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

[Anathos]

Essentials has been clearly designated as 10 specific products... that do not include rituals...

...yet. Character Compendium is almost certain to include them. Also, some of those products are dungeon tile sets; does this mean you aren't playing Essentials if you use non-Essentials dungeon tiles? And what about settings; are you not playing Essentials if you're playing in the Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun?

EDIT: the more I think about it how is an "Essentials" game a houserule when they are a seperate line of products specifically designated as "Essentials"?

Essentials forms a separate product line, not a separate game line.

 

[Imaro]

...yet. Character Compendium is almost certain to include them. Also, some of those products are dungeon tile sets; does this mean you aren't playing Essentials if you use non-Essentials dungeon tiles? And what about settings; are you not playing Essentials if you're playing in the Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun?

Not sure what Character Compendium has to do with this... it's not an Essentials book.

If you play in Dark Sun or FR I would argue you aren't playing in an "Essentials" game since I assume you are using material outside of the Essentials rulebooks... like swordmages or templates... IMO, that's houseruling Essentials with material from those lines.

As far as tiles go... they are not part of the essentials rules so yes you can play an "Essentials" game without using them... especially since some of the essentials products come with maps you could be using instead.

EDIT: On a more serious note the tile thing is moving into the land of purposefully being absurd as Scribble and I were clearly discussing the rules aspects of "Essential" products.

 

[Imaro]

Essentials forms a separate product line, not a separate game line.

Yep, just like FR and Eberron... and I am not houseruling my FR game by only including FR material.

 

[Anathos]

Not sure what Character Compendium has to do with this... it's not an Essentials book.

If you play in Dark Sun or FR I would argue you aren't playing in an "Essentials" game since I assume you are using material outside of the Essentials rulebooks... like swordmages or templates... IMO, that's houseruling Essentials with material from those lines.

As far as tiles go... they are not part of the essentials rules so yes you can play an "Essentials" game without using them... especially since some of the essentials products come with maps you could be using instead.

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further. You have a disturbing obsession with arbitrary labels (Class Compendium not being Essentials? Don't be ridiculous, it clearly is no matter what subtitle they slap on the box) and avoiding being seen as "house ruling". I think getting you to see past this is a fruitless endeavor and I refuse to waste any more of my time trying.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not going to discuss this with you any further. You have a disturbing obsession with arbitrary labels (Class Compendium not being Essentials? Don't be ridiculous, it clearly is no matter what subtitle they slap on the box) and avoiding being seen as "house ruling". I think getting you to see past this is a fruitless endeavor and I refuse to waste any more of time time trying.

First off, you're the one who wasted all these posts on trying to show me the "error" of my ways in whether an essentials game is a houserule or not... when you weren't even involved in the original discussion anyway... since we're commenting on peoples obsessions without any type of real knowledge about them.

Now you're claiming it doesn't matter whether a product is labeled "Essentials" or not... because even though it's not... it is. There... It's just like my Eberron labeled books that are really FR books because I can choose to use the material in a FR game (oh, yeah and if I don't I'm houseruling my FR game)... only, yeah it's not FR material... it's Eberron material. I can choose to use it in FR but that doesn't change what it is. With logic like this how can I not agree with your point... You're right it is a waste of time to continue this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

This is, to me, the big thing that Essentials is starting to recapture that the first few years of 4e jettisoned (for what reasons? who knows?).

At first, 4e seemed like it was basically that surface game. There was a story, but it was nothing the game would really help you with, and what little advice was given ran largely counter the stories I had been telling with D&D up until that point ("gold dragons are benevolent" and "tieflings are rejected bastard-children" became house rules).

Essentials seems to be telling me, "Here are the newest rules to help you tell that story that you have been telling, and to help you come up with new ones."

That's the feeling I had with 3e, too. That's the feeling I'd like to have with a new edition.

That's also why I want better noncombat rules than skill challenges, but that's an old axe to grind.

