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

[Connorsrpg]

Very happy with the more adventures rather than splat books. Also, I certainly did not read this as a 'Red Box' scenario either. To me it was going against such a strategy. The way I read it, Mike is stating there will not be a separate 'beginners guide' to the rules. You get the rules/everything in the one product/box set/initial books from the get go and can choose what to ignore and what to add. I hope so too. I do not like 'sampler' products. I hope we get it all and somewhere within that will be an easy streamlined path for beginners and for those if us playing for years the rest is there.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What makes you think that they didn't have much luck with the previous Red Box?

I can see how it is very tempting to jump from "D&D Essentials can't have sold very well or D&D Next wouldn't be a work in progress" to "the Essentials Red Box didn't sell well", but that's not necessarily true. For all we know, the Essentials red box sold well enough, but there simply weren't many buyers who progresses to the other Essentials products.

Heck, this section of Mike Mearls's column seem to heavily imply that that's the case:

Mike could be ignoring the fact that it could have been the system at fault and not the book layout.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Mike could be ignoring the fact that it could have been the system at fault and not the book layout.

Well, if that's going to be your complaint once again, ForeverSlayer-- that it's the 4E game that was the problem... then why did you complain about the Red Box itself (the "book layout")?

If it was the game that was the issue... then so long as the new game is different, it shouldn't matter how it gets presented (Red Box or not). Or are you just looking to complain about anything that was ever connected to 4E?

 

[TerraDave]

Yes, but I think it's VERY important that they keep checking the current iteration against the original design goals, and this kind of blog articles are a way for us to check that they are doing so, thus this article is very good news to me.

It's so easy to get carried away in designing additions or tinkering with numbers and mechanics, and lose sight of the original purposes, then later have a product that is neat but mismatched with such purposes, and wonder why it isn't selling (that is, assuming the purposes themselves were good ones, which is not always the case). And that's not just for game design, it happens all the time in many industries.



Actually I got exactly the opposite from the article... to me it sounds like they won't make a separate introductory product but instead the CORE product (maybe ONE book only) will be the starting point for everyone. Or maybe this is also what you mean?

What makes you think that they didn't have much luck with the previous Red Box?

I can see how it is very tempting to jump from "D&D Essentials can't have sold very well or D&D Next wouldn't be a work in progress" to "the Essentials Red Box didn't sell well", but that's not necessarily true. For all we know, the Essentials red box sold well enough, but there simply weren't many buyers who progresses to the other Essentials products.

Heck, this section of Mike Mearls's column seem to heavily imply that that's the case:

I agree with Li Shenron and Echohawk and now miss the pre-hack XP system.

 

[Echohawk]

Mike could be ignoring the fact that it could have been the system at fault and not the book layout.

That's possible... but doesn't seem relevant to my question, which was:

What makes you think that they didn't have much luck with the previous Red Box?

You made the claim that they didn't have much luck with the last Red Box, and I'm curious to know why you think that. Do you have inside sales information you are willing to share with the rest of us, or are you just assuming that the last Red Box didn't sell well because the Essentials "relaunch" as a whole underperformed?

If you are just making assumptions, then I think it is possible that you could be making incorrect assumptions. I got the impression that the Essentials Red Box sold quite well, at least at first, but that the rest of the Essentials line did not. Which is in line with what Mike was saying about D&D sales generally in today's column.

 

[Echohawk]

I agree with Li Shenron and Echohawk and now miss the pre-hack XP system.

You know you can still give people XP right? It just doesn't show up on the individual posts.

Edit: Apparently the ability to award XP has now vanished completely. I swear it was still there last time I looked, and I know I've received XP since the site was rebuilt...

 

[am181d]

It sounds like they want to do:

WALMART-FRIENDLY BOXED SET (base game)
WALMART-FRIENDLY (?) ADVENTURE SERIES
GAME STORE-FRIENDLY RULES EXPANSIONS

...with EVERYBODY starting with the WFBS.

I didn't read the Mearls quote in context, but it sounded like he was saying that the WFBS will have LESS content then the current playtest, which suggests 4 races and 4 classes (over 10 levels?) with no skills or feats.

That would mean that playing a "standard campaign" would require using the WFBS and the GSFREs together, which could be potentially be awkward if they're in radically different formats.

It's too early to have any strong opinions on this (we don't know very much), but I'll be very interested to see how this pans out.

 

[Blackwarder]

After reading the last L&L column I know exactly the same things I knew before... :/

Warder

 

[TerraDave]

You know you can still give people XP right? It just doesn't show up on the individual posts.

Edit: Apparently the ability to award XP has now vanished completely. I swear it was still there last time I looked, and I know I've received XP since the site was rebuilt...

You know that the mods frown on fishing for XP .

(I meant being able to see the comment so I wouldn't have to do a new post...and of course I am too much of ego-maniac to give XP without that little comment showing up.)

 

[delericho]

Producing a single product as the base set for everyone to start with is almost certainly the right approach. The simple truth is that in-print products are already a marginal proposition, and will only become less attractive as an offering as years go by. That being the case, they should probably aim to a small number of big selling items. And they need to avoid competing with themselves at all costs - don't have both a crippleware boxed set and a PHB containing the 'real game'.

That being the case, their optimum strategy may well be to have a single, deluxe boxed set that is "Dungeons & Dragons" (possibly including a single "Core Rulebook" that they could then also sell separately - but if they do this, the key is that it must be the same CR in both cases), and thereafter look to convert as many people as possible into DDI subscribers. Any additional in-print support should probably come after the same material has been on DDI for some time (if at all) - this allows them to sort out the necessary errata before the book goes to print (whereas 4e did the opposite, quickly rendering the printed books obselete).

I can't believe they're going the "Red Box" route once again. They didn't have much luck with the previous one so I don't know what's going to be different this time.

The 4e Red Box really isn't a terribly good product. A much better boxed set might well be more successful.

I think they need to stop aiming for non-hobbyists and just focus on gamers. Boardgames are what you find at Toys R Us and Wal-Mart.

WotC estimate that there are maybe 6 million active gamers, and some 20 million people who have ever played D&D. How many days do Walmart take to serve that many people? Is it as much as one week?

That's why they're always interested in going for non-hobbyists - we're a drop in the ocean, at best.

Of course...

Do a lot of new people try D&D every year? Yes. In fact it attracts far more people than you would guess. The real strength of D&D has always been in its ability to pull in new players. But what we noticed starting a few years back is that even though people were seeking the introductory product, fewer and fewer players were moving deeper into additional material such as the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual.

There's a rather worrying possible explanation for this: the D&D brand is sufficiently interesting, and the idea of the game sufficiently interesting that lots of people are willing to give it a try. But once they experience the reality of the game, huge numbers of them find it's just not for them, and walk away.

And that's why lots of people try the game out, but very few 'graduate'.