Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

[Nisarg]

Here's what I've gathered on it so far:

http://www.3rdedition.org/merricb/basicset.htm

Cheers!

hmm, it looks like rather than actually providing a complete game, with simplified versions of the rules, they're just giving the same rules as standard 3.5 but only up to level 2.

That's totally the wrong way to go.. people need an EASIER version of D20, not an ultra-limited version of D&D that will feel like a rip-off with a couple of "how to play Rpgs" essays tacked on.

I mean hell, even the D&D basic set went to level 3!

what were they thinking???

Nisarg

 

[Corinth]

what were they thinking???

They were thinking of using the Basic Set as an easy lead-in product to point people to buying the PHB.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Hmmm.

I think "Introductory" or "Starter" would have been better than "Basic", but WotC marketing stopped returning my calls long ago and have taken to issuing restraining orders, so I wasn't exactly consulted.

 

[MerricB]

Consider that the original Basic set was the first three levels and then pointed people to AD&D.

Personally, I think the idea of creating an entirely different product line is something that should be avoided at all costs.

Cheers!

 

[William Ronald]

Consider that the original Basic set was the first three levels and then pointed people to AD&D.

Personally, I think the idea of creating an entirely different product line is something that should be avoided at all costs.

Cheers!

MerricB, I seem to recall that having both the Dungeons and Dragons line and the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons line tended to divide TSR's resources, and maybe confuse casual gamers.

Now, a separate one shot product that leads to other RPGs might work. (The new basic set could work, or possibly something with elements of an RPG and a more familiar type of game -- such as board games.) It might also be good to have an introductory product with some character creation rules but with pregenerated characters as well.

 

[Nisarg]

Consider that the original Basic set was the first three levels and then pointed people to AD&D.

Personally, I think the idea of creating an entirely different product line is something that should be avoided at all costs.

Cheers!

But the ONLY "basic" D&D version that ever worked was the D&D basic set, because it was a complete rules-set by itself.

With what WoTC is proposing now, the risk is that the buyer will feel its a "rip off". First of all, the price is what, $24.95? That's not enough of a savings from the $30 the PHB costs to make it worthwhile, especially if in a week and a half they already have to buy the PHB anyways because they're at level 2.

Second, the reason (besides price) that the PHB itself is a bad "introductory" book is because the D&D 3.5 rules are far too complex as they stand. What they need to do is not a seperate system altogether, but a vastly simplified system: no feats (except completely rigid and set feats as class bonuses), probably no skills (skill "checks" made on a basic roll of the appropriate attribute bonus + level), probably just the four basic classes, no prestige classes, probably no multiclassing. Everything very basic, very archetypical, letting the gamer learn all the skills he needs to then eventually jump to regular D&D, but without having to make any complex calculations or hard choices. The sort of thing where he could roll up the six stats, pick a class, and be ready to go because all the classes start exactly the same.

As for levels, it should let you get to something like 5th at least. Something where a kid who doesn't have a lot of money could get a LOT of mileage out of playing the game without having to buy anything else.

The goal of something like a D&D basic set is NOT to make money in and of itself (though it shouldn't be designed to lose money either), it should not even be intended to make its money back by having people buy the PHB a month or two months later. The goal is to make back its money by creating people satisfied with the roleplaying experience so that they will be gamers for life. You need to make their experience as easy as possible, and give them as much bang for their buck as possible.

Nisarg

 

[pogre]

With what WoTC is proposing now, the risk is that the buyer will feel its a "rip off". First of all, the price is what, $24.95? That's not enough of a savings from the $30 the PHB costs to make it worthwhile, especially if in a week and a half they already have to buy the PHB anyways because they're at level 2.
Nisarg

The original basic - blue cover sold for $10.00. At the time the new Advanced D&D Player's Handbook was selling for $12.00. The original basic did go to third level though.

 

[Nisarg]

The original basic - blue cover sold for $10.00. At the time the new Advanced D&D Player's Handbook was selling for $12.00. The original basic did go to third level though.

Hmm. Point taken.

Ultimately, more important than if it goes to 2nd, 3rd or 5th level is the question of whether WoTC will be able to sell the basic set in Toys R Us or Sears. If it can, then we may see a huge gain of fan base. If it can't, then I suspect this basic set will make little difference in the gaming hobby.

Nisarg

 

[BiggusGeekus]

fyi

What cost $10 in 1980 would cost $24.17 in 2003.
What cost $12 in 1980 would cost $29.01 in 2003.

source: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

 

[buzz]

What they need to do is not a seperate system altogether, but a vastly simplified system: no feats (except completely rigid and set feats as class bonuses), probably no skills (skill "checks" made on a basic roll of the appropriate attribute bonus + level), probably just the four basic classes, no prestige classes, probably no multiclassing.

This is effectively what the new Basic set is, but without making the incredible mistake of creating a whole separate game. The Basic set presents players with a limited menu of options to use with a set of pregenerated PCs while still being essentially 3e D&D. This is good, because *options confuse newbies*. This also very close to what the original blue-book Basic set was back in 1977.

Then, once they move on to full-on D&D, they will have passing familiarity with the basic components of the system, rather than having to be taught a whole new way of doing this ("Feats? What are those?").

The core of d20's D&D is, IMHO, pretty simple. Your class defines your role. Your abilities tell you who you are. Your skills define what you know. Your feats are unique powers. I don't see any need to make a special, even simpler version of it specially for newbies.

The new Basic set will be good. I only hpoe that we'll see it grace the shelves of Toys R' Us.