Why all the brouhaha about the Essentials?

[Vinicius_Zoio]

A very similar question has been recently posted on the boards owned by Wizards of the Coast, by the user Koesherbacon - this post here is a result of that original thread, which you can find here.

First of all, I would like to reinforce this post here is not intended to ignite a flame war and I know how weary we are of all this "edition wars" and the "flaming trolls". This is my first post here in these boards and I was directed by some of the posters on that original thread at WotC's to repaste my post here as well.

This will be a long post, but in the end, I believe that people who are interested in reading about the opinion of both sides about the changes introduced in the new D&D Essentials may find the text here (and the others in the original thread) an interesting read. Also, pardon any lack of knowledge of the english language I demonstrate in my text - english is not my first language.

------

Koesherbacon made an interesting post in the WotC boards with an honest question - here's a transcript:

------

Hi everyone. This should probably be a pretty quick question, mostly because I'm not quite sure I totally understand these new Essential and Red Box thingers.

Here's what I'm currently understanding:

Nothing has ultimately changed with 4th Edition, save some errata'd rules.

* These rules include the new implement rule where you can use any implement you're proficient in for either of your multi-class or hybrid characters, should you choose to make them that way.
* These rules also include the new +2 to Ability 1 and +2 to Ability 2 or Ability 3 for most (if not all) character races. This makes the races more versatile in terms of class choices which they excel at.
* The new Essential classes are more or less there to both give the current classes more options and also to make the game a little easier for new players.
* Everything in Essentials can be used in any DND campaign and any information prior to Essentials will carry over with the exceptions mentioned above.


Am I missing something? Am I incorrect with my understanding?

If I am currently correct, I wonder what all the brouhaha (actually a word) is all about? It's just giving us more options as players and DMs when we play the game, in much the same way the [Power Source] Power books do.

Thanks!

------

Among other who were quick to answer Koesherbacon was the user Artifact, whose opinion I think is very interesting. Here is his post:

------

My two coppers, for what its worth .

D&D Essentials is fully compatible with earlier D&D books. There have been some 'updates' but the actual game system remains the same. So, I can play with Essentials stuff at the same table with original 4e stuff. As you say, nothing has ultimately changed.

I have one major concern though. The designers have said that DDE will inform design decisions going forward (to paraphrase). I take this to mean that the original design philosophy will be jettisoned in favor of Essential designs. I don't like the idea of 'pre-built' classes, martial classes that 'button-mash' basic attack.

I'm concerned that the original Core Rules will eventually be phased out in favor of DDE. For one thing, DDE stuff is intended to remain in print and in stock (unlike the original books I assume). Essentials is a fresh start (I can get behind that) but not at the expense of the original design philosophy.

D&D Essentials does provide options (which is good) but at the expense of a philosophy I like (not good). That's enough to keep me from being excited about all this. Some thing I like . I have a friend who left the group when we stopped 3.5 and started 4e. He wants to try out the martial builds. I think its great that the designers can work with the game so that it appeals to different kinds of players.

/\ Art

------

Artifact's opinion led me to create the following text, wich users Andy_capp, Foxface, Jffdougan and Adun_Irving found interesting and whose incentive was fundamental to my decision to bring this text for this board. Here's what I wrote about Koesherbacon question to the people concerned about the Essentials:

------

To the OP. (and please, excuse the lenghty post)

Artifact defined what I think are the main reasonable concerns about the Essential lines. Although any person who thinks Essentials is a bad idea is rapidly put into the "unreasonable doomsayers gnashing their teeth" group, I do think most of the argument is really behind the choice for future design.

For example, you state:

As for speculation about what's going to happen with the old material, as a DM, I don't see why there would be a problem combining the current info with that from the Essential line. If it's all technically 4th Edition, it should all mesh, especially if players are making their characters with the DDI Character Builder and DMs are using the Monster Builder to construct custom enemies for the PCs to encounter.

