Link to Critical Hits Liveblog here:
www.enworld.org/forum/5443580-post8.html
Reaction: Mostly crap.
New stuff I don't think we've heard:
RPG
-Player's Option: Heroes of the Feywild [Boo. Talislanta take me away!]
-Book of Vile Darkness to tie in with TV movie [Boo. Product tie-in eeeehhhhh.]
Board Games
-Legend of Drizzt boardgame in October [I hate that guy.]
Other news:
-Ravenloft campign setting: SHELVED. I wasn't looking forward to stand-alone GW-esque stuff, but some will be disappointed.
There is additional commentary that (to me) implies that WotC does not know what they are doing. "Questioning everything". "Very Experimental".
What does the following mean?
"One guy wants a Bard in Essentials. How much fluff/crunch do you intend to do from here on: Mike wants to see where they are, do updates, and wrap up from there. He doesn’t want to flood the market with mechanical content and have everyone baffled."
But we're already baffled and we don't have a flood of content!
[Google Docs?]
docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1COLESXZ...
Much more in-depth.
Tying books to organized play sounds risky, but then I spent most of 3E being stuck in the woods with nobody to play with much less an FLGS to go to.
My one thought is the comment that the Fighter is the most popular character, according to the online CB. I want to know what the most popular striker, leader and controller are, just out of curiousity.
Interesting. It looks like they're trying to make DnD more of an event than a private gathering. Good news for gaming stores, I suppose. o.
A fine idea, but then, they've got to give us books to sell to these theoretical customers or they just come in, play, and leave.
docs.google.com/document/pub?id=12mMfJco...
A goodie:
- Q: Do you plan on keeping up with the one Campaign Setting per year model?
- A: I can’t really comment on anything beyond what we’ve presented at the spotlight seminar, but we’re treating NEverwinter like this year’s Campaign.
- Kidd: We’re also listening to what the community wants. If we find out that community wants a campaign aa year, we’ll keep goign with it, but if we find out that you don’t want campaigns, we don’t want to lock ourselves into making them if it doesn’t make sense.
I guess I'm astounded as to the whole "if we find out" aspect. They don't already know?!
Yeah, I guess there are a lot of folks who think "Nah; just have more Forgotten Realms or coy/vague stuff about Nentir Vale! We don't need anything new for campaign settings, and if it is new, we'd prefer y'all just rehash something old and call it new!"
Too bad, because Heroes of Shadow is clearly a precursor to Ravenloft.
I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Neverwinter, both because we already have a forgotten realms campaign and because it's specifically just for heroic tier. Frankly, after two years of 4e, I'm sick and tired of heroic tier. As far as I'm concerned, the game doesn't even really start until you have a full compliment of encounter and daily powers - at this point any campaign I run not specifically for new players starts at level 11.
Now, I don't mind the idea of product tie ins, and I don't mind the idea of books aimed at specific areas of already released settings (I'd love a 4e sharn book, myself), but as a replacement for this years campaign setting I'm just not into it.
I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Neverwinter, both because we already have a forgotten realms campaign and because it's specifically just for heroic tier. Frankly, after two years of 4e, I'm sick and tired of heroic tier.
...
Now, I don't mind the idea of product tie ins, and I don't mind the idea of books aimed at specific areas of already released settings (I'd love a 4e sharn book, myself), but as a replacement for this years campaign setting I'm just not into it.
Agreed. I also think the $40 pricetag is crazy.
I'm thoroughly unimpressed with Neverwinter, both because we already have a forgotten realms campaign and because it's specifically just for heroic tier. Frankly, after two years of 4e, I'm sick and tired of heroic tier.
...
Now, I don't mind the idea of product tie ins, and I don't mind the idea of books aimed at specific areas of already released settings (I'd love a 4e sharn book, myself), but as a replacement for this years campaign setting I'm just not into it.
Agreed. I also think the $40 pricetag is crazy.
Same pricetag that is on the Dark Sun Campaign Guide, Eberrron Campaign Guide and Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide.
Interesting. It looks like they're trying to make DnD more of an event than a private gathering. Good news for gaming stores, I suppose. o.
A fine idea, but then, they've got to give us books to sell to these theoretical customers or they just come in, play, and leave.
No they don't. Word is that most FLGS's are using Essentials excitement as a way to pawn off their backlog of pre-E products. Which you then have to go online and download mountains of errata documents to use.
Word is...
Interesting. It looks like they're trying to make DnD more of an event than a private gathering. Good news for gaming stores, I suppose. o.
