Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.

Games and Gaming: [4e] DMG

Bottom of Page

1 to 76 of 76

  1.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 1
    I have mixed feelings on 4E as a system. But I LOVE the DMG. Quotes:

    "One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater technique is called “Yes, and . . .” It’s based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actor gives and builds on that. That’s your job as well."

    "Being the DM doesn’t mean you have to know all the rules. If a player tries something you don’t know how to adjudicate, ask the opinion of the players as a group. It might take a few minutes, but it’s usually possible to hash out an answer that seems fair."

    "You shouldn’t be afraid to delegate some of the job of running the game to your players. If you don’t want to break your narrative stride by looking up a rule, designate another player to be the rulebook reference expert. Players can make the DM’s life easier in a lot of little ways, from never making you pay for pizza to helping to flesh out the background of the campaign world. You have enough to do, delegate what you can. When a group of players shares the responsibilities of running the game, everyone has more fun. Best of all, the players feel as though it’s their game, not just yours."

    "A single DM is great because . . ."
    "The weaknesses of a single DM are . . ."

    "Multiple DMs are great because . . ."
    "The weaknesses of multiple DMs are . . ."

    "A campaign game is great because . . ."
    "The weakness of a campaign game is . . ."

    "An episodic game is great because . . ."
    "The weakness of an episodic game is . . ."

    "An On going game is great because . . ."
    "The weakness of an ongoing game is . . ."

    "A One-shot game is great because . . ."
    "The weaknesses of a one-shot game are . . ."

    "Come to a consensus about food for your session. Should players eat before arriving, or do you eat together? Does one player want to play host? Do you all chip in for pizza or take-out? Who brings snacks and drinks?"

    "Most players enjoy many aspects of the game at different times. For convenience, we define the primary player motivations as types of players: actors, explorers, instigators, power gamers, slayers, storytellers, thinkers, and watchers."

    X player is...
    Engage X player by . . .
    Be sure X player doesn’t . . .

    "One-Hour Preparation"
    "Two-Hour Preparation"
    "Three-Hour Preparation"
    "Four-Hour Preparation"
    "No Time to Prepare!"

    "Problem Players"
    "Setting Expectations"
    "Out-of-Control Players"
    "Prima Donna Players"
    "Rules Lawyers"
    "Balancing Player Tastes"

    "Event-Based Adventures
    If a good outdoor adventure map is a sort of abstraction of a dungeon map, then the “map” for a purely event-based adventure is even more so. But the idea of a dungeon map as flowchart is a great metaphor for how to structure an adventure around events and decisions instead of around physical space. An event-based adventure focuses on the things the characters do rather than the places they go."
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 2
    What do they actually say about rules lawyers and prima donnas? (Anything a little more socially articulate than "the DM should fix it" is a pretty big win.)

    This is great news, can't wait to see the book.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 3
    So 4E is already out?

    (Damn, now I have to hand in my geek license...)
    •  
      CommentAuthormisuba
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 4
    Not generally released (in the US anyway) until June 6.

    Apparently a few copies are floating around nonetheless.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 5
    Holy crap, I may actually pick this up.
    • CommentAuthorLord Minx
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 6
    Posted By: misubaNot generally released (in the US anyway) until June 6.

    Apparently a few copies are floating around nonetheless.
    Ah, I see, thanks. :)
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 7
    Fresh printer's copy scans, at least, of all the core books have been widely available on the interwebtubes for at least 48 hours. I assume that they've been available even longer to those in the know. Anyway, the every other thread on 4chan's /vg/ right now contains links to a rapidshare or torrent or something of the books.
    • CommentAuthorTorquemada
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 8
    Probably Mike is also referring to the hard copies of the books an online retailer shipped early.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 9
    I'm not surprised the 4e DMG is cool, the 3e DMG was one of the best GM's guides ever put out for any game, and several other D20 productions had excellent GM's advice (Call of Cthulhu d20, Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds supplements...)
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 10
    I just want to be clear that none of this is from a pirated copy. I want to give Wizards my money for doing such a great job on the DMG.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 11
    I should also note that some of the advice in the DMG doesn't actually seem to fit the PHB very well. Since the PHB is so focused on a very specific style of play. Where the DMG advocates playing the game in a way that fits all styles of play. But the DMG is amazing just as a general guide book on running most RPGs.
    • CommentAuthorClinton
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 12
    The fact that the top prep level is "4 Hours Preparation" says a lot.
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 13
    My product that I am aiming to release in january will be a bridge between the two - Player's Handbook and DMG.
    • CommentAuthorjaywalt
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 14
    Don, is this related to your location-based d20 hack, or is this something different?
    •  
      CommentAuthoreruditus
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 15
    it is (more RV posts leading up to 4e) although it looks a little different than you las saw it. I am really looking forward to your critique when I get down with it. Right now I am posting about general story gaming. Next is Spiral then 4e.
    • CommentAuthorDainXB
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 16
    The whole 4e design, all three books, seems to be subtly influenced by indie design principles, and focused strictly on mechanically supporting most of the Gamist Creative Agenda. (It lacks only the aspect of direct player-vs-player competition, as far as I can tell). It's well thought out and well written, but...

    There are so many fundamental changes in the system from 3.5 that I suspect many of the traditional gamers who love D&D 3.5 will say that 4e is not 'D&D' at all, but something else usurping the name.

    Does it seem weird to anyone besides me that the current iteration of the grandfather of all RPG titles may wind up being more accepted in the indie community than in the gaming community at large?

