# Got the D&D 4e Starter Set...So whatcha wanna know?



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

Just arrived today, Now that I'm home from work...have cracked it open...but not read it thoroughly yet.  If anyone has questions, fire away and I'll try and answer them.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 18, 2008)

how are the monster tiles?


----------



## Grimstaff (Oct 18, 2008)

I'm interested in the counters


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

Scribble said:


> how are the monster tiles?




They're similar to the ones Paizo use to periodically put out in Dungeon mag (circular shape w/artwork).  However they are on the same material as the dungeon tiles are made from and are double sided (different monster on each side).  And they're numbered, so for example there's a kobold w/a small 1...a different kobold w/a small 2...etc. on it  

5 player character tokens
51 monster tokens (w/different monster on each side)

EDIT: I like em, seem like they'd be pretty durable, and I just flipped it over and realized the PC tokens have a "bloodied" side.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 18, 2008)

Imaro said:


> They're similar to the ones Paizo use to periodically put out in Dungeon mag (circular shape w/artwork).  However they are on the same material as the dungeon tiles are made from and are double sided (different monster on each side).  And they're numbered, so for example there's a kobold w/a small 1...a different kobold w/a small 2...etc. on it
> 
> 5 player character tokens
> 51 monster tokens (w/different monster on each side)




Interesting... Does the double sided thing appear like it might be an issue?

IE Does it seem like you will most likely want to use both monsters at the same time, or did they split them up pretty well so you'd most likely never find the two together?


----------



## an_idol_mind (Oct 18, 2008)

Can players make their own characters, or are they pregenned?

Does the set have rules for advancement beyond 1st level, or is it like the 3.5 set where the game essentially ends at 2nd level?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

OK, some of the bad...The quick start rules are word for word (maybe with some eratta) the exact same as those in KotS (all 6 pages).  The pre gens are the same except the cleric is human in the starter set and the wizard is an eladrin.  There is new (but not new as in you haven't seen it before) artwork for the pre-gens and the sheets are in full color.  I don't like the fact that the sheets are part of the booklet, instead of being actual separate sheets you can hand to players.  No character generation rules (but we already knew this.).


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Interesting... Does the double sided thing appear like it might be an issue?
> 
> IE Does it seem like you will most likely want to use both monsters at the same time, or did they split them up pretty well so you'd most likely never find the two together?




Hmm...I think there's actually a semi-theme with them.  One side are humanoids...orc's, goblins, hobgoblins, undead etc. while the other side is animals/creatures, like stirges, dire rats, wolves, etc...so off hand I would say it doesn't seem like much of an issue, but then what DM's combine in 4e is kinda arbitrary to the particular DM.  Hope that helped.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

an_idol_mind said:


> Can players make their own characters, or are they pregenned?
> 
> Does the set have rules for advancement beyond 1st level, or is it like the 3.5 set where the game essentially ends at 2nd level?




From my glance through...only pre-gens, which can advance to 3rd level, but everything (powers, feats, etc.) are already selected for each character.  Not liking this at all.  I feel this is what killed the 3.x basic sets and don't see this one being any different in that regard.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

OK...Bad number 2.  I knew I had seen the tiles before and after a couple minutes it hit me...I just bought them not to long ago...there from DU1 Halls of the Giant King.  Not sure how I feel about this one, since it's only some of the tiles and I guess they can supplement what I have...but I do feel a little ripped off.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 18, 2008)

Sounds decent enough. It's a starter set after all. 

Putting in tiles from another set is a little bad, however it does make sense, I guess, to not have unique tiles in there (aka forcing the DT buyers to get the starter set ). Hopefully they are the ones you actually want extras from.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scribble (Oct 18, 2008)

Imaro said:


> OK...Bad number 2.  I knew I had seen the tiles before and after a couple minutes it hit me...I just bought them not to long ago...there from DU1 Halls of the Giant King.  Not sure how I feel about this one, since it's only some of the tiles and I guess they can supplement what I have...but I do feel a little ripped off.




Scott Rouse actually mentioned the tiles would be from another set. He said this helped keep the prices down.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

Ok, I've just spent the past 10-15min looking through the Dungeon Masters book...They really went all out for this.  In fact I would say that if this had been out when the PHB was released you could have run a rudimentary game with just the boxed set and the PHB (It even has a nice mini-monster manual in the back).  In fact it's so close to the red box (on the DM's side of things) that I almost feel more disappointed they didn't just go the extra mile and flesh out the PC side of things.  I would have paid another five dollars to have some basic character creation and advancement rules.

Included are...
1. Dungeon Master's Quick Start Rules: Same as KotS, but more fleshed out with a listing of conditions, and a step by step guide to Using Monster Stats.

2. Adventure: 3 encounters, a little dialogue to start it, a small area map and home base (Harken village) for the pc's as well as advice on integrating PC's into the setting with backstories, etc.

3. Creating Adventures: A section that discusses the different monster roles, Encounter Components, Encounter Settings, Skill Challenges, Traps and Hazards, Creating Dungeons (utilizing tiles as well as the "parts" of a dungeon like corridors and random encounters)

4. Monsters: 25 pages of monsters (Nothing new, though I wish they had threw in a couple that weren't in the MM).

I definitely think this boxed set will be very good for teaching someone to DM 4e, and in that aspect I give it 4 stars.  As far as the PC side I gotta give it 2 stars(it's just KotS revised without the adventure).  The Tokens are cool and sturdy though I kinda wish it did have minis of the PC's (just so I can get my hands on a non-rare Dragonborn...lol).  The dungeon tiles are a wash, but only because I have DU1 already...hey would be cool (though I wish it were more) for a new player.  

 One other note though, I'm not sure...but I don't think the errata on skill challenges has been incorporated into the starter set, so this might be an issue to some.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 18, 2008)

Imaro said:


> (Nothing new, though I wish they had threw in a couple that weren't in the MM).




Well, as with the tiles, that would make no sense.

Look at it from the other direction... wouldn't you be annoyed if there was something exclusively in the starter set and not in the (complete) rulebooks, if you didn't plan on buying the starter set, anyways?

Wouldn't that scream a bit like "here, you don't need it, and we know that, but you will buy it anyways, because... heh heh heh". 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## justanobody (Oct 18, 2008)

Image of contents? I always like to see what comes inside. Last I saw the box was even B&W sketch.


----------



## erf_beto (Oct 18, 2008)

What about the artwork for the counters? are they just copy-pasted from the MM or something new? 
Can you take a picture of them?

thanks


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Image of contents? I always like to see what comes inside. Last I saw the box was even B&W sketch.




No, the box is in color (though it's nowhere near as sturdy or big as the previous basic sets).



erf_beto said:


> What about the artwork for the counters? are they just copy-pasted from the MM or something new?
> Are they round or square?
> Can you take a picture of them?
> 
> thanks




The counters are round and the artwork is from the 4e MM.  There are as follows...

8 orcs
8 skeletons
8 goblins
8 hobgoblins
8 kobolds
8 zombies
1 Red Dragon(large)
1 White Dragon(large)
1 Black Dragon(large)

Opp. Side
2 Spiretop Drakes
2 Rage Drakes
2 Spitting Drakes
2 fire beetles
4 Gray Wolves
2 Webterror Spiders
4 Stirges
2 Spectres (Phantom Warriors)
4 NPC Halflings
2 Stormclaw Scorpions
5 Dire Rats
2 NPC Elves
2 Gnomes
8 Kruthiks
2 Things I haven't been able to figure out what they are... (I failed my MM Knowledge check)
1. Gelatinous Cube (large)
1. Dire Wolf (large)
1. Unicorn (large)


About to go out to breakfast, will try to post some pics when I get back.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 18, 2008)

Imaro said:


> From my glance through...only pre-gens, which can advance to 3rd level, but everything (powers, feats, etc.) are already selected for each character.  Not liking this at all.  I feel this is what killed the 3.x basic sets and don't see this one being any different in that regard.



Dammit dammit dammit. I guess I'll be skipping out for a couple years.

I was so hoping for a set that honestly inherited the mantle of the 1983 Red Box set. I suppose the name of this thing at least is honesty. Starter Set.

Tell us, how replayable is this? Because, to me, one of the biggest reasons the Red Box edition was so phenomenally successful in the market that it made D&D a cultural sensation in the 1980s was that it was easily replayable.

Oh, is there a "recommended age" for the set. The Red Box was recommended for ages 10+ while the 3.x Basic was for recommended ages 12+ (!)


----------



## Delta (Oct 18, 2008)

Imaro said:


> The pre gens are the same except the cleric is human in the starter set and the wizard is an eladrin... No character generation rules (but we already knew this.).




I've said it before and I'll say it again: D&D play is about ownership and role-playing your own unique character. "Basic" sets that leave that out are missing the whole point, the hook to new players of D&D. I just _do not_ understand it.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 18, 2008)

First, let me say...probably won't be getting pics up today.  But if someone else has it feel free to post them in this thread.



Eric Anondson said:


> Dammit dammit dammit. I guess I'll be skipping out for a couple years.
> 
> I was so hoping for a set that honestly inherited the mantle of the 1983 Red Box set. I suppose the name of this thing at least is honesty. Starter Set.
> 
> ...




Recommended age is 12+

You know what, I feel you.  This set comes so close to the red box in the DM department...and then falls totally flat in the players department.  Like I said before if you have KotS...you have the players portion of the starter set.

It's replayability is hard to grade.  I mean it gives you enough whereas you could make a fairly large number of adventures before the options would feel stale...the problem is you only have the same 5 characters with no options in creation or leveling.  I could see players quickly getting bored after playing much quicker than the DM. 

 Of course it would have been cool if they had at least switched the PC selection up from KotS...it could have helped cross promotion since you could add those characters to the basic set and get a wider range.  Maybe WotC could do a web enhancement that gives the PC's a couple of choices in advancement or selection.


----------



## darjr (Oct 18, 2008)

I wonder if they would/could do a web enhancement with new pregens or the pregens with different choices in level progression. Essentially just create a lot of pregens setup to go from 1st to 3rd on the web site.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 18, 2008)

Like Every basic-starter set since 1996, its pretty much pre-gens + a module + counters/minis + dice + how to play. I can't say I'm imagine. 

Assuming you want the game to make 4e-legal PCs (IE, a character that could theoretically be used in Living Realms), it would be wordy, but do-able. 

Races: Human, Dwarf, Halfling, Eladrin, Dragonborn (2 pages each, 10 pages)
Classes: Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Warlock. To keep things less wordy, make only one possible build, and simplify Either/Or choices (defender-fighter, devoted cleric, brutal rogue, controller/staff wizard, fey/deceptive warlock) (probably 3 pages each, 15 pages)
Powers: 2-3 choices for levels 1-3 only; (probably another 6 pages)
Feats: 10-15 basic choices (3 pages)
Skills: Brief-rundown of skill uses (very brief) 5 pages.
Equipment: the default armors (no MWK) + most common weapons. Adventuring Gear List, + a few magic items. (10 pages?)

50 or so pages? It could be done, but it would probably raise the price to 30 bucks though...

Your looking at


----------



## justanobody (Oct 18, 2008)

You know what it sounds like? First Quest but without the CD.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 19, 2008)

darjr said:


> I wonder if they would/could do a web enhancement with new pregens or the pregens with different choices in level progression. Essentially just create a lot of pregens setup to go from 1st to 3rd on the web site.



I think character information from 1st to 3rd level is still free on the D&D Compendium, so players who want different characters could use that as a resource. Not as convenient as pre-generated characters, but it allows the players more flexibility and customization.


----------



## SlyFlourish (Oct 19, 2008)

*Target audience*

We have to remember the target audience for something like this. Building characters can be a lot of work and it isn't exactly what you might want to do if you're brand new to the game and have a bit of a board-game mentality.

It would be nice if they had more ways to customize the characters but we have to remember that this isn't a replacement for the PhB. For a $12 boxed set, it sounds pretty complete to me. I'm looking forward to getting a few just to give to friends who might want to whip it out and play a quick game.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 19, 2008)

mshea said:


> Building characters can be a lot of work and it isn't exactly what you might want to do if you're brand new to the game and have a bit of a board-game mentality.




Is it not possible to simplify it to the level of the old Basic Sets? Making some of the choices pre-set or otherwise simplified?

It seems to me that expecting people to make the jump from pregens directly to the full PHB—if chargen really is that much of an obstacle—is just as foolish.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 19, 2008)

Delta said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again: D&D play is about ownership and role-playing your own unique character. "Basic" sets that leave that out are missing the whole point, the hook to new players of D&D. I just _do not_ understand it.




Yep.

Funny how kids nowadays are supposedly too stupid to generate their own characters, but we never had any trouble when I was a kid. Granted, you didn't have skills and feats, but really it isn't that hard.

Anyone who underestimates their opponent or their audience deserves what they get.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 19, 2008)

I think there are both kinds of people... those who want to play the game for starters and don't care about what character they have as long as it is not overwhelmingly complex, and those who immediately want to make the character their own.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## rounser (Oct 19, 2008)

> I think there are both kinds of people... those who want to play the game for starters and don't care about what character they have as long as it is not overwhelmingly complex, and those who immediately want to make the character their own.



Sounds about right, but I'd argue that it takes the latter to draw in the former.  The "don't care" folks aren't running the game, or suggesting that they and their friends go play D&D in particular.  

You need that one obsessed player to get the ball rolling for a game that requires such a huge time investment.  A sense of creative ownership goes a long way towards building that obsession.


----------



## Grimstaff (Oct 19, 2008)

Yeah, some basic PC gen info would have been easy to include, even if it was just Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard and Human/Dwarf/Elf/Halfling with one build for each class, still it would be some options. 

That said, I think the pregens most of us at ENWorld got early on were instrumental in teaching the fundamentals of the game, alot of us took those first DDX pregens up to 3rd level! 

A couple more questions for the OP:

What are the included adventures like?

Are the pregens loose or must they be cut out like the ones in KotS?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 19, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Yeah, some basic PC gen info would have been easy to include, even if it was just Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard and Human/Dwarf/Elf/Halfling with one build for each class, still it would be some options.
> 
> That said, I think the pregens most of us at ENWorld got early on were instrumental in teaching the fundamentals of the game, alot of us took those first DDX pregens up to 3rd level!
> 
> ...





The included adventure (there is only one pre made adventure)...is 3 encounters, featuring...goblins, rats, fire beetles, hobgoblins, a dire wolf and gray wolves. 

The pregens are regrettably part of the quick start rules, so you either have to cut the pages out or photocopy them to hand them out for use in your game. 

I'm kinda torn on this set, even at just $17 I'm not sure how much I like it.  So much of it is just reproduced from other products (tiles, quick start, most of the pre-gens, pages from DMG and MM, etc.) that I almost feel like they could have included some PC gen rules and charged a little bit more to make this a really good introductory product.  As it stands now, I guess $17 or $12 
if you order from Amazon, isn't bad for 3 sheets of extra tiles, tokens and a set of dice, but this is looking at it from the perspective of someone who already plays the game.

Looking at it from the perspective of a new player, I'd probably agree with alot of the sentiments posted above as far as PC gen goes.  I mean, if I remember correctly, 4th edition was suppose to have this big focus on bringing in new players and expanding the market base... I don't see this set doing that.  I think ultimately WotC has to ask themselves, with a basic set, will this be enough to convince a person to plop down $100+ dollars as well as the necessary time expenditure to experience more of what they get in the starter set.  

I would think they would try to showcase  what makes D&D unique as opposed to the alternatives (boardgames, videogames, etc.) that will be vying for a consumers money and time.  IMO character generation is one of the big ones in this category.  For those who talk about casual gamers...I hate to be like this but a casual gamer is most likely not going to grow the hobby and not going to spend $100+ on the core books (I mean a casual player is doing good if they actually buy a PHB as opposed to just using someone elses.).  So if these are actually WotC's targets...well I don't think it was a smart move.  What they should be trying to do is give their consumer an experience that is different from other forms of entertainment, and I'm just not sure the starter set accomplishes this.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 19, 2008)

Sometimes I wonder if WOTC sees D&D too much as a game (which it is, obviously) and not enough as a vehicle for the imagination.