A fine idea, but then, they've got to give us books to sell to these theoretical customers or they just come in, play, and leave.
No they don't. Word is that most FLGS's are using Essentials excitement as a way to pawn off their backlog of pre-E products. Which you then have to go online and download mountains of errata documents to use.
Sure. And when that's done with we need more books to sell them!
Word is...
It's been discussed in other threads. I'm just too lazy to go back through them all and link.
Word is...
It's been discussed in other threads. I'm just too lazy to go back through them all and link.
I'm pretty sure my emoticon would be the same in those threads. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal no matter how many threads in which the anecdote gets repeated.
Interesting. It looks like they're trying to make DnD more of an event than a private gathering. Good news for gaming stores, I suppose. o.
A fine idea, but then, they've got to give us books to sell to these theoretical customers or they just come in, play, and leave.
No they don't. Word is that most FLGS's are using Essentials excitement as a way to pawn off their backlog of pre-E products. Which you then have to go online and download mountains of errata documents to use.
Errata? Why?
Errata? Why?
Here's the problem I've seen at my FLGS. The store's introduced a number of people to D&D through Encounters, which right now only allows access to Essentials books. When those players ask about other products, the store directs them to the PHB, which it still has in stock.
The problem is that these new players can't use the PHB in Encounters. Many of them have begun coming to LFR, but you need the latest version of the errata to play. So there have been a number of situations where new LFR players are bringing characters that have already been changed significantly, and we have to keep directing them back to a 27-page errata document so they can have legal characters.
Long story short, errata isn't necessary if you're just going to take the book home and play a home game. But if new players learn about the game at the store and like the atmosphere there, they're going to need the errata to play LFR.
@wrecan: You should think about what you're saying before you say it. This is a message board. It's all anecdotal—people talk about their own experiences. Unless you're commissioning a bunch of empirical studies about D&D, it's asinine to dismiss somether here because its an anecdote.
Errata? Why?
Here's the problem I've seen at my FLGS. The store's introduced a number of people to D&D through Encounters, which right now only allows access to Essentials books. When those players ask about other products, the store directs them to the PHB, which it still has in stock.
The problem is that these new players can't use the PHB in Encounters. Many of them have begun coming to LFR, but you need the latest version of the errata to play. So there have been a number of situations where new LFR players are bringing characters that have already been changed significantly, and we have to keep directing them back to a 27-page errata document so they can have legal characters.
Long story short, errata isn't necessary if you're just going to take the book home and play a home game. But if new players learn about the game at the store and like the atmosphere there, they're going to need the errata to play LFR.
@wrecan: You should think about what you're saying before you say it. This is a message board. It's all anecdotal—people talk about their own experiences. Unless you're commissioning a bunch of empirical studies about D&D, it's asinine to dismiss somether here because its an anecdote.
To prove anecdotal is important: I never play the public events, nor would I. My own experience forms how I play the game. So the default PHB would work for me. In other cases (such as the monster building errata) I use errata all the time. Having different ways of play means we all have different but equally valid experiences and points of view to add to a conversation about this single product line/company.
This is a message board. It's all anecdotal—people talk about their own experiences.
Exactly. So when somebody says something anecdotal as if to demonstrate something that can't be proven by anecdotal evidence, I think it's appropriate to point it out, which I did with a simple emoticon. I never said that you should come up with objective evidence. Only that your reference to anecdotes should be taken as persuasive support for whatever point you're trying to make.
I'm not invalidating your emotions. Only pointing out that your anecdote should be taken skeptically. Thus....
There was so much rampant speculation about why they pulled some products, and in the end it really is because they thought there were better ways to present the material and that 4E is better served by not flooding the market with endless feats/powers/etc. What I saw from Heroes of Shadow was very awesome. They want new rules to be significant and worthy and for the quality to be high.
I will say that I detected in many of the staff a tentative sheepish nature. They are very much aware of the forums - one person said they read them as often as they can stomach them. We are doing ourselves a disservice by being so negative (instead of constructive) that they overreact to our feedback. They do things like provide us too early a view of the online CB or MB because they are trying to please us. If more of us were constructive we might actually improve our chances of getting what we want.
I had the fortune to speak to a number of WotC employees this weekend at D&DXP. Conversations with them and the whole of the convention helped restore what I have always known: they are awesome people that are gamers just like us. They love to game and RP. They love to crack jokes and throw dice and come up with cool characters. They make mistakes, but they aren't evil. They aren't trying to take away our game or make it into something that will destroy role-playing.
