Are Essentials more old school or just a clever marketing ploy?

[Scribble]

Eh, I liken it more to lego... Just like 3.0's OGL games... there are a bunch of specific sets to build a specific thing... but you can also build most of that stuff, and more, from the generic sets to if you want. Of course molding the generic set is more work than buying it already made for you... but that's kinda the point, some people are willing to give up money for ready made stuff... I'd argue that's almost the entire basis of the rpg industry.

Well yeah- I wasn't arguing that it wasn't possible to modify, only that:

1. It was harder to do so and still maintain balance.

2. His statement didn't really apply.

I agree with KM on this one as your statement seems to run along the lines of guesstimating or assuming playstyle with a particular game. I think this is particularly erroneous when dealing with an rpg that is the gateway and most popular rpg... you're bound to have a ton of people using it in very different ways.

I'm not guesstimating anything- I'm not even trying to argue anyone has a play style or anyone got anything right or wrong.

My argument is simply products are made by figuring out who your primary customer base is, and what they want, then trying to fill that need, as opposed to creating your product, and then somehow training your future clients to want it.

When you start assuming how they use it (especially without market research to back it up) it can cause dissatisfaction in a significant portion of your customer base.

Sure- and you can even get it wrong sometimes when you have market research. Who's assuming anything?

I think the current 4e situation highlights this- in order to bring back several customers who went elsewhere they added new parts to the game in order to meet their needs.

Some potential customers didn't like daily powers in martial classes for instance. All martial classes had them, so 4e was not meeting their needs. Voila- classes added to the game that do not use dailies- now the game better meets their needs.

How can it be argued that this is not the game being designed to meet the customer's needs?


Really though if you guys want to continue this discussion we should fork it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@KM, sorry, I think you're reading more into some things people have said than what they intended. I don't have any super beef with Essentials for instance. I just see certain things that Essentials seems to be aimed at doing and I think IMHO it is mis-aimed. I think people's points of dissatisfaction, including yours, with 4e aren't the actual problems.

You seem to be saying that 4e is too light on rules for improvising. I think that is an impression you've gotten from playing a lot of 3.x personally. 3.x was the 'nanny state' of D&D versions, it tried to tell you exactly what to do at every turn. It also had a lot of complicated fiddly rules for doing specific things. Sure that meant it had a LOT of rules, but quantity =/= quality. 4e says in one page what 3.x took a book to say sometimes.

Looking at this whole "there are no guidelines for the power of conditions and such". I don't really agree with that. There are 10's of thousands of powers in 4e. They form an extraordinarily complete compendium of all the possible reasonable effects that you would likely want to be using at different levels. An improvised attack that does a stun (save ends)? Probably not something you'll do in Heroic Tier, there are certainly few powers that do that in Heroic, almost none in fact. It is certainly pretty appropriate in Epic Tier though, and could be appropriate in Paragon Tier as well. Honestly, I simply can't grasp how improvised actions could possibly be simpler or better. I've never seen ANY system that did this as well as 4e does. I guess some people simply MUST have a rule called "Tripping" and it MUST have exact directions for every possible tripping scenario or else they can't run the game? Wow. I don't get how people with that level of inflexibility of rules application can DM at all I guess. It really honestly just blows my mind away.

Mostly I just don't see where from my perspective Essentials is actually solving problems. It seems to me like a lot of the advice and support that existed for DMs in the DMG is just not even there now. Improvising is at best even less well explained than before. Other things that DMs had in their toolbox before mostly still exist but are at best heavily deemphasized. My guess would be that players will have LESS incentive to stunt or otherwise improvise than before, it is less clearly spelled out how to do it and the rules for what DCs to use are harder to interpret than ever. The RC seems to sort of hint that maybe most DCs should scale with the PCs level (a mechanically questionable concept at best, you can easily create some hilariously stupid situations this way), and then goes right on to show a whole bunch of fixed DCs for various things. Huh? If that is a better explanation than existed before I'm a fork!

As a supplemental set of rules and options Essentials is perfectly fine. As a core game system I just don't see it as an improvement. The classes may have some 'retro appeal' and they are decent classes, but I'd never want to play "Essentials only" and I think Essentials DMs would be well served to have a DMG or both DMGs.

 

[Imaro]

You seem to be saying that 4e is too light on rules for improvising. I think that is an impression you've gotten from playing a lot of 3.x personally. 3.x was the 'nanny state' of D&D versions, it tried to tell you exactly what to do at every turn. It also had a lot of complicated fiddly rules for doing specific things. Sure that meant it had a LOT of rules, but quantity =/= quality. 4e says in one page what 3.x took a book to say sometimes.