Why is it that D&D was like crack to me as a kid, but other games were fun but I could live without them? Because D&D was a vehicle for my imagination. And one of the prime things we liked to imagine were characters.

As a kid I had the Moldvay Basic rules and some AD&D books. A friend had Mentzer Basic and some AD&D books. It didn't matter that they all didn't "go together". The point of the game was evidently to imagine up some cool s*** and just go crazy. Which is what we did. I remember the aforementioned friend showing me the picture of the Fighter in Mentzer (the bearded guy) and saying something like "He's a ranger." Well, that makes sense: he's Grizzly Adams with a Conan sword. Obviously.

Consistency of rules, "tournament mindset", coloring within the lines. That was pretty meaningless to the folks I played D&D with as a youngster. What captured me about it was that I could make a game... my own game, whatever I wanted, out of all the cool stuff I read in books, saw in movies and cartoons and dreamt up in my own unbridled youthful imagination.

*That* is what makes D&D D&D. That is why, though everyone seemed to enjoy the Dungeon boardgame, nobody was a fanatic about it. We were fanatics about D&D because of the imaginative component. Dungeon was a fun board game, but it was just that. D&D was something else entirely.


----------



## Delta (Oct 19, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I would think they would try to showcase what makes D&D unique as opposed to the alternatives (boardgames, videogames, etc.) that will be vying for a consumers money and time. IMO character generation is one of the big ones in this category.




Well stated. The compounded thing that astounds me is, (a) it's so obvious, (b) they refuse to present the "core product" of the game, (c) that's what all their other product lines are centered around (powering-up PCs), (d) they have a direct counterexample in the ~1980s boom with those Basic sets, and (e) they've continued on this path for 10+ years now with at least 3 starter sets like this.

I'm not a fan of 4E. Nonetheless, this ongoing mistake easily trumps it as _the_ worst decision that TSR/WOTC makes. I'm guessing that someone at WOTC knows the company history and says "We need a Basic set to draw in new players!", but the people implementing it have no idea what they mean, and the end result is a horrible garbled misunderstanding about what that means.

If it's not possible to present character generation briefly enough to fit into a starter set, that's case #1 for the game being fundamentally broken beyond repair.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 19, 2008)

Thanee said:


> I think there are both kinds of people... those who want to play the game for starters and don't care about what character they have as long as it is not overwhelmingly complex, and those who immediately want to make the character their own.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




I think there is a bit of flaw in not including any character creation rules in a starter set. This is what should teach you to play D&D.

If they have the rules for character creation alongside some already made characters, they offer to both fields. With both though they offer the chance to see how the character was made and not miss out. Not every game you go to will or should have your character served to you. It is a part of the game that a starter set should teach.

So with you having both kind of people means either make one starter set for each, or one starter set and have both things in it.....

(Still watching for contents pictures.  )


----------



## Emryys (Oct 19, 2008)

They could direct people to the DnDInsider character build and allow it to be free up to 2nd or 3rd level... this allows a selection of characters and accomplishes exposure to the online content too...

Just a thought...


----------



## Imaro (Oct 19, 2008)

Delta said:


> Well stated. The compounded thing that astounds me is, (a) it's so obvious, (b) they refuse to present the "core product" of the game, (c) that's what all their other product lines are centered around (powering-up PCs), (d) they have a direct counterexample in the ~1980s boom with those Basic sets, and (e) they've continued on this path for 10+ years now with at least 3 starter sets like this.
> 
> I'm not a fan of 4E. Nonetheless, this ongoing mistake easily trumps it as _the_ worst decision that TSR/WOTC makes. I'm guessing that someone at WOTC knows the company history and says "We need a Basic set to draw in new players!", but the people implementing it have no idea what they mean, and the end result is a horrible garbled misunderstanding about what that means.
> 
> If it's not possible to present character generation briefly enough to fit into a starter set, that's case #1 for the game being fundamentally broken beyond repair.




Yep, though I will point out that the 3.5 basic set with the Black Dragon actually did let you generate your own character (I think it was only up to 2nd level and with limited selection...but still pretty good.).  

This basic set honestly makes me feel even more strongly that there is a certain element within WotC (whether the company as a whole or just certain people I don't know) that truly believes holding back content (but giving enough to argue that their products are "complete") is the best way to sell more books and/or get one to subscribe unseen to supplementary online content.  Now this tactic might work with gamers who have played D&D and are willing to make the investment because they are already familiar with it...but I don't think it's a good tactic for bringing new people in the hobby.  

This trend of behavior is starting to create the perception in my mind that they do not have faith in the quality of 4e as a game, to entice people to support it in a longterm way, without a.)withholding classic content or b.) getting them locked into a subscription for sight unseen magazines.  I'm neutral to 4e right now, but this is really starting to rub me the wrong way.  


the funny thing is the starter set will probably sell ok, because gamers will want the tokens or the tiles or the dice...or all 3 and figure it's cheaper to buy the starter set.  The question though...is how many *new* players will this set help introduce into the actual hobby?  And is WotC more concerned with this or with how much revenue the starter set brings in regardless of where that revenue comes from.  IMO, one view is looking towards the future longterm, the other is just about short term profits.  Anyway, just some thoughts on it.


----------



## Delta (Oct 19, 2008)

Imaro said:


> The question though...is how many *new* players will this set help introduce into the actual hobby? And is WotC more concerned with this or with how much revenue the starter set brings in regardless of where that revenue comes from. IMO, one view is looking towards the future longterm, the other is just about short term profits. Anyway, just some thoughts on it.




I totally, completely agree.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 19, 2008)

Imaro said:


> the funny thing is the starter set will probably sell ok, because gamers will want the tokens or the tiles or the dice...or all 3 and figure it's cheaper to buy the starter set.  The question though...is how many *new* players will this set help introduce into the actual hobby?  And is WotC more concerned with this or with how much revenue the starter set brings in regardless of where that revenue comes from.  IMO, one view is looking towards the future longterm, the other is just about short term profits.  Anyway, just some thoughts on it.




Yeah, it probably works OK if you're a 3.5 player who has until now resisted trying 4E, and you don't own map tiles or minis/counters. So you get an easy way to learn the rules and you get some basic gear.

But if you're a kid who isn't into mischief and is looking for something to unleash his imagination in a way that World of Warquest doesn't... I don't think this probably has much to offer him.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 20, 2008)

Delta said:


> I'm not a fan of 4E. Nonetheless, this ongoing mistake easily trumps it as _the_ worst decision that TSR/WOTC makes. I'm guessing that someone at WOTC knows the company history and says "We need a Basic set to draw in new players!", but the people implementing it have no idea what they mean, and the end result is a horrible garbled misunderstanding about what that means.
> 
> If it's not possible to present character generation briefly enough to fit into a starter set, that's case #1 for the game being fundamentally broken beyond repair.



"I'll take Hyberbolic Overstatement for $200, Alex."


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 20, 2008)

So the question is simply would this set entice a newbie to play the full game?  Does it whet the appetite enough?  Does it give an overview of what to expect in the full game?  If so, is it well-written enough to overcome the sticker shock that comes with the three core rulebooks?

If it does enough of the above, it's a success.  If not, it's a failure.


----------



## HelloChristian (Oct 20, 2008)

I'm having such a mental block with 4e. Perhaps if I bought and messed around with the starter set, it might help me to get excited about the game.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 20, 2008)

I think DaveMage summarized the question very well.


----------



## darjr (Oct 20, 2008)

Wizards also had a 3.5 'starter set' that was different than the 'basic sets', either the Blue or Black dragon ones. It was the only source of the 3.5 paperback players handbook from WotC.

I wish they included some minor form of character generation.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 20, 2008)

I´m just sad that "back in the day we had real basic sets that invoked our imagination and did not just try to make money" doesn´t fit on a T-shirt. Otherwise, the set sounds good.


----------



## King Nate (Oct 20, 2008)

Thank goodness I didn't buy this!


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 20, 2008)

I don't see what the problem is.  If WotC were to include the entirety of the D&D game in the "starter" set, what would be the point of having the three books?  I think this product suffices as an affordable introduction to the game without competing with the main product. 
Yes, I know it's not the same as the OD&D boxes, but that was a different kind of product because it was the *entirety *of the game (such as it was).  The only way they could make the current D&D the same as this is to release a smaller boxed set for each tier (not necessarily a bad idea), but again, that would compete with their main product.
Personally, I think nothing beats the 91 boxed set (it was just chockfull of goodies), but I recognize that the starter product WotC is trying to sell nowadays is different.  That doesn't necessarily make it bad.
I don't know about you, but I'm dropping a copy of this in a Toys for Tots bin when I get the chance.  Hopefully, It'll change some kid's life in a positive way like the 91 boxed set did for me


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 20, 2008)

Androlphas said:


> I don't know about you, but I'm dropping a copy of this in a Toys for Tots bin when I get the chance.  Hopefully, It'll change some kid's life in a positive way like the 91 boxed set did for me




The cynic in me says that this is a very cruel thing to do.  If they qualify for Toys for Tots, they will most likely be unable to afford the full game.

Tempt me not, foul beast!!!!!


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

Androlphas said:


> I don't see what the problem is. If WotC were to include the entirety of the D&D game in the "starter" set, what would be the point of having the three books? I think this product suffices as an affordable introduction to the game without competing with the main product.




Ok, first...no one is asking for this (Nice hyperbole by the way). No one in this thread claimed all the rules should be in the starter set. What they did claim was that the starter set should give an overall experience of the game. How would having character creation rules...or even some form of limited selection in advancement up to level 3 be "the entirety of the D&D game in the "starter" set" ?



Androlphas said:


> Yes, I know it's not the same as the OD&D boxes, but that was a different kind of product because it was the *entirety *of the game (such as it was). The only way they could make the current D&D the same as this is to release a smaller boxed set for each tier (not necessarily a bad idea), but again, that would compete with their main product.




Again why can't they give a limited (as in 1 to 3 or 1 to 5 levels) experience that showcases all aspects of the game. Why do you keep claiming that the entire rules would have to be in a starter set to give people what they are basically asking for? I mean I believe one of the old basic box sets only had rules up to 3rd level (that's not the entire game). And WotC has done this before with the Black Dragon Basic Set for 3.5.



Androlphas said:


> Personally, I think nothing beats the 91 boxed set (it was just chockfull of goodies), but I recognize that the starter product WotC is trying to sell nowadays is different. That doesn't necessarily make it bad.
> I don't know about you, but I'm dropping a copy of this in a Toys for Tots bin when I get the chance. Hopefully, It'll change some kid's life in a positive way like the 91 boxed set did for me




That doesn't necessarily make it good either. Those Quickstart rules WotC has sold in KotS and in the starter set are the type of thing White Wolf gives away free when releasing new games, including an adventure. WotC wants to grow the hobby, then as the rpg company making the most money and with the highest marketshare they have a greater ability to make up loss for products like this...yet they seem more intent on short term profit (as in selling things like the quickstart rules) than actually growing the hobby.

As far as this set changing a kids life...I'd wager they'll play it a few times, but it's not something they'd go back to after the characters hit 3rd level. You'd be better off getting them an rpg like Labyrinth Lords, Basic Fantasy or Castles and Crusades, you know one that actually brings the value of the red box type sets and cost around the same price as this starter set, without anything additional to buy. I just don't see this set enticing kids to choose those three $100+ books over the next videogame...or even a fun boardgame.


----------



## Weregrognard (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Ok, first...no one is asking for this (Nice hyperbole by the way).




Thank you.  I'm quite proud of it myself.

That's the thing, it looks to me like people are asking for this without realizing it.  Character creation has become more complex since OD&D Basic.  I just don't think you could include self-contained character creation in a 4E starter set without more or less giving away the PHB or raising the cost of the product and thus defeating its purpose.  They tried that with the 3.5 one but failed.  You couldn't make characters unless you somehow managed to reverse-engineer the rules.

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved for this starter set to be more like the one I started with, but I think this one works for its intended purpose, which I think is less Basic Set D&D and more "gateway drug".


----------



## Windjammer (Oct 20, 2008)

Androlphas said:


> Character creation has become more complex since OD&D Basic.  I just don't think you could include self-contained character creation in a 4E starter set without more or less giving away the PHB or raising the cost of the product and thus defeating its purpose.



You definitely have a point there. But there are ways to introduce oases of character customization for levels 1-3 which would not have bloated the product. Suppose for instance that they had included four class templates with two ability arrays each (one for each build), and four racial templates to apply to the classes (meaning, you modify 3 stats and gain a single race-specific power such as the Dragonborn's breath weapon). Finally, and most importantly, you include all class related powers for levels 1-3. Believe me, they are not many. Really not. I'm playing a 4th level rogue and it's the first time I had to flip to a third page of powers in the PHB. 

The replayability would have been infinite. I could have tried any class/build/race combo I would have liked. And people would have really tapped into what is central to 4E: customizing your PC via selecting his powers.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 20, 2008)

Windjammer said:


> The replayability would have been infinite. I could have tried any class/build/race combo I would have liked. And people would have really tapped into what is central to 4E: customizing your PC via selecting his powers.




It's puzzling. I'm sure they could have included rudimentary charagen... you don't have to include _every_ class and _every_ feat. Just a few basics to get you going.

There are people who will defend what WOTC put out no matter what you say. But to me, it's utterly bizarre. Maybe they're afraid of selling something with replay value? That's about the best thing I can come up with. Other 'explanations' just have too many holes. Either that or they're just dumb, but that's a bit of a cop out as far as explanations go. I don't know.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 20, 2008)

Androlphas said:


> I don't see what the problem is.  If WotC were to include the entirety of the D&D game in the "starter" set, what would be the point of having the three books?




Oh I am sure other posters have already answered this and I haven't read the posts yet, but I have to say something even if it repeats others posts.

Starter, beginning, entry level. The starter should be just that.

Take for example Games Workshop products for Warhammer (FB/40k). They don't include paints or glues for various reasons related to ages and such so they will be a needed extra just like a surface to play on. So they can be discounted for this example as oddities that D&D doesn't need or have that has age restrictions on chemical products in some areas.

This "starter" for Warhammer includes the rules to play and even how to make a little army with the models given. They don't just give an army list but tell you how the army list is made from the rules. This is done because anyone playing this starter may wish to buy more of the full line of products. The rules included are for the pieces included, and not for every models allowed in the game form every army, only the select few included in the "starter".

With D&D, this could also be done by including rules for creating characters up to a certain level. Seems the favorite level at WotC is level 3 for "demo" products, so we will say level 3.

This would give away ALL the rules to creating characters at a level higher than level 1, but nothing higher than level 3 as the items above level 3 would not be included in this starter as it is just a starter, a primer for the game to introduce people to it.

So if it gave the basic creation rules in an actual D&D product in order to allow people to grasp how the game will be played after the starter is over, then they can go on to purchase the rest of the game, the core books.

Also you have replayability within the game because you can try making other characters with the limited rules supplied and see what happens and how you like it.

Since only some people play the game not caring about their own character, a lot more play with interest in their character, and this gives new players the ability to see that they control more than just the few premade characters. It is also a big part of the whole of D&D, and you must make your own characters more often than one will be made for you.

Not to mention for those of us in the know that is the first thing a player does, and where they "start" to play the game by making their own character.

So it doesn't have to give level 30 items, feats, paragon paths, etc to give enough to show the game basics.

So the point in having, someone buying them after the starter set, the core books is to be able to play more than just those levels/monsters/etc included in it.

What level worth is included or should be in a starter? Who knows. Depends on the adventure included and if it offers any level advancement at all, and if level advancement is included then why leave out the initial level creation?


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> It's puzzling. I'm sure they could have included rudimentary charagen... you don't have to include _every_ class and _every_ feat. Just a few basics to get you going.
> 
> There are people who will defend what WOTC put out no matter what you say. But to me, it's utterly bizarre. Maybe they're afraid of selling something with replay value? That's about the best thing I can come up with. Other 'explanations' just have too many holes. Either that or they're just dumb, but that's a bit of a cop out as far as explanations go. I don't know.




