What is THE NEXT BIG THING?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey JVisgaitis!

No biggie. Just busting on you.

Thats okay mate!

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...

But I am not suggesting we split the customer base.

I am suggesting that in lieu of a pen & paper 4th Edition we bring out a boardgame called Dungeons & Dragons. In which you have board pieces/minis/cards and something akin to the D&D Boardgame rules. But also, you include an Advanced Rulebook of modular rules, so that people can manipulate the level of detail of their game.

Every month we bring out a new themed game (which operates both independantly, and as an expansion pack).

So after Dungeons & Dragons boxed set...

Dungeons & Pirates
Dungeons & Dinosaurs
Dungeons & Vampires
Dungeons & Robots
Dungeons & Wizards
Dungeons & Ninjas
Dungeons & Zombies
etc.

Once you have the basics covered you can go off in different tangents...

Dungeons & Marvel
Dungeons & Harryhausen
Dungeons & Donuts
Dungeons & Barbie

 

[MerricB]

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

Who the heck wants complexity for its own sake?

You can't have variety without a certain level of complexity.

For players, D&D 3e has a big bonus over 1e as it invests the player's interest in the game *outside* of play of the game, as they design their character and how it advances. In AD&D, you played a fighter or magic-user, and there were no choices to make at all as to how your character advanced. New spells were dependent on those found in-game.

In 3e, the player has feats, skills, spell choices, prestige classes, multiclassing, the ability to buy magic items... all these ways of customising his or her character and investing in it heavily, and all things that can be planned without needing to be playing the game.

Okay, and how is this any different to buying boxed sets that add on to the game?

Er? Where am I disagreeing in my post?

Mind you, boxed sets have problems from a profit side of things.

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

The framework *must* be there from the start. You don't have to give all the feats or uses of skills, but you can't bolt it on later.

Feats perhaps, but the Skill rules are terribly overcooked.

Hmm? Not really. I don't like Synergy bonuses and the problem with changing Int on skills. Some skills should be combined. Otherwise, the system is easy. Max skill ranks in a number of skills and stat bonuses? Very simple. It's the people who think "oh, we have to split the points" that are the problem.

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

No, the problem is that PCs and NPCs have different needs, and they're both using the same system. With PCs, complexity is much less an issue, because it's the one thing you devote all your time to. For the NPCs, the DM must deal with lots of them, and they get used up very quickly.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Every month we bring out a new themed game (which operates both independantly, and as an expansion pack).

Ow, ow, ow, ow!

Upper_Krust, do you play boardgames? I do, a lot. (I own about 35 at present; my group has about 80). Have a look at Fantasy Flight Games and their release schedule.

Descent, being the closest to your conception of the D&D Basic Game, is expensive. As in, really expensive. US$80. So is World of Warcraft And that's with unpainted minis.

Cheers!

 

[Upper_Krust]

You can't have variety without a certain level of complexity.

I disagree, to an extent.

You can add new feats, magic items and spells in a book and they don't make the game itself more complicated.

For players, D&D 3e has a big bonus over 1e as it invests the player's interest in the game *outside* of play of the game, as they design their character and how it advances. In AD&D, you played a fighter or magic-user, and there were no choices to make at all as to how your character advanced. New spells were dependent on those found in-game.

In 3e, the player has feats, skills, spell choices, prestige classes, multiclassing, the ability to buy magic items... all these ways of customising his or her character and investing in it heavily, and all things that can be planned without needing to be playing the game.

As far as I can see the boardgame I was proposing has feats, spell choices and prestige classes, the ability to buy magic items and a way of customising their characters.

I'd include skills and multiclassing in the Advanced Rulebook.

Er? Where am I disagreeing in my post?

Mind you, boxed sets have problems from a profit side of things.

Really!? Well I'd defer to your knowledge on the matter, though obviously WotC must be making a profit from pre-painted D&D minis.

The framework *must* be there from the start. You don't have to give all the feats or uses of skills, but you can't bolt it on later.

I think you could bolt them on, although as I mentioned above I'd have some incarnation of feats right off the bat.

Hmm? Not really. I don't like Synergy bonuses and the problem with changing Int on skills. Some skills should be combined. Otherwise, the system is easy. Max skill ranks in a number of skills and stat bonuses? Very simple. It's the people who think "oh, we have to split the points" that are the problem.

So you agree then there is a potential problem.

I still say my Ability Score + Relevant Class Level = Skill should be enough.

No, the problem is that PCs and NPCs have different needs, and they're both using the same system. With PCs, complexity is much less an issue, because it's the one thing you devote all your time to. For the NPCs, the DM must deal with lots of them, and they get used up very quickly.

Thats true but it doesn't alleviate the problem.

 

[Rykion]

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.

I don't see WotC dumping the d20 and all of their established ruleset. It makes sense that any D&D based product uses at least a basic form of the rules, and the game should be compatible with D&D Miniatures game stat cards. That would allow the GM to expand their boardgame by buying the already available D&DM booster packs.

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.

I agree about playability. My point is that the D&D Basic game has few options and no real rules for advancement. Each modular box could include the main rulesbook and advanced rules for the environment and creatures it contains.(Using D&D minis stats as the basis would make this as easy as including the cards, which would have the added bonus of making the game totally useable for standard D&D.) That would make each box playable on its own, while still introducing new rules.

