Is essentials basically...

[Tony Vargas]

Fact is, that you need simpler classes for players who don´t want the burden of playing the optimizing minigame...

Interesting. WotC has never actually cited that as a design goal of essentials. Which is surprising, since they heaped Essentials with quite a lot of 'everything to everyone' goals.

While optimizing will happen in any game - and is fun in it's own right - a good game will be balanced enough that a clearly legal 'optimized' build doesn't render all other similar builds non-viable. 4e mostly accomplished that - and 'nerfs' were regularly handed out where it slipped up.

So, I don't think it was needed that much. But, even if it were...

While some Essentials classes are fairly simple, you still need to make the same basic, obvious optimizing decisions that let any 4e class more or less keep up. Like put as much as you can in your primary stat, and freak'n take Expertise. And, they are added options, and every added option is something that can be used and abused via optimization. While a 'simple' class, the Slayer has less-than-simple optimized charge builds that are pretty near top of the theoretical at-will DPS leaderboard. The Theif (with a bizarre mounted build) was right at the top of one recent optimization exercise's results, too.

So, no, unless you go to the extreme of making a campaign Essentials-only, you're not leveling the playing field, at all.

In fact, you may even be skewing it even more. A number of simple Essentials builds achieve simplicity by eschewing daily resources. If your optimizers carry over their advantage-seeking behavior at chargen into play, they may well have some spiffy 'novas' that they'll set up to use as much as possible - by finagling extra extended rests whenever possible. Even an optimized daily-less character would have trouble keeping up if that were taken to the extreme.

...

What WotC /has/ claimed as a 'need' for simpler classes - apart from mere subjective 'preference' - is that they were needed for new players. Actually, I have more experience than the average DM introducing new players to the game - I run 'intro' games at local conventions, the kind that say 'beginners welcome' right in the program. Running 4e begginner games has given me some interesting insights. (Aside: One of them is that such games attract people who /hate/ 4e and want to sabotage the game. No, really - but, fortunately that phenomenon fell off after the first year.)

More relavent to the discussion, though, I've noticed that if you hand a completely new-to-D&D player a one-page character sheet and a page or so of 'cards' off the CB, they catch on surprisingly quickly. All the rolls are d20+some bonus (that they can find on the sheet pretty easily). Better, the cards act as choice & mechanic 'bundles' - look at a card, and everything you need to resolve that action is on the card. Far from the oft-lamented 'action paralysis,' for a truely new player, it /helps/ them considerably in making a decision. Pre-gens provide all the simplicity new-to-D&D players need.

Next, /returning/ players are a whole 'nuther story. A lapsed gamer who last played AD&D sits down to play a D&D 'intro' game with several wrong assumptions: He assumes that he already 'knows' the game, even though he hasn't played in 20+ years. He assumes that the easiest character to play will be the fighter. He assumes that weapons use attack rolls and spells don't. He assumes that resolving an action means hunting all over his character sheet for items and bonuses, 'playing' the DM to get situational bonuses (or just get an action 'aproved' as do-able in a round). Either he decides to 'take it easy' and play a fighter - and is shocked and apalled at all the 'powers' his aparently-spell-casting fighter has (OMG, what must the casters be like in this madhouse!?!?!) - or he decides he really liked playing casters so he'll reprise one, and is shocked and apalled that he has to roll to hit with 'Sleep' or confused that he can't trade in 'Bless' to get another 'Cure Light Wounds.'

Essentials came out, with that lovely Red Box sporting 80s cover art, and, while I absolutely hated Essentials, I did see a silver lining: Those PitA AD&Ders are going to eat this crap up.

I've run an intro scenario using Essentials a number of times, now (and am signed on to do so at PacifiCon this year - assuming /anyone/ shows up to that beleagured event), and, in each case I got one (or more) returning AD&Ders ("I heard 'the box is back' ..." or "I was thinking my kids might enjoy..."), and rather than shock, horror and confusion at non-boring fighters and non-pwning mages, I got enthused acceptance. Wierdly, they don't even mind rolling to hit with Sleep so much - guess the fighter 'not having spells' makes it OK.
Damn that old-school feel works on it's target audience.

