For some people, adding "what do I do next" to that level of tactical battlefield gaming is just too much.
Still not sure I buy that. I mean, I've seen players of all levels of experience stall out when trying to decide their characters' next actions. But, you also see them bored or disaffected when there seem to be too few choices (or no good ones).
I guess I don't see it as a 'class of gamer' issue, it seems more situational to me. Nor do I see singling out one power source to be simplistic as a good solution, even if the problem is real.
It would make a lot of sense to assume that new gamers would find a fewer-decision-point class more desireable. It doesn't match my exeperience, though. New gamers are often very much engaged, since it's all well, new, and exciting to them. Enthusiasm can push you pretty quickly up the steep first steps of the learning curve, aparently.
You say you're not well-qualified to evaluate analytical versus creative players. Fine. I'll ask this. What do your people DO for a living? How about for fun other than D&D? What did they study?
Don't know for all of 'em, since many are just folks I ran an intro game for or played in a 4e game with (4e convention games attract a lot of 'old new' players looking to give it a try), and never got to know personally at all. Whether they were new to 4e and what D&D they'd played before pretty dependably came up though.
The ones I do know enough about:
continuing gamers (3.5 to 4e):
English Major; 'Lead' video game QA; video, board & card games, MMOs
Master's in History; unemployed stock broker/video game QA; MMOs
Graphic Artist; video game QA/firearms instructor; video games
Japanese Language; translator; otaku
History major; high school teacher; art films, comics
British Litterature; nanny; SCA
The category I've actually seen the most is 3.x players 'trying out' 4e at a convention, and dissing it from the moment they sit down. The first year I played 4e at cons, one or two players at any given table would fall into that category - playing in the hopes of seeing the system suck. "I thought I'd try out this new table-top version of WoW I've been hearing about." "So, this is the new dumbed-down D&D." "I guess my rogue will use a dagger, since choice and character development are no longer part of the game..."
'old new' gamers (2e or earlier to 3e):
Math major; JCL programmer; amature theatre
some college; Homemaker; ?
?; IT consultant; RenFair, spinning/weaving
?; high school counsellor; RenFair, board games
some college; paralegal; convention & ebay seller
?; perm. disabled; B-movies, convention & ebay seller
veteran; ?; board games
'new new' gamers:
middle school student; on-line games (not RPG/MMO)
middle school student; dance/music/theatre (little ham-actor, really)
grade school student; ?
? ;? Father; CCGs
Law school student; ?
Because I run and play 4e at conventions, I've seen a lot of people play 4e for the first time, but I really don't know anything about most of them, beyond what eds they'd played before. That's the first thing you ask, really, if they played 3.x, you don't have to explain OAs, but do need to explain that there's no OA for standing up anymore, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc...
This approach doesn't really solve the problem of complexity in play. Sure, it's easier when you level, but the player still faces as many choices in play as before. Sure, it's less of an issue at 1st-level, but we're talking about ~10 powers (not counting utilities) by mid-levels. That's a LOT. It can very quickly get overwhelming.
The biggest hurdle for a new player is building a character, or even deciding on a character class. The Boxed Set pick-your-path character generation seems like a very cool way of tackling that. But, mostly, if you run an intro game, you just bring pre-gens. It's simple enough, and Character Builder prints out 'cards' of each power, which seem to work quite intuitively for newer players (and really flumox older ones - maybe it's CCG prejudice?).
You make a lot of assertions about how changing resource management alters class balance. I acknowledge that it could, but I'm less convinced than you are that it DOES.
I make the assertion only because it's true. The degree to which balance is impacted depends on a lot of factors, more factors than class balance depends upon in 4e, precisely because Essentials does alter class balance. In 4e, for instance, the choice of how many encounter per day you use does not impact class balance. It impacts /encounter/ balance in a way that may be difficult to compensate for, but class balances isn't an issue. In Essentials, if there's a martial class present, encounters/day becomes a factor in achieving and maintaining class balance. There's really no arguing that balance doesn't change - but, yes, it is entirely possible that a given DM with a given group with a given play style may play in a manner that compensates or avoids the imbalance. It was possible to enforce class balance on 3.5 if the DM was sufficiently committed to it, and the players showed some small restraint in powergaming.
I freely admit that the easiest way to balance classes is to give everyone an equal number of powers that they can use the exact same number of times. And then those powers have to do the exact same thing, and the classes have to have the exact same role in the game.
Very funny. However, reductio-ad-absurdum as that may sound to you, it's true. Each thing you do to make a class mechanically different introduces imbalances between it and other classes. The more differences, the greater the imbalance, and the more it falls on the DM customizing challenges and the players exercising restraint to maintain balance. Essentials adds a few classes that are radically different from the others, mechanically. That is inevitably going to impact class balance. The question that can't be answered is how much, and how hard will it be for the DM to engineer class balance back into his campaign.
4e set about giving all classes the same number and aproximate effectiveness of powers, using more or less universal mechanics for all of them - just in different ways and with various 'exceptions.' Aside from the exception-based angle, it was a very good aproach to creating as much class balance as possible, within the system itself. The burden on DMs and players to maintain class balance was quite limitted and manageable.
