Forked Thread: should wotc make a board/minis game to market in toy stores?

[SteveC]

Is it worth it? It does look decent, but somewhat simplistic...is Descent better?

It is quite simplistic, designed more for a younger audience, but it has most of the features I was looking for, and good components. Descent is a better game (especially with all the expansions) but it is also quite a bit more complex, to the point of perhaps being too complex when you work everything in. If you're playing with younger people or casual gamers, the D&D boardgame is a better choice.

If I could add one more game into the mix, I'd make it Prophesy. Prophesy is a game that can be best described as Talisman designed by someone who had played a lot of Euro-games. Prophesy has some very neat features, including a series of skills that available for characters to learn (basically talents/feats) from trainers where you pick from a set. I liked this game's model for character development very much.

Put these features together and I'd be onboard with the fury of, well, a nerd who has considerable disposable income.

--Steve

 

[jephlewis]

...So as for the 4E starter set and Keep on the Shadowfell, they did not entice me to start buying new books. But I hardly speak for the entire gaming population...plenty of people love the new edition. I think the new product line alone is good enough at introducing new people to the game.
If it isn't, then WotC would need to rebuild the game, not dress it in different clothes.

The three core books retail for $105.00 and contain a total of 800 plus pages. This hypothetical 4E board game does not simply 'dress it in different clothes', but rather puts out a 'barely clothed' version with regards to rules, as well as a reduced price point.

Quite a few people I know who have never gamed have expressed concern at how many rules they'd have to learn in order to play once I told them about the three core rule books. When I explained that most of it wasn't 'absolutely needed' to learn the game, they got excited again.
Their reaction is part of the reason I think that the 4E starter set is a move in the right direction; another reason being the dungeon tiles and cardboard counters [that's why I bought three starter sets].

At this point, I began to ponder to myself, "self, how can wotc improve on the desgin and the goal of the 4E starter set?".
Please note, this is just what I think would help sell D&D to more people...

1. Quick start rules are a must; the pre gens with pre selected powers are ideal. In the beginning, you'd want the customer to play the game as much as possible without having to learn 'what stacks with what' or how to optimize.
2. Short, to the point adventures tie in with point 1; the buyer doesn't need to learn how to build encounters just yet because there are some already done.
3. Multiple physical elements or 'fiddly bits'; the tiles, minis, and cards are all in this set to aid in getting a grasp of how the game works quicker, and they're 'neat'

So, I think that this hypothetical board game would:
Be 'built from' already made components for the rpg [quick start rules, dungeon tiles, minis, cards]
Make 4E easier and quicker to learn [introduce people to 4E D&D]
Sell 4E in toy stores wal mart, kmart, target, etc...
Grow the gamer base [more players and DM's] by selling it in toy stores
Make the game something that established gamers want for themselves
Advertise the books in the board game
Accept the same accessories from the rpg line as newer ones come out

Which of these would the board game accomplish? Which of these would it fail to accomplish? To what degree? Is there a better way? Is there a LESS EXPENSIVE way?

Perhaps it could be like Runebound, but when you go the an area/dungeon the game switches to a secondary map/tiles like D&D. Then you could release "adventure mods" to add to the game. Have rules that are similar to 4E but streamlined for board game play and plug the RPG for the "Full Experience!"

Never played runebound, but YES! How would you personally streamline 4E rules to achieve this?

They could use a setting map (FR, Eberon perhaps) and have tiles from the sets already produced for the dungeons. The dungeons are described in a booklet with rules to make additional ones or even random...
Just thinking out loud... or online as it were...
*I'd link to Runeboud, but BGG is down

So, would you buy something like this? Do you think wotc could get new pnp gamers from something like this? Do you think it would sell in toy stores?

It could be done.
But it couldn't just be an introductory box with a bunch of 3d pieces in it, like some people seem to want. That wouldn't fly. How would that expand the market?

1. Selling it in toy stores; wotc could reach a whole lot of people if their product was in target, kmart, wal mart, etc...
2. quicker and faster, rules light intro to 4E for new people; because 800 pages of rules can be intimidating to some people.
What do you think wotc should do to expand the 4E pnp rpg market?