    --
    DainXB
    • CommentAuthorJesse
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 17
    Posted By: DainXB
    There are so many fundamental changes in the system from 3.5 that I suspect many of the traditional gamers who love D&D 3.5 will say that 4e is not 'D&D' at all, but something else usurping the name.


    I play indie games exclusively. I can't do "traditional" gaming any more. I thought 3.5 was brilliant and perfect. I don't understand the philosophy behind 4e at all. It seems like an attempt to bring gamers like me into the fold (which it won't) and instead will just alienate the core customer base who loved what 3.5 was all about.

    Jesse
    •  
      CommentAuthorrenatoram
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 18
    On the other hand, Jesse, I can say I witnessed what Dain says, on more than one gaming community:

    DnD long time player's responses:

    - OMG they turned it into WoW!
    - OMG it's not an rpg anymore!
    - OMG it's not DnD anymore!
    - OMG the effect based powers make no sense at all!
    - OMG the "per encounter/day" powers of non mages make no sense at all!
    - OMG concflict resolution!!! panic!!1!!ONE!
    - OMG the battlemap is mandatory! it's just a wargame!

    ...and so on, with much gnashing of teeth, shedding of tears and chest beating, ad libitum, sfumando...

    Many indie/storygames oriented players, on the other hand, who would not have touched ADnD or DnD3.x with a stick (say, me) are welcoming the design of 4e as the first edition in more than 20 years with a sense of vision and purpose, and are recognizing many modern design principles we love applied to DnD. I'm sure I'm not the only one considering picking this up, or at least trying it.

    I'm obviously exagerating, and there's also a (small, or at least less vocal) part of DnD players that are in the "well, let's see and try it" camp.
  19.  # 19
    Those quotes from the 4E DMG sound like material that was well-covered by 3.5E's DMG 2 (a surprisingly good book about game prep and running independent of D&D).
    •  
      CommentAuthorDenys
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 20
    Posted By: Jesse
    Posted By: DainXB
    There are so many fundamental changes in the system from 3.5 that I suspect many of the traditional gamers who love D&D 3.5 will say that 4e is not 'D&D' at all, but something else usurping the name.


    I play indie games exclusively. I can't do "traditional" gaming any more. I thought 3.5 was brilliant and perfect. I don't understand the philosophy behind 4e at all. It seems like an attempt to bring gamers like me into the fold (which it won't) and instead will just alienate the core customer base who loved what 3.5 was all about.

    Jesse


    Well, it might not bring you in but there's folks like me.

    I can't play 3.5. I'm bored silly with all the rules exceptions and find it way too rigid to deal with the sorts of improv style that I'm used to when in the "GM role".

    4e, from what I'm reading (and I've been reading those pirated printers scans), is actually getting me interested in trying it out as a DM (and I haven't run anything called D&D in 28 years).
  21.  # 21
    Posted By: renatoram- OMG the battlemap is mandatory! it's just a wargame!

    I've had the chance to see part of the player's handbook (skimmed a few dozen pages), and right up at the beginning they put the battlemap and minis as part of the "you may also find these useful" section, not under the "you must have these to play" part where the books and dice were listed. So they're at least implying that you can get by without 'em without destroying the game.

    And my cursory examination of the classes seemed to bear that out; yeah, there are a metric crapload of abilities which relate to square-by-square movement, but I got the feeling that most of them could be abstracted about as easily as they were in 3.5 or Star Wars SE. Probably folks like me can get by with the hastily-sketched, totally-not-to-scale maps we've been using all this time, and still get a fun, highly playable game out of it...which would be excellent news, since we're not a mat-and-minis group and don't plan on becoming one.

    It really does look fun and well-designed. Different, definitely, and I think I'd have to play it to see if it recaptures the old-school "hot damn, let's go kill some orcs and get some loot and have an adventure" goofy pleasure of previous D&D iterations, or if it actually does seem like something new.
    • CommentAuthorGeorgios
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 22
    So far, the one drawback I see in D&D 4 is that there's little to encourage GMs to make the game their own. There's nothing that suggests, that you can use the rules to bring your vision of this edition's default setting to life at your gaming table. You play the game set in the game's world. Your input translates into action, not world-expanding creativity.

    Admittedly, there was precious little to encourage that in 3rd Edition, too. Many people did it anyway and thus elevated their game to a living, breathing and exciting roleplaying experience. With its shift in design ethos 4th Edition seems to channel its players' creativity in a different manner than earlier editions. It'll be interesting to see what adventures and campaigns in D&D4 "feel" like (for lack of a better word), once people have grown comfortable with the game and start to move beyond what the books cover.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrenatoram
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 23
    AfT: I was just quoting the various kinds of theatricals performed on the fora I know, I don't agree with any of them, pretty much. :)
  24.  # 24
    Oh, I know, and I wasn't trying to suggest that you were approving of any of the usual hysterical internet caterwauling; it's more that I was, personally, actually beginning to worry about whether the battlemaps and miniatures would be ditchable or not, and was pleased to see that they probably are. (Yeah, yeah, I know, never listen to anything anyone says before the product is actually on the shelf, but I was weak!)
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 25
    Tangent:
    Over on another thread, JD Corley gets taken to task for picking and choosing what parts of oldVamp to use or not, mechanics-wise, as well as adding his own tweaks. It's taken as evidence of shoddy game design that he felt he needed/wished to do that.

    Over here (and elsewhere on the internet), I keep hearing about how folks are planning to dump the minis rules/map usage from D&D4.0, and it seems like it gets a pass. To me, that looks like exactly the thing Corley was talking about doing with oldVamp.

