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

[Imaro]

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.

So that's six mini rules you need to understand and be able to apply tactically to a situation...some would define that more like work as opposed to fun...especially if they aren't into tactical combat. You seem to be posting under the assumption that everyone wants to deal with that level of tactical thinking in a game that's meant to be fun, and allow you to play out fantasy stories... it's sorta like the reason checkers is played by more people than chess... for many tactical games in and of themselves aren't necessarily fun and the exception based mini-rules just adds to it.

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

Yes I am... but how does that apply to the context I am speaking in... perhaps I need to be more specific. I am speaking of running a character in such a way being viable. An oldschool fighter could very easily be run this way and be effective... in fact most classes that weren't spellcasters could easily be run by a player who didn't necessarily know how the mechanics behind their powers worked..as long as the DM did. In 4e there are just too many different powers for most DM's to try and take on that type of responsibility. That added with the increasing tactical choices that must be made complicate it further.

Page 42 is for rulling actions outside of what your powers do... yet for the most part, tactically and on a regular basis, your powers are a better choice to use...and thus even if you choose not to use them and purposefully gimp your effectiveness, I don't think your fellow players will look kindly on it. Even better... why pick them if you're not going to use them? I think you're being a little disingenuous with page 42 here... unless I was unclear in what I meant earlier.

 

[Imaro]

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'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.

See, I never got this feeling from classic 4e... too many mechanical, trope and fluff changes made it feel only tangentially related to D&D before. I just don't see how a Paladin that can be any alignment...a changed planar background...non-classic races (and missing oldschool races) to start with...and so on... harkened back to oldschool D&D... Essentials however definitely feels closer to oldschool D&D (including 3e) to me...and I feel it is because of the differnces as opposed to similarities between it and 4e classic.

 

[Truename]

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.

As an aside, the Companion Character rules in DMG2 are an excellent way to create an NPC with "real PC feel" without all the rules complexity of a real PC. I've used them for several NPCs now (including an Essentials Warpriest and Mage!) and have been very happy with the results.

 

[Scribble]

See, I never got this feeling from classic 4e... too many mechanical, trope and fluff changes made it feel only tangentially related to D&D before. I just don't see how a Paladin that can be any alignment...a changed planar background...non-classic races (and missing oldschool races) to start with...and so on... harkened back to oldschool D&D... Essentials however definitely feels closer to oldschool D&D (including 3e) to me...and I feel it is because of the differnces as opposed to similarities between it and 4e classic.

Well, I didn't mean to imply I felt they WERE the oldschool rules, only that it felt like they used them as the starting point, rather then 3e.

It's not so much the flavor- but how the system works.

Some of things for me?

1. Classes that had definite roles.

This felt to me like how earlier edition classes had roles... Fighters used weapons and armor, thieves had the thief skills, etc...

2. In earlier editions fights weren't supposed to be mapped to each die roll. A round was two minutes, and you were supposed to be assumed to be taking all kinds of swings, and movements, and defensive actions... The rolled attacks were just the only ones that mattered game wise.

The way 4e handles things like interrupts and reactions and attacks that just have effects no matter what reminded me of this... It kind of assumes that events are taking place not just on a one roll = one hit basis.

3. At the end of a 1e fight (maybe 2e as well?) the rest of the turn was spent like cleaning weapons, recuperating, and stuff...

This reminds me of short rests.

4. Monsters and PCs use different rules.

This definitely brings me back to old school... Monsters just working by monster rules.

5. Monsters had similar "thematic elements" for categories, but it wasn't based so much on type...

The 4e monster construction reminds me a lot of oldschool, in how the powers they have aren't really based on the creature type. Reading 3e monsters brings me back to older editions and wondering what type of powers the next monster would have, and stuff.

6. Even rituals have a 1e "feel" to them

As strange as that sounds- 1e is filled with places where it talks about needing a magical tome, or manual to do things... For instance the orignal scarecrow mentions needing a magic manual to create one... Rituals being in books that you get specifically for the intended ritual reminds me of this type of thing, just fleshed out.

7. DM arbitration...

In my opinion despite the number of powers and such, 4e (to me) has felt a lot easier for the DM to house rule on the fly when needed. I think it goes back to the way 3e was interconnected.

This reminds me of how the oldschool games were with the rules.