The complete newbies didn't have any /more/ trouble learning the game, either. The new CB had extraneous pages to sort through, but the cards were still a hit. The only downside is that the game does, in meeting the prejudiced expectations of old-school gamers, indoctinate new gamers in those same prejudices. Doesn't bode well for those of us who like our spe^E^E ...er, exploit-using fighters.

Actually I would like to see the mage not chosing encounters and dailies. The good old find a magebook and learn those spells was much more appealing, as the character "creation" IMHO should happen in game, not at the drawing board.

So in a perfect world, not only the Slayer would be simple, but the mage also. And you would be able to get grandmaster training encounter and dailies for your martial chars and a spellbook from which you can memorize your encounters and dailies as a mage...Back to the old days in a way, but balanced because of the design principles of 4e.

So, all classes start out relatively choiceless and simple-to-play at low level, then have in-game opportunities to expand the breadth of their abilities and variety of their resources?

Hmmm... well, that's still parity - at least of opportunity. Assuming there were still some unexciting but effective baseline growth in the character (so if one character doesn't get quite the in-game opportunities as another, or doesn't persue them, he's not left totally in the dust), that could be quite a workable 'old school feel' compromise.

 

[Raikun]

Next, /returning/ players are a whole 'nuther story. A lapsed gamer who last played AD&D sits down to play a D&D 'intro' game with several wrong assumptions: He assumes that he already 'knows' the game, even though he hasn't played in 20+ years. He assumes that the easiest character to play will be the fighter. He assumes that weapons use attack rolls and spells don't. He assumes that resolving an action means hunting all over his character sheet for items and bonuses, 'playing' the DM to get situational bonuses (or just get an action 'aproved' as do-able in a round). Either he decides to 'take it easy' and play a fighter - and is shocked and apalled at all the 'powers' his aparently-spell-casting fighter has (OMG, what must the casters be like in this madhouse!?!?!) - or he decides he really liked playing casters so he'll reprise one, and is shocked and apalled that he has to roll to hit with 'Sleep' or confused that he can't trade in 'Bless' to get another 'Cure Light Wounds.'

That is so weird, I've not at all had that issue with old D&D players. Really the biggest hangups I've seen is the change of Fort/Ref/Will to defenses instead of saves, removal of THAC0, etc...

And usually just telling them up front "4e changes a lot to make D&D a more tactical game" and describing their options as we play on their turn, they've been quick enough to embrace it. Maybe I'm just a good teacher though, dunno. =)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can only relate my own experiences. While they cover a lot of players over a few years, they are all clustered at conventions and other public events in and around the SF Bay area.

The community does seem to vary some by region, I know - though I can't think why that'd make /that/ big a difference, it could have something to do with it. It might have something to do with a cohort effect, too, I suppose. The returning AD&Ders I get tend to be in their 40s, with kids, and be returning after a /long/ absence, often not having played since 1e. If you're getting AD&Ders who last played with Combat & Tactics or already tried 3e, that might contribute to the differences in our experiences.


I've been running games, including 'intro' games, for a long time, and introduced a lot of people to a variety of systems, so I don't think any lack of teaching skill you implied (I presume, unintenionally) had anything to do with it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thing, is, that new players can just play a thief without playing the optimization minigame and have good results from level 1.
You still can optimize the thief, n.p., but it is a good, quite optimized build right out of the gate and you can´t do much wrong.
New players have an easier time...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thing, is, that new players can just play a thief without playing the optimization minigame and have good results from level 1.

I guess it got lost in my over-long reply. The ideal way to introduce a new player to the game is with a pre-generated charcter. The 'optimization minigame' has never been a barrier to entry.

It's not much of a mini-game in 4e, anyway (not compared to 3.5), but unless you're talking Essentials-only, adding Essentials just upped the complexity of the optimization exercise, anyway.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thanks for replying again in a more compact way.

I disagree with the opinion that you should introduce a player with a pregen. For a short session, yes. But if you intend to introduce him to a regular game, no.

When you look at the old classes, there were powers at certain levels, that were considered class features. Essentials just made those quasi default options into forced options. Class defining powers were made into class defining features.

