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

[Upper_Krust]

Hey c_d mate!

Hm. Six, six and ... six?

Devilish isn't it.

I still haven't see a convincing and detailed argument for how your game would appeal to those markets. And here's my arguments against each of them :

Collectors - RPG collectors from what I've seen (and I am one) collect books primarily - collecting boxed sets as you've suggested you do? It doesn't happen and I don't think the interest would be there.

I meant Collectors more primarily in terms of miniatures collectors...and miniatures are eminently more collectible item than books. I don't know anyone who "collects" books"* for the sake of collecting them, but I know lots of people collect minis for that reason.

*Not saying there aren't any, just that they are fewer and further between.

Card gamers - D&D already exists as a card game - it's called Munchkin, by SJGames I don't think, based on the card gamers I've known and the games I've played in, that your proposed model would attract any. The cards aren't the core mechanic in your 'board-game', they're supplemental and utility devices to support the core of the game.

Thats true, cards are a utility device in my game, but card gamers will still see the game in action uses cards as a sense of familiarity.

Miniature gamers - like to paint their own miniatures.

Not necessarily. I think if you give them the option it would be more 50/50. Of those 50% who would prefer unpainted they can of course paint over or remove the paint and re-paint them.

Most of one of my gaming groups are miniature gamers as much (if not more) as they are roleplayers. When we use miniatures in that group, we use miniatures they've handpainted. That's part of what they enjoy about the hobby.

I accept that but until recently you couldn't really get pre-painted minis, so its a fairly new trend. Unpainted minis are great if you have a lot of free time.

Boardgamers - someone gave a good argument above about the reality of the boardgames market - the hobbyists might pick up a copy of the first box, but even Settlers didn't have as many suppliments as you're suggesting, when there are other games they can acquire that only require the purchase of one game (and your argument is predicated on selling more than the base product I'd point out).

I think if you look at the game which closely parallels what I propose, HeroQuest, we can see it spawned seven expansion sets and two sequels: Advanced Heroquest, which itself had an expansion set and Warhammer Quest.

So I find it unlikely that boardgamers wouldn't accept the format.

The Mainstream - there's a lot of competition (computer games for example that CAN provide what we only had imagination for in the 20th century), and Dungeons and Dragons while it has brand value AMONG roleplayers, has a fair amount of baggage and stigma AMONG the mainstream.

Agreed. So I suggested a slightly different approach: Dungeons & Pirates, Dungeons & Dinosaurs...but that idea was shot down.

You can still have the D&D Logo on something without overtly blazoning it upon the product. Look at Forgotten Realms products for instance.

You're suggesting disguising a roleplaying game as a boardgame to make it appeal to the mass market - but I know I don't like to buy something and then find out it's actually something other than what I thought I was buying, and no surprises, other folk feel exactly the same way.

But the beauty of it is that it still operates as a boardgame AS WELL AS a roleplaying game. So that points irrelevant.

And as for the market that already exists - the poll results should speak for that quite clearly - this may appeal to a small section of the market, but for the majority of us, this is not what we want.

Well it tells us that 25% of 3.5 gamers would play it, probably more once they see it in action.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey carmachu!

Yes, yes it is a mistake. Games workshop went that route and its not working for them very well. Its pissed off the veteran players who use to be the life blood of the game.

You need new players, always....but pissing off your established base is never a good thing.

Out of curiousity what is this paradigm shift Games Workshop made that pissed off gamers? I haven't really been keeping up with Warhammer for the past ten years or so.

Thanks.

 

[thedungeondelver]

But the beauty of it is that it still operates as a boardgame AS WELL AS a roleplaying game. So that points irrelevant.

It wouldn't do either job well, and the evidence is in your pitch: RPG gamers won't buy the game because they'll have to get the associated baggage (cards, tiles, miniatures) with it and with added cost. If it's beefy enough to appeal to RPG'ers, then the cost for the base game will be exhorbitantly high: a gamer will have to buy a very, very expensive boardgame to get his core rules. You've already set that up.

Board-gamers will have to buy something that's very, very expensive that they don't want (the core 4.0 rules) along with their boardgame.

Your solution is of course to make it rules light and despite the perjoratives you like to sling around about folks who play RPGs (few if any have I ever met who were the "elitists" or "snobs" you tar folks as being), rules light with heavy emphasis on boardgames, CCGs and CMGs are not what people want.

