Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Phat Lute" data-source="post: 5333433" data-attributes="member: 84524">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.</blockquote>

Verification