Comments on: D&D Starter Set – Review

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:17:49 +0000

@thadeous – I mentioned the 2e starter set only because it’s best one they ever did that didn’t include character generation. It’s not intended to be a edition war thing. The 2e starter was great for a few reasons:

They gave away the quick start rules for free. A printed booklet, not a download.

The box set included a town and several adventures. Enough to play for quite a while.

There was support for it in the form of a couple of inexpensive adventure modules that were actually quite good.

WotC would be well served to take a look at past products to see what could be done better.

By: Robert Fisher

Robert Fisher — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:04:12 +0000

I believe there are two big mistakes that are made with “starter sets”.

1. The idea that new players need some kind of board-game-ish transition thing instead of a straight-up role-playing game. You don’t start selling people on RPGs by giving them some mash-up product. You sell them on RPGs directly. (And you have to recognize that RPGs aren’t for everybody.)

2. The idea that the “starter set” needs to as quickly as possible convert into a sale of the “full game”. It’s job is to sell the hobby rather than just a PHB.

I don’t think it is really that hard. TSR started making these mistakes under Williams, who didn’t understand the business she was in. I don’t know why Wizards has made these mistakes, but I suspect it has to do with being fairly short-sighted. (See also the lay-offs that follow each new edition they publish.)

By: Ethlorien

Ethlorien — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:58:09 +0000

I appreciate the review. Not one for starter sets, but it’s nice to know what you’re getting out of them.

@thadeous – I took his comparison to be an actualy comparison of the material provided in the boxed set and not just more 4th ed sux flamming. I think you need to step back and calm down a little.

By: kelly

kelly — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:43:10 +0000

sombody feeling raw assed

By: thadeous

thadeous — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:40:29 +0000

I was tracking with you until you said “This is yet another mistake that the 2e version did not make.” Then I realized you just want to compare versions. 4e isn’t 3.5, 3.0 or 2e. No one version of this game is or was perfect, and no one version went published with out complaints. 4E has been out for 2 years now, can we get over it now?

By: Binny

Binny — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:54:28 +0000

I came to the same conclusion about the set. The actual content was no where near enough to actually play the included game let alone do anything on your own. Such a shame considering only a little more thought would be needed to actually make it work.

But the additional bits are really great. The dice are nice and old school style, and are actually my favourites becuase they are so plain and simple. The map tiles are good. But the counters are excellent, I use them all the time and they have made actually playing so much better.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:32 +0000

I think that the main problem is that they’re seen as a necessary evil. They make them but they don’t really want to, so no real thought or effort gets put into them. They need to do some work with groups of 10-12 year olds to develop a starter set that they could actually play without adult help.

The new Dragon Age boxed set is actually a very good starter set in this regard. It’s simple to play and a fairly complete game although kind of limited in scope. It’s much nicer than the D&D set although it should be as it costs twice as much.

By: Cyric

Cyric — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:51:22 +0000

It seems Starter / Introduction sets are the hardest thing to develop in roleplaying business. Why is this?

The Menzer Box for D&D was perfect in this regard – it got me and a lot of friends into the hobby back in the 80s without anyone of us having heard about roleplaying games before. This should be possible again, shouldn’t it?!