My personal preference would be for something very simplified- characters that could fit on a single card, some way to upgrade them over time, etc. Then expansions could be released that included a playing piece and a new card, enabling people to play new character types. That would satisfy the all important need to include almost every character archetype in D&D.

1. Very simplified, yes; i'm right there with ya. I think the 4E starter was a good move by wotc.
2. character on a single card; I think this would be a good idea too; counters could be used to track hit points, defenses, etc, so upgrading would be a matter of having 'two silver shields' on top of your AC defense score to note that your AC is now 30. How do you envision a single card character and upgrading it?
3. I think an expansion that offered multiple cards and minis would sell better; i.e. instead of just the barbarian, wotc had a 'primal' expansion that contained ALL the primal heroes, some primal monsters/villains, primal quests [the aztec temple, the feywild cave], primal minis, and primal power/trap/monster/event cards. Heck, what about 'the isle of dread primal expansion pack'?

I am still confused as to why WotC never brought this to North America. It is freaking expensive to get shipped here.

You and me both!

Had I the money, I'd be all over Descent: Journeys into the Dark.

I've got descent, and I bought it JUST FOR the pieces to use in D&D. The fact that it's a whole board game by itself is just gravy.
That being said, one of the things I DIDN'T like about it was lack of 3d scenery; I want 3d treasure chests and the like to 'dress up' the map. But it is indeed a mighty fine product.

Given that, if there was a D&D-specific game that came along and did for D&D what say Heavy Gear Blitz did for Heavy Gear, then I'd be all over that.

Not familiar with either, can you explain?

I swear, the D&D 3e set that came with minis and Dungeon Tiles was SOOOOOO close to being really good. They need to make the "Basic Sets" play smoother as their own game (like the Red Box) AND as a lead in to the more Advanced rules, but also include things that rock for both types of players. The Red Box adventure was also a key point...no low-level adventure or -- especially -- any "single player" adventure has ever come close to that.

The 'red box' I bought was in 1987 and had the 'elmore red dragon facing off against a warrior in blue', so I think the one you're referring to was from an earlier time. I think the adventure you're talking about is 'keep on the borderlands'?

There were TWO 3.x 'basic sets'; one with a black dragon [I got a few of those], and one with a blue dragon [don't have it].
I gave one of the 'black dragon' basic sets to a friend for christmas in 2007, and him and his wife played it and liked it. They had never played D&D before, and I didn't run my friend through a sample game or anything; he did it all by himself.

I do agree wotc would have to make this board game stand on it's own AND be compatible with 4E stuff to drop in. Even if someone bought the board game, but didn't buy the core rules, they should be able to buy martial power and use the book for the board game. Selling a pnp rpg book supplement to a board game customer would be the ulitmate epic win for wotc, wouldn't it?

It [the 'D&D adventure game' that was not marketed in the USA for unknown reasons; edited by jephlewis] is quite simplistic, designed more for a younger audience, but it has most of the features I was looking for, and good components. Descent is a better game (especially with all the expansions) but it is also quite a bit more complex, to the point of perhaps being too complex when you work everything in. If you're playing with younger people or casual gamers, the D&D boardgame is a better choice.
If I could add one more game into the mix, I'd make it Prophesy. Prophesy is a game that can be best described as Talisman designed by someone who had played a lot of Euro-games. Prophesy has some very neat features, including a series of skills that available for characters to learn (basically talents/feats) from trainers where you pick from a set. I liked this game's model for character development very much.
Put these features together and I'd be onboard with the fury of, well, a nerd who has considerable disposable income.
--Steve

Could you elaborate on prophesy's character advancement/skill learning/development? what are the similarities and differences between them and 4E's advancement?
Do you think 4E's quickstart rules [the ones in the 4E starter set] are easy enough for younger people to learn, but robust enough to entertain experienced gamers?
Do you think accessories such as dungeon tiles, minis, and power cards aid new and/or younger players with regards to understanding the rules?
Do you think accessories [mentioned above] make the 4E game 'more fun' for younger and older, beginner and experienced gamers?

