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

[Upper_Krust]

Hey MerricB matey!

I was just having a quick shufty around wizards website and came across a Dreamscape game - just wondering what your impressions of it were...the minis look incredible - lots of really weird stuff and uses of transparent plastic.

I mean take a look at this...

http://ww2.wizards.com/DreamBlade/Gallery.aspx

I'd buy a d20 book of those monsters in a heartbeat.

They look far more imaginative than what I saw in Monster Manual IV.

 

[MerricB]

Hey MerricB matey!

I was just having a quick shufty around wizards website and came across a Dreamscape game - just wondering what your impressions of it were...the minis look incredible - lots of really weird stuff and uses of transparent plastic.

There are some very nice pieces that translate to D&D. (I have the Noble Dragon figure myself, which is nice).

The game is solid, and owes a lot more to boardgames than skirmish wargames like D&D Minis. However, I'm unsure to whether it is being overly successful.

Personally, I prefer monsters that relate to real life more than the Lovecraftian inventions of Dreamscape; MMIV is a book I rather like and make some use of.

Cheers!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Then lets just say its the current best idea.

Except that it isn't. Perhaps it it's not the current worst idea. . . but it might even be so.

D&D has a solid user base, as it is. Any kind of 4th edition D&D that is actually a RPG will not endanger that anywhere near as much as would any kind of 4th edition D&D that is not in fact a RPG.

There is just no problem to solve here. I think that's the main thing, really.

 

[Cam Banks]

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.

Very clever. How are all of these appealing to existing players? Repeating the same thing over and over isn't making it any clearer. It's like shouting when you don't speak the language.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[JVisgaitis]

I was just having a quick shufty around wizards website and came across a Dreamscape game - just wondering what your impressions of it were...the minis look incredible - lots of really weird stuff and uses of transparent plastic.

I love Dreamblade. If you are at all of the tactical mind, its a hell of a lot of fun and a very very solid game. I question how well it's doing as well, and I really hope it catches on. Dreamblade to me has rules that are smooth like butter. I honestly believe it's that good.

I'd buy a d20 book of those monsters in a heartbeat. They look far more imaginative than what I saw in Monster Manual IV.

Imaginative doesn't always sell when it comes to monster books. Trust me.

 

[Ranger REG]

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

Besides, Games Workshop cornered that market with HeroQuest.

If you want to make a RPG boardgame, let Hasbro turn HeroScape production over to WotC-controlled Avalon Hill.

 

[MerricB]

Besides, Games Workshop cornered that market with HeroQuest.

You can only corner a market if you produce the game. HeroQuest is OOP, as far as I know.

Cheers!

 

[Nikroecyst]

When I think DnD I think pencil, paper, and dice. Now I've only been into it since 3.x but thats mostly due to the fact that I've never had anyone to teach me till I got old enough to learn it myself. I dont' like the proposed system for DnD, however much it does sound like a step backwards, I would still play it. It just wouldn't be DnD to me though.

 

[Ranger REG]

You can only corner a market if you produce the game. HeroQuest is OOP, as far as I know.

Cheers!

Aw. I actually liked that boardgame.

I managed to recruit players of HQ and graduated them to true RPG. (Which is what the current D&D Basic Game is doing now.)

 

[The Iron Mark]

When I think DnD I think pencil, paper, and dice. Now I've only been into it since 3.x but thats mostly due to the fact that I've never had anyone to teach me till I got old enough to learn it myself. I dont' like the proposed system for DnD, however much it does sound like a step backwards, I would still play it. It just wouldn't be DnD to me though.

This pretty much sums it up for me. I have yet to see a reason for me to go to this proposed system of yours, there's nothing concrete that makes it inherently better than 3.5 (like say combat is more streamlined). Seems to me you're just looking at how WotC should package D&D to get it to a new audience, not a new rules set. Plus, I don't want to pay for miniatures because I haven't played a single game with them.