Ampersand: 2011 releases officially gutted

[JoeGKushner]

The problem many of us may be having is that we don't believe them.

No, really, this time we're going to keep the books in print. It's not like when we talked about incorporating errata into the core books with reprinting and told our suppliers we weren't reprinting them and then told online fans that we just had billions of copies lying around so there was no need to reprint them and then came out with a new players handbook...

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

There is one main reason for this and the arguments have yet to be fully resolved. If I were you, I'd expect this to get worse and especially if 4E falls over essentials is going to take the brunt of the blame/hate by the community. If you've seen hate now, just wait until heroes of shadow comes out and any "new" class doesn't follow AEDU (at-will, encounter, daily and utility power format. Like all the classes in the original PHB).

The first is that a lot of us who play 4E, including myself do not like 3.5 and I think that game is absolutely terribly designed. I hated the concept of fighters that did absolutely nothing except swing an axe for increasingly little return, while any spellcaster eclipsed them in power so bad it was just brutal for that player. That 4E gave martial classes like fighters the same degree of options and balanced the power level out was a revelation. One that a tremendous amount of people really liked about 4E. It was equivalent and you could build any class with a bunch of great options at every level - instead of being completely screwed if you weren't a spellcaster.

I'm right there with you. I hated the design philosophy behind 3.x, and hence even earlier editions. I loved that 4e threw all that on its ear.

That said, I also like that being able to play a fighter with tons of options and powers is appealing to me, but that it is not necessary.

Some of the gamers in my group love playing, but frankly lack the interest in the tactical options required to keep up to the spellcasters. For those players, Slayers and Knights and Thieves are a godsend.

And not only them; even I have thought it would be fun to use some of them for certain concepts. Less time picking "just the right power" means more time to think up some outlandish or gristly flavour text for what I am about to do, even if, in game terms, it is little more than an MBA.

But like I said, some players enjoy the game at the 'spamming your MBA' level, and anything more complicated paralyzes them with indecision. It sounds odd, but it happens in my group with certain players every time we get into a fight. And come level-up time? Ugh. I either have to hand-hold some through the decision making process, or I get glazed over looks and a disinterested "yeah, that one is fine, whatever" at the first power listed that does more damage than the others and is little more than an MBA with extra [W]s attached.

The Essentials builds are dead simple to play, but still mechanically viable.

When essentials "regresses" it started to look like pieces of the system that 4E was built on that those who actually liked 4E played it for were going. Martial classes got the options that finally made them equivalent "stripped away". Slayers, Knights, Hunters and Thieves are heavily toned down on options, being near literal linear railroads from level 1 to 30 (they get a paragon path and ED choice). It isn't really that these are replacements for older martial classes, which they are certainly not in any manner and it's more that it indicated (to many) the future of 4E design. That more classes would lack the options and abilities that were enjoyed by all other classes since release, would turn into boring MBA spamming "railroads" these players don't enjoy.

Nobody is forcing anybody (outside of sanctioned events) to use this material! That's the part that I don't understand; can't we all just get along?

Now if they are right or not remains to be seen and I think HoS would be the proving part here. If we have a book where all the classes - except maybe spellcasters like the necromancer/nethermancer (mage builds incidenally) - lack AEDU options then their conspiracy theories will have been proven right. That essentials was the "death" of normal 4E design and now the game has been changed for the worse. Basically that the game design principles that many (including myself) liked about 4E initially have now been abandoned in favor of appealing to people who weren't there since the start.

I'm sorry Aegeri, I respect your posts and opinions usually, but I fail to see any overarching conspiracy here. New builds that don't resemble old builds do not make it so that you cannot use the old builds anymore. There is already more material published for this game than pretty much any group will be able to use in several decades of gaming. What's the harm in trying to ALSO appeal to others who may have differing tastes? The game CAN and DOES support BOTH. Simultaneously even.

