The New Red-Box...

[Dire Bare]

There's a reason it's called D&D INSIDER- We get the inside scoop before all of you great unwashed!

I'm sure when the release date gets closer, they'll start marketing this in some other way that doesn't involve a paid subscription.

Yeah! Heh, all the requests like, "I'm not a D&D Insider, so tell me what's in that article!" It reminds me of a friend who refuses to purchase a cell phone, but keeps asking me if he can borrow mine to make a call!!!

 

[delericho]

There's a reason it's called D&D INSIDER...

I thought that was because Army Builder was taken.

 

[Scribble]

I thought that was because Army Builder was taken.

ooooh delricho... he's one bad mutha- SHUT YO MOUTH

Just talkin bout delricho...

 

[Nifft]

That's a very far shot from the original Red Box in all but appearance. Basic D&D Red Box gave you lots of campaign material which would last you for half a year, and still remained to be priced at a tag that was affordable for the 10-12 year olds.

Methinks you overstate.

The average 12 year old can afford a pack of cigarettes, a bribe to get into a club, and enough cocaine to feel 13 all night. Compared to that, the D&D box is cheap.

"Your city's nightlife may vary", -- N

 

[rogueattorney]

And we have people seriously arguing that only providing 1-2 levels is somehow significantly inferior to providing 1-3 levels?!?!? A one level difference!?!?!

Levels don't equal levels between editions. 2 levels of 4e is, what? 4 or 5 sessions. Three levels of Basic D&D was roughly 12 to 15 sessions (probably more with a typical rate of attrition).

 

[bagger245]

Levels don't equal levels between editions. 2 levels of 4e is, what? 4 or 5 sessions. Three levels of Basic D&D was roughly 12 to 15 sessions (probably more with a typical rate of attrition).

Hmm, this makes me think of the Dragon Age boxset which goes up to 5th level...

 

[Keldryn]

Levels don't equal levels between editions. 2 levels of 4e is, what? 4 or 5 sessions. Three levels of Basic D&D was roughly 12 to 15 sessions (probably more with a typical rate of attrition).

We must have been playing it "wrong," but it never took us anywhere near 12-15 sessions to progress through 3rd level with my old 1983 "red box" set.

Probably wasn't more than half a dozen sessions (3 or 4 hours per session) before I needed to buy the Expert Set. I don't think I'd even owned the Basic Set for a month.

I think this new Red Box is awesome; if it captures the imagination of 12 year-olds today the way that the 1983 set did for me back in 1986, then it will have done its job. Being able to progress to 3rd level without having to buy anything else would be nice, but if it provides 4 or 5 games worth of fun, then that's worth $20, and it's certainly enough to get an idea as to whether or not you like the game.

 

[Imaro]

So, where do you get the idea that previous D&D starter sets failed? Just because you didn't like the format, doesn't really mean anything.

I never said previous boxed starter sets were failures... no one but the people at WotC know this. What I do know is that you don't keep remaking something that works... you keepit as an evergreen introductory product... Imean I don't see WotC remaking (with virtually the same information) the three corebooks for a single edition... yet they have remade the 3.5 starter set twice and now the 4e starter set twice. If they worked so well why not just keep a single one in print?

I've been collecting most of the starter sets since 2nd Edition (along with the other books), and if I recall correctly, most if not all of them ranged from providing 1-3 to 1-5 levels of content and no more

That's great for you... but you does not equal most, a majority or even some D&D players. As far as levels go, it's not a question of pure levels... but re-playability, which is usually related to the number of levels.

WotC keeps repeating this pattern . . . which tells me that it works, not that it is a failure. While I may not agree with every decision the company makes, it isn't a company run by idiots

First, who said the company was run by idiots? However I have to believe even the decision makers at WotC aren't infallible, otherwise D&D would be the greatest selling product of all time. As far as repeating the pattern... no they aren't. The only thing they seem unable to tweak and change is the replayability of their starter sets... otherwise they've experimented with diffewrent components in each of the box sets.

And we have people seriously arguing that only providing 1-2 levels is somehow significantly inferior to providing 1-3 levels?!?!? A one level difference!?!?!

I mean, I know it's our job to overreact on teh interwebs here, but . . . . sheesh!

Or how about you not classify peoplestating their opinion about a product as overreacting on the interwebs... no one's claiming the starter set kills babies or puppies... in fact it seems to be you that is blowing other peoples opinions, that don't coincide with yours, up with dismissive hyperbole.

As far as the levels, again... it's re-playability that people are looking at, of which levels of play are an indicator.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

As far as the levels, again... it's re-playability that people are looking at, of which levels of play are an indicator.

Indeed.

3 is 50% greater than 2. That is a significant difference for re-playability.

 

[Truename]

So, I think understand the marketing move of making a "teaser" Red Box. It's intended to be played once or twice by a bunch of kids, before the say: "ok, we're sold, let's buy the real thing" and then be put on a shelf until they want to teach some more friends how to play.

I think everyone's vastly underestimating the amount of play value in two levels.

According to the DMG, it takes about eight encounters to level up in 4e. Each encounter takes about one hour to play, and each game session has about an hour of ramp-up and wrap-up time. (This matches my experiences playing Scales of War very closely--playing once a week for three hours each, it took us about a month to finish a level.)

So the red box set has 16 hours of encounter gameplay in it, plus an hour per session, plus some solo stuff, plus dice, plus tokens, plus power cards. That's a decent amount of gaming for $20, and easily beats video games or movies in terms of entertainment per dollar. It's certainly not "play it once or twice."