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

[ShinHakkaider]

Hey Shin mate!
I'm not sure I agree with you here.

I'd rather have random cards from a larger pool than a lot of multiples.

By that I mean, each boxed set will need a certain amount of feat/spell cards to operate independantly.

So either you have a situation where each boxed set has the same feats/spells cards or they have different cards. But at the same time there needs to be some commonality.

I pretty much wont spend money on a collectable aspect of a game where I have to spend lots of money to in order to HOPEFULLY get a complete set of feat cards.

I'd rather just be able to plunk down my cash and get what I need. If there is a deck that I could buy that has all of the feat cards for the Corerules then thats fine. Dropping money every week on boosters in hoping to get that same complete set is a deal breaker for me.

You can disagree if you want but ultimately you/WOTC wont be getting my money for this product.

Paizo kind of did this with thier item cards. Thier first release had a full set deck of items. The same items in each deck. I bought two of these, because I KNEW WHAT I WAS GETTING and I wanted multiples of some of the items.

The collectable aspect is nothing but an excuse to milk the consumer and make money for the company. I have no problem with the second part, but the first part will definitely make me hostile toward that particular product.

The problem with your suggestion is that to make every boxed set playable in its own right you need to have x amount of feat/spell cards. But theres no point putting exactly the same cards into each (differently themed) boxed set.

No, it's only a problem if I buy this boxed set and I want to play a fighter with the Cleave and Power Attack feats and becasue of the random collectability that you propose I cant becasue those cards arent in my particular set.

 

[Aaron L]

Throw in the collectible nature of cards and have the marketing ploy of common, uncommon and rare feats/items/spells and it adds up to more revenue for WotC.

Ugh!!!!!!

What a terrifying thought.

 

[SteveC]

I just wanted to say that that an updated version of Warhammer Quest using a simplified D&D rules would be something I'd pick up in a minute, and play frequently.

I have the D&D boardgame, and it's not bad, it's just missing a small thing that keeps it from being the next WQ in my mind. I would buy a new series of products marketed in the same way.

However, as a 4th edition of D&D, not so much. A totally different line of product? Heck yeah!

--Steve

 

[thedungeondelver]

UK.

Make me this.

NOW.

Here you go!

 

[Cam Banks]

I have stated this on multiple occasions:

1) Less/No Book-keeping, meaning more play time.
2) Faster game.
3) Easier to create for.
4) Less daunting to new players.
5) More visually attractive.
6) Collectibility.
7) Better from a tactical viewpoint.

So you have a simple to learn, less resource-intensive, flashy kind of boardgame. You'd have bits and pieces in the box, like a board, and minis, and so forth. How much of the actual gameplay do you think would involve all of these pieces? Do you see this as a much more tactical kind of game than 3.5? What sort of gameplay are you shooting for?

Could you run an entire session of intrigue and diplomacy without the board, pieces, and so forth? If so, how do you support that with the same level of marketing and flash as you do the combat/trap/dungeon crawling bits? Does the game encourage playing your character as a distinct role outside of their representation on the board? If so, how?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[thedungeondelver]

So you have a simple to learn, less resource-intensive, flashy kind of boardgame. You'd have bits and pieces in the box, like a board, and minis, and so forth. How much of the actual gameplay do you think would involve all of these pieces? Do you see this as a much more tactical kind of game than 3.5? What sort of gameplay are you shooting for?

Could you run an entire session of intrigue and diplomacy without the board, pieces, and so forth? If so, how do you support that with the same level of marketing and flash as you do the combat/trap/dungeon crawling bits? Does the game encourage playing your character as a distinct role outside of their representation on the board? If so, how?

Cheers,
Cam

Here's a thing - and I say this by way of agreement with you - in the rules for DESCENT, the Line of Sight rules work on the principal of the squares in a grid. Like old computer RPGs or even current hex/square grid based wargames; the example in the rulebook shows a fighter facing off against an ogre and a hellhound and what he can see of them. It is shown as a number of squares. There's a thief also on the board; it shows her field of vision as being very limited by a stone pillar in front of the square in front of her. To get a better view, the player has only one recourse in that setting: move the theif figure to another square. That's it. Move them to another square.

An RPG, a proper RPG, would give the theif the option to creep up to the pillar and now instead of it being an obstacle, it's an advantage. The thief can now press herself against the pillar and peek around it.

A board-game/battlemat and minis kind of affair wouldn't allow for that kind of granularity, and would fail wholly at recreating the fluidity and, dare I say verisimilitude that I feel is essential to the D&D experience.

I mean, I use a hefty amount of DWARVEN FORGE and miniatures in my games: I do not let them dictate the flow of the action, however. They are pretty "icons" meant to add a neat visual element to the game and from time to time give everyone a rough idea of where they are and what they might see at a given time.

 

[Cam Banks]

I mean, I use a hefty amount of DWARVEN FORGE and miniatures in my games: I do not let them dictate the flow of the action, however. They are pretty "icons" meant to add a neat visual element to the game and from time to time give everyone a rough idea of where they are and what they might see at a given time.

