What did Wizards learn from Essentials?

[Mokona]

What did WotC learn from Essentials?

Do the ground-floor, entry-level stuff first. Start with the starter set, then add complexity. If we'd released Essentials first then PBH 1 as an Advanced PHB, we wouldn't have had the same problems.

If you think the "same problems" were issues with errata then, yes, I agree that starting with Essentials would have lessened the problem.

I don't agree that Essentials would have solved the essential problem of 4th edition. D&D Next has a better chance to succeed because of a broader approach to design and customer feedback which is totally unrelated to what Essentials would have brought to the table.

What could Wizards of the Coast have learned from Essentials if it had been released first?

 

[Raith5]

Good question. Sadly I agree with the OP. I think 4th ed is great but wideranging play testing could have/ should have softened some of ungainly edges of 4th ed. Parts of it just felt rushed or loosely connected - for eg Rituals

I like the mechanical core, including the aspects new but some of the choices around classes especially could have been more been more traditional. For eg I think some of the character builds builds in essentials are more in keeping with D&D lore - I am thinking here of the wizard, druid, ranger. So in a sense I think the story of 4th ed could have been at least a little bit different if they started with essentials.

There are some aspects of 4th which I really liked - all the new races, the new cosmology (shadowfell etc) but this is something where modularity and options is a new 'lesson learned'.

 

[Klaus]

If you think the "same problems" were issues with errata then, yes, I agree that starting with Essentials would have lessened the problem.

I don't agree that Essentials would have solved the essential problem of 4th edition. D&D Next has a better chance to succeed because of a broader approach to design and customer feedback which is totally unrelated to what Essentials would have brought to the table.

What could Wizards of the Coast have learned from Essentials if it had been released first?

The Essentials books acknowledge that characters don't have to follow the same progression to be comparable. Martial classes feel more like themselves, with the Fighters having "fighting styles" and the Thief relying on movement more than on positioning. The books are easier to read, with interesting flavor text. The "core" race/classes of D&D are available separate from the "fringe" ones. The DM and Monster boxes come with good adventures.

 

[Glade Riven]

Hey, I love those monster tokens from Essentials. I'm hoping WotC starts pairing monster tokens with dungeon tiles.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I think 4E was the system where the math was the one ring to rule all.

Which was a good idea, I just think it was carried a little bit too far. ]

But I do like 4E, and play it often. Essentials was not too successful, in my opinion, and I do not agree t hat essentials first and then PHBI later would have helped much. Maybe, but I am not so sure.

But starting simpler and then moving upwards is a great idea.

 

[Chris Coulter]

If you think the "same problems" were issues with errata then, yes, I agree that starting with Essentials would have lessened the problem.

I don't agree that Essentials would have solved the essential problem of 4th edition.

Just so I understand, what in particular do you feel the essential problem of 4E was?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

He said it in the opening post... in the folowing sentence...

But even though Essentials first would not have solved the essntial problem, which is fokussing on a to narrow playstyle, but it would have solved a different problem:
The perception that every class is the same and that the game does not follow the traditions, which IMHO was a huge factor for many fans not switching.
Maybe one year later many gamers had realized that the game is not for them, as it does not work well with their playstyle, but Pathfinder had had more resistance establishing itself... (just my speculation)

 

[Mokona]

...what in particular do you feel the essential problem of 4E was?

D&D 4th edition combat is too complicated once you start playing it (though it was easy to learn).

 

[Dausuul]

I think by "the same problems," he was talking about the reaction to Essentials, where a lot of 4E-ers complained that it was "dumbed down." If Essentials and PHB1 had been released in the opposite order, that reaction would likely not have happened.

 

[Saracenus]

I think the primary take away from Essentials is that uniformity of mechanics is not the only way to balanced classes. It showed that with a strong underlying rule structure there many paths (complexity, feel, etc.) for classes to take while still being balanced when playing along side each other.

It showed that you could cater to more than one play style within the rule set.

I think this informs the overarching design goal of D&D Next of being a big tent for all players of D&D.

Whether you love, hate or are indifferent to Essentials it was a very important design exercise in the evolution of D&D.

My two coppers,