What in the world is left to be in core?

[MoxieFu]

Neither 3e nor 4e started life by coming out with a basic beginner box first. Maybe that's why neither edition seems to have had the traction in bringing in new blood that stuck with the game. (The part about new blood is my guess, feel free to disagree.) Keep on the Borderlands was one of the top selling modules, if not the top selling module because it was included in the Basic Boxed set. This indicates how the Basic set was a top seller for TSR.

Another benefit of coming out with a starter box first is that we the players will have the initial kernel of the game to play with while the developers fine-tune the rest of the core game. Advanced options such as epic level play can be left out of the second book or books so they can be brought to market sooner instead of having to wait for a reasonably developed set of rules for high level play.

Once they have the more basic "core" elements of the game ready to publish, they can move on to the next click on the complexity dial. This is how they can implement modularity so the game supports more or different levels of play.

 

[WheresMyD20]

As for what is core, I've said it before, it's a useless, purely academic distinction. As a player, I'll make the character I want, and I'll pick from everything that is available. Why would I restrict myself? As a DM, I have to work with whatever the PCs have on their sheets, regardless of where it came from.

Why would any DM let the players walk all over him like that? If I'm running the game, then I decide which options are available and which options aren't. If players can't deal with it, then they have the option of not playing. Period. The DM's decision is final.

If there are things that I think are overpowered, poorly designed, or don't fit in the campaign, then they won't be used. End of story.

A good DM works with his players and accommodates reasonable requests, but should *never* let them dictate to him how to run his game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Which is all fine and dandy. But let's face it... it's a niche demographic that no other edition could win over since the 1970ies.

Well, they haven't really tried just publishing an edition vaguely compatible with those rules since about the 1970's, either.

I'm not nearly so cynical about what people might be interested in a new edition, honestly.

Yes. I accounted for the outliers when I said "most" and used other qualifier words like that.

Actually, you said:

I'm being Captain Obvious and saying, "Yeah, well, has anyone considered how lame that's going to be to everyone, instead of just patting themselves on the back for their brilliant and elegant, yet totally impoverished and unworkable model?"

And also:

Does anyone really honestly believe that a stripped down D&D that's that impoverished and hollow is going to satisfy anyone?

...the word "most" doesn't appear there.

A stripped down D&D isn't impoverished, hollow, or unworkable to everyone, so allowing for anyone to play a stripped down D&D, if they want, is absolutely a method that is going to win them some significant section of the audience who really thinks that a stripped down D&D is exactly what they need.

You take for granted the idea that a minimal D&D is an objective failure from the very concept of it. I don't see any evidence that this idea meshes up with reality.

As a DM, that would not work for me at all. I have done the thing where the player brings me one of his books that I don't own and asks me if he can play this class. I said yes, and then I had to deal with never knowing what the player could do. I could have just bought that book, but I was a poor student at the time.

I don't follow you.

If there is literally only one class and one race in the entire game (an exaggeration for effect, yes), that should work REALLY well for you, since there is only one thing that your prospective players can play, and only one thing that you need to learn about.

I mean, the exaggerated idea I presented isn't actually viable for a few other reasons, but "because there's so many options I won't be able to keep up" isn't one of 'em.

 

[Jawsh]

I don't follow you.

If there is literally only one class and one race in the entire game (an exaggeration for effect, yes), that should work REALLY well for you, since there is only one thing that your prospective players can play, and only one thing that you need to learn about.

I mean, the exaggerated idea I presented isn't actually viable for a few other reasons, but "because there's so many options I won't be able to keep up" isn't one of 'em.

I guess I missed a step. I meant every player only has access to a single class. As in, the fighter has the fighter book. The cleric has the cleric book. The wizard has the wizard book.

Meanwhile, the DM has to collect them all if he's going to keep up, buying one class at a time.

Meh. It's a silly thing to speculate on, because it wouldn't happen that way.