    Where's the difference between these situations?
  26.  # 26
    Posted By: GeorgiosSo far, the one drawback I see in D&D 4 is that there's little to encourage GMs to make the game their own. There's nothing that suggests, that you can use the rules to bring your vision of this edition's default setting to life at your gaming table. You play the game set in the game's world. Your input translates into action, not world-expanding creativity.

    Actually, D&D 4E's default "Points of Light" setting purposely leaves big holes in the world so DMs and players can fill in the details themselves. And there are some rules about "quest cards" so players can define their own quest/story goals.
    • CommentAuthorJesse
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 27
    Posted By: komradebob
    Where's the difference between these situations?


    Attitude of the person doing it. No one who is dumping the map/mini rules is (a) claiming that they are playing D&D as intended and (b) claiming that D&D is GREAT game because the mini/map rules can be ignored.

    They are saying what is true: These parts of this game interest me. I'm going to take those parts and play my own game with it.

    Also, if D&D4E is well designed you won't HAVE to modify it to play it. You could to make it more of the experience you want. I argue that you HAVE to make such modifications/additions to Vampire to make it function AT ALL.

    Jesse
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 28
    Yeah...not seein' it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 29
    Regarding the battle grid. The beginning of the PHB states that D&D miniatures and a battle grid or dungeon tiles are optional. But many people who have skimmed the PHB have assumed that meant that tracking position on a grid was optional. This is incorrect using the rules as written. All they mean is that you can use graph paper to track position or some other method. But fixed positioning indicated in a manner that can easily be tracked by all participants is part of the game. From the combat section:

    "The combat rules assume that you use D&D Dungeon Tiles, a poster map, a gridded white board, or an erasable, gridded mat to show the area where a battle takes place."

    And step 2 of combat is:

    "Establish positions. The DM decides where the combatants are positioned on the battle grid. For example, if the PCs have just opened a door into a room, the DM might draw or arrange a depiction of the door and the room on the battle grid and then ask the players to arrange their miniatures near the door. Then the DM places miniatures that represent the monsters in the room."

    The DMG states several times that the Battle Grid is a required part of the game.

    I've also heard that in previous versions of the 4E DMG, they actually had an option to run combat without a Battle Grid but they took that out of the final version. Several playtest groups (many which hate using maps) even ran 4E without a Battle Grid and found it too slow and that it unbalanced the classes and powers.

    That being said, it's not impossible. But 4E is a tight game that has been playtested the hell out of. I wouldn't want to play it without the grid. If I don't like miniature combat, I can't fathom why I would want to play 4E. There are so many amazing games that run similar settings without grids that are far more story based (Burning Wheel).

    Back to the thread, the DMG is fantastic. I bought 4E just for the DMG.

    In terms of playing, it's very exhilarating at first with all the amazing power options. But as you level up, you quickly realize so many of the powers are all essentially the same and the winning combos become apparent quickly where what was first perceived as an abundance of choice quickly feels strained and narrow. But the game has a lot going for it. I love how combat works, I love the power categories, and I love how easy and rewarding it is to level up. Plus the game is far easier for the DM to run. Which is always a good thing!
    • CommentAuthorGorsh
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 30
    I just stop by to say: "Yes, And"... someone go tell Graham W, i want to see his reaction.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbuzz
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 31
    Posted By: komradebobWhere's the difference between these situations?

    That's it's socially acceptable (even expected) in gaming circles to claim minis "get in the way of roleplaying" or "lack imagination", and thus it's de rigeur to talk about not using them?

    I don't get it. Minis are a tool, just like dice, paper, pencils, playing cards, etc. Playing D&D without minis is like playing Monopoly without a board, IMO.
  32.  # 32
    *shrug* Honestly, I still don't get why people get upset at the thought that somewhere, some group is -- GASP! -- not playing the game "correctly." Or even more inexplicably, when someone's decision to tweak a game is taken as a sign that the design can't possibly be any good, because why else would it get changed? And on a more personal note, if I'm not playing or planning on playing a game with you, why should either of us be bothered by what the other one is doing with it?


    I'm gradually going over to JDCorley's "The developer got hit by a truck" philosophy, I think. I'm not going to wait for a developer to magically stumble upon a game that's perfect for me and spurn every other game until that unlikely day arrives, I'm just going to take the books I bought and make them into the games I want. If the developers or anyone else have a problem with that, we can discuss it when they're sitting down and playing with me. Which they won't be, because I don't know them and they're not invited.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 33
    I would be amazed if anyone was upset that people customize games to their needs. This is a community made up of creative people who love to tinker. Hell, D&D would not exist if it wasn't a hack of a wargame. The hobby was born as a design hack.

    If someone clarifies the intent of a game, what is and is not presented in the game, and offers information gleamed from countless playtests, it's not the same as saying hacking the game is bad. Far from it! But it would be nice to actually talk about the game itself here since it just came out (or will officially soon) and talk about what it could do with serious hacking in a separate thread. Not because one is bad or good. It's just separate subjects (or would be beneficial to keep separate).
  34.  # 34
    Seems like kind of an artificial distinction: you can't have a game without the tweaking, and you can't have the tweaking without the game. The discussion flows freely between the two points, as has been seen...well, everywhere. ;)
    • CommentAuthorValamir
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 35
    There seems to be some confusion here.

    Tweaking is not bad. House rules are not bad. Customizing options is not bad. No one has said otherwise, and frankly the misrepresentation is getting old.

    So let's recap:
    Game promises to deliver play that looks like A...you are looking forward to A...you play the game as written...game fails to deliver A. This is bad design, or at the very least poorly written rules.
    You still want A, you want the game that was promised...you change the game, you tweak it, you fix it, you play it...its awesome. That's a demonstration of your skill as a gamer, it doesn't redeem the design.