There was so much rampant speculation about why they pulled some products, and in the end it really is because they thought there were better ways to present the material and that 4E is better served by not flooding the market with endless feats/powers/etc. What I saw from Heroes of Shadow was very awesome. They want new rules to be significant and worthy and for the quality to be high.
I will say that I detected in many of the staff a tentative sheepish nature. They are very much aware of the forums - one person said they read them as often as they can stomach them. We are doing ourselves a disservice by being so negative (instead of constructive) that they overreact to our feedback. They do things like provide us too early a view of the online CB or MB because they are trying to please us. If more of us were constructive we might actually improve our chances of getting what we want.
I'm just not seeing it. While many of us don't explain how they (WotC) can make the game better, we actually do a good job of explaining what we don't like. I think a lot of people need to get the mindset that a "negative" response is somehow bad out of their heads. Just because I don't like something that was done does not mean I'm being negative. I am expressing my likes and dislikes which will inform my purchasing decisions. So far I am being disappointed this year (both books and DDi) where in the past I was also disappointed (DDi). {snark} I should just slink off and shut-up right, rather than express my opinion?{/snark}
I had the fortune to speak to a number of WotC employees this weekend at D&DXP. Conversations with them and the whole of the convention helped restore what I have always known: they are awesome people that are gamers just like us. They love to game and RP. They love to crack jokes and throw dice and come up with cool characters. They make mistakes, but they aren't evil. They aren't trying to take away our game or make it into something that will destroy role-playing.
I agree with this. I think that, if WotC were allowed to make it's own decisions for D&D, even with the current creative team, the game would be in a much better state.
The problem is, those guys you talked to are not in charge of D&D. They operate under mandates from Hasbro, a megacorporation that does not understand D&D. Hasbro understands board games very well, and while they don't understand CCGs, they know hey make asstons of money. When Mike Mearls said this weekend that he doesn't know how much support Pre-E material will get over Essentials+ because it was a "business decision" that meant that Hasbro is in charge of making that call, not WotC. He'll know after the boardmeeting on Feburary 8th when Hasbro lays down it's dictates for the first half of 2011.
This is why I think D&D is dying, not because of WotC per-se, but because of Hasbro meddling with it. I think WotC is doing what they can to make the best of Hasbro's mandates, but I think the end result is the horrible designed-by-committee business plan we've been seeing.
The current shelfling of product, though, is a complete realization on some nuanse of the product, most likely that Essentials is NOT the way forward.
The problem is, those guys you talked to are not in charge of D&D. They operate under mandates from Hasbro, a megacorporation that does not understand D&D. Hasbro understands board games very well, and while they don't understand CCGs, they know hey make asstons of money. When Mike Mearls said this weekend that he doesn't know how much support Pre-E material will get over Essentials+ because it was a "business decision" that meant that Hasbro is in charge of making that call, not WotC.
Are you saying that Hasbro dictates whether WotC is to produce pre-E or E content? I don't believe they meddle that deep into the game design. I doubt they know what pre-E and E mean.
The problem is, those guys you talked to are not in charge of D&D. They operate under mandates from Hasbro, a megacorporation that does not understand D&D. Hasbro understands board games very well, and while they don't understand CCGs, they know hey make asstons of money. When Mike Mearls said this weekend that he doesn't know how much support Pre-E material will get over Essentials+ because it was a "business decision" that meant that Hasbro is in charge of making that call, not WotC.
Are you saying that Hasbro dictates whether WotC is to produce pre-E or E content? I don't believe they meddle that deep into the game design. I doubt they know what pre-E and E mean.
No, we are saying Hasborg said "Your not making enough money, do something different" and WotC scrambled to get something out before the end of the year that might have a chance of making money...
The problem is, those guys you talked to are not in charge of D&D. They operate under mandates from Hasbro, a megacorporation that does not understand D&D. Hasbro understands board games very well, and while they don't understand CCGs, they know hey make asstons of money. When Mike Mearls said this weekend that he doesn't know how much support Pre-E material will get over Essentials+ because it was a "business decision" that meant that Hasbro is in charge of making that call, not WotC.
Are you saying that Hasbro dictates whether WotC is to produce pre-E or E content? I don't believe they meddle that deep into the game design. I doubt they know what pre-E and E mean.
No, we are saying Hasborg said "Your not making enough money, do something different" and WotC scrambled to get something out before the end of the year that might have a chance of making money...
Well, obviously that was the wrong idea, especially with the economy where it is. Hasbro or WotC should know that trying to make more money when people don't have money to spend is not going to work.
