Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 7666543" data-attributes="member: 18182">Wow, maybe it's a &quot;glass half full&quot; vs &quot;glass half empty&quot; difference of opinion, but I couldn't disagree more!Essentials &quot;half-assed&quot;? Nah. Articles of Faith? Whut?WotC's market research determined (from what they shared with us) that *core books* are the best sellers. The big three. Of course, the most *core* of the *core* is the PHB, and it has traditionally been the biggest seller.Essentials wasn't an abandonment of the 4th edition, far from it. It was an attempt to not only redefine the edition itself, but the idea of what is a *core book*. It was an experiment. All of the following books were positioned as *core books*: Rules Compendium, Dungeon Master's Kit, Monster Vault, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms.The Rules Compendium wasn't exactly, but kinda was, a replacement for the PHB. Both &quot;Heroes&quot; books were the *new* players books. WotC was trying to see if they could get players to purchase two or three *core books* (RC + one/both &quot;Heroes&quot;) instead of just one.Some folks liked the new formats, or elements of the new formats, others didn't. Since 5E went back to the traditional structure, I'm assuming the experiment didn't play out positively.I'm sure WotC saw 4E losing steam and felt that moving on to 5E wasn't right, not yet. So, they did two things with the Essentials line, 1) an attempt to rescue and prolong the 4th edition, and 2) an opportunity to try something different with the book release formula. The experiment wasn't half-assed at all, but was very well done. It just didn't sway enough folks to make the Essentials format stick around longer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dire Bare, post: 7666543, member: 18182"] Wow, maybe it's a "[I]glass half full[/I]" vs "[I]glass half empty[/I]" difference of opinion, but I couldn't disagree more! Essentials "half-assed"? Nah. Articles of Faith? Whut? WotC's market research determined (from what they shared with us) that *core books* are the best sellers. The big three. Of course, the most *core* of the *core* is the PHB, and it has traditionally been the biggest seller. Essentials wasn't an abandonment of the 4th edition, far from it. It was an attempt to not only redefine the edition itself, but the idea of what is a *core book*. It was an experiment. All of the following books were positioned as *core books*: Rules Compendium, Dungeon Master's Kit, Monster Vault, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, and Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms. The Rules Compendium wasn't exactly, but kinda was, a replacement for the PHB. Both "Heroes" books were the *new* players books. WotC was trying to see if they could get players to purchase two or three *core books* (RC + one/both "Heroes") instead of just one. Some folks liked the new formats, or elements of the new formats, others didn't. Since 5E went back to the traditional structure, I'm assuming the experiment didn't play out positively. I'm sure WotC saw 4E losing steam and felt that moving on to 5E wasn't right, not yet. So, they did two things with the Essentials line, 1) an attempt to rescue and prolong the 4th edition, and 2) an opportunity to try something different with the book release formula. The experiment wasn't half-assed at all, but was very well done. It just didn't sway enough folks to make the Essentials format stick around longer. [/QUOTE]

Verification