D&D 5E (2014) L&L - D&D Next Goals, Part One

[Stormonu]

Granted, at today's prices that'd probably be $40 or more - likely more as it'd have a lot more color and fancy typesetting.

Also, didn't the RC have the Paladin, Knight and Avenger fighter subclasses, as intro'ed in the Companion rules? I don't have my copy handy to check.

 

[Iosue]

What they are proposing isn't new at all, in fact, it never skipped an edition. If you wanted to keep it simple, you just used the core three and you were good. All editions were simplified, it was adding additional material that could make it complex. They don't really need to waste time creating a separate product that does this.

No, sorry, WotC has never put out an edition where you could buy the game at 2 pm, read all the rules from 3 to 5 pm (if you are a slow reader), and then run a game at 7 pm that same night. WotC D&D is in the AD&D lineage, and perforce not as simplified and easy to pick-up and play as Red Box/Black Box D&D. Moldvay/Cook is 128 pages, and that's it, with monsters, spells, and a sample dungeon. No core three set has ever been that simple.

 

[Remathilis]

Granted, at today's prices that'd probably be $40 or more - likely more as it'd have a lot more color and fancy typesetting.

Also, didn't the RC have the Paladin, Knight and Avenger fighter subclasses, as intro'ed in the Companion rules? I don't have my copy handy to check.

They were fighter high level options, all three took a page tops. (The paladin wasn't nearly as complex as the AD&D one). The druid took more because it added additional spells.

The reason they could do that is that its like 3 column and size 10 font. Very little wasted space. I doubt they would want to sell something so tomelike again, but the point is you CAN sell a complete game in a book as long as its fairly simple. There is no reason why WotC can't sell a $30 box set with meaningful character generation, a dozen levels of play, monsters, treasure, and a sample adventure (along with goodies) and be successful. Those who want more can buy additional supplements to add new options.

WotC REALLY needs to get away from the $100 starting price.

 

[mlund]

I wonder if they'll seriously consider a 1-book solution for their Core product like many other RPGs do.

As for as boxed product, something that came with the Core Rules Book, Campaign Supplement, and a Dice Set that features 4d6 and percentile dice would probably do the trick.

The real trick to keeping the game easy to pick up and play is to make sure the Core rules favor intuitive play over precise play. By that I mean in the Core game don't to be afraid to make various aspects a more free-wheeling system with some guidelines and leave it up to the GM to adjudicate the context. More complex, optional modules (still in the core book) can enforce higher precision rates and thus clearer lines of game balance with less "DM may I?"

For instance, the Skill System - dump mutually exclusive skill silos for more descriptive skills / talents / professions that can easily overlap or allow two different characters two distinct paths to achieve the same outcome. Think more like the implications of the "Profession: Sailor" or "Profession: Rancher" skills in 3rd Edition or what Feats like Alertness were supposed to do in 4E (context sensitive, intuitive talents) and less "Spot, Listen, Search, Move Silently, Hide In Shadows, Use Rope, Knowledge: Goblin Belly Button Lint."

Another example: Maneuvers. In the Basic Core, just have a Fighter pick a style or a Monk pick a Discipline and give the DM guidelines on what kind of effects would cost 1 die vs. 3 dices vs. 6 dice. Then just let the player go nuts as long as he can pay the DM in Martial Damage Dice.

Likewise you can have a very rudimentary and classical spell-list that balances well with this, since every darn supplement in D&D in 3.X seems to expand the Wizard and Cleric Spell lists anyway.

To some extent, I think one of the decisions in the 4th Edition Legend of the Five Rings core rule book is a model to follow: segment the core book logically: core player rules, dm-specific rules, optional expanded rules features. (Just the segmentation model. Goodness, don't follow their skill list model!)

Good candidates for optional expanded Core Rules in the first book: grid combat, expanded spell lists, maneuvers and skill-tricks, specialties. I'm not saying backgrounds shouldn't be an option to remove either, I just think rudimentary character backgrounds should be a default presentation for new players.

- Marty Lund

 

[Stormonu]

WotC REALLY needs to get away from the $100 starting price.

Agreed. There really needs to be an option to get into this game (as a player) for $20 or less, and then build up if you want to dig in deeper.

I wonder if they'll seriously consider a 1-book solution for their Core product like many other RPGs do.

I wish; they did it with the RC, but never again.

To some extent, I think one of the decisions in the 4th Edition Legend of the Five Rings core rule book is a model to follow: segment the core book logically: core player rules, dm-specific rules, optional expanded rules features. (Just the segmentation model. Goodness, don't follow their skill list model!)