In effect wizards would be shooting themselves at the foot, because essentials is still close enough to 4E that it really doesn't change a bloody thing to begin with. It doesn't make casters gods who can do whatever they want to break the game and the essentials classes keep up with traditional classes very well. Straightforward and direct does not equal them being bad or worse by any means. The problem with this though is that traditional 4E fans really hate it. On another forum where I make the OP for the 4E general thread, the posters in there really dislike essentials and the general direction of the company. Essentials was loudly and very often complained about as dumbing the game down or appealing to grognards instead of wizards actual fans. Although a few of my players are using essential classes (Executioner and Mage), I've found there hasn't been a lot of interest in the essentials classes in general - the more simple martial classes especially don't appeal very much to my players.

So nobody is forcing people who don't like it to use it. Without it, mixed with older material, or standalone, it's still D&D.

Ultimately that's really the problem with essentials and why certain decisions, like making magic missile auto-hit were not received well. Many playing 4E are playing it because it's a better, more balanced and generally more consistent system than 3.5. Many love the core design where martial classes actually had options and such. To summarize all this simply, when it looks like the game is going to start publishing new classes with less options than the old ones, it reduces enthusiasm and interest from those initial 4E fans. They feel rather aggrieved by this and if future books cease to support AEDU classes, instead of the more railroaded (arguably) and class feature based essentials style they are going to get more bitter. If support for older classes also ends, another fear from many of those older fans then they might stop subscribing DDI/buying new books altogether.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that it's heading into hyperbole territory. There are enough people that like the old design enough that support for it will not truly end or even be supplanted, but supplemented.

So ultimately wizards has put themselves into an incredibly precarious position and hasn't really done them any favors whatsoever. Essentials coming out, with the sparse release schedule afterwards and the canceling of books is being taken to indicate a total lack of leadership/direction at wizards. If Wizards goes to a 5E, expect the criticism already directed at essentials style classes to grow and the decision to release essentials as being the death blow of 4E.

I'm not arguing that they aren't in a difficult position; they are. No doubt. But calling Essentials the Deathblow of 4e would be sensationalism at best. If 4e dies, it will be in spite of Essentials. The Splatbook mentality was already making death saves, and if they'd clung to that, 4e would have died anyway, Essentials or no Essentials. Any blame would be pure scapegoatism. I hate using -isms, but there you go: two in one paragraph.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Where are people getting this idea that D&D is going 100% digital?

Its a valid concern given their interest in DDI being a raging success coupled with the (still?) unexplained disappearance of books from the publishing schedule, and the overall trends of adoption of technology.

 

[Aegeri]

Bear in mind Nemesis, I am merely repeating the arguments that I've read on essentials from here, Penny-Arcade and the official forums (dear god the official forums...).

I'm right there with you. I hated the design philosophy behind 3.x, and hence even earlier editions. I loved that 4e threw all that on its ear.

Exactly and to very many people essentials is wizards going back to this design they dislike.

Some of the gamers in my group love playing, but frankly lack the interest in the tactical options required to keep up to the spellcasters. For those players, Slayers and Knights and Thieves are a godsend.

I actually fundamentally agree with you - but it's the kind of design these classes represent that some dislike considerably.

Nobody is forcing anybody (outside of sanctioned events) to use this material!

Except as the argument advances along these lines, you'll find that the fact essentials has "ruined" future material becomes the problem. Take the drama on wizards over Heroes of Shadow having "builds" of the mage with the necromancer/nethermancer as schools of magic instead of genuine new "shadow" classes in the style of those from the PHB. The point here is that essentials to many has been branded as a 4.5 sneaking in to replace the games older AEDU design. This is of course rather ridiculous, but that is the general impression and so it doesn't look favorably on wizards.

It's not far enough for many "grognards" to begin with (as it's still 4E, which we both agree on incidentally) and it's an abandonment of what many liked about 4E design for many ... uhhh... "older" 4E fans? (Not sure what to say here).

That's really the problem.

That's the part that I don't understand; can't we all just get along?

Given a lot of these people feel essentials is the reason for 4Es current problems, I don't think that's going to happen.

