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

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cam!

I think this is where the problem is.

If some people are just going to come in and give one sentence sound bites about how the idea sucks, how they are sick to their ass or other unproductive and purely subjective gibberish then at least allow me the chance to reply in kind.

If someone makes an actual point, then I'll try my best to reply with logic as best I see it.

Charwoman Gene posted how he thought continuing the book format will be a success and to a degree (the core rulebooks) I agree with him. But beyond that I don't agree with him and I listed my reasons, which are, admittedly, the same reasons I have been harping on about for a few pages now but thats only because no one has tackled them directly.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Selling RPGs is a sucker's game. No one "needs" anything beyond the core books.
I see them coasting on their current adventures and minis kick till 2009, announcing 4e then, after most new supplements have been very specialized.

There will be like a year of buildup with easily convertible, niche products for 3.5e.
The main products for the next year are the corebooks, an adventure path, Campaign Setting updates, and the barest start of splats.

The new supplements will sell solely through power-creep.

----------------------------------

Expand the market? The market is being lost to games that require no central DM and often no real-world presence of other players. Your system does not address either. It tries to go to this mythical "mainstream."

Mainstream board games? Strategy games with clear winners. Skill based games. Party games that are mostly about socializations. Almost no violence. D&D is a pretty violent game. (The death of Mr. Boddy is offscreen, and Risk is terribly abstract and stiill looked at as geekier than Monopoly.)

Unless you alter the game enough to have a clear "winner" and no player (Including the GM) is ineligible to win, you have no shot to mainstream. Do you know how hard it is to get someone to play banker in Monopoly? Imagine if the banker couldn't WIN!

A "version" of D&D desigined to get mainstream sales will not be recognizable as DnD enough to keep the existing player network. This is the real value of the D&D brand.

---------------------------

I am not attacking your root premise that WotC has a bit of a puzzle to solve about the next edition and keeping supplements rolling. However I simply cannot see how your proposed solution is viable, likely, or desirable.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey llamatron2000!

I actually like this idea. A lot.

...you mean its not just me?

Are you one of the 'dirty dozen' supporting the idea?

As long as its done right, and not stupidly. It would be a great way to package miniatures, at least. I mean...think of it this way:

What if with your class splatbook, you got a magic-involved or mage-centric adventure or two, a couple of battlemats for the quests, mage and familiar-specific miniatures? What if they included spell cards, so you could keep track of prepared spells more easily? I mean...it doesn't sound like such a bad idea then. Make it boardgame-like for those who wish to do it like that, but keep the advanced ruleset there. I like D20. I think the rules as they are, are at the right level of complexity(maybe a bit too complex if you move past core 3.5)

I like the idea because it would put specific, useful miniatures in the player's hands more easily. I'd easily blow 50+ dollars for lets say, Fiendish Codex II. If they packaged it with updated versions of lets say....Fires of Dis, and give a good assortment of demon/devil miniatures with the package, hell-related battlemats, and all that jazz. Okay, so it might cost more than 50 bucks.

What I have been thinking is 36 boxed sets:

6 x 3 (18) Main sets:

Dragons (Red Box)
Pirates (Blue Box)
Dinosaurs (Green Box)
Vampires (Black Box)
(Frost) Giants (White Box)
Mummies (Gold Box)

Each would have a Deluxe Boxed Set ($75 with Gargantuan model) and Super-deluxe Boxed set ($100 with Colossal Model). These would be the six strongest themes. The Deluxe set would be indirectly for levels 13-24 (mid-level in terms of the system I propose), while the Super-Deluxe set would be for levels 25-36 (high-level).

So the Dragon set might start out with orcs as the mooks, the deluxe set might have Fire Giants as the central mooks, while the super deluxe set might have the Tiamat (Colossal) model and have devils as the mooks.

Whereas the Dinosaur boxed set might start with an Isle of Dread scenario type progressing to the super deluxe set with the Tarrasque (colossal) model and showdown with Demogorgon.

