Or you could just flag it and move on instead of responding with a trollish message.
As someone who has spent a lot of time defending 4E on these very boards (the irony), I can say with absolutely confidence that most "trolls" are really just people who have the termerity to disagree with the current groupthink. It's much more fun (and much easier) to engage in ad hominem, dog-pile accusations.
Look around Paizo's boards -- on many, all defenders of 4E are written off as trolls. Meanwhile, in here people have (somewhat understandably) developed a siege mentality, so anyone who criticizes something WotC does is a "troll." Nothing new, really...
As for essentials: WotC has re-published an updated set of rules in a new format. By any reasonable definition of the word "edition," that constitutes a new one. Some people would rather split hairs than admit the obvious -- I'm not sure why. Such is life.
Or you could just flag it and move on instead of responding with a trollish message.As someone who has spent a lot of time defending 4E on these very boards (the irony), I can say with absolutely confidence that most "trolls" are really just people who have the termerity to disagree with the current groupthink. It's much more fun (and much easier) to engage in ad hominem, dog-pile accusations.
Look around Paizo's boards -- on many, all defenders of 4E are written off as trolls. Meanwhile, in here people have (somewhat understandably) developed a siege mentality, so anyone who criticizes something WotC does is a "troll." Nothing new, really...
To be fair, from my perspective, on this thread a few of your posts have crossed a line dividing "criticism of WotC" and "insulting other poster who disagree with you."
No matter which side is right, I am pretty sure it is unnecessary to call another poster is just trying to cause trouble for their own amusement, or go at them as if they are ignoring the obvious reality before them. Especially over games that are supposed to be fun.
I didn't play d&d during the 3.0 to 3.5 transition, so I may well be way off base. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the ddi subscription (with the compendium, character builder, monster builder, etcetera all updating every month) has changed the whole concept of "editions". It seems to me that 4th edition is and always has been in a constant state of evolution and revision. I consider essentials to be a significant 'all-at-once' update, but still part of that ongoing process. I don't find it helpful to compare it with the introduction of 3.5 since it seems to me the situation is fundamentally different than it was pre-ddi.
I'll note that being a troll requires some level of asshat behavior.
Mere disagreement with ones point of view does not qualify. Since the original post was in response to Morgen I feel its necessary to defend his posts because, while they where not favourable to 4E, you'd have to actually put some effort into it to be insulted.
Compare and contrast to say Bugley's posts with his liberal sprinkling of phrases like 'groupthink' and 'drink the Koolaid', where there really is a reasonable justification to flag the posts.
|
The expertise feats actually might be another good example of something odd with how the game is changing. We were upset too when those feats came out, but not because we felt they were overpowered but rather that they seemed to fix a problem of the way Monster AC's went up considerably faster then Player's ability to hit them. It felt more like you had to take the expertise feats rather then you could do it to be over powered. One of the last 4E campaigns we started they were actually given out for free to everyone without too much detriment to anything as they were seen as that core to the game functioning. Selling us a new book rather then fixing an issue with the game through errata.
Now, given the wide range of powers, feats and the like that problem might not exist anymore and they're probably unnecessary so I can understand how they could be viewed as overpowered, but it also kinds of shows some of that bar getting lower question I brought up when +1/+2/+3 to hit is viewed as overly powerful. Is it too much because it was always too good for a feat or is it too good because the game has changed that much? Is it just the current top of the pile with most things on top of it being nerf batted away? Even if the answer is no it's at least something to consider.
Back to the main topic of the thread, sorry to keep getting away from it, but a lot of you all seem to be on relatively the same page. DDI, essentials and errataed up like you'd expect. That might take some of the problem issues of Essentials out of your immediate field of vision. There likely are a substantial amount of players for 4E that don't have subscriptions to DDI, some that don't check the errata and some that might might not even buy extra books past the base core 3. People have variable layers that they'll play or run games at rather then all at the high point like most of you seem to be running at. You and your friends are fine but it can make for a bit of a mess when people try to form new groups when there are so many different pages to be on in the game's cycle.
You try to start a new game at your FLGS and you could quite easily have people who show up carrying a number of rules or expectations that could be true or false depending on how close you are to the spectrum between the start of 4E and the start of the Essentials line.
I believe more comments will be given once essentials is actually released in the character builder. For the majority that rely on it, any converstations prior to that is only theory as to the impact.
I fell victim to the set of circumstances you stated may happen in a game store, when I tried playing 3.5 again, after taking a break from GURPS. I was surprised to find that my books were out of date, in comparison to what they were using. If this occured in 4E, I would pay a one time monthly subscription to DDI and it would be resolved.
