D&D 5E If the Starter Set really was as re-playable as Settlers of Catan

[Mistwell]

Once you are started, you don't need or use the starter set any more - at that point, you're using Basic, which is free. It isn't really replayable, any more than any other adventure module is replayable.

Your view of the starter set seems to contradict what WOTC is saying about the starter set.

From today's L&L:

As a secondary goal, the Starter Set must also provide long-term value. In the past, intro sets for RPGs have often been focused on a stripped-down adventure scenario and a limited version of the rules that becomes irrelevant once players move on to the full version of the game. We wanted this new set to be something you could keep on your shelf and use again in the future.

...The Keep on the Borderlands is the classic adventure bundled with the 1981 D&D Basic Set. The locations and encounter scenarios introduced in that adventure have stood the test of time, with DMs still using them to run games today. With that in mind, we decided to focus on making the adventure the key component of the Starter Set. A good adventure sees use again and again.

...We wanted an adventure with a bit of direction to launch a campaign, which could then segue to a more open-ended approach after a play group has a couple of game sessions under its belt.

...In addition, it makes a handy table reference for things like equipment and combat rules, and we expect that DMs who move on to Basic D&D or the three core rulebooks will continue to use the Starter Set rulebook as an extra resource during play.

 

[Boarstorm]

You're kind-of picking nits, Mistwell.

From the context of Mearls' article, it seems to me that they want it to be re-usable, yes. But by the same group of players? I find that less likely. Umbran is talking about building a campaign, which is a different animal entirely.

 

[Mistwell]

You're kind-of picking nits, Mistwell.

From the context of Mearls' article, it seems to me that they want it to be re-usable, yes. But by the same group of players? I find that less likely. Umbran is talking about building a campaign, which is a different animal entirely.

Picking nits? The entire friggen theme of the L&L article is what I am talking about. Yes,by the same group of players. That's what he is saying. It's in the online Q&A Session as well, where he expands on that concept. You can start it at around the 13:55 mark.

Here are some things they explain about the Starter Set:

"Create an adventure that gives you a central place (a village), a central quest, and lots of room to make your own adventures from it."

"A DM can start adding their own adventures to the Starter map."

"It’s a little bit more a setting than a straight up adventure. It’s more of “here’s a place, and this adventure happens in it” rather than “here’s an adventure, that happens in a place”.

So yes, I think the intent is that the Starter Set is re-usable by the same group. It's intended as more of a "starter setting, with an adventure example in that setting, and enough to make more adventures in that same setting."

 

[Boarstorm]

Picking nits? The entire friggen theme of the L&L article is what I am talking about. Yes,by the same group of players. That's what he is saying. It's in the online Q&A Session as well, where he expands on that concept. You can start it at around the 13:55 mark.

Here are some things they explain about the Starter Set:

"Create an adventure that gives you a central place (a village), a central quest, and lots of room to make your own adventures from it."

"A DM can start adding their own adventures to the Starter map."

"It’s a little bit more a setting than a straight up adventure. It’s more of “here’s a place, and this adventure happens in it” rather than “here’s an adventure, that happens in a place”.

So yes, I think the intent is that the Starter Set is re-usable by the same group. It's intended as more of a "starter setting, with an adventure example in that setting, and enough to make more adventures in that same setting."

It's an interesting experience to find text quoted to you that you were preparing to quote back at the subject. The bolded text is, frankly, exactly what Umbran was talking about, I think -- using the setting materials provided as part of the adventure alongside the Basic Rules to kickstart a campaign.

I suspect we've read and understand the article to mean the same thing, but you are focused on the box as a whole, while I am focused on the particular story presented in the adventure. Upon first reading your reply, I imagined some kind of bizarre D&D version of Groundhog Day.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Yes, BY THE SAME GROUP OF PLAYERS.

Three levels of usefulness have been mentioned in this thread:

1) A 'disposible' beginner's game, which is just there to be digested and then hardly used ever again. The old 2e-era First Quest boxed sets, and 3e Adventure Game boxed set come to mind. My experience of the Pathfinder Beginner Box was partly like that (though I recognize it's a well-made product, with some free Beginners adventures available to extend its usefulness.) I just think it's weird to pay $40 or even $20 for something which is only going to be used once, or a few times. That contrasts with the Catan boardgame, whose use obviously lasts and lasts, with no further upgrades, expansions, or pay-ins necessary.

2) What Mearls is aiming for: a Starter Set which is intentionally crafted to maintain some usefulness: including a well-made regional mini-setting, like Threshold and northern Karameikos of B10: Night's Dark Terror, or the Village of Hommlet, or the Keep on the Borderlands, which can be the basis of further adventures. I think that's a great improvement.

