What in the world is left to be in core?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

Actually, if you recall, 3E did release in introductory box as it's first product. It had rules, dice, tokens, and a pretty good adventure book (started with "Rescue the Unicorn from the Goblins" and had Mialee, Eberk, Lidda, and Regdar as characters). It fell flat IMO because it was designed to "upsell" to the PHB quickly, and so had only two levels of play and not a lot of information about creating new adventures.

A good intro product to me looks a lot like the BD&D boxed set -- enough meat that it's the last product you need if you're just a casual gamer, and easy to pick up quickly.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Actually, what's mostly been done is that you've explained the rather shallow question that I didn't ask (and which I already referred to myself, in an attempt to make it clear that that wasn't the answer I was looking for) and NOT, in fact, the question that I DID ask.

The concept of core vs. modular add-ons is very clear to me. I don't need that explained. What I'm asking is, why has this discussion seemed to decide that a 1983 BD&D start as core is the way to go? What business realities does that address? How does that appeal to the likely customer base, who has been used to a more robust and option-filled game for decades now?

For that matter, why does the discussion also ignore the elephant in the room that more recent beginner boxes don't appear to have been particularly great sellers. Or that the 3-class generic class option from from UA (3.5 version) doesn't appear to have been a particularly popular concept? Heck, I'd like any example of where a stripped down version of D&D has been commercially successful (other than the BD&D example which keeps getting tossed around, which I've said plenty represents a different stage in the evolution of the customer base and demand, and therefore is hardly a good analog for a business model that makes sense to use today.)

 

[ferratus]

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?

To be fair, that was also accompanied with the general idea that gnomes weren't going to be a player race in the marketing of 4e, and there seemed to be an internal dislike of gnomes at WotC. So there was no news of a forthcoming gnome in the PHB2 when the gnome was announced, nor any clue yet that there was going to be a PHB 2.

I think another problem with the PHB 1,2 and 3 was that each cost the same amount as a player's handbook. If WotC is going to release modular content, the module has to be relatively inexpensive. If I'm going to shell out $100 for a PHB, DMG, and MM then yes, there should be $100 worth of content. If it is $50, then I can wait to shell out the rest for more options.

Frankly, if you want the hobby to grow, a basic D&D set has to be cheap enough to be an impulse buy or in the budget of your average 12 year old anyway.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

Let's imagine a few possible scenarios.

1. They publish a 5e Basic Set that is something like 4e Essentials. They say that an advanced set (or complete rulebook or whatever) is coming soon, then publish it in a few months.
2. They publish a basic set and an advanced rulebook at the same time.
3. They publish an advanced rulebook first, a basic set later.
4. They only publish a basic set, all options are in splatbooks.
5. They only publish a complete rulebook, to the tune of PHB in 3e or 4e.

I have no problem with any of these personally, as long as the game is good. In the first case you might just take the Basic Set as a preview and wait for the "actual product". The fourth might annoy some people, who want their options in one book, but realistically all "pet" options will never be in one book.

(I think #2 is unlikely, since by launching separately you usually get more press.)

 

[MoxieFu]

Actually, if you recall, 3E did release in introductory box as it's first product. It had rules, dice, tokens, and a pretty good adventure book (started with "Rescue the Unicorn from the Goblins" and had Mialee, Eberk, Lidda, and Regdar as characters). It fell flat IMO because it was designed to "upsell" to the PHB quickly, and so had only two levels of play and not a lot of information about creating new adventures.

A good intro product to me looks a lot like the BD&D boxed set -- enough meat that it's the last product you need if you're just a casual gamer, and easy to pick up quickly.

Olgar I recall that product but help me remember. Did it have rules for rolling up characters? I don' t think it did, but I may be wrong on that point.

I do remember that it had some encounters in it, starting of very small and then working up, but never really coming up to the level of of Keep on the Borderlands or The Village of Hommlet. They weren't very satisfying at all and had zero repeatability.

What I am looking for is like the Basic set similar to the ones that Moldvoy wrote. It has enough rules to actually play a full version of the first three to five levels of play and an adventure in it similar to B2 or T1. Where it would differ is that the rules would be compatible with the full game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Quoting portion of me that don't happen to coincide with the point I made is just silly.

It's the part I quoted in my OP, so it's the part I'm responding to. If you mean something else, please write what you mean, and I will be better able to respond to what you mean. I can only guess at what you mean from what you say.

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.

I don't think this is a strategy that caters to OSR. I think this is a strategy that caters to every DM who has their own idea of how their games should work at their tables, and doesn't want to be told by the game designers that they don't know what's fun for their own groups. In other words, every DM ever.

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.

I don't think there's anything stopping folks who want more from having more. If the core is something very streamlined and simple, people can and will be adding stuff left and right. That doesn't mean the designers need to present a core with a multitude of options, though -- people who like options can add them in.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Olgar I recall that product but help me remember. Did it have rules for rolling up characters? I don' t think it did, but I may be wrong on that point.