The second tier (low-level) could be class/structure based:

Wizards/Tower/Magic of Incarnum~Tome of Magic~Complete Arcane
Knights/Castle/Tome of Battle~Complete Warrior
Thieves/Guild and Tavern/Complete Adventurer
Clerics/Temple/Complete Divine
Ninjas~Monks~Samurai~Wu-Jen etc./Fortress-Monastery/Oriental Adventures
Psions/Spelljammer Spaceship/'Aliens'/Mind Flayers/'Steel' Caverns/Psionics

The third tier (mid-level) would have animal/race/location themes:

Snakes/Yuan-Ti/Jungle
Spiders/Drow/Caverns
Rats/Wererats/Sewers
Frogs/Bullywugs/Swamp
Bulls/Minotaurs/Underground Maze
Robots/Warforged/Factory?

The fourth tier (high-level) might be planar based:

Astral/Githyanki
Nirvana/Inevitables or Formians (or both)
Limbo/Slaad
Gray Waste/Daemons
Hells/Devils
Abyss/Demons

The cost is the real problem with the boxed-set format. It costs a lot to produce, and a lot to buy. You'd have to make sure that your boxed sets sold.

Agreed. However miniatures do turn a significant profit (Ryan Dancey commented they were are larger piece of the fantasy gaming market than RPG books) so the cost between producing a boxed set and a hardback can't be that ridiculous. I'd guess maybe your profits would be halved or at worse a third. But if you entered the mainstream market you might sell 5 or 10 times as many.

But that said, just test the water with the six main boxed sets first (conservatively limiting the numbers produced at first). If those are popular expand and if not, you have lost nothing.

Not only that, I'm sure that more than one D&D player might be embarrassed to be caught buying a box of action figures, rather than picking up a book or two. Yes, there are still people reluctant to say that they're roleplayers. But cost, more than any other barrier, really. Bookshelf space, not so large of one. Just make them (fat) book sized.

I don't see the stigmatism of being seen buying a D&D boxed set over being seen buying a D&D Hardback making a difference.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey crazy_cat!

QFT. I think most many ENWorlders had agreed on this by about the beginning of page 2 of this thread.

We're now on page 7 - and over a third of the total posts are by Upper_Krust basically refusing to accept that anybody who disagrees with the basic premise of 4e as a board game with cards and minis could be in any way making a valid point, no matter how they structure their argument.

I think you could easily put the idea into operation without calling it 4th Edition, which seems to be where a lot of the opposition lies. In doing so, you would therefore not be changing 3.5 into a boardgame so the rest of the doomsayers have no reason for complaint either.

This despite the fact that less than 4% or respondants to the poll agree with the idea, and the fact that there is actually no evidence whatsoever being produced to back the claim that 4e won't sell if it is simply a PnP game - which seems to be the central premise behind hybridising the game beyond all recognition in an attempt to make it mainstream.

Its easy for you to gloss over the details of what I am saying with a blanket "Krust says 4E won't sell!", but thats not what I have been saying at all.

Simple logic suggests repeating the same sales model with 4E won't be as successful as 3/3.5, because (1) It can only fragment existing gamers, (2) does nothing to create new gamers, (3) does nothing to attract people from other hobbies, (4) does nothing to placate casual gamers.

It also throws up the additional problem in that 3.5 has already (and recently) released products catering to all the main themes. Therefore if your market is basically existing 3.5 gamers and all you can release are rehashes (even if well disguised rehashes) of 3.5 material there is going to be less incentive to buy those products.

To me those (paragraphs in bold) seem like the solid facts of the matter. So a lot of people might disagree with my idea, but can they disagree with those 'facts'? If so, what the hell am I missing?

 

[thedungeondelver]

Simple logic suggests repeating the same sales model with 4E won't be as successful as 3/3.5, because (1) It can only fragment existing gamers, (2) does nothing to create new gamers, (3) does nothing to attract people from other hobbies, (4) does nothing to placate casual gamers.

It also throws up the additional problem in that 3.5 has already (and recently) released products catering to all the main themes. Therefore if your market is basically existing 3.5 gamers and all you can release are rehashes (even if well disguised rehashes) of 3.5 material there is going to be less incentive to buy those products.