There are other things too, but some of it is just "feel" to me- these are the things that I notice right off the bat though.

 

[interwyrm]

Essentials seems closer in spirit to the D&D I grew up with, and the class mechanics seem more fun and better thought out.

I'm not a fan of how items work. Personally, I would have liked to see inherent bonuses become the norm, with armor and weapon special abilities being the only thing magical about them. It'd certainly cut down on the item bloat in the compendium.

One of the things I was most excited about going from 3.5 to 4e was the stated intent that characters would not derive most of their power from items. I think this has failed, and the essentials rarity rules do nothing to improve that.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

One of the things I was most excited about going from 3.5 to 4e was the stated intent that characters would not derive most of their power from items. I think this has failed, and the essentials rarity rules do nothing to improve that.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If you use inherent bonuses, very little of your power is tied to magic bonuses - unless you have a build that relies heavily on magic boosts (such as the charge build you sometimes see), IMHO magic items really don't add much to a characters power level.

Now, I imagine this varies quite a bit depending on how much your DM allows "wish listing" - as I said, if you are in a game where you can do a charge build and get tons of bonuses from your items when charging, those items do account for a significant portion of your power.

Now, I do agree that whatever the "state of the nation" is in this regard, Essentials doesn't change it.

 

[mearls]

I agree, not (just) marketing. Rather, an increased facility with the game's design combined with real care for the feel invoked by the mechanics. It's evident in the prose describing the cavalier, martial classes' use of basic attacks, and slimes' new immunity to being knocked prone. It all helps convey a feel--an image--and that makes for better suspension of disbelief and better roleplaying.

I think you can learn a lot about a game by listening to how people describe it after they play it. It shows you how they interact with, see, and process the game.

For instance, last weekend I played Carcassonne. I had some lucky draws I was able to exploit by managing my meeples well. I was able to keep churning through cities and roads, completing stuff at a steady enough pace that I was able to drop some farmers early without hurting myself in the late game. My opponent built a couple of huge cities to narrow my lead, but my edge in farmers sealed the game.

Compare that to a description of our lunchtime Keep on the Borderlands game from Tuesday. The characters had been ambushed by wererats at the Stumbling Giant (the tavern in the keep) the session before. With the help of the guards, they figured out that the wererats posed as halfling merchants and had visited the keep several times before. Oddly enough, though the guards at the gate reported that the halflings always left with a heavily laden wagon, the gnomes they traded with never sold them all that much copper and silver ore. The gnomes were surprised at the guards' description of the loaded wagon.

The PCs had arranged a meeting with the keep's ruler. Unknown to them, the ruler's trusted advisor disguised himself and sought out the PCs to question them. Faced with an inquisitive stranger, the party's wizard slashed the man's arm with a knife to see if the non-silver blade would deal any lasted damage.

It did, and the session ended with the characters entered the ruler's audience chamber to find the "wandering tracker" they had harassed standing at his side.

If you look at my second description, I think it's something you find for most RPGs and other immersive games. I'd describe playing Mass Effect in a similar manner. There's something very important there, a mode of thinking and experiencing the game that the mechanics should support. It's definitely something that influences the Essentials process and a lot of my design.

It's something that I think of as the game's metaphor, or its idiom. To an outsider, D&D is a few people sitting around a table, rolling dice, consulting books, speaking in funny voices, and maybe pushing miniatures around a grid. To the people in the game, it's a tense expedition into an ancient ruin, made all the more deadly by the bloodthirsty, recently awakened vampire that stalks the tombs they explore. That's an important part of the game. Without it, the game is little more than what it appears to be on the surface.

 

[Imaro]

Well, I didn't mean to imply I felt they WERE the oldschool rules, only that it felt like they used them as the starting point, rather then 3e.

It's not so much the flavor- but how the system works.

Some of things for me?

Hey Scribble, first let me say I am not arguing with how you felt about 4e... but I would like to give my take on the things you cite... especially as it compares to 3e.

1. Classes that had definite roles.

This felt to me like how earlier edition classes had roles... Fighters used weapons and armor, thieves had the thief skills, etc...

Can't see it... wasn't my old school fighter both a defender and a striker (like essentials ). I just don't see the roles,in earlier versions of D&D as artificially rigid and sectioned off as they were in classic 4e.