 

[howandwhy99]

To OP:

I wouldn't buy it for a number of reasons. I don't care for the original Descent boardgame, so a D&D-themed Descent boardgame would not appeal to me either. The other reason is the Dungeon & Dragons brand is becoming less and less identifiable, so I'd not have a reason to pick it up for creative inspiration either (honestly, it would cost too much to do that anyways even if it were made creatively inspiring).

They need to bring back this...

Hells yeah! This is the first roleplaying boardgame, baby!

My friend Paul and I played this game many times back in grade school and middle school before we even knew what D&D was. This and Fantasy Forest, which I believe was also a TSR product.

WotC could go a long way in the boardgaming craze, if they had the backing of Hasbro to do so. I hear their parent company as some cache in the field.

 

[JVisgaitis]

So no one responded with 4e is a boardgame? I'm amazed. Anyway, I think a version of Advanced Heroquest that was D&D-ified, would work really well. Frankly, I'm not sure why they don't do it. They already have droves of plastic minis created which would be the highest cost to produce. The rest would be pretty easy.

 

[JVisgaitis]

For those asking about Dungeon, you basically had to get X amount of treasure and return to the starting area to win. You would land on a room, turn over a card and have to fight the monster inside by rolling 2d6 and having to beat his number. The monsters got harder the deeper you want into the dungeon and I think there was 6 levels. You could find a magic sword that added to your 2d6 roll or use spell cards if you were a Wizard. It was pretty simplistic, but it was a fun game.

 

[jephlewis]

To OP:
I wouldn't buy it for a number of reasons. I don't care for the original Descent boardgame, so a D&D-themed Descent boardgame would not appeal to me either.

Is there anything specific about descent that you didn't like?
Is there anything that you DID like?
Did you play any of the games listed under 'inspiration' in my OP?
Did any aspects or components of them appeal to you? If so, what specifically?

The other reason is the Dungeon & Dragons brand is becoming less and less identifiable, so I'd not have a reason to pick it up for creative inspiration either (honestly, it would cost too much to do that anyways even if it were made creatively inspiring).

Can you explain 'the D&D brand becoming less identifiable' further?

[Image of dungeon by tsr was here; edited by jephlewis] Hells yeah! This is the first roleplaying boardgame, baby!
My friend Paul and I played this game many times back in grade school and middle school before we even knew what D&D was. This and Fantasy Forest, which I believe was also a TSR product.

What were the things you liked about dungeon and fantasy forest?

WotC could go a long way in the boardgaming craze, if they had the backing of Hasbro to do so. I hear their parent company as some cache in the field.

What types of board games should wotc make?
How similar and different should they be to 4E?
What did you think of the 4E starter set?
What about either of the 3.x 'basic sets'?
Do you think if wotc made a board game 'close enough' to 4E, sold it in toy stores, and linked the game by advertisement and rules/accessory similarity to the 4E pnp book rpg, it would generate any new pnp book rpg players?
Do you think it reasonable that this board game would be sold with lots of accessories [dungeon tiles, minis, cards] to encourage people who already played 4E to buy it [marketed towards new and established players], or do you think something like the 4E starter set is wiser [new players only]?

 

[jephlewis]

So no one responded with 4e is a boardgame? I'm amazed.

I think it's because i'm a relatively new member, and it's been six months since 4E's release, so everybody's 'well, different strokes and all'; no need to poop on what others think is fun, right?
Maybe I rolled a natural 20 for diplomacy when I made the thread???

Anyway, I think a version of Advanced Heroquest that was D&D-ified, would work really well. Frankly, I'm not sure why they don't do it. They already have droves of plastic minis created which would be the highest cost to produce. The rest would be pretty easy.

