D&D Essentials - What they are and who they're for

[Dice4Hire]

Come on.. why'd you have to go there?

Well, this many posts without a mod warning just isn't Enworld these days.

 

[WheresMyD20]

My understanding is that Basic and 1e AD&D weren't very compatible at all.

Speaking as someone who has played quite a bit of both, my experience is that they are quite compatible (I'd say about 95%). Modules written for Basic (any version) are usable with AD&D (either edition) and vice versa. Actually, a lot of people who play the old editions mix AD&D (both versions) and Basic rules. Works just fine.

and it's a damn sight easier to learn than it was back in 1981, too.

Since they haven't released D&D Essentials yet, I'm not sure what you're basing this comment on. Are you saying that the current 4e rules are simpler than the '81 Basic rules?

 

[doctorhook]

Since they haven't released D&D Essentials yet, I'm not sure what you're basing this comment on. Are you saying that the current 4e rules are simpler than the '81 Basic rules?

IMHO, yes. 4E's rules are dirt-simple and highly consistent at their core. My limited experience with Basic suggests that this was not the case in the '80s. However, let me be the first to say that YMMV.

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound disparaging to Basic D&D. Rather, I was simply trying to argue why I don't believe the "transition barrier" between Holmes' Basic and 1e AD&D will happen with the 4E Starter Set and 'Core' 4E.

EDIT: I like this thread a lot, and the last thing I want is for it to be closed. Let's all be friends.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, I wouldn't say that the rules are simpler these days per se, but being the same ruleset means that when they decide to buy the PHB (say, because it contains most of the compact info RIGHT THERE!), they don't need to learn a new game.

 

[Blastin]

One other clarification. I noticed in one of the ampersand articles (I think it was last month) that they mentioned that the terrain sets are also packaged in a box, and the back of the box has a printed grid so it could be used as raised terrain. I like it a lot.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I'm really looking forward to this line! The Ralph Horsley covers are very evocative!

Yes I am enjoying his art more and more.

 

[MerricB]

IMHO, yes. 4E's rules are dirt-simple and highly consistent at their core. My limited experience with Basic suggests that this was not the case in the '80s. However, let me be the first to say that YMMV.

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound disparaging to Basic D&D. Rather, I was simply trying to argue why I don't believe the "transition barrier" between Holmes' Basic and 1e AD&D will happen with the 4E Starter Set and 'Core' 4E.

EDIT: I like this thread a lot, and the last thing I want is for it to be closed. Let's all be friends.

Just a note before we return to discussion of the 4E set...

The Holmes (1979) edition of D&D Basic is very much an introduction to original D&D, not AD&D (although it incorporated a couple of prototype AD&D mechanics). I've never found it to be the clearest of rule sets - but it's much clearer than oD&D was. I think TSR wanted it to be an introduction to AD&D, but it was designed for oD&D and it shows.

The Moldvay (1981) and Mentzer (1983) editions of D&D Basic are a lot clearer and have what I call pretty clean rulesets; however, they're quite divorced from the mechanics of AD&D. (Combat and Monsters are fairly similar, which is why you could swap modules between the two so easily; the actual mechanics of PCs differ far more).

From 3E onwards, the Basic sets have been deliberately designed to introduce you to the full D&D, containing a cut-down set of rules of the full game. Most of the mechanics have been the same, which is not really the case between pre-3E Basic D&D and any version of AD&D. The Essentials line is a quite different way of doing it, putting more of an interim step... which might not be considered an interim step!

Cheers!

 

[WheresMyD20]

Ok, let me get back on topic here - 4e Essentials. The reason I think there might be a transition barrier is that the Starter Set is only 96 pages total. The combat chapter alone in the PHB is 32 pages. The full Rules Compendium is slated to be 320 pages. The numbers suggest to me that the rules in the Starter Set might be significantly truncated.

Of course, we won't know until it comes out, but I can imagine that things like the rules for grappling, rituals, and other non-essentials might not make the cut. After all, it would probably make sense not to overwhelm new players with rules that aren't at the core of the game. If that's the case, then, yes, D&D Essentials will be the same 4e - although just a subset of the full 4e rules. Not different rules, just fewer of them... and if there are fewer rules in the Starter Set, new players may want to stick with that subset rather than going for the full 4e.

Anyway, that's why I think there might be a transition barrier. Or, at the very least, a desire to be able to play levels 4-30 using the Starter Set subset of the rules. Then again, it's impossible to tell until we actually see the Starter Set and what's inside of it.

 

[darjr]

That might not be so bad. Especially if it does get a lot of new players. I mean the basic/expert rules were done again for BECMI as a second attempt of sorts to keep that audience, sorta. I don't think I'd mind.

 

[MerricB]

This is a qoute from what you have read? Its very much out of charecter for the company that makes D&D to stop doing something when it seems successfull (it is very much in charecter to do it and do it and drive it right into the ground).

Oh, it wouldn't surprise me if they do more products in the essentials format once they see how they do. However, the word so far has been they're back to regular products after they've got through the 10 essentials.

Well, sort of regular...

"We’re going to continue to use the lessons we learned from Essentials while applying the innovation and design we’re known for."

"These products will include our traditional formats, but you’ll also see new formats as well."

-- Bill Slavicsek, D&D Ampersand, March 2010