D&D 5E What Would You Put In a 5E Red Box?

[Jester David]

Where is the statistical evidence of this. The only thing I've ever read that loosely relates to this was that WotC felt the moniker 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' confused people. How does providing alternative formats of the game hurt sales. It's not as if each game is eating out of each others profit margin - they're not competing products, their the same thing

When WotC bought TSR, Ryan Dancy tasked Lisa Stevens with investigating why TSR folded. One of the big reasons, reiterated many times by Dancy, was that TSR split their audience.

It's just a bad idea to have half your audience buying one book and half your audience buying a different book, not when you could have all your audience (or almost all your audience) buying the same book.

 

[n00bdragon]

Ideally: A set of eight pregen characters, miniatures to go with them, level up info for the next two to three levels on a card or something for each character so no decisions need to be made (but enough info that if you want to change it you know what needs to be swapped out if you have a PHB handy). Three adventures with either miniatures or Monster Vault style tokens for all the monsters, plus maps, and a DM book for each adventure explaining what needs to be done when and where.

 

[Mistwell]

When WotC bought TSR, Ryan Dancy tasked Lisa Stevens with investigating why TSR folded. One of the big reasons, reiterated many times by Dancy, was that TSR split their audience.

I am unaware of him saying the split was between BECMI and AD&D. The split was between too many campaign settings. I am unaware of any split issues between game versions. Do you have a link that says otherwise?

 

[Texicles]

I see zero posts from you, in any of those three links. Did you undergo a username change?

BLARGH! Sorry, I thought that would link directly to my posts, but it appears that it merely linked to the pages upon which my posts were posted.

Methinks they're fixed now!

 

[Mistwell]

Ah here we are:

I voted "other." As I've advocated in the past, I'm looking for a BECMI-esque (as I understand it since I never got to experience that era) type publication scheme. My big deviation from BECMI is that I'm not looking for limits placed on level advancement, only on game complexity.

3 tiers of rulebook - "Basic," "Standard" and "Advanced"

All 3 flavors as standalone books, plus the "Basic" book in a "red box" configuration.

-Basic - Core rules for players and DMs. Enough to serve as an introduction to RPGs AND also enough for players who want rules-light play to use this and nothing else. Get this if you're new or like minimalist rules.

-Standard - Content of the Basic book, plus the most common optional stuff like skills, maybe feats and tactical combat, etc. Get this if you're the average, experienced player/DM.

-Advanced - Can skip the core rules on the assumption that you have one of the previous books. The content here would be purely additional, optional rules. Get this if you want to add the less common/more complicated optional rules.

-Standalone Monster Manual. Get this if you're going to DM your own adventures or modify published ones.


In this model, new players/DMs get a relatively inexpensive book to start out. The rules-light crowd gets the same benefit. Experienced players/DMs will have to fork over a little more (which they're apt to do anyway) for more content. Players/DMs looking for more game complexity will have to shell out more still (which they're apt to do anyway). DMs will probably want to invest in the MM (which is still nothing new).

The one downside I see to my model is when a new player starts with Basic, decides he/she wants more and buys the Standard book (which has the redundant core rules of the Basic book). Fortunately, the Basic book -- having more longevity than a watered-down introductory product that only lasts until the included adventure is done -- should have some resale value to help defray the cost of an upgrade.

 

[Jester David]

I am unaware of him saying the split was between BECMI and AD&D. The split was between too many campaign settings. I am unaware of any split issues between game versions. Do you have a link that says otherwise?

Lisa Stevens brings it up regularly in her Auntie Lisa story hour. It's also mentioned here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column

It's the same principle for game systems as campaign worlds. Only worse as Realms or Greyhawk fans might each buy a generic accessory but Basic and Advanced fans are unlikely to buy the other line's products.

Can you provide a source for your claim:

It's an irrelevance to those gamers who don't want to use the internet to support their gaming habits. Evidence from gaming companies suggest that this a significant proportion of the market as a whole.

 

[TrippyHippy]

When WotC bought TSR, Ryan Dancy tasked Lisa Stevens with investigating why TSR folded. One of the big reasons, reiterated many times by Dancy, was that TSR split their audience.

It's just a bad idea to have half your audience buying one book and half your audience buying a different book, not when you could have all your audience (or almost all your audience) buying the same book.

Yes, I think reference is confused as to what they were actually talking about here. The big split between 'Basic' and 'Advanced' was that there were actually different games - with different rules. That means they each had to have separate lines of supplements. Add on to that, different campaign settings and it's easy to see where the problem is.

What I am asking for is multiple formats for the same game. A Core Box set. A Core Book (or book set). A Core PDF. Heck, why not a Core online game mechanism? It's not eating into each others sales, because they are the same game. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that some gamers actually buy the same game multiple times in different formats. Supplements wouldn't be a problem because they would all be written for the same game.

 

[Mistwell]

Can you provide a source for your claim:

That was not my claim, and not my post. You took someone else's post, and replaced their name with mine. I believe you meant to ask TrippyHippy that?

 

[Mistwell]

Lisa Stevens brings it up regularly in her Auntie Lisa story hour. It's also mentioned here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column

It's the same principle for game systems as campaign worlds. Only worse as Realms or Greyhawk fans might each buy a generic accessory but Basic and Advanced fans are unlikely to buy the other line's products.

I don't see a split between Basic and AD&D being highlighted much there. It's enumerated in a long list of issues, but I don't see it as being called out as a particular issue in itself. And, other reports I've seen do not highlight it as being a major issue either.

The quote in particular, "People self-segmented into groups playing Basic D&D, 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and within 2nd Edition into various Campaign Settings that had become their own game variants".

So yes, it's in his list, but I don't think he's making it out to be the major issue, and I've seen others talk about how people were starting with Basic and moving on to AD&D eventually, with Basic being a major recruiting tool.

 

[Jester David]

Yes, I think reference is confused as to what they were actually talking about here. The big slit between 'Basic' and 'Advanced' was that there were actually different games - with different rules. That means they each had to have separate lines of supplements. Add on to that, different campaign settings and it's easy to see where the problem is.

What I am asking for is multiple formats for the same game. A Core Box set. A Core Book (or book set). A Core PDF. It's not eating into each others sales, because they are the same game. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that some gamers actually buy the same game multiple times in different formats. Supplements wouldn't be a problem because they would all be written for the same game.

It's similar. It's not AS bad but it's not good.

It comes down to creation cost. It takes manhours to write a book, develop a book, layout a book, and get art for a book. Before any profit is made those costs need to be paid for.

If you make three books that have a similar audience, some will buy them all and some will buy just one, but the cost to make the book is the same regardless. The fewer people that buy an individual product the less money for the company.
This gets worse if there are three products.