I think the D&D line needs a "Bridge" product

[Geoffrey]

lalato, very well put! I can't add anything to your spot on post.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

First, that D&D demo is one of the scariest things I've seen in a long, long time.

Second, a D&D Lite outline possibility:

Core Rules (defining): [est. 4 pages]
- Task Resolution: Describe checks and DCs, as well as opposed checks
- Characters: Ability scores (reduce these to bonuses and penalties, base range of -3 to +4) race, and class
-- In gameplay: Describe hit points, armor class (perhaps call it Armor DC?), mention class abilities.
-- Experience: Leveling up, et cetera. Goes to level 10. Bonus abilities at 3, 6, and 9.
- Combat: Describe initiative. Reduce to one action, either move, attack, et cetera.
-- Attacks (attack check versus armor DC)
-- Spells (spell check versus save DC)
- Saving throws: Class-dependent. Only one base save DC (increases per level), to which requisite abilities are added.
- Skills: Skill checks use the most closely related ability modifier. Certain skills have an extra bonus dependent on class (equal to +1/level of that class.)
- Feats: One at first level, fourth level, seventh level, and tenth level.

Races: [Est. One page]
- Humans (No ability changes; Bonus feat at start.)
- Dwarves (+1 Con, -1 Cha. +2 save DC.)
- Elves (+1 Dex, -1 Con. +1 to spell checks.)
- Halflings (+1 Dex, -1 Str. +1 to armor DC and attack check for size)

Classes: [Est. Four pages]
- Fighter
-- 6 + Con hit points per level.
-- No skills
-- +1 attack bonus per level
-- Middle save progression
-- Special: Bonus fighter feat at even levels

- Cleric
-- 5 + Con hit points per level
-- Skills: Knowledge (Religion)
-- +3/4 attack bonus
-- Slow save progression
-- Special: Spells (mainly healing, turn undead, etc)

- Rogue
-- 4 + Con hit points per level
-- Skills: Bluff, Disable Device, Open Lock, Search
-- +3/4 attack bonus
-- Fast save progression
-- Special: Sneak attack (+1/level, simplified rules)

- Wizard
-- 3 + Con hit points per level
-- Skills: Spellcraft
-- +1/2 attack bonus
-- Middle save progression
-- Special: Spells (simplified to mainly attack spells)

That can be covered in less than 10 pages. Then all you need is tables for the classes (progressions, et cetera), and a brief spell list, and you're set. Could easily be done in under 20 pages (although it would need a decent DM to run it without extra supplements... it adapts pretty readily to standard D&D, with the only big change being the reversal of check & DC with regard to spellcasting.)

(Edit: The outline has been errata'd so that Elves don't get a penalty to Cha )

 

[Maggan]

I'm not sure it'd be a success

Basically, what I'm reading is the desire to have a sort of Basic D&D and some sort of Advanced D&D.

Does that sound familiar?

And didn't WotC just reposition their trademark to get rid of the stigma of it being an "Advanced" game?

I myself started with the red Basic Set D&D box, and moved on to the Master Set eventually, but I never fully moved over to AD&D, because it was a bit too complex for my tastes.

So, I'd love it if there came a box or a book along that said "Basic D&D, all you need, get it here, rules for PCs, DM advice and magic items, and monsters too!". A bit like the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. I'd snatch that book up in a flash, and I'd never look back (I actually did. Well I snatched it up, and... well... now I'm a D&D3e guy. There are stuff in the Cuclopedia that's still missing from 3e, though).

But... it's not as if TSR and WotC haven't tried doing this after the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal era.

They've tried it a lot of times. Diablo, Diablo II, D&D Adventure Game, all those fat boxes duting the 90's with the D&D logo on them, the fast play rules and adventures. And still.... still... still they chose to drop the Advanced bit and unified the trademark.

To me, that spells out in huge flaming letters: the basic and advanced D&D approach doesn't work anymore.

So, WotC are concentrating on one set of rules, with one unified product identity. The D&D rules.