To me those (paragraphs in bold) seem like the solid facts of the matter. So a lot of people might disagree with my idea, but can they disagree with those 'facts'? If so, what the hell am I missing?

I wish you'd learn to make the distinction that your opinons != "facts".

You keep saying that this board-game you'd invent (or would have Hasbro/WotC invent) could be played by pen-and-paper folks without the boards, without the mats, without any of the accoutrements. Why, then, if it can, would you relegate role-players to having to buy your...good god are you really serious...thirty six boxed sets?!

You've mentioned that you think that a 4th edition of the D&D rules would fractionalize the market and create divisions in the D&D game. You have yet to show how this idea of yours wouldn't.

Two groups of people at a hobby shop, one is playing a game called D&D with no minis, no mats, no cards, none of that junk. One group is. This second group asks the first group what they're playing. The first group says "We're playing D&D." the second group says "Wait, no you're not. Where are the minis, the boards, the cards the counters?"

You're saying that this 4th edition you propose somehow creates less fragmentation? Less product confusion? Dude, at the height of TSR's fortunes they had D&D and AD&D but both were very clearly pen-and-paper only RPGs. DUNGEON! wasn't even considered part of the greater whole except for a few one-off articles in THE STRATEGIC REVIEW.

Creating a game that forces people to buy a bunch of stuff that you admit they don't have to use and that lots and lots and lots of people aren't going to want to use isn't going to generate profits, it's going to generate resentment.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Charwoman Gene!

Selling RPGs is a sucker's game. No one "needs" anything beyond the core books.

Exactly, so what I propose is to de-centralise the core rules. Make them less important than the miniatures, cards (new feats/spells/items) and board tiles. Giving people more incentive to buy another boxed set.

I see them coasting on their current adventures and minis kick till 2009, announcing 4e then, after most new supplements have been very specialized.

Thats a possibility. But surely RPG supplement sales will 'tail off' as you cater to more and more niches within the market. Though I suppose any peak/trough scenario is ultimately inevitable.

There will be like a year of buildup with easily convertible, niche products for 3.5e.

The main products for the next year are the corebooks, an adventure path, Campaign Setting updates, and the barest start of splats.

Again, no real reason there to buy anything beyond the core rulebooks if you already own it.

The adventure path idea is interesting because thats sort of what I am suggesting with the boxed set approach.

The new supplements will sell solely through power-creep.

3/3.5 hasn't really worked that way.

Expand the market? The market is being lost to games that require no central DM and often no real-world presence of other players.

Those are certainly factors, but are they the only factors?

Your system does not address either.

True, but it does address other factors that are shrinking (or at least not expanding) the PnP market.

It tries to go to this mythical "mainstream."

Mainstream board games? Strategy games with clear winners. Skill based games. Party games that are mostly about socializations. Almost no violence. D&D is a pretty violent game. (The death of Mr. Boddy is offscreen, and Risk is terribly abstract and stiill looked at as geekier than Monopoly.)

D&D incorporates elements of strategy, skill and socialization. Its just a matter of getting it 'out there' and letting people try.

Is violence going to be that big an issue if its targeted at 10+? I mean is it anymore violent than Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter?

Unless you alter the game enough to have a clear "winner" and no player (Including the GM) is ineligible to win, you have no shot to mainstream. Do you know how hard it is to get someone to play banker in Monopoly? Imagine if the banker couldn't WIN!

You can easily have rules for making the DM the 'Monster Player'. Its also easy to have a system in place to attribute EXP so you could have a 'clear winner'.

A "version" of D&D desigined to get mainstream sales will not be recognizable as DnD enough to keep the existing player network. This is the real value of the D&D brand.

Surely this would be covered with the Advanced Rulebook?

I am not attacking your root premise that WotC has a bit of a puzzle to solve about the next edition and keeping supplements rolling. However I simply cannot see how your proposed solution is viable, likely, or desirable.

Well I appreciate your feedback. As you acknowledge, WotC does have a puzzle on their hands.

I just can't see how else they can dig themselves out of it without trying a different approach.

