D&D 5E L&L - D&D Next Goals, Part One

[Argyle King]

Some rpgs have free "lite" versions of their games available for download. That could be one way to do it.

Also, how much was the PF Beginner's Box? I felt it was very well done. There are certainly a few areas in which I feel it could have been better, but -overall- I think it was a very good introduction to the game, and it showed that even a simplified version of the game could still be fun.

 

[Nellisir]

Sure, but even if we're talking about every player requiring their own decks, for the $100 price tag of the traditional PHB/DMG/MM combo, you can have decks for a huge game.

Ideally we should be able to have a D&D product that is affordable enough that a person can buy it on a whim. Every player at a table should be able to have their own "core books" without massive investment in the game.

Apparently we've had very different experiences. In twenty years I've never run a game where the majority of the players had all 3 core books, let alone supplements. Most had the PH, and nothing more. Some didn't even have that. I don't remember anyone ever feeling forced to make a "massive investment" in books to play. So I think we've just got a fundamental schism in view.

On the D&D vs boardgame comparison - I see a lot more people interested in boardgames now than I see in RPGs. The new store in town has board game night twice a week, 30+ people each night, and only one or two regular gaming RPG groups. This is in a town with 20,000+ college students. They don't play Monopoly, and the Monopoly crowd is not going to buy D&D, except as a gift for their grandkids. They've been playing the same games for 60+ years, and they're happy with it. They're not looking for change. Mearls says that a lot more people than we think try D&D, which suggests that the current pricing isn't dissuading buyers; it's that the buyers aren't getting hooked. The game isn't simple and casual enough. IMO.

 

[Ratskinner]

Apparently we've had very different experiences. In twenty years I've never run a game where the majority of the players had all 3 core books, let alone supplements. Most had the PH, and nothing more. Some didn't even have that. I don't remember anyone ever feeling forced to make a "massive investment" in books to play. So I think we've just got a fundamental schism in view.

This, I think is something that varies a lot with group style and social contract. I've been in groups where people were expected to come "ready to play, RAW" and any rules changes were emailed in advance. I've also been in groups (my current one, in fact) where the rules are so houseruled, kitbashed, and mishmashed that sometimes I feel like we're just making it up as we go. (Which is awesome, BTW.)

Mearls says that a lot more people than we think try D&D, which suggests that the current pricing isn't dissuading buyers; it's that the buyers aren't getting hooked. The game isn't simple and casual enough. IMO.

This! This! A thousand times this! This is a game and sometimes I think we serious gamers forget that. Many of us may enjoy all the fiddly bits and arguing about them, but they are just deadweight to the casual gamer who might otherwise enjoy rpgs.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm happy they're going with a stripped-down core that could be played by an OD&D player and recognized as D&D, and that is easy to get into for someone who just heard the word "alignment" for the first time today. It's exactly the nefarious plot I imagine might work -- no more of this "beginner's box" nonsense where you're playing a "lite" version of the game. The game is light. The game is suitable for beginners. Then once you dig the basics of the game, you can RAMP THAT JUNK UP.

I'm betting that the simple core won't even have martial dice or anything. Heck, it might actually have a basic-attack-only-fighter (all right, maybe with an option or two, if you want). It'll likely have a dead simple Wizard, too, that only hints and Vancian.

That's awesome.

[sblock=wait...]

Even of the low-level games I've played, you don't have to be hardcore to want to play a game that isn't die-cast from LOTR.

I mean really is that all we want from DDN? Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings; Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards; 10 levels; some orcs and goblins?

We aren't interested in this diverse, creative, entertaining product that has created amazing fantasy worlds with much more than LOTR tropes? We aren't interested in gnomes or bards anymore? I didn't realize that mystical musicians were such an outlandish fantasy concept! You'll have to pardon my flabberghastedness here, but really? That's IT?

I don't know...but maybe we should address why players have traditionally not played higher-level games rather than simply seek to dump them?

Why you throw chip?

Dude. 10 levels, 4 classes, and 4 races gives you about 16 years of totally unique gameplay, not to mention the different party combinations ("Everybody be dwarf clerics!"). Bards? Gnomes? These things are superfluous, additional, extraneous, inessential.

