Red Box: Some Constructive Criticism

[Imaro]

I've made no statement about a game experience or content. I've made statements about production values, and the overall value of a game based off amount in the box and not content. In fact, I've made several statements saying that I'm not judging the content at all, because I have no basis of comparison. I'm sure Dragon Age is a great game, I enjoy Green Ronin's works immensely.

What I will state is that I believe the Red Box is an appropriate amount of value for the price. It's one of the only gaming sets that I can buy for $20, and your typical kid (target audience) or parent buying for said kid is going to enjoy the amount of stuff in the box. Meanwhile, that same kid or parent looks at the Dragon Age box, and sees less stuff for more money. Which one do you think will be bought?

In the sense of what is included in the boxes, without judging gameplay or content of the books, the Red Box is a better value due to it's increased amount of product for a lower price point. It's the same sense of purchasing a 14 oz. box of Lucky Charms for 3.99 vs. buying a 40 oz. bag of generic Lucky Stars for 2.99. You may prefer the Lucky Charms because they taste better to you, but the Malt-O-Meal bag is a better value.

And I have told you why I disagree... IMO, the game only takes you up one level so it has significantly less gameplay value than Dragon Age's 5 levels of advancement... The books are of shoddy quality and will not stand up to prolonged use. Now granted this isn't evident until one actually opens the box up and sees that they are little more than thick pamphlets, without which all those shiny bits don't mean squat, but it's still a measure of quality and value.

The fact remains that in the long run I feel Dragon Age is a better bang for your buck, not because I prefer the game system but because I have looked over the materials and in the end it actually provides more overall for the money spent. YMMV of course.

EDIT: Also I have a problem accepting your logic of people being totally enamored by number of fiddly bits as that would logically stand to reason that games with the most fiddly bits to price ratio would dominate the market and though I could be wrong, I really don't think this is true.

 

[AngryMojo]

Why would Dragon Age include these things when they aren't a part of that games particular style of play?? It's like saying monopoly is a better introductory board game than Clue because it has property cards and clue doesn't???

I think perhaps some experience with Dragon Age is necessary before alll these assumptions are thrown out.

The argument has nothing to do with the style of play, or what is necessary to play the game. It's strictly a question of value, and how much material you get for your dollar. By your statement, it can be inferred that there is nothing else that can be added to the Dragon Age boxed set to enhance the play experience, which I'm pretty sure isn't true. The boxed set doesn't even have character sheets, and is quite sparse IMHO. For the same price as a flimsy boxed set, I can buy a hardback book with a poster map that'll last much longer. For that price, they should have at least packaged enough dice so you don't have to pass them around constantly.

 

[Imaro]

The argument has nothing to do with the style of play, or what is necessary to play the game. It's strictly a question of value, and how much material you get for your dollar. By your statement, it can be inferred that there is nothing else that can be added to the Dragon Age boxed set to enhance the play experience, which I'm pretty sure isn't true. The boxed set doesn't even have character sheets, and is quite sparse IMHO. For the same price as a flimsy boxed set, I can buy a hardback book with a poster map that'll last much longer. For that price, they should have at least packaged enough dice so you don't have to pass them around constantly.

You can always add more to anything... even when it reaches the point where what you are adding doesn't significantly add value to the actual product... so no I didn't say more couldn't be added to Dragon Age... the same way more replay value and level advancement, and a wider range of gameplay could have been added to the red box in exchange for the cost of all those shiny bits.

Hey honestly I don't see much difference between this and the other starter sets that have been released (except the blatant marketing to nostalgia) so I say time will tell. I just don't see it doing any better than any of the others... one of which, a 3.5 set, was full of shiny bits including minis, tiles, character creation, etc. but again, it had very little gameplay value. But you know what... you guys are probably right this one will succeed purely on what is in the box and not on it's gameplay value. So I'll bow out now.

 

[Scribble]

Why would Dragon Age include these things when they aren't a part of that games particular style of play?? It's like saying monopoly is a better introductory board game than Clue because it has property cards and clue doesn't???

I think perhaps some experience with Dragon Age is necessary before alll these assumptions are thrown out.

Who's saying Dragon Age needs to include them? You? When was I even talking about Dragon Age?

When I make a value statement I generally make it based on the thing at hand. If there was another intro to D&D boxed set to compare it to, I could compare it to that thing, but Dragon Age and D&D are two different games, and therefore the requirements are different.

Also you need to take into account that this boxed set is designed to be segued into the essentials line, whereas Dragon Age is designed to spawn into more boxed sets, so again the design is different.

Comparing the two would be as you said, like comparing monopoly to clue.

My statement was that in order to judge the value of a thing you have to take everything in it into account. For what I get for the money I find the D&D boxed set (including all the shiny bits inside) a good value.

Guess I'm not following your need to compare the two games.

For what it's worth- technically Dragon Age would be a way better value for me... I'm not a beginner I don't need the Red Box. I've never played Dragon Age the TTRPG though, so that would be useful.

 

[Imaro]

Who's saying Dragon Age needs to include them? You? When was I even talking about Dragon Age?

