Gencon: Any non-Essentials content coming up?

[TwoSix]

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

In general, restating an opposing point to make it sound as implausible as possible will make it much harder to accept.

Some people find complexity fun. Some people find complexity boring. Is that so hard to accept?

Some people find building complex characters fun. Other people find it paralyzing, because they have no desire to grapple with a multiplicity of options.

The essentials builds went part of the way to making characters simple. I would argue that rather than making them too simple, they didn't make them simple enough. Ideally, for a simple 4e, you'd have a choice between 4-5 races (with no impact on class choice at all, an elf fighter should be as valid as a dwarf fighter), and then maybe 6-8 classes, and then a choice between 2-4 customization options. Essentials didn't go far enough, because it didn't roll up feats into the class progression. And I've seen these, because whenever I've tried to make characters with people who aren't regular gamers, the feat section has invariably frozen them, even when it's been restricted to just the general feats section of the character builder. 15 options is simply too many.

I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp' - one that really was an on-ramp that lead into the full expression of the game, not a cubbyhole where they could be placed to do limitted damage until they finally climb out and demand a real character. I know there are 'casual' players who are just there to socialize and would rather not pour effort into complex builds or make difficult decisions in play - but they seem to be happy to play pre-gens and take advice from other players, too.

I think you're making a too strong of a demarcation between "new" gamers and gamers who desire simplicity. My 4e group consists of myself, my spouse, two other married couples, and one other single friend. Everyone in the group has been playing together since 2002, and most of us have been gaming since the '90s.

The majority of my players have no desire to master the rules other than being able to run their characters without having to ask exactly what to roll. They enjoy the game, they enjoy combat, but they have no desire to fiddle with their characters other than to make sure their character is reflective of the concept they want to play. While they enjoyed 4th, the sheer bulk of the combat system weighed them down considerably. So the relative simplicity of Essentials (along with me streamlining magic items) was a godsend for my group.

Now, I know you could say that they would be happy with pre-gens. I've tried that before, but it never took. They want to think up concepts, they simply have no patience for honing that concept into playable mechanics. Essentials has made that possible, without requiring nearly as much input from me.

That be worthless for you, but Wizards has my full support on the Essentials line. For me, the failure of Essentials was that it was published in 2010, instead of as the first 4e book in 2008.

 

[FireLance]

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

It sounds so much more like a sock puppet being held up by someone who wants to play his CoDzilla or god-Wizard alongside these gimped classes so he can seem even more awe-inspiring by contrast.

CoDzilla? God-Wizard? Are you sure you've played 4e before?

Frankly, even if an AEDU class is capable of "overshadowing" an Essentials class, it would be more like Superman vs. Green Lantern instead of Superman vs. Green Arrow.

 

[MrMyth]

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

It sounds so much more like a sock puppet being held up by someone who wants to play his CoDzilla or god-Wizard alongside these gimped classes so he can seem even more awe-inspiring by contrast.

Oh, come on. I've numerous times mentioned playing alongside specific players who have had issues running with the standard AEDU format and who find Essentials classes ideal for their style of play. Are you really so opposed to Essentials that you need to insist that I am either (a) a liar, or (b) enjoy crippling my friends so my characters can be awesome?

The point is that those who prefer this style don't feel overshadowed when playing Essentials characters, and don't feel bored by having simple but effective characters. They feel overshadowed when playing a PHB character ineffectively (since they never bother using encounter powers) and are bored when, before they can take their turn, the other players stop them from rolling and badger them into choosing between the half-dozen powers they have available.

Is this representative of every player? Of course not. Nor is it even most players I know. I'd say that of players I know casually - from Living Forgotten Realms, Encounters, etc - perhaps 2 (out of the nine or ten I would occasionally play with) reaped vast benefits from the approach taken by Essentials. Of my own gaming group, out of the 6 or 7 folks we regularly game with, Essentials is perfect for 1 and useful for another.

This doesn't mean that these players should never touch AEDU classes (nor does it mean that I and others don't occasionally play Essentials classes.)

But they do exist - players who prefer the approach taken by Essentials. You find the Slayer mindlessly boring and ineffective. That's fair. You even fear the impact it might have on player's mindset about martial classes, and are concerned about what it means for the direction of the game as a whole. Also fine to worry about, even if we don't know how valid such concerns will be until farther down the road.

But insisting that everyone else must have the same viewpoint as you - that players who might find these fun and interesting and effective to play don't actually exist, and that those who are disagreeing with you in these threads are just making stuff up... seriously, not cool.

I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp' - one that really was an on-ramp that lead into the full expression of the game, not a cubbyhole where they could be placed to do limitted damage until they finally climb out and demand a real character.

Again, not sure where you are getting the claims that Essentials characters are ineffective or do limited damage. The entire point is that they are simple but effective. 4E as a whole is pretty good about making it hard to build a truly ineffective character... but Essentials makes it even harder. You have a default level of 'pretty good', and that is one of its big advantages.

As for the claims that Essentials doesn't really prepare characters for the real game or real characters... I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. The character builds are different, yes. But that gives a great opportunity to not deal with that complexity while learning everything else about the game - the mechanics of skills, combats, items, etc, basic tricks and strategies, etc. And once one is ready for more options in terms of character building - for those who want it - I don't see it as a huge ordeal to make the change.

I know there are 'casual' players who are just there to socialize and would rather not pour effort into complex builds or make difficult decisions in play - but they seem to be happy to play pre-gens and take advice from other players, too.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Look, even with the best player in the world at the table, some folks find it disruptive or frustrating to constantly have that player giving them advice and telling them what they are doing wrong. Even if phrased as politely as possible... it feels like someone else is playing your character. And some folks would much rather have a character they can play effectively entirely on their own merits, rather than 'be happy' with a character built and run by other players.