But that's not exactly why the negative persons are concerned. If Essentials is optional, its design shouldn't become the main design paradigm for main 4e.

Most importantly, even though the material may be all compatible (and not everyone would agree with that), as Artifact pointed out, there are Pre-E players who do not like the design changes brought to the Essentials. In his words:

I take this to mean that the original design philosophy will be jettisoned in favor of Essential designs. I don't like the idea of 'pre-built' classes, martial classes that 'button-mash' basic attack.

So, if the game changes to that design paradigm - even though it may be all compatible - he won't like the direction taken in the design. He doesn't want "pre-built classes" nor "button-mash basic attack classes". And so does other posters.

It's important to note that different people will also have different views about what they want for the game - I for example think the new magic item rarity is a boon - a change I will surely embrace in my game - but other people may think differently. Evidently, we cannot "agree" to a design direction that would please the whole fanbase but it is also evident that the supposed direction 4e will take after Essentials may cause yet another split in the player base. And of course, that is speculation and remain to be seen.

Most importantly.

I see a lot of counterarguments against Essentials "pessimists" in these lines:

-This product obviously is not for you.
-This product is meant for the new players.
-This is merely an addition.
-This is entirely optional.
-You don't need to buy Essentials if you don't like it.
-It is all compatible.

Which leads to:

-You're all a bunch of neo-grognards doomsaying about a product you don't like.

That is NOT why I think most are concerned.

As many have said before - if Essentials was exactly 10 products and it was over, I doubt there would be as many "doomsaying". I won't buy Essentials because they're not for me - and I truly don't need to buy them.

However, when I resume "buying book for the game I play", one would presume they would continue with most or at least the intrinsecal design parameters this edition of D&D proposed two years ago. Instead, if the pessimists are correct, we may get material that, although compatible, will be created with Essential designs.

Some of that Essential changes that will be made to the main line do not appeal to the entire fanbase - and even though I see many against the feats and itens changes, most appear to be concerned about class design.


Personally, I'm not against Wizards creating a product for another market (the Essentials line). I applaud their inititive to bring new blood to the hobby. I just wish this doesn't come in the expense of the design paradigms I like. What you see is not exactly "doomsaying about a new product", it is "worry about the direction the product I bought and thought would be supported for years". If main 4e follow some of the design tenets of Essentials (like class designs), I'll be worried - because I won't like it. It has nothing to do with Essentials itself.

If these changes in design paradigm came "out of nowhere" and simply appeared on classes on a PHB 4 - I would still complain because what I don't like is not the Essentials books - but the design tenets they may use to create further content to the game.

------

To try to come up with yet another example of what I think the pessimists are meaning:

The designers can, whenever they want, change the main design direction of 4th edition. In the past two years, they followed similar design tenets and tried their best to correct the systems mistakes and improve on its design.

However, instead of continuing its design, they could also choose to follow other paths of design direction that could lead to a compatible, functional, albeit fundamentally different system.

For example, they could choose to add the following to the system:

-Remove the power system.
-Add the old "dead levels".
-Create "class charts".
-Return with "skill ranks".
-Allow multiclassing as they did with 3e.
-Remove Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.

They could make the above changes in a way that they were compatible with 4e. They could provide all them for free as errata. They could make they work side by side. They could make sure that old books could be easily used with the proposed changes.

Would you say the game is the same? Even if all the (drastic) changes above were compatible?

In my eyes, even though the changes above would be compatible they would suggest a very different design choice and direction for the game.

I'm not proposing Essentials bring as much change as those in the above example would - but some of the changes it might bring to 4e may devalue this edition for some players. One of the reasons I bought 4e was because I liked the class system - simpler, yet with more choices per level than 3e and similar all along the board - fighter players can grasp a wizards class with less time than it would take for a newbie to the same in the older edition.

If Essentials moves away from this, they it will have changed, in my eyes, the game for the worse.

People are not deriding the Essentials products - they deriding the changes. And they're aren't deriding only "changes meant to update the design", they deriding changes that will take the design to an opposed direction to what they have.

