I admit, I haven't seen the actual D&D starter set.  But I did just read the review at RPG.NET.

From the review, the starter set apparently includes mostly only combat rules, some decent tile and counter components, and five pre-generated characters with no way to make your own characters.  It seems to be just like Keep on the Shadowfell, written to an audience of 3e players.

To me, this would seem to be yet another missed opportunity by WotC.

Why, oh why, do they never try to reproduce the massively successful appeal of the 80's basic sets and instead provide customers with completely gimped starter sets???

Wouldn't it have made way more sense to create a version that served as a true intro to role-playing games?  With scaled-back rules that would let you create your own characters using the four basic races and classes up to, say, level 10?  Or even just level 5?

Why bother to redesign the whole game to appeal to the non-RPG WoW crowd, and then completely fail to provide an introductory product that might actually catch their interest?

EDIT: I will concede the point that they managed to put something out for a pretty good price point ($18).  But still...

Fully agree.   They could have had 4 races and 4 classes with abbreviated chargen rules to 3rd level (human, eladrin, dragonborn, dwarf with paladin, rogue, wizard and warlord).   Taking out character creation and the ability to make your own hero is a BAD way to market a game which is hugely about creating diverse characters.

I've got a copy of the 4e Starter Set on order, should arrive soon. I want to compare it with what is in Keep on the Shadowfell.

Honestly, I thought WotC hit the mark right on the nose with the first version of the 3e D&D Basic Game. You had a simple character generation ruleset, some dungeon design rules, map tiles, dice, and minis plus you got some pregenerated PCs for those who wanted to just use the included Quick-Start rules. Why they ever abandoned that model is beyond me.

Quote from: jgants;262997To me, this would seem to be yet another missed opportunity by WotC.

Why, oh why, do they never try to reproduce the massively successful appeal of the 80's basic sets and instead provide customers with completely gimped starter sets???

I don't think it's a failure, fumble or missed opportunity anymore. This is exactly the kind of set I expected. A set that sucks balls in your eyes and mines, but directs a few interested players as quickly as possible to the "big game" for more options. The set seems to be very representative of what 4th edition is going for.

I still get your point that it sucks. And I could never buy this thing as a gift for anyone.

As for the 80s set appeal... it's true that they were wonderful (just the mention of them always makes me want to play a little) but I think it can be acknowledged that it was a different era. I doubt a more well-rounded product would make much of a positive difference for WotC. (that was a bit off-topic but I still felt like sharing   )

Quote from: Consonant Dude;263013I don't think it's a failure, fumble or missed opportunity anymore. This is exactly the kind of set I expected. A set that sucks balls in your eyes and mines, but directs a few interested players as quickly as possible to the "big game" for more options. The set seems to be very representative of what 4th edition is going for.

I still get your point that it sucks. And I could never buy this thing as a gift for anyone.

Well, isn't that a failure (if widespread)?  I mean, surely as a product it should be the sort of thing that a gamer would buy as a Christmas present for one's nieces or nephews or younger cousins, say -- or that a parent would buy based on gamer reviews.  That seems like the target market.  

There are a few role-playing game sets that I would recommend for my niece, nephews, or friend's kids.

Quote from: jhkim;263025Well, isn't that a failure (if widespread)?  I mean, surely as a product it should be the sort of thing that a gamer would buy as a Christmas present for one's nieces or nephews or younger cousins, say -- or that a parent would buy based on gamer reviews.  That seems like the target market.

I don't know if the failure is widespread. I think this basic set is mostly to be pushed by stores for newbies and parents on a budget. But if the game is fantastic and more self-contained, would people switch to the (themselves lacking) corebooks?

It seems to me WotC has now firmly established a model where self-contained products have little place.

I see the basic set as a business card of sort and something to pass time until you're "cool enough" to get the core books and more.

Quote from: jhkim;263025There are a few role-playing game sets that I would recommend for my niece, nephews, or friend's kids.

Would you mind recommending them? I have three roleplaying gift bags to give for Christmas. I'm aiming in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 if possible but can be flexible.

So far, I only have one gift bag figured out: Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Points of Light.

I thought about offering three identical sets but would prefer the joy of variety

WoTC knows exactly what they're doing.  They've designed their basic set to be an intro to the full version and thats it.  

  To be honest, it sickens me to no end too.  I would like to have a MUCH simplified version to play ( that doesn't use minis ), but WoTC will never do that because it would take away sales of the full version.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;263029Would you mind recommending them? I have three roleplaying gift bags to give for Christmas. I'm aiming in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 if possible but can be flexible.