Maybe the word: "optimization minigame" was badly chosen. Lets call it: "Find the needle in the haystack minigame"... (Twin strike for the ranger should have been a class feature like eldritch blast e.g.)
And this minigame is a barrier, not for entry, but for wining new players who just want to play without worrying too much about not missing important options.

 

[Raikun]

I still think the ideal way to introduce a new player is by letting them create their character from the Essentials sources. It just simplifies and streamlines the whole process from character generation to playing the game that IMO Essentials is how 4e should have released in the first place.

 

[Pickles JG]

The essentials classes did do more or less do this for the Mage & Battle Cleric. Basically you pick your domain/schools & everything else falls from it. I think they are better designed than the original versions - they are hooked into stronger archetypes & the cleric is mechanically superior as well.

There is room for somthing like this for other classes. I think that come & get it should be a feature not a power as it is class defining. (like when innervate in WoW was made a mage feature as every build took it when it was a talent (may have been druid & may be callled something else...)). As a feature I would have made it like the errataed version but minor action without the fololow up damaging attack. You would still need powers to bash these nicely clumped victims....

I am a no longer sceptical about essentials - I think it shows good design though I would not enjoy playing a Thief or a Slayer.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thanks for replying again in a more compact way.

I disagree with the opinion that you should introduce a player with a pregen. For a short session, yes. But if you intend to introduce him to a regular game, no.

I'll agree that for a campaign, it's better for players to create their own characters. (Though one of the players who recently joined the campaign I'm currently in /is/ playing a pre-gen - it was from a playtest we did, and he just liked the character so much he's sticking with it.)
However, jumping into a campaign that could go for a long time is not the best introduction to the game. Playing an isolated session, where you don't have to worry about how your character's future, is a much better way to pick up the mechanics and get a feel for the game. And, we agree that pregens are the better choice for that.

Once a new player has played a few times - and, preferably, a few different characters or classes - making a character is a better idea. They have an idea of what they're getting into, and can make a good choice of class/race/concept - not 'good' in the powergamey sense, 'good' in the sense of 'this is a character I want to play.' They should by then, with that little experience, having looked at/played/seen played a number of characters, and/or a little help, be able to build a perfectly viable character for a campaign - that they have a good chance of actually sticking with and enjoying for a while.

Maybe the word: "optimization minigame" was badly chosen. Lets call it: "Find the needle in the haystack minigame"...

No, it's just fine. I rather like it, because, as a game like D&D grows and becomes more and more complex, the trap/must-have options and broken combos, proliferate, and character generation does become like onto a game in itself - one that you can 'win' or 'lose.'

And, jumping into a full-featured campaign can be a nightmare for a new player. The sort of 'training-wheel' effect some (OK, most) Essentials classes have can help with that, in a sense. It's harder to make glaring errors with such characters, for instance. But, there's also less to be learned from them. If you play some well-done pregens, you get an idea of who characters can be built effectively (and probably some ideas of things you'd like to do a little differently). If you build a character yourself, you make mistakes - and learn from them. If you build it with some help, you avoid mistakes as they're pointed out, and you're being 'taught.'

Just cobbling together an 'easy mode' character leaves you effective out the gate, which has got to be good for morale, but you don't learn much from it. And, if you're playing a character that's radically different in structure from others, the little you are learning is only narrowly aplicable.

So, Essentials easier for new players? Yes. Better? Not so much.

 

[Raikun]

Personally I have a rather distinct dislike for pre-gens. Maybe that's in part due to being from the old school days where the starter kits started out with taking you through character generation (Though it's not just an old school thing either since the new redbox does just that), but it's also the fact that I think in a Role Playing Game, creating the role you want to play should be central to the game, and to the learning experience.

And it really is easy to do now, especially with at simplified as Essentials has made it. If talking with a new player, I just ask him the same kind of questions that the Red Box does. ("What do you envision your character being...a heavily armored sword and shield wielder, magic user, etc. etc.), then give more details about anything they show interest in, and point to a class that fits what they want.

Essentials even clears up a lot of the clutter, trap choices, etc, and then from the first encounter they're playing a character that is truly *their's*, which I think is so important to the experience.

It's a very natural, easy, and successful way to get into the game.