Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5354853" data-attributes="member: 61155">Look, the perspective I'm objecting to is the one you put forward in the first thread. Where you said, &quot;Sure, it is updated and errata-ed with a few new bells and whistles, but we're not really seeing anything new&quot;. &nbsp;And that statement just isn't true. We're looking at 9 or 10 new builds/class equivalents, plus potentially many new monster stat-blocks. It certainly isn't as much new content as we usually get, but it is new content, and it is there. Your initial post said otherwise. Yes, perhaps it was just your indulgence in hyperbole - but with all the misinformation and false ideas floating around about Essentials, it did not seem a good idea for me to let such an inaccurate statement stand.&nbsp; &nbsp;If what you are saying now is that no, you never meant to say that, you were just disappointed that the new content in Essentials didn't appeal to you, rather than trying to say it didn't exist... fair enough, I've got no objections to such a position! &nbsp;&nbsp;Well, I can think of several reasons. If they wanted to really make sure Essentials came out right, they may have allocated pretty much the entire design team to focusing on it - and dragging a handful of people away for one or two side projects didn't seem like a good approach. Or they didn't wanted new players to be dragged off track by other releases in the midst of the Essentials wave. &nbsp;I mean, I think they could have gotten away with an approach like you suggest. But I just don't see how the strategy they chose is in any way incomprehensible. They have a new product rolling out. They want the line to focus on it for half a year. That seems a reasonable business strategy, likely informed by their design teams and market research. Maybe it will crash and burn, maybe not, but I don't see anything to indicate it is an inherently flawed approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5354853, member: 61155"] Look, the perspective I'm objecting to is the one you put forward in the first thread. Where you said, "Sure, it is updated and errata-ed with a few new bells and whistles, but we're not really seeing anything new". And that statement [I]just isn't true. [/I]We're looking at 9 or 10 new builds/class equivalents, plus potentially many new monster stat-blocks. It certainly isn't [I]as much[/I] new content as we usually get, but it is new content, and it is there. Your initial post said otherwise. Yes, perhaps it was just your indulgence in hyperbole - but with all the misinformation and false ideas floating around about Essentials, it did not seem a good idea for me to let such an inaccurate statement stand. If what you are saying now is that no, you never meant to say that, you were just disappointed that the new content in Essentials didn't appeal to you, rather than trying to say it didn't exist... fair enough, I've got no objections to such a position! Well, I can think of several reasons. If they wanted to really make sure Essentials came out right, they may have allocated pretty much the entire design team to focusing on it - and dragging a handful of people away for one or two side projects didn't seem like a good approach. Or they didn't wanted new players to be dragged off track by other releases in the midst of the Essentials wave. I mean, I think they [I]could[/I] have gotten away with an approach like you suggest. But I just don't see how the strategy they chose is in any way incomprehensible. They have a new product rolling out. They want the line to focus on it for half a year. That seems a reasonable business strategy, likely informed by their design teams and market research. Maybe it will crash and burn, maybe not, but I don't see anything to indicate it is an [I]inherently[/I] flawed approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification