Why all the brouhaha about the Essentials?

[Kzach]

With the logic people use to justify their arguments, I put it to you that their energies are better used posting to these boards than using the same logic in the real world. Think of the calamity and destruction that they could cause? Anarchy would soon follow and the world would collapse into a post-apocalypse state.

I'd rather they channel their energies virtually.

 

[OnlineDM]

This is an interesting take on Essentials. Something that it helps crystallize for me is this:

A lot of people who don't like Essentials are people who WANT to keep getting new options for their favorite characters, and they're worried that Wizards of the Coast won't be providing them in the future.

This is a valid concern. My wife plays a Runepriest character in our home game campaign; I play an Avenger. If we never get any more options for those characters while tons of new options for "Essentialized" classes appear, that would be disappointing.

On the other hand, lots of people have complained in the past that WotC brings out too many books too fast and that it gets expensive to keep up with all of them. Well, if those people like the old class structure, then they can step off the splatbook carousel now since new books won't have anything for them!

Ultimately, we don't KNOW that WotC won't be bringing out support books for original 4e-style classes. They might or might not. If they don't, that's a shame for people who love those classes. Me, I'd actually be fine if there were no more splatbooks ever published for 4e - I'm having plenty of fun with the game as-is. But I do also like the Essentials class structure as another option, so I'm happy to stay on the carousel even if it doesn't contain Divine Power 5 and Psionic Power 2 in the future.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

.....SNIP

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.

Good post, and my post was a bit of self-deprecating humor.

With regards to the first paragraph, and your general perspective I think what we are seeing with "normal" 4E and Essentials are two avenues or approaches to the same game. In some sense one is "advanced" and requires a build-your-own mentality, whereas the other is "basic" and offers a more linear, we'll-help-you-build-it mentality.

I haven't gone too deeply into Essentials, but I'm wondering if an Essentials fighter, for example, is mainly just a pre-built 4E fighter. They both basically do the same thing, but the standard 4E fighter has more options, more maneuvers (powers) to choose from. An interesting question would be: Could we build or "mimic" an Essentials character with Character Builder and the existing 4E rules?

We must remember that Essentials starts with the Red Box, which is primarily a way to both get new players into the game through an evergreen product that can be sold at Target and other non-gaming, non-bookstores, and it is also the starting point for a way into the very complicated game of Dungeons & Dragons. If you are 12-years old it would be a bit confusing to go from the Red Box to the three core hardcovers, which is why we have Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the DM's Kit.

To put it another way, I see Essentials as being Basic D&D to the Advanced core 4E game, yet unlike the relationship of BECMI to AD&D, the two are (almost fully) compatible. You can start with Essentials and move into 4E. An Essentials Slayer and a 4E Fighter may not be able to switch parts around that easily, but both could play in the same game.

With that in mind I think we both need and will get revised core rulebooks. Maybe not in 2011 but certainly by 2012. We certainly don't need revised Power books, or probably even revised PHB 2, but at least a revised PHB, and probably a revised DMG and MM would be a good thing. Include the errata, expand on and cleanup minor rules, move uncommon and rare magic items back where they belong in the DMG, etc.

 

[Phat Lute]

I think if Essentials were done like Basic D&D was, no one would be having a problem. Everyone would be excited.

But some major differences exist:

Basic and AD&D existed as distinct, parallel game systems. One wasn't an update to the other. They had their core advanced line in development at the same time, rather than using one to inform their design decisions for the other. They existed as separate and parallel game lines for a decade or more. They kept developing both and announcing products for both at the same time.

Also, you might actually see a reference to AD&D products, or an advertisement, in Basic boxes. Not so with Essentials, which can be especially worrying to some because it's not a parallel game system, it's supposed to be the same game system.

But nowhere does it say, "When you're ready to try more advanced options, try the Player's Handbook" or anything to that effect. Which is odd, given that according to the discussion of the economics of D&D, and its supply and demand that we just received from giant.robot, above, you'd think they would have a big warehouse full of PHBs, and if so, why wouldn't they want to sell them if they're not more or less abandoning that part of the line?

It's not what they did... simplified classes in a parallel, introductory game that brings people into the hobby would have been greeted with a ticker-tape parade by most.

It's how they did it... branding it as "all you need to play D&D", little to no mention of an existing game line or effort to encourage people to try it once they have a grasp of the basics, making it the core game line instead of a parallel series of books.

If it were Basic D&D and Advanced D&D, most of the critics would be dancing in the streets and trying to hug Mearls. It's all of the signs and signals that make it feel like they're skirting around saying it's a replacement, at the same time that they're saying it's not a replacement, that is causing people to be upset.

The question is, if these approaches are just limited to the 10 Evergreen products, and then it's back to the old way of doing things, - OR some kind of hybrid approach where they further develop both - why avoid all references to the older stuff? If they've got a huge inventory of unsold PHBs and they intend to continue with things as they were before Essentials once the 10 products are released, why not try to do what a business does and sell them? Two simple lines: "If you feel that you've mastered the game of Dungeons and Dragons Essentials, you might want to move on to more complex and challenging builds. Wizards of the Coast has the Player's Handbooks 1 through 3, and the Power sourcebooks available in stores now!"