I will definitely address the rest of your post once I get a second... but I wanted to point this out as a fallacy I see perpetuated by many 4e fans. Every single power in the game is a fiddly rule addition for doing something that is usually a way more specific action than most 3.x rules were made for, 4e is based around rules-exception design so how can it possibly not have as many or even more rules that 3.5 had, as an example.... 3.5 could have a general trip rule... while 4e has a trip rule for each class. Just because it came up with a way to put the rules on cards in bite-size chunks does not mean there are less of them.

Now the amount of rules any individual has to know or understand in order to play competently could be argued... but in the department of pure amount of rules I'm not really seeing less in 4e than in 3.5 or 3.0.

 

[Scribble]

Now the amount of rules any individual has to know or understand in order to play competently could be argued... but in the department of pure amount of rules I'm not really seeing less in 4e than in 3.5 or 3.0.

I think the argument IS the amount of rules you need to know, as opposed to pure amount of rules.

 

[Imaro]

I think the argument IS the amount of rules you need to know, as opposed to pure amount of rules.

Whose argument... because I have seen in this very forum people claim you could fit the entirety of 4e's rules on a couple pages... not that you could fit what a player needs to know to play on a couple pages... they are clearly two different statements with two different meanings.

EDIT: And... in actuality a player doesn't need to know every rule in 3.5 either to play.

 

[Scribble]

Whose argument... because I have seen in this very forum people claim you could fit the entirety of 4e's rules on a couple pages... not that you could fit what a player needs to know to play on a couple pages... they are clearly two different statements with two different meanings.

EDIT: And... in actuality a player doesn't need toknow every rule in 3.5 either to play.

It's the way it's built; there are two systems kind of.

One is the system that everyone needs to know- Those are the rules that can fit in a small amount of pages, and are very basic.

They govern all basic actions, and are easily adapted to cover situations not accounted for. (AKA Improv)

The other rules layer on top, and only interact in small self contained ways. They're the exceptions that people who have them can put into play.

Those are the larger portion of rules that would not fit in a small amount of pages, but also don't need to be known by everyone, or even potentially known by everyone.

They don't even need to be known about/found in order to achieve a certain effect.

In fact two people might be doing a similar thing in 4e but have different rules to do it. Neither of them has to know how the other one does it, only witness the outcome.

Someone can even achieve the same effects using improv.

The exceptions simply give the user a sort of "known element" to base his actions on.


3e on the other hand tried to make rules consistent across the board. Once a rule came into play it was essentially considered to be the rule to handle that concept. If you liked the idea of consistency across actions this was great- but also had the net effect of increasing the size of the rules that the player needed to know/account for.

 

[Imaro]

@KM, sorry, I think you're reading more into some things people have said than what they intended. I don't have any super beef with Essentials for instance. I just see certain things that Essentials seems to be aimed at doing and I think IMHO it is mis-aimed. I think people's points of dissatisfaction, including yours, with 4e aren't the actual problems.

Well I can't speak for KM but IMO, your posts do seem to come off with more than a bit of essentials hate. Which is cool because everyone has their own oppinions on stuff.

Looking at this whole "there are no guidelines for the power of conditions and such". I don't really agree with that. There are 10's of thousands of powers in 4e. They form an extraordinarily complete compendium of all the possible reasonable effects that you would likely want to be using at different levels. An improvised attack that does a stun (save ends)? Probably not something you'll do in Heroic Tier, there are certainly few powers that do that in Heroic, almost none in fact. It is certainly pretty appropriate in Epic Tier though, and could be appropriate in Paragon Tier as well. Honestly, I simply can't grasp how improvised actions could possibly be simpler or better. I've never seen ANY system that did this as well as 4e does. I guess some people simply MUST have a rule called "Tripping" and it MUST have exact directions for every possible tripping scenario or else they can't run the game? Wow. I don't get how people with that level of inflexibility of rules application can DM at all I guess. It really honestly just blows my mind away.

Again, I feel you are missing the bigger picture. Technically what you descriube above can be done in any fantasy game with monsters... find an example of a monster with a power you want and in the level range you're looking for and slap it on another monster. The problem is that "guesstimation" isn't really a good system, especially with the multitude of unforseen synergies that may arise between powers, as well as the tactical nature of 4e combat.

No one here is asking for an exact "Trip" power with every permutation categorized, and it's condescending statements like the one above that people may be reading your dislike about certain things from. However I would like the rules and guidelines that the designers use to create powers with.

Mostly I just don't see where from my perspective Essentials is actually solving problems. It seems to me like a lot of the advice and support that existed for DMs in the DMG is just not even there now. Improvising is at best even less well explained than before. Other things that DMs had in their toolbox before mostly still exist but are at best heavily deemphasized. My guess would be that players will have LESS incentive to stunt or otherwise improvise than before, it is less clearly spelled out how to do it and the rules for what DCs to use are harder to interpret than ever. The RC seems to sort of hint that maybe most DCs should scale with the PCs level (a mechanically questionable concept at best, you can easily create some hilariously stupid situations this way), and then goes right on to show a whole bunch of fixed DCs for various things. Huh? If that is a better explanation than existed before I'm a fork!