    Game promises to deliver play that looks like A...people who are looking forward to A...they play the game as written...game delivers A. This is a good design.
    You however prefer B, so you tweak the game, you change it, you make it what you want it to be. That's normal stuff gamers do all the time. Its not indicative of a poor design.

    This is basic Form follows Function...

    The willingness of gamers to accept half finished, poorly designed games that fail to deliver what they promise, and accept as a given the necessity of having to fix it to get what they want...and don't see that as a flaw...is proof of how many crappy designs that we've had to put up with over the years that everyone just takes it as the way its supposed to be. In what other industry do people accept that?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAndy
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 36
    Posted By: komradebobTangent:
    Over on another thread, JD Corley gets taken to task for picking and choosing what parts of oldVamp to use or not, mechanics-wise, as well as adding his own tweaks. It's taken as evidence of shoddy game design that he felt he needed/wished to do that.

    Over here (and elsewhere on the internet), I keep hearing about how folks are planning to dump the minis rules/map usage from D&D4.0, and it seems like it gets a pass. To me, that looks like exactly the thing Corley was talking about doing with oldVamp.

    Where's the difference between these situations?


    The difference is that JD Corley is awesome, and makes me want to play Vampire now that I know what I'm doing, and using the game as more than a tool for chasing hot goth ass.

    More seriously, though, the idea that was coming up (and it's only Valamir as far as I can tell who is doing task-taking, mind, not "folks"; interestingly enough I simultaneously agree and believe in both of their viewpoints; I contain multitudes) was that Vampire says the game is about X, Y, and Z, and helps you also do things on the tracks of U, V and W as well. But from a point of view, it doesn't focus on X Y or Z clearly, and seems to hae a kind of schizophrenia about addressing those topics with the rules. To which the stately retort-argument is, "The setting is in fact as important as the rules (perhaps moreso), the setting IS the game, as much as the numeric dice rules stuff and humanity tracks are."

    Here, with 4e, the differences are lining up like apples and oranges. From what I've seen of the books, there is no "setting material" in the core books. Vampire has pages and pages of fiction to draw you in. The 1st edition even has an awesome comic throughout the book which tells a beautiful little vampire story. It has tons of setting material to explain the game and how its played, once you get past the dross of the rules.

    In 4e, there's no setting material, no set settings and the like. We just have a world of crunchy rules with little or no flavor text. The only thing to measure the "feel" and "direction" of the game in the way we'd look to the setting and fiction sections of Vampire or Tribe 8 or Blue Planet, is a lot of color art, a few god names, and just a feel that the rules exude in the way the characters are made to be heroic and not peons via the powerz and the like.

    If 4e had more setting material in the books, then it might be comparable on that front.

    The other front is the rules: Vampire provides a ton of rules that you may or may not ever use, but expect you to use the core mechanic in some form or other. Provides humanity, but doesn't expect you to force your adventures to use that mechanic Uber Alles (the game text from 1e was all about a Forever Knight-style vampire cop who uses vampire powers to catch bad guys)., nor does it expect you to slavishly follow the combat rules or whatever. Truth is, it's probably because you may see vampire games at conventions and the like, but you won't see "vampire tournaments" where knowing and enforcing the rules are super-important. On the other hand, 4e is wired so tight with the board that it's like (as described above) playing Settlers of Catan without a board. Or Monopoly.

    Everntually, someone might be able to hack together an alternative. Perhaps using a variant of "zones" or something, something where you can draw a few circles on a sheet of paper, and not worry about squares and Shifts. But going for 4e without graph paper or a board seems kinda naieve to me. At that point, I'd think you'd be just as good off playing another game that focuses more on the non-combat stuff that you want.

    Posted By: Accounting for TasteI'm gradually going over to JDCorley's "The developer got hit by a truck" philosophy, I think.


    Heh, I wasn't gradually going there. I found myself there already, and all he did was pound a sign into the ground saying "Oh, BTW, here's where you are". I'm like, "Oh, THAT articulates well where I'm at. Neat." :-)

    Good stuff. Sorry, this kinda got off the DMG discussion there...

    -Andy
    •  
      CommentAuthorbuzz
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008 edited
     # 37
    Posted By: Accounting for Taste*shrug* Honestly, I still don't get why people get upset at the thought that somewhere, some group is -- GASP! -- not playing the game "correctly."

    I don't care about "correct." I'm pretty much saying the following:
    Posted By: AndyBut going for 4e without graph paper or a board seems kinda naieve to me. At that point, I'd think you'd be just as good off playing another game that focuses more on the non-combat stuff that you want.

    IMO, aversion to minis is really aversion to tactical aspects of games. Ergo, if you don't like tactical combat, don't play an RPG designed to use tactical combat.

    It's not wrong, per se, but it makes no sense to me. Not when there are hundreds of other awesome RPGs out there.

    EDIT: I mean, if you added minis and tactics to, I dunno, Breaking the Ice, I don't think people would think, "Oh, he's just hacking the game to fit his play style." On the contrary, they'd think, "Why the hell don't you just play D&D?"
    •  
      CommentAuthorbuzz
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 38
    Posted By: AndySorry, this kinda got off the DMG discussion there...

