[4e] Did WotC manage to fumble an intro set again?

Drohem · November 06, 2008, 04:52:55 PM

Quote from: Seanchai;263632They did? You said, "I don't understand why WotC deviated from the successful formula of providing rules for advancement up to 3rd or 5th level, and rules for creating your character." I could have sworn TSR's late stuff and WotC's stuff did not include the types of rules you're talking about.

Seanchai

That statement was specifically for the 4e introductory game.

The 1999 game included information on raising a character up to 3rd level, and the 2004/2006 game included information on raising a character to 2nd level.

jgants · November 06, 2008, 04:58:50 PM

Character creation and advancement are important because they are two of the defining characteristics of RPGs (despite what unpopular Forge games may try and tell you, they really are).

They are also very much part of the MMO phenomena - do you really think MMOs would be nearly as popular if you weren't able to create your own character and get level advances? That's pretty much the whole point.

So if you are going to build a new edition around the idea of attracting MMO players, it makes sense to include the most popular features of MMOs, does it not?

Seanchai · November 06, 2008, 05:35:14 PM

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263616I think any basic set needs to contain character creation and advancement info (even if only 1-3 levels worth) because it adds value to the basic set.

For me, a person who already knows how to play, I agree - rules for character creation and advancement are great and value added. I'm not sure that a person who picks up an intro kit expects anything more than an intro.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263616Otherwise, someone who would be interested in starting from scratch would skip the basic set and buy the core books.

That could be. But people do chose short introductions over full materials. For example, I understand the Dummies series is booming...

Quote from: flyerfan1991;263616WotC has missed a golden opportunity to create an intro set of rules as a free pdf or a free doc that could be easily distributed and would generate interest without a prospective gamer wondering why he/she should shell out the additional money for the intro game.

I do agree with you there.

Seanchai

droog · November 06, 2008, 07:02:01 PM

Quote from: jgants;263640Character creation and advancement are important because they are two of the defining characteristics of RPGs (despite what unpopular Forge games may try and tell you, they really are).

*cough*TRAVELLER*cough*

GameDaddy · November 06, 2008, 07:18:23 PM

Quote from: jgants;262997From 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.

Yup. However because it is a game instead of a book the retailers will at least not rip off the cover when it is returned to the distributor, and it will likely be sold later on down the road at a steep discount.

This is known as devaluing intellectual property and is an accepted practice if you just happen to buy the IP of your competitor. That's how you break down their market share and rebuild it into something useful for your new game lines.

I'm voting with my pocketbook here and just saying no to 4e all together. Better to put that money into developing OGL material that everyone can use.

Age of Fable · November 06, 2008, 08:47:42 PM

Wouldn't the D&D Miniatures Game be the 'Basic D&D' of today?

Age of Fable · November 06, 2008, 08:49:08 PM

I don't actually know the answer to this - this is a request for information, not a rhetorical question:

Did GURPS Lite either

* Succeed in getting new people into role-playing (as opposed to getting existing role-players into GURPS)?

* fail, by reducing sales of GURPS?

Age of Fable · November 06, 2008, 08:53:27 PM

Quote from: droog;263666*cough*TRAVELLER*cough*

If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

droog · November 06, 2008, 08:57:13 PM

Quote from: Age of Fable;263728If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

Traveller's the only famous one I can think of, but there are others. I'm not going to say that a lot of people don't want some form of advancement, but it can't be definitional.

Pierce Inverarity · November 06, 2008, 09:15:35 PM

Fun fact: Traveller does have advancement rules, but the system is so ham-fisted and the gain so marginal that everyone upon first reading promptly forgets they exist.

In any case, leveling up is part of the core D&D experience, and not including that in an introductory game for fear of "cannibalizing the brand" or some shit is a bit silly.

droog · November 06, 2008, 09:53:30 PM

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;263746Fun fact: Traveller does have advancement rules, but the system is so ham-fisted and the gain so marginal that everyone upon first reading promptly forgets they exist.

I can even tell you that they are to be found in Book 2, but they are pretty useless.

GameDaddy · November 06, 2008, 10:39:49 PM

Quote from: Age of Fable;263723I don't actually know the answer to this - this is a request for information, not a rhetorical question:

Did GURPS Lite either

* Succeed in getting new people into role-playing (as opposed to getting existing role-players into GURPS)?

* fail, by reducing sales of GURPS?

Don't know on the first count, but I picked up Gurps 3rd edition after Downloading and printing the Gurps Lite and trying out the system. I have over a dozen books in my Gurps library now, and run Alpha Centauri games from time-to-time. Have always wanted to a run a Witch World game as well.

flyerfan1991 · November 07, 2008, 07:44:38 AM

Quote from: Age of Fable;263723I don't actually know the answer to this - this is a request for information, not a rhetorical question:

Did GURPS Lite either

* Succeed in getting new people into role-playing (as opposed to getting existing role-players into GURPS)?

* fail, by reducing sales of GURPS?

I can't tell you about getting new people into roleplaying, but when I was considering GURPS:Traveller, one of my local FLGS' had printed out copies of GURPS Lite as a free handout. I was able to peruse GURPS Lite and decide whether I wanted to pursue G:T without standing around and reading the GURPS books for an hour or so at the store. While I still haven't gotten the G:T campaign off the ground, I did decide to buy the main GURPS books based on what I saw (and liked).

--Mike L.

jgants · November 07, 2008, 12:03:45 PM

Quote from: Age of Fable;263728If rpg's need advancement, why does Traveller have an ongoing popularity? If rpg's don't need advancement, why does Traveller seem to be the only one that doesn't have it?

Traveller is clearly the exception that proves the rule.

And again, it's the advancement characteristic that has made every MMO, like the CRPGs before them, popular. Heck, it's the only reason why CRPGs were even called RPGs, as most even lacked the ability to create your own unique characters in the beginning.

Seanchai · November 07, 2008, 12:35:23 PM

Quote from: Drohem;263638The 1999 game included information on raising a character up to 3rd level, and the 2004/2006 game included information on raising a character to 2nd level.

In other words, the intro kits are contain fewer and fewer character creation and advancement options as time passes...

Seanchai