First review of the new Red Box

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, I am interested to see what kinds of retail outlets they can get this product in.

As far as durability goes, I lost my Mentzer set a long time ago but still have a Holmes box and about 5 Moldvay boxes of various printings to compare box/ paper quality with.

As far as the intro adventure is concerned, it is quite amusing. Cast a spell at the goblins?
Wouldn't this mean that you are a wizard already?

 

[Reynard]

Paizo is a move? Like in: I just did a wicked Paizo!

Argh! Stupid auto-correct!

/leaving the error for posterity.

 

[Wycen]

I disagree...otherwise why did they use that cover design? I'm probably going to pick up a copy just because it tickles my nostalgia gland so very much. Red box BECMI was my intro to D&D. I get a special little feeling inside when I see that box.

I suppose collectors might want it as well, but that doesn't negate the idea the product's content is not geared for anyone who is reading this. In my not humble opinion.

 

[JohnSnow]

As far as the intro adventure is concerned, it is quite amusing. Cast a spell at the goblins?
Wouldn't this mean that you are a wizard already?

They describe the attack and then ask, roughly: "What do you see your character doing in this situation?"

How you answer that question helps you form your character concept. It's the one thing that may actually be, dare I say it, BETTER than the Mentzer set. Back then, they just said: "So, you're a fighter..." and went from there.

"Come up with a character concept" can be an intimidating thing for a brand new player. This boils that down into a series of smaller choices. That first choice nails class. Then they slowly explain the mechanics of the game and build your character at the same time as the adventure progresses (on stats: Mentzer's sample fighter had a 17 Str...). I assume there are also more standard character creation rules later in the book, but i don't know for sure. The running adventure also introduces you to the flow of play probably better than does the old standby of a sample dialogue between 3 players and a DM (i.e. Dragon Age). That would make way more sense AFTER you played the solo adventure.

 

[BryonD]

"Come up with a character concept" can be an intimidating thing for a brand new player.

I really cannot relate to this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. But it is one of those statements that stuns me for a moment and then I am forced to re-remind myself that a lot of people simply play a very wildly different game than I do.

When I was a "brand new player" the flood of character concepts bashing around in my mind was incredible. The idea of worrying about how the game mechanics reflected that character was really not in my thoughts.

It is about "play pretend". If you have to have any remote concern about builds, far far less feel anything that could possibly be called "intimidation" then the game is failing to be sufficiently invisible to the "play pretend". I certainly understand that some people get much, if not most, of their fun from the "game" side, and that makes quality effectiveness choices important. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, it is a different kind of game.

And, as an old hat now, I certainly appreciate the merits of balance between PCs and max/mining for fun, blah, blah, blah. But these are a secondary fun, well below the pure "pretend". And I've played with two fairly new players recently, and both times we dispensed with all concerns of the rules and started by just finding out what character they thought was cool. The selection of character concept was complete before the difference between 3E or 4E or GURPS or Heroes, or whatever, even became a consideration. And there sure as hell was nothing remotely "intimidating" to either of them. What could possibly be intimidating about: "Tell me what fantasy character sounds cool to you?".

Then we banged out a character to match their preference and started playing.

Intimidation comes from the possibility, and concern, of making an inferior choice in context of the rules of the game. Character concept should have nothing to do with anything between the covers of a book.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The starting adventure reminds me of a less sophisticated Oblivion start, that was quite cool in the dungeon escape. You tried stealth and spells and combat for learning. Then, with what you used for the rest of the dungeon, gave you a class rec. i.e. it wasn't based on just one decision. But it is still a good idea.

As to where they are available, it is really really hard to find more than a literal handful of DnD books in bookstores in NZ. Even the biggest in the capital may only have 20 or so of all types of RPG. When I got the BECMI and later 1E and 2E books as a kid/teen I got them all at our small local bookstore which, at the time, had more RPG books than the huge book stores of Wellington have now. Today it has none at all and haven't for 10 or so years.

If the entire range of essentials is available at one store that would be great. No good for new players who go to a store to see PHB2, demonicon and FR players guide as their DnD choices!

 

[Hussar]

This looks like a great starter product. Something that you could give to a group of 10 to 12year olds, and they could start playing at a birthday party or something.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I really cannot relate to this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. But it is one of those statements that stuns me for a moment and then I am forced to re-remind myself that a lot of people simply play a very wildly different game than I do.

When I was a "brand new player" the flood of character concepts bashing around in my mind was incredible. The idea of worrying about how the game mechanics reflected that character was really not in my thoughts.

It is about "play pretend". If you have to have any remote concern about builds, far far less feel anything that could possibly be called "intimidation" then the game is failing to be sufficiently invisible to the "play pretend". I certainly understand that some people get much, if not most, of their fun from the "game" side, and that makes quality effectiveness choices important. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, it is a different kind of game.