    Ditto. Apologies. Mini-bigotry is a pet peeve of mine. :)
  39.  # 39
    DMG, Chapter 9:

    "You won’t find a world map in this or any of the core D&D rulebooks. 'The world' in which the D&D game takes place doesn’t have a map—not until you create one. And you shouldn’t feel in any great hurry to create one. A map is important only when the characters seek out the places shown on it.
    That said, these books do make some assumptions about the world in which your adventures take place. This chapter talks about those assumptions, and then discusses how you might change them. In the end, the setting of your campaign is your world—the details are
    yours to change or create from whole cloth."

    The rest of the chapter is pretty great, too. I can't wait to play this thing.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKuma
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 40
    Posted By: GeorgiosSo far, the one drawback I see in D&D 4 is that there's little to encourage GMs to make the game their own. There's nothing that suggests, that you can use the rules to bring your vision of this edition's default setting to life at your gaming table. You play the game set in the game's world. Your input translates into action, not world-expanding creativity.


    I see the opposite. With the whole 'kewl powerz' thing streamlined to such a degree, creating new abilities, classes and paths is going to be a nonce. Hell, I want to run a full-blown Guild Wars 4e hack when I get my hands on the books that my online retailer didn't ship to me accidentally, DAMMIT!

    As for the battlemap thing: I think Wizards would have been better served by using a system similar to, say, Pirates of the Spanish Main or other mini-type games - instead of saying '5 feet', meaning one square on a standard battle map, use some other sort of standard measure like a 1" base of a mini or something handy. Then, no battlemat, and you can use whatever you want for markers, as long as they're of a consistent size (poker chips spring to mind).
  41.  # 41
    It's not wrong, per se, but it makes no sense to me. Not when there are hundreds of other awesome RPGs out there.

    EDIT: I mean, if you added minis and tactics to, I dunno, Breaking the Ice, I don't think people would think, "Oh, he's just hacking the game to fit his play style." On the contrary, they'd think, "Why the hell don't you just play D&D?"

    Well, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who's going to pick up the books, look them over, and decide "hey, does this sound like something I would enjoy playing with my friends?" Whether it's what the developers "want" from me or whether it makes sense to someone other than me and the people I game with...well, that's really not the point, is it? ;)

    The shortest reason why we might choose 4E and tweak it rather than avoid it entirely is that the game might do other cool things. Since it's our decision what games we play or don't play (which will probably include dozens of the hundreds of other awesome RPGs out there, since we're always trying out different systems), if we see enough coolness there, then we're just going to go ahead and strip out the battlemat stuff and probably still have an awesome time.


    Personally, I could see enjoying the unaltered system if the GM really got off on drawing accurate maps (and could whip 'em out quickly), and especially if everyone at the table was equally psyched about moving the counters around; but I already know that this isn't the case with all of my friends, and that's fine, too. We've had plenty of fun with looser, less-well-defined maps, so for our purposes I expect that it won't really matter whether the book calls for a battlegrid and markers; if we can ditch them and still have fun, they'll get ditched. We'll just do what we always do: sketch out something not-to-scale, and negotiate and re-negotiate the fine details as they become necessary.
    • CommentAuthorGeorgios
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 42
    Posted By: Kuma
    I see the opposite. With the whole 'kewl powerz' thing streamlined to such a degree, creating new abilities, classes and paths is going to be a nonce. Hell, I want to run a full-blown Guild Wars 4e hack when I get my hands on the books that my online retailer didn't ship to me accidentally, DAMMIT!


    Much like how some story games seem to perfectly hit the creative sweet spot in roleplaying for some people, I expect D&D4 to fit some people's way of roleplaying like a glove, while others (most notably the D&D3 diehards) are having far more trouble with it.

    It's going to come down to what you're used to with RPGs and what kind of engagement with the game you are looking for. Which aspect(s) of the roleplaying game do you enjoy using your creativity in? Maybe it's expanding and developing a character's personality. Maybe it's extrapolating and affecting situations tactically. Maybe it's building and upholding the tone and style of the adventure, you're playing. There are some things that 4E leaves wide open, and if it's one of the aspects you are comfortable creating in, making the game your own should be fairly easy. There are some other things; namely extrapolating from a given situation to gain a tactical advantage ("If we know that there is ABC, that must mean according to the setting there must also be DEF; which means we can do GHI to get what we're after.") that D&D4 doesn't explicitly encourage to do and doesn't leave as wide open as 3rd Edition did.

    That doesn't mean, that it cannot be done in 4E. But if you're not used to doing it like this, don't know what you're looking for or find even the slightest limitation by the rules intrusive, 4E will be a hard game to like for you.
    • CommentAuthorTomasHVM
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2008
     # 43
    Posted By: Accounting for TasteE. Probably folks like me can get by with the hastily-sketched, totally-not-to-scale maps we've been using all this time, and still get a fun, highly playable game out of it...which would be excellent news,


    Posted By: ValamirGame promises to deliver play that looks like A...you are looking forward to A...you play the game as written...game fails to deliver A. This is bad design, or at the very least poorly written rules.
    You still want A, you want the game that was promised...you change the game, you tweak it, you fix it, you play it...its awesome. That's a demonstration of your skill as a gamer, it doesn't redeem the design.
    Thanks for pointing this out, Val. Spared me the effort.

    It seem like the DMG is full of good advice. The game may still be an overstuffed turkey, but good advice is always nice.
  44.  # 44
    "You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story."

    I'm glad to see stuff like this in D&D.
    • CommentAuthormorgue
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 45
    Re: the necessity of a grid - it was popularly supposed that you needed one for D&D 3.x too, but I played the crap out of that without every using one, and it was fine - the stuff that depended on position (AoO, cleave) were pretty easy to develop alternate handling systems for.