The problem is, those guys you talked to are not in charge of D&D. They operate under mandates from Hasbro, a megacorporation that does not understand D&D. Hasbro understands board games very well, and while they don't understand CCGs, they know hey make asstons of money. When Mike Mearls said this weekend that he doesn't know how much support Pre-E material will get over Essentials+ because it was a "business decision" that meant that Hasbro is in charge of making that call, not WotC.
Are you saying that Hasbro dictates whether WotC is to produce pre-E or E content? I don't believe they meddle that deep into the game design. I doubt they know what pre-E and E mean.
One would think so, but I don't know how else to read Mearls' comment.
Speculation:
A year ago some Hasbro executive decided to educate himself on this "D&D thing", and saw "hrm, putting out 3.5 made alot of money a few years back." and instructed the new team to do 4.5. They convinced him it would create too much backlash, and came up with a compromise: Essentials, ".5-ish" enough to please the executive that doesn't know much, but compatible enough that people wouldn't get all up in arms about it... and the result is a designed by committee set of compromises that neither prompted the sales that a "revised edition" would nor was compatible enough to prevent the backlash we're still seeing today.
Right now, Essentials hasn't sold as well as they had hoped, but they're still under directives from this guy to support the "revised edition". He's been avoiding their calls all year (he's not taking responsability) so they don't know what to do. All they can tell us is "It's a business decision, we don't now." and hoping for some clarity after the board meeting February 8th.
If you follow the marketing, the original plan was to have 4E Lite to try and get new players into the game. At some point this mutated into ALSO being for lapsed players, and then they decided to run with it going forward. Keep in mind that their jobs most likely require them to play MANY games and to play a LOT of D&D, and they may have found Essentials to be refreshing to design for and assumed that everyone - most of whom have a much more casual experience with the game - would find it equally refreshing.
Grand conspiracy theories make great stories but poor discussion.
I really doubt there's that level of influence on D&D from Hasbro. Seems more likely to me that essentials is just Mearls' baby.
It would make sense if Essentials is the office darling that they would not get how some players could find it unpalatable.
Note: Funny aside, I spelled "unpalatable" wrong originally. Firefox suggested two words, unpalatable or unplayable.
Note: Funny aside, I spelled "unpalatable" wrong originally. Firefox suggested two words, unpalatable or unplayable.
Amusing.
I think Hasbro has some pull, but the original caveat to Wizards being taken over by Hasbro was that they had the freedom to keep their own identity. This includes the direction a product takes and what not. The main advantage to being a "susidiary of Hasbro, Inc" is the influx and use of capital to use for various things that have improved over the course of their partnership.
Art for the Magic Cards, for example, had vastly improved. Anyone remeber the comic bookish art from Mirage? I liked it, but it pales in comparison to the current offerings. Right now, I think the Essentials line is a direct knee jerk reaction to Pathfinder being successful dispite the 3.5 rules. Compared to what they could have done, the product is at least usable, though the quality of it is suspect.
The main thing is that the future of this brand depends very much on the support it gets. If there is a lot of Essentials backtracking and not that much done to introduce new classes, power sources (The Shadow Power Source is not in HoS) or support the material instead of replace it (Which Essentials tries to do) then the brand will wither. I don't see the advent of 5th edition being pushed forward, but I do see a reason to start it's design and development now if the sales of new product declines as the quality of the work is downgraded to Essential grade.
I really doubt there's that level of influence on D&D from Hasbro. Seems more likely to me that essentials is just Mearls' baby.
I remember reading, whether it was in one of Heinsoo's Defenses of 4e or Mearl's Escapist interview, how those two had very different philosophies of what should be in the game, even as they both contributed to 4th. Rob used to be the boss, now Mike is, thus things changed.
I really doubt there's that level of influence on D&D from Hasbro. Seems more likely to me that essentials is just Mearls' baby.
I remember reading, whether it was in one of Heinsoo's Defenses of 4e or Mearl's Escapist interview, how those two had very different philosophies of what should be in the game, even as they both contributed to 4th. Rob used to be the boss, now Mike is, thus things changed.
I've seen this mentioned before, but I've never seen anyone describe the two philosophies and how they differ. Anyone care to venture?
That's very unlikely, Damon.
You've never worked at a big corporation, have you?
This sort of thing happens all the time: an executive wanders into a department he knows nothing about except that he just read a few wikipedia articles on the subject, and makes all kinds of suggestions, and the guys in that department are like "um, sure, whatever man." and then the executive wanders off, convinces some other executive (who also knows nothing about the department) that he knows alot about that department, met with the people there, and they all love him.