If you were suggesting that people want an all-in-one (or -two) boxed set like the Cook/Moldvay BASIC D&D rulesets and throw in a few tchotchkes like some generic minis and dungeon tiles, that'd be one thing, but forcing RPGers to become board-gamers because...well I've been over your arguments and I still can't figure out why you're so hell-bent on the idea...won't work. It. Won't. Work. People posting in the thread have told you why, they've told you the only reason that matters why: because they won't buy it! Your responses to folks who've said this time and again is "Well I don't see anyone offering any arguments as to why my idea won't work". Dude, listen to me here:

You have pitched this notion to a group of people and said "accept my idea". This particular group, you have pitched it to. Right here. On this web-board. The overwhelming majority of people have said in no uncertain terms that your idea turns them off. We're the only market sample data you have thus far. If you pointed at a poll in DRAGON or DUNGEON or TOY FAIR or WIZARDS or an "industry" publication and sais "Aha, but over eleventy-hojillion people interviewed here do think that the D&D BOARDGAME is a good idea!", I'd be inclined to STFU and leave it alone, myself.

But that's not what you've done. You keep insisting that the nearly 80% of people rejecting this idea in some fashion have wrong opinions. Now remember, we're the ones you're pitching it to. Doesn't it ... say something to you that the people you're trying to convince with winning arguments like "elitists" and "you can't come up with anything better" are turning their noses up at the idea?

Let me frame this in another way: I don't like 3.5e. I don't like 3e. Hell, I don't like second edition AD&D and I'm not real crazy about UNEARTHED ARCANA and everything on the downslope after that. I've wasted enough electrons to light New York City railing on about WotC but it doesn't change one fundamental fact: 90% of folks prefer things the way they are. I can't change that. But one thing I know for sure is that if eighty percent of people had responded to WotC's market research and said "What we really want is, quite frankly, a return to ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 1st edition. As written. And bring back the old cover art, too." then that's what WotC would have done.

So here's where we're hitting the snag, I think, you and myself and everyone else...You're pitching an idea here that nobody likes. It isn't something they'd enjoy. It isn't something I'd enjoy - I tried 3e. I tried 3.5. I didn't sit in the corner flinging poo without ever giving the thing a chance. But I'll tell you something straight up: D&D gets turned into a board game, like you're suggesting, I won't even touch the box on the shelf.

And just so we're clear on something, I don't have a problem with you, I don't dislike you, I think you're really being sincere about this but you're just going in circles and at the end of the day you're not listening to the people you're taking the idea to in the first place and where's that gonna get you?

Anyway I'm done with this one. Best of luck though!

 

[VictorC]

Well it tells us that 25% of 3.5 gamers would play it, probably more once they see it in action.

You’re delusional

 

[JVisgaitis]

Holy cow, are we still on this topic? Sheesh! I thought it would have came to agree to disagree long ago.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey replicant2!

I'm seeing this as a big problem... for $90 you get 3 core rulebooks and 800-900 pages of rules, magic items, creatures, etc. A much better value IMO.

I think thats debateable, but remember also that the core rulebooks are intentionally priced lower than normal supplements of the same page count. So I suppose you could conceivably use the same sales tactic with the first few boxed sets.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey AaronL!

Rather, I think that what would happen is collectible card gamers would take a look at the game and say "This isn't a collectible card game" and not like it, roleplaying gamers would definately take one look at the game and say "this isn't a roleplayng game" and not like it at all, and mainstream boardgamers would take a look at it and say "this is too complicated for a board game" and not like it.

I am sure some would, but at the same time I think a significant number will give it a try.

It would be trying to be too many things at once, sacrificing far too much character creation and roleplaying to be a roleplaying game,

I don't really see it sacrificing that much character creation, unless of course we are talking about the interminable minutiae of skills in 3E.

I also don't see how its sacrificing any roleplaying, unless you are saying people who play D&D with minis and board tiles are also sacrificing roleplaying...?

sacrificing too much of the mathematical combinations aspect to be a CCG,

I'm not making a CCG. Just a game that uses cards as a utility.

and mixing in too many outside things to be a successful board game,

That doesn't make sense, on the surface it won't look that much dissimilar to the like of HeroQuest and Descent...and those boardgames seem to be popular.

and at the same time it would be severely pissing off and alienating the existing RPGers who want to actually roleplay.

Why do they feel alienated? Play or don't play.

Mainstream people aren't going to be any more interested in D&D just because it's some boardgame/card game hybrid. To them it will still be that weird and geeky game that only nerds play, no matter what the rules are.

