D&D “Essentials” as a product line = making it less daunting to get into the game?

[Hussar]

(83 box had Keep on the Borderlands - an actual adventure module)

Just wanted to comment on this.

KotB is one of my favourite modules. But, as a starter module for someone completely new to the game, it's not very good. It tells you to fill in the blanks, but then gives you no guidelines as to how to fill in those blanks. Which is fine if this is not your first time playing D&D, but, for a complete newbie can be far more difficult that it appears.

I've played KotB lots of times, both as a DM and as a player. Frequently KotB is nothing but one long slog fest of killing monster after monster with no actual reason for doing so other than there are monsters in need of killing.

Yes, it can be turned into more, but, in order to do that, I think a lot of DM's had to make all sorts of rookie mistakes, fumbling their way to making this a great module.

Honestly, I would say that The Lost City (which was the first module I ever played or ran) was a much better beginner product.

If you're going to have beginner products, they really need to educate the user. Expecting a user to just fumble his way through, and not get frustrated and give it up, is not a particularly effective means of bringing in new players.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Pg. 57 of the 4E DMG

"It's a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure, just as you vary other elements of encounters to keep things interesting"

This is basically the same thing as what the 3e DMG says...

... and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I didn't get the D&D starter set, but I did get Keep on the Shadowfell. On the back of that product the core is defined as:

PH
DMG
MM
D&D Miniatures (of which there are several sets)
D&D Dungeon Tiles (of which there are several sets)

Which demonstrates the problem: With 4E WotC destroyed the usefulness of the term "core" in terms of directing attention to the essential products necessary for play. This was clearly a mistake.

A mistake they are now repeating by destroying the usefulness of the term "Essential" in exactly the same way.

 

[Maggan]

A mistake they are now repeating by destroying the usefulness of the term "Essential" in exactly the same way.

I feel that the risk for that is only evident if WotC starts adding to the essentials line of products.

My impression is that they aren't planning to do that.

/M

 

[AllisterH]

... and has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

.

Perhaps you can explain better then?

The only difference I can see between AD&D encounter design and 3e/4e encounter design is that it is much easier to judge for a DM what is an easy/moderate/high level of difficulty for his group.

Encounter design I found in AD&D was much more of a trial and error basis and as well, one that tended to work only for THAT group as there was no assurance that any two groups would have the same capabilities

(no expected wealth/item tables meant that what was a tough encounter for one group could be a cakewalk for another)

 

[Neonchameleon]

You've misunderstood me. I'm not talking about adventure modules. The pre-packaging I'm talking is fundamental to the design principles of 4th Edition: Perfectly balanced encounters which have been preciously set into carefully sculpted encounter maps. This pre-packaging can certainly come from an adventure module. But the DM is also expected to be doing it. It's part-and-parcel of 4E encounter design.

And in your day the DM had to walk ten miles to the game, uphill both ways. And make the rulebooks out of wood-pulp, printed using carved potatoes.

The incredible balance of 4e is information, pure and simple. As a DM, I know what I can throw at my party as a fair fight, what's going to push them to their limits, what they are just going to run from, and what's not worth resolving. If anything this makes it easier to throw things at the PCs because I can aim much more precisely and don't have to leave the margins I would in earlier editions. Or I can throw a wandering band of ogres at a first level party the way I did last week (they ran - just as well for them).

While this can certainly be ignored, in doing so you are ignoring the style of play the system was specifically designed for

"Kill them all and take their stuff?" Oh, wait. "Dont' use wandering monsters more than two levels above the PCs?" Nope.

(according to the designers, the DMG, and every example of 4E adventure design WotC has provided to date).

Tell it to Irontooth! But Action Heroes who don't lose often is indeed the expected playstyle.

Which is basically my point: Trying to turn the DM into a computer program is an incredibly bad idea because the computer game is always going to be better at being a computer program than the human DM is.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean you can't cut down the workoad.

A living, breathing, flexible DM is literally the only advantage tabletop RPGs have over video games.

False. The social element is much better face to face, there are fewer griefers. You get to write the adventure you want.

Trying to eliminate their impact on the game is insanity.

On the other hand, nothing can mess up a game more than a bad DM. Trying to reign them in so the worst games are at the very least average while the good ones can take the system and run is probably the best compromise. (If you want the worst one, load the game down with cursed items and encourage the DM to be a dick).

 

[DEFCON 1]

With 4E WotC destroyed the usefulness of the term "core" in terms of directing attention to the essential products necessary for play. This was clearly a mistake.

