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

[TerraDave]

...Essentials is not just another marketing ploy from the evil wizards, but instead new options, a new take, a new edition (call it whatever you want) of my favorite (and only RPG).

Opinions?

I called it a zucchini.

You know my opinion, I have started and participated in enough threads. Essentials is more, rather then less. Though as far as marketing goes, it certainly is better this time around.

IMO, Essentials is an expansion of 4E....So, I agree that there have been some changes, so it's not "just marketing", but the changes are not so major that they are incompatible with pre-Essentials 4E.

Or core is an expansion for the essentials folk, who, according to plan, may very well become the (large) majority of 4E players. In the same way that if you played what was essentially basic D&D, you would still use OD&D and AD&D options.

I know it is hard for hardcore 4e players like us to understand, but there are a lot of people out there who actually like the idea of having limited options. ...I think one of the unfortunate aspects of core 4e was that there was really no class for the younger/casual/newer player to play. Until 4e, things like the fighter and the rogue filled that role, but even they are quite complex and daunting by the original core rules.

I understand...and the lack of intro class was one of the most persistant and serious critiques of 4E. (though you could argue that the slayer still has a bit too many fiddly bits).

More generally, I also think its important to understand...they are not done yet. One thing that always got me in these arguments was people saying "its just one box" then "its just a few books for noobs"....

A new heroes book is coming, monster vault is coming, next years early releases, including the class compendium, are basically tied to essentials and every indication is that for (say 2-4) years, things will be essentialized. I expect to see a lot of 4E 08 books on ebay well before there is a "5E".

 

[Scribble]

I think it's a combination.

They added some flavor, and formatting that feels more oldschool, but kept the game rules working (pretty much) the way they've been working all along.

They've added to this a good Marketing campaign that actually highlights the game (as opposed to how they "fixed" it or something) and that the designers DO actually care about the game in all of its editions.

 

[Imaro]

I know it is hard for hardcore 4e players like us to understand, but there are a lot of people out there who actually like the idea of having limited options. I have two essential fighters in my current game (A Knight and Slayer), and both of them have remarked how much they enjoy not having to manage a bunch of power cards.

I think one of the unfortunate aspects of core 4e was that there was really no class for the younger/casual/newer player to play. Until 4e, things like the fighter and the rogue filled that role, but even they are quite complex and daunting by the original core rules.

I feel like essentials offers a nice stair-step approach to classes. A newer, less sure player might start with a martial class like slayer, but for his or her next character choose to make a Ranger. The tiers of complexity seem less a failing and more a feature. And beyond that, a person who wants to play a more complex fighter can still make one with the core set rules.

So I say it is a CLEVER use of OLD SCHOOL feel that they are using as a PLOY for more of us to got together and have some excellent fun. Go WotC!

I don't necessarily agree with this assesment, I think it's partially correct but doesn't go far enough IMO. I don't believe that only "new" or "inexperienced" players are the ones who wanted less tactical and option heavy classes. You see there's this great section in the DMG where it lists out all these different types of players and what they enjoy about the game. I think the problem arises in that 4e was designed so that all of those different types had to really be hybrids with "enjoy tactical combat"... especially since tactical combat length was made to take longer at lower levels (and thus color one's first experience with the system about just how much of a game session is devoted to tactical combat) and that just isn't true.

You see the "simpler" builds also allow PC's who don't enjoy tactical combat but enjoy other aspects of the game to play through combat effectively without being forced to delve to deeply into an aspect they may not enjoy as much as others. That I think is one of their biggest draws. When I read stories of Conan, Elric, Corum, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, LotR, The Companions in the Dragonlance trilogy and so on... at least IMO, it was often more about the story and actual fantasy environs while less about the cool fight moves and tactics. I don't always want to play an intense tactical game (otherwise I'd have always played a Wizard, and I didn't), but that doesn't mean I don't want to play an rpg and it doesn't mean I won't put up with a mini tactical game in order to be a part of the largest rpg community... however I will try to minimize how much I have to be involved in that aspect of the game as opposed to other parts.

As far as feel goes... let me just say that I honestly think the fluff of classic 4e was designed for people who played D&D but didn't want to play D&D... I don't know how else to put it, but i just feel like many of the fluff tropes that made D&D... well D&D were thrown out purposefully and this definitely affected how oldschoolers percieved it as "Not D&D".

EDIT: I am not saying 4e is not D&D I am just elaborating on what I feel may have exasperated that feeling in some.

 

[Scribble]

I don't necessarily agree with this assesment, I think it's partially correct but doesn't go far enough IMO. I don't believe that only "new" or "inexperienced" players are the ones who wanted less tactical and option heavy classes.