When I make a value statement I generally make it based on the thing at hand. If there was another intro to D&D boxed set to compare it to, I could compare it to that thing, but Dragon Age and D&D are two different games, and therefore the requirements are different.

Also you need to take into account that this boxed set is designed to be segued into the essentials line, whereas Dragon Age is designed to spawn into more boxed sets, so again the design is different.

Comparing the two would be as you said, like comparing monopoly to clue.

My statement was that in order to judge the value of a thing you have to take everything in it into account. For what I get for the money I find the D&D boxed set (including all the shiny bits inside) a good value.

Guess I'm not following your need to compare the two games.

For what it's worth- technically Dragon Age would be a way better value for me... I'm not a beginner I don't need the Red Box. I've never played Dragon Age the TTRPG though, so that would be useful.

I compared them because Chris Pramas specifically stated one of his goals with box set 1 was to create an easy beginner/introductory set for the Dragon Age rpg... and since WotC uses the same formula every time they release a starter set (I mean about the only thing we'd be comparing is the different boxes), I thought it might be interesting to compare and contrast the approach of two different companies trying to reach the same audience.

However as apparently WotC has the formula down pact and it's worked so well over, and over and over and over again bringing new players into the hobby... there really isn't anything to improve so like I said earlier I will bow out of this discussion.

 

[Scribble]

However as apparently WotC has the formula down pact and it's worked so well over, and over and over and over again bringing new players into the hobby... there really isn't anything to improve so like I said earlier I will bow out of this discussion.

Uh... ok.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Reading this thread has led me to add the Dragon Age boxed set to my Amazon Wishlist, so thanks Imaro!

This thread has killed whatever nostalgia-based interest I had in picking up the Red Box. If it's little more than a single adventure and not a self-contained game (like the original) then I don't see much point in getting it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

This thread has killed whatever nostalgia-based interest I had in picking up the Red Box. If it's little more than a single adventure and not a self-contained game (like the original) then I don't see much point in getting it.

Same.

 

[D'karr]

I remember the Magenta box, I didn't start with the Red Box. We created characters with it, played one adventure with it, that crazy Rodemus family, and quickly stepped into AD&D. I did also purchase the Blue Box Expert Set but only used it for the Isle of Dread that was included. The boxes collected dust after that. I remember scratching my head at the beginning of our step into AD&D because the races were classes in Basic and I had no idea what was going on.

We continued playing as if it didn't matter and, interestingly enough , it didn't. We had elves casting spells and fighting, next to dwarven thieves. For some time we played this strange hybrid and nobody cared. We had monsters from the Monster Manual, characters from the basic set, and combat charts from the DMG, and it all made sense. We were having fun, even when it was not "by the book". None of that impeded us from moving fully to AD&D later on.

Tonight, when my dwarven fighter got eaten by a gelatinous cube, it didn't matter either. The fact that I didn't have a passive perception or passive insight on my character sheet, or that I was only adding my STR bonus when it should have been my STR and CON made no difference to the enjoyment of the game. The big grin on my son's face, as my dwarf melted to goo, was priceless. And the rules inconsistencies will not matter when he gets the other books either.

I love to see the game through the eyes of new players. I prefer to experience it that way. They don't care that a skill is missing on a sheet or that a power is worded wrong. They just play and enjoy it.

Oh, wanna guess what I'm doing tomorrow? Yep, some more death is planned for my dwarven fighter, and Castle Ravenloft too. I'm loving gaming with my son, thanks WotC.

 

[JohnSnow]

Reading this thread has led me to add the Dragon Age boxed set to my Amazon Wishlist, so thanks Imaro!

This thread has killed whatever nostalgia-based interest I had in picking up the Red Box. If it's little more than a single adventure and not a self-contained game (like the original) then I don't see much point in getting it.

Well, I asked that the ops make the title of this thread as "Constructive Criticism" for a reason. It's very easy to pick the box apart, or take the knee-jerk response of defending it against all criticism.

I feel the Red Box is the best D&D Starter Set in ages. But frankly, it's just not up to the standards set by its illustrious predecessor.

As others have pointed out, the Dragon Age boxed set provides a lot more than 50% more gameplay for $30 (compared to the Red Box's $20). Also as others have said, the production value is higher: yes, it lacks battle maps and "fiddly bits," but it comes across as being higher quality. In addition, the layout is better, the game is presented in a reasonably straight-forward manner, and it's the complete system, even though the box only presents the first 5 levels. The biggest difference? The Dragon Age set has two 64 page books with real covers, rather than one 32-page book and one 64 page one without said covers.

I still prefer the D&D system (I started with D&D and I love rolling that d20...), but I'd sure as hell like to see a Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set that compares to what Green Ronin did with Dragon Age. For what that game provides, even if they had to raise the price to $30 to pull that off (I don't think that'd be necessary), it'd be worth it. The only reasons Dragon Age isn't gonna eat WotC's lunch are: 1) It's not D&D, and the brand still means something; and, 2) Because of its association with Hasbro, Wizards has a distribution network Green Ronin simply can't match.

But I wish WotC would at least act like they have to work to stay at the top of the RPG industry. Some real competition would probably be good for the RPG industry. IF it drove WotC to step up their game.