I'm sorry Aegeri, I respect your posts and opinions usually, but I fail to see any overarching conspiracy here. New builds that don't resemble old builds do not make it so that you cannot use the old builds anymore.

This isn't the argument - the argument is that it means no new builds or classes in the old style will appear. That's what they are afraid of and why Heroes of Shadow is such an important book for Wizards to prove otherwise.

The game CAN and DOES support BOTH. Simultaneously even.

Actually this isn't entirely true. I am constantly amazed by games where people are insistent on "No essentials" (like this thread) or people running games that are "Essentials only". This is an absolutely terrible position for games to be split between for wizards. It shows a complete and absolute failure on their part to communicate clearly enough that essentials is just more 4E and fits in with everything else in the system. It means we're starting to get into a situation where you need two conversations and sets of assumptions: One for a game where essentials material is available and one where it isn't.

There are enough people that like the old design enough that support for it will not truly end or even be supplanted, but supplemented.

Wizards has to prove this and like it or not, the test for this is Heroes of Shadow. Expect this kind of argument to become more vocal and worse if Heroes of Shadow is all essentials style and doesn't have support for earlier classes.

Especially given that some earlier classes have nothing. No divnie power 2, no primal power 2 means that the Runepriest and Seeker are left in an immensely poor position. An arcane power 2 could really help out the artificer as well.

There was a great thing about the predictability of power books, especially because Psionic Power was terrific. Added some great new fluff and terrific crunch at the same time. It was so good it actually changed my very negative opinions on psionic classes!

I'm not arguing that they aren't in a difficult position; they are. No doubt. But calling Essentials the Deathblow of 4e would be sensationalism at best. If 4e dies, it will be in spite of Essentials.

I disagree in this situation. Many are going to view it as the death of 4E due to the problem I mentioned above: Splitting the fan base and dividing games between "Allows essentials" and "Disallows". That's not an insignificant or unimportant factor by any means.

The Splatbook mentality was already making death saves, and if they'd clung to that, 4e would have died anyway, Essentials or no Essentials.

I am actually far from convinced by this, especially because Dark Sun (by all accounts) sold extremely well, was almost universally praised and is widely considered to be 4Es finest book of any sort. There was more than enough life in that format - especially if they pulled back the release schedule to not be so utterly aggressive book wise. But pre-essentials they were doing things a lot of people approved of. They gave epic monsters their gonads back with better maths (better design of monsters full stop actually), there was predictability in the schedule and always something to look forward to, Dark Sun is their finest hour campaign setting wise by far and there was certainty. Since essentials DDI has also gone downhill (Online character builder, monster builder left for dead, DDI has become more fluff heavy with little viable crunch when they do publish some etc) and to many the correlation is just too distinct.

The point is that regardless if essentials is/what does potentially cause 4Es downfall ultimately (probably combined with Wizards incompetency with DDI), it's hated widely by a good chunk of the community. They are going to home in on essentials as a cause of it like a diver in the middle of the pacific wearing his lucky bloody steak belt.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Bear in mind Nemesis, I am merely repeating the arguments that I've read on essentials from here, Penny-Arcade and the official forums (dear god the official forums...).

I avoid the official forum like the plague that it is for a reason. It's almost as bad as a Blizzard forum

Exactly and to very many people essentials is wizards going back to this design they dislike.

I actually fundamentally agree with you - but it's the kind of design these classes represent that some dislike considerably.

Except as the argument advances along these lines, you'll find that the fact essentials has "ruined" future material becomes the problem. Take the drama on wizards over Heroes of Shadow having "builds" of the mage with the necromancer/nethermancer as schools of magic instead of genuine new "shadow" classes in the style of those from the PHB. The point here is that essentials to many has been branded as a 4.5 sneaking in to replace the games older AEDU design. This is of course rather ridiculous, but that is the general impression and so it doesn't look favorably on wizards.

