WotC says "Return of the Red Box"

[Reynard]

Hmm, maybe they can have an adventure with the iconics as sample characters and maybe a few web enhancements. Including one on what RPGs are, FAQs, and other products beyond the Red Box. (Marketing is crucial for a product like D&D. It is not a necessity like food. So, it is key to make it a highly desired want.)

This is exactly what a "red box" shouldn't be, IMO, and is why the D&D Adventure Game and its ilk failed miserably. You don't want to give people a board game, you want to give them an RPG. The Red Box was a complete game, with all the rules you needed, built around creating your own adventures. The Adventure Game was a board game witha fewbad adventures, with nowhere to go once you reached the end.

I say the new "red box" should be 3.5 for characters 1st-5th. Provide say 6 classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, and perhaps paladin and bard) and five races (human, elf, dwarf, halfling, and half elf). Simplify the skill descriptions. Drop any feats that 5th level characters can't have anyway. Trim the spell list down considerably (but keep it versatile). Split it up intothree books and make sure that there is a solo adventure in the first one.

If they do that, i think it will work. you will see a return to the time when older gamers bought their younger siblings, cousins, etc... game stuff in order to get them hooked. hell, the nostalgia factor might draw in a small group that hasn't played in a while.

And if WotC/Hasbro flubs this one, I say screw it and do it myself with the SRD.

 

[Melan]

First of all: omitting character generation should be a no-no. Sure, Mialee and whatshisname are all WotC trademarks and brands, a beginning gamer shouldn't be deprived of the fun of character creation. The game must be kept distant from board games - otherwise, the beginner will not see what the big deal could be.

Also, as JeffB wrote, the player must be treated with respect, which would mean no "save the unicorn" adventures. That's for five year olds. The target audience (gamers age 8 to 12 and even adults) will not be amused if they are talked down to. Remember: D&D has always been the domain of smart kids. Smart kids are intelligent enough to play adventures like Keep on the Borderlands or just about anything - I sure had no problem with normal AD&D adventures when I was eleven.

Progression should go to maybe level 5 - that is when you get your first really cool spells like Fireball and can accomplish a fair bit without getting chewed up by monsters. Granted, I would welcome a full d20Lite line, but I doubt WotC will ever do that.

 

[Geoffrey]

I've been wanting WOTC to do this since the day 3E was released. It's outrageous that the "core" rules of D&D have a cover price of $90.00. Add dice, and you're looking at a $100.00 investment just to play a game. It is also outrageous that the "core" rules total almost 1,000 pages. Not everyone wants D&D to be a lifestyle or an investment. Some people just want to plunk down 20 or 30 bucks and have a complete D&D game they can play occasionally when the mood strikes them.

Here's what I'd like to see in this boxed set:

1. no more than 128 pages of rules
2. a set of dice
3. four character classes: cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief (or whatever they're called in 3.5)
4. simplified rules that allow advancement all the way to level 20
5. pre-selected skills and feats for each character class
6. itty-bitty stat blocks
7. an easy character creation system so a group of people can create characters and be ready to play in 15 minutes

In short, a re-creation of the 1980 Moldvay Basic/Expert rules. Those rules totaled only 128 pages, yet they provided for characters of up to 14th level. Empire of the Petal Throne had only about 120 pages, yet it provided for any level of character and even included a detailed campaign setting!

WOTC are a bunch of incompetents if they are unable to make a short and simple and complete D&D boxed game. After all, it was done 25 years ago. All they need to do is rigorously streamline the 3.5 rules down to a lean and mean 128 pages, slap it in a box, put some dice in, and sell millions of sets to casual shoppers at Wal-Mart who have no interest at all in going down to the local RPG store and being overwhelmed with truckloads of stuff.

That is the way WOTC could make zillions. After all, what has sold more copies: the Players Handbook or Monopoly?

 

[TalonComics]

WOTC are a bunch of incompetents if they are unable to make a short and simple and complete D&D boxed game. After all, it was done 25 years ago. All they need to do is rigorously streamline the 3.5 rules down to a lean and mean 128 pages, slap it in a box, put some dice in, and sell millions of sets to casual shoppers at Wal-Mart who have no interest at all in going down to the local RPG store and being overwhelmed with truckloads of stuff.