I honestly believe it's what I said before. Their longterm plan really seems to be centered around holding back content so gamers will be more apt to buy additional product. I really think this is more geared towards getting as many sign ups as they can for DDI. I mean for WotC I think they believe it's better to lock you in for a year (no matter what the quality or actual content is) sight unseen... than to hope you will buy the next sourcebook (with the ability to preview it first).

Now why they would apply this philosophy to the starter set is beyond me... but like I said earlier, most companies with these types of quickstart rules w/pre-gens only and an adventure...give them away for free. I have to assume that what you're really paying for here are the frills...tokens, tiles, and dice.  This, IMHO, is the problem... Sometimes it feels that WotC is more concerned with promoting  their tie-in products (tiles & miniatures) that the game itself may be getting overshadowed.  I just hope it never gets to the point where D&D's primary purpose becomes a gateway to getting consumers into purchasing the minis and tiles.  I mean the starter set does list both as necessary to play the game.

SIDE NOTE: After some consideration, I have decided to do a write up of a comparison between this set and the Black Dragon 3.5 basic set when I get home from work, so look out for it tonight.


----------



## garyh (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I mean for WotC I think they believe it's better to lock you in for a year (no matter what the quality or actual content is) sight unseen...




I let this slide the first time you said it because it isn't the focus of this thread, but...  How exactly is that different from when I was giving Paizo my money in advance for a years-worth of Dragon, sight unseen?  That's kinda how magazine subscriptions work.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 20, 2008)

Since you mentioned the DM's side being pretty top notch I'm wondering if the product was built with the idea that the person who buys it will most likely be running it? A "Hey check out this new game I got guys... wanna try it?" scenario.

Not only make it easy for the newbie DM to run the game, but also easy to pitch the game to his friends. (Because they don't have any work to do, they can just play right there on the spot if they want to.)


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

garyh said:


> I let this slide the first time you said it because it isn't the focus of this thread, but... How exactly is that different from when I was giving Paizo my money in advance for a years-worth of Dragon, sight unseen? That's kinda how magazine subscriptions work.




 I don't know about you but 95% of the time, excluding the 5% of issues that were specially packaged with extras (and majority of the time one of these had been ripped open anyway), I could go into Borders, browse through a Dragon or Dungeon Magazine and decide whether I wanted to purchase it or not.  Was it more expensive than the subscription...sure, but it also meant I got to judge each magazine individually before purchasing it.  Thus if an issue was garbage I could still vote with my dollar.  There was a choice there, now how exactly is this possible with the new format...you are paying sight unseen regardless of if it's a single issue, monthly or annually, right?


----------



## garyh (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I don't know about you but 95% of the time, excluding the 5% of issues that were specially packaged with extras (and majority of the time one of these had been ripped open anyway), I could go into Borders, browse through a Dragon or Dungeon Magazine and decide whether I wanted to purchase it or not.  Was it more expensive than the subscription...sure, but it also meant I got to judge each magazine individually before purchasing it.  Thus if an issue was garbage I could still vote with my dollar.  There was a choice there, now how exactly is this possible with the new format...you are paying sight unseen regardless of if it's a single issue, monthly or annually, right?




Now you can wait for the threads here about the current issues and ask questions and decide if you want to subscribe (1 month subscription being like purchasing a single issue, but better because you get the current month compilation and the first artciles of the next month).  Unless you were reading entire articles at Borders, I'd say the new way is similarly effective.

Note - I have not yet decided whether I'll subscribe, mostly do to a "Will I have time to use all this stuff?" concern.  I liked a lot of the free stuff.

Just seems like being upset for the sake of being upset to me...


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Since you mentioned the DM's side being pretty top notch I'm wondering if the product was built with the idea that the person who buys it will most likely be running it? A "Hey check out this new game I got guys... wanna try it?" scenario.
> 
> Not only make it easy for the newbie DM to run the game, but also easy to pitch the game to his friends. (Because they don't have any work to do, they can just play right there on the spot if they want to.)





Yes, I do think the DM side of it was done superbly...but D&D isn't a game for DM's only.  Yeah someone, as the DM, can grab these people and say "Hey let's play"... and they can be up and running in a few minutes, but I think most players are gonna say..."Yeah, that was cool but what makes it different from any other adventure/fantasy boardgame or more special than playng Diablo/WoW/etc.  that I am going to want to make the time commitment and money commitment to play in your game every week?".  

As far as the players not having work...yes pre-gens do that, but does every level have to be a total pre-gen?  I mean if a player is coming back to play up to 3rd level I don't thnk they'll be bothered by actually having one or two choices to make that will shape their character.

Another problem is that the adventure presented is almost 100% combat, so really playing boardgame tactical combat with pre-gens doesn't sound too thrilling or enticing for players with the alternatives that are available to people nowadays ( Why not just play Dungeons & Dragons Heroes on Xbox?).  Granted the DM will have the tools to perhaps craft a better adventure than the one included, using just the starter set...but I don't really see what will keep the players interested enough to give him that chance.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

garyh said:


> Now you can wait for the threads here about the current issues and ask questions and decide if you want to subscribe. Unless you were reading entire articles at Borders, I'd say the new way is similarly effective.
> 
> Note - I have not yet decided whether I'll subscribe, mostly do to a "Will I have time to use all this stuff?" concern. I liked a lot of the free stuff.
> 
> Just seems like being upset for the sake of being upset to me...





No this isn't the same, I don't want to rely on other people's judgement to decide whether I spend my money or not.  I could go into Borders grab a cup of coffee and devote ten to fifteen minutes to looking through the magazine and decide... hey, this is content I think would be cool for my game.  Now I have to decide based on poster A who may or may not be a fanboi/hater on whether I should spend my money on a product.  And if I make the wrong choice there's no second chances.

A prime example of this is the FRCG...it has gotten rave reviews and been rated as total garbage by numerous posters...so how do you decide in that situation?   Wanna know what I did, went into Borders, grabbed a cup of coffee, and....well you know the rest.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 20, 2008)

I do really think it comes down to the fact that the primary "selling points" of D&D are that you can make your own character and come up with novel solutions to problems. There's pretty much nothing else that D&D does that some other game doesn't do... playing a role, designing an adventure (you can do that for Descent), tactical combat, etc. Where D&D really shines are the open-ended dimensions of character designation and problem-solving. I can choose (even if within limits) what I want my guy to be, and I can choose how he approaches the world.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Yes, I do think the DM side of it was done superbly...but D&D isn't a game for DM's only.  Yeah someone, as the DM, can grab these people and say "Hey let's play"... and they can be up and running in a few minutes, but I think most players are gonna say..."Yeah, that was cool but what makes it different from any other adventure/fantasy boardgame or more special than playng Diablo/WoW/etc.  that I am going to want to make the time commitment and money commitment to play in your game every week?".




Shrug? I think personally if the game is fun to play, tht's good enough. Character generation is a big part of the game, but playing the game is more important in my opinion.

I started with the black boxed set with the big red Dragon on the cover... it had pregens. Most of the players who kept playing in my new camapign stayed with the pre-gens until the end.



> As far as the players not having work...yes pre-gens do that, but does every level have to be a total pre-gen?  I mean if a player is coming back to play up to 3rd level I don't thnk they'll be bothered by actually having one or two choices to make that will shape their character.




I'm also wondering if it also benefits the adventure designer. If he/she knows beforehand what the party will consist of, he can concentrate on making the best adventure for that group. 

A way of ensuring the encounters, and play exerience works, and less snags happen.



> Another problem is that the adventure presented is almost 100% combat, so really playing boardgame tactical combat with pre-gens doesn't sound too thrilling or enticing for players with the alternatives that are available to people nowadays ( Why not just play Dungeons & Dragons Heroes on Xbox?).  Granted the DM will have the tools to perhaps craft a better adventure than the one included, using just the starter set...but I don't really see what will keep the players interested enough to give him that chance.




Hrmmm the big black boxed set adventure was almost entirely combat too. I'd say combat and D&D have always gone pretty hand in hand.


----------



## garyh (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> No this isn't the same, I don't want to rely on other people's judgement to decide whether I spend my money or not.  I could go into Borders grab a cup of coffee and devote ten to fifteen minutes to looking through the magazine and decide... hey, this is content I think would be cool for my game.  Now I have to decide based on poster A who may or may not be a fanboi/hater on whether I should spend my money on a product.  And if I make the wrong choice there's no second chances.
> 
> A prime example of this is the FRCG...it has gotten rave reviews and been rated as total garbage by numerous posters...so how do you decide in that situation?   Wanna know what I did, went into Borders, grabbed a cup of coffee, and....well you know the rest.




You realize the price of that cup of coffee at Borders would pay for your monthly DDI sub? 

It just seems to me like you have problems with the subscription model, period.  That's not something WotC invented, though.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> No this isn't the same, I don't want to rely on other people's judgement to decide whether I spend my money or not.  I could go into Borders grab a cup of coffee and devote ten to fifteen minutes to looking through the magazine and decide... hey, this is content I think would be cool for my game.  Now I have to decide based on poster A who may or may not be a fanboi/hater on whether I should spend my money on a product.  And if I make the wrong choice there's no second chances.
> 
> A prime example of this is the FRCG...it has gotten rave reviews and been rated as total garbage by numerous posters...so how do you decide in that situation?   Wanna know what I did, went into Borders, grabbed a cup of coffee, and....well you know the rest.




It's like going to see a movie. 

In my case, I try to find a reviewer of said movie who's tastes agree with mine at least somewhat consistantly.

If their opinion of the film is bad, I'm less inclined to go see it.

I did the same with a lot of the pdf products I've bought in the past, as well as other things I've purchased online.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

garyh said:


> You realize the price of that cup of coffee at Borders would pay for your monthly DDI sub?
> 
> It just seems to me like you have problems with the subscription model, period. That's not something WotC invented, though.





Plain and simple, you asked me what the difference was between Paizo's subscription model with the magazines and WotC.  I have answered your question and you seem to have no reply but to continually think of ways to designate what I have a "problem" with.  I don't have a problem with a subscription model.  I do have a problem with an untested company dealing with something they haven't before and expecting me to trust them blindly...especially when up to this point they haven't impressed me with their products or offerings.  if you feel differently well that's your oppinion.  

Or maybe you just have a problem accepting that everyone doesn't think about things the same as you.

As for the coffee...I'm going to buy it anyway, not so sure about Dungeon & Dragon anymore.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> It's like going to see a movie.
> 
> In my case, I try to find a reviewer of said movie who's tastes agree with mine at least somewhat consistantly.
> 
> ...





And I prefer the option to go into Borders, look through it and decide if it's worth my money, you know like I can with most *BOOKS & MAGAZINES* in Borders.  I'm not arguing this for movies, so your example is irrelevant.

Honestly I can't believe people are arguing with me that using someone else's  opinions on a purchase is better than the ability to examine in depth what you are about to purchase...I'm truly baffled by this line of reasoning.  I'll just finish out by saying that Paizo gave the consumer both options.  Nuff said.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 20, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Shrug? I think personally if the game is fun to play, tht's good enough. Character generation is a big part of the game, but playing the game is more important in my opinion.




Your DM doesn't give out characters to people, and no one at your game wants to make them. The adventure you are running doesn't include them. How do you play?

Are you locked into one level, because like making characters you do not want to do the work to level them, so don't get anything when you go up in level?

You have to have something to play with, and creation is a little part that allows you to do so.

So for those people who buy the starter and think they are getting the real game concept of it and later find out they have to do all this character creation, the starter has misrepresented the game, if no one in the group wishes to create characters and thought they would always be provided.



> It's like going to see a movie.
> 
> In my case, I try to find a reviewer




Final Fantasy Spirits Within. The most vocal reviewer of the film stated it was bad because it followed the video game series that he did not like in the first place.

The movie was bad, for me, because of a certain voice actor not fitting well and ruined the movie when his voice came up, but had little to do with the video game series other than the name/genre.

Finding a good reviewer or one that agrees is hardly possible for a magazine or other product in print. You need to be able to see it for yourself to finally judge it.

D&D the movie was so bad that they made a sequel. So it must have not been that bad, just poorly funded/executed.

"Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see."


----------



## Sunderstone (Oct 20, 2008)

Some folks know Im not a fan of 4E. That said, based on the OPs posts about it I'd say it was a great starter set.

Sounds like its geared for people who have *"zero"* D&D experience. Not for the masses of players that have played previous editions. Fast and Simple, give 'em pregens and run a few encounters. 
Then they can decide if D&D life might interest them. If it does, you can tell them that the full ruleset gives them character creation, higher levels, and many more options. Id probably use something like that as a tool to teach more people about the game. Too many options/rules too soon might be alot to take in for the average D&D "noob".

Sounds like a well thought out project for the most part, ymmv.


LATE EDIT*** Imagine if character creation was in for a second. Imagine spending some time to get a character made (might seem complex to a D&D noob) and having him die in one of the encounters. The D&D noob might be put off at the time it took to create a character to only have it die in a short while later. Pregens give them a taste for the system without the prep or attachment of a self-made character.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> And I prefer the option to go into Borders, look through it and decide if it's worth my money, you know like I can with most *BOOKS & MAGAZINES* in Borders.  I'm not arguing this for movies, so your example is irrelevant.




My example was a similar situation. Purchasing a product that you can't see the entire thing before you pay for it. That's all. If that's not your style so be it I'm not putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do anything. 

I really couldn't care any less if you buy a subscription to the DDI. 



> Honestly I can't believe people are arguing with me that using someone else's  opinions on a purchase is better than the ability to examine in depth what you are about to purchase...I'm truly baffled by this line of reasoning.  I'll just finish out by saying that Paizo gave the consumer both options.  Nuff said.




Quit attributing an argument to me that I'm not making.  When did I say using someone else's opinion was better then using your own? 

I was commenting on how I approach similar buying situations. 

All hail Paizo?


----------



## darjr (Oct 20, 2008)

I smell straw.


----------



## Scribble (Oct 20, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Your DM doesn't give out characters to people, and no one at your game wants to make them. The adventure you are running doesn't include them. How do you play?




Is this a tree falls in the woods riddle? 



> Are you locked into one level, because like making characters you do not want to do the work to level them, so don't get anything when you go up in level?




I was basing my thoughts on "new" players, having never seen D&D, not trying to attract players that are just lazy.

It allows the DM to show off the new game without having to convince players that have no idea what the game is like that doign the pre-work is going to be worth it.



> You have to have something to play with, and creation is a little part that allows you to do so.
> 
> So for those people who buy the starter and think they are getting the real game concept of it and later find out they have to do all this character creation, the starter has misrepresented the game, if no one in the group wishes to create characters and thought they would always be provided.




Having never seen the intro set myself yet I can't say fore sure... But I'd be willing to bet they talk about being able to make your own characters in the "real" rules. I doubt they try to hide that fact...




> Final Fantasy Spirits Within. The most vocal reviewer of the film stated it was bad because it followed the video game series that he did not like in the first place.
> 
> The movie was bad, for me, because of a certain voice actor not fitting well and ruined the movie when his voice came up, but had little to do with the video game series other than the name/genre.




Do you normally agree with this reviewer's thoughts? 



> Finding a good reviewer or one that agrees is hardly possible for a magazine or other product in print. You need to be able to see it for yourself to finally judge it.




That's funny... Seemed to work for me with all those pdfs I bought in the past based on reviwers on enworld that I generally agreed with... Guess I actually dislike those products and just didn't notice?



> D&D the movie was so bad that they made a sequel. So it must have not been that bad, just poorly funded/executed.




uhhh? What?



> "Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see."




The truth is out there? 

Dooo dooo dooo do doooo dooooooooooo


----------



## MerricB (Oct 20, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> Sounds like a well thought out project for the most part, ymmv.




I pretty much agree with you. I was fascinated when after a "build your own character" basic set for 3.5e, the next one didn't have those options. I've got a feeling that Wizards have seen a lot of feedback on the D&D starter kits, and character creation is just a big barrier in the way of actually _playing_ the game.

Cheers!


----------



## SlyFlourish (Oct 20, 2008)

*Starter Set*

When my group played Keep on the Shadowfell, we used the pre-gens and are still using them now. It isn't like you get no choice at all, you get to pick which character you want to be. Granted you don't pick the race / class combo but for a new player that might be daunting. Saying "I want to be the dwarven fighter" or "I want to be the elven warlock" is probably enough of a selection for a brand - new - player.