Yes, I can see that this may be happening, and I recognise that some will be upset by it, but if anything, moving splatbook content to Dragon will better allow for older-style 4e alongside E-style stuff. Consider how much page space printing all those powers took up compared to the class feature with progression format that E-classes use. I can understand why they'd want to get away from that.

At the end of the day, much of the blame can be laid at the feet of something you touch upon in your last sentence: optics. It looks bad. For some.

It's not far enough for many "grognards" to begin with (as it's still 4E, which we both agree on incidentally) and it's an abandonment of what many liked about 4E design for many ... uhhh... "older" 4E fans? (Not sure what to say here).

Hah, now we have 'classic 4e' grognards? The term is beginning to lose all meaning.

Given a lot of these people feel essentials is the reason for 4Es current problems, I don't think that's going to happen.

You are most likely correct... but it doesn't mean I have to stop trying to play peacemaker.

This isn't the argument - the argument is that it means no new builds or classes in the old style will appear. That's what they are afraid of and why Heroes of Shadow is such an important book for Wizards to prove otherwise.

Symbolically, yes, I think that's true, but it doesn't mean that support for older classes won't materialize at some future point.

Actually this isn't entirely true. I am constantly amazed by games where people are insistent on "No essentials" (like this thread) or people running games that are "Essentials only". This is an absolutely terrible position for games to be split between for wizards. It shows a complete and absolute failure on their part to communicate clearly enough that essentials is just more 4E and fits in with everything else in the system. It means we're starting to get into a situation where you need two conversations and sets of assumptions: One for a game where essentials material is available and one where it isn't.

This is the crux of the problems. This divide; I don't understand it.

Actually, that's not true. I understand why on both counts.

Essentials-only folks are trying to strip away the 2.5 years of crufty Dragon and splatbook feats and powers. In so doing, I believe they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it's an easy call to make.

The No Essentials Allowed crowd, OTOH, seems to be suffering from a case of fear of the unknown. Most of the threads I've seen where DMs say they won't allow it, they've not even read it. They just say 'no' on general (misguided) principle. They think there's too much power creep, or that somehow by allowing more options to their players that things will be ruined, or that the two are different 'systems' and not compatible. This is the argument I don't understand.

Wizards has to prove this and like it or not, the test for this is Heroes of Shadow. Expect this kind of argument to become more vocal and worse if Heroes of Shadow is all essentials style and doesn't have support for earlier classes.

Considering that [I think] Mearls has said that Essentials design informs class structure "going forward" (how I hate that term), I'd say this is a foregone conclusion. Maybe there will be a nod to older design. Maybe a bone will be thrown. I'd be happy with either, honestly.

Especially given that some earlier classes have nothing. No divnie power 2, no primal power 2 means that the Runepriest and Seeker are left in an immensely poor position. An arcane power 2 could really help out the artificer as well.

Can't argue with you here. We aren't arguing, really, anyway, but I agree. Runepriest, Seeker, and Artificer could use some more love. I'd like to see it.

There was a great thing about the predictability of power books, especially because Psionic Power was terrific. Added some great new fluff and terrific crunch at the same time. It was so good it actually changed my very negative opinions on psionic classes!

Crux Point Two, right here. Predictability. A lot of folks are upset because it isn't what they were used to, and more still because they expected things to continue along the garden path of class splats and then race splats and a smattering of fluffy books. I see why this is disconcerting to some, but frankly, I was kind of tired of the splat mentality, myself.

Don't get me wrong, I like new/more options as much as the next guy, but it really started to feel like they were dragging things out for the sake of dragging things out, so they could release another book. Frankly, splats or not, they're still doing this. I want my options presented in greater completeness from the start, damnit! Variations on those themes can come later.

They've shown Enchanters, Evokers, and Illusionists, but clearly already had concepts for the other "classical" schools of magic in the works, as evidenced in some of the Redbox powers and HoS. The degree to which they drag this kind of thing out is frankly painful. There are still characters from past editions that I can't legally make yet. Two and a half years in.