    It seems to me that the massive tactical interdependence of characters in 4E combat will make positional stuff all the more crucial and complex, and thus I expect that this time minis and a grid will be needed. Playign without for combat stuff sounds like it would be possible (hell, there have been playtests out of Wizards talking about it) but non-trivial in the extreme.

    That said, I fully expect some enterprising soul to create a version of 4E that needs no minis, depending on the GSL or what is allowable in online publishing. It'll take more work than 3E, maybe *massively* more work, but I'm confident it is achievable.

    For now, I'm cool with rocking the battlemat when the monsters come out.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJohnstone
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008 edited
     # 46
    Posted By: AndyThe difference is that JD Corley is awesome, and makes me want to play Vampire now that I know what I'm doing, and using the game as more than a tool for chasing hot goth ass.


    If you want to skip the O/T argument and me bashing certain rules, scroll down to post #113, where Jason gets back to R-maps. That stuff should also be in the DMG.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjenskot
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008 edited
     # 47
    "Creating House Rules

    As Dungeon Master, you wear several hats: storyteller, rules arbiter, actor, adventure designer, and writer. Some DMs like to add a sixth hat to that stack: rules designer. House rules are variants on the basic rules designed specifically for a particular DM’s campaign. They add fun to your D&D game by making it unique, reflecting specific traits of your world.

    A house rule also serves as a handy patch for a game feature that your group dislikes. The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights.

    This advice can’t turn you into an expert game designer - we’d need more than a page for that. Instead, this is a basic introduction to the concepts behind rules design. Once you’ve become familiar with these ideas, the best way to learn more about game design is to play, see what’s fun and what’s not, and use your discoveries to guide your own work."
    •  
      CommentAuthorAdam Dray
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 48
    That's hot.
  49.  # 49
    "It's not the DM's job to entertain the players and make sure they have fun. Every person playing is responsible for the fun of the game."

    My favorite so far.
    • CommentAuthorkomradebob
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 50
    Well, I guess Buzz mostly covers the ground I was going to, so I'll let that go.

    I do think there's an enormous difference between adding some minor rules tweaks here and there and handwaving away an enormous chunk of core system. Looking at what ol' JD was doing in the other thread, he wasn't even going that far. Hell, all he was doing was formalizating to some of the GM advice into an SOP.

    Now, mind you, if the argument was along the lines of " I'ma gwinta play D&D4 because it's what pretty much everyone else is gonna be familiar with, and I want to recruit players with a minimum of fuss and re-training of 'em!", that I could get behind. It makes sense to me on a really practical level.
    • CommentAuthormerb101
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 51
    Hey Andy,

    Can we start a new thread to talk more about the hot goth ass?

    Thanks,

    ME
    • CommentAuthortork
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 52
    Posted By: merb101Hey Andy,

    Can we start a new thread to talk more about the hot goth ass?

    Thanks,

    ME


    In indie circles, I believe you're supposed to ask him to unpack that hot goth ass.
    • CommentAuthorTristan
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 53
    Posted By: KumaAs for the battlemap thing: I think Wizards would have been better served by using a system similar to, say, Pirates of the Spanish Main or other mini-type games - instead of saying '5 feet', meaning one square on a standard battle map, use some other sort of standard measure like a 1" base of a mini or something handy. Then, no battlemat, and you can use whatever you want for markers, as long as they're of a consistent size (poker chips spring to mind).

    Funny thing is that is the way things worked back in the 3.0 days... And was ditched by the 3.5 update. Personally that was the only thing that bugged me from the change once I tried it. I do use a battlemap for combats, thou...

    And yet 3.5 did not get as many "OMG, it's not a RPG anymore! It's a Board Game" flames.
    • CommentAuthorGeorgios
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008
     # 54
    I have to amend my original comment. 4E doesn't flat out tell you to take game into your own hands, but it spells out a lot of techniques (and there are some allusions in the "Tips from the Pros") that only make sense when seen under this light. Apparently you're supposed to figure it one out on your own.

    It seems that the writers have notably more faith in the average D&D-players' intelligence and alertness, than the 4E-rejectionists do. How ironic.
    • CommentAuthorCallan S.
    • CommentTimeMay 29th 2008 edited
     # 55
    Posted By: jenskot"Creating House Rules

    As Dungeon Master, you wear several hats: storyteller, rules arbiter, actor, adventure designer, and writer. Some DMs like to add a sixth hat to that stack: rules designer. House rules are variants on the basic rules designed specifically for a particular DM’s campaign. They add fun to your D&D game by making it unique, reflecting specific traits of your world.

    A house rule also serves as a handy patch for a game feature that your group dislikes. The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights.

    That advice will fuel a few delusions - and is probably the result of delusion itself, rather than just ill chosen words.

    I have the right to do with these people as I wish, DMG?

    I can anticipate responces I might get here "Oh, they don't really mean that, you just use it for some small changes like X,Y,Z". No, picking and choosing a 'reasonable' way of interpreting that is no better. Even if you whittle it down to some very small 'right' to change some really tiny modifier, the right was never given in the first place to be whittled down.

    It's like a book about girls thats texts will tell you when you have the 'right' to kiss a girl. Text doesn't grant that right, the girl does. Or doesn't, as the case may be. Even if you whittle down that 'right' that book gives, it's still working from a deluded idea that the book gives you some sort of right. And consent, whether it be in kissing or roleplay, works the same way.