Executive is put somewhere in the chain of command of that department and starts making stupid decisions for it. When those decisions end badly, he pushes the blame to the guys he forced to execute the decisions. When the department does something well (whether or not he had anything to do with it) he takes credit.
The bigger the company, the less executives understand any individual part of the company, yet the amount of executives grow, and so does their power to make decisions, and their ability to avoid responsibility when things go wrong.
The Shadow Power Source is not in HoS
really? I couldn't sworn that we've heard news of a Vampire class, a new type of Assassin, and a race which grants the Shadow power source to a character of whatever class. That's just what we know about... there's no proff one way or another whether they'll be any other Shadow tid-bits in the book.
I really doubt there's that level of influence on D&D from Hasbro. Seems more likely to me that essentials is just Mearls' baby.
I remember reading, whether it was in one of Heinsoo's Defenses of 4e or Mearl's Escapist interview, how those two had very different philosophies of what should be in the game, even as they both contributed to 4th. Rob used to be the boss, now Mike is, thus things changed.
I've seen this mentioned before, but I've never seen anyone describe the two philosophies and how they differ. Anyone care to venture?
Basically AEDU vs. Essentials. Heinsoo likes uniformity, compatibility, balance and freedom of choice. Mearls wants to go back towards 3e philosophy where classes are structured differently leading to less of all those things. He wants "Fighters drool and Wizards rule" back.
A monster race as a class, a race with arbitrary penalties counterbalanced by nothing at all, and something for the assassin - which could easily just be a reprint of the largely martial executioner. Where's the new material to do for shadow what Warden and Shamen did for primal? Where the material that gives shadow a firm footing in D&D lore with any chance of making a lasting impression, or carrying forward into future editions? HoS in its current form is like if PHB II had been released with an 'angry fighter' build instead of a barbarian, a 'nature domain cleric' instead of a druid or shaman, and a 'werewolf class' instead of a warden.
Read it, have you?
Basically AEDU vs. Essentials. Heinsoo likes uniformity, compatibility, balance and freedom of choice. Mearls wants to go back towards 3e philosophy where classes are structured differently leading to less of all those things. He wants "Fighters drool and Wizards rule" back.
Hmmm... that's a bit too marred with your obvious dislike of Mearls to really tell me anything. You see, I'd like to decide if I agree with you regarding Heinsoo > Mearls, but I can't spot the fact through all the fiction.
For instance: Classes being structured differently does not in itself ruin balance, compatibility, or freedom of choice, and I doubt that Mearls likes Wizards better than Fighters, so I'm left wondering if your comment has any merit whatsoever.
They do things like provide us too early a view of the online CB
Taking away the offline CB and forcing us to go online CB only is what they call "providing us a view"?
A monster race as a class, a race with arbitrary penalties counterbalanced by nothing at all, and something for the assassin - which could easily just be a reprint of the largely martial executioner. Where's the new material to do for shadow what Warden and Shamen did for primal? Where the material that gives shadow a firm footing in D&D lore with any chance of making a lasting impression, or carrying forward into future editions? HoS in its current form is like if PHB II had been released with an 'angry fighter' build instead of a barbarian, a 'nature domain cleric' instead of a druid or shaman, and a 'werewolf class' instead of a warden.
Read it, have you?
No one has. But he has a point. Before PHB2 was released, there was build up and hype for the Primal classes; and some previews for how it worked. So far HoS doesn't even have that. The best they got is a vague introduction to the idea of a "Vampire" class. But everything else previewed or even mentioned about it; are sub-class de(re)-makes of possible new class archetypes.
He has a right to moan and be vaguely annoyed with the design principles, this book isn't pushing anything new and isn't pushing anything that seemed as iconic or laudable as the new Primal Classes; which solidified already vague archetypes prominent in the game. Solidified and made different so that you could tell that someone is a Warden, Shaman, Druid(?); and gave this vague idea of nature spirits which were lumped into Divine, a real feel.
At this point, it's a wonder why Shadow didn't get killed off like Ki did. There's nothing solid for it, save for a poorly supported class pre-E and a more efficient half class that is basically "I stab people and hide in the shadows....like a Rogue! Except with more Shadows!"
What we are getting is not the Shadow Power Source. It is a coaster for it. A Vampire class, something with the Assassin, and support and Kit Builds for existing classes, mixing Power Sources more so than they have with the Essentials Heroes books. It is an insult!
I'm not going on nothing here. I've got the executioner and three preview articles to go on, including a list of what the race and class material in the book is, and it is as it stands extremely disappointing.
