What is THE NEXT BIG THING?

[JVisgaitis]

In breaking from tradition of this thread, I'm going to keep my response less then 4 screens.

I think a boardgame is a logical start, but I don't feel that it should be expanded and supported. What you want people to do is purchase the boardgame and then buy right into D&D. So I think a boardgame should be able to take players up to 3rd level. Someone said it needs to be visually impressive, and I agree 110%. That's what first time players need so it should include minis, tiles, cards, etc. Production values need to be top notch for this product.

The story arc that is in the boardgame should center around a dungeon crawl, but needs to be very well scripted to draw players into the game so they care about the characters. The end of the boardgame campaign should not be a finite ending. What you do then is release a D&D adventure for 3rd level characters that picks up where the boardgame left off, and introduces people into D&D proper.

This adventure would have instructions on converting their characters and all of that and should also allow players to play the game with everything in it (no need for a PHB or a DMG). At the conclusion of that adventure, the heroes conclude the story arc started in the boardgame and world is opened up before them. From there, they would be directed to purchase the core rulebooks and start their own games.

 

[delericho]

But is it realistic to expect to pay a starting DM this much? Perhaps an extremely skilled DM. One who keeps me mostly entertained for the whole time.

My analysis is based, in part, on my experiences with being hired to play the bagipes at folks' weddings. One of the pieces of advice I was given was, "if you're not good enough to charge the going rate, you're not good enough to charge."

So, a "starting DM" has no business charging others for his services in the first place. Instead, what he needs to be doing is DMing for various groups to build up his skill level and rules-mastery, until he gets to the point where he is good enough to charge. IMO, of course.

If there were a formal DM ranking system, one that was accurate and well-regarded, and one that covered not just rules-mastery but the whole spectrum of DM requirements, then I would expect to be sitting comfortably in one of the top grades before I would consider charging. Basically, I would have to be able to give a guarantee of keeping customers "mostly entertained for the whole time". If I'm not in one of those bands, then the first thing I'll do is work at my game until I get to that point, and then I'll consider charging.

I had the good fortune to have a couple of the top rated DMs (Jay Tummelson and Don Bingle) run me at a couple of different cons. I would have paid extra for the oppurtunity to have them as my DM. If you knew you could bid on getting one of the top ranked DMs running you for a six hour game would you?

Hypothetically, I would be willing to pay one of the top DMs to run a game for my group. But if I'm paying at all, I want to guarantee a good time. That being the case, I simply won't employ someone who isn't charging the full rate - if it's a beginner DM then I can do the job better myself. If it's one of the top top DMs, I have no problem paying his $400 asking price. Hypothetically.

The same applies in piping - if you hire a piper at a very cheap rate, chances are you're going to be disappointed (and, if played badly, the pipes can sound really terrible). But the top pipers, the guys who charge you $1,000+ for a wedding, have no difficulty finding people who will pay. The quality of the service has to warrant it, of course... but that's why they're the top guys.

I think that the idea Sean puts forth is making the DM the rock star.

I think this is do-able by a subscription method of payment. MMORPGs have been pretty successful using this method.

Perhaps I'm delerious and delusional, but I choose to believe!

Possibly. I suspect you're over-estimating the size of the gamer community, and probably also how much cash people would be willing to part with. However, I never claim to be infallible.

My gut feeling is if we had a really thorough and well-respected ranking system for DMs* then it might be possible for some really good DMs to make a little extra money through offering a service. As I mentioned in my previous post, the only way I can see it working is if a group is getting together for a one-off, for a celebration or for old-times' sake, and want to game, but no-one wants to DM.

* It would be very important that this rating system covers not just rules-mastery, which is actually a very small part of the DMing skill-set, but also storytelling, table control, and overall enjoyment. The intangibles are far more important to the whole experience than just knowing that Power Attack is doubled with a two-handed weapon, IMO. As such, when I took the RPGA Herald-level test, I was immediately struck by how utterly useless it would be as a rating system. Sadly, I have no idea how you actually would create such a system... I suspect the only means of rating that could work would be through DM feedback at conventions... but that only works for those few DMs who could attend cons with any regularity.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Hey Flexor!



How does that change when you have a board (or more specifically as I mentioned, board pieces)? As far as I can see, the board only helps players visualise combat scenarios. I mean you only need refer to the board when a tactical situation arises.



Well remember that I am suggesting board pieces for interiors, the tablecloth could be double sided - one side could have a (lightly gridded) outdoor theme (say an island for instance) while the other side could be blank with a grid.



Even with a single boxed set I would say the possible combinations would be in the millions I think.



I think this is where the allure of different boxed sets, minis and 3D furniture pieces lies. Don't think of each boxed set simply having different coloured patterns, try and think outside the standard fare.



But each new boxed set is more than simply a few new boards, its new PC classes, new monsters, new NPCs, new spells, new skills, new magic items, new adventures.