To me, the box should have everything in it for a group to get together and play. It sounds like it does. Some hero minis would have been nice but I guess that would have upped the cost quite a bit. It probably works well with the tokens.

As far as having to pay $100 once you get into it, that's a bit of an inflated price. I love the monster manual and DMG but you really don't need either of them. In my regular game I reference them very rarely. The PHB gets passed around a lot but the other two books are really only needed if you're designing your own game - again not a task for a beginner.

So that means once you've spent the $13 for the basic set and your friends all love it, you pool some cash together and spend another $22 on the PHB. Now you can customize your characters all you want and play through all the material in the basic set with customized characters. If you go beyond level 3 (about 12 to 24 hours worth of play time) now you can invest in the MM and DMG or one of the other published adventures.

It seems to me the cost for a new player to scale up works out well. Sure there's a lot to buy but you don't NEED that much of it. Of course that comes from a guy that spends over $1000 a year on books, mins, dwarven forge, and other odds and ends for his hobby. Still, cheaper than golf.

Anyway, I feel like I'm reading a lot of soap-box opinions on this. It's either "Wizards is trying to sell us crack - free for the first vial" or its "This basic set of D&D is basic and that isn't the D&D I (as a 20 year vet) love playing". The set wasn't designed for us Enworlders, it's designed for the 14 year old kids who haven't tried it ever. I know I would have loved something like this when I first got started.


----------



## garyh (Oct 20, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Plain and simple, you asked me what the difference was between Paizo's subscription model with the magazines and WotC.  I have answered your question and you seem to have no reply but to continually think of ways to designate what I have a "problem" with.  I don't have a problem with a subscription model.  I do have a problem with an untested company dealing with something they haven't before and expecting me to trust them blindly...especially when up to this point they haven't impressed me with their products or offerings.  if you feel differently well that's your oppinion.
> 
> Or maybe you just have a problem accepting that everyone doesn't think about things the same as you.
> 
> As for the coffee...I'm going to buy it anyway, not so sure about Dungeon & Dragon anymore.




I buy things all the time without extensive direct experience using only previous experience with that company/author/director/etc. and the reviews of others.  It works pretty well for me.

If you find that doesn't work for you, then by all means do what works for you.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 20, 2008)

If it doesn't contain character creation, this Starter Set is a start to something other than Dungeons & Dragons.

I think WotC could have included basic rules that allowed players to experience the joy of character creation (and thereafter, the joy of playing your own character) with easy steps:

Step 1: Choose your class
   Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. The classics. Each class comes with a default stat array.

Step 2: Choose your race
   Human, Dwarf, Elf, Dragonborn. Each race modifies the stats above, and includes a couple fun racial traits (dragon breath, skill mods, etc.)

Step 3: Choose your powers
   Each class has default at-will powers (all fighters get tide of iron and cleave, all clerics get sacred flame and lance of faith, etc), but you get to pick from two Encounter powers, and from two Daily powers. 

Step 4: Choose your feats
   Each race and class has a feat associated with it. Also include popular simple feats like Quickdraw, Weapon Focus, and Toughness.

Step 5: Choose equipment
   Each class comes with an equipment package, but you can instead swap around weapons and armor (chosen from a simplified list). 

Done. You get a taste of character creation, but since there are default stat arrays for each class it’s still idiot-proof. Include a preview section at the end of the book, showcasing a taste of the alt-builds (like the Str cleric), and pointing consumers to the WotC website where they can download Boxed Starter Set-quality tastes of the other classes and races, and perhaps a few feats.

Bottom line is that the whole point of the Boxed Starter Set is to acquire new customers. It should be classified as a marketing expense, not a source of revenue, and it should give away as much of D&D as possible. This new Starter Set withholds one of the most rewarding and compelling components of D&D. It actively works against its own purpose. And that’s a shame.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> LATE EDIT*** Imagine if character creation was in for a second. Imagine spending some time to get a character made (might seem complex to a D&D noob) and having him die in one of the encounters. The D&D noob might be put off at the time it took to create a character to only have it die in a short while later. Pregens give them a taste for the system without the prep or attachment of a self-made character.




Now imagine the same new player is given the game without any idea that character creation is required or an idea of how it works, and plays his pregen through it so gleefully to want to purchase the full thing even dying a few times, only to find out the full game requires creating character that was sorely not described in the starter.

They were given a false representation in the "demo" kit of what to expect from the game and now how do they feel?

Lose $15 on the starter because they don't like dying near character creation, or lose $150 on the starter and core books, because they didn't even know about character creation to begin with. I would feel very put off by that, and would have prefered to known about it before rather than being hit with it later.

@Scribble: So the starter set is to replace RPGA events that give characters to new players to allow them to see what some of the game is about for free?

Sounds like the same thing to me. While the starter including some character creation stats gives a next level of introduction with the price to see how the whole game works while also offering the RPGA ability of having the pregen characters to test the full waters of the game before buying all of it.

It isn't like Monopoly where you only need to buy one thing, but you can buy the core set all at once. Since the game is so complex in what it is, giving the character generation up front in the starter lets people preview what to expect during their gaming lifetime. If they don't want to put that much into it then @$20 isn't too much of a loss. No more than going to watch a bad movie, but with the starter you might be able to recoup some lost money if you don't like it,

It may say something about it, never seen it myself either only know of the B&W Drizzt image on WotC site; but ti still doesn't tell what all that entails to create a character I am sure. So going from no work then to this mountain of decisions may be daunting. Again a reason to offer the character generation rules in the starter so people can see what to expect rather than depend on them already knowing, as the starter is/should be for first time players.

More times than not, I disagree with most reviewers. They are from a different world than me in where they are located and their interests. Small town ideas/thoughts versus big city ones and all that.

I would say you got lucky. I have seen many NYT best sellers that I thought were actual trash. Well composed and thought, but the stories were not interesting to me at all. Total snooze-fests. Just good writing skills does not make a bad story good.

People so disliked the first D&D movie that it was able to have a sequel was my point, so the reviews should mean little to a persons decision. Use the reviews you may find to see what others think, but make sure you agree with the reviewer you choose to believe prior to accepting their word as final.

No, not a X-Files reference, but the opposite view of PT Barnum from Samuel Clemons.

Combine them and you can get.... "A sucker would not be born every minute if people didn't just believe everything they heard."

=P


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 21, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> LATE EDIT*** Imagine if character creation was in for a second. Imagine spending some time to get a character made (might seem complex to a D&D noob) and having him die in one of the encounters. The D&D noob might be put off at the time it took to create a character to only have it die in a short while later. *Pregens give them a taste for the system without the prep or attachment of a self-made character*.




That. That right there. That's what's wrong with this Starter Set. D&D's _system_--whatever edition--is the least important part of D&D. And the pain of that noob's character's death? That emotional attachment? That's the most important part. 

If the starter set showcases only combat and skill resolution, then it shows off the least interesting parts of the game. It's like a Porsche salesman talking only about Miles Per Gallon and warranty. Who cares? These stats are important, sure, but they're totally secondary. Show me the sexy lines, let me hear the engine, let me experience the acceleration and turned heads.


----------



## Ulrick (Oct 21, 2008)

Here's my idea for the perfect Starter Set: 

1. You can play at levels 1 to 3
2. You have four basic classes: fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue
3. You can generate characters--you may not get all the options from the corebooks, but enough to give a new player a taste of what's available.
4. Miniatures. Remember Hero Quest? Like that. They could make the game as in intro to the miniature battle as well. 
5. Sample dungeon tiles. 
6. A basic DM Guide.

Does anybody else remember Hero Quest? I played that game a lot growing up. It may pale in comparison to other RPGs, but it is a nice complete game. It's simple to run. It came with "toys."

The original 3.5 boxed set (the one with the Black Dragon, not the blue) had most of the six concepts. I've used that boxed set to introduce new gamers. I've given that boxed set as a gift. It works. That set hooked people to D&D.

This 4.0 starter set just seems like a bunch of cobbled together stuff from other sources. I'd hate to be the newbie to buy that Starter set, get hooked, then purchase the Giants dungeon tile set or Keep on the Shadowfell? I'd feel ripped off. 

And the counters? Don't get me started.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

You know I just want to say for those claiming character creation is too complicated... No one claimed it had to be the totality of character generation in the box, but what it should foster is some kind of investment and attachment to one's character...otherwise why not play FFVII?  It's $19.99 (even cheaper used), has a pre-gen for you...more hours of play than you'll get out of the starter set and the graphics look better than the 2d tokens.  Honestly I feel like you all are underestimating children.  My son is nine and some of the videogames he plays are more complicated (and even have similar "power" structures to 4e's system) than the creation of a character in 4e.

I think another point most people are missing is that D&D has to compete with other forms of entertainment (some remarkably similar to what it opffers),  if it wants to broaden it's appeal and market share.  There are two ways to do this...do something better than they do it, or do something different than they do it.

The D&D starter set gets this right with the DM side of things...because that is actually something D&D *can* do better than videogames, boardgames, etc.  They give you the tools to be a really good DM in the starter set, and I have continuously applauded the set for that...but I'm not going to ignore where it falls down.  

If you have a group with 1 DM and 5 players...that means majority of the group are players and regardless of how interesting the DM finds it, if five of your friends say it sucks, was boring or just meh...more than likely you all will move on to something else.  On the players side of things the thing D&D *can* do to be better than other similar forms of entertainment is allow you to customize your character on a more personal level (though even now games like Fable and Fable 2 are infringing on this territory).  Also...It sure ain't the whole playing with a group thing anymore as computer and console gaming both easily accommodate this now. 

This I think is why D&D will never be as popular as it once was...it's a whole new playing field now and you got to evolve or die.  Half-stepping isn't going to cut it, when there is so much out there to compete with.  I feel like some posters are only thinking about what was available and possible in the past (when they got into D&D) as far as recreational and leisure activities and think it's the same now...it's not.

SIDE NOTE: I have decided not to do the comparison between the 3.5 Basic Set and the 4e Starter Set as I just don't see it going very well if I do.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 21, 2008)

Androlphas said:


> Yes, I know it's not the same as the OD&D boxes, but that was a different kind of product because it was the *entirety* of the game (such as it was).  The only way they could make the current D&D the same as this is to release a smaller boxed set for each tier (not necessarily a bad idea), but again, that would compete with their main product.




Why is it a bad thing to give someone a relatively complete game for their money?

Would it really compete with the “main product”? If this were so, why didn’t the basic sets that most of us ENWorlders started with keep us from buying AD&D books? Wouldn’t it more (1) earn Wizards the money of some people who could enjoy a simplified D&D but who are never going to buy the “main product” and (2) bring in new player who would want to step up to the “main product” but who wouldn’t have ever bought the “main product” cold?

I think a single box set that only covered the Heroic tier would be just fine. Save Paragon and Epic for the “main product”.

(Although, I really think releasing the tiers over time would’ve been a better idea than the PHB2/DMG2/MM2, PHB3/DMG3/MM3, &c. path they’re taking. But that’s a whole ’nother discussion.)



Imaro said:


> Another problem is that the adventure presented is almost 100% combat, so really playing boardgame tactical combat with pre-gens doesn't sound too thrilling or enticing for players with the alternatives that are available to people nowadays ( Why not just play Dungeons & Dragons Heroes on Xbox?).




Completely agree. Combat is fun and an important part of the game, but it’s the stuff between combats and having a DM that makes the game what it is.



Sunderstone said:


> Imagine if character creation was in for a second. Imagine spending some time to get a character made (might seem complex to a D&D noob) and having him die in one of the encounters. The D&D noob might be put off at the time it took to create a character to only have it die in a short while later.




Right. The same way all of us got put off the game and never played it again when our first basic set PC died. (That was sarcasm if you didn’t catch on.)


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

Ulrick said:


> The original 3.5 boxed set (the one with the Black Dragon, not the blue) had most of the six concepts. I've used that boxed set to introduce new gamers. I've given that boxed set as a gift. It works. That set hooked people to D&D.




Yep, this was definitely a better starter set IMO, and I'm glad I still have a copy of it on my shelf...it's great for introducing new players.

EDIT:  Actually I just realized this starter set reminds me of the 3.0 one with the counters.  However with a vastly improved DM section.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> This I think is why D&D will never be as popular as it once was...it's a whole new playing field now and you got to evolve or die.




Despite having total access to TV with—what—a dozen cartoon and kids channels, a Playstation 2, and a computer, my kids can get just as excited about board games; marbles; construction paper, crayons, and scissors; reading; &c.

As popular as it once was? No, probably not. But. Marbles hasn’t had to adjust to changes in the playing field, so I’m not convinced D&D has to either.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

RFisher said:


> Despite having total access to TV with—what—a dozen cartoon and kids channels, a Playstation 2, and a computer, my kids can get just as excited about board games; marbles; construction paper, crayons, and scissors; reading; &c.
> 
> As popular as it once was? No, probably not. But. Marbles hasn’t had to adjust to changes in the playing field, so I’m not convinced D&D has to either.




I don't think you undestood me...better yet I probably didn't express what I meant well...I'm talking about how, as well as what aspects of the game, are presented to prospective players, not the game itself.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 21, 2008)

RFisher said:


> Why is it a bad thing to give someone a relatively complete game for their money?




Better idea: give someone a relatively complete game for free.

This starter set discussion resonates with me because I'm pretty keen on the whole "free to pay" model. That being: give away your content, attract fans, and let those fans pay you as they choose. 

Easiest example, for me, is Penny Arcade. Others would be cutting-edge music, expert sites like Motley Fool, and so on. Concrete real-world example: the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" guy. Sure, the book was a bestseller. So what? The big money--as in, order of magnitude bigger than book revenue--is in seminars, newsletter subscriptions, endorsements, licensing, appearances, etc. The fabled "back end."  

Simply: don't put a purchase barrier between you and a potential fan. Give them what they need in order to become a fan. And once they become a fan, make it easy for them to satisfy their desire to support you.  

For musicians, that'd be giving away all your music for free (as Jonathan Coulton, and others, do). All of it. Then make your money with direct CD sales (some enjoy hard copies and album art), t-shirts & other merch, concerts, donations, and licensing. 

For D&D, that'd be giving away character creation, early levelup, sample adventures, counters, and good tools, articles, other web content. Make your money by selling miniatures, rulebooks, novels, 3-D cardstock terrain, t-shirts, and other products--including, yes, subscriptions for more robust tools and deeper web content.

Right now WotC is doing better at this new paradigm than most companies, especially recently, but it could do a bit more.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 21, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Since you mentioned the DM's side being pretty top notch I'm wondering if the product was built with the idea that the person who buys it will most likely be running it? A "Hey check out this new game I got guys... wanna try it?" scenario.
> 
> Not only make it easy for the newbie DM to run the game, but also easy to pitch the game to his friends. (Because they don't have any work to do, they can just play right there on the spot if they want to.)





Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding we have a winnah!

We wanted to achieve a few things with this product.

1) DM focused


A purchaser that wants to play so bad they buy the box will likely take on role of DM. They will likely do this ebven if they get it as a gift. "hey gang let's play this new game I just got"
You can't really play D&D without a DM
DMs recruit players
New DMs will buy the books even if their players don't
DMs are the glue that hold game groups together
2) Teach basics of play while avoiding complexity


Playing a PC, party roles, cooperative group play etc
basic mechanics
combat (the fun of kill the monster & take it's stuff)
Rely on DM to fill in the char gen gaps later if player doesn't take a deeper dive themselves with a PHB purchase
3) keep it it as inexpensive as possible so: 


Tokens instead of minis
re-use content from other products (assuming the new purchasers had not seen it before since they are ne wto the game)
Re-use art
Re-use tiles

A few people have talked about character creation and I have to agree it is one of th every fun aspects of D&D. 25 years ago it was a compleling point of differentiation between computer games and D&D. 