The design priority Mearls stated very early in the "excerpts" is directly opposed to the "class design" they had before - they went from "building classes in very similar structures and keep their complexity similar" to "building classes with differents structures and vary their complexity".

Honestly, I think that's probably the -only- change I'm worried about. If all this was confined to the 10 Essentials products, this would never be a problem - but from what I hear, this will probably be the way future 4e classes will be designed - and this does not appeal to me.

I don't mean by this that there are people thrilled with the new class design or that they aren't the majority of the player base - I'm just not in that group. But if your intention is to truly understand why there are people concerned about the Essentials, the reason above could provide you that perspective - we're not seeing "errata only", many are also seeing that shift to a design parameter clearly opposed to the one the annouced two years ago.

------

Why are you posting this?

After some repercussions I witnessed in the original thread, I think the above text could use some clarification.

The text above is not meant as derogatory to the designers, the people playing Essentials or the Essential line.

The original poster asked the other side of the debate "why are you so opposed to the Essentials?" and I sought to provide him with my opinion and the means by wich he could understand my perspective.

It does not mean that my opinion should take precedence over others' or that it should decide the future of the game, I thought that much was obvious by any person's opinion in this debate about Essentials.

What I sought was to provide the other side of the debate with a concise way to understand the pessimist's perspective.

My opinion above evidently does not cover all opinions and thoughts of any side of the debate. What I think is that the main reason for pessimism lies in the new class design tenets, but its important to note that not even that means any of the sides of this debate know about what the future holds - perhaps not even the employees of WotC would be able to provide us with that knowledge.

That's also why that for many, Players Option: Heroes of Shadow, the first book after the Essentials that is instended for Main 4e will be a deciding factor - when those new classes are revealed, we will be sure of how much influence will Essentials have on the class design.

My text is not meant as discouragement towards the Essentials, but to provide interested parties with insight on the pessimist side of the debate. This text does not "end the debate" nor does it defines one side or the other as "right" or "wrong".

In the end, all there is to this discussion is "people who like the new direction" and "people who don't like the new direction". None of those groups are "right" or "wrong".

I hope that whatever decision WotC takes, they manage to please both groups and all of we that have come to embrace 4th edition in a way or another gain by their direction . Best of gaming to we all! .

 

[Mercurius]

Because we're Nerds and we like to Rage.

 

[Wormwood]

Man, with all that Red Text, I thought this was a far more interesting thread than it turned out to be. Nice Bluff check.

 

[Phat Lute]

I was just saying in another thread here that I think we've got people looking at Essentials from two different directions.

Group A thinks of "the rules" as the core combat and encounter resolution mechanics, and sees very little change taking place.

Group B thinks of "the rules" as the system for creating a character (one for which the combat and encounter systems are built, as it is the character interacting with the monster or encounter) and sees massive change.

They're both right to a point. The core combat and resolution systems aren't really changing much. The character building aspect of the game is going from about as toolkit-like as you can get with a class and level system to something linear and narrowly defined. Characters from both systems can interact with the game systems successfully, so they are compatible. Characters built in one set, in many cases, can't use the other set's stuff, so it's not compatible.

Group A thinks that Group B must be crazy and unreasonable, the rules aren't changing.

Group B thinks that Group A are downplaying their concerns and then running them over with a bulldozer, whether through spite, willful ignorance or blind loyalty.

You did a decent job of making that distinction.

On top of that dichotomy, you've also got the "wait and see" crowd, which usually aligns with Group A above, who say that we don't know what will happen after the ten Essentials products, coming up against the people who take Wizards at their word that this is the approach going forward, meaning it's unlikely we'll see a complete new PHB-style class again, who tend to fall into Group B.

I think there are actual issues here, it's not just because we like to rage. Where it turns to rage is where we fail to define what exactly it is we're talking about. Each group might as well turn around and talk to a different brick wall.