When you go to a game store, you have to expect everyone will be using the latest release of rules, because that is how the game store stays in business.
If you rely soley on books, then everyone will have to decide what rules and books everyone will play with, and add house rules when discrepencies come along. That is the price for relying on books as your sole source for information. When I used books exclusively, I never went to a web site to update errata, until an issue came up, then everyone had to decide what direction to take.
Compare and contrast to say Bugley's posts with his liberal sprinkling of phrases like 'groupthink' and 'drink the Koolaid', where there really is a reasonable justification to flag the posts.
Wow...you are way more liberal with "reasonable justification to flag" than I am. To me, flag == direct insult, as in "so and so, you are an @-hole." Sometimes not even then. I think you will find that your criteria leads inevitably to a messageboard full of sanitized, PC uselessness.
I'll continue to call illogical behavior exactly what it is. If you think that's flag-worhty, go for it.
The expertise feats actually might be another good example of something odd with how the game is changing. We were upset too when those feats came out, but not because we felt they were overpowered but rather that they seemed to fix a problem of the way Monster AC's went up considerably faster then Player's ability to hit them. It felt more like you had to take the expertise feats rather then you could do it to be over powered. One of the last 4E campaigns we started they were actually given out for free to everyone without too much detriment to anything as they were seen as that core to the game functioning. Selling us a new book rather then fixing an issue with the game through errata.
Now, given the wide range of powers, feats and the like that problem might not exist anymore and they're probably unnecessary so I can understand how they could be viewed as overpowered, but it also kinds of shows some of that bar getting lower question I brought up when +1/+2/+3 to hit is viewed as overly powerful. Is it too much because it was always too good for a feat or is it too good because the game has changed that much? Is it just the current top of the pile with most things on top of it being nerf batted away? Even if the answer is no it's at least something to consider.
I generally disagree that the expertise feats where ever needed. People noticed the mechanical effect that monsters AC went up faster then base players ability to hit before they managed to get characters to higher levels and hence failed to notice just how much more effective players became. You look at how many powers ones character gets and think thats something like the cap but its not really - your constantly picking up magic items and they usually have powers too so you actually end up with close to twice as many powers. By the later stages of the game you've got all sorts of abilities that allow rerolls etc.
I don't think the issue is that its good only because the game has changed. If anything the changing nature of the game makes the feat less powerful as other options appear to compete for the feat slot.
That said its rare for a feat to be that good so the issue pretty much remains that its to good just because there is unlikely to be a comparable feat and everyone takes it. Any feat nearly everyone takes must be too good.
Back to the main topic of the thread, sorry to keep getting away from it, but a lot of you all seem to be on relatively the same page. DDI, essentials and errataed up like you'd expect. That might take some of the problem issues of Essentials out of your immediate field of vision. There likely are a substantial amount of players for 4E that don't have subscriptions to DDI, some that don't check the errata and some that might might not even buy extra books past the base core 3. People have variable layers that they'll play or run games at rather then all at the high point like most of you seem to be running at. You and your friends are fine but it can make for a bit of a mess when people try to form new groups when there are so many different pages to be on in the game's cycle.You try to start a new game at your FLGS and you could quite easily have people who show up carrying a number of rules or expectations that could be true or false depending on how close you are to the spectrum between the start of 4E and the start of the Essentials line.
I don't see how this really has anything to do with whether or not Essentials is 4.5. I mean if we never had Essentials these issues would remain. If you have only bought the first three books and don't use errata then your going to have issues when you go to play in a convention tournament because that tournament is run under the rules on the DDI. These issues are identical to the ones you'd have had even if Essentials had never been released.
If your forming a new group then this issue is not really a problem with errata or, more accurately, errata is small potatoes compared to a much bigger issue of people not having the same supplements. The entirety of the errata is minor compared to how much the game changes if you use only a few books compared to if you use many or all of them. What books are we playing with is a much more important question to answer then are we using official errata (though answering are we using official errata will also have to be addressed).
This is one of the benefits of the DDI - it puts everyone who uses it on the same page. Beyond this I think your overestimating the number of people that don't use the DDI. My experience has been that its use is near unanimous among any group of serious 4E players.
I can definitely see people not using the DDI if their interest in 4E is just as a change of pace between doing other things but if thats the case what do they care about whether Essentials is 4.5 or not? They have the 4 books they like using for their 4E game, Essentials is irrelevant to them one way or another never mind what edition it purportedly represents.
|
|
I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps in a more urban area that holds true, in places where internet is more ubiquitous you certainly should see more DDI. I still know people who don't even have access to anything over dial up internet and don't bother to pay for even that, or people who don't even own computers to start with. It's a big issue in the United States, the country still isn't wired up like other nations are. That is one of main advantages of pen and paper gaming has in the market too is the simple fact that a few books, dice and some friends are all you needs.
