|
It's interesting to get some more information. In some ways I see the "Essentials Line" as perhaps what I had hoped 4e would be from the onset.
Ditto. Except for a few lines here and there, there's really nothing concrete -- yet -- about Essentials, especially to invoke a debate as heated as "fighters need to be as good as wizards" drekk.
Except the quotation directly calls it a redesign. If they don't want to give the impression it's a redesign, then [b]perhaps they shouldn't call it one.I'm sorry, I must not be aware of what you're referencing. Can you tell me where the phrase redesign is used? It may be something we want to correct, to keep from giving an erroneous impression.
It's from the Enworld article:
WotC will soon be releasing the D&D Essentials line of products - which not only package the game in easy-to-manage ways, but also redesign existing classes and races.
Of course, the line following it seems to mostly be ignored:
However, they're going out of their way to point out that the changes they are making to classes in the upcoming books are not replacements for the existing classes, merely additional options.
It's from the Enworld article:
Ah. Thanks.
That particular quote is not one made by Mike, or anyone from Wizards, but by whoever posted the news over at ENWorld (Morrus, I think).
I'd recommend anyone interested check out the actual article, written by Roleplaying Group Manager (and my co-designer on the Player's Essentials books) Mike Mearls. It's free, and not behind the DDI pay wall.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20100706
|
It's from the Enworld article:Ah. Thanks.
That particular quote is not one made by Mike, or anyone from Wizards, but by whoever posted the news over at ENWorld (Morrus, I think).
I'd recommend anyone interested check out the actual article, written by Roleplaying Group Manager (and my co-designer on the Player's Essentials books) Mike Mearls. It's free, and not behind the DDI pay wall.
Linkified.
Linkified.
You da man.
I really hope people will give the Essentials books a good look, especially people from these boards who may have written off 4E before. I think there's a lot of great, classic D&D in there that maybe they didn't see the first time around.
Sorry - for me...that ship has sailed.
I'm still way too bitter over the 4E design changes (Forgotten Realms, Great Wheel, vancian magic, demon/devil changes, etc.).
I'm running 4e right now and I already have the problem of identifying what is core and not. A player that has an ongoing subscription to DDI will have a different character than a player who bought it one time in January 2010. For example, the player with an ongoing subscription may have a better racial power for his tiefling avenger but that same avenger can no longer get his armor bonus in leather armor.
I know what is going on and it still confuses me. Essentials won't be any more confusing it will be more of the same just with more pages.
As far as changes, Wizards is putting out the Rules Compendium which is both an Essentials book and 320 pages. If all the recent 32+ pages of errata PLUS the wizard changes to powers are in there, then I'll have three problems as DM.
1.) How recently has each player updated their DDI Character Builder? 2.) Is anyone using an Essential class? 3.) Is everyone using the Rule Compendium?
I'm basically preparing my own doc to explain the options in my game. But I can guarantee it won't work perfectly.
And it is more difficult to play D&D without the Character Builder. I watched two players try this with only 1st level PCs and it didn't work (too much math).
Add to this confusion that skill challenges have never worked. The DMG has two different versions of DCs for skill challenges. The DMG 2 has another set. And two recent modules (the H1 and the free Dark Sun) both have another different set of DCs.
So even Wizards doesn't know all the rules and they get paid to write this stuff.
And yet, everyone around here loves D&D. So I just wing it. Kind of like playing AD&D 1E again actually. The DM just makes stuff up when the core rules don't work and everyone just rolls with it.
It's actually a little crazy seeming, now that I've written it down.
I'd recommend anyone interested check out the actual article, written by Roleplaying Group Manager (and my co-designer on the Player's Essentials books) Mike Mearls. It's free, and not behind the DDI pay wall.
That article is quite interesting, actually. I might give those books a look once the local shop gets them in.
One question though: What does a "monster token" look like? I assume it's not a full-fledged miniature :)
Sorry - for me...that ship has sailed.
I'm still way too bitter over the 4E design changes (Forgotten Realms, Great Wheel, vancian magic, demon/devil changes, etc.).