 

[Kralin Thornberry]

No need to be sorry, we are all entitled to an opinion, especially when it comes to taste. While the goal of this thread was not to debate whether we like Essentials more than Core or vise-versa, the quote below made me curious.

Could you elaborate on that?

Sure, and I am glad to see that we can "disagree" (which again really isn't the word choice I really want to use) without "disagreeing", because you're right, it is a matter of taste.

Essentials clerics now have the daily standard ability to resurrect, which was a based off of a (free) ritual caster feat, but also required time, money and/or component costs. They also gain an additional domain utility power at 1st level (and yeah, I know that casting light or creating water isn't game breaking, but it adds to "power"), holy cleansing and only lose the healer's lore.

I won't get started on how the new Earth domain cleric > Divine Power Earth Domain cleric.

Mages still have the cantrips, they gain school abilities (1st, 4th, 5th, 8th & 10th), gain magic missile for free (and hey, a human mage now has 4 at-wills!). Again, none are "game breaking" but they are a step up on the standard 4E wizard.

I personally think that the fighter builds and the rogue build are all steps backwards (I feel like it's "I stand like this and swing my <insert weapon here>" every round, with no encounters (except extra 1[w] damage a few times an encounter as you go one) or the thief's moves) or dailies).

Again, don't think that I "hate" essentials, I don't. They are fine when played with other essentials classes, and they stand up fine with the other classes, but we decided that they are "compatible" and not "interchangeable".

 

[ourchair]

Anyway, I do not think its a marketing ploy, at least not as Athanos seems to insinuate it is. I agree that it is intentional that the classes look and feel more like the 1e/2e classes, since they (wotc) are going after lapsed players with the Essentials, while providing an easier entrance to D&D. It is however not just that, as I think the E-classes are different enough to warrant the E-label. Meaning that the E-classes will play differently than the Core classes. Now, if that is true, then 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?

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a marketing ploy unless marketing actually went down to R&D and passed down a executive-approved mandate of, "You need to make it more 3e like so it'll appeal to Pathfinder players" or "Bill says he wants it to be more 1e."

Granted, what they're doing now with Essentials and the design direction after are in a sense addressing THAT, but that's merely a convenient confluence between the desire to make changes in design philosophy, crunch-fluff development, et al AND the contrivances of a new marketing angle.

Another thing: As I've said in other threads, you can't reduce an entire demographic of gamers to one psychetype (I just made a word!) so I'd be hardpressed to say that Essentials is unequivocally designed as more old school because it is aimed at old school players.

My take on it is that they've decided to find new ways to build things or write material within the existing rules framework (4E) that would appeal to players who aren't playing. (i.e. completely different ways of building classes, fluff-rich approach to monster presentation, rethinking treasure distribution and item rarities)

 

[Jack99]

This is, to me, the big thing that Essentials is starting to recapture that the first few years of 4e jettisoned (for what reasons? who knows?).

At first, 4e seemed like it was basically that surface game. There was a story, but it was nothing the game would really help you with, and what little advice was given ran largely counter the stories I had been telling with D&D up until that point ("gold dragons are benevolent" and "tieflings are rejected bastard-children" became house rules).

Essentials seems to be telling me, "Here are the newest rules to help you tell that story that you have been telling, and to help you come up with new ones."

That's the feeling I had with 3e, too. That's the feeling I'd like to have with a new edition.

That's also why I want better noncombat rules than skill challenges, but that's an old axe to grind.

First of all, thanks for getting this thread back on track.

Second of all, thanks for putting into words something I have been struggling to do. I do actually think you are right. Core 4e is this "surface" game. I however was very happy with it, because I always believed it wouldn't matter. Roleplaying and immersion doesn't come from the books, especially not the rules, but from us, the DM's and the players.

What I have been realizing, slowly, is that in fact 4e has made my group more grid-centric, more focused on what the character can do in combat. Its been slowly creeping up on us, and while I had a feeling of je ne sais quoi, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong. It's not that it is a huge problem, my players all seem happy enough with the game, but there is this feeling that we lost some of the magic along the way.