I'm not sure why they didn't do it, either. I've been scratching my head ever since I heard of descent..."why didn't wotc make something like this?".
By 'advanced heroquest-D&D-ified', you mean buildable dungeons with tiles, plastic minis, furniture, trap, treasure, and monster cards? I ask because i've only seen and played [and still own] the milton bradley 'regular non advanced' heroquest.

For those asking about Dungeon, you basically had to get X amount of treasure and return to the starting area to win. You would land on a room, turn over a card and have to fight the monster inside by rolling 2d6 and having to beat his number. The monsters got harder the deeper you want into the dungeon and I think there was 6 levels. You could find a magic sword that added to your 2d6 roll or use spell cards if you were a Wizard. It was pretty simplistic, but it was a fun game.

That does sound fun! Simple, clear goal, aquiring treasure, random encounters, VERY streamlined combats, greater and greater difficulty, and a reasonable amount of levels.
Hey, thanks for posting how the game worked, I appreciate it!

 

[timbannock]

<snip>

Heavy Gear is a mech game: Dream Pod 9

It had started as a combined RPG and Tactical minis system, and then kinda flip-flopped between the two, until they released Heavy Gear Blitz recently. Blitz is a massive streamlining of the Tactical system, and has won tons of awards (Ennies, among others). They basically just looked at their system and said "What works, what doesn't, and most of all, what would be FUN"

They ran with it, and it's quite good from almost all accounts (I haven't played yet).


As for the old box I was remembering -- maybe my colors are off -- but it had the Bargle adventure in it. It was awesome.


My take on a 4e-inspired board-ish game would be something like this:

* Use Dungeon Tiles, perhaps a little more puzzle-like for sturdier connectivity
* Use 3D terrain as much as possible (that's just my personal preference)
* Use D&D Minis
* For characters, have them on a single card with Attributes, Melee & Ranged attack bonus, and important skills. Streamline the systems a little to make attack bonuses a little more standardized (so you don't have to recalculate for every weapon based on Proficiency, etc.) and include an even more streamlined Skill list
* Powers would come on cards (sound familiar? Like the House Rules Forum maybe...), but streamline the list down. Each character has their own deck to draw from based on level, or maybe some cards are more "universal" (i.e., have a single Martial deck for all Martial-powered characters, a single Arcane deck, etc.). Items would be on cards too. If Attack bonuses are prefigured, then have the items be tokens you "equip" by placing on a like-sized slot on the Character Sheet card, with a number in one corner denoting the damage or AC bonus or whatever the item does.
* Have pregens, but maybe use dry erase stock for the character sheets, so players can customize or even wholly create their own character
* Dungeons and monsters would be run by one player as the DM, but set it up similar to Descent (he's an adversary for the most part)

That would be the Board Game. Keep it nice and simple, use specialized dice to mimic trap-detection, finding secret doors, maybe even damage and attacks.


If you want to make a good D&D 4e Basic Game, use the same ideas, but keep the rules closer to the "mother system" (i.e., no specialized dice, no adversarial DM), and maybe include a paperback PHB that is focused solely on the Heroic Tier. Include a little booklet with some sample encounters, a one-on-one and solo adventure, and some of the simpler Heroic-level monsters.

In a Basic Game, don't do Pregens...or if you do, don't totally axe character creation. A Board Game is fine with pregens, but a basic game should give you the fun and customization of your own character.

Maybe they could focus on levels 1-5 for Basic Game Heroic 1, and then levels 6-10 for Heroic 2, and then go off like the old red, blue, green boxes with their own simplified system. But honestly, I think 4e's simple enough that if you just pare down it all down to Race, Class, Heroic tier powers and feats, you'll be golden.

And 4e is designed to use EVERYTHING with cards (skills, conditions, powers, magic items, monsters, even character sheets have been designed to fit on playing card sized sheets), so keeping a tight focus and adding some visual props would make 4e really popular with the kiddies.


Personally, I've got my Core Rulebooks for 4e, so I'd want the board game for its tokens and tiles and minis. But I'd certainly get a Basic Set for somebody for christmas if it was Heroic-tier focused or had some nice counters, dice, and whatnot.

 

[howandwhy99]

Is there anything specific about descent that you didn't like?