 

[Vaeron]

I've gone between group A and group B there, before finally settling back into group A... It had gone from seeming like minimal changes (just some alternate builds) to major rules changes (magic item rarity, ANOTHER skill challenge revision, feat restructuring), before settling down and, in the end, being little more than the alternate builds it had originally seemed to be. I actually regret purchasing the Rules Compendium, to be honest - the changes aren't significant enough to warrant it, and it doesn't include many, many DMG rules (poisons at all, most diseases, several mount rules) and includes none of the non-core rules (vehicles, etc.).

I actually like Heroes; it's an interesting experiment. But I hope it stays that way - an experiment. I want to see an Arcane Power 2 where artificers (although I've never played one) finally get some attention, or a Divine Power 2 that covers Runepriests... There's some concern that these are now abandoned classes that no one should play as they will not be supported.

The "this is what you get at each level" approach is well and good - and I understand the level of bloat and volume of options has grown faster than expected (I tried to Paragon Multiclass a half-elf bard once with the feat that let him pick powers from ANY class, and going through all those powers is an absolute nightmare) but I really do hope they continue to release non-Essentials type stuff.

 

[Vinicius_Zoio]

Excellent way to summarize things Phat Lute . I think you have hit the nail in the head! ^^

 

[AngryMojo]

I want to see an Arcane Power 2 where artificers (although I've never played one) finally get some attention, or a Divine Power 2 that covers Runepriests... There's some concern that these are now abandoned classes that no one should play as they will not be supported.

What I'd like to see is a single book covering Artificers, Runepriests and Seekers. You could do an AP2, DP2 and PP2, but I don't really want anything more for wizards, clerics, druids, etc. Maybe throw it in with some extra Assassin builds, and call it "Player's Option" or "Splatbook A" or whatever. I really want more power and feat support for those classes.

 

[Dire Bare]

They're both right to a point. The core combat and resolution systems aren't really changing much. The character building aspect of the game is going from about as toolkit-like as you can get with a class and level system to something linear and narrowly defined. Characters from both systems can interact with the game systems successfully, so they are compatible. Characters built in one set, in many cases, can't use the other set's stuff, so it's not compatible.

Congratulations to everyone who read the entire OP . . . too long for my attention span.

Nice breakdown Phat, although I don't think that the two different styles of class builds are as incompatible as some see them. An essentials build is more linear on the surface, seemingly more rigid. However, the various abilities gained at certain levels are only rigid in the sense that there are only a few options to choose from at each point. With more material in later books and Dragon magazine, it's very possible that when the Slayer has to choose a level 1 ability, he'll have more options to choose from than just Power Strike for an attack power. It's still more rigid and linear than a non-Essentials build, but not as much as some folks claim. Plus, the Slayer can choose utility powers from any source, Essential or not, plus 1st level at-will stances. They don't have access to the wider range of powers a non-Essential build has, but they aren't locked into what is in "Fallen Lands".

Still, I would have preferred a style somewhere in between the older products and the Essential products. Older builds are very open to options, but you only get any real guidance at crafting an effective build at 1st level, beyond that it is too easy to "water down" your build with nonoptimal power and feat choices. Unless you are pulling a build from a supplemental product and stick with powers only found in that product (and if that product supports 2 or more builds, than it's still an issue). Essentials builds aren't as rigid as some make them out to be, but I do still find them a bit too limiting. I'd have loved to see class powers categorized much like feats are now in Essentials, smaller groups in a tighter theme to help you choose effective suites of powers. Guidance without limitation.

I actually like Heroes; it's an interesting experiment. But I hope it stays that way - an experiment. I want to see an Arcane Power 2 where artificers (although I've never played one) finally get some attention, or a Divine Power 2 that covers Runepriests... There's some concern that these are now abandoned classes that no one should play as they will not be supported.

