I think the issue is, you interpret everything through your prediction that Essentials is a new edition.

Your evidence is that Fighters Marks (vice the aura used by the Knight build) aren't part of the Essentials books?

It doesn't matter how many people tell you or even when the books actually come out, or..any possible other fact.. that the systems (such as fighters marks, or even the builds that lack daily powers) in Essentials (which is D&D 4th edition) represent an alternate set of integrated and yet slightly simplified mechanics for new players?

Well, that's settled then. New book means new system. New system, means new edition, and new edition means the old one is done. I get that's what some people believe, but I always wonder how far they'll commit to this belief. When challenged on it, they always back down.

When Essentials comes out and it turns out to be 4e and the systems turn out to be additions to (rather than replacements) of existing stuff..what then?

Quote from: jeff37923;402479It is an unneeded barrier to entry for new Players.

New players are in luck for the next few months then. Because the entire D&D Essentials line is pretty much written just for them.

Well to me, the whole 'is it a new edition or not' really is nothing more than an avatar of the old edition wars. The opponents want to "prove" that WotC is lying again and in fact doing exactly what it said it wouldn't do, i.e. 4.5., while the proponents just cling to the idea that no change is taking place whatsoever.

As usual, the truth of the matter is somewhere in-between, and frankly, not relevant at all to what the product is and isn't, in its actual contents, in the end. Each and everyone of us will make that choice upon reading the results.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402483New players are in luck for the next few months then.

This points out that the idea of updates and errata via DDI and actual "evergreen" physical books are contrary ideas, by the way. By which I mean that implementing errata and updates electronically, no matter how smoothly, over whatever period of time, ends up creating a discrepency between what the game has become online and how the game was conceived and still appears on paper. So DDI will *not* in its present form solve the problem of new editions and revisions of the game. This was a red herring from the start akin to the "soon, we won't be using paper at all in offices!" BS of the 90s.

Well, I'd rather have DDI than not have it. If I were playing some other game- any other game--I'd wish there was something akin to DDI for that as well. Managing content, tools, and community in a centralized way would benefit any gaming community. I feel the same way about organized play.

There's no question that DDI has been successful for its present core audience. Though there are some rumblings I read recently on ENWorld on how the content of Dragon and Dungeon is going downhill. The tools at least have found their hardcore aficionados, no question about it.

Personally, I'm the kind of guy who thinks that if a tabletop RPG requires online tools to be usable or comprehensible, then something's seriously wrong with its design. But hey, I'm not biting into the whole "electronic everything is awesome!" fashion these days, to begin with. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I like it when I can just sit down with a notebook and prepare my game from start to finish using only a pencil, an eraser, and maybe a few dice to spice things up.

Quote from: Benoist;402494There's no question that DDI has been successful for its present core audience. Though there are some rumblings I read recently on ENWorld on how the content of Dragon and Dungeon is going downhill. The tools at least have found their hardcore aficionados, no question about it.

I've actually found a lot more useful stuff in Dragon  lately, so I didn't comment on that thread

QuotePersonally, I'm the kind of guy who thinks that if a tabletop RPG requires online tools to be usable or comprehensible, then something's seriously wrong with its design. But hey, I'm not biting into the whole "electronic everything is awesome!" fashion these days, to begin with. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I like it when I can just sit down with a notebook and prepare my game from start to finish using only a pencil, an eraser, and maybe a few dice to spice things up.

The bolded word is a disconnect. "requires"? We didn't even have DDI running for a good (critical) chunk of that first year (something that was held up as a subject of great mirth here I recall). And yet- people were still playing.. all of the huge 4E blogs kicked off around that time. Some of the LFR admins that I know of even held off on getting DDI  (well, I think some of them thought they might get free subscriptions, which they didn't, haha).
What it *did* do was make it so easy it's hard to imagine going back. But I got the Essentials Red Box and the Psionic Power book this last month- I got a hands on experience making characters from scratch ust this week.

 It's not that hard. Easier than 3e. Was 3e a problem?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402496The bolded word is a disconnect. "requires"? We didn't even have DDI running for a good (critical) chunk of that first year (something that was held up as a subject of great mirth here I recall). And yet- people were still playing.. all of the huge 4E blogs kicked off around that time. Some of the LFR admins that I know of even held off on getting DDI  (well, I think some of them thought they might get free subscriptions, which they didn't, haha).

Sure. 4E doesn't "require" DDI. I agree. My whole thing was stating "IF a tabletop RPG requires..." to explain my POV on DDI. I wasn't stating that 4E specifically does require DDI. Should have been more precise.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402496What it *did* do was make it so easy it's hard to imagine going back. But I got the Essentials Red Box and the Psionic Power book this last month- I got a hands on experience making characters from scratch ust this week.

AH. That is cool. So maybe that's going to please me.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402496It's not that hard. Easier than 3e. Was 3e a problem?

3e sure was WAY too complicated for many, many people. I manage personally just by having a metric shitload of pregenerated monsters, adventures, treasure etc. I pick and choose, mix and mash, steal encounters here and there, and sometimes, when I want something really specific, THEN I'll go the extra mile and do it from scratch.

If I had to do everything from scratch with 3e, bet your ass that would annoy the heck out of me.

For what its worth, I think the boxed set looks cool. If it includes the errata that's been piling up for two years, I think I could see myself buying the Essentials line or at least some of it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402418

• Errata serves to correct mistakes and make a game better.
• Most games don't release errata, not because they are "designed perfect", but because the companies that produce them lack the resources or interest. They rely on people being willing to work around or house rule obvious problems.

Good points.

