What in the world is left to be in core?

[JohnSnow]

Here's a whacky thought...

The community gets to work this spring on playtesting the next edition of D&D. For the next year, we start beating the crap out of the rules, focusing early on (via direction from WotC) on the first 5 levels and the "Core 4" classes and races.

At GenCon 2013, WotC announces that the new game has finished playtesting and is finished, and has just gone to the printers. Expected release: spring of 2014.

BUT, as a surprise announcement, WotC does have a product to sell at GenCon. It's a "Core Rules only" version of the next edition, for ~3-5 levels, with the classic 4x4 class/race mix of fighter, cleric, wizard & rogue and races of human, elf, dwarf & halfling. So, it's a new red box, but unlike the last one, it's not an marketing trick. Like the classic Red Box, this one has the complete rules for the (simplified core) game. And that's because playtesting on these levels, classes and races was finished 8 months ago, so they had something that was ready for the printers.

And oddly enough, it'll be in stores for Xmas.

Maybe I'm dreaming, but I like the dream...

 

[delericho]

I both agree and disagree with the OP.

Agree, in that I don't favour a 4x4 baseline for the game in the Core Rulebook. I think 4x4 is a good thing for the Starter Set to restrict itself to, but I favour a 4x8 arrangement in the Core Rulebook (to give an alternative for each of the 'classic' classes).

Disagree, in that I don't think you need anything more than a 4x4 arrangement. With just those, and perhaps a hundred powers (total) and perhaps a hundred monsters, you have enough material to tell an infinite number of stories. Heck, you don't even need all those elements to tell an infinite number of stories - a great many fantasies (not to mention other genres) manage with humans alone!

Two other addenda to this:

- I do strongly favour moving the game back to a manageable Core. The reason for this is simple - if D&D is going to thrive long-term, it must bring in new players. And the current arrangement of nearly 1,000 pages of Core Rulebooks, all for a game you might like is just way too much investment for those new players. And it's all well and good saying that they should instead be introduced by someone who already knows the rules, but that limits the game to the periphery of the existing network; far better if new players can get themselves started using a good Starter Set, and then moving to a manageable Core Rulebook (and then beyond when they're ready).

- For all the talk of telling "an infinite number of stories", I actually find it quite shocking how many adventures, including good adventures boil down to the same one - "here are some monsters; here's your excuse; go kill them all!". Instead of a myriad of mechanical options to ensure that each PC is more specially special than the last, WotC would do well to write a far greater variety of adventures, IMO, and to empower DMs to likewise tell more varied stories.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

IDisagree, in that I don't think you need anything more than a 4x4 arrangement. With just those, and perhaps a hundred powers (total) and perhaps a hundred monsters, you have enough material to tell an infinite number of stories. Heck, you don't even need all those elements to tell an infinite number of stories - a great many fantasies (not to mention other genres) manage with humans alone!

Not to mention, all the breadth is primarily for groups that have gotten a little jaded with the original. It is hard for some veterans to remember--especially if they came from an appreciation of fantasy elsewhere and into a game of veterans--but there are a lot of people that can get a solid year or more out of some faily narrow choices. It is all new to them.

Fantasy computer games might have eliminated some of this affect, but nowhere near all of it. "You mean I can do anything I can imagine?" is a powerful draw, even if you have to start by doing anything you can imagine as an elf fighter/magic user, dwarf fighter, etc.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The players that 5E needs to win over are the 4E players, the 3E players, the Pathfinder crowd, the casual gamers who don't care about edition wars, and the D&D-curious who don't play RPGs (yet, or not anymore).

Mearls wants the OSR crowd back badly.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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."

Not everyone wants to say that though...

 

[WheresMyD20]

Not everyone wants to say that though...

In that quote, Vic Wertz is saying that Paizo makes most of its money from their adventure paths, not the rulebooks. So from their business perspective, having an introductory set that pushes players towards the full rules makes sense since what they're really trying to sell is the adventure paths, which require the full rules.

Pathfinder is largely geared towards 3e players that didn't want to switch to 4e. Of course, having an introductory set to capture new players is a good idea because they want to grow their customer base. However, the bulk of that customer base is (and is likely to remain) made up of 3e veterans. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years the Pathfinder demographic begins to resemble the current old-school demographic.

What WotC seems to be trying to do is create a new crop of tabletop RPG gamers. The hobby is slowly dying due to an aging fan base. There aren't enough new gamers replacing the gamers leaving the hobby.

The great thing about a $19.95 simple, complete ruleset is that it's something that 10-12 year olds can relatively easily get their hands on and then continue to use for a long time. Over time, they'll gradually buy more product. As they get older, they'll create a new generation of hardcore gamers that WotC can sell to.

The old 1983 BECMI sets did a fantastic job of capturing the 10-12 crowd. However, the Pathfinder business model doesn't work for the purpose of growing a new generation of 10-12 year olds gamers because it assumes new players will buy the intro set, then buy the even more expensive core rules, then buy the adventure path line in fairly quick succession. Kids in the 10-12 age range generally can't afford all that.