Opt-in or Opt-out?

[drothgery]

I prefer opt-in.

But I also think the basic 4x4 model is a big mistake. Four classes and four races with everything else opt-in (i.e., spend more money before you can use it) would feel like a very impoverished, "incomplete" experience to me.

Yeah, the classic four races and classes is a pretty good start for a basic set / beginner's box. But for the player's handbook / whatever the book you expect experienced gamers to pick up is called, you need more than that.

 

[IronWolf]

I am definitely of the opt-in mentality. I would rather see a basic foundation and then be able to opt-in to the more complex rules. It makes it easier to pickup a game if you start at a more basic level. Then you can go back and read the parts that add in more complex rules.

I think of the Pathfinder Beginner Box as an example. It starts with the basics. I can easily add the more complex rules as my players gain the experience from the core rules, but there is not need for them to even know they exist to simply get started. Or if they prefer not to deal with those additional rules.

 

[Desdichado]

I think of the Pathfinder Beginner Box as an example. It starts with the basics. I can easily add the more complex rules as my players gain the experience from the core rules, but there is not need for them to even know they exist to simply get started. Or if they prefer not to deal with those additional rules.

It's great for new gamers, or for introducing the game to new people. It's going to suck for anyone who's ever played D&D already. Getting a stripped down, basic approach like the beginner's box, that you can only do a handful of basic things with before exhausting the capacity of the rules is just going to leave most gamers angry and asking, "Where's the beef?"

 

[IronWolf]

It's great for new gamers, or for introducing the game to new people. It's going to suck for anyone who's ever played D&D already. Getting a stripped down, basic approach like the beginner's box, that you can only do a handful of basic things with before exhausting the capacity of the rules is just going to leave most gamers angry and asking, "Where's the beef?"

Oh, I wasn't suggesting splitting it out like that in separate products. More of a make the core ruleset the basics, only what you need to play, sort of Beginner Box style. And then in the same book (no extra purchase needed) include other options that you can opt into.

So think one big book that has the basic elements of play and then additional chapters with rules you can opt into as you desire.

 

[Desdichado]

Ah, I see.

:shrug: I wouldn't hate it.

 

[Wormwood]

Opt-in. That's the way.

I agree with thedungeondelver.

Score one more point for Unity

 

[enrious]

Given the stated design goals and the elements likely to bring in players of all stripes, I say Opt-in.

Opt-out smells to much of telling us what is right and what is badwrongfun.

 

[Wightbred]

I'd also prefer 'opt-in' generally, but for some rules I can see 'swap' as a viable alternative. In the computer purchasing analogy this is 'give me a bigger monitor': they don't send you the smaller monitor as well. We currently use 'swap' for ways to determine ability scores. 'Swap' options can meet a range of specific preferences like.

Eg: Base is XP for monsters, but you can swap in:
- XP for gold;
- story and RP XP; or
- combination of the above.

Eg: Base is nine alignments, but you can swap in:
- Five (4E);
- Three (BECMI?); or
- something more radical like Mouse Guard Beliefs, Instincts and Goals.

Yeah, so opt in for additional rules, but also swap rules modules.

 

[howandwhy99]

Oh, I very much believe a gaming company will be preferring the "Buy in" model. I could see benefits the other way too, but "Buy in" means we get to make alternatives forever. And the better game supplements we make, the more you'll want to keep buying in. Please, make me want to go and buy what's being produced.

I don't particularly care for "You need this list of items to play this game" and then 1..2..3..4.... ..34..35..36.. It's just a way to milk money at that point without the impetus on the designers to keep pushing for better games. Plus it eventually pushes many out of the market and undercuts almost any newcomers.

 

[Gort]

If they go "opt-in" on basically every element like some are suggesting, it'll probably be an absolute nightmare to balance the different rules subsystems.