Well, if one board could cover a million possible scenarios, its going to be a while before you wear them all out.

People here talk like its D&D versus one boxed set. But D&D itself is a minimum of 3 books, and we know everyone has more than that right!

Add up how many D&D books you have purchased. Convert that into boxed sets at a ratio of 1:1 per hardback. Then tell me you could ever exhaust or get bored with that much variety.

I have approx. 20 WotC 3rd Ed. D&D hardbacks and about the same number of d20 hardbacks. The mind boggles at what you could achieve with 40 boxed sets!

You can say that 100 boxed sets still wouldn't be as varied as what you could imagine and you would be right. But at the same time if you have EVER purchased a published adventure, supplement book, Dungeon magazine or other, what you are saying is that you don't rely on your imagination ALL the time...and I suspect that is the same for 99.99% of gamers.



It would be better and I'll tell you why.

The board/minis only add to the tactical experience, it takes nothing away from any roleplaying aspect as far as I can see.

I know a ton of players who disagree with that and don't use minis at all. I do use them for the large combats usually, but they aren't necessary to run thrilling combats.

And UK I only own 5 3e books, 3.5 core, FCII, and MOP(that I got for $5)
Just using the three core D&D books I can run anything you can make a board for and not have the limitations of a pre-set board. A blank map with a wet erase marker, or a sheet of graph paper and pencil, is more than enough board for me.

 

[Kaodi]

I think, that at it's core, a D&D boardgame should be the same game as D&D. Going from it to D&D should not be a question of throwing away one game to go to the other. The boardgame should have a unique element that is *not* reproduced in the full game. That way, when you switch over, you still have something from the old game the works well in the new one, validating your original purchase of the boardgame.

 

[WizarDru]

I think, that at it's core, a D&D boardgame should be the same game as D&D. Going from it to D&D should not be a question of throwing away one game to go to the other. The boardgame should have a unique element that is *not* reproduced in the full game. That way, when you switch over, you still have something from the old game the works well in the new one, validating your original purchase of the boardgame.

The problem with the current D&D basic sets, and what sets them apart from the Moldvay Red Box, for example, is that it isn't a complete game on its own. The D&D boardgame is both fun and introduces new players to the basic ideas of D&D, if not the actual mechanics. Rogues search for traps, fighters do battle, wizards cast spells and clerics heal and turn undead. You could run a series of adventures and even an extended campaign using the D&D board game. You can make your own adventures and keep going for a while, if you so desire. You can at least level twice.

The Moldvay set had everything you needed to start playing IMMEDIATELY. The D&D basic sets give you too brief a taste...some minis, some dice and a poorly chosen set of dungeon tiles. Why poorly chosen? Because you can't lay out more than a quarter of the dungeon at one time, due to the need to flip the tiles. BOGUS. The D&D basic game emphasizes the wrong things, IMHO. The D&D boardgame even has expansions, not unlike the old Basic game. The D&D basic game should be simple enough that a 12-year old can start DM-ing a game after a couple of hours of reading, IMHO. WotC is so enamored of flashy graphics, they missed the ease and simplicity of the Moldvay release and it's clear layout and concise text.


Here's another the next big thing: An Online Tutorial and Beginning Session that introduces you to D&D, using a free online system to introduce you to it. Turbine's DDO game is adapted to a free tutorial that introduces you to play...no group required! Now the gatekeeper can play and discover the game with experienced players (real or not) and learn the game in a controlled environment. Rich Baker himself is the voice of the DM in your first Eberron adventure.

Or how about: D&D Lite. Following in the footsteps of GURPS and using the SRD as a base, WotC releases a 16-page pamphlet suitable for running any of the four free basic adventures given away on Free Comic Book Day at your local store. Enough to whet the appetite of the novice and entice him to further explore the game, it allows a novice and some friends to play an adventure in an hour, with only a few minutes prep time.

 

[Sir Elton]

Hi everyone.

The Moldvay Basic Set is the best way to go. D&D will always market to the Intelligent and Creative audience. That's usually 12 year olds in a Critical Thinking group.

As for D&D's complexity, it's more complex than Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying and Rolemaster, 2nd Edition (RM2). Around certain circles, D&D has the title of Rulesmonster. D&D has some unnecessary rule sets if it's going to appeal to a 12 year-old. The best D&D version of the game to start a 12 year old with is D&D Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master's sets.

So, I think Wizards should ressurect those in some form; then provide graduation into the more complex environment of D&D.

 

[Kaodi]

What about an actual campaign? You know, with a real story? Design the most kick-ass, amazing dungeon campaign, designed to take players from levels 1-8, with each level introducing increasing degrees of complexity to both the game, and the story. The first level would play mostly like a dungeon hack, but if you play into the second level, a story begins to unfold. All characters have preset stats, so its as simply as choosing a mini (included with the game), writing down the appropriate stats, are get going. Limit monsters to their average stats for simplicity. Everything you need to play this campaign should be included, and it should be designed so that even a veteran gamer can appreciate the campaign. You really need something that will become a classic. The story should have a decisive ending.