That doesn't mean I am going to stop trying to make products you would like. :-D
One question though: What does a "monster token" look like? I assume it's not a full-fledged miniature :)
Are you familiar with the kind of tokens that come in modern board games (like the ones you punch out of a big sheet)? Something like that. Also, pogs might stir some memory for you, though the tokens in board games (which were the model for the new tokens) tend to be nice and thick.
I was all sad reading this thread.
Then I saw Rodney Thompson posting and that makes me much happier.
...which would be a replacement of the original line with the essentials line in everything but name.
If these future supplements can be used for both the essentials line and the original line, what makes it an essentials line? The fact that its a new format?
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to straighten things out, Rodney. It's much appreciated.
There are some people in this thread who need to take a deep breath.I hope this happens. I would hate to see this thread locked. It's interesting to get some more information. In some ways I see the "Essentials Line" as perhaps what I had hoped 4e would be from the onset.
Strangely looking forward to it,
Stefan.
If there's something lock-worthy in this thread, I'm not seeing it.
...which would be a replacement of the original line with the essentials line in everything but name.If these future supplements can be used for both the essentials line and the original line, what makes it an essentials line? The fact that its a new format?
According to Wizards, the ten-product Essentials line will always stay in print ( I assume with the core books?). So the red box, DM box, monster vault, three tile sets, two player books, the Rule Compendium, and something else I can't remember will always be around for starting players. You'll get rules, maps, and tokens in the red box and can build up by buying other Essential line stuff.
The Essential line gets a version of support in 2011 with the Nentir Vale Gazateer. This location is in the DMG and I would think in the DM box as well. This setting works without the Essentials rulebooks also.
Basically, the Essentials books are being advertised as more splat books aimed at new players. Said splat books are to stay in print so new players can get one red box and try the game out, solo or as a group.
|
|
Rodney I am still confused... While we have you here... Is Essentials a separate rule system? Or is 4e Turning into Essentials? If it is separate how will we distinguish the difference? and will we be able to distinguish the difference and "turn off" essentials in the Character Builder and Monster Builder, and see the difference in the compendium online?
Right now I see essentials as being the old D&D Basic and a separate system all together, but I am starting to think I am wrong.
It's from the Enworld article:Ah. Thanks.
That particular quote is not one made by Mike, or anyone from Wizards, but by whoever posted the news over at ENWorld (Morrus, I think).
I'd recommend anyone interested check out the actual article, written by Roleplaying Group Manager (and my co-designer on the Player's Essentials books) Mike Mearls. It's free, and not behind the DDI pay wall.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20100706
Then I'll just say that Morrus made an extremely poor choice of words and leave it at that.
But yes, I thought that had been written by WotC; I was mistaken. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am still confused... While we have you here... Is Essentials a separate rule system? Or is 4e Turning into Essentials? If it is separate how will we distinguish the difference? and will we be able to distinguish the difference and "turn off" essentials in the Character Builder and Monster Builder, and see the difference in the compendium online?
Right now I see essentials as being the old D&D Basic and a separate system all together, but I am starting to think I am wrong.
I'm not Rodney but I believe it works just like the current DDI. You pick what books to use in the Character Builder now. I would assume that the Essentials books will each get added in just like any other release.
So an Essentials only DM could allow just the books from the Essentials line. Another DM could mix and match. And some DMs would allow every book. Just like the current system works.
DDI would also update the Player's Handbook wizard spells and include the current errata. But again, Wizards already updates for errata anytime you update your Character Builder online so this wouldn't be a change either.
Is Essentials a separate rule system?
No. It's the 4E rules engine. What Essentials aims to do is provide new ways to use those rules for DMs and players alike. One way Essentials does that is providing different levels of complexity for different classes, but there are also some other things that are being done (which hopefully we'll be previewing over the next couple of months) to make the game more appealing to both the new player and the experienced player. However, the basic rules of the game are the same as existing D&D (though, of course, errata will be integrated into the books). We've taken steps to improve both accessibility as well as general readability, for example.
Or is 4e Turning into Essentials?
No. 4E is 4E. The Essentials are compatible with your existing material. The Essentials are a small line of products that work just fine with your existing books, but provide a new way into the game for players and DMs. There is no ongoing "Essentials product line" or anything; it's all just 4E.