    Eh, not that I haven't seen this in just about every roleplay game (yes, plenty of it in indie games too). Perhaps they like to keep forums busy.
    •  
      CommentAuthorelmago79
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 56
    Callan, you might want to consider reading the whole text before jumping to conclusions. For instance, two paragraphs down:


    Think carefully about the reason for changing or adding a rule. Are you reacting to a persistent problem in your campaign, or to one specific incident? Isolated problems might be better handled in other ways. More important, do the other players agree to the need for a change? You have the authority to do whatever you want with the game, but your efforts won’t help if you have no group.
    • CommentAuthorCallan S.
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008 edited
     # 57
    Rene, this isn't an adendum to the 'right' supposedly granted. Imagine I say to you you can go into a shop and take whatever you want for free. But two paragraphs down I add the 'restriction' that you can take whatever you want, but if the guys get angry and apprehend you, you went too far.

    Now, if they apprehend you, did you go too far?

    Or did I actually lack the capacity to give you the right to take stuff from their shop to begin with?


    Now, if the group walks, is that because as GM you went too far in changing the rules?
    • CommentAuthormorgue
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 58
    Callan: I just don't see it.

    I'm liking the sound of this DMG. It sounds like a good, solid build on the 3.5 DMG 2, which had all its advice stuff written by Robin Laws.
    • CommentAuthortork
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 59
    Posted By: Callan S.That advice will fuel a few delusions - and is probably the result of delusion itself, rather than just ill chosen words.


    What delusion do you think that excerpt is rooted in?
    • CommentAuthorCallan S.
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008 edited
     # 60
    The delusion is the ernest belief a line of text in a book can grant you the consent of another person.

    That is, assuming authority requires consent.
    • CommentAuthorGeorgios
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 61
    That has nothing to do with delusion, though. The text is talking about rights as far as they relate to your role in the game; not as far as personal interaction is concerned. That's generally what rules do: they give people certain rights within the context of the game.

    (And I think authority without consent is generally considered violence.)
    • CommentAuthortork
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 62
    Posted By: Callan S.The delusion is the ernest belief a line of text in a book can grant you the consent of another person.

    That is, assuming authority requires consent.


    I understand your point, but like Georgios, I don't really think that's what the text is speaking too. Also, I think one of the primary purposes of these guidelines, and others like them in trad games, isto reduce the likelihood of coercive, authoritarian behavior at the table. Growing up in the hobby, finding someone at the table who tried to shout down others and dictate playstyle for everyone by appealing to the rules was a very common problem, and having a passage in the rules that said, it's your game, and you can do what you want with it, had real value in putting a stop to that.
    • CommentAuthorCallan S.
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 63
    Posted By: GeorgiosThat has nothing to do with delusion, though. The text is talking about rights as far as they relate to your role in the game; not as far as personal interaction is concerned. That's generally what rules do: they give people certain rights within the context of the game.

    So you don't see it that 'The GM can change stuff' changes that context?


    Edward: Okay, it's late here so I've become a little cheeky: How did it put a stop to that shouter, when it's his game as much as it is yours?
    • CommentAuthortork
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 64
    Posted By: Callan S.
    So you don't see it that 'The GM can change stuff' changes that context?


    Edward: Okay, it's late here so I've become a little cheeky: How did it put a stop to that shouter, when it's his game as much as it is yours?


    Ultimately, no passage of text can stop anyone from doing anything, but the 'shouter' we're talking about in this case is the archetypal rules-lawyer type, whose arguments are based on appeals to the authority of the book, who works from the assumption that their particular interpretation is the only right and true interpretation. In my experience, this sort of passage in the rulebook is helpful for two reasons; first, it has utility as a countering source of authority, which really can make a difference in these arguments. More importantly though, I found back then that many players would stay silent in these situations, intimidated by the other player's belligerence and evident superior mastery of the rules. Pointing out that the book actually says that the rules are subject to change or interpretation was often very freeing for them. Once they'd heard it, they would speak their mind rather than letting the rules lawyer bully the whole group, and we would arrive at a healthier consensus.
    • CommentAuthorJDCorley
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008
     # 65
    Posted By: torkUltimately, no passage of text can stop anyone from doing anything, but the 'shouter' we're talking about in this case is the archetypal rules-lawyer type, whose arguments are based on appeals to the authority of the book, who works from the assumption that their particular interpretation is the only right and true interpretation. In my experience, this sort of passage in the rulebook is helpful for two reasons; first, it has utility as a countering source of authority, which reallycanmake a difference in these arguments. More importantly though, I found back then that many players would stay silent in these situations, intimidated by the other player's belligerence and evident superior mastery of the rules. Pointing out that the book actually says that the rules are subject to change or interpretation was often very freeing for them.


    I've never had either of those experiences - with or without something in the book giving us "permission" to interpret/speak up, it was always down to a social dynamic as to whether someone did or didn't. But that's interesting.
    • CommentAuthorjaywalt
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008 edited
     # 66
    To get back to the original topic, John, from skimming the DMG, I think you're totally right. Some of the best GMing / play advice from any book I've read ever. There were bits and pieces here and there that scraped me the wrong way, bits that sounded more like "this is the way you should run your game" and less like "here's a bunch of suggestions on how you might want to run your game." However, I find it a bit strange that the DMG chose to go that route when what I've seen of the PHB is clearly taking a much more focused approach to the kind of play it's trying to create. The DMG implies that there are lots of different kinds of play that could be potentially supported by D&D4, but the PHB seems to strongly point towards a more specific style of play than other editions. And the DMG is less good at explaining exactly what kind of play this new, more focused D&D4 is best at and how to get the most out of it. So, yeah, it's surprisingly awesome as a general text on GMing and running a game. But as the corebook explaining how to run this specific game? I'm less sure. I'd want more advice like Andy/Clinton's comments about the kinds of settings that would work with this, where some others might not, etc.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKuma
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2008 edited
     # 67
    I think that the advice in the DMG is premature, really.