I pretty much agree with this statement.

I have a friend who has always been the "point me at the thing to smash and let me smash it" type of player. He's been gaming for years- it's just what he likes.

I'm sort of a hybrid... I enjoy "playing" complicated characters, but for the most part HATE rolling them up.

4e did a LOT for someone like me, making it relatively easy to roll up a complicated guy, but for someone like my friend who didn't really dig playing the complicated classes? It was somewhat lacking.

Now we both get cake.

 

[Mercurius]

First of all, I have to laugh at the idea that when they hear that paladins have alignment restrictions again, the "25 million" lapsed players will come roaring back to D&D after 20+ years. I'm not saying that you're saying that, Jack, but it is an amusing thought.

As I see it, the mechanics of Essentials is less of a marketing tool than is its physical presentation--especially the Red Box, but also the other box sets--and its placement in Target and Walmart. The mechanics of the new classes may be meant to appeal to recently lapsed players, meaning those that never converted to 4E, but the many millions that haven't played in 15, 20, even 25 years (which I doubt number as many as 25MM, but I could be wrong) don't give two copper pieces about paladin alignment restrictions.

All that said, what I think we have in Essentials is two things folded into one. WotC wants to acquire new (and lapsed) players and to revise the rules a bit. It is a two birds with one stone thing and, unlike 3.5, the former softens the latter. In other words, because it is mainly being expressed as an attempt at getting newbies to join, the rules revision aspect is less galling to 4E diehards (and of course the backwards compatibility issue).

I think one of the unfortunate aspects of core 4e was that there was really no class for the younger/casual/newer player to play. Until 4e, things like the fighter and the rogue filled that role, but even they are quite complex and daunting by the original core rules.

Yes, very true. Although like Imaro I think this also applies to serious players that don't want to deal with tons of options. I love 4E for its relative ease for DMs, but for players it is rather difficult because of all of the bloat. I say this as someone who has only DMed 4E and is trying to create an 11th-level NPC in detailed, Character Builder format. What a nightmare! There are simply too many options, too many powers with only slight differences, and waaaaay too many feats. I like lots of options, but not when the differences are so small. Many of the martial powers, in my opinion, could be streamlined into just a few, with more liberal use of modifiers depending upon what effect the player wishes to accomplish. In other words, if a player wants to shift their opponent one square in addition to doing weapon damage, why not just add a penalty to attack? Why do we need an entirely new power for such a small difference?

I'm not really sure how this problem can be fixed. I like the idea of themes negating the need for many feats, but what could WotC possibly do to decrease feat bloat in Character Builder? I don't see them actually deleting them from the database. This is one of the reasons that new editions are necessary; but evidently WotC doesn't learn from their mistakes and where in 3.5 we had too many feats, the same is true in 4E. Maybe they thought Character Builder would make it a bit easier but I don't think that is the case.

Sorry if I went too far off topic!

 

[Imaro]

Yes, very true. Although like Imaro I think this also applies to serious players that don't want to deal with tons of options. I love 4E for its relative ease for DMs, but for players it is rather difficult because of all of the bloat. I say this as someone who has only DMed 4E and is trying to create an 11th-level NPC in detailed, Character Builder format. What a nightmare! There are simply too many options, too many powers with only slight differences, and waaaaay too many feats. I like lots of options, but not when the differences are so small. Many of the martial powers, in my opinion, could be streamlined into just a few, with more liberal use of modifiers depending upon what effect the player wishes to accomplish. In other words, if a player wants to shift their opponent one square in addition to doing weapon damage, why not just add a penalty to attack? Why do we need an entirely new power for such a small difference?

I'm not really sure how this problem can be fixed. I like the idea of themes negating the need for many feats, but what could WotC possibly do to decrease feat bloat in Character Builder? I don't see them actually deleting them from the database. This is one of the reasons that new editions are necessary; but evidently WotC doesn't learn from their mistakes and where in 3.5 we had too many feats, the same is true in 4E. Maybe they thought Character Builder would make it a bit easier but I don't think that is the case.

Sorry if I went too far off topic!

I don't think you went too far off topic. I think another unforseen aspect of the DDI... and specifically the fact that it auto-integrates eratta and feats and everything else mechanical... is that WotC has created the perception in many that the books they produce are worthless... meanwhile the amount of character specific bloat has made it hard for those who want to support the books to be able to organize and reference it in an easily useable manner...along with the, until recently, dry reads making it a chore to even get through some of the books.

I think Essentials is also a way to draw people back to book purchases, I just hope that WotC's new emphasis on fluff in Dragon and in the essentials books means they have realized that if they produce crunch at an astronomical rate it can actually be detrimental to there longterm sales of books.

