Gabe (Penny Arcades) take on Essentials Red Box

[tuxgeo]

So I think this is worth its own thread, because Gabe from Penny-Arcade has posted his impressions of the Red Box. We'll take the core part out of it from what he felt with playing with the essentials classes:

With the passage of time, that link (to "his impressions") now points to the Penny Arcade home page. Try this link instead.

So basically it's not the end of the world according to him, if it doesn't take your fancy it's not going to destroy your current games utterly and if you want a good place to start playing DnD it's for you. Note that I particularly liked the statement "Essentials isn't a new edition or even a dramatic departure from the current game. It's really just a slightly different way to play 4E".

In any event, these impressions do help ease my feelings considering Gabe has been DMing 4E for a while and is quite a fan of it. We'll all know for certain soon however!

The lines that particularly caught my eye were:

. . . I have to say there was something cool about filling in numbers and erasing mistakes. The Essentials Player’s Handbook does an incredible job of walking you through this process via a solo adventure.

and

. . . From what I’ve been told this is a return to the roots of D&D where fighters hit stuff and wizards were the ones with all the cool spells. Essentials attempts to solve two problems that I don’t actually have, so it’s hard for me to really comment on it. It does a great job of doing something I’m not interested in doing.

. . . They certainly had fun with Essentials but I don’t think any of them would build an essentials character to play in a regular game vs. a 4e character.

Of course, earlier he was saying that an Essentials character basically is a 4E character, so his wording there might have been able to stand a bit of polishing.

Overall, a decent (if short) Red Box early review. Good to read.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Here are the key paragraphs that have gotten very little attention:

I guess the idea is to help get new players into the game without confusing them with a binder full of powers as well as get older players to come back. From what I’ve been told this is a return to the roots of D&D where fighters hit stuff and wizards were the ones with all the cool spells. Essentials attempts to solve two problems that I don’t actually have, so it’s hard for me to really comment on it. It does a great job of doing something I’m not interested in doing.

My players all come from video games and almost all of them have played World of Warcraft for years. My wife felt very comfortable stepping into 4e because it felt like building a character in WOW. Even if she is a warrior she expects to see a ton of different powers down there in her action bar. The idea of only being able to do basic attacks from a couple different stances just doesn’t cut it for most of the players I know. They certainly had fun with Essentials but I don’t think any of them would build an essentials character to play in a regular game vs. a 4e character.

Emphasis mine.

That's exactly where everyone I know is at. Essentials isn't built for an audience we recognize, and certainly not anyone we could actually convince to play D&D in the first place. I just can't figure out where they think new gamers are coming from in this day and age.

 

[TerraDave]

a very high percentage of the anti-Essentials crowd are the same anti-4e-in-general types who were also up in arms about MM3 fire resistances, scaling skill bonuses, every errata release, katanas not having special rules, minions, and so on and so on.

Basically it's just the latest anti-4e thing, and will be replaced by the next one, IMHO. (My bet for next, or at least coming down the pike, remains complaints about assassin's either being, or NOT being, DDi exclusive after Heroes of Shadow is released).

The only really anti-essentials posters I know of are fairly rabid 4E fans. So much so that they don't want to see it change. More generally, you can criticize WotC or particular game elements and not be anti-4E. In fact, you may be doing that because you are pro-4E.

Take your other points, how could the anti-4E crowd even know about most of these things? If they are posting on it, they ain't that anti-4E.

If they tell you that 4E sucks and they are playing Pathfinder, then they might be anti-4E. But there is no way they give a flying about the DDI status of the assassin.

 

[MrMyth]

That's exactly where everyone I know is at. Essentials isn't built for an audience we recognize, and certainly not anyone we could actually convince to play D&D in the first place. I just can't figure out where they think new gamers are coming from in this day and age.

I know half-a-dozen gamers from LFR nights who, I suspect, would find a much better fit with Essentials fighter and rogue builds than with the standard version. I know one or two people in my regular game group who would probably not mind the option of a more straight-forward character from time to time. I know I, personally, like the idea of some nostalgic elements if they can be implemented without undermining the system, and am thus looking forward to the Mage. And I've seen similar sentiments from many people on this forum - I'm pretty sure, specifically in threads in which you have actively discussed the topic with them.

I can see not feeling that this product is for you, but there seems to be a level here of willfully refusing to recognize that the market for it may well exist.