 

[Desdichado]

Because many new players, especially kids can't plunk down $100 for a game they want to try. There has to be an entry point to the game and it can't be priced out of their range and it can't be a stack of big, intimidating books to first-time buyers.

Supplements and other books can come out to please the hardcore, long-time players of the game. WotC can't ignore bringing in new players if they want to succeed in the long run.

Yes, I see the point of that, but there's no correllation between that and an impoverished 4x4 model other than one that's been artificially constructed by the discussion here.

Or have you never seen any other single-book entry point games, many of which have more character options than the 4x4 offers? It's certainly and easily doable while still maintaining the goal of being an entry point game. Wanting to add a fifth race and a fifth class doesn't make one a hardcore, long-time player of the game.

Also; who are we kidding here? Is 5e going to be designed to turn off those hardcore long time players while attracting these nebulous new players? Considering the way the market works, and how likely it seems to me that the game is going to sell to non-gamers vs. existing D&D customers, that seems like a nearly suicidal strategy from a marketing perspective.

It's one thing to design a game that can work as an entry point as well as satisfy your existing customer base. Alienating the latter in the hopes of picking up a lot of the former can work, but not in this market.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, at the time when Basic D&D was released in the early 80's it was the golden age of D&D, long before the unsold and unsellable books of the 2e era in the 90s, the 3e/3.5e switchover era of the early 2000s, and the current 4e era. The 1983 Red Box Basic Set is still, by far, the biggest selling D&D item of all time (per Frank Mentzer - he claimed that unit sales were orders of magnitude larger than anything published for 1e since it was sold in mainstream toy stores... it's *very* unlikely that anything in the 3e/4e era even comes close).

Dude, no kidding.

You're not following me. My whole point was that because it was the "golden age" or "fad age" if you will of the game, that a split market strategy could work for TSR and still bring in cash hand over fist.

We're not in those same market conditions today. The customer demand has shifted dramatically.

Using the golden age of the red box as your business model today ignores the most obvious of problems--it's not the early 80s anymore.

I see "core" D&D as being the absolutely essential rules of the game. Everything else is a rules expansion. What's so confusing about that?

Nothing at all is confusing about that. Who said I was confused? I said I strongly disagreed with the premise.

I see that 5e needs to appeal to a variety of gamers right out of the gate. If you go back to some 1980 business model in the (probably vain) hope of attracting large numbers of lapsed OSRers or something, and alienate your existing fanbase who for decades now, have expected a more robust game with more options than that, then all you've done is tick everybody off, and send people to other games, from which they may not return to look at your later supplement, even if it gives them what they wanted. You have to hook them from the very beginning, or you've lost your potential customer base right from the get-go.

Some of those expansions could possibly be packaged together in the same book. Back in the day, RoleMaster (which, incidentally, Monte Cook worked on) would put out a rules expansion every year or so, similar in some ways to the old Unearthed Arcana for 1e. They were labeled "Companion I", "Companion II", etc. Each of these companions had a variety of optional rules GMs could choose to add to their game. In the later companions, there were even checklists so a GM could quickly document which optional rules were used in his game. I wouldn't be too surprised if WotC tried something like that for 5e.

I would be. Because of the business realities that this discussion seems to be ignoring. You'd think that because it only happened a little while ago, that folks would remember it better, but 4e already followed that Rolemaster model (which I already know about too--seriously; I've been around the block for quite a while as a gamer now.) Maybe your remember "Players Handbook 2" and "Players Handbook 3", etc. Maybe you also remember that by the time gnomes, for instance, were released back into the game as a playable race that the damage had already been done by having left them out? Does that ring any bells?

 

[Desdichado]

Neither 3e nor 4e started life by coming out with a basic beginner box first. Maybe that's why neither edition seems to have had the traction in bringing in new blood that stuck with the game. (The part about new blood is my guess, feel free to disagree.) Keep on the Borderlands was one of the top selling modules, if not the top selling module because it was included in the Basic Boxed set. This indicates how the Basic set was a top seller for TSR.