On a totally different subject, let me state that I think another side effect of having the tactically simpler classes is that it opens up a new way for the player to interact with the game. 4e classic is a very front-loaded game for players, you can't really play if you don't want to get into the mechanics side of it... gone are the days of you telling your DM what you want to do in combat and him telling you what to roll... I think this is one of those things that speak to a different type of player (than the one 4e classic was origiannly built for) as well as many new players. Many people, and especially new people, may be more comfortable trying to approach D&D from a "storytelling" as opposed to tactical nature. They want to be able to tell the DM what they are doing in "story" terms and he or she translate it into mechanics... honestly with the way 4e classic characters were built that was almost impossible with any of them... there were just too many exceptions when building a character. That added with the increased focus on group tactics, IMO, makes it hard for a character to interact with the rules in a casual nature (which IMO, is not the same as being a casual player... but similar in some aspects.)

However with the more limited nature of some essential classes this is actually possible for a DM to do again. Of course this is all IMO but some people can want to play D&D, but not want to get into the mechanics on the level that 4e classic assumes they all want to.

 

[Anathos]

I want to dispel a perception of my statements that seems to be the default assumption of the first few posts: I don't think WotC is evil, or in any way disapprove of their marketing ploy. I think it's silly that anyone was taking in by their blatant efforts, but if all you needed to get interested in 4e was a minor change in presentation then welcome to the game.

 

[Jack99]

First of all, I have to laugh at the idea that when they hear that paladins have alignment restrictions again, the "25 million" lapsed players will come roaring back to D&D after 20+ years. I'm not saying that you're saying that, Jack, but it is an amusing thought.

It is kinda amusing. And while my 25 million are correct according to WotC, I never meant to even slightly imply that they would all come roaring back. I do however believe, as opposed to you, I guess, that Essentials (and not just the "forced alignment") are made with those people in mind. Not the 3.5 crowd. This opinion of mine is only based on the way the classes feel to me. Much more 2e than 3.x. Of course, that might just be personal bias, since its no secret that I am not a big fan of the previous edition.

I don't think you went too far off topic. I think another unforseen aspect of the DDI... and specifically the fact that it auto-integrates eratta and feats and everything else mechanical... is that WotC has created the perception in many that the books they produce are worthless... meanwhile the amount of character specific bloat has made it hard for those who want to support the books to be able to organize and reference it in an easily useable manner...along with the, until recently, dry reads making it a chore to even get through some of the books.

I think Essentials is also a way to draw people back to book purchases, I just hope that WotC's new emphasis on fluff in Dragon and in the essentials books means they have realized that if they produce crunch at an astronomical rate it can actually be detrimental to there longterm sales of books.

Very interesting theory. Would xp you, if I could.

 

[Anathos]

4e classic is a very front-loaded game for players, you can't really play if you don't want to get into the mechanics side of it

At level 1 characters have access to 1 Daily power, 1 Encounter power, 1 racial power, a class feature or two (unless you're a Fighter), and a pair of At-Wills. I don't think that's very front-loaded: you have four attack options, two of which are no longer available after you use them, and 2-3 "utility" powers, none of which are very complicated. Does it get a little overwhelming later on? Yes, but unless you're starting new players at level 11 (why would you do that?) you have MONTHS to work the new player up to that level of complexity.

gone are the days of you telling your DM what you want to do in combat and him telling you what to roll

Are you acquainted with pg. 42 in the DMG? Because that's EXACTLY what that table is for.

 

[Scribble]

I think Essentials is also a way to draw people back to book purchases, I just hope that WotC's new emphasis on fluff in Dragon and in the essentials books means they have realized that if they produce crunch at an astronomical rate it can actually be detrimental to there longterm sales of books.

They have mentioned a good number of times that they currently have an overload of feats and powers. (Along the same lines as what you're saying.)

It is kinda amusing. And while my 25 million are correct according to WotC, I never meant to even slightly imply that they would all come roaring back. I do however believe, as opposed to you, I guess, that Essentials (and not just the "forced alignment") are made with those people in mind. Not the 3.5 crowd. This opinion of mine is only based on the way the classes feel to me. Much more 2e than 3.x. Of course, that might just be personal bias, since its no secret that I am not a big fan of the previous edition.

It's not just you.

4e has always had a feeling to me almost as if the designers went back to 1e/2e as a starting point, and re-modified the game using information gleaned from 3e. (As opposed to using 3e as a starting point.)

A lot of the concepts and ideas in the game felt more like the oldschool games. (At least to me- and I know a few others have said so as well.)


Essentials kind of highlights this, and rolls with it I think.