I disagree. If its available through mainstream outlets then it gets more exposure. If its a far more visceral product then it appeals to kids, and if its easily demonstrable it will appeal to parents wanting to buy something for their kids.

I know that if I want to play a board game, I will play a board game. When I want to play a roleplaying game (which I want to do far more often than I want to play a board game) I play a roleplaying game. I do not want to sacrifice the majority of the reasons I play RPGs instead of board games for some esoteric idea of "getting more playing done."

Take a look in one of the other 4E threads doing the rounds at the moment. So many people have commented they want simpler rules and rules that are easier to create for that its frightening!

I think this might be the problem with your idea that you don't see. To me and everyone I have ever gamed with, character creation, management, and bookkeeping are almost as much an enjoyable part of RPGs as rolling dice and killing monsters, and I think that you'll find that to be a not uncommon attitude. This must not be the case for you, I guess, but you have to realize that while what you are describing may be a more enjoyable game for you, it's stripping away almost everything that the majority of us find enjoyable about RPGs as opposed to board games.

They do say 'old habits die hard', but I don't really see it stripping away that much to be honest.

Ive asked everyone I game with or know who games, and shown them your proposal, and not a single one of them has any interest in playing the kind of game you've described. This is 15 people. This tells me I am not alone in my aversion to a new edition of D&D being a board game/card game hybrid, even beyond what th poll here says.

Maybe you explained it wrong...you seem to think I am suggesting a card game hybrid.

And, as I said before, not matter what you do with the rules, to the mainstream masses D&D will be D&D no matter if it uses cards and a board or computers and laser pens. Hell, most of my friends who don;t game already think that D&D uses a board like Monopoly.

Well give me a few years and I'll have them playing a Forgotten Realms edition of Monopoly.

...pass Waterdeep you collect 200 GP.

So, maybe you'd be attracting a small percentage of existing casual gamers who don't want to be bothered with learning the rules to an actual real RPG or doing character upkeep or making choices, but at the same time you will be alienating the vast majority of existing gamers, but what you won't be doing is attracting new gamers from mainstream society, because mainstream non-gamers don't give a flying fig what the rules for D&D are like, it's still always going to be D&D to them.

When you try to make something do too many things at once, you almost always end up doing none of them well.

Well firstly, we are not trying to be a card game. Secondly I don't really think there is a massive distinction between a boardgame and a roleplaying game when you consider how widely D&D already integrates minis and board tiles into the game.

 

[llamatron2000]

jesus. this topic needs to be closed already or something. I like the idea, but now that I think about it, I think its a bad idea. Too cost-prohibitive.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey tdd!

It wouldn't do either job well, and the evidence is in your pitch: RPG gamers won't buy the game because they'll have to get the associated baggage (cards, tiles, miniatures) with it and with added cost.

Are these the same RPG gamers who go out of their way to use D&D minis and Dungeon Tiles?

If it's beefy enough to appeal to RPG'ers, then the cost for the base game will be exhorbitantly high: a gamer will have to buy a very, very expensive boardgame to get his core rules. You've already set that up.

I already explained the costs - its cheaper than 3 core rulebooks.

Board-gamers will have to buy something that's very, very expensive that they don't want (the core 4.0 rules) along with their boardgame.

This is rules lite D&D - its not like I'm packaging a core rulebook in every set.

The D&D Board Game Rule book is 12 half sized pages. While I'd be adding somewhat to that, it wouldn't be ridiculously so.

Your solution is of course to make it rules light and despite the perjoratives you like to sling around about folks who play RPGs (few if any have I ever met who were the "elitists" or "snobs" you tar folks as being), rules light with heavy emphasis on boardgames, CCGs and CMGs are not what people want.

It uses cards for utility purposes. Thats not a CCG.

If you were suggesting that people want an all-in-one (or -two) boxed set like the Cook/Moldvay BASIC D&D rulesets and throw in a few tchotchkes like some generic minis and dungeon tiles, that'd be one thing, but forcing RPGers to become board-gamers because...well I've been over your arguments and I still can't figure out why you're so hell-bent on the idea...won't work. It. Won't. Work. People posting in the thread have told you why, they've told you the only reason that matters why: because they won't buy it! Your responses to folks who've said this time and again is "Well I don't see anyone offering any arguments as to why my idea won't work". Dude, listen to me here:

I just don't see a PnP 4E working past the core rulebooks. So I thought I would suggest an alternative.

