Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[Raikun]

Disclaimer, I'm not so much disagreeing as clarifying what I meant. =)

I bolded the key word there, because... well, yeah, a single Dragon article won't add a huge deal of complexity to the system. But it does often make it just that much more complicated for someone designing a character - more decisions to make when creating their PC.

Indeed, but most of the content when creating a character won't even get looked at. If someone decides to play a Thief...every Dragon article, PHB, character option, etc that doesn't pertain to the Thief automatically gets dropped.

That and the fact that it's all optional. At best, there's a degree of optional complexity that may or may not be added to one short aspect of the game, that once done with becomes irrelevant. That's a far cry from the assertion that the game becomes "more complex with a steeper learning curve" because of Essentials.

ESPECIALLY when the end result is that the game plays more quickly and easily.

 

[MrMyth]

Indeed, but most of the content when creating a character won't even get looked at. If someone decides to play a Thief...every Dragon article, PHB, character option, etc that doesn't pertain to the Thief automatically gets dropped.

That and the fact that it's all optional. At best, there's a degree of optional complexity that may or may not be added to one short aspect of the game, that once done with becomes irrelevant. That's a far cry from the assertion that the game becomes "more complex with a steeper learning curve" because of Essentials.

Oh yeah. The learning curve thing is especially hard to really define, because so many groups approach the game in different ways. Some new players tackle everything - others have a character built for them and just learn to play it. Like I said earlier, I think Previous Content + Essentials results in an undeniably more complex overall game, but I also think the change in complexity is largely irrelevant for nearly all purposes. Complexity in game-play is a much bigger deal, and simplifying that will have much more effect than adding complexity in char-gen.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Except it doesn't complicate the game, or add a steeper learning curve.

There are more classes. There are more and more divergent mechanics in those new classes. How does that not add complexity? How does it not give a player trying to choose a class more to evaluate before he can make an informed decision?

How a game 'plays' or 'feels' can be fairly subjective, but complexity has been objectively increased by the introduction of new material in Essentials, just as it was be each new prior release. It's inevitable. By 'opening up design space,' and using a wider range of mechanics, in fact, it added /more/ complexity that prior additions of comparable scope.

It'd be like saying that every Dragon article makes the game more complicated, and that's just silly.

If you use 'em all, they do. Sometimes the truth seems 'silly,' I guess.

 

[Raikun]

Kind of an aside, just to try and clarify my stance because I can see a semantics issue brewing hehe...I think we're using 2 different definitions of "complex".

One definition is "having many interconnected parts", which of course adding more parts makes it more complex.

Another definition is "so complicated and intricate that it's hard to understand or deal with".

And it's the latter definition that I feel gets invoked when it's tied to claims that it adds to the learning curve, etc.

Essentials offers a very simple, straightforward, and easy way to get into the game, and even for old timers, offers an easier, more streamlined game. (I wasn't exaggerating earlier when I said that switching over half the group to E-characters sped up our game so much that we can go through 5-6 encounters per session compared to the 3 that we used to struggle to get through).

So, my opinion is that the increased complexity in character generation (more interconnected parts), gets trumped by the simplicity of actual gameplay that it offers. (Ease of understanding).

I hope that made sense. =)

But yeah, the former definition of complexity (number of parts) really has such limited effect on the actual gameplay as to be irrelevant, and the definition of complexity that actually does describe gameplay trends in the opposite direction. (Less complex overall.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Indeed, but most of the content when creating a character won't even get looked at. If someone decides to play a Thief...every Dragon article, PHB, character option, etc that doesn't pertain to the Thief automatically gets dropped.

Nod. And, while that does illustrate how Essentials provides choices that, once made, can yield a simpler character, it also illustrates how the idea that Essentials provides meaningful choices for characters wanting different levels of complexity is a bit off.

If you want to play a Warrior or a sneaky opportunist rather than a spell-caster in Essentials-only, you have no choice when it comes to the complexity and level of choice of your character - you will be playing one of the most simplistic characters in the game. Conversely, if you want a divine or arcane character, you'll have a modest range of choice when it comes to complexity, with arcane offering the most choice-rich class.

At best, there's a degree of optional complexity that may or may not be added to one short aspect of the game.

Chargen may or may not take too long, but it comes up again each time you level up - and it affects & informs your entire play experience. And, the thing about optional complexity is that it's not really optional - you have to wade through it all to choose whether to use it or not (or how much).

I think we're using 2 different definitions of "complex".

One definition is "having many interconnected parts", which of course adding more parts makes it more complex.

Yep. That's complexity, in the sense I'm using. It's objective, and it has definite implications for an RPG. More complexity means more potential for abuse, more potential for confusion and 'trap' choices, and a longer learning curve.

Another definition is "so complicated and intricate that it's hard to understand or deal with".

Also a dictionary definition, but a much more subjective one. I don't find complex RPGs hard to grasp on the whole. I do notice how much harder they can be to teach, though. Essentials does a good job of breaking up the learning curve - if you use a successively more complex classes. It does require more total effort to learn, probably, but it can come in chunks, making it more paletable. OTOH, the fact it requires some 'un learning' to get through is also an issue...

Essentials offers a very simple, straightforward, and easy way to get into the game, and even for old timers, offers an easier, more streamlined game.

I've introduced a fair number of players to 4e, and have started using Essentials for that purpose. Invariably, genuinely new (and often young) players had no trouble picking up 4e, and not apreciably more or less trouble with Essentials. Returning AD&Ders, OTOH, it's like night & day. 4e mystified and even outraged them, Essentials delivers on their expectations and they can deal with it. I have yet to see a lapsed AD&Der make the Essentials-demo-to-4e-campaign transition, though.