It cost too much, took longer than I would have liked, and manly tried to give the experience of a traditional roleplaying game, but only using a board instead. Boards tend to limit replay value as do limited options, on cards or otherwise, so I prefer non-board RPGs as I would guess most who post here do.

Is there anything that you DID like?

Sure, it had lots of good minis and had some real depth to it compared to most other boardgames. I think it was more for the CRPG community though, which aren't much cup of tea either. Lots for them to like.

Did you play any of the games listed under 'inspiration' in my OP?

BGG is down, but if I have you right, I have played D&D and AD&D and many variants of each. Dragonstrike and Heroquest - No.

Did any aspects or components of them appeal to you? If so, what specifically?

N/A, really. I have played Arkham Horror several times and that is by the same publishers IIRC. It is the best of the bunch IMO and has a bit more of a learning curve. The appealing portions there are the strategic aspect of learning as players that you need to work together and have a plan early if you are going to have the best chance at succeeding. That's pretty much the MO for D&D too, so I think it's pertinent to your idea.

Can you explain 'the D&D brand becoming less identifiable' further?

I think it's more of a toybox of fun than anything particular, but it has certainly tried to be brand-specific with particularities. Things like beholders and mindflayers being unique and thereby identifying D&D from other rulesets for fantasy roleplaying. Also, it began as a single man's work and a shared community of ideas. And it still remains a bit of a shared community's ideas, but it is corporate branded now and considered "nostalgic" so nothing new tries to actually be new. Everything must have an old D&D monster, magic item, spell, etc. and it chokes the creativity from the game leaving only dusty illusions to a "Golden Age". That's bunk in my opinion. The game has a history and that is the brand image, but it would be better seen as a tool, than scope of campaign settings. Think of it more like Craftsman tools vs. the current misnamed "story" or flavour element. The toolset is simply not the same, so the brand is not the same.

What were the things you liked about dungeon and fantasy forest?

I really liked that we could play them with only two players, but could add more. That we could do that at 8 years old and not do badly just because we were kids. That we were competing against each other. For Dungeon, I liked that there were many secret areas and the board changed every time. I would have preferred a customizable or euro-like board so we could explore a different dungeon every time. Customizable monsters and treasure (say particular components randomly joined together and placed on a board, like the monsters and treasure were randomly joined and placed) would be cool too. Fantasy Forest was cool because it had short cuts you could qualify for, if you took the long way. It wasn't as good as Dungeon for replay value though. Too much was random for how far you went and that made it difficult to devise good strategy. Still good for kids under 8 though. It was probably a precursor for Dungeon I bet.

What types of board games should wotc make?

This is too broad a question for me to answer. FFG does a wonderful job. Mixing WotC's CCG skills with boardgames would go far better with boardgames than RPGs. I'd be interested in hearing what they could do with a collectible, expandable euro game, but that's just a guess. Card games are serving them well though. Plus, I don't know if the card gaming side of WotC has access to Hasbro's boardgaming division, but they at least should. If Hasbro ever had any intentions of designing and marketing niche boardgames like the euros, WotC's niche RPG community wouldn't be a bad place to start. There is already the beginning of a crossover of the BGG and the TTRPG communities online. In my observation at least.

How similar and different should they be to 4E?

Descent is practically a minis wargame already, so I think you have the right idea. In all honesty, I don't think it will matter if they want to make a D&D boardgame or not. If the RPG division went into boardgames, they would need to stop making one game. The setting brand component might sell well considering the computer gaming crossover success, but just saying "D&D the boardgame" has never really worked... even when TSR had the brand. All IMO of course. I don't have the numbers.

What did you think of the 4E starter set?

I haven't seen it to have an opinion.

What about either of the 3.x 'basic sets'?

I gave a few away to Toys for Tots, but never opened any either.

Do you think if wotc made a board game 'close enough' to 4E, sold it in toy stores, and linked the game by advertisement and rules/accessory similarity to the 4E pnp book rpg, it would generate any new pnp book rpg players?