You have pitched this notion to a group of people and said "accept my idea". This particular group, you have pitched it to. Right here. On this web-board. The overwhelming majority of people have said in no uncertain terms that your idea turns them off. We're the only market sample data you have thus far. If you pointed at a poll in DRAGON or DUNGEON or TOY FAIR or WIZARDS or an "industry" publication and sais "Aha, but over eleventy-hojillion people interviewed here do think that the D&D BOARDGAME is a good idea!", I'd be inclined to STFU and leave it alone, myself.

Depends on two things.

1. (Assuming you are WotC) How can we make 3/3.5 roleplayers buy a something new because 3.5 titles are drying up...will the exact same business model work again? If not, what else can we try?
2. (Assuming we try something akin to my idea) Are existing roleplayers the biggest percentage of the market we are aiming for?

An interesting thread/poll might be, "Will you buy 4th Edition?" (Yes/Maybe ~ I'll wait and see/No ~ Happy with 3.5)

But that's not what you've done. You keep insisting that the nearly 80% of people rejecting this idea in some fashion have wrong opinions. Now remember, we're the ones you're pitching it to. Doesn't it ... say something to you that the people you're trying to convince with winning arguments like "elitists" and "you can't come up with anything better" are turning their noses up at the idea?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, I just like it clarified when people say they will never play this game but don't give a reason beyond 'because I say so'.

Let me frame this in another way: I don't like 3.5e. I don't like 3e. Hell, I don't like second edition AD&D and I'm not real crazy about UNEARTHED ARCANA and everything on the downslope after that. I've wasted enough electrons to light New York City railing on about WotC but it doesn't change one fundamental fact: 90% of folks prefer things the way they are. I can't change that. But one thing I know for sure is that if eighty percent of people had responded to WotC's market research and said "What we really want is, quite frankly, a return to ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 1st edition. As written. And bring back the old cover art, too." then that's what WotC would have done.

I think 3.5 initially seemed like the promised land, but it really is heavy on the set up and rules intensive. Go read posts in the What would you like to see in 4E thread.

So here's where we're hitting the snag, I think, you and myself and everyone else...You're pitching an idea here that nobody likes. It isn't something they'd enjoy. It isn't something I'd enjoy - I tried 3e. I tried 3.5. I didn't sit in the corner flinging poo without ever giving the thing a chance. But I'll tell you something straight up: D&D gets turned into a board game, like you're suggesting, I won't even touch the box on the shelf.

...so what would be your definition of an elitist then, because that last quote is pretty much textbook.

And just so we're clear on something, I don't have a problem with you, I don't dislike you, I think you're really being sincere about this but you're just going in circles and at the end of the day you're not listening to the people you're taking the idea to in the first place and where's that gonna get you?

I do think the thread has run its course, if any moderators are listening feel free to shut it down at your leisure.

Anyway I'm done with this one. Best of luck though!

I appreciate the feedback!

 

[cthulhu_duck]

UK, please don't refer to me as 'mate' when you've already referred to me as an 'elite gamer'.

I meant Collectors more primarily in terms of miniatures collectors...and miniatures are eminently more collectible item than books. I don't know anyone who "collects" books"* for the sake of collecting them, but I know lots of people collect minis for that reason.

Of the gamers I know, the collectors among them collect both rpg books and miniatures. The miniature collectors, if we just address that group, collect and PAINT their miniatures for use in tabletop wargaming.

Your product won't appeal to them based on previous products (Heroclix, D&D miniatures, etc). They enjoy the painting as much as any other part of the hobby - and they won't repaint prepainted miniatures - if you think they will, show us the evidence.

I think Aaron L hit a problem squarely on the head above - you may not enjoy the bookkeeping and prepwork, but other people do. In a similar fashion, you may enjoy miniatures and tiles, but other people don't.

Some tabletop rpg gamers choose to integrate miniatures into their game - but a lot don't based on my experiences. A smaller chunk of the miniatures using group use tiles. A few folk have even found that cards can help with making the existing rules of the game easier to use.

D&D allows for integration of miniatures and tiles and cards. - but it doesn't require it. The option there is the reason why it's successful - since it doesn't force people to use something they don't want to use, or can't afford to it.

If I was to compare D&D played with miniatures (DDM, optional), tiles (D&D, optional) and cards (paizo etc, optional) with what you're proposing?

I'd keep my existing D&D. With the miniatures, tiles and cards I already use when necessary, and depending on the group I'm playing with and their personal preferences.