Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 4607001" data-attributes="member: 3192">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.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. 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.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.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.  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.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. 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.I haven't seen it to have an opinion.I gave a few away to Toys for Tots, but never opened any either.Yes, the BGG community crossover could go both ways, if marketed wisely.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.</blockquote>

Verification