But these days as a new player D&D style char gen is daunting when you look at how these kids are used making characters in the games they play. In 10 minutes on most MMO or console games you can not only make a cool character with a simple to use UI, but you can even use the software to make the avatar look like who ever you want. You hand a kid a game like D&D nowadays and say make a character and 9 times out of 10 they are totally lost after 10 minutes and start asking "where's the X-box?" I have personally seen it happen in focus groups with 10-12 year olds. But very 1 out of 10 you get a motivated kid, who looks at the dragon on the cover, opens the book and starts to read the rules. This is the future DM and the kid who we want to target with this box set.

FWIW I think there are some valid points in the thread about the fun and long term hook char gen provides. Our approach was to go get to the fun fast and in our opinion and experience combat is the fun. You may disagree but that is the approach we are taking. I do think  Zaruthustran's idea of "idiot proof" char gen is a pretty good approach. After playing with the Character Builder beta for D&D Insider it does this walk through approach pretty well. When the Builder goes live non-subscribers will be able to download and play with a demo version that has all the same functionality, but only for level 1-3 characters so it could cover the char gen problem in a familiar format.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I don't think you undestood me...better yet I probably didn't express what I meant well...I'm talking about how, as well as what aspects of the game, are presented to prospective players, not the game itself.




Oh, right. I completely agree with you about that.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 21, 2008)

First: I'm a huge supporter of the Starter Set idea, and I'm glad it's in the marketplace. Viewing this product as targeted primarily at DMs, it makes a lot more sense. Now I understand why character creation was left out, for now. If the 10-12 year old DM says "let's play a game", gets his group to agree, and then says "okay, now spend the next half hour reading and doing math!" then that's a terrible experience. "I went to Bobby's house to play a game, but instead he gave us _homework!_." Hoo boy, that's not good.



Scott_Rouse said:


> A few people have talked about character creation and I have to agree it is one of th every fun aspects of D&D. 25 years ago it was a compleling point of differentiation between computer games and D&D.




This is an excellent point. And there's a reason that every MMO & console game has adopted D&D-style character creation. Even FPS action games have "RPG elements". Why? It's fun! It's compelling. It makes the game _better_. 

Presenting D&D as a game that lacks character creation is, I think, a missed opportunity. I understand that pre-gens should be the default, but still think that even simple chargen rules should be made available.  There's something powerful about filling in the blank above "Character Name", making choices that determine your character's capabilities, and then contemplating what to put in the box for "Character portrait/symbol". Perhaps online is the solution? Target players this time, and make freely available the character creator (including ability to print). Subscribers have the ability to save / retrieve / autoupdate their characters. You'd get my money, gladly given.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> A few people have talked about character creation and I have to agree it is one of th every fun aspects of D&D. 25 years ago it was a compleling point of differentiation between computer games and D&D.
> 
> But these days as a new player D&D style char gen is very daunting when you look at how these kids are used making characters in the games they play. In 10 miniutes on most MMO or console games you can not only make a cool character with a simple to use UI, but you can even use the software to make the avatar look like who ever you want. You hand a kid a game like D&D nowadays and say make a character and 9 times out of 10 they are totally lost after 10 minutes and start asking "where's the X-box?" I have personly seen it happen in focus groups with 10-12 year olds. But very 1 out of 10 you get a smart kid, who looks at the dragon on the cover, opens the book and starts to read the rules. This is the future DM and the kid who we want to target with this box set.




Ok Scott, I was with you all the way up to here.  So there's this one kid out of 10 that will be able to get the other nine to play D&D, run the combats (OA, marking, conditions, etc), interpret the rules, create adventures, explain their powers to them, etc... but he won't be able to direct his friends through character creation?  That sounds a little...off.  Especially if it's just limited choices as they level up and he is able to actually get them interested and excited about the game.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 21, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:


> Presenting D&D as a game that lacks character creation is, I think, a missed opportunity. I understand that pre-gens should be the default, but still think that even simple chargen rules should be made available.  There's something powerful about filling in the blank above "Character Name", making choices that determine your character's capabilities, and then contemplating what to put in the box for "Character portrait/symbol". Perhaps online is the solution?




The opening words in the quick start rulebook explain that this is an overview of the game designed to get you playing immediately and that for the complete rules including character creation pick up the PHB. But i get your point



> Target players this time, and make freely available the character creator (including ability to print). Subscribers have the ability to save / retrieve / autoupdate their characters. You'd get my money, gladly given.




Level 1-3 in the online builder will be free to use for non-subscribers.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding we have a winnah!
> 
> We wanted to achieve a few things with this product.
> 
> ...





Where is the player focused starter set?
Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't the DM have enough to buy after the starter set? I hope it is spelled out within the set that the DM has a lot more money to spend on the books for the full game. Lord knows I spent more money as a DM than a player. For a totally new player they may not have preconcieved notions about the game, or be power mad like us older DMs. Hero Quest used previously as an example had the case of people around me fighting over who HAD to be Morcar and ended drawing lots with the loser having to be Morcar while the others got to play the characters.
You can play D&D without a DM, but it depends on what you are trying to do. The obverse could also be said that a DM cannpt play D&D without the players.
I have never recruited players as a DM, but been drafted to be the DM. As a player I drafted other players in some games by another DM just because the player perspective of the game and the DM met with the interests of the new player. DMs can often sel the game or themselves too much. Like a bad car salesman. One DM I met didn't recruit anyone, but had people begging to know more from an RPGA event. All others seemed self absorbed. Maybe it as the times or locales. I think it beter and more a part of D&D to have the players choose the DM, than a DM try to recruit players for many reasons better left to another thread so as not to derail this one further.
This is true. When the DM bug bites, it often leaves the largest bite marks on the DMs wallet.
Couldn't be more false. The group as a whole holds them together. No matter how good a DM is, it is the other players as well that must get along and be having fun or the DM could end up without a group. DMs are not sociologists. They are important, but not the most important part of the game dynamics of player types. DMs and players are equal in importance.

Difficult in a complex game to start of with. Showing only one part of the game misguides people thinking it if what may be in the starter vs what the full version is. As has been noted the character generation doesn't have to include everything, but give some options to offer little complexity, while still offering the true vision of the game.
Does the starter teach any of this? This all seems to be player choice matters. Giving the PC options to do is not really playing the PC. Many people feel the party roles are superficial. Cooperative group play can be told that the game is a co-op game, but the actual cooperation must come from the group. A starter can do little for this.
Basic mechanics are important but 4th is pretty much only that isn't it? didn't a recent "starter" come with a paperback PHB? Why did it come with a near full book and this not? Comparing mostly to the only starter set I know where is, the game has become more complex that just a basic mechanics understanding could encompass, and that was the red book set of old. With a more complex game, the basic mechanics are not always just basic.
combat (See DDM)
If the new player/purchaser of the set is the DM, and only has the starter set how can the players rely on the DM to give them more, if not included even in the DM section of the starter set? This point relies heavily on assuming 1d to always be true.

Always good to do with the rising prices of everything these days to ridiculous levels.
Cheap and effective. Should mean that tokens are something that can be purchased later and not just something for the starter so that people can choose to buy the minis or the tokens for cost and storage reasons. Will D&D monster/character tokens be made available as a product so that people do not need to buy miniatures to continue playing in the future? I think this would be a good selling item. Something like D&D pogs that take the correct area, but not some CCG model of random distribution since the miniatures already offers that and the tokens wouldn't have a game to them save for D&D or other RPG accessories.
I hope this products states this and people buying KotS and that tile pack do not feel abused and bought both getting nothing new. Or that new players are told that this product combines elements of those other two products so if they wish to continue play they can do so with the full KotS adventure. KotS itself was a sort of starter set anyway.
Its art. Why not have monsters consistant throughout products.
Tiles:Its art. Why not reuse it, and odds are one set of tiles is never enough anyway since you will need those corridor or passage ways that there are never enough of. Heck not everyone can afford a Dwarven Forge Master Maze dungeon set that covers their entire basement. Even paper tiles would be good as it helps the main point here of #3 to reduce costs for everyone. Little tape to hold them together and print spare copies when needed and paper tiles would work just as good. I don't think safety sciccors are needed, as parents could help them cut out the tiles for younger consumers.

I think the problem is aiming the starter set at 10-12 year olds. In this country they are not even allowed to have jobs to earn their money, and this means it comes form the parents and they should not just let kids buy anything sight unseen and need to spend time with the children of this adolescent stage and help them with the things they do for leisure activities.

And some of those 10-12 year olds are much smarter than given credit for as many learn in schools how to make javascript/XML enabled websites. A little D&D character creation would be...child's play for them.

If this starter set was aimed solely at kids, then I think that is its major flaw.

All that aside, thanks for explaining many things about the starter set Scott. It is interesting to see this kind of information on our hobby and the directions it is going from the design and marketing aspects. I think this would make an excellent DDI article what you just posted herein. It is exaclty something that seems insider's would be interested in or something that would make someone want to be an insider, or be interested in D&D in the first place.

:cookie:

And if this forum doesn't have emoticookies then I will figure out how to give you XP for that post.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Ok Scott, I was with you all the way up to here.  So there's this one kid out of 10 that will be able to get the other nine to play D&D, run the combats (OA, marking, conditions, etc), interpret the rules, create adventures, explain their powers to them, etc... but he won't be able to direct his friends through character creation?  That sounds a little...off.  Especially if it's just limited choices as they level up and he is able to actually get them interested and excited about the game.




Sure I can see where you the notice a flaw in the logic here. "The kid is smart he can explain it to the noobs" and you may be right. Is suspect that's how many of us learned the game. I learned to play Gamma World from a friend and I made my of character with his help. 

Our approach was to save this step for later. Focus on the DM and get them all playing sooner.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 21, 2008)

> I think the problem is aiming the starter set at 10-12 year olds. In this country they are not even allowed to have jobs to earn their money, and this means it comes form the parents and they should not just let kids buy anything sight unseen and need to spend time with the children of this adolescent stage and help them with the things they do for leisure activities.




Sorry I can't follow the formatting in your post but I will comment on this.

Kids 10-12 have literally billions of dollars of discretionary spending money. Grandma money, allowances, birthday money, etc. 



> And some of those 10-12 year olds are much smarter than given credit for as many learn in schools how to make javascript/XML enabled websites. A little D&D character creation would be...child's play for them.




Fair enough and if they want to play bad enough they'll DM and recruit some friends as PCs.


----------



## Windjammer (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Another problem is that the adventure presented is almost 100% combat




I was THIS close to buying it. Thanks for saving me $12.

What's wrong with WotC? How come EVERY 4th edition starters adventure module they've issued leans so heavily on the combat side? I mean, we're all fine here with D&D being combat-centric - but combat-exclusive? Honestly, after a very, very long list of disappointments in that regard (Shadowfell, Shadowhaunt, Skyfire Waste, Beneath Haunted Halls, ... the list continues) this is really the final straw for me. 

I won't buy adventure modules from WotC anymore unless I hear from someone reliable that they actually CARE about people playing plots and not just levels. Talking about people picking up the hobby from this one. Honestly.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 21, 2008)

I have several questions which I'm pretty sure is not going to be answered (since it can be disastrous if not confidential):

Since several of the responses seem to be about 10 - 12 year old children being smarter then most people give them credit for being, were there any 10 - 12 year olds in a marketing test group that helped decide the direction of the basic set?  If so, which approach to starting 4e did they prefer: the "basic set" or the "core rules" approach?


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Fair enough and if they want to play bad enough they'll DM and recruit some friends as PCs.




If they have that much disposable money, and want to play bad enough, then why would they bother with the starter set to DM, and not just buy the core books?

The two ideas seem to contradict each other.

The point of them being smarter than given credit for is that these MMOs people flock to may have little int he way of creating the character, but look at the amount of accounting that even kids do on these quicker access and play games.

Plan out this quest to need these locations, and these places, and this time the mob will drop X item, etc....

They aren't that much more difficult than creating a D&D character. Hell, creating a D&D character for me in any edition has ben easier than a lot of these MMO and other video game quests figuring out what in the world is going on and who I need to find where, and at what time of the day real world vs game time, etc.

With 4th it is even easier since there is so little difference between the classes in terms of creation, just different sets of thing to choose from, but basically the same process for each unlike wizards c. fighters of older editions.

That is one of 4th's selling points that could be given away in the starter as how much easier it is to make a character your own than ever before in ANY non-video game.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 21, 2008)

I'd like to thank you, Scott, for chiming in on the thread, adding needed perspective from the source. 


Scott_Rouse said:


> Our approach was to _*save this step for later*_. Focus on the DM and get them all playing sooner.



Is this bolded portion above a harbinger of something to come?


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> If they have that much disposable money, and want to play bad enough, then why would they bother with the starter set to DM, and not just buy the core books?
> 
> The two ideas seem to contradict each other.



That's ridiculous. Kids of that age _as a whole_ have significant disposable income. Each individual kid does not. Laying out $100 is significant to many adults, and would be more so to most kids.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> That's ridiculous. Kids of that age _as a whole_ have significant disposable income. Each individual kid does not. Laying out $100 is significant to many adults, and would be more so to most kids.




If one kid can afford $20 then 6 can afford the core books as a group.


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> If one kid can afford $20 then 6 can afford the core books as a group.



Okay...have you ever tried to get five of your friends to pitch money in for something new? For you all to share? Not so easy, especially when you're 10.


----------



## drothgery (Oct 21, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> I do really think it comes down to the fact that the primary "selling points" of D&D are that you can make your own character and come up with novel solutions to problems. There's pretty much nothing else that D&D does that some other game doesn't do... playing a role, designing an adventure (you can do that for Descent), tactical combat, etc. Where D&D really shines are the open-ended dimensions of character designation and problem-solving. I can choose (even if within limits) what I want my guy to be, and I can choose how he approaches the world.




The thing is that just heroic teir for four races and four classes sucks up a huge amount of pagecount in 4e, so making a starter set with chargen is kind of difficult.


----------



## garyh (Oct 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Okay...have you ever tried to get five of your friends to pitch money in for something new? For you all to share? Not so easy, especially when you're 10.




Three Men and a Comic Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Delta (Oct 21, 2008)

Sunderstone said:


> LATE EDIT*** Imagine if character creation was in for a second. Imagine spending some time to get a character made (might seem complex to a D&D noob) and having him die in one of the encounters. The D&D noob might be put off at the time it took to create a character to only have it die in a short while later. Pregens give them a taste for the system without the prep or attachment of a self-made character.




You just described exactly how all my friends got hooked on Blue Box Basic, and made them want to play more, and do better. For 30 years.


----------



## Delta (Oct 21, 2008)

Windjammer said:


> What's wrong with WotC? How come EVERY 4th edition starters adventure module they've issued leans so heavily on the combat side? I mean, we're all fine here with D&D being combat-centric - but combat-exclusive?




Look, business-wise they're pursuing MMORPGs. 

I read a great book by Mulligan/Patrovsky called "Developing Online Games: An Insider Guide". In their introduction they point out that once a company sets its sights on the revenue stream from a successful MMORPG (WOW), they _cannot_ be dissuaded. They have to go through a whole years-long cycle -- the majority fail -- before picking up the pieces afterwards. 

Ever since WOTC announced the digital-emphasis to 4E in August '07, it's as if they've been following that introduction as a strategic plan.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Oct 21, 2008)

BTW I am not necessarily trying to argue one opinion is more valid than another (e.g. char gen vs no char gen). I am just trying to provide some insight into why we made the product the way we did.

At the end of the day the product is out there and the market will ultimately determine it's success or failure. In my opinion it is a good product for new players because it teaches the basics, offering good value in both play and quality.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Okay...have you ever tried to get five of your friends to pitch money in for something new? For you all to share? Not so easy, especially when you're 10.




Yeah. It was called AD&D 1st edition. My share got left with them shortly after when I moved too.



Scott_Rouse said:


> BTW I am not necessarily trying to argue one opinion is more valid than another (e.g. char gen vs no char gen). I am just trying to provide some insight into why we made the product the way we did.
> 
> At the end of the day the product is out there and the market will ultimately determine it's success or failure. In my opinion it is a good product for new players because it teaches the basics, offering good value in both play and quality.




Of course. That is why some are discussing what might have made it better. The chance you found your way to the thread and voiced any information, just means you have the luxury of the ideas found within to use during future product development.

In addition to actual sales and other comments about the product.

@Delta: How does the lifespan of Gleemax fit into that introduction and time scale?