So far, I only have one gift bag figured out: Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition and Points of Light.

I thought about offering three identical sets but would prefer the joy of variety

Depending on the age, there's Faery's Tale Deluxe (that'd be more for younger kids, I imagine).  Brave Halfling Publishing has Castles, Kids, and Caves,  but I haven't looked at it yet.

I was thinking that a D&D Lite (such as what SJ Games did with GURPS Lite) would be a great starting point.  A free basic pdf or printed nibbler would encourage people to pick up the rules to check it out, and then point people in the direction of the big game as they want more options.  That free basic nibbler could also appeal to kids who don't want to wade through the full books but are curious about the game.

--Mike L.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;263029IBut if the game is fantastic and more self-contained, would people switch to the (themselves lacking) corebooks?  

It worked for Basic.  It was the only really successful intro product that D&D had.  Some people stuck with it but even most of those bought the AD&D books.  
 
Based on the description, I can't see this as adding very many new players.  I can see not wanting to give everything at start but you have to give enough for people to most of the parts and what's really cool about the game.
 
I would have gone up to level 10 or so with 3-4 races and 4 classes, with a slightly reduced suite of powers and none of the higher level powers (Hey Kids! Wanna blow up thing better?  Buy the full books!)

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263150I was thinking that a D&D Lite (such as what SJ Games did with GURPS Lite) would be a great starting point.  A free basic pdf or printed nibbler would encourage people to pick up the rules to check it out, and then point people in the direction of the big game as they want more options.  That free basic nibbler could also appeal to kids who don't want to wade through the full books but are curious about the game.

--Mike L.

There used to be something like this set up as a Flash Player game on the old WotC 3e website. It worked pretty well as advertising.

Oh for fuck's sake...

RPGPundit

Quote from: jgants;262997Why, oh why, do they never try to reproduce the massively successful appeal of the 80's basic sets and instead provide customers with completely gimped starter sets?

Because it's failed to work time and time again. Yes, absolutely, it worked well in the early 80s. Not so much since then.

Quote from: jgants;262997Wouldn't it have made way more sense to create a version that served as a true intro to role-playing games?

The starter set, which I actually have, does serve as a true introduction to roleplaying games. What it isn't is a stand alone product.

Quote from: jgants;262997Why bother to redesign the whole game to appeal to the non-RPG WoW crowd, and then completely fail to provide an introductory product that might actually catch their interest?

They did. It just didn't catch your interest. Or met your expectations.

Gamers already in the hobby expect the box labeled "starter set" and "intro" to be a "complete" game that's playable for decades because that's how they began in the hobby. That isn't necessarily what today's new gamer expects or even wants.

Quote from: jgants;262997EDIT: I will concede the point that they managed to put something out for a pretty good price point ($18).  But still...

It's actually $16.99. Which would have been $7.73 in 1983.

And, apparently, Amazon only has three left in stock.

Seanchai

Quote from: Nicephorus;263169It worked for Basic.

No, it didn't.

First and foremost, the Basic set is hardly a complete game. You can play in the same little pond forever if you'd like, but you're still not swimming in an ocean. You've got dungeons, the same character options, the same levels, the same spells, the same monster, etc., over and over and over again.

Second, folks moved from OD&D to AD&D, which was a different game. As I understand it, it was intended that OD&D continue on as a separate product line after AD&D was introduced and folks who liked the (relative) simplicity of OD&D could stick with it while others could use AD&D. What happened, however, was that most folks just moved on to AD&D. And while it certain bares similarities with OD&D, AD&D is a separate and distinct game.

So, no, OD&D didn't move folks along to a more complete version of itself.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;263242No, it didn't.

Really? Basic box sets sold extremely well.  RPGs had a boom time.  How is that not working?  I bet no other intro D&D game since then has sold a tenth as many copies.
 
Secondly, The red box set was far more complete than any basic set since.  It had full character creation rules, dungeon creation, and monsters.  Keep on the Borderlands was enough to keep going for several sessions, far more gaming content that was in the D20 intro game.
 
Thirdly, moving on to AD&D was the intent.  That's what an intro product is for.  Then some people wanted to stay with D&D, so they made books for that too.  Either way, people where getting enough out of the basic set that they were going on to buy more product.
 
Basic (OD&D typically refers to the original rules not the later Moldvay/Mentzer line) is different from AD&D but they are quite similar on the whole and people mixed and matched between games and adapted products across systems without much thought.