To give you an example, I'm playing a fighter in a playtest game, using the fighter material from the first Player's Essentials book. The DM is running an upcoming adventure, and my fellow players are a mix of existing classes (we have an assassin, a non-Essentials rogue, etc.) and stuff from Essentials (another player is playing a cleric using Essentials material). They work just fine alongside each other.
If it is separate how will we distinguish the difference? and will we be able to distinguish the difference and "turn off" essentials in the Character Builder and Monster Builder, and see the difference in the compendium online?
I can't speak to the digital tools (I don't work on them!), but you can already choose what material you use in the digital tools. You can turn off power books, campaign setting books, issues of Dragon magazine, etc. right now in the Character Builder. As to the Compendium, it's not like there are going to be two versions of the same powers.
Right now I see essentials as being the old D&D Basic and a separate system all together, but I am starting to think I am wrong.
That is not the case. 4E is more flexible than people give it credit for, I think, and that may be why some of the confusion is arising. The rules presented in Essentials are the 4E rules, they just have some different presentation, and some new ways that players and DMs can interact with those rules.
|
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it will be a big problem. But even then, is it worth it? If the Essentials line succeeds at its goal, and does make it easy for new players to get into the game and get started on their own, won't that make up for occasional bits of confusion?
While I see your point here, the one thing no one seems to consider is what about existing players? This strategy only works if your attraction of new players outpaces your loss of existing ones due to boredom, supplement fatigue (Players Handbook 7 anyone?), or any of a myriad of other reasons.
If this change draws in more new users than are currently being lost, its good.
If this change does not substantially increase loss of existing players, its good.
If it doesn't invalidate existing purchases or change the way subscriptions work (both options in character builder) then its good.
If any of the proceeding prove to be false, then....
Wow. They managed to figure out how to bloat rules that were already bloated. If only they developed adventures the way they develop splat.
|
|
ok now I am even more confused... most likely because I just don't see a need for it so it is conflicting with my brain...
Is it then a Change to the rules to make them easier and all future products will be based on these changes?
are they just Optional rule books for other ways to run the game depending on your need for complexity or ease of rules?
Would it not been easier to use different class names since the rules can mix as needed so there would be less confusion on which class you are playing from which book?
I am just not seeing a need for the books you are describing. As is the Game is easy as hell to learn and run, making it easier just seems to lessen the game to me... but we will see through the previews.
I know that companies like Fiery dragon make tokens, but the art on them isn't stunning and the card stock isn't that thick, nor do they come with stands
This is tangential to this thread, but I don't even play 4e and I still buy these Fiery Dragon tokens. I think most of the art is fantastic, and compared to the thin tokens we had for 3rd edition, quite thick. I like them laid flat on a hex map, not standing up anyway. YMMV.
I would love for Paizo to have these kinds of tokens from Fiery Dragon.
Great to read you here, Rodney! I really loved your work on Star Wars.
I was one of those that tried 4E. Absolutely LOVED it first for its great playability (rules referencing during play became a thing of the past in my group) and played for half a year. But then some things annoyed me - powers way beyond believability and the similar Encounter/Daily formula for the basic classes. What also saddened me was the classes´ extreme focus on combat powers. We were missing the different "feel" of the classes when handling out of combat situations. Last but not least, we experienced the grind. But still I found it to be a very masterfully designed system, if not the one my group would want to play anymore. So...
(Trying to formulate my question in a very basic way so I´m not getting anyone into trouble...)
If those are the things that we didn´t especially like, is there hope we might get more enjoyment out of Essentials?
ok now I am even more confused... most likely because I just don't see a need for it so it is conflicting with my brain...
Is it then a Change to the rules to make them easier and all future products will be based on these changes?
are they just Optional rule books for other ways to run the game depending on your need for complexity or ease of rules?
Would it not been easier to use different class names since the rules can mix as needed so there would be less confusion on which class you are playing from which book?
I am just not seeing a need for the books you are describing. As is the Game is easy as hell to learn and run, making it easier just seems to lessen the game to me... but we will see through the previews.