Quote from: jeff37923;402479When you have just spent a similar amount of money on a RPG, and then find that you have to chase down errata, or get a subscription to DDI which turns your RPG into a "living document" (like an ISO 9000 manual) with constant game rule changing updates - you might not be as interested in getting into the hobby.

I don't know - it may push as much as pull.  The whole "Living Edition" concept of 4e/DDI is intriguing because your game is constantly evolving.

Well...we can see for ourselves how compatible D&D Essentials is with the rest of the 4E line.

Here is a series of videos that feature a game run by Chris Perkins wherein Essentials classes are playing alongside PHB1 classes.

Of further interest, the players include Ed Greenwood, Larry Elmore and R.A. Salvatore along with popular game blogger Matt James (from Critical Hits)

The videos can be found here.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;402483New players are in luck for the next few months then. Because the entire D&D Essentials line is pretty much written just for them.

Except they really haven't made it clear.  Even the local 4e players don't know WTF is going on it with it, and even store clerks who DM 4e aren't quite sure what they should order or why.

Most hobby games are a bit clearer on what their intro or side lines are.

For Battletech you UNDERSTAND the Intro Starter Box is for newbies or people who want more plastic minis.

For Advanced Squad Leader you KNOW the Starter Kits are stripped down versions of the rulesets that build on each other but (usually) stand alone.

For Starfleet Battles they make it clear Federation Commander is a seperate but similar game in the same setting with higher production values and a bunch of rules changing and streamlining.

Back in the TSR days AD&D and D&D were two seperate lines that were mostly compatible but not 100% so.

Essentials seems to be confusing the whole fucking matter.

Is it for new people?  Is it 4.5?  Is it for grognards and people like me who consider 4e a cancer on RPGs?  

They haven't done a good job of it.  Even the propaganda slip in the Ravenloft boardgame doesn't do much more than confuse the issue.  It doesn't show a SINGLE 4e product.  Only Essentials.

Of course this is WOTC so doing things sensibly is problematic for them.  (Water tiles in the Dark Sun tile set?  REALLY?)

Quote from: Shazbot79;402594Well...we can see for ourselves how compatible D&D Essentials is with the rest of the 4E line.

Here is a series of videos that feature a game run by Chris Perkins wherein Essentials classes are playing alongside PHB1 classes.

Of further interest, the players include Ed Greenwood, Larry Elmore and R.A. Salvatore along with popular game blogger Matt James (from Critical Hits)

The videos can be found here.

Ooooh. Cool. Thanks for the link, mate!

Quote from: Captain Rufus;402627Essentials seems to be confusing the whole fucking matter.

Is it for new people?  Is it 4.5?  Is it for grognards and people like me who consider 4e a cancer on RPGs?  

That's pretty much the bottom line. Let's use WotC's own numbers for a minute. A few years back, they claimed to have six million players. As of this year, they reported that the number of "lapsed players" (whatever that means) is 24 million, and the number of current players is one and a half million.

The people who played D&D but don't play 4e outnumber the people who do by sixteen to one. The 4e tenure of stewarding the title of "Dungeons & Dragons" has witnessed a player base contraction of seventy five percent. And that's their numbers. The ones which are presumably done up in as rosy a manner as possible. For all I know, they could be counting each DMG as corresponding to six actual players (since the suggested table size is one DM and five other players). It's entirely possible that the "real" numbers are uglier even than that. But they don't have to be. WotC's own report presents a hobby is serious "sky-is-falling-this-time-for-real" crisis. And somebody had better do something about it.

And now they are bringing out a bunch of changes and a whole new set of core books. The question is really whether it will be enough to stop the incredible freefall in the number of players that WotC reports that they have. So to me, the thing they should be getting across to people is that they are doing "enough".

But then we got supposed fans like Abyssal Maw ranting about how they aren't doing anything at all. About how nothing has "Really" changed. And that's supposed to make things OK? The player base is a quarter the size it was in the heyday of 3e. That's not OK. Change is necessary. I don't understand why the 4venger crowd thinks they are doing anything other than hurting the franchise by claiming that major changes aren't happening. Even if major changes are not happening, they should still be claiming that they are. Because if Essentials doesn't turn things around you can bet money that Hasbro will ask for something drastic to be done in the near future.

The number of people who aren't buying 4e materials outnumber the people who are by sixteen to one. People who are satisfied with 4e as-is are therefore polling at 5.9%. That's lower than the approval rating of Congress. The question on everyone's mind is "are the changes for Essentials big enough? Are they even changes in the right direction?" And honestly: only time can tell. But if people like AM convince prospective buyers that there are no meaningful changes, then we'll keep staggering on as-is. And the status quo is: D&D is smaller right now than it has been since before most of the people on this board were born. And that's bad.

-Frank

Agreed that the Essentials situation is a mess.  And after all the discussion, everyone still seems as confused as ever what it is.  It still seems like a new edition to me.

I think their mistake was to try and create a simplified version for newbies while trying to appeal to lapsed gamers at the same time.  They should have just left out some of the lesser-used rules (grappling, etc) and restricted PC build options (like one or two power choices at each level, only the four main classes and races) and left it at that.

Instead, we get a bizarre hybrid that is compatible with the 4e rules but the PC builds work completely different (and yet, we're told this is not changing the rules, which just confuses us all more).

In my case, I get to have my 4e campaign interfered with courtesy of DDI (you can't use the CB and not use the rule changes, after all) which is a pain, but I can't just switch over to Essentials either because it is much more limited in the scope of PCs that can be created for it.  I seriously, seriously would have preferred a full 5th edition release to this.