Essentials doing what it was supposed to do?

[Mercurius]

So Korgoth, are you saying that the difference for you simply comes down to how they are asking you to buy the product? Where before you felt slighted or ignored now you feel honored and noticed, so you'll buy the stuff?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why would a narrative RPG help with understanding fighter daily powers?

It's spotlight sharing. The mindset that everyone has moments to "Do something very cool."

 

[Korgoth]

So Korgoth, are you saying that the difference for you simply comes down to how they are asking you to buy the product? Where before you felt slighted or ignored now you feel honored and noticed, so you'll buy the stuff?

That's definitely part of it.

It's not the whole of it... for example, I finally found someone who runs 4E in a way that makes it an enjoyable game for me. So now I know that's even possible. And I like some of the decisions they're making with Essentials, and I like the format, etc.

But I don't like to give my "fun money" to people who appear to hold me in contempt. As with many things in life, sometimes it all just comes down to how nicely you ask.

 

[Mercurius]

That's definitely part of it.

It's not the whole of it... for example, I finally found someone who runs 4E in a way that makes it an enjoyable game for me. So now I know that's even possible. And I like some of the decisions they're making with Essentials, and I like the format, etc.

But I don't like to give my "fun money" to people who appear to hold me in contempt. As with many things in life, sometimes it all just comes down to how nicely you ask.

Yes, good point. And I think this is one of the reasons why D&D isn't morepopular, and why 4E hasn't gotten a larger share of the 3.x pie. TSR had quite a history of bad PR and WotC, at least recently, seems to have inherited it. For many, it seemed, the outright marketing of 4E to young 'uns seemed like a dis to the old 'uns. "What? Dragonborn? Elves without whites in their eyes? Powers for fighters?" Plus there was the art and the general aesthetic, which seemed more geared towards a 14-year old than a 40-year old. Fair enough. But then there were some minor and major PR guffaws, from the GSL debacle, the PDF snafu, the delay and downsizing of D&D Insider, tons of errata evidencing poor editing, some rules quirks evidencing rushed playtesting, relatively mild but hurtful (to some) remarks about 3.5 being suckier, etc.

This is hardly a new phenomena: A company wants to appeal to a new, larger market but forgets their base, who they seemingly took for granted. One major problem was the relative lack of playtesting and the fact that WotC was sharing pretty much nothing about the system. But WotC doesn't seem to know what Paizo, for instance, does seem to know: That RPGers are a finicky and very sensitive bunch. Combine that with above average intelligence and vivid imaginations and you have a very delicate situation.

Evidently WotC is trying to KO two birds with one bola: lapsed D&D players from 3.5 and before with the kitschy ads, the Elmore Red Box, and the power-free martial characters; and new players with the big store products and easier intro sets. It will be interesting to see where we are a year from now; either 4.Essentials will be booming and in full swing, or there will be downsizing and rumblings about 5E being sooner than later.

What a wacky world this RPG industry is!

 

[Scribble]

To put it another way, if Essentials is really drawing back lapsed players that didn't want to play 4E then WotC has successfully pulled the wool over said peoples' eyes.

I think that part of the formatting is the integration of the flavor- and I think that has a LOT to do with the game having a different tone really.

For many, without that flavor the game just feels like a bunch of numbers, and geared towards combat, and those numbers. Adding a bit more flavor, makes the books "can readable," and gets more people's imagination going about the game.

Added to this is how they've also integrated the flavor into the rest of the rules as well- which helps explain how say, a power fits into the world, and not just the game.

 

[Mercurius]

I think that part of the formatting is the integration of the flavor- and I think that has a LOT to do with the game having a different tone really.

For many, without that flavor the game just feels like a bunch of numbers, and geared towards combat, and those numbers. Adding a bit more flavor, makes the books "can readable," and gets more people's imagination going about the game.

Added to this is how they've also integrated the flavor into the rest of the rules as well- which helps explain how say, a power fits into the world, and not just the game.

Fair enough. Actually, if I remember correctly a lot of folks were excited about 4E when the preview Worlds & Monsters came out, which was all flavor/fluff. And I also remember the disappointment with the Monster Manual and its lack of flavor text (I have been tempted to buy the Pathfinder Bestiary just for the excellent flavor text, even though I don't play Pathfinder).

