Essentials: why the hate?

[Kzach]

Lately I've been trying to get into Maptools games primarily through the RPTools forums. I'm in one good group as a player and am about to start a new game with this group as their DM. But even amongst them, there are several people who disdain Essentials-anything.

And that's the kicker. There is a LOT of Essentials hate out there. More often than not, Essentials classes are either looked down on, or outright banned. The reasons I get told never make any logical sense or have any empirical fact behind them and seem to be purely emotional responses. This isn't restricted to Maptools games, btw, it's simply the latest in a long-line of E-hate that I've experienced and was the tipping point for making this post.

I consider myself a pretty open-minded person. I'll give anything a go once, twice if I like it. I tend to want evidence and facts before conjecture or any form of emotional bias. In this, I tend not to trust anyone's judgement but my own, so I'll investigate things myself before making up my mind.

It's for the above reason that I find myself unable to understand why so many people hate Essentials so much. I just don't see any reason to hate on them this passionately. I can understand that for some people they may not play like they prefer, or that some lack encounter powers and so may not appeal, or that some aren't very good (looking at you, Binder). But none of those reasons seem like justification to HATE them or ban them from a game.

So I'd like to hear some GOOD reasons why Essentials should be so passionately hated. By good, I mean reasons that justify a vehement response like banning from games. "Just because I don't like them," isn't really a good reason. I'm talking about evidence, data, facts about Essentials that make them a poor choice to include in a game or to have such a passionate dislike for them that you refuse to use them either as a DM or player.

 

[wedgeski]

I think you're searching for logic that has no part in what you observed.

I'm ambivalent about Essentials. I think the line complicated the 4E brand in a way that was unnecessary, and I can't shake the feeling that the new format was a grab for a larger market than might have bought similar content in standard 4E hardcover format.

But, the new content, however it was delivered, was pretty damn good, and via DDI my game is better for it, so in that respect I'm not inclined to complain.

 

[OnlineDM]

I've heard some people complain of power creep from Essentials (many of the feats being flat-out better than their predecessors; MBA-based classes being abusable with some pre-Essentials options). None of that is an issue for me, personally. I'm fine with all of the 4e material at my table (with limited veto power over particular choices that are overpowered in my opinion, Essentials or not).

Also, I think it's pretty hard to "ban Essentials" any more. There was a lot of debate about whether Heroes of Shadow was an "Essentials" book because it talked about it being compatible with Heroes of the Fallen Lands and such on the back cover, but contained options that were usable by PHB1 classes. Everything published since Heroes of the Fallen Lands came out can work with that book, but does that mean it's all "Essentials" content? I think it's meaningless unless you want to ban all content published since September 2010, which is a DM's prerogative, I suppose.

It all seems silly to me.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As for Essentials in particular, I have no idea. I've only dabbled in it, and like wedgeski, I'm ambivalent. I don't use it, but I don't hate it. We just haven't needed it. I don't mind it being there if we ever do need it, though.

I do think that since the original 2E to 3E editions wars, and every edition war since, we have built up a sub group of people that seem more motivated by agenda than the particulars of the game. That is, they advocate hard against X because they think if X isn't there, more people will like what they like, and that this will lead to better gaming for them. It really has nothing to do with the design, fitness, etc. of X for its intended audience.

This tendency seems to cross every camp at some point, and the reaction to it by the rest of us might even be worse.

 

[Pentius]

You should start a counter movement by banning essentials-hate in your games.

Maybe even take it a step further and just ban haters.

 

[Kzach]

Maybe even take it a step further and just ban haters.

Then I'd have no-one to play with

 

[Jack99]

People hated 4e, I loved 4e. Now people hate Essentials, and I love Essentials. It just seems to be how things work.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think part of it is the way 4Ed was rolled out as all nice & unified in style and mechanics...and Essentials introduced classes that, in some ways, work VERY differently.

For example, at the time of their introduction, multiclassing Essentials was strictly a one-way affair, and couldn't Hybridize at all. That's a bit jarring.

