Goken100 said:There's no 3-book buy-in for D&D. I've played for years with nothing but a PH and my imagination. That said, I might consider a DMG this time around, cause it sounds a bit more useful. But newbies don't need it, and they certainly don't need a Monster Manual.
You've played, but have you ever run a game? I think saying there isn't a 3 book buy in is kind of disingenuous. Someone, usually the DM (funny how the guy who has to devote the most time to the game also has to devote the most money) has to buy the three books in order for a group to play D&D. Does every player need the DMG? No, but again this is just another barrier to getting more people to be DM's instead of just players.
Reynard said:Thanks, Scott, for the reply.
Given that you obviously have a long lead time on this, I would strongly urge you and the rest of the design team to not just go for a paired down, half-assed game in order to suck players into the game. Give new, young players a complete and exceptional experience and you won't have to "trick" them into buying the product. it will be good, and they'll want it, and they'll move on to the full version when they are ready.
Go dig out the Red Box and really look at it. Play the solo adventure again. Have someone who has never played before be the DM and see how easy it is for that to work.
That is the model a 4E basic/intro set should use, not a glorified board game or minis starter set.
All I can say is this sums up my feelings exactly. The 3e set went to level 2 and then you had to buy the core rulebooks...when you think about the boardgames it's competing with you really should go for a longer play time, especially at a cost of $25. I would argue you could go up to 3rd to 5th level without a significant reduction in those who will shell out for the complete game (up to level 30). I feel the 3e basic set was alot of pretty style with very little substance and hopefully this won't be the case with the 4e version.