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

double post. delete


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> BTW I am not necessarily trying to argue one opinion is more valid than another (e.g. char gen vs no char gen). I am just trying to provide some insight into why we made the product the way we did.
> 
> At the end of the day the product is out there and the market will ultimately determine it's success or failure. In my opinion it is a good product for new players because it teaches the basics, offering good value in both play and quality.




I think it's nice that you stopped by to give us the explanation. It's just a different choice of strategies (a factor we're all familiar with here!).

For myself, I am probably such a strong proponent of the "Basic Classes, Levels 1-3" approach (best articulated by Imaro above) because it was such a triumphant marketing success in my own case. TSR gave me a taste with the Moldvay box (a very complete and robust taste) and I was hooked for life.


----------



## Emryys (Oct 21, 2008)

Emryys said:


> They could direct people to the DnDInsider character build and allow it to be free up to 2nd or 3rd level... this allows a selection of characters and accomplishes exposure to the online content too...
> Just a thought...






Scott_Rouse said:


> Level 1-3 in the online builder will be free to use for non-subscribers.




Very good choice... glad my guess turned out right  

I'll probably use the starter set and make extra pregens to cover a vast selection showcasing many options... then if they are so inclined, I'll send them forth to make their very own...


----------



## Baumi (Oct 21, 2008)

I think most of us are just disappointed that this set is not very useful for us existing players. 

For completely new players the approach that they have done seems quite good to me and if the Character Generator is online (and simple enough) then the missing Creation-Chapter is not such a big problem.

But I have to admit that I would love a Basic Set that fills the void between that starter set and the full PHB/MM/DMG set, with more options then the starter and the full Heroic Tier, but still easier, quicker and cheaper than the full set. That would be awesome for One-Shots and for existing Roleplayers that want to try the new D&D Edition. Since less options doesn't mean that it has to be incompatible, they could still buy Adventures, Adventurers Vaults, etc even if they don't have the full set now. I think that would bring quite a few new players to D&D that stumble with the full set-price (and pagecount) but who needs more meat than the simple starter set.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 21, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I think most of us are just disappointed that this set is not very useful for us existing players.



I dunno. I'd buy it just for the tokens. But that's me.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I think most of us are just disappointed that this set is not very useful for us existing players.
> 
> For completely new players the approach that they have done seems quite good to me and if the Character Generator is online (and simple enough) then the missing Creation-Chapter is not such a big problem.




I strongly disagree. I understand WotC wants to sell its online package of stuff, but it should not be required from a physical product. Everything you need should be in the box labeled "Starter set".

Also not thinking if those kids that can afford the starter set can even use the character builder due to the high-end requirements of the complete package it is built around.

The PHB does not require online services, nor should the starter box.

An advertisement for DDI is one thing, but trying to force a sale due to neglected information or require an additional purchase is just downright offensive to me.

DDI and the physical products should not be tied so closely together no matter how much they are both wanted to be sold. You don't need DDI to play D&D, and many cannot use it due to system requirements not including OS.

I cannot get behind thinking the DDI tool is OK to satisfy the lack of presence of character generation in the starter. It seems like saying you had to buy E-tools, or Master Tools, or whatever for 3rd, or AD&D core rules for 2nd edition because the starter left them out. It just really dismays me to think that is the case.

@FireLance: I myself am tempted for that reason, but want to see them first outside of the box.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Oct 21, 2008)

Ignoring any kind of design arguments, I think aiming D&D at 10-12 year olds is absolutely the best strategy for the hobby as a whole.  I would endorse this goal to any company.  No matter what form such an effort requires to be successful, I'm glad Wizards is marketing the game towards kids.  I'm all for "anything that sticks" in that department.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> BTW I am not necessarily trying to argue one opinion is more valid than another (e.g. char gen vs no char gen). I am just trying to provide some insight into why we made the product the way we did.
> 
> At the end of the day the product is out there and *the market will ultimately determine it's success or failure.* In my opinion it is a good product for new players because it teaches the basics, offering good value in both play and quality.




See and the bolded is what worries me about Wotc and this basic set period.  The measure of it's success is based on it's sales not how many new players it will introduce.

As far as it's value, I would say it doesn't offer good value from the player (not DM0 perspective) but like you said, it's a difference of opinion.





Baumi said:


> *I think most of us are just disappointed that this set is not very useful for us existing players.*
> 
> For completely new players the approach that they have done seems quite good to me and if the Character Generator is online (and simple enough) then the missing Creation-Chapter is not such a big problem.
> 
> But I have to admit that I would love a Basic Set that fills the void between that starter set and the full PHB/MM/DMG set, with more options then the starter and the full Heroic Tier, but still easier, quicker and cheaper than the full set. That would be awesome for One-Shots and for existing Roleplayers that want to try the new D&D Edition. Since less options doesn't mean that it has to be incompatible, they could still buy Adventures, Adventurers Vaults, etc even if they don't have the full set now. I think that would bring quite a few new players to D&D that stumble with the full set-price (and pagecount) but who needs more meat than the simple starter set.




See I think you've got it backwards.  The set is probably more value for a current player than a new person getting in the game.  Like I said above alot of people are going to buy it just to get the tokens, tiles, and dice.  I mean Scott came on these very boards and hyped it to people who already play D&D.  That's why it concerns me that his yardstick for success is just how profitable it is.

Again, the online generator is not an answer...especially since it is not specifically mentioned in the starter set as a place to expand character options.  Most new players are not going to know to instinctively go to the character generator... In the end I again feel like stuff is left out purposefully to draw one towards the online components, and IMO this trend just isn't cool.  YMMV of course.


----------



## GQuail (Oct 21, 2008)

justanobody (Emphasis Mine) said:


> I strongly disagree. *I understand WotC wants to sell its online package of stuff, but it should not be required from a physical product. Everything you need should be in the box labeled "Starter set".*
> 
> Also not thinking if those kids that can afford the starter set can even use the character builder due to the high-end requirements of the complete package it is built around.
> 
> ...




The Rouse has been saying, however, that the Character Generator will be free for levels 1-3: so it's not exactly a money grab.  If beginners want to dabble in character generation then there's a free option for them before they get their hands on a PHB: however, it's debatable how they'd know to do such a thing without the starter set telling them to.  (And that's ignoring your comments about system requirements, which are a more DDI specific complaint that I'll leave for anotehr thread)

Back to the more core topic at hand: Everyone hoping for a product exactly like the old Red Box is perhaps forgetting that the whole reason they dropped the BD&D line was the market fragmentation that occured from having it and AD&D alongside each other - in a similar vein, notice that Wizards also no longer make a dedicated beginner Magic set in Portal, instead packaging up their "real" product in a beginner friendly package.  

Furthermore, to the people asking for an "all-heroic tier" product.... well, as someone else said, that's a huge amount of words, since heroic-tier is the one with the most material on it.  The scale people are asking for, especially at a beginner-friendly price point, is just unfeasable.

Now, I do agree that some sort of character generation is a pretty key RPG trick, and think the 3.5 black dragon box set is all the better for having it in a limited form.  Then again, I bought a copy of that box for a little cousin for his, um, 14th birthday, and it was a hit with him and his little siblings, and they were keen to play again and happy when I bought him a PHB proper for Christmas, they never made their own characters with the boxed set.

A starter set for D&D should certainly have pre-generated characters and possibly a link to a website where there could be more pre-generated characters available to give it a quicker start-up time.  Having some sort of optional rule for character creation in the back would seem a good idea to me, so there's a middle ground between "newbie playing game for first time" and "time to buy my PHB", but I dunno how much of that would really be appreciated by the target 10 to 12 market.

At the risk of invoking e-tools, what if the game also came with a CD that contained PDFs to print of all the character sheets, monster stats etc, and a little tool to design your own 1st level characters from a limited palette?  There's still a cost issue in designing that, but if you already have a DDI tool on the way, it's a pretty trivial addition - and even without a character generator, being able to print out rather than have to tear or photocopy the sheets seems a pretty key thing that a modern gamer would expect.


----------



## GQuail (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> the online generator is not an answer...especially since it is not specifically mentioned in the starter set as a place to expand character options.  Most new players are not going to know to instinctively go to the character generator...




Considering that plenty of "real" D&D players don't frequent the D&D end of the internet, this seems a valid complaint, especially for the kids we're supposed to be targetting - why will they assume there's anything more without prompting?  Wouldn't the people who do know be the kind of peopel who would be teaching the game themselves rather than buying a starter set on impulse?


----------



## Saben (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm a new DM. I'm 23 and my players are all 17. We're all brand new to D&D, having decided to start with the release of 4e. Some of us have played DDO, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and other such games before- so we understand character generation- but we're newer to actually playing a game. We have experience tabletop games like Warhammer, however.

KotS was disappointing for my players because of premades and this starter set seems similarly disappointing.

My players don't need a lot of choice- they don't know as much about the game as I do as often rely on my judgement for feats, skills and specific stat arrays. But my Dragonborn Fighter flatout would HATE playing a Dwarf. My Human Wizard likes Wizards but only plays elven and humanoid races. My Warlord likes Tactical but not Inspiring, he likes having a high int.

I think a starter set should allow stats to be changed (Standard Array is fine), class and race to be selected independently and a choice of weapons with maybe SOME limited power choice. Skills and Feats are less of a big deal. But being able to make a character that fits a vision in one's head is very important. It's what an RPG means to a lot of people.

Of course, for my players I guess the PHB sates their creation desires and indeed we moved onto the PHB as soon as it was released, rather than waiting for the starter set. But the PHB, DMG and MM have been a bit daunting. As DM in particular I have felt overwhelmed even playing Fallcrest and KotS with DMG in-hand.

A new game is always hard to play, Warhammer was challenging when we first started. But I have felt the storytelling aspect in particular is challenging, especially when my characters want to have free reign and I struggle to improvise... I think starter DM rules should be as linear as possible to make a new DM's job easy. But starter player rules should at least allow players to make the characters that exist in their heads. Or at the very least standard fantasy archetypes.


----------



## erf_beto (Oct 21, 2008)

Hey Scott, thanks for dropping by. 

I understand the reasons for no chargen, and I agree with them: I was the one kid reading the books cover to cover and trying to get other kids to play. It's been that way forever, even with other games, not just dnd. The DM must be able to hold his group together, and any help he can get is welcome, specially at the early stages. 

Still, there's a sour taste in our mouths.

Now, if both the Compendium and Character Builder will grant free access to levels 1-3, could WotC take those rules and realease a free pdf appendix-like suplement with basic char gen for download? Or, could we, the community, make one without any law infringement? (We probably have to wait for the GSL, I suck at this law stuff). Maybe with just a couple of options (i.e. 4 basic classes), to showcase the greatness of character creation and to direct the more interested kids to the books and full online content.

One more thing: this is actually a pet-project of mine, but could we see more pre-gens for download? One for each build, why not? That's 16 characters! Make them stereotypical, I don't care, they are pregens! Besides, newbies will probably come to the game with movies and games in mind, so you're bound to hear "I wanna be Legolas". With that many choices, any new player is bound to find _something _he wants to play, right?


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 21, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I think most of us are just disappointed that this set is not very useful for us existing players.



I don't think that's an accurate summary at all.  I think most people here are disappointed that this set is not very useful to _new_ players, the way the old basic sets were.

I think it makes perfect sense to provide pre-generated characters -- both to get started quickly and to demonstrate correct character creation -- but one of the defining elements of D&D is that it's _creative_.


----------



## Grimstaff (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> BTW I am not necessarily trying to argue one opinion is more valid than another (e.g. char gen vs no char gen). I am just trying to provide some insight into why we made the product the way we did.
> 
> At the end of the day the product is out there and the market will ultimately determine it's success or failure. In my opinion it is a good product for new players because it teaches the basics, offering good value in both play and quality.




I hope it does well, bringing new folks to the hobby is a good thing!

Free good idea: how about including a $5 or $10-off coupon for a PHB in these boxes to get the ball rolling for new players?

And a question: Any future possibility of packs of Monster Tokens being sold with or alongside the dungeon tiles?


----------



## Delta (Oct 21, 2008)

GQuail said:


> Back to the more core topic at hand: Everyone hoping for a product exactly like the old Red Box is perhaps forgetting that the whole reason they dropped the BD&D line was the market fragmentation that occured from having it and AD&D alongside each other...




Sure. But I'm not hoping for Red Box -- it seems like Blue Box (Holmes) is the no-brainer. Levels 1-3 with a limited set of race/class selections. Hints dropped all over about the cool additions available in AD&D. A few lines about higher-level spells unavailable in this set, but available in AD&D. That's addictive.


----------



## GQuail (Oct 21, 2008)

Delta said:


> Sure. But I'm not hoping for Red Box -- it seems like Blue Box (Holmes) is the no-brainer. Levels 1-3 with a limited set of race/class selections. Hints dropped all over about the cool additions available in AD&D. A few lines about higher-level spells unavailable in this set, but available in AD&D. That's addictive.




Something like this was present in the Black Dragon 3.5 Basic Set and, as I said further down in my own post, this is something I think was cool (even if unused in my own limited experience introducing a beginner with those rules.) 

However, bear in mind how little "moving parts" there are to a character in the Blue Book, and how many 4E has.  With the addition of more regular feats and at-will/encounter/daily powers for every class, a 4E basic set would need a lot more material to provide the character generation rules while still being compatible with the full rules.  (And if it's not compatible with the full rules then we get back into Basic/Advanced D&D territory.)  

I would have to confess, though, that a basic set with such a pared down 4E character generation would interest me, and would almost certainly go as a present to a younger relative or two of mine.  ;-)  As others have said, character generation in an RPG is such a key concept that not having it in some form seems odd.


----------



## Verys Arkon (Oct 21, 2008)

Its hard for us on ENWorld to have the perspective of a new player - we are probably the hardcore gamers of the hobby; a lot (most?) of us are probably DMs.

Here is an analogy though:
A month ago I bought the board game 'Arkham Horror'.  It sat unopened on my shelf for weeks because I knew it was going to take some time to learn the rules, and friends were too busy to play immediatley.  The other day I broke it open, pushed out the hundred or so tokens, and started reading the rulebook.  I thought to myself "Whew, this game has a lot of rules!"....then I glanced at my four feet of D&D books on the shelf and 'face-palmed' myself.

For people like us here on ENWorld, we don't think twice about books with hundreds of pages of rules.  But for someone new, especially someone young, even a few dozen pages can seem like a lot, just like the piddly Arkham Horrors rules seemed to me, and I'm a post-graduate!  

Until a person moves from "D&D is a game" to "D&D is a hobby", it is probably wise to keep the rules light and streemlined.  The motivated 1 in 10 kid is likely the first one to make the leap.


----------



## Delta (Oct 21, 2008)

justanobody said:


> @Delta: How does the lifespan of Gleemax fit into that introduction and time scale?




Well, we'd be comparing apples to oranges because the Mulligan/Patrovsky book is talking about full-blown "presistent world" games (2-3 years development, $7+ million). Nonetheless, Gleemax seems to have come and gone unusually quickly (1 year start to finish).

Personally, I'm counting the full "DDI" as roughly analogous to an MMO in complexity (including all web, forums, tools, magazines, game table, etc.), considering that it's coming from a non-computer-game company. So I'd guess 2+ years full development. Then the company has to withstand the shock of realization that proper support costs add another half of development on full-launch day ($3-5 million).


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> otherwise why not play FFVII?




...because I want to play a *multiplayer game* that I can just pick up and start playing *with my friends* without any serious time investment before the start of play, as opposed to buying an outdated piece of hardware (the PlayStation) and a 12-year-old game in order to play *by myself*.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 21, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I think most of us are just disappointed that this set is not very useful for us existing players.




I strongly disagree. My problem with the starter box is that it is of most use to people who already play: they get a cheap set of counters and map tiles.

See, my disagreements with WOTC and 4E aside, my advice is aimed at helping them win the battle for the whippersnapper's entertainment dollar. When I was a whippersnapper, it was the open-endedness that won me over. Not the combat or any other game mechanic. Heck, we didn't use the mechanics half the time anyway!

With a starter set, you have to absolutely put your best foot forward. I think the whole "fast play" concept has utterly pooched it as a philosophy for starter sets.