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

Killing D&D as an RPG and turning it into a boardgame only would alienate the existing players. You would have to hit the mainstream quickly to prevent killing the product line. Why cater to the mainstream only when you can cater to both new and existing players?

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

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

I was explaining a way to fit the game in with current WotC branding. Your ideas would work well as individual expansion box names. You would want a cohesive line identity such as D&D Miniatures Adventures, and then a product subname such as D&D Miniatures Adventures: Pirates.

 

[Rykion]

Ow, ow, ow, ow!

Upper_Krust, do you play boardgames? I do, a lot. (I own about 35 at present; my group has about 80). Have a look at Fantasy Flight Games and their release schedule.

Descent, being the closest to your conception of the D&D Basic Game, is expensive. As in, really expensive. US$80. So is World of Warcraft And that's with unpainted minis.

Cheers!

The actual boardgame could be accomplished with contents similar to the D&D Basic game. Probably with a bigger book, maybe 2 more tiles, and a few more miniatures. The D&D Basic game retails for $25 so a $40 box seems reasonable.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi MerricB!

Ow, ow, ow, ow!

Upper_Krust, do you play boardgames?

I used to play quite a few, not so much the past few years.

I do, a lot. (I own about 35 at present; my group has about 80). Have a look at Fantasy Flight Games and their release schedule.

They have 11 Boardgame products for realease over the course of 2007....so I am not sure what the point is here?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/productsrelease.html

Descent, being the closest to your conception of the D&D Basic Game, is expensive. As in, really expensive. US$80. So is World of Warcraft And that's with unpainted minis.

Unless I am mistaken, Descent has something like 80 minis of which 6 or more are Huge and 25 or so are Large! Wow!

What I am proposing is perhaps 1 Huge (or thereabouts), 4 large and 25 medium or smaller. So, in effect we are talking less (and on average smaller) minis than Descent's Expansion Pack which is itself $39.95.

Also a lot of the miniatures could be used from WotC's existing minis line.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Rykion dude!

I don't see WotC dumping the d20 and all of their established ruleset.

I don't see it as dumping. They can still keep releasing 3.5 material, but there is only so much unexplored territory left in the old girl. I mean Monster Manual V is on the way for goodness sake! How much longer before we are down to the Complete Dwarven Defender and the Tarrasqonomicon!

It makes sense that any D&D based product uses at least a basic form of the rules, and the game should be compatible with D&D Miniatures game stat cards. That would allow the GM to expand their boardgame by buying the already available D&DM booster packs.

You could solve that 'need' by releasing a deck of (monster) cards for every D&D minis set.

I agree about playability. My point is that the D&D Basic game has few options and no real rules for advancement.

I would kick the D&D Basic game to the kerb in favour of the D&D Boardgame format (though even here you could make some improvements).

Each modular box could include the main rulesbook and advanced rules for the environment and creatures it contains.

Absolutely.

(Using D&D minis stats as the basis would make this as easy as including the cards, which would have the added bonus of making the game totally useable for standard D&D.) That would make each box playable on its own, while still introducing new rules.

You see - now your thinking! Good to have you on board...okay bad pun.

Killing D&D as an RPG and turning it into a boardgame only would alienate the existing players. You would have to hit the mainstream quickly to prevent killing the product line. Why cater to the mainstream only when you can cater to both new and existing players?

As far as I can see I am catering to both.

I was explaining a way to fit the game in with current WotC branding. Your ideas would work well as individual expansion box names. You would want a cohesive line identity such as D&D Miniatures Adventures, and then a product subname such as D&D Miniatures Adventures: Pirates.

You can still have the D&D logo. But brand expansion is the way to go.

Dungeons & Dinosaurs, Dungeons & Ninjas, Dungeons & Harryhausen - its too good an opportunity to miss.

 

[MerricB]

What I am proposing is perhaps 1 Huge (or thereabouts), 4 large and 25 medium or smaller. So, in effect we are talking less (and on average smaller) minis than Descent's Expansion Pack which is itself $39.95.

Also a lot of the miniatures could be used from WotC's existing minis line.

Hmm...

1 Huge - $10
4 Large - $4 x4 = $16
25 Medium - $1.50 = approx. $34

You're looking at a price of about $60 or so for that many D&D minis (based on the prices of the random line). Not counting the actual tiles, rules, etc.

12 minis (1 large, 11 medium) is $25 in the Basic Game, with rulebook and tiles.

Cheers!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Hmm...

1 Huge - $10
4 Large - $4 x4 = $16
25 Medium - $1.50 = approx. $34

You're looking at a price of about $60 or so for that many D&D minis (based on the prices of the random line). Not counting the actual tiles, rules, etc.

12 minis (1 large, 11 medium) is $25 in the Basic Game, with rulebook and tiles.

Cheers!

Merric, what are you basing those prices on?

On the secondary market, it would be more like:

Uncommon Huge - $3
4 Uncommon Larges - $5
6 Uncommon Mediums - $6
19 Common Mediums - $3

For a total of maybe $20. Even if you add 50% markup, it's still $30 for the miniatures. And if anything, I would think they would be *cheaper* to make for a boxed set like this.