Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Core 4E vs. Essentials
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 7170444" data-attributes="member: 6667921"><p>As evident by many posts in this thread, this is a difficult subject to broach without evoking some of the controversies that were hotly debated during the all-too-brief tenure for 4th Edition. The reason and intent behind Essentials is subject to speculation from those of us who are not part of the inner circle of developers and publishers solely responsible for producing the content. While worthy of its own discussion, it should be eschewed from this discussion which simply looks at the comparison between the two product lines--which, incidentally, deserves a brief moment of attention for clarity.</p><p></p><p>There is, in fact, a clearly defined group of products that can be classified as purely the "Essentials" brand for 4e. Each is clearly marked with the same Dungeons & Dragons logo used for previous 4e materials, and the word "Essentials" underneath. Specifically, these are the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Rules Compendium, Dungeon Master's Kit, Monster Vault, the Starter Kit, and the three Dungeon Tile boxed sets (The Dungeon, The City, and the Wilderness). The products that came after made no visible distinction on the outside between Essentials and non-Essential lines, reverting back to just the D&D logo. But many contained design ideas and principles from both pre- and post-Essential lines. This merging of the two blurred the lines for many of us, and for the most part, was not wholly appreciated. On the one hand, it was a relief to see that this new direction would not invalidate everything that we have bought into before. But at the same time, it was not a seamless fit.</p><p></p><p>So when we look at the 'stages' of 4th Edition products, there are actually three. Everything before the introduction of the Essentials line (i.e. up to and including the Dark Sun books) are what we commonly consider the "core" game, which was first introduced. Essentials itself is the small group of products labeled as such, and defines the dividing line. What came after is the fuzzy, gray era, the post-Essentials stuff. </p><p></p><p>I think it was rare to hear anyone speak up on how great it was to have books like Heroes of the Fey Wild because it offered options for both Essentials <em>and</em> the Core version of the rules. More often than not, it seemed that the general consensus really liked the Essential-style of Core classes, like the Barbarian (i.e. Berserker) and the Bard (i.e. Skald), more than the books as a whole. So despite WotC's intention of keeping both styles current and compatible, a lot of people saw the significant distinction between the two styles and often favored one or the other, but not necessarily both.</p><p></p><p>Which (finally!) brings me to the topic at hand. I think a lot of the points previously made are spot on, so I won't repeat them again. 4th Edition accumulated a massive amount of material and options in only a short amount of time even before Essentials arrived. The Essentials demonstrated how to streamline those options into more meaningful, manageable choices, which I found very appealing. That said, the Core design was born of rigid structure and balance with the goal of ensuring every player at the table would have the same experience regardless of character choices. Maybe not always successful, but the intent was there.</p><p></p><p>Good luck on your project! I will probably begin working on mine soon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jacob Lewis, post: 7170444, member: 6667921"] As evident by many posts in this thread, this is a difficult subject to broach without evoking some of the controversies that were hotly debated during the all-too-brief tenure for 4th Edition. The reason and intent behind Essentials is subject to speculation from those of us who are not part of the inner circle of developers and publishers solely responsible for producing the content. While worthy of its own discussion, it should be eschewed from this discussion which simply looks at the comparison between the two product lines--which, incidentally, deserves a brief moment of attention for clarity. There is, in fact, a clearly defined group of products that can be classified as purely the "Essentials" brand for 4e. Each is clearly marked with the same Dungeons & Dragons logo used for previous 4e materials, and the word "Essentials" underneath. Specifically, these are the Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, Rules Compendium, Dungeon Master's Kit, Monster Vault, the Starter Kit, and the three Dungeon Tile boxed sets (The Dungeon, The City, and the Wilderness). The products that came after made no visible distinction on the outside between Essentials and non-Essential lines, reverting back to just the D&D logo. But many contained design ideas and principles from both pre- and post-Essential lines. This merging of the two blurred the lines for many of us, and for the most part, was not wholly appreciated. On the one hand, it was a relief to see that this new direction would not invalidate everything that we have bought into before. But at the same time, it was not a seamless fit. So when we look at the 'stages' of 4th Edition products, there are actually three. Everything before the introduction of the Essentials line (i.e. up to and including the Dark Sun books) are what we commonly consider the "core" game, which was first introduced. Essentials itself is the small group of products labeled as such, and defines the dividing line. What came after is the fuzzy, gray era, the post-Essentials stuff. I think it was rare to hear anyone speak up on how great it was to have books like Heroes of the Fey Wild because it offered options for both Essentials [I]and[/I] the Core version of the rules. More often than not, it seemed that the general consensus really liked the Essential-style of Core classes, like the Barbarian (i.e. Berserker) and the Bard (i.e. Skald), more than the books as a whole. So despite WotC's intention of keeping both styles current and compatible, a lot of people saw the significant distinction between the two styles and often favored one or the other, but not necessarily both. Which (finally!) brings me to the topic at hand. I think a lot of the points previously made are spot on, so I won't repeat them again. 4th Edition accumulated a massive amount of material and options in only a short amount of time even before Essentials arrived. The Essentials demonstrated how to streamline those options into more meaningful, manageable choices, which I found very appealing. That said, the Core design was born of rigid structure and balance with the goal of ensuring every player at the table would have the same experience regardless of character choices. Maybe not always successful, but the intent was there. Good luck on your project! I will probably begin working on mine soon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Core 4E vs. Essentials
Top