2. In earlier editions fights weren't supposed to be mapped to each die roll. A round was two minutes, and you were supposed to be assumed to be taking all kinds of swings, and movements, and defensive actions... The rolled attacks were just the only ones that mattered game wise.

The way 4e handles things like interrupts and reactions and attacks that just have effects no matter what reminded me of this... It kind of assumes that events are taking place not just on a one roll = one hit basis..

I don't know if I agree with this either. I don't see a bunch of stuff actually happening in less time unless you specifically decide to flavor it as such (or use a special power like a daily or encounter... but then some feats and class abilities in 3.x had the same effect). I guess 4e's lack of fluff and mechanical emphasis where "just make up what is happening" was the rule of the day could certainly cause different people to have totally different views of what a roll to hit means (but when I look at twin strike... I personally see two rolls to hit = two strikes)... and I agree your view is just as valid as any other, but I mean people couldn't even agree on what knocking prone actually meant... or many of the other conditions and actions in classic 4e...as far as what was objectively going on in the gameworld.

3. At the end of a 1e fight (maybe 2e as well?) the rest of the turn was spent like cleaning weapons, recuperating, and stuff...

This reminds me of short rests.

A little confused by this one because well we did this in every edition of D&D... It was formalized into 5 mins with 4e but I'm not seeing this as old school specific. Resting after a fight almost doesn't seem even D&D specific...Lol. In Vampire, after a fight we rest and heal up with blood points...

4. Monsters and PCs use different rules.

This definitely brings me back to old school... Monsters just working by monster rules.

This one I can actually see and agree with. Though I'm not sure which design principle I like better. I definitely think different rules is better from a "sell them more stuff" approach... since crunch can't cross pollinate.

5. Monsters had similar "thematic elements" for categories, but it wasn't based so much on type...

The 4e monster construction reminds me a lot of oldschool, in how the powers they have aren't really based on the creature type. Reading 3e monsters brings me back to older editions and wondering what type of powers the next monster would have, and stuff.

And this does the opposite for me. In oldschool D&D you didn't have 50 million Orc's with slight variations on what their "powers" were... dependant upon an artificial role categorization. In old school D&D a player could actually encounter a monster and learn it's behavior, attacks, etc. in case he encountered it again.

6. Even rituals have a 1e "feel" to them

As strange as that sounds- 1e is filled with places where it talks about needing a magical tome, or manual to do things... For instance the orignal scarecrow mentions needing a magic manual to create one... Rituals being in books that you get specifically for the intended ritual reminds me of this type of thing, just fleshed out.

Rituals and "everyone can cast magic with just a feat", for me is... definitely nowhere near old school. 1e largely used this as fluff that was left in the DM's hands mechanically... 4e formalized it and threw it open to any class who wanted it with a feat and no real DM control. Essentials goes back in the opposite direction.

7. DM arbitration...

In my opinion despite the number of powers and such, 4e (to me) has felt a lot easier for the DM to house rule on the fly when needed. I think it goes back to the way 3e was interconnected.

This reminds me of how the oldschool games were with the rules.


There are other things too, but some of it is just "feel" to me- these are the things that I notice right off the bat though.

Well I don't find 4e particularly easy to houserule for... especially since besides damage there aren't rules for building classes, assigning powers to monsters or even creating original magic items... yet 4e classic has a focus on "balance" at it's heart (which again is definitely not old school). anyway those were just a few of my thoughts on it.

 

[Camelot]

I was introduced to RPGs through 4e in 2008, and I've never played any other editions of D&D and only very few other RPGs (two sessions of SWSE and some Solar System). For me, Essentials doesn't bring back memories or provide me with a system I'm used to. It's an addition to the game that I already play.

I think that Essentials will be invaluable when playing with casual players or introducing new players. Instead of trying to explain everything to them and trying to get them to choose from all those options, I can now give them a simple character based on two decisions they made (race and class) and hand them the Rules Compendium, which is really handy for referencing during the game. For experienced players, it expands the character options in new and interesting ways, such as letting a class have multiple roles and power sources. For the DM, even an experienced one, the new treasure rules, skill challenge outlines, and monster format really help make the game run smoother.

Essentials is not a marketing ploy at all; it's the logical next step in the game's evolution.

 

[Scribble]

Hey Scribble, first let me say I am not arguing with how you felt about 4e... but I would like to give my take on the things you cite... especially as it compares to 3e.