I disagree in this situation. Many are going to view it as the death of 4E due to the problem I mentioned above: Splitting the fan base and dividing games between "Allows essentials" and "Disallows". That's not an insignificant or unimportant factor by any means.

Like I pointed out, this is a combination of optics, and... what do you even call the closed-minded no-E/all-E divide? I liken it to D&D NIMBY-type behaviour.

I am actually far from convinced by this, especially because Dark Sun (by all accounts) sold extremely well, was almost universally praised and is widely considered to be 4Es finest book of any sort. There was more than enough life in that format - especially if they pulled back the release schedule to not be so utterly aggressive book wise. But pre-essentials they were doing things a lot of people approved of. They gave epic monsters their gonads back with better maths (better design of monsters full stop actually).

I would hardly call DS a splatbook; it's an entire campaign setting. Sure, it doesn't come in a box, but that doesn't make it a splat.

I think one of the reasons that DS was so acclaimed is that 4e was a perfect way to express the nuances of the setting. I looked at it in 2e when it came out, and I wasn't impressed. It seemed like something designed to appeal to munchkins, at the time. 3e was too shiney for DS. But now, 4e, it has what it takes to represent such a setting properly.

When they announced DS for 4e I actually got excited. I don't use campaigns, as I homebrew most of the time, but DS got my juices flowing, as it were. I still planned to use it in my campaign as a drop-in, and with alterations, but I still planned to use it. Most of the other stuff, like Eberron and FR, I can't. Too big, too detailed. DS is perfect though.

The point is that regardless if essentials is/what does potentially cause 4Es downfall ultimately (probably combined with Wizards incompetency with DDI), it's hated widely by a good chunk of the community. They are going to home in on essentials as a cause of it like a diver in the middle of the pacific wearing his lucky bloody steak belt.

Perhaps, but it will be because that's what they want to make of it. It will serve as their scapegoat, their sacrificial lamb. A quote from a song seems appropriate here, "Life is what you make it, and if you make it death, then rest your soul."

 

[Brian Compton]

Here's what I'd like to know: how does a retailer react to seeing the company that is #1 in the market slashing their catalog to four new products in the upcoming year? Does he hope people use the opportunity to go back and fill in holes in their library, or maybe try a new system? Or does he start to get very worried that one of his key revenue sources is going to be extremely limited this year?

I hope DDXP is a source of happy shiny news and new product. But I also think that that's not likely. In comics, whenever big changes are afoot, the PR departments usually say over and over, "Look for a big announcement at ________ Con!". But that isn't happening here. And sticking with comics, D&D dropping to four new books total is like Marvel dropping its line to around ten titles a month. In a niche market like gaming or comics where even your #1 seller's numbers are laughable in comparison to other media, when #1 cuts back significantly that's painful to a seller. If this is a harbinger of a new business model where WotC is selling new material directly in a digital only format, I hope retailers learn to adapt quickly so that this doesn't do them in.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Here's what I'd like to know: how does a retailer react to seeing the company that is #1 in the market slashing their catalog to four new products in the upcoming year? Does he hope people use the opportunity to go back and fill in holes in their library, or maybe try a new system? Or does he start to get very worried that one of his key revenue sources is going to be extremely limited this year?

I hope DDXP is a source of happy shiny news and new product. But I also think that that's not likely. In comics, whenever big changes are afoot, the PR departments usually say over and over, "Look for a big announcement at ________ Con!". But that isn't happening here. And sticking with comics, D&D dropping to four new books total is like Marvel dropping its line to around ten titles a month. In a niche market like gaming or comics where even your #1 seller's numbers are laughable in comparison to other media, when #1 cuts back significantly that's painful to a seller. If this is a harbinger of a new business model where WotC is selling new material directly in a digital only format, I hope retailers learn to adapt quickly so that this doesn't do them in.

