Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9775399" data-attributes="member: 6667921">I understand why people reach for the 2e comparisons — it’s the clearest precedent we have for overextension and audience fragmentation. But that argument assumes the same market, audience, and infrastructure that existed thirty years ago, and that’s simply not true anymore. It’s become a kind of shorthand for “don’t take risks,” when the real takeaway should be that risk can be managed differently now. Because the irony is, we already are fracturing the audience—just not in ways that build longevity. People who get pulled in by Dragonlance, Stranger Things, or Planescape often find that’s where the trail ends. Those experiences don’t continue in the official products; they’re one-and-done attractions. And while outside creators have stepped up to fill the gaps, many players still view (incorrectly) anything without the “D&D” label as lesser or unofficial.That’s what makes this conversation important. The goal isn’t to multiply D&Ds—it’s to explore how different ways of playing could coexist under the same banner without fragmenting the base. Here’s an example of how that might look; it's something I wrote in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/2024-d-d-starter-set-your-turn-to-design.715457/post-9762989" target="_blank">another thread about the 2024 Starter Set</a>.[SPOILER="If I had designed the 2024 Starter Set"]If I had been in charge of the 2024 D&D Starter Set (Heroes of the Borderlands), I would have taken a different (and controversial?) approach.A “starter set” implies two things: first, that it’s a stripped-down, temporary version of the “real” game, and second, that it exists mainly as a tutorial because the core game is too complex to teach directly. That framing undersells what a boxed set could be.What a lot of players actually see in these sets are the extras—maps, handouts, cards, tactile components. These are valuable not just to beginners, but also to veteran groups who buy the box for those materials alone. The problem is we (usually) only ever get one box, only at the lowest levels, and then it’s done.There’s also a less visible audience: groups who enjoy the lighter rules and accessible structure of the starter set, but find the full game too complex once they “graduate.” For them, there’s nowhere to go. Imagine if instead of just one box, there was a continuing line—expansions that add more content, more materials, and a few more options without forcing a jump into the full game. This way, casual players can stick with a system that works for them, while everything remains fully compatible with the core rules.So, rather than a “starter set,” I would have released a true basic game set—a simpler, self-contained version of the game that can grow through additional boxes. It would onboard new players, support veterans with useful components, and provide an ongoing path for those who prefer a lighter playstyle. That way, we don’t just get people started—we keep them playing regardless of their preferred style of game or play.[/SPOILER][SPOILER="Extra credit response"]And for the sake of completeness, this was my reply to a <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/2024-d-d-starter-set-your-turn-to-design.715457/post-9763019" target="_blank">comment</a> from the OP ("sounds like BECMI all over again - which isn't a bad thing."):BECMI was its own branch of D&D, with a different progression path and only slightly parallel with AD&D. What I’m suggesting wouldn’t be a separate rules line—it would remain fully compatible with the current core rules from the start, no conversion needed.The bigger distinction for me is in the format, not the rules. I’d want to lean into the strengths of a boxed product: maps, cards, tokens, handouts—things that make the game feel closer to a boardgame in accessibility and presentation. The idea is that you can keep expanding with more boxes, whether you’re a casual group that prefers the simpler play experience or a veteran DM who just wants more high-quality components for their table.So yes, it echoes the “ongoing path” feel of BECMI, but the intent here is to enrich the material experience of D&D, while staying lockstep with the core game.[/SPOILER]I realize this is a longer read than most posts here, but I think it illustrates what’s often missing from these kinds of discussions. We talk about audience, markets, and past precedents as if the only choices are expansion or collapse — when in reality, the missing piece is imagination. It’s not about repeating history or defying it, but recognizing that “what worked once” isn’t the only model worth following.</blockquote>

Verification