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

[Upper_Krust]

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?

I think it really depends on the individual campaigns. What I would seek to do is slowly but surely (through the 'campaign' in the Adventure Book) is diversify the play style with each passing adventure. Try to make players think outside the box (or board in this case).

So if we have an Adventure Book with maybe a dozen or so adventures I would probably start with simple Dungeon crawls but introduce more and more roleplaying elements as we go along.

Could you run an entire session of intrigue and diplomacy without the board, pieces, and so forth?

I think you could do it, although at the same time I think you could run a session of intrigue and/or (possibly) diplomacy with the board pieces. I had been thinking about a murder mystery set in a Thieves Guild - a bit like cluedo.

If so, how do you support that with the same level of marketing and flash as you do the combat/trap/dungeon crawling bits?

I think that would all be up to the savvy of the Campaign/Adventure designers. Its definately something I would pursue. I'd try and include as many different adventure styles as possible.

Does the game encourage playing your character as a distinct role outside of their representation on the board? If so, how?

I certainly don't think it discourages it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey thedungeondelver!

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.

I disagree with your assessment. The lack of sneaking and peeking to me seems like a missed opportunity for something that should be standard practice. Just because its not in DESCENT doens't mean we can't have it here. I already have 'concealment' rules in mind for firing from behind other types of cover.

 

[Cam Banks]

I think it really depends on the individual campaigns. What I would seek to do is slowly but surely (through the 'campaign' in the Adventure Book) is diversify the play style with each passing adventure. Try to make players think outside the box (or board in this case).

Great for newbies, but where's the draw for the existing player base? Why upgrade to this?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cam!

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.

I think you could play the game without the board or minis, but not the feat/spell cards, unless you want to introduce the book-keeping nature of blank character sheets.

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.

I could see a basic set with just the rules and cards being sold.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cam!

Great for newbies, but where's the draw for the existing player base? Why upgrade to this?

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.

 

[MerricB]

I think that having the next edition of D&D as a board game is a Really Bad Idea.

However, I think there is a lot of potential in writing a set of rules that combine the existing D&D Miniatures and Dungeon Tiles (plus perhaps an additional deck of cards or two) into a boardgame. There is a start at it in the Miniatures Handbook (Random Dungeons), but it is my feeling that there needs to be more of a structure to the format and, particularly, to the goal of a scenario.

There is a big difference between a set board and a random board; the latter rarely works in terms of a D&D-type scenario. Thus, I prefer the idea of Scenarios.

Purely random dungeons boil down to "let's kill the next monster", which is fun but very limited (and eventually pales in interest). I'd rather have a game where the players need to make meaningful decisions to progress to their goal.

Take the D&D Miniatures combat rules as a starting point; add decks of cards for magic items and special encounters, and use the DDM stat cards for monster stats and monster encounters, and you have the beginnings of a D&D Board Game that uses the existing material as a starting point, which is the approach I prefer.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Zaruthustran]

MerricB, have you played the boardgame Betrayal at House On the Hill? It uses room tiles to randomly generate a house, but the game is driven by one of 48+ randomly-chosen scenarios.

So the map is random, but the actions of the players are motivated by a narrative. It's really fun.

Warhammer Quest did something similar, though it was less well-developed. I'd like to see something akin to this style of play for a D&D Boardgame.

But not 4th Edition. 4th Edition should be a brand-new revision, with online functionality (at the minimum: online character creator/database, virtual tabletop, rules updates).

-z

 

[Lorgrom]

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.

With the exception of numbers 6 and 7. This sounds very much like the red boxed Dungeons and Dragons. For those of you who were not playing or even alive at the time. It was a boxed set, had 2 or 3 thin paper booklets. Very stream lined rules (for what rules there were), and one deadly factor. It required the DM to make the majority of the decisions regarding doing things not covered in the rules.

The reason ADnD (1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition and 3.5 edition) has gotten more and more complex each incarnation. Is more due to the fact the people buying the product WANTED rules to cover things. That way players had a way to keep half-ass or worse DMs from kiling the game.

If you want to play the kind of game your suggesting. Go on e-bay, but the old DnD box sets. Then add in your tiles and minitures.

There case solved. You get to play (and help bring in new players). While those of us who went through that phase 20+ years ago, can keep the current game.

Just so you know when you make less/no bookkeeping and faster playing, you have to elimnate players options. Which of course is solved ..........

Just get the red box set and read the rules, you will quickly understand where I am comming from.

 

[MerricB]

MerricB, have you played the boardgame Betrayal at House On the Hill? It uses room tiles to randomly generate a house, but the game is driven by one of 48+ randomly-chosen scenarios.

Yes, got it. Played it quite a lot, though not recently. Need to play it again.

(I'm amassing a really great boardgame collection. I might need to post a list on this thread for UK's information).

One of the interesting things about that game is that the first phase of the game is the exploration of the house. Then, when the scenario is chosen (and the traitor is revealed), the rooms gain new importance based on the scenario. So, if you need to defeat the traitor in the Chapel, then the Chapel becomes important (and may still require investigation to find).

BHH has problems with play balance (yes, I do have the errata) due to the wildly varying nature of the house and what rooms have been revealed. You can get games that go right down to the wire, or games that end in great anticlimax. Mind you, it has a good playtime, normally 30 mins - 1 hour with 6 players, IME, although I think some games have lasted 90 mins.

I like the random nature of the house because the significance of the rooms does change, and does so after many of the rooms have already been explored. I don't think quite the same thing would apply to a D&D boardgame.

Cheers!

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Here you go!

Har har har.

No.

Descent is not what I want.