Second, if folks want to play LotR clones for their entire gameplay time, what's so bad about that? What, if a group never wants to play with anything more than that, they're somehow doing it wrong?

Third, why is "not being in the stripped-down core" suddenly dumping? It's not like the game won't have these rules, it's just that these rules aren't actually important right away.

I could go on, but you get the idea: 10 levels, 4 classes, 4 races, is a complete game. Hell, you could probably do a complete game with endless reskins of Orc and Pie.

Not that that's what's gonna happen, but still...
[/sblock]

 

[Sunseeker]

Apparently we've had very different experiences. In twenty years I've never run a game where the majority of the players had all 3 core books, let alone supplements. Most had the PH, and nothing more. Some didn't even have that. I don't remember anyone ever feeling forced to make a "massive investment" in books to play. So I think we've just got a fundamental schism in view.

I think that's an issue, because in order to play the game someone has to own at least the core 3 books. It either needs to be a single person buying them, or multiple people combining different books to a larger collection. Now, I'm fine with the latter allowing players to gather many many more books than a single individual on a limited budget would be able to. However, I would like to see the DM dependence weaken, it encourages growth of the hobby. If more people own books, more people are capable of running games, if more people run games, more groups can be formed, if more groups are formed, more people will buy books, if more people buy books...more games can be run...rinse-repeat.

On the D&D vs boardgame comparison - I see a lot more people interested in boardgames now than I see in RPGs. The new store in town has board game night twice a week, 30+ people each night, and only one or two regular gaming RPG groups. This is in a town with 20,000+ college students. They don't play Monopoly, and the Monopoly crowd is not going to buy D&D, except as a gift for their grandkids. They've been playing the same games for 60+ years, and they're happy with it. They're not looking for change. Mearls says that a lot more people than we think try D&D, which suggests that the current pricing isn't dissuading buyers; it's that the buyers aren't getting hooked. The game isn't simple and casual enough. IMO.

I really don't feel that simplicity is an issue here, and D&D by it's nature can never be WoW in allowing players to hot-join a larger campaign when they want, leave when they want, and experience few penalties for doing so.

 

[Hussar]

Let's be honest here though. With subscription models, the days of DM dependence for books are long gone. For a pretty nominal fee, you'll get access to the entire Next library. Not a bad way to go.

 

[Sunseeker]

Let's be honest here though. With subscription models, the days of DM dependence for books are long gone. For a pretty nominal fee, you'll get access to the entire Next library. Not a bad way to go.

As someone who owns most of the books in 4e, I still sub to DDI for the CB and the semi-functional monster builder. Those alone are worth a few bucks a month.

Really though subscriptions are great if people know about them, and are available early on. Buying all the books only to have DDI come about several years later isn't an effective model. While DDI is competition for the books, it is much cheaper to support, especially after an edition is no longer in production. I am honestly worried about my ability to run 4e games if DDI no longer supports 4e once DDN comes out, I do depend, to a certain degree, on those tools for ease of character creation and updating, as well as monster creation.

 

[Li Shenron]

Some clarification from Mike on Twitter:https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/289068656464375808

Much ado about nothing then. This sounds pretty much like has been done in the past in many editions, if not all.

I wonder why Mearls has to say first "it won't be a sampler" then say that it will be "introductory". What's the difference? The basic product will be limited in some way compared to the 3 core books, either vertically (only the first X levels) or horizontally (only N% of classes, races, spells, feats...) or both. The bit about being able to run a "complete campaign" would suggest me that it won't be limited in level, but at this stage I'm getting the feeling that Mearls is just sending confusing messages so let's wait until next week when he'll write about it more clearly.

 

[Li Shenron]

Mearls says that a lot more people than we think try D&D, which suggests that the current pricing isn't dissuading buyers; it's that the buyers aren't getting hooked. The game isn't simple and casual enough. IMO.

That's a very good observation.

 

[pemerton]

I think that's an issue, because in order to play the game someone has to own at least the core 3 books.

Yet plenty of people played AD&D using Moldvay Basic plus the AD&D PHB, and I gather in the 2nd ed era many groups played without a DMG.

I think there are a lot of different ways that groups approached the game, at least back in the 70s and 80s, and it would make sense for WotC to try and make multiple angles of approach feasible.