I mean, honestly, look at the January and Beyond Preview, and tell me if any of that sounds like it has any chance at all of leaving a lasting impression on the game, the way the Warlord or Swordmage or the Shaman have? 5e could roll out without a warlord, and there are people who would say "wow, no warlord? this just doesn't feel like D&D to me". Do you honestly think anyone would say the same about the upcoming vampire monster class? Same if 5e tried to roll primal spirits back under divine magic. Does anything in the previews make you think Shadow could have that kind of lasting impression?
I have to agree that I miss the whole idea of the Ki, Shadow, and Elemental power sources. I haven't presonally tried to come up with, say, an Elemental Powered class that really feels significantly different than a Sorcerer, especially if I were to adhere to the AEDU system, so I don't know that it would be possible. Perhaps they were right in giving it all up, but the old previews that suggested the whole concept sure seemed nice at the time.
I would also like the Necromancer to be it's own shadow-source class, rather than a Wizard, among many other things. I also don't agree that a Samurai is just a fighter with a re-fluffed bastard sword (but then, I've trained in bujutsu for twelve years, so my perspective is a bit skewed)
Overall I think they should have done more classes rather than less, and I don't think it would be all that hard to give a unique feel to three more power sources. Perhaps it would have been easier if they had a better, more focused idea as to what exactly "arcane" magic was so it didn't step on the toes of other "magic" sources quite so much. They also could have saved some archetypical design space for new classes by not making quite so many builds.
As for it being different enough from the Sorcerer... well, I personally feel that the Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer should really have been Elemental. I mean, all of their power supposedly comes from being desended from a dragon, and dragons are Elemental-powered.
As for the dissapearance of Ki though, I'm fairly indifferent to it. In 3rd edition my favorite classes were the psionic ones and the monk and I always kinda felt that the background fluff for their power wasn't different enough to warrant them not being grouped together.
The fluff for the Monk's power: "magical power that comes from within, from your own mind & soul"
The fluff for the Psionic classes' power: "magical power that comes from within, from your own mind & soul"
It seems to me that Ki and Psionic are just two words for the same thing (at least in D&D.)
Basically AEDU vs. Essentials. Heinsoo likes uniformity, compatibility, balance and freedom of choice. Mearls wants to go back towards 3e philosophy where classes are structured differently leading to less of all those things. He wants "Fighters drool and Wizards rule" back.
Hmmm... that's a bit too marred with your obvious dislike of Mearls to really tell me anything. You see, I'd like to decide if I agree with you regarding Heinsoo > Mearls, but I can't spot the fact through all the fiction.
For instance: Classes being structured differently does not in itself ruin balance, compatibility, or freedom of choice, and I doubt that Mearls likes Wizards better than Fighters, so I'm left wondering if your comment has any merit whatsoever.
Well, at least in all instances that they have structured classes differently, it has taken away choices. I think wizard and cleric are the only ones that get as much choice as old classes. So although E-fighters can be efficient on the battlefield, they drool in the sense that they just use the same whack from round to round and there is little choice for the player when leveling up. It's boring as hell and I don't want anymore of that crap in future products. Essentials were newbie products, the bridge to true AEDU-classes. I don't want the future products to be directed at newbies, too.
Basically AEDU vs. Essentials. Heinsoo likes uniformity, compatibility, balance and freedom of choice. Mearls wants to go back towards 3e philosophy where classes are structured differently leading to less of all those things. He wants "Fighters drool and Wizards rule" back.
Hmmm... that's a bit too marred with your obvious dislike of Mearls to really tell me anything. You see, I'd like to decide if I agree with you regarding Heinsoo > Mearls, but I can't spot the fact through all the fiction.
For instance: Classes being structured differently does not in itself ruin balance, compatibility, or freedom of choice, and I doubt that Mearls likes Wizards better than Fighters, so I'm left wondering if your comment has any merit whatsoever.
Well, at least in all instances that they have structured classes differently, it has taken away choices. I think wizard and cleric are the only ones that get as much choice as old classes. So although E-fighters can be efficient on the battlefield, they drool in the sense that they just use the same whack from round to round and there is little choice for the player when leveling up. It's boring as hell and I don't want anymore of that crap in future products. Essentials were newbie products, the bridge to true AEDU-classes. I don't want the future products to be directed at newbies, too.
Here here!
Well, at least in all instances that they have structured classes differently, it has taken away choices. I think wizard and cleric are the only ones that get as much choice as old classes. So although E-fighters can be efficient on the battlefield, they drool in the sense that they just use the same whack from round to round and there is little choice for the player when leveling up. It's boring as hell and I don't want anymore of that crap in future products. Essentials were newbie products, the bridge to true AEDU-classes. I don't want the future products to be directed at newbies, too.