I luv the L5R game, but I HATZ the rulebook organization. For the 3E version, I had half-a-dozen sticky notes in the book just so I could find the rules. I didn't see that the 4E's organization looked much better - though the segmentation (Player, Neutral territory, DM) is a common theme I've seen in many other rulebooks. Even the old D&D RC did this.

Good candidates for optional expanded Core Rules in the first book: grid combat, expanded spell lists, maneuvers and skill-tricks, specialties. I'm not saying backgrounds shouldn't be an option to remove either, I just think rudimentary character backgrounds should be a default presentation for new players.

- Marty Lund

I'd put skills in there as an optional system as well; ranging from 1E's background-as-skills, 2E's variable cost, open-ended skill system to a 3E/4E rigid skill set. 1E type and 2E type could be covered in as little as a page (for both) - perhaps a few more pages if you wanted a few examples for the 2E type skill set. Of course, a rigid set would take up more space.

 

[GX.Sigma]

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?

There may be some miscommunication here. We're talking about the introductory product, which is going to be marketed to non-gamers. We're talking about the simplest possible version of D&D.

Let me try to say that again with different words. They're trying to find a way to cut out everything that isn't absolutely necessary for playing D&D. If D&D needs to have at least 4 races and at least 4 classes, then the simplest possible version is one with exactly 4 races and exactly 4 classes.

Then again, Mike Mearls has been talking about "Basic, Standard, Advanced" as the three layers of rules, so maybe the intro product will have a "if this is your first time playing, use these Basic rules" type thing, with the Standard rules in there as well. Then it wouldn't be hard to imagine a bit of teaser content at the end ("If you want to be really wacky, you can be a dragonborn or a warlock. More of these if you buy the Advanced Player's Handbook!")

 

[Hussar]

/snip

WotC REALLY needs to get away from the $100 starting price.

Why?

I love board games. I do. And, once you get away from stuff like Monopoly, most board games are starting in around 50 bucks or more. It's really not terribly unusual to see board games clocking in at the hundred buck line for some.

A boxed set along the lines of Eclipse would be fantastic. Lots of toys, visually gorgeous, and high quality.

I don't think we need to be that shy about price points anymore. Board games have shown that the 50-100 dollar price point sells pretty well.

 

[Libramarian]

Well, sounds like they fully realize the importance of marketing to non-gamers. If they can't do it this time for the long-term health of the game, rather than milk the existing hardcore, I'll be at peace with the fact that it's impossible in D&D's current corporate situation.

The current situation with 4e is really about as off-putting to non-gamers as I can imagine. You have a complex, abstract game system where everything is core, the original books are seriously out-of-date, the Essentials stuff is a confusing hash, an online subscription service thing, and a maze-like website that tries to jumble together the t-shirts, novels, keychains and all that other kitschy garbage in with the game into a "D&D Brand Experience". Terrible stuff.

 

[Remathilis]

Why?
I love board games. I do. And, once you get away from stuff like Monopoly, most board games are starting in around 50 bucks or more. It's really not terribly unusual to see board games clocking in at the hundred buck line for some.
A boxed set along the lines of Eclipse would be fantastic. Lots of toys, visually gorgeous, and high quality.
I don't think we need to be that shy about price points anymore. Board games have shown that the 50-100 dollar price point sells pretty well.

Its not a bad price point for a enthusiast. Its a helluva price point for a Christmas present. You need a small initial buy in followed by expansion. Think Magic: The Gathering. The core sets are fairly cheap, but getting a good deck could cost large sums in boosters and expansions. D&D should start with a reasonable set and then hook them in to buying supplements, DDi subscriptions, adventures, etc. 30-50 dollars would be a good price point; cheaper than a video game, more than monopoly, and no where near the expensive price point Descent offers.

 

[Nellisir]

Its not a bad price point for a enthusiast. Its a helluva price point for a Christmas present.

I'm not rooting for $100 box, but I could see $50 no problem. I don't know how many kid's presents you've bought recently, but my daughter is 6 and good luck finding something under $20 that isn't a stocking stuffer (and even then...sheesh). Try pricing Lego kits or Lincoln Logs if you want some sticker shock. I blew $60+ on 5 books, and she doesn't even read yet (real close, though).

I just bought Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries for $48 something after tax, and I'll be lucky if I play that 4 times this year. (It's oh so pretty, though... ) $50 for a completely playable D&D Basic box would be just fine.