 

[The Iron Mark]

I AM talking about a totally new rules set - thats why I suggest using the D&D Boardgame as the basis for comparison (even though I have a large number of improvements in mind).

I have never played the D&D Boardgame, or even heard of it outside of this thread. Could you perhaps give a short summary at what kind of rules changes we're looking at here? That might help people understand why you like it so much.

Just because you haven't used them in the past doesn't mean you can't for the future.

If I need them for a game in the future, then it will be at that point I will get some. I will not have my purchase be dictated to me by some marketing chump.

In the end, D&D is a Pencil/Pen & Paper RPG. You take either of those away, and it is no longer D&D in my eyes. What you propose is interesting certainly, it's just that it wouldn't be D&D to me.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey thedungeondelver!

I wish you'd learn to make the distinction that your opinons != "facts".

Thats why I put 'facts' in inverted commas, because those are the 'facts' as I see them.

You keep saying that this board-game you'd invent (or would have Hasbro/WotC invent) could be played by pen-and-paper folks without the boards, without the mats, without any of the accoutrements. Why, then, if it can, would you relegate role-players to having to buy your...good god are you really serious...thirty six boxed sets?!

I wouldn't be relegating them to do anything (In fact I would give away the rulebooks for free, or at least make them available for free download). I simply think that the sets are a far more attractive purchase. I don't expect people to buy all 36 sets anymore than you would expect people to buy every 3.5 supplement.

You've mentioned that you think that a 4th edition of the D&D rules would fractionalize the market and create divisions in the D&D game. You have yet to show how this idea of yours wouldn't.

Thats because I think (and have said) ANY idea will fragment gamers, even mine. Therefore the key is to win new gamers and to do that you need to enter the mainstream.

Two groups of people at a hobby shop, one is playing a game called D&D with no minis, no mats, no cards, none of that junk. One group is. This second group asks the first group what they're playing. The first group says "We're playing D&D." the second group says "Wait, no you're not. Where are the minis, the boards, the cards the counters?"

Which game looks the more attractive though (especially to casual gamers, new gamers, kids and families)? Which game can be easier explained?

You're saying that this 4th edition you propose somehow creates less fragmentation?

No I am not saying that at all, see above.

Less product confusion?

Depends on the marketing. Personally I wouldn't mind i this new product became the de facto Dungeons & Dragons, but some elitists probably would.

Dude, at the height of TSR's fortunes they had D&D and AD&D but both were very clearly pen-and-paper only RPGs. DUNGEON! wasn't even considered part of the greater whole except for a few one-off articles in THE STRATEGIC REVIEW.

...so what point are you making?

Creating a game that forces people to buy a bunch of stuff that you admit they don't have to use and that lots and lots and lots of people aren't going to want to use isn't going to generate profits, it's going to generate resentment.

If that was the case today then PnP RPG supplements wouldn't be lagging behind both cards and miniatures in terms of their slice of the fantasy gaming market (source = Ryan Dancey).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Iron Mask!

I have never played the D&D Boardgame, or even heard of it outside of this thread.

I'd never heard of it myself until a few weeks ago.

Could you perhaps give a short summary at what kind of rules changes we're looking at here? That might help people understand why you like it so much.

I can do better than that, the rules are available for free download (a bit like the SRD)...scroll down the page to where it says 'files' for the link.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/6366

They are very basic, but a good base, I have a number of ideas in mind which (I think) can really make a difference.

If I need them for a game in the future, then it will be at that point I will get some. I will not have my purchase be dictated to me by some marketing chump.

In the end, D&D is a Pencil/Pen & Paper RPG. You take either of those away, and it is no longer D&D in my eyes. What you propose is interesting certainly, it's just that it wouldn't be D&D to me.

Okay, so is an online version of D&D still D&D? If I play 3.5 D&D with miniatures and board tiles am I still playing D&D. I think people can have different experiences of D&D and still be playing D&D.

Talking to some people here about introducing minis as standard you would think I was asking them to knife a goat.

 

[thedungeondelver]

...so what point are you making?

When ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS was at its most popular, there was no reason - none - to dilute the product by trying to make it a board game. A company that could count four million plus people who played their game must've gotten something right.