It is only a "mistake" if that was what the use of 'Core' was meant to convey. However, I don't believe that was the case. The use of the word 'Core' was meant to convey to all players (especially DMs) that all those products that had that designation were fully vetted and produced under the expectation that they be allowed to be used in all 4E D&D games.

This was a direct result of years of many DMs not allowing various 3E products into their games because they weren't "official" or "core". Want to use Complete Warrior? Nope, not allowed... because that 3E DM of yours doesn't believe it's "Core" and thus it's probably way overpowered and going to break the game (despite him probably never even trying the product out before making this decision).

So 4E Core is not "those products necessary to play the game at it's most basic level"... it's "those products that are all balanced to work within the game at every level."

 

[deinol]

It is only a "mistake" if that was what the use of 'Core' was meant to convey. However, I don't believe that was the case. The use of the word 'Core' was meant to convey to all players (especially DMs) that all those products that had that designation were fully vetted and produced under the expectation that they be allowed to be used in all 4E D&D games.

This was a direct result of years of many DMs not allowing various 3E products into their games because they weren't "official" or "core". Want to use Complete Warrior? Nope, not allowed... because that 3E DM of yours doesn't believe it's "Core" and thus it's probably way overpowered and going to break the game (despite him probably never even trying the product out before making this decision).

So 4E Core is not "those products necessary to play the game at it's most basic level"... it's "those products that are all balanced to work within the game at every level."

Except really, the 4E "Core" label becomes meaningless. Or at least, it has the same meaning as the D&D logo. About all it does is distinguish adventures from non-adventures, which few people have any confusion about.

4E GMs are more likely to allow players to use supplements because they have actually been more balanced. That and the ease of use in the character builder, but that is another discussion. I will be honest and say most of the 3E GMs I knew let just about everything from Wizards in anyway.

 

[Umbran]

I
So 4E Core is not "those products necessary to play the game at it's most basic level"... it's "those products that are all balanced to work within the game at every level."

That only adds clarity when some of the products are not "Core". If they are all "Core", then the word "Core" doesn't help tell you understand much.

At least, until "Essentials" came out. If Essentials are not Core, then the word finally tells you something.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It is only a "mistake" if that was what the use of 'Core' was meant to convey.

You're assuming that something can't be a mistake just because somebody thinks they have a good reason for doing it.

In this case you have a company which took the term "core" and applied it to everything they produced in the hope that this would increase the sales of products which had previously not been "core". In 2008 the argument could be made that this might be a great idea.

But when this same company, just two years later, says, "Oh . We've created confusion in our customer base about which books they need to buy and we need to roll out a whole new trademark in order to solve that problem."

Well... that decision was a mistake.

Coca-Cola thought they were making a great decision when they launched New Coke. There are very few people, however, who would argue that it wasn't a mistake.

Except really, the 4E "Core" label becomes meaningless. Or at least, it has the same meaning as the D&D logo. About all it does is distinguish adventures from non-adventures,

It doesn't even do that. They labeled Dungeon Delve as "core" and that was just a collection of short adventures.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That only adds clarity when some of the products are not "Core". If they are all "Core", then the word "Core" doesn't help tell you understand much.

I don't think it was meant to help people understand what they should or shouldn't buy to get a game started... it was meant purely to tell those 3E DMs who got so used to banning stuff (from 3PP up to an including several WotC supplements) to stop being so stingy with additional material. I mean, how many threads did we see during the 3.5 heyday where DMs were saying they were banning the use of X or Y because they either were unbalanced, or because they thought they were unbalanced? Thousands.

So by calling everything "Core", it was as much a marketing decision as anything. It was telling all D&D players that ALL of this stuff they are producing can and should be allowed and used in all 4E games. The result of this WotC hoped would be that more players would buy more of these books, knowing that they had a better chance of getting to use said books in any game they might play.

Now is this a different use of the word "Core" that we now (two years later) think it should have been used as? Sure. I'll buy that. But we can't put a definition onto the word that it wasn't meant to have.

That being said... Beginning's point is that we can in hindsight call the use of the word "Core" as they used it, a mistake... because it now (two years later) calls into question the validity of the term, and whether it's become too much of a hinderance than a benefit. In that regard, I have no opinion... because I won't even attempt to guess the ratio of additional books bought two to one year ago because of the thought that these supplemental books were definitely "legal"... versus the loss in sales today to people who see too many choices on the shelf of "Core" material, and thus don't make any purchase at all. That's just too wide open to even bother trying to guess. And any attempt to quantify that is just pulling numbers out of our butts.

I will say, however, that I myself wouldn't classify it as a "definite" mistake to identify all original 4E books "Core". "Possible" mistake, absolutely. But "definite"? Too many sales variables to make that strong of a statement, in my opinion.