I do remember that it had some encounters in it, starting of very small and then working up, but never really coming up to the level of of Keep on the Borderlands or The Village of Hommlet. They weren't very satisfying at all and had zero repeatability.

You're remembering correctly. Character creation rules could be inferred, but it wasn't explicit. Again -- WotC was trying to use this to upsell to a PHB as quickly as possible. And though there was a fair amount of adventure, it wasn't a sandbox.

What I am looking for is like the Basic set similar to the ones that Moldvoy wrote. It has enough rules to actually play a full version of the first three to five levels of play and an adventure in it similar to B2 or T1. Where it would differ is that the rules would be compatible with the full game.

Agreed -- this is the sort of intro product the game needs, self contained, yet replayable and expandable. Want advanced options? Buy the PHB, but you can play forever with the intro box if you're happy with a lower level of complexity.

 

[MoxieFu]

Olgar I recall that product but help me remember. Did it have rules for rolling up characters? I don' t think it did, but I may be wrong on that point.

I do remember that it had some encounters in it, starting of very small and then working up, but never really coming up to the level of of Keep on the Borderlands or The Village of Hommlet. They weren't very satisfying at all and had zero repeatability.

What I am looking for is like the Basic set similar to the ones that Moldvoy wrote. It has enough rules to actually play a full version of the first three to five levels of play and an adventure in it similar to B2 or T1. Where it would differ is that the rules would be compatible with the full game.

Yes that product was called "Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game: The Adventure Begins Here". It did not have rules for rolling up characters. As Olgar said it only covered the first two levels of play. It also came with an Adventure Booklet that was nothing like Borderlands or Hommlet. I bought this for my nephews when it came out. After running the pregen characters through the encounters it was utterly useless to them except for the dice.

I sincerely hope that WotC doesn't try to release a Basic Box remotely like this. Paizo got it right when they released their box. I am hoping that WotC will do the same.

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

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.

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?

I think there may be some miscommunication here. I never said that they should release only the core rules on day 1. I think they should release a core rules product + one or two expansions on day 1. They could even bundle those products together in a slipcase for people who want to buy them all at once. Gnomes should be available on day 1, but I don't think they need to be in the core rulebook itself.

How about putting out 3 books on day 1:

1. Core Rulebook: (4x4 rules) + a limited number of spells, monsters, and magic items. A full game in its own right.

2. Expansion I (call it Unearthed Arcana, Expanded rules, Expert rules, Advanced rules, or something like that): more races, classes, spells, and some optional rules.

3. Monsters & Treasure - a full-size monster manual + magic items that supplements the limited number contained in the core rules.

This strategy can appeal to new gamers by offering them a small, simple, inexpensive, complete core rulebook to start with. It also appeals to the hardcore crowd by giving them the extras they want on day 1.

The marketing strategy that worked in 1983 and that has been ignored in the 3e/4e years is that you need to provide a simple, cheap entry point to the game that is a complete game. You need to make sure that you don't just give players 1-3 or 1-5 levels and then say, "you need to buy the full game and learn all of its advanced rules to keep playing".

TSR learned that back in 1977 when people bought Holmes Basic and then didn't want to move on to AD&D. There were a lot of customers that wanted to stay with Basic, but continue on past level 3. That's why the 1981 Expert set came about. Yes, they made a mistake by making Basic/Expert D&D and Advanced D&D separate product lines, but that's something they could easily avoid this time around. Just make the advanced rules the same product line, but a super-set of the core game.

We need a simple, complete version of D&D that can be played all the way to high levels. We haven't had that in a long time and I think it's the biggest obstacle to getting new players. You need to be able to say, "Buy this $19.95 book and you'll have the full game.", not "Buy this $19.95 introductory set and we'll get you started on the road to the complex, full $100+ game."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The marketing strategy that worked in 1983 and that has been ignored in the 3e/4e years is that you need to provide a simple, cheap entry point to the game that is a complete game. You need to make sure that you don't just give players 1-3 or 1-5 levels and then say, "you need to buy the full game and learn all of its advanced rules to keep playing".

Darn straight. And while you are at it, don't patronize the customers. That is, don't spend too much time telling them how to play in baby talk. Give them solid advice, of course, in a meaningful proportion to the material that is there.

And that is why my answer to the original question of what is in the core is that having the burger be just meat and bun is fine. But you need a few sides to go with it, in the core, even if they are merely greasy fries, a sour pickle, and a fizzy beverage. Related to the non-patronizing point, make those sides clearly sides, that can obviously be replaced with something else if you buy the supplements, along with more toppings for your burger. That is, don't collapse them into one thing for "simplicity" and pretend it all inherently goes together.

This failure of starter sets in 3E/4E has been a little on design/development, but mainly it has been a failure of management, marketing, and corporate nerve.