And, if any d20 publisher wants to create a bridge product that would be a D&D lite, I'd probably buy it. And maybe if we're lucky, another 1000 or 2000 people or so will buy it. But probably no more than that.

Because if it doesn't say D&D on the box, it'll just be another fantasy rpg that plays like D&D, with none of the allure of the D&D trademark, and I think during those circumstances very little bridge effect would be achieved.

And most probably it won't even get to use the d20 logo, because it would have to contain chargen rules (otherwise it would require the D&D 3e PH, which would defeat the purpose of such a product)

Okay, potential sales of 2000 copies aren't to be scoffed at. But then again, that would probably not generate that many sales of the core rules either, because you would have to be in the know already to find this rules set. Unless of course someone would pick up the distribution for it. Maybe White Wolf (Sword & Sorcery) could pull that one off, but then they would go head to head with the strongest trademark in the business. Not likely to happen.

So to sum it up.

1. I can't see WotC doing it again for a while. They've tried it, they even have a product out that qualifies as the bridge product some people are looking for, and we still ask for a bridge product as if the D&D Adventure Games didn't exist.

And WotC don't want to confuse the trademark again. They've cleaned it up, dropped the Advanced, and are now using the far stronger and effective D&D for one product line. Makes more sense.

2. It'd be rather pointless for someone else to do it, if the stated goal would be to pull droves and droves of people into the hobby and in the end start playing D&D, since if anyone but WotC does it, it won't be D&D. And it would be difficult and costly, and most probably a depressing experience as well, in the long run.

3. I hope there are people who read this and says "bollocks, he's sooo wrong!" and then goes ahead and proves me wrong.

One way of doing that would maybe to go the HeroQuest way, and make the D&D Adventure Game more of a big box game, with lots of nifty stuff in it, more like a board game. But then again, TSR did that. And they alone how well that game fared in the marketplace. And since it's not in the product line up at the moment, I'm pretty sure it won't be back in duty for a while yet.

Cheers

Maggan

 

[JeffB]

Folks,

Lots of good points here...good discussion

1) DragonGirl, I also was in no way gearing this as a "women don't understand it" thing..simply that my wife who is a complete newbie was overwhelmed by sheer amount of rules.

2) I understand the financial aspect. However the difference now is that WOTC could easily produce as Geoffrey said a "core" book of 128 pages or so and use that as a bridge to drive the other books sales. The introductory set they ahve out now is IMO great for a newbie but is far from a good product to bridge the gap to the core books. A bridge product may not make them a ton of profit in the beginning,however I can't imagine that intro set they have now does either, and I certainly can't imagine it introduced a ton of new gamers to the hobby. It's essentially a board game with tokens that cannot really be "re-played". This is a far different product than the old Basic sets.

3) Someone else mentioned all the "fast play" books, and Diablo boxed sets. There is no doubt these failed, as they too are horrible bridge products. The current intro game is essentially a "fast play" game. Again the "feast or famine". TSR tried all kinds of wierd things to bring in gamers, CD's, Video's, etc. These don't work. However the old Basic Sets did. I suspect a majority of gamers started with OD&D or at the very least was the first product they purchased (but might have played the AD&D game as an introduction). The problem with TSR was that instead of using the Basic sets to bridge the gap as it was originally intended (and drive the advanced game core book sales), they later decided to turn it into it's own product line with as much,if not more material as the Advanced game. 5 boxed sets, a dozen gaz's, 20 modules for each boxed set, supplements...etc...Bad business decisions. TSR fractured it's own market by being..well..stupid.

4) Who is John Wick?

 

[Henry]

I don't think dropping elves, dwarves, and halflings would be a good idea. Those are basics of the D&D style of fantasy. This will never get done I suppose, but I'd love to see a single volume D&D lite system.

Actually, Flexor, I would have to disagree, based on the fact that D&D began its wildly popular swing with just Fighters (Fighting Men), Magic-Users, and Clerics. The key to a Basic Product would be to make it DIRT basic. As simple as possible, without cannibalizing the most basic elements (classes, levels, hit points, AC, abilities gained by level, and spell slots.) Everything else, leave to the full game, if an introductory product is required.

