Quote from: danskmacabre;1050790So, I like Clerics. The 4e DM said, yeah no Clerics in 4e, so that was a big negative right there.

Wow. I am not pushing 4e or anything (been years since I ran it and I prefer 5e) but that's just not the case. 4e definitely has clerics, they're as prominent in the core rules as any other version of D&D, and I have no idea where that came from in your game but it's not representative of that game. I ran and enjoyed a 4e cleric for years.

@ Mistwel , Broken Twin .

Ah ok thanks for those clarifications. I didn't buy the 4e books or read them much, so I just went on what the 4e GM told me was available.
Although I made a specific point in my discussions with him I thought it was crap there were no Clerics in 4e.
Ok, well that sux a bit they were removed by that DM.

Regarding loot, yeah he did make a specific point that magic items were only available as a sort of progression. I didn't like it, but it wasn't a big deal either.. Strange ruling to make though.

I concede those points, as clearly this was the DM's take on 4e on these issues. Slightly annoying that it was touted as 4e core, not his own take on the rules.

I know he didn't use Essentials, just the original 4e core hardback books that came out and he made a specific point about using no revisions to the 4e rules. Presumably that included the monster stats too.

Still, either way, even ignoring the Cleric issue and the magic items issue, which was a minor point really (the No Cleric ruling was annoying though!), I still didn't like 4e on other points and saying "just use Essentials", well, that's a 4e revision or newer edition or whatever, but really WotC were selling 4 as it was first released and that's what I judged it on.
Still, it didn't help the DM was so set on using some strange 4e rules decisions.

I think if I HAD bought 4e (the original rules) and then was expected to upgrade 4e to their Essentials variant, I probably would have dumped DnD at that stage and gone elsewhere.
Actually after a while of running 2nd ed many years ago, when I migrated from ADnD (1st ed), I pretty much stopped playing DnD at all until Pathfinder (sometimes called 3.75). So I skipped 3e and 3.5 completely.
I didn't really return to DnD until 5e.

Quote from: danskmacabre;1050908I think if I HAD bought 4e (the original rules) and then was expected to upgrade 4e to their Essentials variant, I probably would have dumped DnD at that stage and gone elsewhere.

Essentials was anything but essential.

Quote from: KingCheops;1050930Essentials was anything but essential.

It also never sold that well.
People seemed kind of pissed off at it at the time....

- Ed C.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1050809I attribute any outflow to mismanagement of the edition (Essentials wasn't really essential) and the murder-suicide that shelved the virtual table.

I will give you mismanagment but not it wasn't 4e's.  Which was mismanaged, but no...

Given how well Paizo was able to pull the exact same move that WoTC did when they moved 3e to 3.5 and yet, get NONE, and I mean 0%, of the backlash, I contend that 4e was stillborn.  It wouldn't have matter how good it was, Paizo won that round with clever promotion and using the OGL, which was the real thing that killed 4e, there was no way 4e was going to happen in any way without a major fight.

Quote from: KingCheops;1050930Essentials was anything but essential.

I lost interest in 4e after I tried the original version of 4e out, so yeah, they lost me after that and I never saw Essentials.

Essentials was, like the rest of 4E, horribly promoted. It took way too long for me to figure out whether it was 4.5, completely compatible with Core, a 4E spinoff, or something else entirely. Which was a shame, because it really did have some interesting bits, and the Monster Vault was incredible. If Hasbro hadn't fucked up so badly in 4E's promotion and early stages, I think a 4.5 could have really done well. I'm still fighting the idea of making my own 4E heartbreaker.

Still, it definitely wasn't for everyone, and I don't begrudge anyone who honestly tried it and didn't like it. The shear amount of vitriol from people who hated it for what they perceived it to be was insane though. Of course, that was also my first time witnessing an edition war, so...

Edit: And while I'm okay with most of 5E, their changes to the gnoll lore compared to how 4E fleshed them out was downright criminal.

Part of the problem Essentials had was that it was intended as an evergreen set for the bookstore market ... just at the time the chain bookstores were collapsing.

4E had a lot of problems within the community, but I think the external factors of the times it launched and tried to do a soft relaunch are often underestimated.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1051011Part of the problem Essentials had was that it was intended as an evergreen set for the bookstore market ... just at the time the chain bookstores were collapsing.

And that strategy resulted in the best-designed and laid out books in D&D history, and among the best in RPG history. The digest format, the layout, the font size - everything about the Essentials books was made for accessibility, clarity, and ease of use at the table. The books look like they were actually designed in the 21st century.

Sadly, as part of the 4E backlash, WotC went back to the stodgy, user-unfriendly huge hardback format for 5E. Massive tomes. Tiny fonts. Rules buried in walls of text. State of the art instructional design circa 1979. Conservatism combined with a cynical recognition that half the buyers of these books don't even play, so usability and clarity can be neglected in favour of books that look good on a collector's shelf.

Quote from: Haffrung;1051016And that strategy resulted in the best-designed and laid out books in D&D history, and among the best in RPG history. The digest format, the layout, the font size - everything about the Essentials books was made for accessibility, clarity, and ease of use at the table. The books look like they were actually designed in the 21st century.

Sadly, as part of the 4E backlash, WotC went back to the stodgy, user-unfriendly huge hardback format for 5E. Massive tomes. Tiny fonts. Rules buried in walls of text. State of the art instructional design circa 1979. Conservatism combined with a cynical recognition that half the buyers of these books don't even play, so usability and clarity can be neglected in favour of books that look good on a collector's shelf.

   Not just 5E--there were books on the schedule for 4E in Essentials format that were hurriedly repackaged in the big hardcovers, such as Heroes of Shadow.

The only reason why Paizo was able to outmaneuver WotC and the D&D brand was because of gaffes made on the part of the latter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050943I will give you mismanagment but not it wasn't 4e's.  Which was mismanaged, but no...

Given how well Paizo was able to pull the exact same move that WoTC did when they moved 3e to 3.5 and yet, get NONE, and I mean 0%, of the backlash, I contend that 4e was stillborn.  It wouldn't have matter how good it was, Paizo won that round with clever promotion and using the OGL, which was the real thing that killed 4e, there was no way 4e was going to happen in any way without a major fight.

Paizo was only able to outmanuever WotC because of the gaffes made by the latter.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1051032Paizo was only able to outmanuever WotC because of the gaffes made by the latter.

Oh, absolutely, the OGL was the killer and the only way they could have gone after that cock up was down.

Mearls listened to the right people.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051265Mearls listened to the right people.

and then the wrong people...