I think there are plenty of people who won't need the approach Essentials has taken to get into a game like 4E. I think there will be plenty of others for whom those elements work quite well. And I think there will be plenty of others who do find the old school appeal and new builds a worthwhile option.

In the end, I suppose only time will tell whether there is an audience for this product. I make no guarantees that it will be a record-breaking product. But I can certainly conceive of the audience it is aimed at - several such audiences in fact - and I'd be surprised if WotC is truly off base in the choices for it that they've made.

 

[lin_fusan]

I wonder if people have the same discussions about computer games, like WoW or Diablo, that do regular updates to add new options, tweak existing ones, etc. Ie, "Man, just call it WoW 2, if you're changing Hunters so much!" "Runes!? That's some crazy Diablo 2.5 nonsense."

Back with the original Starcraft 1 had 15 update patches, some were rebalancing patches.

In my experience, people who were "negatively" affected by the rebalancing had a lot of complaints. For example, "Now my Protoss Dragoons cost an extra 25 minerals! That totally slows me down and wrecks my economy. Why did Blizzard nerf and ruin my favorite race?"

Counter-arguments were akin to "Protoss was so overpowered! It wasn't a nerf, it was an adjustment in the right direction."

Counter-counter arguments were akin to "It's because you don't know how to play Protoss. You suck at Starcraft!"

Repeat.

Actually, I seem to remember a similar thing happening with Diablo 2. The necromancer could spam summons and walk away, thus earning gold and experience by not fighting. Blizzard nerfed it and complaints abound about how it was unfair to necro players.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I'm still bitter over one of the Master of Orion 2 patches taking out the infinite money glitch.

 

[Scribble]

Essentials attempts to solve two problems that I don’t actually have, so it’s hard for me to really comment on it. It does a great job of doing something I’m not interested in doing.

I think this line sums up the "power" of exception based design...

Essentials isn't designed to "replace" any of the existing classes. It's designed to sit right along side of them, and add options for people who wanted them.

If like Gabe, these aren't options you were interested in, it's just as easy to ignore them- it's not going to effect the game if you do.

Just like, if I don't particularly like a certain class build, I can ignore it, and it won't effect things.

It's very modular.


There are a very small number of rules that really constitute the "main" system of 4e. The rules that if changed effect EVERYONE playing the game...

Since a few of these have already been changed, I guess there COULD be an argument that we already have seen 4.5... But it's such a small set of rules, dealing with the change isn't particularly hard.

My list would include

Changes to skills
Changes to conditions

I think thats actually it.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I can see not feeling that this product is for you, but there seems to be a level here of willfully refusing to recognize that the market for it may well exist.

Not exactly. They clearly exist. As you said, some of them are here. It's not their existence that is in question, it's their numbers.

But I've never met any of them in real life, while I have met many people who got into D&D because of the way 4e is structured. I couldn't pay people to play earlier editions, but I've had people volunteer to play 4th, including some who aren't PA fans or gamers.

I refuse to believe that I am that large a statistical anomaly, apparently bending probability around me to create this VAST social and gaming reversal. There is nothing that special about me.

 

[Storminator]

Not exactly. They clearly exist. As you said, some of them are here. It's not their existence that is in question, it's their numbers.

But I've never met any of them in real life, while I have met many people who got into D&D because of the way 4e is structured. I couldn't pay people to play earlier editions, but I've had people volunteer to play 4th, including some who aren't PA fans or gamers.

I refuse to believe that I am that large a statistical anomaly, apparently bending probability around me to create this VAST social and gaming reversal. There is nothing that special about me.

I know a large number of kids - 10 to 12 years old - that I think would be very interested in D&D. As of now, they aren't going to play. I'm too busy to teach them, and there's no way anyone is buying them the core books and turning them loose. I can spring for a few Christmas/birthday presents of the red box, and hand that over. They should be able to play some and decide if they want to go farther, and if they don't it's a small loss.

THAT's the market.

Honestly, I don't know about the rest of the Essentials series, but I'm pretty excited about the starter box.

PS

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Honestly, I don't know about the rest of the Essentials series, but I'm pretty excited about the starter box.

So am I, for the same reason. The box is brilliant marketing. The rules philosophy, less so, IMO, but we'll see.

Of course, I love the box mainly because I intend to give it to kids... whose parents will then be on the hook almost immediately to buy them rules to get them past level 2...

I am worried that I may end up with dice embedded in my forehead, thrown by a vindictive parent.