Exactly. And in fact, going by UK's proposed model, this won't be the case for this game. In order to make collectibility, marketability, and branding more critical and generate revenues, those additional elements (board pieces, minis, etc) would need to be required for play, or at least so useful and important that you need to buy the next set, and the next set, and the next set.

If such a game is released, two things would need to happen to satisfy what appears to be a significant chunk of the audience. One, the game should be playable without any of these elements at all, much as D&D 3.5 and all previous editions have been. You should be able to sit around a table and have the DM describe things and have the players roleplay things out, and have combat be as abstract as desired.

Second, you should be able to purchase or acquire the rules independently of the marketing gimmicks. If I want a fast, easy to learn, modular and easy to create for form of D&D, it better also be for sale without them.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Shin matey!

I pretty much wont spend money on a collectable aspect of a game where I have to spend lots of money to in order to HOPEFULLY get a complete set of feat cards.

I'd rather just be able to plunk down my cash and get what I need. If there is a deck that I could buy that has all of the feat cards for the Corerules then thats fine. Dropping money every week on boosters in hoping to get that same complete set is a deal breaker for me.

You can disagree if you want but ultimately you/WOTC wont be getting my money for this product.

Paizo kind of did this with thier item cards. Thier first release had a full set deck of items. The same items in each deck. I bought two of these, because I KNEW WHAT I WAS GETTING and I wanted multiples of some of the items.

The collectable aspect is nothing but an excuse to milk the consumer and make money for the company. I have no problem with the second part, but the first part will definitely make me hostile toward that particular product.

No, it's only a problem if I buy this boxed set and I want to play a fighter with the Cleave and Power Attack feats and becasue of the random collectability that you propose I cant becasue those cards arent in my particular set.

The fundamental problem with your concern though is that its assuming we are copying the feats from the existing Players Handbook and other books. Since what I am proposing is simpler rules, all those feats don't apply.

Now thats not saying we won't see a lot of those ideas present in this new game, but we may rename them (how about a flashier Tome of Battle style nomenclature for the feats), change them or just kick them to the kerb (darn skill feats).

So when you say you want 'all' the feats in one set where are you getting this 'all' from?

Likewise you are assuming a central core ruleset, when I am proposing all sets work independently (and in conjunction with one another).

So you don't want every set to have the same feats and spells. They may have some overlap of especially common feats/spells, but I'd rather see at least 50% new feats/spells in every set.

If we go on from there, the question becomes of those repeated cards do we want them to always be the same, the idea of slight randomisation breaks this particular bugbear up in my opinion.

 

[Ranger REG]

Hey Ranger REG!

..and how does that create more gamers and by extension translate into more revenue for WotC?

The less jocks play our game at the table, the more relaxed and inviting for new geeks to join the hobby without fear of getting wedgies and swirlies.

I want to market D&D to as many people as possible, including existing gamers, casual gamers, new gamers, kids and families.

So, you want to turn D&D into commercialism for the mainstream, like how Britney Spears became a pop machine (not to be confused with a musical talent, which is not being portrayed recently ... except Jennifer Hudson).

Yah. :\

I'd rather try and convert people than alienate or discriminate against certain sectors of the market.

Hey, I don't want them to come into my area as they don't want us in theirs like rave clubs, just because wearing pocket protectors is not cool.

I know how to make elitist roleplayers scream and feel sick to their ass apparently.

Considering I have no love for elitist roleplayers looking down on us frugal roleplayers for not willing to buy new version of core rulebooks every three years, I won't stand in your way. Heck, I'll even offer you my cache of poison to put on their Funyuns.

If D&D can penetrate the mainstream market then it will sell better. The only way to do that is simplify the rules and dress it up like a boardgame.

So you want to convert an RPG into a BG? Dude, I'm not in the BG hobby.

Keep perpetuating those stereotypes!

Right, while you keep bring jocks into our hobby, my future daughter may hook up with one of them at a gaming convention. No way.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Steve!

I just wanted to say that that an updated version of Warhammer Quest using a simplified D&D rules would be something I'd pick up in a minute, and play frequently.

One thing I never understood with Warhammer Quest was why the heck they included so many bloody mooks in the box!? I mean it has almost 3 times the miniatures of HeroQuest but less actual variety in the type of monster and no unique BBEG - whereas HeroQuest had 2 (the Chaos Sorcerer and the Gargoyle/Bloodthirster).

I have the D&D boardgame, and it's not bad, it's just missing a small thing that keeps it from being the next WQ in my mind. I would buy a new series of products marketed in the same way.

To me, the boardgame looks like it has the basic framework to be something fantastic but lacks a lot of the customization and variety of D&D. However, I think with a few tweaks it could be sensational.

Also with this type of game (and I assume Descent as well, from reading the reviews) they are basic dungeon crawls but the flip side is that if you look at D&D played on a board with minis - it can be so much more than that!

However, as a 4th edition of D&D, not so much. A totally different line of product? Heck yeah!

Its funny how many people would pick this up as long as its not called 4th Edition.