Further, what have they given to new Essentials players that would help them to understand a PHB class? "Where's the class level chart that tells me what I get? How can I choose these other build options?" If they have any intention of going back or offering any traditional classes in the future, they've done nothing to help an Essentials-only ("all you'll ever need to play the game") person understand them.

 

[AngryMojo]

If it were Basic D&D and Advanced D&D, most of the critics would be dancing in the streets and trying to hug Mearls.

Nah, I think most people would be giving it guff no matter what was done.

And as your post proves, Mike Mearls has officially ruined hugs.

 

[giant.robot]

he question is, if these approaches are just limited to the 10 Evergreen products, and then it's back to the old way of doing things, - OR some kind of hybrid approach where they further develop both - why avoid all references to the older stuff? If they've got a huge inventory of unsold PHBs and they intend to continue with things as they were before Essentials once the 10 products are released, why not try to do what a business does and sell them? Two simple lines: "If you feel that you've mastered the game of Dungeons and Dragons Essentials, you might want to move on to more complex and challenging builds. Wizards of the Coast has the Player's Handbooks 1 through 3, and the Power sourcebooks available in stores now!"

You don't seem to understand, it's not that WotC is sitting on a bunch of core rulebook inventory that isn't moving. It's moving but at a rate that the current inventory will cover for some period of time. Even if the Essentials books had advertisements and references all over for the core books they wouldn't stimulate demand such that current inventory would run dry any time soon. WotC is comfortable with the sales rate of the core books and their inventory.

The Essentials books don't hide the fact non-Essentials books exist, there's a few bits in both the Rules Compendium and HotFL that mention core books. However they spend a lot of time mentioning other Essentials products because they want to sell the new thing they just printed and they're all going to be available from wherever people bought the book they have. Since Essentials are going to be carried by stores as a set if you pick up the Red Box at Target and decide to keep playing you can go back to Target and pick up HotFL and HoFK. The Essentials books do mention the D&D website a number of times which is a better touchstone for additional products than an explicit list of books on paper.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The answer to the original question is quite obvious. Essentials is the the newest, latest thing in D&D.

D&D is popular and new information/content to something popular ALWAYS ends up producing a ton of brouhaha.

It has happened with every major release and involved positive and negative feedback every time.

Brace yourself, because it WILL happen again. The day that we see major change like this with barely a peep will be an indication that no one actually cares.

 

[Vinicius_Zoio]

Hahahaha, yeah, that's a good way to answer it . Indeed, history repeats itself .

 

[Marshall]

Good post, and my post was a bit of self-deprecating humor.

With regards to the first paragraph, and your general perspective I think what we are seeing with "normal" 4E and Essentials are two avenues or approaches to the same game. In some sense one is "advanced" and requires a build-your-own mentality, whereas the other is "basic" and offers a more linear, we'll-help-you-build-it mentality.

Yes to the first, The second isnt "We'll help you build it." Its more of a "We've built it for you."

I haven't gone too deeply into Essentials, but I'm wondering if an Essentials fighter, for example, is mainly just a pre-built 4E fighter. They both basically do the same thing, but the standard 4E fighter has more options, more maneuvers (powers) to choose from. An interesting question would be: Could we build or "mimic" an Essentials character with Character Builder and the existing 4E rules?

No, they are flatly incompatible.

We must remember that Essentials starts with the Red Box, which is primarily a way to both get new players into the game through an evergreen product that can be sold at Target and other non-gaming, non-bookstores, and it is also the starting point for a way into the very complicated game of Dungeons & Dragons. If you are 12-years old it would be a bit confusing to go from the Red Box to the three core hardcovers, which is why we have Heroes of the Fallen Lands and the DM's Kit.

That what the marketing says. Too bad its not true. The Red Box is a short adventure good for maybe one play thru. It completely fails at being an intro kit.

To put it another way, I see Essentials as being Basic D&D to the Advanced core 4E game, yet unlike the relationship of BECMI to AD&D, the two are (almost fully) compatible. You can start with Essentials and move into 4E. An Essentials Slayer and a 4E Fighter may not be able to switch parts around that easily, but both could play in the same game.

With that in mind I think we both need and will get revised core rulebooks. Maybe not in 2011 but certainly by 2012. We certainly don't need revised Power books, or probably even revised PHB 2, but at least a revised PHB, and probably a revised DMG and MM would be a good thing. Include the errata, expand on and cleanup minor rules, move uncommon and rare magic items back where they belong in the DMG, etc.

You just got your revised rule books, dont expect anything more until 5e(and I expect Hasbro to kill D&D before there is a 5e).
4ee is a major revision to the design paradigms of 4e whether or not you believe its actually a revision to the rules. Compatibility is a Huge issue with all the Martial classes. Almost nothing Martial for 4ee is useful in 4e. Knight, Slayer and Thief(and Executioner) arent subclasses they are new classes.

 

[UHF]

The fear is that all future classes will be as limited as the Essentials ones.

I'm OK with smaller books... I'm OK with classes with the same general layout. (And dude.. I'm paying more for less.) But I really want more full classes that are in the original 4e vain. I want At-Will powers that all my fighters can pick and choose from. I like the choice I have in 4e, even if I have options coming out my nose... I like it. I don't like the Essentials Cookie cutter character design. That's old school.

And yes, this is all fear and blind speculation.