    I've had a chance to read a lot of it over, and it seems like they're talking in the DMG like there are already a hundred different modes of play described in the canon: The idea that there's already a Blue Rose swords-and-ponies version of 4e out there. As I'm reading the PHB, I see almost nothing in it that suggests support for a mode of play other than a concrete/tactical approach. Even the warlock, easily the character class with the most out-of-combat possibilites with rituals, has nothing listed that I would describe as more than a daily power. Nothing ... campaign-wide, I suppose would be a term I could pull out of my hat.

    Not that such things won't or can't be added on later - I can see a whole range of possibilities for things like courtly intrigue with this new power system.

    They just don't exist *yet*. So the DMG's text is before its time. I can't see much in the way of the PHB that I want to modify right off the bat - it's all very slick.
  68.  # 68
    I see no contradiction between a PH that gives a kick ass combat system, and advice to the GM for running other sorts of games.

    I mean, D&D4 with NO combat might not be doable, but a cool set-piece combat punctuating a lot of non-combat stuff seems like fun. And I don't necessarily need a lot of rules for the non-combat stuff.
    •  
      CommentAuthorelmago79
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     # 69
    Posted By: KumaThey [a hundred different modes of play] just don't exist *yet*. So the DMG's text is before its time. I can't see much in the way of the PHB that I want to modify right off the bat - it's all very slick.


    They already exist, in reality, in the practice of hundreds of gaming groups everywhere. It's a brand new game, but it's also a fourth edition, after all. Gaming groups are not expected to leave their practices at the door to fit the mode of play you/we/the manual perceive as being the standard. And that's where the DMG comes from.
    • CommentAuthorValvorik
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     # 70
    The skill challenge system (I only have the DMG courtesy of local bookstore not realizing what it shouldn't put on shelves yet - so I'm not sure how much of that is in PHB) allows bringing quite a bit of non-combat resolution into play from social situations to chases.

    Rob
    • CommentAuthorRonaldo
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     # 71
    Another aspect is that I consider the liberty to allow the DMs break the rules or create new ones just a comfort rule. RPGs are, in general, very complex games with a lot of rules and a lot of pages dedicated to them. D&D is certainly a very complex game. While I love playing boardgames and in the majority of them the rules fit in just a few pages, D&D starter rules span over 3 big books. Furthermore, the weight of knowing them is often on the DM's shoulders almost alone. This can be daunting and being told that it is ok if the rules vary from group to group can be comforting.
  72.  # 72
    I have found the PHB to be a reference during play and the DMG to be something the DM uses during prep. So having all the combat rules ready at the table in one book might explain the imbalance between the two books.
    • CommentAuthormorgue
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2008
     # 73
    Posted By: KumaI think that the advice in the DMG is premature, really...

    ...Not that such things won't or can't be added on later - I can see a whole range of possibilities for things like courtly intrigue with this new power system.

    They just don't exist *yet*. So the DMG's text is before its time. I can't see much in the way of the PHB that I want to modify right off the bat - it's all very slick.


    Yeah, this is interesting. And I fully expect to see support for other modes explored in later PHBs (and DMGs). I think the decision to push the first PHB hard at one playstyle is a serious plus for this edition
    •  
      CommentAuthorKuma
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2008 edited
     # 74
    Posted By: elmago79
    Posted By: KumaThey [a hundred different modes of play] just don't exist *yet*. So the DMG's text is before its time. I can't see much in the way of the PHB that I want to modify right off the bat - it's all very slick.


    They already exist, in reality, in the practice of hundreds of gaming groups everywhere. It's a brand new game, but it's also a fourth edition, after all. Gaming groups are not expected to leave their practices at the door to fit the mode of play you/we/the manual perceive as being the standard. And that's where the DMG comes from.


    Well, yes. But the fact remains that there's no mechanical support for those other modes of play. Yes, they exist. No, they're not supported in the PHB, and for that matter not supported to a large extent in the DMG. Non-combat encounters are broken down into: skill challenges, puzzles and traps. I mean, that pretty much says it all.

    This isn't a fault, it's just odd that they included a lot of lip service to other modes of play without providing a single mechanical support. Creating mechanical supports will be easy for groups, I just wish they'd included at least one example of how to mod the game in the DMG. That would have been really sweet.

    And now I'm going to go roll up some characters!
    •  
      CommentAuthorelmago79
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2008
     # 75
    Posted By: KumaThis isn't a fault, it's just odd that they included a lot of lip service to other modes of play without providing a single mechanical support. Creating mechanical supports will be easy for groups, I just wish they'd included at least one example of how to mod the game in the DMG. That would have been really sweet.


    Why would they include mechanical support for different styles of play? Asides from SG-land, the idea of providing mechanical support for you style of play is not common and sometimes even unwelcome. Actually, only some, very specific play styles expect mechanical support from a game.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKuma
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2008
     # 76
    Posted By: elmago79
    Posted By: KumaThis isn't a fault, it's just odd that they included a lot of lip service to other modes of play without providing a single mechanical support. Creating mechanical supports will be easy for groups, I just wish they'd included at least one example of how to mod the game in the DMG. That would have been really sweet.


    Why would they include mechanical support for different styles of play? Asides from SG-land, the idea of providing mechanical support for you style of play is not common and sometimes even unwelcome. Actually, only some, very specific play styles expect mechanical support from a game.


    I find that a very odd statement. I'll have to start another thread, though, because it's getting away from the point.

1 to 76 of 76

  1.