It's like assuming everyone has an ipod or a smart phone or the like. Still millions of people who don't have or even want those kinds of devices no matter how popular they are in main stream society.
I know how nice DDI is, it pretty much replaces the need for any of the books (well, when you have this promotional folder that we got like 2 years ago too) for just paying for the subscription once, but not everyone can or is willing to go for it.
The other main issue with the 4.5 argument is the discontinuation of the original core 4e books. Did anyone know if that actually happening?
I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps in a more urban area that holds true, in places where internet is more ubiquitous you certainly should see more DDI. I still know people who don't even have access to anything over dial up internet and don't bother to pay for even that, or people who don't even own computers to start with. It's a big issue in the United States, the country still isn't wired up like other nations are. That is one of main advantages of pen and paper gaming has in the market too is the simple fact that a few books, dice and some friends are all you needs.
It's like assuming everyone has an ipod or a smart phone or the like. Still millions of people who don't have or even want those kinds of devices no matter how popular they are in main stream society.
Its more like assuming that in 20 years everyone will have some kind of a smart phone. Most will, in fact they may become so prevalent that land line based phone companies may well start to not make economic sense.
I have no doubt there are some examples where this is the case but most of them are not young or middle aged geeks. At this point I know environmentalists who live off the Grid in houses they built themselves out of earth and straw reasonably isolated from civilization (you usually need to be far enough out that there are no building code regulations where you build) that use internet. Solar power or muscle power to generate the electricity and you pay one of a number of companies to get the internet from a direct satellite feed. Its not even that expensive, like $30 a month or some such.
At this point if you don't have internet your not trying or your really poor, especially since only one person in your group needs the internet access. Under most circumstances that follow from this 4E may not be the best choice of games for you as its many things but cheap is not one of them (though, ironically, its a lot more affordable if you have a DDI subscription since you don't need to buy nearly as many books).
I'm just not sure it makes economic sense for a major company to spend time and effort focusing on this group. Note that Paizo also does not focus on this group, for both Paizo and WotC a dedicated costumer could manage to put together a game without access to a computer but its not a market segment either company has been designed to focus on...both companies make an internet presence core to their business model.
Nor do I really see how this has much bearing on whether Essentials is 4.5 though I suppose that if you only play with the first three books and never use errata then you'll notice some differences in your powers if you go to a convention. None of which will likely throw you for much of a loop - powers are self contained. Read them and you'll get how it works. Rule changes, even with errata, are usually pretty corner case. Skill challenges will be better statistically balanced, stealth rules will work and small number of corner case rules like flight will have changed and the monsters will be a lot more nasty then what your used to...but most of it will be in your powers and you can just read those again. This is a pretty extreme example in any case and not applicable to most of the customer base.
The other main issue with the 4.5 argument is the discontinuation of the original core 4e books. Did anyone know if that actually happening?
WotC has said that they are not discontinuing these and your still taken to links regarding them. That said by the time Essentials is done most of the information in the PHB will have been reprinted in one of the Essentials books or another.
The Monster Manual remains mostly unique. Essentials usually just includes new variations of the Troll or Carrion Crawler. That said monster design is a lot more tight these days. DMs that have a Monster Manual or anyone with the DDI can still use that book but I'm not sure I'd recommend actually buying it if you pick up Essentials, become a big 4E fan and start looking for the older material. Certainly your better off picking up the Monster Manual II and III first. The Essentials Monster Manual sounds really good and it might well be the one Essentials book I personally buy since, in most ways that matter, its just Monster Manual IV with a classic theme and generally improved monster design.
The DMG is probably the most preserved of the first three books because the 4E DMG is a really fluff heavy book stuffed to the gills with advice on running RPGs in general and 4E in particular and that sort of thing does not really change. It remains what it was initially - a good advice book.
So I'm stepping into things a bit later here, as I didn't read the previous 11 pages of debate and arguing.
A couple of reasons why I don't feel Essentials is 4.5 is:
1. They mesh very well with pre-, non-Essentials products and that was something that was missed with the 3.0 to 3.5 transfer. With the previous edition change, many of the skills were consolidated, feats removed or changed, and the entire PHB classes "re-vamped" into better versions. Meaning that a 3.5 Paladin was superior to 3.0 Paladin. The same goes for the Ranger, Monk, Druid, etc.... That is NOT the case with Essentials. My "Knight" is classed under the fighter so that means I can take Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies from PREVIOUS SOURCES from non-Essentials and it works perfectly fine. The same cannot be said for many PrCs from 3.0 to 3.5.