Just optional rulebooks according to Wizards. Each class in the PHB has at least two different builds (warlock has three). These new classes will introduce new builds just as the current splat books do.
Mike Mearls explains here:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20100706
that the new boxed format gives new players the tokens and maps they need. Rather than shelling out money for rulebooks and then needing to go buy dice, minis, and maps the player gets everything in one box.
So someone looking to check out D&D and is completely new to RPGs can shell out $20 only for the red box and get everything to play an adventure from 1st to 2nd level (rules as well as dice, mini die-cut tokens, and maps).
The price goes way up from there, but I can see how dropping $20 just to try the game is more entry-level than the $90 core books plus buying tokens/minis and maps and dice in addition to the books.
I haven't seen some of their most recent token stuff, so maybe it is better than some of their earlier work. One thing I know they had been doing was providing digital versions of the counters that dms could just print out at home, which obviously wouldn't be on very good paper (unless you went out of your way to find really thick printer paper, but even that wouldn't compare to the thickness of the stuff most board games use). In fact I had started to come under the impression that most of their tokens were now only available in digital format, but I could be very wrong about that.
I know that companies like Fiery dragon make tokens, but the art on them isn't stunning and the card stock isn't that thick, nor do they come with stands
This is tangential to this thread, but I don't even play 4e and I still buy these Fiery Dragon tokens. I think most of the art is fantastic, and compared to the thin tokens we had for 3rd edition, quite thick. I like them laid flat on a hex map, not standing up anyway. YMMV.
I would love for Paizo to have these kinds of tokens from Fiery Dragon.
You don't understand the need because you already play dnd and know what its all about and probably have what you need to get a game off the ground. If you are new to the game and want to buy one product that will give you what you to get started then the Red Box set will be a much better starting point for you than the 4E phb (assuming you aren't joining a group that already has a dm). One of the big problems with the game right now is that it is so dependent on minis/tokens and battlemats/dungeon tiles that even if you buy the phb, dmg and mm, you can't really play the game. That is big barrier for new players that want to get a game going. I think the essentials line will help to alleviate that problem, and give a much better entry point into the game- everything you need to start playing can be found in one box (even if it does only get you to 2nd level).
ok now I am even more confused... most likely because I just don't see a need for it so it is conflicting with my brain...
Is it then a Change to the rules to make them easier and all future products will be based on these changes?
are they just Optional rule books for other ways to run the game depending on your need for complexity or ease of rules?
Would it not been easier to use different class names since the rules can mix as needed so there would be less confusion on which class you are playing from which book?
I am just not seeing a need for the books you are describing. As is the Game is easy as hell to learn and run, making it easier just seems to lessen the game to me... but we will see through the previews.
|
|
You don't understand the need because you already play dnd and know what its all about and probably have what you need to get a game off the ground. If you are new to the game and want to buy one product that will give you what you to get started then the Red Box set will be a much better starting point for you than the 4E phb (assuming you aren't joining a group that already has a dm). One of the big problems with the game right now is that it is so dependent on minis/tokens and battlemats/dungeon tiles that even if you buy the phb, dmg and mm, you can't really play the game. That is big barrier for new players that want to get a game going. I think the essentials line will help to alleviate that problem, and give a much better entry point into the game- everything you need to start playing can be found in one box (even if it does only get you to 2nd level).
I can understand the the extra stuff to get you started, that is cool, I just don't see the need for simplification in the rules, if in fact that is what essentials does, I am still not clear on that.
The game has been simplified enough, it does not need more... IMO.
One of the main reasons I don't DM 4e is because it is to easy to prep for the games, I enjoy the time it took for prep in 3.5 and pathfinder, so when I DM I only DM either of those. I do play 4e though.
Add to this confusion that skill challenges have never worked. The DMG has two different versions of DCs for skill challenges. The DMG 2 has another set. And two recent modules (the H1 and the free Dark Sun) both have another different set of DCs.
The second set of DCs from DMG2 and in the errata'd DMG and DM screen are a set of easier DCs. If I recall, the DCs were lowered because the developers found that the old DCs were too brutal on PCs trying untrained skills.
|
|
I really loved your work on Star Wars.