Fair enough, I can't say I don't agree. But I'm still not sure that this stems from Heinsoo > Mearls.
Could be, but I've never read Mearls say any of the things he's often condemned for.
Mage excepted, all the other essentials builds have used the new design freedom to clamp down hard on variety and choice. Knights, Slayers, Scouts, Sentinels, Hexblades, Cavaliers, Thieves, Executioners, Warpriests, and hunters all get to make far, far fewer meaningful decisions as they level. Most never get to choose an encounter power, some never get to choose an at will power, some don't even have daily powers. Your ability to influence how your character develops in these sub-classes is significantly less pronounced then for the original characters.
It's the story of essentials for me - interesting ideas executed in ways that disappoint. Less expensive paperback books? cool, I can dig it. Until the bindings started falling apart in under a month of use. Expanded freedom in class design? Cool. But it turns out to mean 'freedom for the designers to make classes with far fewer options and far less freedom for the player'. Item rarity allows the design of more powerful rare items, held in check by players not being able to make them (and thus not being able to make multiples of them)? I wouldn't mind seeing that, except that it turned out to be just an excuse to remove access to almost all existing items.
sigh.
Should be the standard.
One thing... Why would one need, with the exception of a dupe weapon for the Ranger, more than one of a particular magical item? My houserule with the powers is that once a particular power is used, it can't be used again no matter the source of that power. (Encounter and Daily here) Not until you normally would be able to use it.
Should be the standard.
Actually before the item rarity system, the rules pretty much did this. Dailies were not allowed to be duped and you were limited by tier to the number of encounter and dailies. I don't know why they changed it instead of just telling people to read the books...
Hmmm... that's a bit too marred with your obvious dislike of Mearls to really tell me anything. You see, I'd like to decide if I agree with you regarding Heinsoo > Mearls, but I can't spot the fact through all the fiction.
For instance: Classes being structured differently does not in itself ruin balance, compatibility, or freedom of choice, and I doubt that Mearls likes Wizards better than Fighters, so I'm left wondering if your comment has any merit whatsoever.
It's not far off. Heinsoo's plan was that nothing was sacred in pursuit of a system with balanced mechanics, and consistantly fun experience for all characters and levels. An idea must have fit into the mechanical structure before he'd let it in. Mearls loves the older systems, and imagined what they'd be like in 4th first: only considering the balance/per level experience later. He proposed many ideas in his articles/posts that never saw print because he couldn't balance them to Heinsoo's standards.
I guess the question is what changed to have Wizards dump Essentials into the market? Did one get the other fired, or did the other leave on his own accord?
I believe they were caught in one of the rounds of lay-offs. That Hasborg handed down. I'm sure it went something like this
- Hasborg sees that WotC D&D department is not quite as profitable as MtG so they order a series of layoffs thinking that will make it profitable.
- WotC loses some key people that were doing really good work. Their department being smaller has to use short cuts and overwork everyone involved. Thus less quality products, thus less sales.
- Hasborg takes notice of lost sales and blames it on management, and starts replacing management. Including the WotC CEO (I think) with a Hasborg manager.
- D&D is changed up since nobody that is left in management really knows anything about D&D. Essentials comes along to reduce workload, and ends up splitting the customer base.
- Sales overall go down (regardless of how well Essentials itself did).
- Hasborg tells them to cut costs or another round of lay-offs will happen.
- Rinse ... repeat...
Hmmm... that's a bit too marred with your obvious dislike of Mearls to really tell me anything. You see, I'd like to decide if I agree with you regarding Heinsoo > Mearls, but I can't spot the fact through all the fiction.
For instance: Classes being structured differently does not in itself ruin balance, compatibility, or freedom of choice, and I doubt that Mearls likes Wizards better than Fighters, so I'm left wondering if your comment has any merit whatsoever.
It's not far off. Heinsoo's plan was that nothing was sacred in pursuit of a system with balanced mechanics, and consistantly fun experience for all characters and levels. An idea must have fit into the mechanical structure before he'd let it in. Mearls loves the older systems, and imagined what they'd be like in 4th first: only considering the balance/per level experience later. He proposed many ideas in his articles/posts that never saw print because he couldn't balance them to Heinsoo's standards.
Well damn. If this is anything like truth, I would have much preferred Mr. Heinsoo remain the one in charge of 4th edition.
Actually, mostly it's the product release schedule, the new CB, and WotC's lack of communication that really bug me these days. They really seem to lack direction as well.