And when those beginner boxed sets came out for 3e and 4e? How did they sell? How well did they bring new gamers to the table? Right.

The reason that 3e and 4e started out life as they did is because it's not a market anymore where the game is bringing all kinds of new kids to the table who have heard by word of mouth and notoriety about this new game and want to try it out. D&D is mainstream nerdsville by now. The only notoriety it has is that it's a game that appeals to geeks. In order to sell, nowadays, D&D has to primarily market to existing gamers. The hobby, if it's growing at all (which I find a dubious idea at best) does so slowly as existing gamers convert a few friends, SOs or whatever to the game. The market today is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT than it was in 1983. A business model that looks like 1983 all over again is a DISASTROUS business plan for D&D.

Designing a game that is easy for new players to pick jup and play is a notable goal. But if in pursuit of that goal, you sacrifice the elements of D&D that make it appeal to existing customers, then it's a foolish goal, equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot.

Besides, WotC's own statements about the design goals of 5e make it clear that what they're hoping it will do is bring back all the Pathfinder players who left in droves in the wake of the 4e launch, while maintaining the existing 4e fans, and hey, if we can pick up a few OSR players while we're at it, we'll take them too. So why is everyone here talking about selling to new players like it's 1983 all over again?

 

[MoxieFu]

Yes, I see the point of that, but there's no correllation between that and an impoverished 4x4 model other than one that's been artificially constructed by the discussion here.

Or have you never seen any other single-book entry point games, many of which have more character options than the 4x4 offers? It's certainly and easily doable while still maintaining the goal of being an entry point game. Wanting to add a fifth race and a fifth class doesn't make one a hardcore, long-time player of the game.

Also; who are we kidding here? Is 5e going to be designed to turn off those hardcore long time players while attracting these nebulous new players? Considering the way the market works, and how likely it seems to me that the game is going to sell to non-gamers vs. existing D&D customers, that seems like a nearly suicidal strategy from a marketing perspective.

It's one thing to design a game that can work as an entry point as well as satisfy your existing customer base. Alienating the latter in the hopes of picking up a lot of the former can work, but not in this market.

Different levels of using the core game and using the core game PLUS modular supplements will appeal to different styles of play.

You asked for someone to explain it to you and I have. If you are simply refusing to see it then no amount of explaining it to you is going to work. You obviously DON'T want it explained to you and there is nothing further I can say that is productive.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, you said:

And also:

...the word "most" doesn't appear there.

I know exactly what I said. Quoting portion of me that don't happen to coincide with the point I made is just silly. I know, and made allowances for the fact that there are outliers.

That said, if you're going to go the route of "I can find a few exceptions to the mainstream, therefore the mainstream doesn't actually exist"--my paraphrasing of your approach--then we don't have a lot to talk about. Yes, of course, you can always find exceptions to any generality. Contrary to occasionally popular belief (popular among people who don't understand statistics, mostly) that doesn't actually prove much of anything.

I'm taking it as a given that the OSR is a tiny niche, relatively speaking. Most OSR luminaries have and do regularly admit the exact same thing. So while a nod or two in their direction isn't a bad idea, coming up with a strategy that specifically caters to them is.

You take for granted the idea that a minimal D&D is an objective failure from the very concept of it. I don't see any evidence that this idea meshes up with reality.

Yes, I do. I'm quite certain that the majority of the player base expects a more robust game with more options than that, and will turn away from anything less. Even the comparatively benign release of 4e provided plenty of evidence for that--folks left in droves complaining about elements that were left out. Granted, the way that was handled and communicated made those players and their taste feel "unwelcome" as well, and that could have been better managed... but still.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And when those beginner boxed sets came out for 3e and 4e? How did they sell? How well did they bring new gamers to the table? Right.

It causes a confusing mess in my opinion if you have "Core Rulebooks", "Starter Set" and "Essentials" all out at the same time. A newcomer doesn't come to the game exactly the moment a particular rulebook first appears.

Also, neither games were really designed with the mindset that there had to be a "small" starter set.