I second this.
What does a "monster token" look like?
(From what I know about the sample I got earlier in the year). They're like round chits that you punch out of a thick sheet of cardboard, made of a similar material to WotC's Dungeon Tiles. They're numbered and colour-coded (to differentiate between Goblin_1 and Kobold_2) and you can turn them over to denote bloodied state.
One of the main reasons I don't DM 4e is because it is to easy to prep for the games,
This is honestly a complaint I have never heard before, and one that I am happy to agree with. Darn you, Wizards, for making it so easy to prepare an entertaining game session!
One of the main reasons I don't DM 4e is because it is to easy to prep for the games,This is honestly a complaint I have never heard before, and one that I am happy to agree with. Darn you, Wizards, for making it so easy to prepare an entertaining game session!
o_O
Count me a dissenter. The ease of use is one of the biggest selling points of 4e for me.
To be honest, I'm not sure that its really been further simplified that much. The only thing that the designers have really suggested (that I've seen) was that certain classes have been simplified. For example, right now when you play a fighter in 4E, running that fighter is pretty much as complex as running a wizard, thanks to things like marking and fighter's challenge. It used to be that a fighter was a good class for a newbie to play because you didn't have to deal with some of the complexities that came with running a spell caster. I believe that one of their goals is to bring the essentials line a bit back in this direction, so that the essentials fighter is a more simple class for a new player to run. However, I'm sure they also hope to keep the fighter balanced, so that he's not outclassed by other classes at higher levels. I don't think they are making changes to the actual rules. To me this is a good thing (as long as it works). If you have a new player that is totally new to dnd joining your regular group, you can have that player run an essentials character, which in theory will be more manageable, and the essentials character can still function as a useful member of a party full of regular 4E characters.
Case in point: I just had a new player join my dnd game. She hasn't played dnd beforem, and all my other players know the system well because they've been playing it for the past couple of years. She's coming in at the start of paragon tier with an 11th level warlord. She's not finding the rp aspect difficult, but she is finding getting a handle on how to run the character quickly and effectively in combat a challenge because of how complex 4E characters can be, especially at higher levels. If the essentials line had been out I might have pointed her that way to make a starting character. As it stands, a warlord might be a bit more complex than some other classes, but not much more, so she would be running into this problem with pretty much any class she chose.
You don't understand the need because you already play dnd and know what its all about and probably have what you need to get a game off the ground. If you are new to the game and want to buy one product that will give you what you to get started then the Red Box set will be a much better starting point for you than the 4E phb (assuming you aren't joining a group that already has a dm). One of the big problems with the game right now is that it is so dependent on minis/tokens and battlemats/dungeon tiles that even if you buy the phb, dmg and mm, you can't really play the game. That is big barrier for new players that want to get a game going. I think the essentials line will help to alleviate that problem, and give a much better entry point into the game- everything you need to start playing can be found in one box (even if it does only get you to 2nd level).
I can understand the the extra stuff to get you started, that is cool, I just don't see the need for simplification in the rules, if in fact that is what essentials does, I am still not clear on that.
The game has been simplified enough, it does not need more... IMO.
One of the main reasons I don't DM 4e is because it is to easy to prep for the games, I enjoy the time it took for prep in 3.5 and pathfinder, so when I DM I only DM either of those. I do play 4e though.
Sorry - for me...that ship has sailed.
I'm still way too bitter over the 4E design changes (Forgotten Realms, Great Wheel, vancian magic, demon/devil changes, etc.).
That doesn't mean I am going to stop trying to make products you would like. :-D
You got a job at Paizo!?!?!?!
;)
Sorry - for me...that ship has sailed.
I'm still way too bitter over the 4E design changes (Forgotten Realms, Great Wheel, vancian magic, demon/devil changes, etc.).
That doesn't mean I am going to stop trying to make products you would like. :-D
That ship has sailed long ago for me, as well. From my experiences and viewpoint/opinions, turned my DnD into a saturday morning cartoon/anime.