I still am curious if I agree about Heinsoo. It's just so hard to tell how much of the Mearls hate is Essentials Hate in disguise. I have to admit, even though I like essentials fine in itself, I liked the game of 4e overall much better a year ago than I do today, with the exception of Monster Design which is currently much better than it was, and by extension, the new modules are more fun than the old ones.
Just wanted to underline in a grammatically incorrect way that I think it's inarguable that monster design got a hell lotta better in the past months.
I still am curious if I agree about Heinsoo. It's just so hard to tell how much of the Mearls hate is Essentials Hate in disguise. I have to admit, even though I like essentials fine in itself, I liked the game of 4e overall much better a year ago than I do today, with the exception of Monster Design which is currently much better than it was, and by extension, the new modules are more fun than the old ones.
Actually, mostly it's the product release schedule, the new CB, and WotC's lack of communication that really bug me these days. They really seem to lack direction as well.
I dont "hate" Mearls, I just don't think he's doing as good a job. It's more likely his overturning Heinsoo's designs makes me dislike Essentials rather than hating essentials makes me dislike Mearls.
I still am curious if I agree about Heinsoo. It's just so hard to tell how much of the Mearls hate is Essentials Hate in disguise. I have to admit, even though I like essentials fine in itself, I liked the game of 4e overall much better a year ago than I do today, with the exception of Monster Design which is currently much better than it was, and by extension, the new modules are more fun than the old ones.
Actually, mostly it's the product release schedule, the new CB, and WotC's lack of communication that really bug me these days. They really seem to lack direction as well.
I dont "hate" Mearls, I just don't think he's doing as good a job. It's more likely his overturning Heinsoo's designs makes me dislike Essentials rather than hating essentials makes me dislike Mearls.
Yeah, this. I've met Mr. Mearls, he seems like a nice guy. I just dislike his design brain.
Fair enough. I think I may have been under the impression that Mearls was responsible for more of what I liked about 4e than he was. Does anyone know what kinds of things Mearls did for D&D before he got to the top? What do you suppose got him the job?
He kept his head low and pointed at the other guy...
Either that or his family ties are stronger...
Fair enough. I think I may have been under the impression that Mearls was responsible for more of what I liked about 4e than he was. Does anyone know what kinds of things Mearls did for D&D before he got to the top? What do you suppose got him the job?
Besides writing adventure modules and sourcebooks for WotC and various third-party publishers, I believe that Mr. Mearls' most notable industry achievement prior to 4E was designing Iron Heroes, an OGL role-playing game published by Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press.
Fair enough. I think I may have been under the impression that Mearls was responsible for more of what I liked about 4e than he was. Does anyone know what kinds of things Mearls did for D&D before he got to the top? What do you suppose got him the job?
Besides writing adventure modules and sourcebooks for WotC and various third-party publishers, I believe that Mr. Mearls' most notable industry achievement prior to 4E was designing Iron Heroes, an OGL role-playing game published by Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press.
Tome of Battle The Book of Nine Swords - has Richard Baker as Lead Designer on the Cover and Mike Mearls as Lead Developer in the Credits ... if I recall correctly.
Thanks for the post. I read those 4e design books back when they came out, so it's been awhile. Clearly I should consider myself a bigger fan of Heinsoo than I previously thought. My opinion of Mearls is colored by the fact that he was one of the few names I knew when 4e first started. I was never a big fan of 3.x and I liked what he did with Monte Cook on Iron Heroes and I liked parts of the Book of 9 Swords, so I always considered Mearls to be one of the things I liked about 4e.
In spite of not liking the essentials design direction I still put MM solildly a part of and contributer to the original team ie I am not excluding the credit where I think its due ( the sources you mention really point to him bringing along a healthy contribution ) .However people operate differently in a team and they bounce off of one another and create checks and balances they can bring different elements of each others capabilities. So I am sure he was one of those responsible for definite things I indeed still like about 4e.
Heinsoo certainly does belong on your list though. ;p
I mean, it's not 100% doom and gloom. I rate my own feelings at 83% doom and gloom, down from a high of 96% doom and glom a month or two ago, though still unnaceptably higher then the mere 4 to 7% doom and gloom rates I was running back around the time Darksun was released.
The lack of support for the item system may indicate an acknowledgment of how terrible it was, the message that a lot of people don't like the essentials format seems like it might be sinking in (even if it was probably too late for HoS).
Man, I hope you are right. If HoS is the only post-Essentials Essentials-paradigm victim, I'll be happy again.