Obviously, the die is cast on this one. If I were put in charge right now (as opposed to several months ago!), I'd plan to release the Starter Companion, a paperbound booklet with character gen for levels 1-3 with only basic classes and options. Price point under $10, sold at cost if necessary.

I think making the character builder free through level 3 for all users is a smart move by WOTC. I'm just not sure that D&D and digital ultimately go together like chocolate and peanut butter, which is what WOTC seems to think. I think it's more like chocolate and bacon... two good things which it is a mistake to try to combine.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> ...because I want to play a *multiplayer game* that I can just pick up and start playing *with my friends* without any serious time investment before the start of play, as opposed to buying an outdated piece of hardware (the PlayStation) and a 12-year-old game in order to play *by myself*.




Uhm...have you read my other posts? I addressed this earlier in the conversation...try D&D Heroes on Xbox. 4 people can play, no investmentr of time before play...and I'm assuming most children have a videogame. Or maybe, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, etc. etc. Like I said times are changing there are a multitude of fantasy/tactical-combat/multi-player/games on the market now...and this isn't even getting into MMORPG's

As for the whole " that I can just pick up and start playing *with my friends* without any serious time investment" line...doesn't the DM still need to read and understand the rules, set up or create the adventure, etc.. Isn't this still significantly more investment than popping in a cartridge and playing?

So I'm sorry but...what was your point again? Let me guess, out of all of my posts you were just specifically addressing that one example using Final Fantasy VII.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> try D&D Heroes on Xbox.




Which necessitates the purchase of an Xbox, the game, and three additional controllers to reach the conclusion that at least one of my players will be sitting out.

So, it's pay $20 for a starter kit that will allow me and my friends to all sit down and play right out of the box, or pay $100 or more to get the hardware, software, and accessories so that one of my players can sit out.

And that doesn't even address the fact that D&D Heroes is neither (a) 4th Edition nor (b) a good game.



> So I'm sorry but...what was your point again?




My point is that saying "Hey, go and play a single player game if you don't want to deal with character creation in a multiplayer game" is a load of crap, especially when acquisition of said single-player game would be more expensive than acquisition of the 4e Starter Kit and does not include group play.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Oct 21, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> Obviously, the die is cast on this one. If I were put in charge right now (as opposed to several months ago!), I'd plan to release the Starter Companion, a paperbound booklet with character gen for levels 1-3 with only basic classes and options. Price point under $10, sold at cost if necessary.




It'd never work as a physical retail product. The Starter Set is meant for Wal-Mart and book stores, and those stores' buyers are going to have a hard enough time taking the Starter Set into their inventory. A companion to that Starter Set? Forget about it.



> I think making the character builder free through level 3 for all users is a smart move by WOTC. I'm just not sure that D&D and digital ultimately go together like chocolate and peanut butter, which is what WOTC seems to think. I think it's more like chocolate and bacon... two good things which it is a mistake to try to combine.




This is the way to go. Take your good idea (supporting new players) and move it online, where the number of potential customers is much, much greater than what you could reach by trying to push a paperbound companion into B&M retail. And the cost of distribution is virtually $0.00.  

To your point about D&D and digital not going together: that may be, but "communication with customers" and digital *do* go together like chocolate and peanut butter. And WotC's done a pretty good job with this, especially recently.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 21, 2008)

I have faith in printed books. What can I say?


----------



## Gallo22 (Oct 21, 2008)

3.0/3.5 Player here:    

For what it's worth, I picked up the Starter set just for the tiles/tokens, which I thought were good, not great, ...but good none-the-less.  I paid retail and thought the purchase was worth it for me.  The dice that came in the set were very poor as far as dice goes now-a-days and the rule book/adventure book..., well I really can't comment as I'm not using them.  They'll probably get dumped. 

I know I'm not the target audience (since I'm not playing 4th ed) but I would definitely purchase more monster / character tokens, especially character tokens.  It's great to have the monsters and most of us already have plenty of tokens or miniatures to put on the board, but more characters would be great for use as npc and villians.


----------



## Gallo22 (Oct 21, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:


> To your point about D&D and digital not going together: that may be, but "communication with customers" and digital *do* go together like chocolate and peanut butter. And WotC's done a pretty good job with this, especially recently.




That's ambigious and debatable.  

I have not  been generally happy with Wizards' products over the past year or two and don't care for the digital mix.

Like I said, ambigious and debatable


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> Which necessitates the purchase of an Xbox, the game, and three additional controllers to reach the conclusion that at least one of my players will be sitting out.
> 
> So, it's pay $20 for a starter kit that will allow me and my friends to all sit down and play right out of the box, or pay $100 or more to get the hardware, software, and accessories so that one of my players can sit out.
> 
> ...





Oh, ok now I see what you did... you quoted me out of context and didn't address ninety percent of my post.  I'm in no rush I'll wait till you think of something to repute every other point I made...


----------



## firesnakearies (Oct 21, 2008)

56 double-sided counters made of the same awesome stuff as the Dungeon Tiles, plus a few extra DU1 tiles?

Sold.

Throwing in some dice, and whatever else comes in the box is gravy.  I can give that stuff to the next new-to-D&D player I get.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 21, 2008)

Imaro said:


> Oh, ok now I see what you did... you quoted me out of context and didn't address ninety percent of my post.  I'm in no rush I'll wait till you think of something to repute every other point I made...




You said that if there is no character creation, then why not just play FF7. I pointed out several reasons why not, with the most important being: because I want to play a game at the table with my friends, not a single player game on video game console.

The reason I didn't address any of your other points in that post is because, frankly, I don't care about your other points. I do care about the bogus claim that if there's no character creation, you may as well be playing a single player video game (or even incredibly limited multiplayer ones, like D&D Heroes). I also think its bogus to exclude the cost of hardware and accessories when trying to compare the D&D Starter Kit to playing a game like D&D Heroes.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Oct 21, 2008)

Why the war over pre-gen and char-gen. The solution seems obvious enough. INCLUDE BOTH. The cost may go up a couple of dollars but is there a mojor pricepoint that the market would reject if the cost was $19.99. 

To Scott: If I were you I would seriously consider a Revised Starter Set that would replace the original over time in store iventories and include both char-gen and pre-gen. You still get the benefit of instant play from the player side but open the option up for players to explore thier creativity if they want to. An online version of char-gen does not work as it puts a barrier to entry up and the starter should include everything to play.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

Verys Arkon said:


> Its hard for us on ENWorld to have the perspective of a new player - we are probably the hardcore gamers of the hobby; a lot (most?) of us are probably DMs.
> 
> Here is an analogy though:
> A month ago I bought the board game 'Arkham Horror'.  It sat unopened on my shelf for weeks because I knew it was going to take some time to learn the rules, and friends were too busy to play immediatley.  The other day I broke it open, pushed out the hundred or so tokens, and started reading the rulebook.  I thought to myself "Whew, this game has a lot of rules!"....then I glanced at my four feet of D&D books on the shelf and 'face-palmed' myself.
> ...




I can understand HASBRO, like Fisher Price, making things for smaller children, but in the realm of D&D and such I cannot get behind these things implying kids are dumb. Its demeaning to them, and appalling to me. Why be condescending to your customers? Give them more credit they might surprise you.

The sad thing is today there are quicker games to pick up with less work. That just means kids today are maybe lazy due to technology, but doesn't make them to dumb to understand a game.

I think many 10-12 year olds would grasp the "harder" things quite easily.

I don't like kids, they are annoying, but they are not dumb!


Brown Jenkin said:


> Why the war over pre-gen and char-gen. The solution seems obvious enough. INCLUDE BOTH.




I think that is what most people are saying that it did NOT include both, but both would have been the best way to go with char-gen in a limited state to wet the new players whistle prior to buying the full game product.


----------



## Imaro (Oct 21, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> You said that if there is no character creation, then why not just play FF7. I pointed out several reasons why not, with the most important being: because I want to play a game at the table with my friends, not a single player game on video game console.
> 
> The reason I didn't address any of your other points in that post is because, frankly, I don't care about your other points. I do care about the bogus claim that if there's no character creation, you may as well be playing a single player video game (or even incredibly limited multiplayer ones, like D&D Heroes). I also think its bogus to exclude the cost of hardware and accessories when trying to compare the D&D Starter Kit to playing a game like D&D Heroes.





This is the last time I am going to reply to you about this issue Mourn...you have been quite disingenious about exactly what my post said and infererred...so here's a reminder...



Imaro said:


> You know I just want to say for those claiming character creation is too complicated... No one claimed it had to be the totality of character generation in the box, but what it should foster is some kind of investment and attachment to one's character...otherwise why not play FFVII? It's $19.99 (even cheaper used), has a pre-gen for you...more hours of play than you'll get out of the starter set and the graphics look better than the 2d tokens...




It appears to me that the point my post centered around was investment and/or attachment in one's character as a highlight and positive that makes D&D better than other games, without which one may as well be playing a pre-gen character in any number of videogames. The point was not "If you don't want to deal with character creation...go play a videogame."  If you had actually read any of my other posts and not put your own biased spin and selective quoting on this one...I think you would have easily realized that this tied into the whole " stress what makes D&D better" argument I have been expounding on since somewhere near the beginning of the thread. 

But then some people are so quick to feel any criticism of anything 4e is an attack...they will create one at times.  I have given praise where it was due to the starter set and I will also voice what I feel is wrong with it...why don't you try stepping back and actually reading the entire thread before jumping on the defensive?


----------



## justanobody (Oct 21, 2008)

CRAP! I missed nearly a whole page of posts, so backtracking here for a minute to respond to people that responded to me. Look for edits incoming until I get caught up.


GQuail said:


> The Rouse has been saying, however, that the Character Generator will be free for levels 1-3: so it's not exactly a money grab.




No but it is a cost increase for a product lacking completeness. The character builder will only work for people with a system powerful enough because it was built around being a single piece of the larger tools, making its small needs compounded by the Dirext X or whatver engine the other high end tools were based on so the player may need to upgrade their computer. Unless they are a Mac user, then they just have to buy a whole new computer.

IF, the character builder was a web application that anyone could use, then it wouldn't look so bad. Download the webpage as compelte and use it offline.

ALSO, not everyone that may purchase the box set physical product will have constant access to a computer or even the internet.

These are all part of the problem of the online tool trying to replace about 5 extra pages in the physical product.

I am guessing 5 pages and don't know how many it would take the way it is formatted to get levels 1-3.

So the "money grab" isn't as much the problem as the digital media should not be required for the old world media format physical product. The fact that DDI will cost something for later use is moot if one cannot even use the digital media at all, thus being the reason they may have purchased the physical product.


----------



## RFisher (Oct 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> 1) DM focused
> 
> 
> A purchaser that wants to play so bad they buy the box will likely take on role of DM. They will likely do this ebven if they get it as a gift. "hey gang let's play this new game I just got"
> ...




This is interesting to me because in 28 years of gaming, this has never been my experience. There has never been a single or even primary DM in my groups. At least half the group regularly takes a turn at it. New players are recruited by everyone, and I’d say those players who seldom DM tend to be more zealous evangelists.



> You hand a kid a game like D&D nowadays and say make a character and 9 times out of 10 they are totally lost after 10 minutes and start asking "where's the X-box?" I have personally seen it happen in focus groups with 10-12 year olds.




Have you tested subsets of character creation?



GQuail said:


> Everyone hoping for a product exactly like the old Red Box is perhaps forgetting that the whole reason they dropped the BD&D line was the market fragmentation that occured from having it and AD&D alongside each other




All the information (though it is hard to get anything much hard and credible information) I’ve seen says that D&D and AD&D synergized rather than fragmented or competed. A good many AD&D players came to the hobby through a Basic Set. AD&D players bought and used D&D products. D&D players bought and used AD&D products. D&D often did better in foreign markets for various reasons.

D&D didn’t get dropped until TSR was already run irreversibly into the ground. And I’d argue that the equivalent of the Basic Set that they had at that point had already lost too many of the good features of the Basic Sets.



Verys Arkon said:


> Its hard for us on ENWorld to have the perspective of a new player - we are probably the hardcore gamers of the hobby; a lot (most?) of us are probably DMs.




Sure.

But some of us remember when we were new players. Some of us do often enough work with new players whom we’re trying to introduce to the hobby. Some of us are always on the look-out for something approaching the old Basic Sets to buy as gifts for our nieces and nephews who live too far away for us to personally mentor.


----------



## darjr (Oct 21, 2008)

Whew!

Scott, thanks for posting a reply. I think the product looks good. I'd prefer some chargen options, but I understand where you guys were headed with the product.

My potential giftee's of the starter have ample access to the internet and will go to the web site, hopefully after they've played a game or two. So I think the free 1-3 chargen program is potentially an excellent idea. I'll just have to remember to mention it in their christmas cards.

Thanks!


----------



## SlyFlourish (Oct 21, 2008)

*have it*

So I got my Starter Set today from Amazon. I had ordered two more to give away as gifts for non-players and I think it will work out nicely. I plan to write a more thorough review but here are my initial thoughts:

1. It's the full 4th edition. There's no hedging of the rules or trying to simplify things. Because the pregens and the basic rules are the same ones used in Keep on the Shadowfell, there isn't a feeling like you're playing some stripped down version.

2. The Dungeon Master's Book is THICK! It's got sixty pages, including the nearly 30 page monster section. There are a LOT of monsters in here, thanks to the new stat-block format and the multiple levels and types of the same monsters. There's a lot more to this than just a pre-made adventure. Monsters go up to level 5.

3. Though the adventure focuses on combat, it at least begins with some Q and A with an NPC. I'm disappointed to see a lack of traps or skill challenges. The DM section has a discussion of skill challenges but even as a vet player, I'm not exactly sure how to run them so an example would be nice and would break away from the idea that 4e is all about combat.

4. The tokens are cool - not miniatures cool but cool. They are numbered which makes tracking pretty easy. The artwork is also nice and flipping the token for bloodied guys is nice.

5. The tiles are nice but they are re-prints. Still there are four big rooms and a lot of accessories. It's clearly enough to build out a few different types of rooms.

6. The dice are fine but pretty low quality. They're fine if you have nothing else but the d20s given out in starter mini packs are a lot nicer.

7. The box is actually my biggest problem with this set. I really hoped for an old-school front opening box with a lid like board games have. Instead its a pretty thin top opening box and a cardboard insert to keep it from completely crushing. I can't imagine this box lasting through very many play sessions before it falls apart. I know people who still have the red box in good condition. There is no way this one will last. Still, it's pretty.

8. I also think this should come with a fold-out map like the new adventures have. Two big overland maps would work really well to augment the dungeon tiles.

Overall I'm pretty impressed for a $12 package. I'm a vet who purchased every 4e book already published (I doubt I'll say that for very long). I had hoped to have enough in this to run some fun adventures on the road or to introduce new players to the game without having to lug up the whole pile of books.

Unlike a lot of people on this thread, I can't see how they could have added character creation without making it a lot more complicated. I think new players want to get into combat. I know my own beginning in 4e was with the half-elf warlock in KotS and I'm still playing her in Thunderspire. I have no problem with pre-gens and I don't think they remove from the RP side of it one bit. My Tira Duskmeadow is completely different than other people's I bet, just in her attitudes and goals alone. I think those who think you can only roleplay with a character you made yourself spend too much time tweaking and not enough time seeing through the eyes of your character. My opinion, of course.

Also, to those who seem to jump to thinking people need to spend $100 to continue. I'm pretty sure you could play all of Keep on the Shadowfell after playing through this without ever needing another book. The maps would be the hardest part, but all the rest of the rules already exist.

Anyway, overall, I'm impressed.


----------



## mmadsen (Oct 22, 2008)

GQuail said:


> Everyone hoping for a product exactly like the old Red Box is perhaps forgetting that the whole reason they dropped the BD&D line was the market fragmentation that occured from having it and AD&D alongside each other.



The problem there was that the Basic D&D line was an entirely separate product line -- Basic Set, Expert Set, etc. -- with its own rules, which were not compatible with the larger Advanced D&D line.

If the Basic Set had simply provided a subset of the Advanced D&D rules -- four races, four classes, three levels of spells, etc. -- it would have worked just as well without fragmenting the audience at all.