That is the way WOTC could make zillions. After all, what has sold more copies: the Players Handbook or Monopoly?

I don't you'll D&D ever in Wal-Mart stores because W-M still fears the stigma of "devil woreshippers" that D&D still has the burden of. Remember, this is the same chain that forces some CDs to censor it's content before they'll sell them in-store.

The problem with modeling advertising and releases made by TSR in the 80's and early 90's is that the same company went out of business doing some of those things. I think splitting your fanbase by creating a basic and an advanced set would be a major mistake and would be just mimicking the problems TSR dealt with.

The trick to making D&D less complicated to beginner players is have knowledgable players teach the beginning players the basics. WotC needs to be just as aggressive with D&D as they are with M:tG.

~D

 

[rounser]

I think splitting your fanbase by creating a basic and an advanced set would be a major mistake and would be just mimicking the problems TSR dealt with.

I think this is a problem that doesn't exist unless you support both streams. TSR supported OD&D, which caused that split in customer base and self-competition, whereas if WotC doesn't lift a finger to support a "D&D Lite" if they made one, then users would have no choice but to either switch systems or adapt regular D&D material for their games.

 

[2d6]

I don't you'll D&D ever in Wal-Mart stores because W-M still fears the stigma of "devil woreshippers" that D&D still has the burden of. Remember, this is the same chain that forces some CDs to censor it's content before they'll sell them in-store.

Wal*Mart sells Harry Potter and to some that's just as bad as DnD and rap.

The problem with modeling advertising and releases made by TSR in the 80's and early 90's is that the same company went out of business doing some of those things. I think splitting your fanbase by creating a basic and an advanced set would be a major mistake and would be just mimicking the problems TSR dealt with.

The trick to making D&D less complicated to beginner players is have knowledgable players teach the beginning players the basics. WotC needs to be just as aggressive with D&D as they are with M:tG.

~D [/B]

Isn't it kinda odd how the only DnD ads you ever see are in Dragon and Dungeon Magazines. I've never seen one in PC Gamer, or any other mag for that matter.

It seems to me that like a comfortable old church, Wizards is preaching to the chior instead of bringing in new converts.

 

[Geoffrey]

WOTC desperately needs to advertise D&D. Outside of D&D-related websites, Dragon, and RPG stores, I never, ever see anything about it. Especially considering the enormous popularity of the Lord of the Rings films, WOTC should be advertising D&D to the hilt.

If I were them, I wouldn't even publish any supplemental D&D materials. I'd just publish a decent set of core rules that could appeal to everyday (i.e., non-hardcore-RPGers) as well as to gamers. Then I'd furiously advertise it and make sure it was on every conceivable store shelf.

I'd let the more-than-capable 3rd party publishers do the rest.

 

[Geoffrey]

Rounser brings up a good point. It would be wise of WOTC to NOT give product support to a Basic D&D set:

1. Hardcore gamers wouldn't need it. They would either graduated to the three hardbacks or they would simply convert the truckloads of d20 stuff out there.

2. Casual, once-in-a-while gamers wouldn't want any further products. They just want to occasionally take their box set D&D off the shelf and have an afternoon's game. Such occasional RPGers would probably follow the old and honorable tradition (going all the way back to Gary Gygax in the early 1970s) of "winging it". Such gamers wouldn't be too interested in spending hours of their free time making dungeons. They just want to play.

 

[Christian Walker]

Red Box Should Play Like GURPS Lite

If WotC produces an introductory game, then I hope that is fully playable in and of itself. I recall an introductory D&D game that came out for 2e and it was terrible. Pre-made characters, limited adventuring opportunities, etc.

I understand that WotC might not want to set up a competing game line, but unless the game is complete and can be played as a stand-alone product (a la GURPS Lite), then they should just spend their money on promotion of the line as a whole.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'd love a Basic D&D set that was the stripped down core set of 3e without all the baggage and options that bog down play. Get Elmore & Otis to do art and booya! I'd buy it.