Essentials: which new players?

[Garthanos]

The problem is neither of those definitions explains this:

"If it's they're ordinary techniques, why can I use someone whenever I feel like, others once an encounter and still others only once a day? That doesn't make any sense."

Sorry you missed the words exploiting opportunities? when do the opportunities happen? I guess it must be based on chance and the chaos of the battle scene itself. (sure we know the player and game pacing controls it)

Hell the point of narrative influence is pretty basic not all a players choices are directly the characters choices.

Presumably the character may be attempting some of those things many times with never the right ingredients in place.. but when it comes together it happens. Most kids these days see lots of it in there fantasy fiction (say Inuyasha for example)

 

[JohnSnow]

Sorry you missed the words exploiting opportunities? when do the opportunities happen? I guess it must be based on chance and the chaos of the battle scene itself.

Yes, but the point is that it's the player who decides when those opportunities arise. To the character, they just happen. That mental disconnect between player choice and character choice is the problem that's hard to explain to people. And it's impossible to do it quickly.

Look, I get it. I can justify how it works. But I have trouble explaining it to players who don't in a way that isn't the metagame explanation from hell. For some players, that's a problem. It spoils their fun that their character's choices are different from their own. You're free to think that these people are somehow "wrong," but the fact is that they do exist.

Make sense?

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, but the point is that it's the player who decides when those opportunities arise. To the character, they just happen. That mental disconnect between player choice and character choice is the problem that's hard to explain to people. And it's impossible to do it quickly.

I call foul It isnt hard to explain at all its just resisted by some specific individuals who want a pure immersive role play ... thats not going to be coming from the true newbie either.

 

[JohnSnow]

I call foul It isnt hard to explain at all its just resisted by some specific individuals who want a pure immersive role play ... thats not going to be coming from the true newbie either.

You can call foul all you want. The guys at WotC have told us they have customer surveys asking for this. They've told us they have done research and this is something that is desired by their market.

It's fine for one of us to have the opinion that it's unnecessary, but a smart company caters to what their customers as a whole ask for, rather than getting caught up in how they feel it should be. That's just smart business. Anecdotal evidence is worthless, but if you're willing to listen, it can tell you that there are people who like this change. You may not have run into them, but I have.

WotC says there's more of them out there, and I'm willing to believe them.

 

[Garthanos]

You can call foul all you want. The guys at WotC have told us they have customer surveys asking for this. They've told us they have done research and this is something that is desired by their market. .

Which supports the research was for tadah not true newbies.

Oh I also call foul on why does the miracle worker always succeed calling down a major miracle (daily) once per day? You didnt in your explanation really cover anything of that.. and you expect similar for other folks one liners.

I mean to me shouldn't the actual activities of this holy man affect his chances or something if he is heavily fighting the evil wouldnt the divine be granting its support more often? (action points might simluate this concept better too).

Our action points those are meta information too.. immersive players really really hate those. And truly immersive players prefer not to know what there hit points are or how much damage there attacks deal they just want a description.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You can call foul all you want. The guys at WotC have told us they have customer surveys asking for this. They've told us they have done research and this is something that is desired by their market.

It's fine for one of us to have the opinion that it's unnecessary, but a smart company caters to what their customers as a whole ask for, rather than getting caught up in how they feel it should be. That's just smart business. Anecdotal evidence is worthless, but if you're willing to listen, it can tell you that there are people who like this change. You may not have run into them, but I have.

WotC says there's more of them out there, and I'm willing to believe them.

Well, actually I don't think any of us KNOW what WotC's customer research says. Or maybe someone here does, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest they aren't posting in this thread.

Here's the funny part, the Knight, Slayer, and Thief aren't any less bound by the power mechanic and frequency of use than any other character. How many times PER ENCOUNTER can you do a Power Strike or a Backstab? Limited use mechanics didn't go away. Daily and Encounter item powers aren't going away either. The mechanic is alive and well. At best daily power mechanics are now limited to items for these 3 builds (and presumably for however many ranger builds there are).

Honestly, I think these classes are designed to reduce the necessity to make tactical decisions, somewhat simplify resource management, and mostly to remove the need to make a lot of choices during character construction. Especially when you're dealing with kids you really don't have to seek to limit elaborate justifications (or elegant explanations) for things like martial encounter and daily powers. These are kids, they'll just take it in stride just like we took Vancian spell casting in stride in our day.