Sure- I'm not saying everyone has to agree- just how I felt.

I'm also not trying to get into a which game feels more oldschool argument or anything. Not even trying to compaire the two games.

My only point about 3e was that with 4e, rather then base 4e on updating 3e, it feels to me like they went back to 1e/2e and updated those rules, using info they learned in 3e.

Can't see it... wasn't my old school fighter both a defender and a striker (like essentials ). I just don't see the roles,in earlier versions of D&D as artificially rigid and sectioned off as they were in classic 4e.

Again I'm not talking about specifics just the idea here.

I'm not saying the 1e fighter was a defender or a striker or whatever. Just that 1e classes in general had a definite "place" in the rules of the game.

I don't know if I agree with this either. I don't see a bunch of stuff actually happening in less time unless you specifically decide to flavor it as such (or use a special power like a daily or encounter... but then some feats and class abilities in 3.x had the same effect). I guess 4e's lack of fluff and mechanical emphasis where "just make up what is happening" was the rule of the day could certainly cause different people to have totally different views of what a roll to hit means (but when I look at twin strike... I personally see two rolls to hit = two strikes)... and I agree your view is just as valid as any other, but I mean people couldn't even agree on what knocking prone actually meant... or many of the other conditions and actions in classic 4e...as far as what was objectively going on in the gameworld.

Sure- we can say it's an opinion thing. To me it feels more oldschool because the oldschool idea was a lot more was happening in a round then just what you rolled for.

I've never looked at the game as mapping straight to the rolls... To me that feels too... robotic, and doesn't feel natural.

It's a personal thing I guess.

A little confused by this one because well we did this in every edition of D&D... It was formalized into 5 mins with 4e but I'm not seeing this as old school specific. Resting after a fight almost doesn't seem even D&D specific...Lol. In Vampire, after a fight we rest and heal up with blood points...

I'm not talking about just players deciding to do stuff after combat. In 1e there was something that was like an official rule that said basically any time left in a full turn after a fight is spent doing this stuff..

I can't remember exactly, and my 1e Dm's guide is packed away in a box somewhere- but basically if you used say 3 rounds out of the turn, the rest of the rounds were spend by the rules doing x... Something like that. That's all- a codified by the rules amount of time after a fight thing- it just feels like a similar idea to me. (Like they might have taken the rule and expanded on what it actually does.)

This one I can actually see and agree with. Though I'm not sure which design principle I like better. I definitely think different rules is better from a "sell them more stuff" approach... since crunch can't cross pollinate.

Shrug- that sounds cynical.

I like it from a easier to design/run monsters standpoint. I don't need all the stuff PCs can do for monsters.

I also like them being different because to me at least, it makes them seem more wondrous... They're alien, and function in suprising and unexpected ways.

I know others differ.

And this does the opposite for me. In oldschool D&D you didn't have 50 million Orc's with slight variations on what their "powers" were... dependant upon an artificial role categorization. In old school D&D a player could actually encounter a monster and learn it's behavior, attacks, etc. in case he encountered it again.

Sure- but that's not so much the part that feels oldschool to me. It's more the idea that it's type doesn't determine what it can do, or how tough it is, et al.

Roles function in a similar veign to how "types" worked in 3e. I think it's the same idea but to me it feels closer to oldschool to have role determine the stuff instead of type.

Rituals and "everyone can cast magic with just a feat", for me is... definitely nowhere near old school. 1e largely used this as fluff that was left in the DM's hands mechanically... 4e formalized it and threw it open to any class who wanted it with a feat and no real DM control. Essentials goes back in the opposite direction.

How so? Rituals are still a part of Essentials, and will be expanded with the upcoming book.

And don't forget in 1e there were scrolls just about anyone could cast, manuals anyone could use, etc.

Again keep in mind I'm saying it feels like an oldschool idea that was expanded on. Like someone saw the mention of tomes and manuals and scrolls anyone could use- and said hey, this is my interpretation.

Well I don't find 4e particularly easy to houserule for... especially since besides damage there aren't rules for building classes, assigning powers to monsters or even creating original magic items... yet 4e classic has a focus on "balance" at it's heart (which again is definitely not old school). anyway those were just a few of my thoughts on it.

Houserulling isn't really the best word admittedly. I mean more along the lines of DM rulling on the fly.