My small city (population generously pegged around 75k) has two FLGSes and several bookstores. One of the two FLGS retailers doesn't even sell D&D. He keeps the PHB, MM, DMG line in stock and that's it. The other one doesn't know what the 'F' is supposed to stand for, and puts horrendous markup on all his products (ridiculous in the internet age!) and so probably doesn't move much product either.

Both stores don't look to be going out of business anytime soon. I think the retailers will adapt. Most of them probably already have. There are lots of games out there that aren't D&D and that sell.

I'm not saying that withdrawing product from the release calendar won't be hard on the retailers if those products are not added to by future announcements, but the revenue they would have got for D&D will be at least partly recouped by sales of other things, and other systems. Ampersand saying that cards and board games are making prominent appearances this year was not an idle quip.

Ravenloft sold really well by all accounts, and we can probably expect Ashardalon to follow suit. Even if you apply the Law of Sequels and it only sells 66% of what Ravenloft did, it will still be significant.

 

[Siberys]

I don't know if it ties at all into the discussion here, but I think it might be worth considering;

Essentials classes still use the AEDU setup, as odd as that may seem at first glance. There are three ways you can break up Essentials classes; those that do / do not have dailies, those that do / do not have traditional encounters, and those that have stances / those that have at-wills.

In each case, mechanically there is very nearly no difference. It simply restricts the choices the player can make. There's the odd fluff ability gained at such-and-such a level, but those hardly break the paradigm.

Seriously; classes without dailies get a static damage boost to make up for it. Those that don't get to choose encounter powers instead have a single scaling power they get multiple uses of. And those without at-wills get stances, which make their BAs function LIKE at-wills. Essentials classes still fit into 4e's character advancement scheme perfectly; it is all just presented differently. It's just like how a psionic class has no encounter powers, yet functions as though it did due to PP.

 

[TirionAnthion]

Retail Perspective

As someone who works at a game store, I have mixed feelings about the online content. In one way, the lack of new products is frustrating. Without new releases it can be hard to generate excitement for the Brand. When I don't have something exciting for D&D on the new release shelf, it takes some of the momentum out of the game.

However, one way to counter this is to put Essentials on a prominent end cap of an aisle. Make it visible to everyone that walks in the store. It becomes the "look here, D&D!" focal point of the store. This has worked well at my store and we sell a fair bit of Essentials because of it.

The problem with DDI, for a retailer, is that it cuts into book sales. Customers are less likely to buy Book X, when they can just get the material in the Compendium. This hurts are sales and cuts down on the amount of product we move. However, if the book does not exist in the first place, then we don't have to worry about competing with the online source. The money we would spend on stocking the book can be better spent elsewhere.

For my store, our bigger problem has been competition with online retailers. I have a subset of customers who like to come in, browse through the books and ask alot of questions. After anywhere from 10 to 60 minutes of this they will say "Amazon has this book for 30% less, can you match that?". When I can't they leave. It is frustrating because they never intended to buy from me, they just wanted to get hands on with the product. But that is a topic for another time.

On the whole, WotC has been very supportive of the FLGS scene in the last year, with cool products and programs for stores that participate. While the increased online offerings does change the way we stock our shelves, it is not all gloom and doom!

Anyway, I hope that gives some insight into the retailer perspective. Someone mentioned upthread that they were curious for a retailer's perspective so I thought I would offer one.

As far as my personal feelings, I have been a subscriber since the beginning. I am almost exclusively a DM. I own all of the books (employee discounts are great!). I am not terribly upset about the book cancellations. If I had to choose between spending $20 toe $30 dollars on an essentials update to the PHB or having that material released through my existing DDI subscription, I choose DDI all the way.

 

[Ahrimon]

As someone who works at a game store, I have mixed feelings about the online content. In one way, the lack of new products is frustrating. Without new releases it can be hard to generate excitement for the Brand. When I don't have something exciting for D&D on the new release shelf, it takes some of the momentum out of the game.

I would like to see them offer up subscription cards to DDI. You know, the little scratch off credit cards. That puts a physical product in the game store for the online product. And a reason to come back to the store if that is your main method of getting your DDI time.