3) Beyond that, I'm considering how a Starter Set (or any adventure for that matter) could be meaningfully played over and over by the same players! That would be something different than D&D as we know it. That's why I offered some pretty far-out ways of justifying and supporting that possibility (such as randomized dungeon-building 'baked into' the game, so that it changes each time). It would almost be a different genre of game than TRPG: something like the 3e Chainmail skirmish game, or the Cooperative Boardgames, Dungeon!, or HeroQuest boardgames--but it would still use all the RPG rules. It wouldn't have any 'continuity', unless there were some far-out meta-story of Alternate Timelines justifying why things are happening over and over again. I'm content to let that imagination rest.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions and response.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Picking nits? The entire friggen theme of the L&L article is what I am talking about. Yes,by the same group of players. That's what he is saying. It's in the online Q&A Session as well, where he expands on that concept. You can start it at around the 13:55 mark.

Here are some things they explain about the Starter Set:

"Create an adventure that gives you a central place (a village), a central quest, and lots of room to make your own adventures from it."

"A DM can start adding their own adventures to the Starter map."

"It’s a little bit more a setting than a straight up adventure. It’s more of “here’s a place, and this adventure happens in it” rather than “here’s an adventure, that happens in a place”.

So yes, I think the intent is that the Starter Set is re-usable by the same group. It's intended as more of a "starter setting, with an adventure example in that setting, and enough to make more adventures in that same setting."

While you're correct, what Mearls is describing, and what the OP is describing are not quite the same thing. The Starter Set, as it is, is reusable, in that it's built to help establish campaigns, and the rulebook may be a functional reference for some parts of the game. But it's definitely not replayable to the degree that Settlers of Catan is. No single adventure is, and I don't hold that against it.

The topic is about more than that.

I think it would take a booklet filled with various adventure components, starting with simple components, such as locations and adventure hooks, then providing some moderately put together adventure overviews that use and modify those components, and providing at least one full adventure that can be used out of the box.

The tools would be focused on being able to quickly assemble a new adventure, so that a group can pull the box off the shelf and play like they would any board game.

 

[am181d]

An important distinction:

A game of Settlers takes an hour or two.

Running all the way through the adventure in the Starter Set will take 30+ hours. (Assumes 8 4 hour sessions, leveling after session 1, 2, 4, and 6.)

So by the time you finish playing through the Starter Set *once* you've played the equivalent of 20 games of Settlers of Catan. Now, I've certainly played Settlers of Catan more than 20 times, but there are PLENTY of games that I own that I've played nowhere near that much.

If you get ADDITIONAL use out of the Starter Set (using it as a basis for 1+ campaigns, re-running it for a different group, etc.) then you are getting more than comparable value, even if it's not being used precisely the same way.

 

[Hussar]

That is an important point. The comparison does fall down a bit when you start talking about playtime.

 

[Umbran]

Your view of the starter set seems to contradict what WOTC is saying about the starter set.

How does "not any more than any other adventure module" contradict that - when he's using an adventure module (Keep on the Borderlands) as the analogy?

Yes, GMs used it. And still use it today. But they don't break out the same module and replay it as written every few weeks, like you might replay Settlers of Catan.

And, I think we need to recognize the major difference between extensible and re-playable. They aren't the same thing.

 

[hbarsquared]

Kind of an interesting "argument," especially considering we are positing most of the same thngs that developers were in their cubicles....

First, "replayability" only twice of a Starter Set at 8 hours a game is equivalent to playing Settlers 8-9 times.

Second, the (primary, assumedly) purpose of a Starter Set is to introduce new players. With this perspective, the same DM could "replay" the same Box for multiple groups, over and over again.

Third, incorporating the sandboxy/extendibility nature into the Starter is genius/obvious. Creating a Box that can be used as a reference, or a basis, for future adventures, sessions, games, is a great way to have "replayability."

Finally, WotC's goals seem to be getting clear, imo, from my perspective. To teach people who are just picking up the game, possibly with the Starter Set, to be DMs. The Starter Set provides the basics to get started, plus the adventure (in and of itself worth the $20 pricetag!), plus how to expand and create adventures on your own. Stimulating the imagination. Whetting the appetite. I see this as the biggest "innovation.". How to create new, longterm players of D&D?

In this sense, the replayability of the 5e Starter Set far outstrips the 4e red box and the 3e basic sets. (IMO!). Give burgeoning DMs a taste of adventure/campaign creation, give players a concrete taste of interactive roleplaying, and you're creating a whole new generation of gamers that will only crave more.

To me, this is exciting.