Yes, the BGG community crossover could go both ways, if marketed wisely.

Do you think it reasonable that this board game would be sold with lots of accessories [dungeon tiles, minis, cards] to encourage people who already played 4E to buy it [marketed towards new and established players], or do you think something like the 4E starter set is wiser [new players only]?

The boardgame should be as good as possible, period. If you want different game focuses because of marketable areas, make multiple games (like LOTR did with it's boardgame IP). I would try and keep costs low and games short to make the game as consumer friendly as possible. Descent has problems because of cost already IMO, but it fills it's niche. Making a copy of it can only net competitor game status to it. I don't think the return would be worth it for WotC production costs. Again IMO.

 

[jephlewis]

Heavy Gear is a mech game: Dream Pod 9
It had started as a combined RPG and Tactical minis system, and then kinda flip-flopped between the two, until they released Heavy Gear Blitz recently. Blitz is a massive streamlining of the Tactical system, and has won tons of awards (Ennies, among others). They basically just looked at their system and said "What works, what doesn't, and most of all, what would be FUN"
They ran with it, and it's quite good from almost all accounts (I haven't played yet).

Sounds kinda neat; so heavy gear blitz is a streamlined version of heavy gear that's designed to use more physical elements, not really a 'board game', but a slimmed or light rpg?

As for the old box I was remembering -- maybe my colors are off -- but it had the Bargle adventure in it. It was awesome.

Do you have to rescue aleena the female cleric? If so, then yeah, that was the one I had. I definitely remember bargle the wizard, and there was this picture of you in town buying some stuff from a weapon/armorsmith/shopkeeper guy. and in the picture, both the pc and the shopkeeper looked so friendly, like they were buds from way back or something. Red box was, is, and shall always be teh r0xx0rz to me!

My take on a 4e-inspired board-ish game would be something like this:
* Use Dungeon Tiles, perhaps a little more puzzle-like for sturdier connectivity
* Use 3D terrain as much as possible (that's just my personal preference)
* Use D&D Minis
* For characters, have them on a single card with Attributes, Melee & Ranged attack bonus, and important skills. Streamline the systems a little to make attack bonuses a little more standardized (so you don't have to recalculate for every weapon based on Proficiency, etc.) and include an even more streamlined Skill list
* Powers would come on cards (sound familiar? Like the House Rules Forum maybe...), but streamline the list down. Each character has their own deck to draw from based on level, or maybe some cards are more "universal" (i.e., have a single Martial deck for all Martial-powered characters, a single Arcane deck, etc.). Items would be on cards too. If Attack bonuses are prefigured, then have the items be tokens you "equip" by placing on a like-sized slot on the Character Sheet card, with a number in one corner denoting the damage or AC bonus or whatever the item does.
* Have pregens, but maybe use dry erase stock for the character sheets, so players can customize or even wholly create their own character
* Dungeons and monsters would be run by one player as the DM, but set it up similar to Descent (he's an adversary for the most part)
That would be the Board Game. Keep it nice and simple, use specialized dice to mimic trap-detection, finding secret doors, maybe even damage and attacks.

1. You bring up something that perhaps i've overlooked; a board game AND a basic game. This is indeed a great idea.
board game - 'further away' from 4E core rules to make board game play 'differently better', lots of fiddly bits
basic game - 'closer to' 4E core rules to emphasize teaching the game to new players, not quite as many fiddly bits
2. Everything you posted, especially dry erase wipeable character sheet/cards is full of epic win. I might have to go get some grease pencils and some clear sheet protectors to use in tabletop rpging now.

If you want to make a good D&D 4e Basic Game, use the same ideas, but keep the rules closer to the "mother system" (i.e., no specialized dice, no adversarial DM), and maybe include a paperback PHB that is focused solely on the Heroic Tier. Include a little booklet with some sample encounters, a one-on-one and solo adventure, and some of the simpler Heroic-level monsters.

See above about great idea for 'board game' and 'basic game'.
We are definitely grooving on the same thing here!