----------



## Delta (Oct 22, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> If the Basic Set had simply provided a subset of the Advanced D&D rules -- four races, four classes, three levels of spells, etc. -- it would have worked just as well without fragmenting the audience at all.




Which is pretty close to the Holmes "Blue Book" Basic set.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 22, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The problem there was that the Basic D&D line was an entirely separate product line -- Basic Set, Expert Set, etc. -- with its own rules, which _were not compatible with the larger Advanced D&D line_.



I dunno about that. I own about 99% of everything Known World/Mystara related and all of the Gazetteers, the Hollow World line as well and numerous other products came with a D&D-to-AD&D conversion page in them. It was a fairly simple conversion at that that I would be inclined to call them "compatible" in a clear but broad sense.


----------



## Saben (Oct 22, 2008)

Verys Arkon said:


> Its hard for us on ENWorld to have the perspective of a new player - we are probably the hardcore gamers of the hobby; a lot (most?) of us are probably DMs.




I'm not the typical new player. I was reading on ENWorld before I had purchased a single D&D product. I am DMing before I've ever played a D&D game as a character.

But I am still a new player and the lack of CharGen is not appealing to me or my players. I won't be buying the started set and I will be voting with my dollar.

I have no criticisms of 4e compared to other editions- my experience with them is based on D&D based computer games. I love 4e, I think past editions sound like they would have been boring. But that doesn't mean 4e is perfect- far from it- and the lack of character generation in a starter set seems to be a big flaw to me.


----------



## GQuail (Oct 22, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No but it is a cost increase for a product lacking completeness....
> 
> ...So the "money grab" isn't as much the problem as the digital media should not be required for the old world media format physical product. The fact that DDI will cost something for later use is moot if one cannot even use the digital media at all, thus being the reason they may have purchased the physical product.




As I said in my own post, the issues with the online system's requirements are a much larger kettle of fish which feeds into the DDI in general, and wasn't something I was going to get into (and the size of your post should indicate why ;-) ).  I was just trying to correct what seemed to me to be a factual error in your post: you said "this is a money grab" about the DDI being seen as a replacement, when Scott's suggestion (whether we agree it's acceptable or not) involves no more money arriving at WotC.



RFisher said:


> All the information (though it is hard to get anything much hard and credible information) I’ve seen says that D&D and AD&D synergized rather than fragmented or competed. A good many AD&D players came to the hobby through a Basic Set. AD&D players bought and used D&D products. D&D players bought and used AD&D products. D&D often did better in foreign markets for various reasons.




That may well be the anecdotal evidence on ENWorld, especially considering the age many people here joined D&D (i.e. when the Red Box was in ascendance) but I'm pretty sure one of the central discoveries of Wizard of the Coast's player surveys was that the way TSR had marketed their products (both D&D vs AD&D and the many campaign settings vs each other) had led to pretty heavy market fragmentation & confusion about how products worked together.

Remember that the Red Box era is also the era of D&D's boom due to other factors like the general media buzz caused by stuff like MADD - I' m not saying the Red Box isn't a fine starter set (I own all of the BECMI series, in fact, plus the RC: so I must have some sort of sympathy for it ;-) ) but saying "I know loads of people who started with that box" doesn't prove that it's the obvious perfect path for D&D.



RFisher said:


> D&D didn’t get dropped until TSR was already run irreversibly into the ground. And I’d argue that the equivalent of the Basic Set that they had at that point had already lost too many of the good features of the Basic Sets.




Certainly, BD&D very much changed in nature over time - changing from a little book aimed at a quick-start D&D game to it's own independant line with supplements specifically for it's pared-down system.  Perhaps Wizards are purposefully not aiming for the same sort of product as the red box because they want to prevent it involving into that sort of line which, in a way, can be seen as competition for "real" D&D.


----------



## GQuail (Oct 22, 2008)

mmadsen said:


> The problem there was that the Basic D&D line was an entirely separate product line -- Basic Set, Expert Set, etc. -- with its own rules, which were not compatible with the larger Advanced D&D line.
> 
> If the Basic Set had simply provided a subset of the Advanced D&D rules -- four races, four classes, three levels of spells, etc. -- it would have worked just as well without fragmenting the audience at all.




This is very true.  The BD&D game went a very distinct path away from AD&D as time went on, whereas (say) the Black Dragon  basic set's character generation rules made totally legal 3.5 characters apart from a couple of pretty minor tweaks.  (Mainly, IIRC, that initiative was a fixed number rather than a dice roll.)



Delta said:


> Which is pretty close to the Holmes "Blue Book" Basic set.




The way you've mentioned this book before implies it's got a special place in your heart, so I'll try to be kind here: but I don't think the Blue Book is exactly filling the role mmadsen is talking about.  I'd class it as less "AD&D lite" and more it's own entity, a sort of distinct branch from OD&D - I mean, heck, wasn't it released before AD&D proper?

Still, as I said in my own reply to you before about the Blue Book, I do find it odd that there's no character generation at all, and there are worse starter sets to mimic than that one.



Eric Anondson said:


> I dunno about that. I own about 99% of everything Known World/Mystara related and all of the Gazetteers, the Hollow World line as well and numerous other products came with a D&D-to-AD&D conversion page in them. It was a fairly simple conversion at that that I would be inclined to call them "compatible" in a clear but broad sense.




I think the key word there, though, is "conversion".  They're clearly closely related systems (I also recall such conversion notes - I think I remember reading in the back of one 2E-era starter set a guide to translating full stat blocks into that edition's rules... Dragon Quest, maybe?) but it's still work, and work that risks confusing and frustrating a starting player.  The more work you ask of a starting GM the more you risk scaring them off - although like character generation, you could argue exactly how much is needed to scare them.  ;-)


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

GQuail said:


> As I said in my own post, the issues with the online system's requirements are a much larger kettle of fish which feeds into the DDI in general, and wasn't something I was going to get into (and the size of your post should indicate why ;-) ).  I was just trying to correct what seemed to me to be a factual error in your post: you said "this is a money grab" about the DDI being seen as a replacement, when Scott's suggestion (whether we agree it's acceptable or not) involves no more money arriving at WotC.




No you just inferred money to be the main importance in my post then, while I was talking about the connection to them and why a starter set should not need some accessory to cover for its lacking parts.

Yes accessories cost money, but the point was this accessory was not something just anyone could use, even if free such as the character builder in demo mode.

Physical product is too closely tied to the digital product if one requires the other, then the system is flawed for the end user of either.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 23, 2008)

GQuail said:


> The way you've mentioned this book before implies it's got a special place in your heart, so I'll try to be kind here: but I don't think the Blue Book is exactly filling the role mmadsen is talking about.  I'd class it as less "AD&D lite" and more it's own entity, a sort of distinct branch from OD&D - I mean, heck, wasn't it released before AD&D proper?




It really is an introduction to a house-ruled oD&D, with a few elements of AD&D having made their way in there.

Cheers!


----------



## GQuail (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No you just inferred money to be the main importance in my post then, while I was talking about the connection to them and why a starter set should not need some accessory to cover for its lacking parts.
> 
> Yes accessories cost money, but the point was this accessory was not something just anyone could use, even if free such as the character builder in demo mode.
> 
> Physical product is too closely tied to the digital product if one requires the other, then the system is flawed for the end user of either.




I'm not contesting the system is flawed: what I'm saying, as I tried to make clear with the bolding in my first reply, was that you were said that WotC were "trying to force a sale" of the DDI through this method, and I wanted to correct a possible misunderstanding.  (In the sense that you don't have to buy it to get things to work - it seems you may have meant it more metaphorical, but in a heated discussion topic like one about the DDI, I don't think it's unfair to clarfiy stuff.)

I agree with you (as I think I also mention in my first post) that the character generator is no substitute for proper character generation rules (especially if the starter set doesn't mention it exists!) but you made what seemed to me to be a factual error which I corrected because, well, there's enough ill will in these threads without ill-will about things which just don't exist.  

Can anyone who owns the Starter Set confirm if it mentions the wizards website and character generation tools there?  Or even what it says about the Core Rules?


----------



## Emryys (Oct 23, 2008)

GQuail said:


> Can anyone who owns the Starter Set confirm if it mentions the wizards website and character generation tools there?  Or even what it says about the Core Rules?




In the "players book" at the beginning it mentions... "For the complete experience, *including chracter creation and the full rules of the game*, pick up the D&D PHB, DMG, MM, and check out D&D Insider for even more information.

At the back of the "DM's book" it has the full colour ad for dndinsider, like the ones in the PHB, DMG, etc...


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

Emryys said:


> In the "players book" at the beginning it mentions... "For the complete experience, *including chracter creation and the full rules of the game*, pick up the D&D PHB, DMG, MM, and check out www.dndinsider.com for even more information.
> 
> At the back of the "DM's book" it has the full colour ad for dndinsider, like the ones in the PHB, DMG, etc...




Thanks for the info. So it doesn't even mention that the character builder exists and will have a few levels free?


----------



## MerricB (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Thanks for the info. So it doesn't even mention that the character builder exists and will have a few levels free?




But it doesn't exist...


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

MerricB said:


> But it doesn't exist...




That's about a whole other 6 months worth of threads about that one.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> That's about a whole other 6 months worth of threads about that one.




Which is why I find you suggesting they advertise something that doesn't (yet) exist baffling.


----------



## justanobody (Oct 23, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Which is why I find you suggesting they advertise something that doesn't (yet) exist baffling.




It does exist as some WotC moderation aides has used it as well as others, and allegedly will be available for beta to DDI subscribers prior to the end of the month.

That is why I left its "existence" in the air to prevent a discussion about DDI tools being vaporware and such as that has been about 6 months worth of that already.

It does exist, but whether it will be made for public use is TBA.


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 23, 2008)

justanobody said:


> It does exist, but whether it will be made for public use is TBA.




No, _when_ it will be made public use is TBA. Whether it will be made for public use has already been announced multiple times, starting with the original announcement of the DDI over a year ago.


----------



## Korgoth (Oct 23, 2008)

MerricB said:


> Which is why I find you suggesting they advertise something that doesn't (yet) exist baffling.




"Coming Soon:"


----------



## MerricB (Oct 24, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> "Coming Soon:"




Yeah... but as they do say "check out dndinsider.com for even more information" on the very first page of the Quick-Start rules, I do believe that covers that. 

Cheers!


----------



## Kalnaur (Jan 24, 2009)

I know I know, I'm necro-posting, but I only have issue really with one thing that has been posted in this entire thread up to this point:  Who doesn't have a computer with the system specs to run at least the demo version of the Character Builder?  Because you need to get with the 21st century if you can't run that thing.  Sure it's been a while since the starter set came out, but hey, anyone (say, me) who has more recently been attracted to the 4th edition of this game system would be happy for some tiles, dice and tokens.  And though I have the base set of books, I'm going to get the starter set just for these things.  And I plan on using that totally accessible character generator.  Because I am a 29 year old video game geek getting into this vast world, and I am most likely in the group that WotC are really aiming these products at. 

I'm just sayin'.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 24, 2009)

Kalnaur said:


> I know I know, I'm necro-posting, but I only have issue really with one thing that has been posted in this entire thread up to this point:  Who doesn't have a computer with the system specs to run at least the demo version of the Character Builder?  Because you need to get with the 21st century if you can't run that thing.  Sure it's been a while since the starter set came out, but hey, anyone (say, me) who has more recently been attracted to the 4th edition of this game system would be happy for some tiles, dice and tokens.  And though I have the base set of books, I'm going to get the starter set just for these things.  And I plan on using that totally accessible character generator.  Because I am a 29 year old video game geek getting into this vast world, and I am most likely in the group that WotC are really aiming these products at.
> 
> I'm just sayin'.




Why should D&D—even an intro set—especially an intro set—require Microsoft Windows? Besides, much of the appeal of face-to-face RPGs for many is that they let us get _away_ from the 21st century for a bit.

I’m just saying’.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 24, 2009)

RFisher said:


> Why should D&D—even an intro set—especially an intro set—require Microsoft Windows?



It shouldn't.


----------



## Kalnaur (Jan 28, 2009)

RFisher said:


> Why should D&D—even an intro set—especially an intro set—require Microsoft Windows? Besides, much of the appeal of face-to-face RPGs for many is that they let us get _away_ from the 21st century for a bit.
> 
> I’m just saying’.




My only counter is to say that life at this point pretty much requires one to have a computer in order to keep in step with things.  Life pretty much requires Windows, or a decent analog to it.

And my reason for enjoying the newest edition of D&D enough to actually buy anything for it is the similarity to video games with a much more open and easy to use toolset than anything Bioware or whoever could ever hand you.  It's as simple as that for me.

I was the kid who started playing Atari at about 6 or 7 years old and I've been playing video games ever since.  I have only recently finding board and card type games interesting, so I could be a bit biased.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 28, 2009)

Kalnaur said:


> Life pretty much requires Windows, or a decent analog to it.



No, it doesn't. With the percentage of college students on many campuses buying Macs for their computers now approaching--and often rising above 50%--even significant chunks of the target demographics of D&D aren't using Windows. Just sayin'.

Plus, those "decent analogs" aren't compatible with the nifty D&D Character Builder software.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 29, 2009)

Eric Anondson said:


> No, it doesn't. With the percentage of college students on many campuses buying Macs for their computers now approaching--and often rising above 50%--even significant chunks of the target demographics of D&D aren't using Windows. Just sayin'.




Are you sure? Because those Macs are quite capable of running Windows, college students typically love network computer games, and college students often observe copyright laws even less strictly than they observe drinking age laws.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 29, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Are you sure?



If we're being pedantic over the meaning of "significant" I'm sure we can each have our own personal take on what reaches the benchmark for "significant".


----------



## RFisher (Jan 29, 2009)

Eric Anondson said:


> No, it doesn't. With the percentage of college students on many campuses buying Macs for their computers now approaching--and often rising above 50%--even significant chunks of the target demographics of D&D aren't using Windows. Just sayin'.
> 
> Plus, those "decent analogs" aren't compatible with the nifty D&D Character Builder software.




Even I am amazed by the number of Macs in my team at work. And we’re not graphic artists, we’re embedded C programmers. Once you add in the Linux desktops, Windows is in the minority.



drothgery said:


> Are you sure? Because those Macs are quite capable of running Windows, college students typically love network computer games, and college students often observe copyright laws even less strictly than they observe drinking age laws.




The majority of Mac users I know don’t run Windows on their Mac.


----------



## Kalnaur (Jan 30, 2009)

Most of the people I see with Macs run Windows.  All but one of my friends run Windows.  Those that don't get excluded from things like that "nifty" Character Builder.  Kind of like how I'm excluded because I have no home internet.  But that's just to bad for us who are excluded because having Windows and an internet connection is the expected standard.  If you don't want to be part of the standard, you don't get to complain when you are excluded. 

And Fisher, do you happen to use those computers for *gaming*?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 31, 2009)

Kalnaur said:


> But that's just to bad for us who are excluded because having Windows and an internet connection is the expected standard.



It is not an expected standard. It is just laziness on the developer. They could have developed a cross platform system. It happens all the time, WotC chose not to because they _thought_ they could get something to market _sooner_ by building upon an existing Windows-only technology. Look how that has worked out for them. 

Okay, the issue here is not about whether the Character Builder is cross platform or not. The issue is whether requiring a platform exclusionary technology in a starter set for a game that must be an inclusive as possible to attract new players is about as contrary to the goals of a starter set as can be.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 31, 2009)

RFisher said:


> The majority of Mac users I know don’t run Windows on their Mac.




The majority of Mac users I know also don't run Windows on their Macs.  But the majority of Mac user gamers that I know DO run Windows on their Macs so they can play video games.

But it's all anecdotal and meaningless anyways.  Facts are is that Windows continues to dominate the home computing environment, hands down.  Mac is making some significant inroads to be sure, but we are a long ways away from Mac being an economically viable entertainment system (at least when it comes to video games . . . . and D&D).


----------



## RFisher (Feb 1, 2009)

Kalnaur said:


> And Fisher, do you happen to use those computers for *gaming*?




Yes


----------

