What is THE NEXT BIG THING?

[Nightfall]

*still think he is the next big thing* I got this many posts don't I?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Flexor!

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.

I didn't say they were necessary, but they are:

A) Helpful
B) Visceral
C) Tactile
D) Kewl

And UK I only own 5 3e books, 3.5 core, FCII, and MOP(that I got for $5)

Thats still the equivalent of 5 boxed sets, also I imagine if we take a poll of how many D&D books people here have, a tally of 5 or less would be in the minority - would you agree.

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.

So what you are saying is that you do already use a 'surrogate' type of board, graph paper.

I fail to see how the board pieces are fundamentally different?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Let's just keep it to Mate huh?

But dude...

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...

I know.

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

Fine line between living and dying too.

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

You know if I had a dollar for everytime you mispelled the word Slarecian, I'd be Donald Trump.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi 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

Are you sure you don't mean variety instead of complexity?

Who the heck wants complexity for its own sake?

2) People buy books that add onto the game.

Okay, and how is this any different to buying boxed sets that add on to 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.

No reason why you can't introduce new Feats, Skills or Prestige Classes to the D&D Boardgame format.

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.

Feats perhaps, but the Skill rules are terribly overcooked.

The problem with NPC creation is that there are too many 'mechanical parts' to the game.

 

[Rykion]

I think an expandable D&D boardgame definitely has a lot of potential. The mechanics should be more in line with the RPG than the existing boardgame. Something close to the Basic Game, but with more playability and modular expansions. It should encourage people to look into D&D, but the boardgame should be well designed so that it can stand on its own merits. It also needs a brand name of its own to promote sales rather than the Basic or simply Boardgame moniker. It could even be branded under the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures line with a name like Dungeon Delves or simply Adventures.

 

[Lalato]

I think an expandable D&D boardgame definitely has a lot of potential. The mechanics should be more in line with the RPG than the existing boardgame. Something close to the Basic Game, but with more playability and modular expansions. It should encourage people to look into D&D, but the boardgame should be well designed so that it can stand on its own merits. It also needs a brand name of its own to promote sales rather than the Basic or simply Boardgame moniker. It could even be branded under the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures line with a name like Dungeon Delves or simply Adventures.

I like it... I would buy that in a heartbeat.

--sam

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Thats still the equivalent of 5 boxed sets, also I imagine if we take a poll of how many D&D books people here have, a tally of 5 or less would be in the minority - would you agree.



So what you are saying is that you do already use a 'surrogate' type of board, graph paper.

I fail to see how the board pieces are fundamentally different?

Because sometimes I don't use any of that and we run the action totally in our heads and it works fine. I don't mind using minis, I just don't like the idea that I wouldn't be able to play without them. So far I'm not convinced that your putting a board as the core of the game adds anything that I want out of my RPG gaming.

 

[JVisgaitis]

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

No biggie. Just busting on you.

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

Well, this is me wearing my marketing hat. You don't want to split your customer base and resources and try to support two different product lines (the same reason why the stopped making D&D and AD&D). That's also why I suggested a lead into normal D&D.

Honestly, when I was writing that I thought the first module should require the core books, but then I figured what the hell.

Now as a gamer, I would love to see what I wrote released and supported to the gills. I doubt that would happen though because of the whole two markets thing...

 

[Upper_Krust]

I think an expandable D&D boardgame definitely has a lot of potential. The mechanics should be more in line with the RPG than the existing boardgame.

Why though, when you could include an Advanced Rulebook within the boxed set, for those who wish to use them.

Then you have the best of both worlds.

Something close to the Basic Game, but with more playability and modular expansions.

Playability is just a matter of options.

As for 'modular expansions', I would be wary of creating something that needed something else to be played.

I would make all the boxed sets playable on their own, otherwise you are just going to confuse the casual retailer.

It should encourage people to look into D&D,

You see, this is the sort of mentality we need to escape from. For all intents and purposes the boardgame could 'be' D&D.

but the boardgame should be well designed so that it can stand on its own merits. It also needs a brand name of its own to promote sales rather than the Basic or simply Boardgame moniker. It could even be branded under the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures line with a name like Dungeon Delves or simply Adventures.

Dude! Did you not see my brand extension ideas a few posts ago!?

Dungeons & Pirates, Dungeons & Dinosaurs, Dungeons & Vampires etc.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Flexor matey!

Because sometimes I don't use any of that and we run the action totally in our heads and it works fine. I don't mind using minis, I just don't like the idea that I wouldn't be able to play without them. So far I'm not convinced that your putting a board as the core of the game adds anything that I want out of my RPG gaming.

Okay, it may be difficult for me to convince a die-hard stuck-in-the-mud like yourself.

But can you honestly say you don't see my idea being a massive success and bringing D&D to millions of people? In which, surely you could see why it would be a great business move for Wizards of the Coast?