In a Basic Game, don't do Pregens...or if you do, don't totally axe character creation. A Board Game is fine with pregens, but a basic game should give you the fun and customization of your own character.

Yes, totally agree.

Maybe they could focus on levels 1-5 for Basic Game Heroic 1, and then levels 6-10 for Heroic 2, and then go off like the old red, blue, green boxes with their own simplified system. But honestly, I think 4e's simple enough that if you just pare down it all down to Race, Class, Heroic tier powers and feats, you'll be golden.

I think a basic game of the first 5 levels, and then an expansion from 6-10 would be great. The first set would be close to 'red box', and the 6-10 box would be close to 'blue box expert'. The second box could detail political, wilderness, and high level campaigns [of course, high level being level 10].
I think 4E is simple enough too, but man, there's gotta be a better way than either 3 really thick corebooks or the 4E starter set. There ought to be something in the middle, there ought to be a new red and blue box. Wiz0rs, all i'm asking is for ONE TIER, that's not much, is it?

And 4e is designed to use EVERYTHING with cards (skills, conditions, powers, magic items, monsters, even character sheets have been designed to fit on playing card sized sheets), so keeping a tight focus and adding some visual props would make 4e really popular with the kiddies.

Not just kiddies. As I posted a few posts back, tsr had this deck where you could randomly generate a dungeon, monsters/encounters, and treasure with their deck of cards. I would really like for wotc to make something like this. As I grow into the shadowy twilight of my years [i'm in my early 30's], I feel the desire for more fiddly bits when I game. Maybe my imagination needs things to focus on?

Personally, I've got my Core Rulebooks for 4e, so I'd want the board game for its tokens and tiles and minis. But I'd certainly get a Basic Set for somebody for christmas if it was Heroic-tier focused or had some nice counters, dice, and whatnot.

I would [and did].
It certainly seems that quite a few people would buy such a boardgame for the pieces, but most would want a decent board game as well. It appears the rules would have to be lighter and slightly different from 'regular 4E' in order to get others to buy in.
Me? I'm like you; i'd buy it for the parts first [that's why I bought descent].

It cost too much, took longer than I would have liked, and manly tried to give the experience of a traditional roleplaying game, but only using a board instead. Boards tend to limit replay value as do limited options, on cards or otherwise, so I prefer non-board RPGs as I would guess most who post here do.

All right.
1. cost
2. game takes too long
3. less 'board gamey' play
I've never actually played descent [like I said, I bought it for the pieces], but I have looked through the rulebook and looked at the character cards, so I can only kinda agree with you. I do think that all three of these things should be avoided in a 4E board game.

Sure, it had lots of good minis and had some real depth to it compared to most other boardgames. I think it was more for the CRPG community though, which aren't much cup of tea either. Lots for them to like.

It did seem to be focused on combat a lot; Does descent even have skills? I'll have to re-read the intructions someday.

BGG is down, but if I have you right, I have played D&D and AD&D and many variants of each. Dragonstrike and Heroquest - No.

Yes; boardgamegeek has been down for a few hours as of this writing, and that sucks. I've learned a lot about board games there. I hope their site is okay.
The AD&D and D&D games listed under inspiration had more physical elements in them. Plastic minis, paper minis, little cardboard trees, cards, etc... Some of them had different rules [such as the one D&D game that wasn't released in the USA], others had almost the exact same rules [the 'black box' basic D&D that gave you the first FIVE levels instead of three levels like 'red box', paper minis, a color mini sized poster map of zanzer's dungeon...man, they don't make them like they used to].
When boardgamegeek comes back up, I highly recommend checking the links out; I didn't get to play all of them, but I liked 'black box' D&D.

N/A, really. I have played Arkham Horror several times and that is by the same publishers IIRC. It is the best of the bunch IMO and has a bit more of a learning curve. The appealing portions there are the strategic aspect of learning as players that you need to work together and have a plan early if you are going to have the best chance at succeeding. That's pretty much the MO for D&D too, so I think it's pertinent to your idea.