99% of what the Essentials is about is getting the players up and running in less than 20 minutes, which is probably about the attention threshold for an enthusiastic 10 yr old before they start wondering if playing Legos might be more entertaining. Once their hooked they'll play for hours, but you do have to get them booted up. I think that really is the key to understanding Essentials.

And as others have said, if it happens to scratch the itch of some existing D&Ders that weren't excited by 4e before, so much the better. That explains the class names, the wizard schools, backstab, etc. Overall that stuff is minor and really a throw-away they can't lose on.

 

[JohnSnow]

Oh I also call foul on why does the miracle worker always succeed calling down a major miracle (daily) once per day? You didnt in your explanation really cover anything of that..

"It's magic and that's how it works."

Done.

A dodge? Yeah. But it's one that's true to the source material.

And I admit that the knight, thief, and slayer are still bound to the per encounter mechanic. But I can explain that one to a player with one sentence.

"Per encounter things are like special moves that you can only get away with once in a short period of time, because after you do it once, people are watching for it, so you have to fall back on your regular stuff."

Dailies...ummm..."circumstances only occasionally align that way." Why? "Because..."

My contention on what WotC's market research says is simple: as a business, they've used it. If classes that work this way are in the products targeted at new players, there's a good reason for it. And it isn't "Mike Mearls wanted to screw fighters" or "WotC's trying to win back 3e players."

Sure, the latter may be PART of the reason, but i think WotC's probably written most of those folks off. But if they've got research that says these classes will broaden the game's appeal with new players, and it also makes things more familiar to Basic D&D, 1e, and 2e players; I doubt they'd object if it had some special appeal to 3e players who didn't make the switch to 4e, but didn't upgrade to Pathfinder either.

Look at the TRS video. Those guys started with 3.5, and they're WAY more impressed by the Red Box than I think they would have been by default PHB/DMG/MM 4e.

 

[Garthanos]

"It's magic and that's how it works."

Done.

A dodge? Yeah. But it's one that's true to the source material.

A lame dodge for somebody who actually wants the sense of immersion. And that was my point.

Perhaps a psionics like mana point system works far better for the wizards and
the action points works better for divine and martial both.

EDIT: If you can answer "Its magic..." which divine power perhaps really shouldn't be...
I can answer "Its Luck..."

 

[Garthanos]

99% of what the Essentials is about is getting the players up and running in less than 20 minutes, which is probably about the attention threshold for an enthusiastic 10 yr old before they start wondering if playing Legos might be more entertaining. Once their hooked they'll play for hours, but you do have to get them booted up. I think that really is the key to understanding Essentials.

The up and running quick in essentials to create your first character with choices as you play is probably the thing that says this is definitely for newbies... yea even the true newbies.

And as others have said, if it happens to scratch the itch of some existing D&Ders that weren't excited by 4e before, so much the better.

I worry the attempted itch scratching ripped off whole hunks of good stuff that fits with and could attract the true newbie ... as was pointed out the cleric is less iconic in general fiction than the warlord who was dropped shrug... the cleric build was probably needed.

I dont think there is anyway even with there skills they could have done this backtracking retro flavored stuff and have me like it anyway so shrug.

 

[JohnSnow]

Honestly, I think these classes are designed to reduce the necessity to make tactical decisions, somewhat simplify resource management, and mostly to remove the need to make a lot of choices during character construction. Especially when you're dealing with kids you really don't have to seek to limit elaborate justifications (or elegant explanations) for things like martial encounter and daily powers. These are kids, they'll just take it in stride just like we took Vancian spell casting in stride in our day.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the first part. It is about reducing the need for tactical decisions, simplified resource management and choice during character construction. But I think you're wrong that those things are there for just for kids.

They're there for kids as well as anyone else who might find those things desirable. That's potentially a LOT of people (I've already had some in my 4e games: mostly new players and anybody who skipped 3e). Heck, even some people who played 3e will like it - the kind who dropped it in favor of, say, Castles & Crusades, but then found that system a little too limited.

Did you ever notice that even in "rules-light" RPGs, the spellcaster is still a pretty complex class to play? It's the fighter and similar that always get simplified.

I'm not saying that the mental disconnect some people see with martial powers was THE motivating factor behind the shift. But when you're trying to cut down on tactical and character creation decisions, as well as simplify resource management, then IF you see a way to address the mental disconnect at the same time, you might as well do it. Because at worst, it's no better than what you had, and at best, you remove a potential source of trouble for people.

My two cents.