• 
  
  Simplicity such as the following:
• Three or four classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric. Possible Rogue, if you wanted to showcase skills, but that might be reaching too far up.
• No more than 10 levels in each class. Each level gets hit dice, Attack Bonus, and specials. The specials would be more for the fighter than for the other two.
• Spells would be two lists: cleric and wizard. Each list might have twelve spells each, for 72 spells in the whole product. (Zero through 5th level)
• Clerics should be intorduced as servants of deities, but make the generic list of deities from something that most people recognize - the Norse or Greek Pantheons.
• Chart of about a dozen to a score of weapons. Make a few of them interesting, such as Exotic weapons are. Give about 6 types of armor.
• Make a list of about 20 to 30 monster types, keeping the minimal stat block approach. Don't go into all the "+4 AC from armor, +2 from Dex, +1 from natural" business. AC for an opponent is simple.
• Be VERY careful about introducing Combat options, and even about things like touch attacks. I MIGHT suggest introducing Op attacks here, but even then, KISS.
• Give quite a few nice magic items, but make the allusions to magic items from real myth - cloaks of invisibility, shields that have medusa heads mounted to them, hammers that can kill giants, etc.

These are just a few ideas for someone going in that direction. In my opinion, This is about the level you would need to keep it, if you wanted to meet the kinds of target goals that KDLadage gives above.

 

[Henry]

4) Who is John Wick?

Quick Biography:

Game designer, has worked for many years (back in the 90's and possibly 1980's I am unclear on this). Co-designed legend of the Five Rings, Designed Seventh Sea, Designed a game called Orkworld, and even designed a module for 3E called "what's that smell?" Which I never read but I believe is vaguely satirical, from posts about it.

When 3E came out, Wick was a vehement critic of both the game and the intelligence of those who preferred it over his Orkworld product. Now, according to some recent posts, he plays a couple of d20 games as a player.

 

[Fenes 2]

First, there is a bridge product, which offers a simplified D&D game, holds a great appeal to many people in the core target group, and is widely distributed: Neverwinter Nights.

Other than that I have to agree with the already mentioned opinion that the best way to start someone is to have him or her join a game.

If you really need a simple introductory rule set, then I would just take the PHB, strip away anything above level 7 or 8, and present PCs with an "Iconic" progression (carefully chosen feats and spells should assure that there are not too many details in it). That way people can start playing right away, and slowly include "optional" rules like Disarm, Bull Rush, higher level spells etc. Until they switch to the PHB.

I would not make it a seperate set of rules, just a dumbed down set of regular rule with fewer options.

 

[davewoodrum]

I think it would be neat if someone created a video that shows a group of people playing. At places, it might be paused so the narrartor can describe something.

They may spark interest, but maybe not explain the rules well. However, you interest someone enough...and they may curl up with a rule book on a rainy day.

Yes, but with sexy models... or maybe if you wanted to go for bizarre comedy hire John Waters to direct it.

 

[Kevin O'Reilly]

Use LOTR as an Example

Lots of great ideas.

My idea is to simply steal someone elses - Decipher LOTR.

Take a look at the size of the book, the examples the clarity of the rules and even a good introduction to ME.

My advise to WoTC copy the lay out and use Forgotten Realms. Lessen the number of feats, classes and spells. Limit the levels to about 10th. Introduce about 25 monsters that are familiar to most fantasy genres.

I'd be tempted to have a short story spread throughout the rules that follows an adventure module included, so a reader can "see" how the rules interact with the story telling.

Of course - plastic models, dice and maybe even an adventure map.

My 3c

 

[Sixchan]

It has been difficult getting new people into the rules, so I've been doing my best to simplify them myself. A product that did this for me would be GREAT.

And JeffB, you wouldn't happen to be the Jeff Briggs of Firaxis Games, would you?