But, the Essentials line has actually peeked my interest. The gaming supplements(tiles, etc) and the all-in-one packaging actually appeal to me. To put it bluntly, I have already invested 8 years and thousands of dollars in 3x edition, and I'm not doing it again for new edition of a game that already does what I want. Since Essentials is fairly self-contained, I could realistically purchase the set and a few small additions if it plays well.
Just a concern, more of an opinion(get your flame-throwers ready), but I thought 4e was already supposed to be the "friendlier to new players, easier to learn" DnD game all by itself? So, we have a newer, younger player friendly version of the newer, younger player friendly edition?
And lastly, Rodney, thank you for your work on Star Wars Saga Edition. I love the rules, and my friends and I are having an absolute blast playing it!
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I find the Essentials concept intriguing. My nephews have recently started play 4E, and I think an introductory set like the Essentials boxed set would have been ideal as a starting point. In fact, I think the next book/accessory I'm going to get them is the Essentials Boxed Set. Since it will play nicely with the PHB they currently have, this will give them more options and an "wow" factor (maps, tokens, etc.) their age group will probably enjoy.
I know the analogy of Basic D&D to AD&D doesn't apply in all respects to a 4E to Essentials analogy, but to me, it feels that way:
Basic D&D/Essentials: Rules presented differently with subtle differences to introduce the concept of D&D/Role Playing to new players.
After experiencing the basic game, this can lead to the players "graduating" to:
AD&D/4E: More options, different rules presentation, more complexity (due to the number of options, not because of any drastic difference in rules).
(this is how I was introduced to D&D back in the day).
I'm not by any means a 4E guy (still play Pathfinder with my normal gaming group), but I can see what WOTC is trying to do with Essentials, and I applaud them for trying it.
Where did I miss the news that Morrus is the new spokesperson of WotC ? :)
I think Morrus has the enthusiasm he does because (perhaps among other things):
1. He likes 4E; and
2. WotC has been good to him.
Nothing wrong with that.
And while I have no idea how he feels about 3.x/Pathfinder, he has been (IMO) very fair and respectful to those fans (like me) who are not as happy with 4E and/or WotC.
|
|
One of the main reasons I don't DM 4e is because it is to easy to prep for the games,This is honestly a complaint I have never heard before, and one that I am happy to agree with. Darn you, Wizards, for making it so easy to prepare an entertaining game session!
Well for me it is a complaint. I enjoyed the complexity and using my brain to prep for a game in 3.5, in 4e that is not there, most is done for me and is just not as enjoyable for me..
As a player I don't mind 4e, since as a player I am more into the roleplay then the rules.
Just a concern, more of an opinion(get your flame-throwers ready), but I thought 4e was already supposed to be the "friendlier to new players, easier to learn" DnD game all by itself? So, we have a newer, younger player friendly version of the newer, younger player friendly edition?I imagine both could be true (some things were simplified in 4E and then even more so with Essentials), but hard to say until we see it in action. I suspect, though, that part of it is presentation as much as the rules themselves.
For example, the Red Box includes a sort of solo 'intro adventure' that new players can use to figure out what classes to play. It reads very much like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" - you can see something of a preview here, about halfway down the page.
Basically, one group can invest in the Red Box, and have everything they need to jump right into the game for a level or two. If they like it, then the players can pick up a book on their own (choosing the appropriate Player's Essential book based on the race or class they are interested in) and the DM can pick up the DM Kit and Monster Vault.
But that initial investment is relatively small for a group to make, and gives them a good starting point, rather than jumping right into the full rules and options.
All this I agree with, but I was just saying, that I thought that some of the selling points of Essentials were pretty much the selling points of 4e in the first place(streamlined, easier to understand, more user-friendly to new players, etc). It just seems to me if they have to go through the trouble of making an even more user-friendly, more streamlined, and even new player-friendly-er(er?) that maybe the design goals weren't met initially?
At least the rules are readily usable with existing 4e products w/o too much conversion or ret-conning, so that pretty well quells the "4.5" claims.
...you can see something of a preview here...