 

[Marshall]

'Who do you attack?' (4 options) vs 'what do you attack with?' (5) isn't a natural breakpoint? You only arrive at 20 by multiplying together the two /independent/ choices!

Exactly. The e-martial classes aren't so much less complex as they are (a) more familiar to lapsed AD&Ders (who 'know' that fighter is the 'easy class') and (b) more forgiving/easier to teach.
They're training-wheel classes.

I disagree. Training wheels aid you in learning to ride a bicycle by adding stability to the system. E-classes are trying to train by taking away from the system and increasing the instability. Its like trying to learn to ride a bike with a Unicycle instead.

 

[FireLance]

I disagree. Training wheels aid you in learning to ride a bicycle by adding stability to the system. E-classes are trying to train by taking away from the system and increasing the instability. Its like trying to learn to ride a bike with a Unicycle instead.

I think that the 4E base system is more stable than you think, and that the Essentials classes are better balanced with the AEDU classes than you would like to admit. Of course, if you are so terrified of imbalance and you believe that whatever WotC has already released is the Holy Grail of balance, you can always stick to playing with the existing AEDU classes. You will even get new material since WotC has announced plans to continue support for them. Of course, there is no guarantee that the new AEDU support will be perfectly balanced with previous content, so I would suggest that you worry about that instead of whether or not other people are happy with the Essentials classes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Training wheels keep you from falling when you lose your balance a little - they insulate you from your mistakes. The Essentials classes, even the most complex one, the Mage, are forgiving like that. You fail to say what power your Slayer is using when he attacks? NBD, you're still in Battle Wrath Stance. You forget who your Knight attacked last round? No problem, everything next to you is in your Defender Aura. You couldn't figure out how to get your Thief into a flanking position even though you have 7 move and a bonus vs OAs? No worries, you can just keep doing the Tactical Trick shuffle. Your blinded warpriest attacked the highest-AC monster on the board with the power that grants an ally a desperately needed save? No problem, /all/ your attacks have effect lines, the ally gets a save even though you missed on a natural 17. You cast Beguiling Strands /through/ the front line of the party? No problem, it only affects enemies.

 

[Marshall]

Training wheels keep you from falling when you lose your balance a little - they insulate you from your mistakes. The Essentials classes, even the most complex one, the Mage, are forgiving like that.

Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?

You fail to say what power your Slayer is using when he attacks? NBD, you're still in Battle Wrath Stance.

Yeah, no. I dont think I've ever seen this take more than a single correction from a DM before a player ALWAYS defaulted to an at-will. Its a non-issue.

You forget who your Knight attacked last round? No problem, everything next to you is in your Defender Aura.

Yeah, that almost works in heroic(and only heroic) for the Knight, but its an abject failure on the Cav.

You couldn't figure out how to get your Thief into a flanking position even though you have 7 move and a bonus vs OAs? No worries, you can just keep doing the Tactical Trick shuffle.

Yeah, remember when I said overpowered? A Thief will always have CA thanks to TT and AmbushTrick. Most of the time he doesnt even have to put himself at risk to do it. Theres easy mode and then there is why bother?

Your blinded warpriest attacked the highest-AC monster on the board with the power that grants an ally a desperately needed save? No problem, /all/ your attacks have effect lines, the ally gets a save even though you missed on a natural 17.

But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right and enhance the rest of the party.

You cast Beguiling Strands /through/ the front line of the party? No problem, it only affects enemies.

HUGE, friendly burst WITH a push, at-will? There are a lot of encounter powers out there that dont stack up with what BS does.
Does that make it easier to for a newb to play an effective mage? Yes, the same way Twin Strike makes a Ranger easy to play.
Is that a good thing? Do we want the whole of the game to be, "you cant do the wrong thing?" While I admit some players dont like tactical combat, trying to completely take good tactics out of the game by eliminating the penalties for bad tactics does not a good game make.
Which brings up another point, if you want an easy mode PC to play its been the 4e Ranger since day 1.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it that they are forgiving or that they just ridiculously overpowered so that even played poorly, you are still effective?

Yes.

I dont think I've ever seen this take more than a single correction from a DM before a player ALWAYS defaulted to an at-will. Its a non-issue.

Defaulting to an at-will can kinda hose you. Power Strike can be tacked on after the fact (on a crit, speaking of 'overpowered'), some DMs even let you tack it on after they tell you the monster 'wasn't quite killed' by your attack.

Yeah, remember when I said overpowered? A Thief will always have CA thanks to TT and AmbushTrick. Most of the time he doesnt even have to put himself at risk to do it.

Assuming he takes either or both of those stances, yes. He could take neither -that's one flaw in my theory.

But you're attacking the highest AC critter on the board with an AC attack because you dont have any other options. Well designed leader classes, read as "not Warpriests or Sentinels", are effective PCs in their own right and enhance the rest of the party.

Well, or because you goofed. There may have been a zombie rotter you could have attcked instead. That's what I mean by 'forgiving' - you made a bad targetting choice, but your ally didn't pay for it, you still contributed your leader function.

HUGE, friendly burst WITH a push, at-will? There are a lot of encounter powers out there that dont stack up with what BS does. Does that make it easier to for a newb to play an effective mage? Yes, the same way Twin Strike makes a Ranger easy to play.

Nod. I'm glad you agree. Though, I like it better than Twin Strike, because TS is boring for an experienced/tactical player to cast every round, while BS... it doesn't get old too fast. Especially when you keep pushing the enemy back into a Phantom Chasm.

Is that a good thing? Do we want the whole of the game to be, "you cant do the wrong thing?" While I admit some players dont like tactical combat, trying to completely take good tactics out of the game by eliminating the penalties for bad tactics does not a good game make.

"Good" is so subjective.

Especially when you can't cast "know alignment."