And, as an old hat now, I certainly appreciate the merits of balance between PCs and max/mining for fun, blah, blah, blah. But these are a secondary fun, well below the pure "pretend". And I've played with two fairly new players recently, and both times we dispensed with all concerns of the rules and started by just finding out what character they thought was cool. The selection of character concept was complete before the difference between 3E or 4E or GURPS or Heroes, or whatever, even became a consideration. And there sure as hell was nothing remotely "intimidating" to either of them. What could possibly be intimidating about: "Tell me what fantasy character sounds cool to you?".

Then we banged out a character to match their preference and started playing.

Intimidation comes from the possibility, and concern, of making an inferior choice in context of the rules of the game. Character concept should have nothing to do with anything between the covers of a book.

I understand you perfectly, but there are a lot of other people, who are a bit intimidated by the actual roleplaying part, having learned during childhood that playing pretend is "silly" and that games are "played to win".

My wife was one such person, when she made her first character, at first she kept asking what was the "best" class or race or feat for her character and she felt really intimidated when it came to roleplaying her character. She only really enjoyed the combats, where her natural tactical mindset and competitiveness was rewarded.

She eventually loosened up and started to enjoy the game for what it is, but for a while she was the "watcher" and "slayer" types of player described in the 4E DMG and it took some effort from the rest of the gaming group to help her break her shell...

She is now much more comfortable with herself and her characters (her current one is "Barbie the Barbarian", a Thane Barb with high CHA and skimpy clothing)

So yeah, people come to the same destination following different roads

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I really cannot relate to this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. But it is one of those statements that stuns me for a moment and then I am forced to re-remind myself that a lot of people simply play a very wildly different game than I do.

When I was a "brand new player" the flood of character concepts bashing around in my mind was incredible. The idea of worrying about how the game mechanics reflected that character was really not in my thoughts.

It is about "play pretend". If you have to have any remote concern about builds, far far less feel anything that could possibly be called "intimidation" then the game is failing to be sufficiently invisible to the "play pretend". I certainly understand that some people get much, if not most, of their fun from the "game" side, and that makes quality effectiveness choices important. And there is nothing wrong with that. But, it is a different kind of game.

And, as an old hat now, I certainly appreciate the merits of balance between PCs and max/mining for fun, blah, blah, blah. But these are a secondary fun, well below the pure "pretend". And I've played with two fairly new players recently, and both times we dispensed with all concerns of the rules and started by just finding out what character they thought was cool. The selection of character concept was complete before the difference between 3E or 4E or GURPS or Heroes, or whatever, even became a consideration. And there sure as hell was nothing remotely "intimidating" to either of them. What could possibly be intimidating about: "Tell me what fantasy character sounds cool to you?".

Then we banged out a character to match their preference and started playing.

Intimidation comes from the possibility, and concern, of making an inferior choice in context of the rules of the game. Character concept should have nothing to do with anything between the covers of a book.

Yet there are people out there, uncouth simple people, who are not blobs swelling with boundless creativity and who need a little help to get into the game. People who don´t have an experienced DM at their sides. People who, hopefully, buy this box.

But i´m impressed that you could sneak in a minmax bash and a "back then, we did it like it should be done" at the same time.


EDIT: And i want to show what i mean with the above by telling about US, who we were, when we started to game.

Character concepts?
I tell you about them:
- The guy from Robin of Sherwood with the two curved swords on his back. Called Nazir Deathhand.
- Gandalf who shoots lazers from his eyes (mind the z).
- Pretty much everybody from Beastmaster I.
- Everybody on a Maiden or Boltthrower cover who held any kind of weapon.
- The guy from Ladyhawk, only with more crossbows.

We put every interesting weapon, monster and location we found in films, comics and from tv into our games. We listened to Agent Orange and Tankard during combat. Shouting swearwords at enemies could net you bonuses to hit from the DM. We pounded our fists at the table when no orcs popped up in 10 minutes. And we played until we fell asleep. The music continued to play all night. When we woke up, we finished the combat and made us some breakfast.

Believe me, our characters concepts AND game concepts could´ve used some handholding.

 

[parvatiquinta]

They stated explicitly in the review that none of the three had ever played D&D prior to 3.5e. They are definitely not "old-school" players.

Oh thanks for pointing this out, I had misheard that bit. Now their feeling of wonder makes more sense. Still they didn't compare this with the 4E starter box published in 2008 either - but frankly I see this video as more of a presentation than a review.

I started playing with the original Red Box and it'll always be special for me. I'm not disappointed though at seeing how the new one is basically the same, only with the rules of the edition currently on the shelves(1).

They had it right in the 80s. Not just TSR, there were many introductory RPGs about. No wonder it was something of a golden age for RPGs. Taking a step back from the age of thick books only is a smart move IMHO.


(1) well, with some tweaks. I'll have to test it for myself to see whether they really are simpler.