A second set, for levels 9-15, picks up on the adventures outside of the dungeon, and following the same principle, keeps showcasing the ever increasing number of mechanic we all know and love, . Here, where as you gave characters all of their relevant stats in the first set, from here on out they are expected to level up their characters themselves. Include a predetermined progression, but try to emphasive doing it yourself. In this, the story should measure up to any other campaign.

Of course, each of these adventures should be flexible, and should be able to be traversed by any combination of characters (though some areas might require a certain class, which would hopefully encourage playing through a second time). The minis should be unique designs, not found in any other product.

I guess this is mostly just a rehash of older suggestions, but hopefully its a little more refined. The idea is to build a product that can be an simpler introduction for beginners AND an enjoyable adventure for people with experience, who would be fine making their own characters. Instead of making adventures using " D&D Lite " make " D&D Lite " using an adventure.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey JVisgaitis!

In breaking from tradition of this thread, I'm going to keep my response less then 4 screens.

I think I am partly to blame, sorry guys. I like to reply point by point.

I think a boardgame is a logical start, but I don't feel that it should be expanded and supported. What you want people to do is purchase the boardgame and then buy right into D&D. So I think a boardgame should be able to take players up to 3rd level.

Why shouldn't it be supported though? This just seems strange to me. If you have a great product...support it.

I don't see the need for it to segue into a totally different game. I'd prefer to support the boardgame and have the 'Advanced' rules optional rather than vice versa where you support the more ethereal game and the boardgame is optional.

Someone said it needs to be visually impressive, and I agree 110%. That's what first time players need so it should include minis, tiles, cards, etc. Production values need to be top notch for this product.

Absolutely.

The story arc that is in the boardgame should center around a dungeon crawl, but needs to be very well scripted to draw players into the game so they care about the characters. The end of the boardgame campaign should not be a finite ending. What you do then is release a D&D adventure for 3rd level characters that picks up where the boardgame left off, and introduces people into D&D proper.

I certainly support a strong theme/story arc. But at the same time I would like to see the designers think 'outside the box' no pun intended. You can present many different ideas such as murder mystery, survival or escape. Also there nothing to say you can't add a time element (longer you take the more reinforcements the DM can add) or other gaming device such as fear/insanity.

This adventure would have instructions on converting their characters and all of that and should also allow players to play the game with everything in it (no need for a PHB or a DMG). At the conclusion of that adventure, the heroes conclude the story arc started in the boardgame and world is opened up before them. From there, they would be directed to purchase the core rulebooks and start their own games.

Why should the boardgame turn them on to another game when you can support the boardgame though?

 

[Nightfall]

Hey Nightfall dude!

Let's just keep it to Mate huh?

Your brother calls you Nightfall!?

No but I do recall saying "You're an idiot." for parts of my life. I just prefer to mention my RL name most of the time. Not that you don't know, being my mate and all, but you now...

Being in a 'hurry' is running to catch a bus, speeding on wet roads is stupidity.

Well there's a fine line between those two some times...

well lets wait until they are finished before singing their praises.

Hey I'm already to sing your praises. Slacerian Dragons proves to me you got chops.

 

[MerricB]

Although I like the old Moldvay Basic set a lot, I rather don't think that it's the way to go. Character creation was removed between the Black Dragon and Blue Dragon Basic Box sets. I'm sure that this wasn't because the designers just thought it should go - I'm sure that it was because of their research into how the Basic Game was received by new players.

Although I think the full D&D could be streamlined slightly, I don't think a simplified version (without feats & skills) is a good idea. D&D is the way it is because of two factors:

1) People like complexity in RPGs
2) People buy books that add onto the game.

Feats, Skills and Prestige Classes have a great advantage as being areas you can expand on without too much trouble, and thus sell more books.

If you don't have those areas to use, then balancing is much, much more difficult - you get the unholy mess that was 2e.

I'm sure that 4e will fix a lot of things that have become overcomplicated in 3e (NPC creations probably is the big one), but the basic forms of skills & feats are here to stay.

I was talking about the difference between the dense forests of text that Gygax used when writing the 1E books vs. the Diet Coke text used in the 3E/3.5E books. While the rules have gotten more numerous and interlocked, the books have continued to be written more and more dumbed down.

Gygax was terrible at writing rules explanations. The AD&D DMG is a perfect example of how not to do it. It's good at inspirational text, but horrible at rules.

Moldvay was good at it. His "dumbed down" Basic set is was taught me the game, not Gygaxian prose. Gygax was good at inspiring you, but read the combat chapter in the DMG and try to figure out how it works... not good.

Cheers!