Sorry, using "different level progressions" to claim increased complexity is a fallacy. That's because the complexity of levelling up happens out of game. What these classes are about is addressing complexity in play. That's two totally different things. Nobody I know has ever been horribly confused when leveling up in 4e.
Leveling up in 4e is kept quite easy to explain and understand, because all classes level up in about the same way. A player introduces with Essentials, OTOH, will encounter a new learning curve if, after playing a martial character for a number of levels, he tries out another source and find it works quite differently.
Chargen and level-up occur outside of play, but they can represent a great deal of thought and effort for the player as he explores all the options. For a new player, even /choosing/ a class can be quite intimidating, since you have to familiarize yourself to some degree with all the classes to make the choice. Levelling up is similar. If you want to level up a Mage, you need to read, understand, and evaluate which /two/ of the several powers available at that level you want. If you level up a Knight, you just write down what you get for that level. That makes the Knight 'easier' at level up. When choosing a Knight vs a Mage vs whatever, though, the fact that they have different progressions makes the task of understanding each class enough to make a choice among them more difficult. So, to achieve ease of leveling up for players who choose certain classes, Essentials makes the choice of class harder up front and the game more complex overall.
I freely admit that simplifying the martial classes is catering specifically to the nostalgia crowd.
OK, then. I'll buy that it's a 'killing two birds' move, to cater to players who are percieved as needing a 'simpler' class to play, and those who want to see martial classes reduced to their former status, at the same time.
Now, I've heard you and others claim that there's no need for varying levels of complexity.
The current level of complexity - or let's say, effort or 'system mastery' required to get a viable character - at chargen, level-up, and in play is very low, right now. Thus the frequent 'dumbed down for the WoW kids' complaint. Making it lower would seem pointless, but, most of the Essentials classes don't deliver that, anyway. The Warpriest is slightly less complex in choices at chargen and level-up (which you say is irrellevant), the martial classes even less so, while the Mage is if anything slightly more so. But, you claim, chargen doesn't matter, just play. Well, the Warpriest and Mage are identical in play to 4e classes. The martial classes are different - you choose a stance or trick instead of an at-will. You choose to use your encounter after you hit instead of before you attack. You don't get dailies. That should be at least a little simpler in play, mainly because of the lack of dailies and after-the-fact encounter choice.
I've seen evidence that a demand exists, and I think WotC wouldn't be doing this unless they possessed that evidence in spades, but maybe we're wrong.
I understand the assumption that 'WotC wouldn't do X unless X was demanded by players/a good idea,' but, really, they're a long, long way from infallible, and that logic rests on infallibility. So, I'm going to discount it. Completely. I have no doubt they're making every effort to make the best business decision for the line, and that they're competent to make those decisions. Such decisions are difficult, and customers are fickle, though, so that means I have respect for WotC's ability to pull it off - but no faith in that ability. I'll believe it when I see it.
As far as the 'demand' goes, the loudest demands I have heard have been from those who want to see 3.5 come back and 4e disapear. I wish they'd just be happy with pathfinder and leave off the whining, but whatever. WotC has to make the best business decision they can, and if the kind of 'great game' that 4e represents just isn't an economically viable product - if more fans willing to blow more money want nostalgia and exploitability over game balance and playability - that's all there is to it, the customer is always right.
I think part of this is some current 4e customers feeling proprietary about THEIR edition of D&D. They love 4e, and they were loyal damnit! So WotC should cater to them, and only them. By their thinking, the grognards and old-timers can just like it or lump it. After all, for those who want old school gaming, there's Pathfinder.
And I suppose that's a fine attitude for someone to take. But as a business, WotC HAS to be interested in ways that it could, just maybe, win back some old customers without totally alienating current ones. And when I say "old," I don't necessarily mean just people who last played 3.5 or 3e, but maybe people whose last D&D purchase was BECMI, or had an "A" before "D&D."
That is, indeed, very much what's going on here. I liked 3.x when it was current. It was better than the prior editions. I didn't always feel 2e was particularly better than 1e. I do feel that 4e is much better than prior eds, and in certain ways, it's by a large margin. Having a version of D&D as good as 4e is great for those of us who kinda like D&D nostalgia, but really insist on a game that doesn't suck. Having Pathfinder as concurrently-supported alternative is great for those who prefered 3.5 - and for Paizo. It's not so great for WotC, they'd rather both sets of potential customers be buying from them.
So, yeah, I can totally see them wanting to try to finesse Essentials so it brings in new players, old players, and retains current players. I can see them wanting that. I can't realistically see them succeeding. I also can't help but notice that whining gets results. So, yes, I'm going to be vocal about what I like in 4e and what changes would ruin it for me. If Essentials fails to pull in the kind of audience they're hoping for, I want them to know that the 4e customer base is there waiting for them if they ever want to put out a quality system again. And, if Essentials is successful, I still want them to know that there's demand for balance & playability in those products, as well as for nostalgia or simulationism or rewarded system mastery.