Neither the DMG or PHB had guidelines for improvising particular skills... and honestly the SC advice and rules in the DMG were crap, IMO of course. I'm curious... have you read the book from the DM's kit? If not how are you able to compare and contrast it's advice vs. the original DMG? If you are only comparing the RC... which I still feel is better about improvising than the PHB was... you aren't comparing the same types of books.

As a supplemental set of rules and options Essentials is perfectly fine. As a core game system I just don't see it as an improvement. The classes may have some 'retro appeal' and they are decent classes, but I'd never want to play "Essentials only" and I think Essentials DMs would be well served to have a DMG or both DMGs.

Well no one is forcing you to play it. I mean if you don't see it as an improvement that's cool but I haven't seen you articulate in any objective way why. I haven't seen you say what information is missing from the DM book in essentials vs. DMG or anything of that nature. It seems like you don'tlike it because it's not the same old 4e. I could be wrong though and I invite you to give some specifics on what it is you don'tlike about essentials.

 

[TerraDave]

I'm trying to understand exactly what you mean by this... I mean when one says 3.x that encompases both 3.0 and 3.5 ( sometimes even Pathfinder.)... many would argue that 3.5 was different, though the extent would probably vary from person to person, compared to 3.0. I guess I am just looking for clarification on what you mean when you say 4.x... if it is that it is an iteration of the 4th edition engine I would agree... if you mean it is the same as the game that was first released in the 4th ed. PHB1, MM1 and DMG1... not so sure I would agree with that.

Hey! I am the original "essentials is more different and a bigger deal then you think it is" guy (who is still accepting apologies).

But there is 1) incorporating old schooly criticims and updating rules with a new format different and 2) making PCs and DMs noticibly more creative different.


(I choose 1).

 

[Quickleaf]

It's the way it's built; there are two systems kind of.

One is the system that everyone needs to know- Those are the rules that can fit in a small amount of pages, and are very basic.

They govern all basic actions, and are easily adapted to cover situations not accounted for. (AKA Improv)

There's some kind of X factor that is going on here, cause it's clear there are 4e groups who notice a change in their creativity during combat, while there are 4e groups who don't notice any change.

Do you think there is a core difference between groups that explains this different response? Is it a play style, different experiences of what "old school" means, exposure to indie rpgs?

I'd be curious to hear from the most vocal folks in this thread, like you Scribble, and AbdulAlhazrad, Kamikaze Midget, Imaro, UHF, TerraDave, and anyone I'm leaving out.

The other rules layer on top, and only interact in small self contained ways. They're the exceptions that people who have them can put into play.

Those are the larger portion of rules that would not fit in a small amount of pages, but also don't need to be known by everyone, or even potentially known by everyone.

I really like how classes encompass so much of this, but not necessarily how they were presented in core 4e.

They don't even need to be known about/found in order to achieve a certain effect.

Sorry, I'm not following you. Do you mean that they're not needed because the group can just improvise?

In fact two people might be doing a similar thing in 4e but have different rules to do it. Neither of them has to know how the other one does it, only witness the outcome.

Someone can even achieve the same effects using improv.

Yeah, as a DM I *love* 4e because of it's easy to make stuff up on the fly. I tried really hard to convey that "go for it!" spirit to my group. Thing is, from a player's perspective I don't think it's as...inviting.

There are two positions going back and forth regarding improvisation in 4e.

Side #1 says: "Page 42 of the DMG covers most improv! And the rules are less case specific so improv is easier!"

Side #2 says: "Page 42 barely covers any improv! And the rules and their presentation discourage improv!"

I think that's useful to keep in mind so we don't keep covering the same ground, and can get more specific about our observations and positions.

The exceptions simply give the user a sort of "known element" to base his actions on.

That was my first reaction to 4e too, but after DMing for a year what I observed was a shift from the novelty of the "known elements" to the "known elements" trumping improvisation.

I don't attribute that to there being "known elements", rather to the rules presentation and improv guidelines (for both player and DM).

Hey! I am the original "essentials is more different and a bigger deal then you think it is" guy (who is still accepting apologies).

I'm sorry. Wait, what am I apologizing for?

But there is 1) incorporating old schooly criticims and updating rules with a new format different and 2) making PCs and DMs noticibly more creative different.

Wait, am I misunderstanding, or are there groups out there who feel adopting 4e has made their groups more creative? I'd be interested to hear *that* argument.

 

[Imaro]

Hey! I am the original "essentials is more different and a bigger deal then you think it is" guy (who is still accepting apologies).

But there is 1) incorporating old schooly criticims and updating rules with a new format different and 2) making PCs and DMs noticibly more creative different.


(I choose 1).

See I would say 2.) Giving DM's and players better incentive, clear examples and updated mechanics for improvisation and creativity... but that's just me.