Yes; I think 4E is a good framework to build a board game around, and since a lot of people play board games, I figured why not make make a 4E-ish one? As stated above, Neuronphaser has the right of it; a board game AND a basic game seems a good idea to me now that we've been discussing this.

I think it's more of a toybox of fun than anything particular, but it has certainly tried to be brand-specific with particularities. Things like beholders and mindflayers being unique and thereby identifying D&D from other rulesets for fantasy roleplaying. Also, it began as a single man's work and a shared community of ideas. And it still remains a bit of a shared community's ideas, but it is corporate branded now and considered "nostalgic" so nothing new tries to actually be new. Everything must have an old D&D monster, magic item, spell, etc. and it chokes the creativity from the game leaving only dusty illusions to a "Golden Age". That's bunk in my opinion. The game has a history and that is the brand image, but it would be better seen as a tool, than scope of campaign settings. Think of it more like Craftsman tools vs. the current misnamed "story" or flavour element. The toolset is simply not the same, so the brand is not the same.

This is still kinda hard for me to understand...is what you're saying anything like the following:
dread pirate roberts from princess bride; it's a name, but different people?
final fantasy; each game is different from the others with similar named characters and archtypes?

I really liked that we could play them with only two players, but could add more. That we could do that at 8 years old and not do badly just because we were kids. That we were competing against each other. For Dungeon, I liked that there were many secret areas and the board changed every time. I would have preferred a customizable or euro-like board so we could explore a different dungeon every time. Customizable monsters and treasure (say particular components randomly joined together and placed on a board, like the monsters and treasure were randomly joined and placed) would be cool too. Fantasy Forest was cool because it had short cuts you could qualify for, if you took the long way. It wasn't as good as Dungeon for replay value though. Too much was random for how far you went and that made it difficult to devise good strategy. Still good for kids under 8 though. It was probably a precursor for Dungeon I bet.

1. changing board [would dungeon tiles emulate this?]
2. random monsters and treasure [would monster and treasure cards emulate this?]
3. some randomness, but not too much, and some strategy [would 4E's quick start rules emulate this?]

This is too broad a question for me to answer. FFG does a wonderful job. Mixing WotC's CCG skills with boardgames would go far better with boardgames than RPGs. I'd be interested in hearing what they could do with a collectible, expandable euro game, but that's just a guess. Card games are serving them well though. Plus, I don't know if the card gaming side of WotC has access to Hasbro's boardgaming division, but they at least should. If Hasbro ever had any intentions of designing and marketing niche boardgames like the euros, WotC's niche RPG community wouldn't be a bad place to start. There is already the beginning of a crossover of the BGG and the TTRPG communities online. In my observation at least.

Would various themed expansions be collectible enough? I'm not a fan of random stuff; it's why I only bought a few booster packs.

Descent is practically a minis wargame already, so I think you have the right idea. In all honesty, I don't think it will matter if they want to make a D&D boardgame or not. If the RPG division went into boardgames, they would need to stop making one game. The setting brand component might sell well considering the computer gaming crossover success, but just saying "D&D the boardgame" has never really worked... even when TSR had the brand. All IMO of course. I don't have the numbers.

Why would they need to stop making one? Couldn't the board games be considered 'accessories' and people would buy them for the pieces as well as to have a D&D board game?

The boardgame should be as good as possible, period. If you want different game focuses because of marketable areas, make multiple games (like LOTR did with it's boardgame IP). I would try and keep costs low and games short to make the game as consumer friendly as possible. Descent has problems because of cost already IMO, but it fills it's niche. Making a copy of it can only net competitor game status to it. I don't think the return would be worth it for WotC production costs. Again IMO.

You've brought up some good points!
If anybody can sell a game with just as much or more components cheaper than fantasy flight, it would be hasbro. That is still a chunk of change as you point out though.
Perhaps if the main game had less stuff but encouraged board gamers to buy the accessories marketed towards the pnp rpg [dungeon tiles, minis, power cards]?
Perhaps a $30.00 board game and $30.00 expansions, each having roughly the same amount of stuff in them?