2. The constant up-dates 4E has been producing since it's debut have been changing classes, feats, powers, magical items. These have never been considered a revision of 4E at all. Even when those updates contain rule changes such as Hiding in combat and how Conjurations/Summons work. In Essentials, they've changed a few rules and things that would've gone through even if the Essentials-line were cancelled. It's the nature of 4E to be in a state of flux so things stay balanced. That was a major issue I had with 3.5 is that every PrC and feat that came out with each supplement had the chance to break the game further. I know 4E has problems (every system does) but at least with constant updates, they're attempting to make things balanced across the board.
3. Change vs. Addition. Simple enough, the Heroes of the Fallen Lands changes nothing "class wise" with previous classes nor do they supercede those previous classes. The Knight or Slayer aren't the only options to fighters when going into LFR campaigns as well as home-play. You can have a Essentials Wizard with his Schools of magic next to a Orb-wielding wizard from the PHB. Yea, you could've done this with 3.0 classes and 3.5 classes, but when used against Monster from 3.5, I think the you'd see a bigger distance with power and how classes work.
This, of course, is my own experience with using Essentials and non-Essentials products at the same time.
P.S. I don't feel the remark about it being a better compairson to 3.5 and Bo9S is really accurate because I don't think that Bo9S is all that much more powerful than PHB classes. Sure, they all their special gimmicks, but power-wise.......just look at the Char-Ops boards and you can easily see that PHB classes can be just as powerful, if not MORE powerful, than Bo9S. It's mostly hated on because it's a beta-test for 4E and that still rubs people the wrong way.
P.S. I don't feel the remark about it being a better compairson to 3.5 and Bo9S is really accurate because I don't think that Bo9S is all that much more powerful than PHB classes. Sure, they all their special gimmicks, but power-wise.......just look at the Char-Ops boards and you can easily see that PHB classes can be just as powerful, if not MORE powerful, than Bo9S. It's mostly hated on because it's a beta-test for 4E and that still rubs people the wrong way.
I actually think this is what everyone means. There are stylistic changes but they are designed to be fairly balanced with the rest of the material.
Why the necro of this tired thread? Why?
Oh the humanity.
You can't buy an Essentials box and play the game by yourself. It isn't Monopoly. A family opening the box will look at it for a few hours, stratch their heads, and go play something else. Even if some dedicated kids spend days figuring it out it isn't likely to be a good time without an experienced DM. Let's fact it... most of us learned D&D from friends who already knew how to roleplay. Some nice person with years of roleplaying experience made the game fun.
I disagree with this premise. I certianly learned by struggling through with friends and I suspect a lot of people did. Another common scenario is the experienced person in the background with no time. An adult that might provide a bit of guidance but simply has no real time because of work and other obligations to actually play the game but provides the youngsters the tools. Or alternatively an adult that chooses to teach these youngsters the game he had such fun with 15 years ago...which probably results in said adult picking up some modern version of the game.
Finally while some from way back picked up D&D by struggling with the rules until we finally figured it out that is actually easier these days. Many that try to start this sort of gaming probably do so from a background of computer RPGs and the web is full of examples and advice for the beginner.
None of this is to say that recruited by a current DM is not maybe the most common method. It probably is, I'd just not rule out the idea of other methods of introduction entirely.
Folks,
I think the entire Essentials point is moot.
You can't buy an Essentials box and play the game by yourself. It isn't Monopoly. A family opening the box will look at it for a few hours, stratch their heads, and go play something else. Even if some dedicated kids spend days figuring it out it isn't likely to be a good time without an experienced DM. Let's fact it... most of us learned D&D from friends who already knew how to roleplay. Some nice person with years of roleplaying experience made the game fun.
The point is then... where does this experienced DM come from? Well, statistically from 3.5 or (less likely) 4E. And guess what version she is going to teach the person on? It will be what ever version she is using.
If some new player showed up with an Essentials box asking me to teach him D&D... I'd ask him to put it away and introduce him to whatever system I'm using. It will be whatever system is most convienient for me to teach him. If my players are about to start a 3.5 campaign... it will be 3.5.
Having Essentials is like selling a deck of cards with your own Bridge rules. How good the rules are is pointless. When you join a Bridge group and they actually teach you Bridge... you'll play by their rules anyway.
I disagree, as my friends taught each other to play, and would have done the same with later editions of the game. Those that don't find roleplaying interesting may need a more experienced person to draw them in. However, I would expect most long term players, especially DMs, just jumped into the water and started to swim.
I do agree once you have a preference for a game, that any changes (minor or major) will create reservations and is the thread of many flame wars on what edition is best. And it is obvious you would try to get others to play the same system you enjoy.