D&D 5E Introductory game first?

[Tom Strickland]

I have not yet endeavored to reach a conclusion regarding this. Nevertheless, here are some data points that float in my mind and which I would consider in order to arrive at said conclusion.


For this product, considering the nature of it, the history of the manufacturers, the state of the art, and so on:

1. In order to produce two intrinsically related products--arguably, both simultaneously simpler and yet also more complex versions of the same thing--is it more effective to add advanced mechanics (so not just flavor text which increases page counts, but actual rules which must "work" [inter-operate] in diverse configurations) on top of a simpler foundation/framework, or is it better to distill out a (palatable to newcomers) essence from the full construction/offering (the advanced version) which is self-evidently elegant and thus more widely appealing?

2. Is the prior release of a simpler version of a widely-known and planned product an example of a "beta test" without calling it such? Numerous software products by as many vendors over the years were released without being officially labeled as betas to the mixed reception by end-users and reviewers.

3. Is this simple-then-advanced product release cycle like a recalibration measurement or a "stretch goal", to see if there are enough sales to warrant all or just some of the further currently-anticipated expenditures (allowing for sunk costs)? Is it a tactic to "buy time"? [Because once the basic version is in the field, there are several plausible explanations that can be floated as reasons for delays of the advanced version.]


Note that I have not said I believe any of these to be valid in this specific case, but rather I would consider their relevance and applicability if and when I do choose to decide whether the approach is effective--as a purely outside observer. In any event I am, by default, only interested in the full version of any product regardless of the path followed to arrive at that destination.

 

[TerraDave]

I agree, a B/X strategy could be interesting, but an "intro box" would be of little interest

 

[Jester David]

The idea of an introductory box is problematic. Everyone wants it cheap but to have decent content and dice. Creating a box takes something like six months longer than the books, so getting it in stores at the same time as the other books is hard. Everything has to be "done" that much sooner or inconsistencies crop up.

May - Intro to D&D box or softcover
June - Trinity
November - Beginner's Box

I'd do something similar, start with a Rules Compendium or Rules Cyclopedia that serves as an all-in-one book for playing.
Follow that up with the other three, expanding on the content in the RC.
Release a "Beginner Kit" at late November at Christmas present price range.
For GenCon the following year release Collector's Editions with errata.

 

[Lanefan]

Release 'em side by side and market them to different audiences - the intro game to new players and mass market, the main game to the gaming market first and the mass market later if the intro game takes off.

Lan-"that's how I'd do it, anyway"-efan

 

[GX.Sigma]

It's weird that people are talking about an introductory version and a real version. I thought they already said that the basic box will be the core, and everything else will be an advanced option on top of that.

 

[Morrus]

I expect it is supposed to be analogous to having "Basic D&D" and "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" back in the old days.

Yeah, that was my point earlier. Basic wasn't a basic version of Advanced. Not in the paradigm the phrases are used now. In no way was any version of OD&D an introductory set for AD&D.

 

[dd.stevenson]

It's weird that people are talking about an introductory version and a real version. I thought they already said that the basic box will be the core, and everything else will be an advanced option on top of that.

I'm not 100% on the relationship between these terms: Introductory, Beginner, Basic, Core. I mean, I can make up my own definitions, but I'm not clear on how wotc is using them.

 

[Texicles]

Going to toss in an excerpt from a post I made here:

"...playing basic and then standard or advanced should feel like you're still playing the same game, just with added rules/complexity. Otherwise, you're just going to have a bogus, introductory incarnation of the game, skipped by many and insufficiently preparing those who use it prior to playing the "real" game."

What I hope is the case is that the "basic" game is both available in a "red box" and standalone configuration and that the "basic" book will cover the fundamental rules of the game, while the "red box" configuration adds a nice introductory adventure, some dice and a box... that's red. The "standard" book should (IMO) have the same content as "basic" with the addition of more rules (that add to) and options (that can be opted for), but none of those rules should override the "basic" rules by default. "Advanced" would be additional rules and options beyond those of "standard" and sans the basic content.

I'm not sure how similar this is to BECMI, I wasn't born then, and as cool as it would be to claim you were dungeon crawling before physically crawling, I cannot

As for timing under the above model, I would say:

1. "Basic" and "standard" come out at the same time (at or sufficiently prior to GenCon, depending on the projection you subscribe to)
2. Separate Monster Manual concurrent with "basic" and "standard" rulebooks
3. "Red box" in time for the holidays (November-ish)
4. "Advanced" 9 months to a year after "basic" and "standard"

The way this model would shake out in practice is that new players get "basic" (or "red box" for the holidays). They can play this forever if they like, as it will be real D&D. Experienced players probably get "standard" and ignore "basic," not because "basic" is watered down or irrelevant, but because they're accustomed to more options. DMs will want to also pick up the MM. Even if you break from the "trinity," there should always be too dang many monsters to fit all of them in the same book as your rules. After everyone has had a chance to settle in, "standard" players who are seeking more options pick up "advanced." The only real downside I see to this model is upgrading from "basic" to "standard" means buying some redundant content. That's a bummer man. I don't like it, but that's the only egg I can see that needs to be broken to make this omelette.

ETA: One BECMI-esque thing I don't wish to see is a limit on levels across "basic," "standard" and "advanced". When I referred to "basic" above, I intend that to mean a complete set of rules that will serve both as an introduction to RPGs, as well as a streamlined ruleset that would appeal to the "four-core," rules-light, old school crowd.

 

[Dausuul]

I think this would be a terrible idea. It would turn off a huge number of gamers who might otherwise be interested in 5E.

Better proposal: Release the basic game and the full game simultaneously. The basic game is available to download for free off the Wizards website. The full game costs money, as a PDF or a book. Thus, newcomers (and oldcomers who are testing the waters) can try the core system for free, and people ready to commit to 5E can get all the bells and whistles.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I rather like the BECMI ideas being floated around, although maybe make a first set that covers levels 1-5 rather than 1-3.

My big concern, though, is that we will end up with the first set (or book) involving an earlier and slightly non-compatible set of rules compared to the second and subsequent sets. Messrs Mearls & Co seem to enjoy tinkering a tad too much and might not be able to resist the temptation to slip in a few fundamental changes.

Anyway, I suppose we should know what their release plans are in just a few weeks... unless, of course, half the team is about to enjoy Christmas retrenchments.