Of course, it might not be 4e that has done this. Maybe its us getting older, maybe it's something else entirely. But I do get a totally different vibe when reading stuff from WotC lately - especially Essentials, but also some of the dragon/dungeon articles who seem much more.. alive(?)

Sure, and I am glad to see that we can "disagree" (which again really isn't the word choice I really want to use) without "disagreeing", because you're right, it is a matter of taste.

Essentials clerics now have the daily standard ability to resurrect, which was a based off of a (free) ritual caster feat, but also required time, money and/or component costs. They also gain an additional domain utility power at 1st level (and yeah, I know that casting light or creating water isn't game breaking, but it adds to "power"), holy cleansing and only lose the healer's lore.

I won't get started on how the new Earth domain cleric > Divine Power Earth Domain cleric.

Mages still have the cantrips, they gain school abilities (1st, 4th, 5th, 8th & 10th), gain magic missile for free (and hey, a human mage now has 4 at-wills!). Again, none are "game breaking" but they are a step up on the standard 4E wizard.

I personally think that the fighter builds and the rogue build are all steps backwards (I feel like it's "I stand like this and swing my <insert weapon here>" every round, with no encounters (except extra 1[w] damage a few times an encounter as you go one) or the thief's moves) or dailies).

Again, don't think that I "hate" essentials, I don't. They are fine when played with other essentials classes, and they stand up fine with the other classes, but we decided that they are "compatible" and not "interchangeable".

Fair enough. Despite your reasonable arguments, I must admit that I still disagree with you. The warpriest, which I would compare to either the Str-cleric or the Runepriest, might be a tad more powerful, but both those classes/builds were somewhat below the powercurve, unless heavily optimized.

As for the mage, yeah, there is a slight boost to what is already considered the strongest controller, I will give you that. I will still argue that to compare his relative overpoweredness to that of previous editions, or saying its heading in that direction, is like comparing apples to oranges. The wizard of old was so broken that he could run around circles with just about anyone - even if naked

 

[Mercurius]

Second of all, thanks for putting into words something I have been struggling to do. I do actually think you are right. Core 4e is this "surface" game. I however was very happy with it, because I always believed it wouldn't matter. Roleplaying and immersion doesn't come from the books, especially not the rules, but from us, the DM's and the players.

What I have been realizing, slowly, is that in fact 4e has made my group more grid-centric, more focused on what the character can do in combat. Its been slowly creeping up on us, and while I had a feeling of je ne sais quoi, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong. It's not that it is a huge problem, my players all seem happy enough with the game, but there is this feeling that we lost some of the magic along the way.

Of course, it might not be 4e that has done this. Maybe its us getting older, maybe it's something else entirely. But I do get a totally different vibe when reading stuff from WotC lately - especially Essentials, but also some of the dragon/dungeon articles who seem much more.. alive(?)

This is very interesting. Your experience is somewhat similar to mine, although I have largely attributed this "grid-centricity" to the DM's (that's me) busy life and thus lack of prep time and reliance on published adventures (I've been modifying them slightly and interspersing them with homebrew stuff). I have thought, as you said, that roleplaying an immersion doesn't come from the rules but the players, especially the DM. It certainly seems that 4E has a more grid-centric vibe than even 3E (which also had its problems or way of pulling the game away from the story, which I would characterize as being overly oriented towards rules mastery).

As an aside, I think it has to do with the fact that 4E is, more than any other edition of D&D, basically a bifurcated game: There is combat, which is grid-centric and basically a tactical war game, and then there is non-combat, which is off the grid, story focused, with less rules for non-combat situations than before. The "problem," such as it is, might be the transition and contrast between the two. I don't think the "solution," however, is to make more non-combat rules, as some seem to think, but to lessen the reliance upon the grid and thus make the transition from non-combat to combat less jarring, and thus the contrast less stark.

Back to your comments, what in particular within the Essentials corpus--even specific Dragon and Dungeon articles--exemplifies this feeling of "aliveness"?