I checked out the link, and a lot of those new products sound very interesting! I'm greatly looking forward to the Castle Ravenloft board game. Ravenloft is my favorite setting, and I think it would be a lot of fun to have a quick, casual pick and play haunted castle board game. My groups Ravenloft campaigns get very story heavy and involved; sometimes as a DM I just want to do an old-fashioned, creepy castle run!
My apologies for any contributing I might have done myself - for what it's worth, while I may disagree with bugleyman's concerns, I can understand why they exist (especially given his frustration with some of WotC's other blunders), and my posts in the thread were mainly trying to clarify misconceptions about the line rather than shut down any criticism of it.If there's something lock-worthy in this thread, I'm not seeing it.There are some people in this thread who need to take a deep breath.I hope this happens. I would hate to see this thread locked. It's interesting to get some more information. In some ways I see the "Essentials Line" as perhaps what I had hoped 4e would be from the onset.
Not at all, man. You were really cool. I'm sorry if I offended...maybe things got worse than I noticed?
I am making a complete guess, but I would see the essentials line being more friendly in regards to conditions and tracking them. There would be more resolution of powers at the time they are used, versus carrying over into the next round. There also may be more utility added to some powers, in regards to carrying over into non-combat. You can still do all the non-combat stuff, but not in the traditional sense of what is available in 3.5. You also may see more diversity in some classes as to weapons or implements that are available.
My biggest concern, is the material being available in DDI per their standard release schedule. This is the same concern I have for gamma world.
Make sure your pitch forks are sharpened, and your torches are well oiled, but wait until you see the creature and understand it, before making judgements.
If those are the things that we didn´t especially like, is there hope we might get more enjoyment out of Essentials?
I'd like to think we address all of those things to some extent, but I can't be more specific right now--don't want to step on the previews we'll be doing. I will say this: one thing I have tried to focus on is making sure that the powers and abilities included make sense in the context of the character using them, and include some explanation of how the more complex stuff (like some spells) happen in the reality of the game world.
Just a concern, more of an opinion(get your flame-throwers ready), but I thought 4e was already supposed to be the "friendlier to new players, easier to learn" DnD game all by itself? So, we have a newer, younger player friendly version of the newer, younger player friendly edition?
To get into a bit of philosophizing here for a moment, I think when you look at the tradition of D&D as a whole, there is actually a really broad spectrum of complexity. Taking 3rd Edition for example, you have a broad range of complexity for players, with fighters on one end and, say, druids on the other (I could easily have picked wizards or clerics there, but druids add in wild shape and stuff like that). So, imagine that the complexity of D&D as a whole (even considering the varying level of complexity of other editions) as this line:
|----------------------------------------|
Low-------------------------------------High
What I think 4E did was actually cut a slice right out of the middle, so that the complexity of 4E as a game looks something like this:
|--------|----4th Edition----|-----------|
Low-------------------------------------High
So, for the people accustomed to a higher complexity in their playstyle (people that played spellcasters often, people that put a lot of work into character building, etc.) 4E looks like a less complex game. However, to the more casual player, the player who just plays the fighter and likes to hit things (I've got a couple of those guys in my regular weekly games), or the player that wants to play as straightforward a game as possible, 4E looks like a more complex game.
What the Essentials do is try to broaden that center spectrum a bit by offering classes of different complexity levels. For some, that means providing a selection of classes that are simpler, faster, and more straightforward. For others, it means providing classes that scratch that druid/cleric/wizard player's itch.
So it's not about "younger," but it IS about "player friendly." I think one of the great things about prior editions is that it allows the players who like vastly different levels of complexity to sit down at the same game table and enjoy the game, and that's what we're looking at doing in Essentials.
And lastly, Rodney, thank you for your work on Star Wars Saga Edition. I love the rules, and my friends and I are having an absolute blast playing it!
Thanks! And thanks to everyone else who has said so. I really loved working on the Star Wars books, and I think it's given me a unique perspective when it comes to working on D&D. Obviously they are two different games, but working on Star Wars also afforded me the chance to really interact with a lot of the players of the game on an up front level, which is nice! With D&D, there's a very different signal-to-noise ratio that makes it harder to have the same relationship (there's just so many more D&D fans!).