 

[blalien]

When 4e released, people complained that all the classes played the same. When Essentials released, people complained that they broke away from their precious formula. It's human nature to be afraid of change. Some people just aren't aware of their own nature and think their gut hatred is a legitimate feeling.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

And that's the kicker. There is a LOT of Essentials hate out there. More often than not, Essentials classes are either looked down on, or outright banned. The reasons I get told never make any logical sense or have any empirical fact behind them and seem to be purely emotional responses. This isn't restricted to Maptools games, btw, it's simply the latest in a long-line of E-hate that I've experienced and was the tipping point for making this post.

I consider myself a pretty open-minded person. I'll give anything a go once, twice if I like it. I tend to want evidence and facts before conjecture or any form of emotional bias. In this, I tend not to trust anyone's judgement but my own, so I'll investigate things myself before making up my mind.

It's for the above reason that I find myself unable to understand why so many people hate Essentials so much. I just don't see any reason to hate on them this passionately. I can understand that for some people they may not play like they prefer, or that some lack encounter powers and so may not appeal, or that some aren't very good (looking at you, Binder). But none of those reasons seem like justification to HATE them or ban them from a game.

So I'd like to hear some GOOD reasons why Essentials should be so passionately hated. By good, I mean reasons that justify a vehement response like banning from games. "Just because I don't like them," isn't really a good reason. I'm talking about evidence, data, facts about Essentials that make them a poor choice to include in a game or to have such a passionate dislike for them that you refuse to use them either as a DM or player.

1) People hate change.

I've often talked about how I went through StarCraft II hate threads on forums. (I was on the "liking change" side of things.) The "anti-change" side creates most of the heat.

I'm also a big contributor at Wikia, and am generally on the "not liking change" side of things there. Still, lots of hatred, and the "anti-change" side creates most of the heat.

2) Changes that are sometimes incongruous. Like psionics, moving away from the AEDU sparks fear. When you use a psionic theme on a non-psionic character, or vice versa, it creates problems. It reminds you that most DnD material is not playtested together.

3) People seek out evidence that supports their views, and remember it more strongly than evidence that does not.

4) Pro-change people refuse to admit that some of their positions could be wrong. (I'm a big fan of the Peter Sandman communication methods. If your side has a fault, admit it right away.) I recall a thread here a month or two back where an Essentials thief used a bunch of stuff (some Essentials, some not) to create a character widely seen as broken (not by the OP, of course). Obviously using Essentials by itself wasn't breaking the character, but the OP's refusal to admit that using Essentials was part of the problem and that many people would be uncomfortable with such a character didn't help matters. On a related note, WotC made strikers a lot better (especially rogues) but didn't do a good job of communicating why those changes were needed or warranted.

When anti-change people admitted that some parts of StarCraft I were boring, and pro-change people admitted that there weren't enough macro options in StarCraft II for higher-skilled players, the flamewars dropped off. For a while. (Human nature, though, the flames came back.)

Some problematic rules were brought back in Essentials. Instant Friends, I'm looking at you. Sure, there's problematic rules in non-Essentials stuff too, but something like "Instant Friends" sticks in my craw. (This is from someone who likes the new wizard powers, but not necessarily the mage class itself.)

5) Complaining about games you don't like.

There's a trope called that at TVTropes.

6) Essentials is seen as 4.5e by many, and in competition with previous classes. 3.5 ran into the same problem, although it was generally better received. Still, converting an adventure from 3.0 to 3.5 took me a lot of time. I had to change pretty much every NPC in the adventure - even converting from the lame 3.0 ranger to the not-so-lame 3.5 ranger was tiring. See above points about combinations. I would have been happier if there'd just been a new half-edition. This causes interference in learning - you think the rules work one way, but they work another...

6) My own opinion is that some parts of Essentials are good, and some aren't. Sometimes I dislike a part of Essentials due to flavor and not rules reasons. I like the rules of the knight and thief, a lot. I do not like the flavor of the new rangers (primal powers, and still not getting away from nonsensical fighting styles). I do not like the rules of the warpriest (all melee, all the time). I naturally exclude things from the game, if only to keep my sanity and make it possible to regulate balance - the stuff in the PH1 is a lot less than the literally thousands of powers out there, so naturally I'm much more familiar with the broken stuff in the PH1 than in the PH2/3/MP1&2/DP/AP/HoS/HotFK1-2/etc. The only times I've had really broken PCs in my game, people were using stuff from Martial Power and Divine Power. (They use the CB, and apparently can't tell when they're straying beyond the rules I'm allowing.)