I think the concern that Runepriests (forex) aren't good to play due to low Dragon or supplemental book support is overblown. Just because several of the newer classes don't have the wealth of options that the more traditional classes offer, doesn't make them suboptimal or no fun to play! The Runepriest with only the feats and powers offered in PHB3 works pretty well just as it is! IMO. Sure, more options would be nice, but the lack of them doesn't kill the class.

I am interested/concerned that class expansions in the future will be solely in the Essentials style. It's likely, and makes a degree of sense . . . . supporting the new "edition" rather than the old . . . . but I'd rather see both styles supported. We'll see what happens . . . .

 

[giant.robot]

There's one huge assumption that the core rulebooks are going away and D&D will now only be Essentials from now on. This assumption is based on a misunderstanding of some comments made by WotC people at GenCon. When asked if the core rulebooks will remain in print the WotC people said they had no current plans for new print runs. Every RPG blogger then ran out screaming that the core rulebooks were going out of print.

The question and WotC's answer were in two completely different contexts. What the WotC people were saying was their sales channel was full of core rulebooks. They've printed a hojillion copies that are sitting in warehouses and on store shelves. They don't need to print more copies of the current books because supply has met and can continue to meet demand for an undisclosed (but known to them) period of time.

This does not mean the core rulebooks are suddenly going to become unavailable any time soon. It doesn't mean the core rulebooks are being abandoned for Essentials. It means the market for the core rulebooks is pretty much saturated and existing inventory will be plenty to supply what demand does exist. WotC looked at their sales chart and saw that the rate of replenishment orders had begun to trend downward. Algebra may have been involved.

The stuff about Essentials always being in print and being available is more about WotC's retail strategy. For one I'm betting they're trying to do a little more JIT (just in time) inventory with the Essentials stuff. They'll do smaller print runs that more closely meet the current demand. They're also likely offering discounts when the Essentials stuff is ordered as a compete bundle and further discounts when it gets displayed together. This is how you get a retailer to always ave the entire line in stock.

Back to the core rulebooks, the current plans don't call for more print runs but it is possible and I think likely that the core boos will get collected as compendious and reprinted in the digest (9"x6") format. That size maximizes the number of units that will fit on a shelf and thus ake retailers happy by helping them maximize floor space.

The assumptions made about print runs are really annoying to read. People don't seem to understand the business of printing and selling things but feel qualified to play industry pundit anyways. They also seem to ignore the fact that the product as been around for a few years now, the core rulebooks aren't exactly flying off shelves anymore. Not only do people own the boos but WotC can't afford to hire enough ninjas to destroy them all. The existing inventory for sale and in people's hands is safe. Essentials are reaching out to new players and helping them ge into the game. If they're happy sticking with Essentials books that's fine since they can play in everyone else's games. If they want to explore then the core rulebooks will be there for them. If there's a new demand for the core rulebooks they'll do additional print runs.

Complain that Forgotten Realms and Eberron haven't gotten enough 4E love or the lay-flat binding of the Essentials books doesn't lay flat. Don't complain that WotC is trying to get new people interested in the hobby that you love.

 

[Plaguedguy]

I'm going to diverge a bit and say that people really should wait and see before we start assuming that all future classes and books geared for characters are going to be straight-path essentials style. I say this because essentials appears (at least to me) to be designed as a basement-level intro to class building in 4th Edition.

Given the popularity of the 'power' books and any book that produces a new class or build option it strikes me as unlikely that WotC won't continue to release these kinds of books. They know their players love a glut of options whenever possible and will spend money to get new content for their characters.

However, having a few builds that don't have two dozen choices to make at each level is a good thing for people coming into/back to the hobby, or people who just want a character with a relatively simple build order. I think essentials is intended to fill this role.

Yes, it has been said that essentials is informing design for future products, but that doesn't necessarily mean Wizards is simply turning every new class into an island that can't be modified or changed in the slightest.

I say wait for the new player-side books to be released before we start getting our pitchforks and torches. And I'll be happy to say 'I was wrong' if the builds in the upcoming player-side books are designed to be as isolated and straight-path as the essentials classes.