:shrug: The whole debate is really emblematic of the problem, itself. When you had balanced classes, you might have had people disagreeing over whether certain of them were sufficiently simulationist or whatever - but /some/ of them were probably acceptable, and if you played those, you were at least playing a character that wasn't overshadowing anyone or languishing, itself. When you deliver imbalanced classes to meet supposed demand, people can play them or not, but the result will be more disruptive... just like the controversey over them.

Your entire argument is founded on the belief that Essentials characters are unbalanced, are overshadowed or languish compared to normal characters. I don't think anyone on the opposite side of the argument actually believes that is the case. They believe these are balanced classes. And I think we've given our reasons why every time you've brought up the point.

For myself, I can understand your concerns, since I had the same worries when I heard about Essentials. The actual product alleviated those concerns and has proven - both in my experience and in analyzing the options - balanced with existing class. Honestly, to a far greater extent than we saw with PHB3 classes and the poor execution of Psionics - probably even to a greater extent than the original PHB classes were balanced with each other.

Again, 4E as a whole is reasonably well balanced. We've seen some creep over the course of the edition, some of which was inevitable, some of which was not. And Essentials did ramp up even farther the power of feats, which is my biggest complaint about it. But as a whole, the classes themselves show a greater level of balance than what we saw before, in my opinion.

And players who previously had to either rely on others to help build and play their character, or who ended up with something that either had trouble contributing or was frustrating to play... now have options that let them be effective and not be overshadowed, without dealing with those complexities or relying on constant advice from everyone else. That, in my mind, is a good thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the good faith of these posters who apparently misrepresent the opposing points. To some people the boring part is the nitty gritty of the rules and the faff of handling abstract powers and power selection. Describing what you are doing as you hit it is far more interesting and fun to them than an abstract tactical skirmish game. And their effectiveness isn't overshadowed very much.

I know there are /new/ players who could be helped by a simpler 'on-ramp'

Where new players includes players who have been playing 4e since it first came out and have been playing D&D longer than I have been alive. Two at one of my tables. New players like that?

:shrug: The whole debate is really emblematic of the problem, itself. When you had balanced classes,

As far as I know you and Marshall are the only people asserting that other than in regular single encounter days the Essentials classes are any more unbalanced than the standard 4e ones are. They are close enough under normal circumstances that you don't notice much difference (and are balanced on decently but not spectacularly optimised classes).

you might have had people disagreeing over whether certain of them were sufficiently simulationist or whatever - but /some/ of them were probably acceptable,

However the options and analysis paralysis and tactical play were more needed and not very acceptable to some. That is the problem Essentials Martial classes handle well.

and if you played those, you were at least playing a character that wasn't overshadowing anyone or languishing, itself.

I have never seen examples in actual play of e-classes especially overshadowing or languishing except when there was something odd done with the core build. (Yes, Assassin|Warlock with a 4d8 Eldritch Strike at Heroic (including curse) is going to overshadow a Slayer. That's to do with broken hybrids, not the e-Classes.)

When you deliver imbalanced classes to meet supposed demand, people can play them or not, but the result will be more disruptive... just like the controversey over them.

Give me actual play examples of imbalance. Your argument appears to be one based entirely on theory that doesn't have much actual play experience behind it.

 

[MrMyth]

Give me actual play examples of
imbalance. Your argument appears to be one based entirely on theory that doesn't have much actual play experience behind it.

When he has offered these claims previously, he was using imbalance as a reference to the 'innate' imbalance in resources between Essentials martial classes and PHB classes. For example, the lack of daily powers.

His claim was that, due to this inherent difference, the classes would always be somewhat imbalanced. And there is some small truth to this - in a one encounter day, the PHB Fighter (who can burn several dailies) will have the edge, while in a 10 encounter day, the Slayer will have the advantage.

However, in my opinion, the impact of those powers and the benefits that Essentials characters gain in their place are contained enough that the overall imbalance, even in extreme cases, is relatively slight. And, more specifically, is no worse than the potential imbalance that already exists in terms of classes with different amounts of healing surges, or different power levels/benefits available via dailies, or even simply the balance in the support and design of certain classes.

Overall, the resource imbalance of Essentials will, I believe, have next to no impact in any actual gameplay.

Now, I'm not sure when the previous points changed to claims that the Slayer (and similar builds) are somehow inherently left overshadowed/languishing/etc. I certainly haven't seen any evidence to indicate that (as demonstrated when Marshall offered the same claims but couldn't support them.)

The Knight has specific quirks as a defender due to its aura - but the same is true of the unique marks of other defenders, as well. The Slayer is certainly a straightforward Striker, but is no less effective for all that, and I doubt theory or experience could really show otherwise.

 

[Obryn]

To a small extent, I still find myself questioning the existance of these players who sincerely want to be as bored as possible at the table, while others overshadow them and render the limitted efforts moot.

Are you actually incapable of recognizing that different gamers want different things at the table, or are you choosing to ignore it for the sake of being argumentative?

Nobody wants to be bored at the table. You know this. Not everybody appreciates the same stuff about 4e that you do.

When you had balanced classes

Still do!

-O

 

[Obryn]

Overall, the resource imbalance of Essentials will, I believe, have next to no impact in any actual gameplay.

That's been my own experience.

Also, as I think I posted above, lets postulate that this is indeed the case. Over a short day, classes without Dailies will suffer. Over a long day, classes with dailies will suffer.

Isn't this an argument that having both classes with dailies and classes without dailies will help an adventuring group be prepared for both long and short adventure days? I fail to see how this would be a bad thing.

-O