On the other hand, has this really changed with Essentials? If it has, I don't think it is a contributing factor for lapsed players buying it or not. My point was that WotC gambled that lapsed players - both disgruntled 3.xists and Gen X Target-shopping dads who haven't played since the 80s - might be attracted to the Red Box and pick it up on a whim. We shall see if this worked.

 

[Scribble]

My point was that WotC gambled that lapsed players - both disgruntled 3.xists and Gen X Target-shopping dads who haven't played since the 80s - might be attracted to the Red Box and pick it up on a whim. We shall see if this worked.

Well- I think ultimately the redbox thing wasn't for getting players long since lapsed back into the game per sey... But I think they definitely wanted it to be as recognizable as possible for those people to entice them to get that box for their kids or nephews and nieces and such.

For the lapsed 3e players- it seems they're doing other things... Part of it being the flavor, part of it being some of the new classes, and how the rules integrate with the world, etc...

(For instance there's a power in the essentials book that is basically CAGI reworked to answer some of the critiques of the original power... It pretty much does exactly what the other power did, but now has a little more flavor/rules to help explain how it works.)

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I
2) Martial characters without daily (and encounter?) powers.

and with differently presented/workin at-wills

now a Knight is not using an at-will power to dish out more damage....

now a Knight is an offensive stance (something very martial) that let him dish out more damage...

subtle but much easier to understand

(it's easier to imagine of a mage using a "power" at-will or daily, of a fighter getting in a stance and of a thief pulling out a trick...)

 

[TarionzCousin]

Was Essentials supposed to jump-start the Edition Wars/4.5 Speculation? If so, then yes.




I've only skimmed the first class book, but I like it. Some of the stuff is very cool.

However, I've been playing 4E since the playtesting, so no hug for me.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You know... when I was young (8) and playing AD&D, I was always unhappy with daily spells, and how magic worked. Re-memorizing spells every morning... bah! It was one of many reasons why I looked at other game systems.

It made no sense to me. So... adding more of it (Martial Dailies) wasn't a leap for me.

Well, I always understood what the concept was. Although, I admit that it seemed like a pain to constantly have to reprepare spells. But we bought the line at the time that it was the balancing factor. It wasn't until a couple of years after 3e came out that I starting realizing that it wasn't really a balancing factor at all.

I prefer to think of the powers, in kind of a retro coolness fashion. i.e. I attacked, and THIS happened. Cool! There is no doubt that the fights 4e are cinematic and oozing with fun.

And I agree. That's how I think of it as well. I can easily divorce the rules of the game from what actually happens in the game, however. I've realized due to some discussions here that is not the case for everyone.

Many people need to see a 1 to 1 correlation between their choices and the choices of their character. If they decide to use a power, their character is actively deciding to use that power. They can't get into the mindset of a character who can do 50 points of damage to an enemy and knock them back 5 squares once but when they try again, they are inexplicably prevented from doing so. I understand the frustration. I just don't understand how people are not able to change their mindset so they no longer assume this is the case.

I do feel that there are other issues with 4e that players of previous editions will have problems with, and are simply being side stepped for now. For instance, combat is re-calibrated for 5 on 5, there is less 'realism' in 4e, etc. The expectation of magic augmentation. All of that stuff is still a leap... for them.

Most of that stuff was similar in 3.5e. The expectation of magic augmentation hasn't changed, for instance. The re-calibration to 5 on 5 instead of 4 on 1 isn't something most non-DMs even notice.

It's a bigger leap from 2e to 4e, but in most 2e games you could really expect to have quite a few magic items at higher levels. Many of the higher level monsters required a certain plus weapon to hit, so DMs gave them out. Unless you get involved deeply in the rules, you likely won't notice that you "need" a +3 weapon by the time you are level 11. Your DM will just give you one and you won't think anything of it.

The "realism" thing tends to be the one big leap for most people from previous editions. But I haven't found it to be a big deal for most of my friends when switching. For the most part they are freaked out for a session or two when kobolds have 30 hitpoints, and don't quite get how something that weak should take more than one hit to go down. But they get used to it.