miniature true collectors is that big.

The Miniatures Market (according to Ryan Danceys Blog) is larger than the RPG market.

Anyway, its not like we are relying on miniatures enthusiasts/collectors, thats simply another avenue of revenue.

#4 - I just don't see 'Kids' getting into this.

....because why? Any quick glance around toy stores/catalogues shows the themes that are in vogue: Pirates, Dinosaurs, Robots, Ninjas etc.

The attractive and tactile nature of the set is also far more appealing to the eye.

#5 - See answer for #4.

I disagree. What I am suggesting is a game far more acceptible to casual and new gamers. Parents could go into stores and have a

I think you've convinced yourself that this is a really good idea - the problem being that you don't seem to have done any analysis on what might not work with this idea, and your market research seems to be based on 'I can sell this great idea to these people' - rather than the other way around of 'what do these people want?'

If you are talking about in terms of the mainstream market. Boardgames are popular. Certain themes (Pirates, Dinosaurs) are popular.

Therefore if we dress up a wolf roleplaying game in sheeps boardgames clothing, there is the potential for far greater market penetration.

You keep asking 'why not?' in response to people stating they wouldn't play this - if you're serious about making a game to sell to roleplayers (#1 in your list above), shouldn't you already had some understanding of the market so that we don't have to explain to you why your idea wouldn't work for us?

I'd like to think I do have an understanding of the market, I have addressed all your criticisms above with what I think are logical answers.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey DeadlyUematsu!

UK.

Make me this.

NOW.

I appreciate the love dude!

I think the idea would work. Although I might step back from the nomenclature of Dungeons & Pirates, Dungeons & Dinosaurs to Dungeons & Dragons: [Insert subtitle with the word Pirates/Dinosaurs/Vampires in it].

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cam!

I think you're avoiding the main question I had, which is: what's different about the rules? Can you give me even a sample of the kinds of things you're actually talking about or do I have to go through my 3.5 rulebooks rule by rule for confirmation or denial?

I'm not sure if you realize that you're doing it, but you're dancing around a huge minefield of queries by throwing back the ball into our court, and that's not helping me to understand how you expect this to work outside of the marketing flash.

Perhaps I picked up on you wrong. It looked like you were asking me to turn my idea into a reality and lay out the Rules for you.

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.

If you familiarise yourself with the very simple rules of the D&D Boardgame, then come back and say well, this bit looks like it sucks or with those rules I can't do 'x, y, z'. Then I can address your specific points.

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

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shin!

No, assuming that they would actually care to. Which I might point out since were being all extremist in our examples not everyone is going to want to play an Epic Psionic Warforged Drunken Master. Those that would are going to seek out the materials with which to do so, the rest of us are going to use the core rules to play the game.

But to say that you cant play D&D with only the core rules (which you seem dead set on insisting) is..well untrue, no matter how many Psionic Warforged twinks you throw at me.

I never said you can't play D&D with just the core rules. But saying the core rules are the whole shebang is totrally subjective - as I clearly illustrated.

The Boxed set format I am suggesting is the whole shebang under the same criteria you use to describe the core rulebooks as the whole shebang. The only difference is you only need one boxed set to get you started - not three core rulebooks.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey cthulhu_duck!

I think you might find that if you actually look Occam's Razor up, it says nothing about game design - it's about explaining phenomena.

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.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi JV!

Well, I think we've gathered enough data to say that this certainly shouldn't be the next incarnation of D&D. Elitism, fearing change, and everything else aside, this has already turned off the most important demographic for this type of game: the core D&D players.

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?

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.

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.

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

The 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).

I stand by my original post and say that there is a place for a highly visual D&D lite to attract new players, but trying to turn D&D into an RPG boardgame certainly wouldn't be very successful.

So then just keep 3.5, but bring out the boxed set format D&D Lite as you call it and target it at the mainstream.

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

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.

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.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey MerricB!

See here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=186615

You may also find things of interest in my blog:
http://merricb.multiply.com/

Cheers!

Much appreciated mate!

I'll reply on the matter in the other thread.