General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
View Poll Results: Changeover Poll
Complete Changeover: All 4E played now, no earlier editions of D&D
387
30.38%
Largely over: Mostly 4E played now, some earlier edition play
76
5.97%
Half over: Half 4E played now, half earlier edition play
51
4.00%
Partial Changeover: Some 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play
22
1.73%
Slight Changeover: A little 4E played now, mostly earlier edition play
35
2.75%
No Change: Tried 4E, went back to earlier edition play
371
29.12%
No Change: Never tried 4E, all earlier edition play
I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games. Sometimes it's a whole book, sometimes it's only a feat, sometimes it's a couple spells. And then, before you know it, your "core" is 32 books and 17 Dragon articles.
A few random spells and feats from various books is easily handled by collecting them into either a Word or pdf document.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
The only difference I see (and this is by no means a positive one) is that 4e requires splats; the core is simply incomplete. Before anyone jumps on me - please realize this is just my opinion.
I see where you're coming from with this, but I have another opinion.
Rather then built to require splats, I think the system was built with the idea that splats are inevitable and the system needs to be able to account for them.
I see where you're coming from with this, but I have another opinion.
Rather then built to require splats, I think the system was built with the idea that splats are inevitable and the system needs to be able to account for them.
Huh? I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by this??
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Location: In a state of regret for allowing myself to get so damned fat.
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
Man up. Sheesh.
No kidding. But I'm a sucker for players and their puppy dog eyes. It stems from my desire for everyone to "maximize" their fun...which usually ends up in making things worse than if I had Just Said No.
I'm starting to think I should spend my money on some self-help books instead of RPG ones. Heh.
Location: In a state of regret for allowing myself to get so damned fat.
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imaro
Huh? I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by this??
Not to put words in Scribble's mouth (and I don't necessarily agree with his opinion), but it's certain valid. I think what he's saying is that 4e is built to allow modular expansion, as opposed to previous versions of D&D wherein expansions were added without a similarly logical structure.
So, in other words, there are (I'm assuming) general "buckets" of guidelines as to how powerful a certain level monster or power should be. If one stays within these stakes, the thought goes, the game's balance is not thrown off-whack, as as been done in the past.
There's two problems with this:
(1) If true, these stakes have seemingly curtailed the imagination of expansion powers. Powers push, pull, slide, etc. targets ad infinitum. We're lacking the really cool, unique powers that differentiate themselves from the existing carnations.
(2) We, as the tinkering community of gamers that we are, should be privy to these boundaries (if they exist).
I don't think the need for splats is anything other than simple demographics. Players outnumber DMs anywhere from 3 to 7 against 1. Of course there is going to be more books oriented towards players. It makes sense that there should be releases geared towards the majority of the fanbase. And multiple optional rules additions for character creation won't destroy the game. It keeps it fresh and evolving so there is more distance between releases of a new edition.
No kidding. But I'm a sucker for players and their puppy dog eyes. It stems from my desire for everyone to "maximize" their fun...which usually ends up in making things worse than if I had Just Said No.
Well, yeah.
Thank goodness 4e gives you permission to own your game again, huh?
Who would have guessed that the most revolutionary design in 4e was a new set of balls for gelded DMs.
Quote:
I'm starting to think I should spend my money on some self-help books instead of RPG ones. Heh.
Pretty much.
No offense intended, WP. Consider this "tough love."
The counter to this argument about splats is this: "Dude, if you don't want them in your game, don't use them."
I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games. Sometimes it's a whole book, sometimes it's only a feat, sometimes it's a couple spells. And then, before you know it, your "core" is 32 books and 17 Dragon articles.
Not to mention the fact that the latest splats build off of other splats and if you don't have those splats then you are buying a product that you may not be able to fully use.
I already do that. I allow very little non-core WOTC material outside of some UA options. I am even very picky about 3pp material - even Bad Axe material is not found in my current game (of course, when I give Grim Tales a try, that will be another story) ;P
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 31st December 2008 at 10:05 PM..
Reason: clarifying that prohibited 3pp material is not limited to Bad Axe.
Huh? I'm curious, what exactly do you mean by this??
I mean they know that there will be splats in the future. They know people want to buy them, and so they want to sell them, so they also need to build the system to account for them from the start.
Easiest example I can point to is what combination of characters do you balance the game to?
3e balanced the party to the original "core classes." fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric. The game assumed those were in the party. It worked, but then once you start replacing those classes with others, things get messier.
So 4e instead balances assumptions in the game to a broader idea of "roles."
This allows you to easily add as many new classes as you want without messing up the math assumptions.
Another area this shows in classes is te fact that they use the power system. No longer do classes get their main kick from their class. The powers supply what they can do mostly, so even if later on down the road the powers for one class start creeping upward? They can release new powers more in line with the new ones for the old classes and insure they remain relevant.
Also with the power system, each time you play a character it can be a different experience... so the old classes don't have to become "boring." When people start getting bored with Warlocks? Just throw in some new schticks and jazz them up a bit.
I allow very little non-core WOTC material outside of some UA options. I am even very picky about 3pp material - no Bad Axe material in my current game (of course, when I give Grim Tales a try, that will be another story) ;P
Heh.
I should just package a PDF called, "DM's Permission Slip: Dude, It's Your Game."
I should just package a PDF called, "DM's Permission Slip: Dude, It's Your Game."
Or a pair of big brass balls d20s.
Lol. That is just it. A lot of DM's are too afraid to place limits or don't realize that they have the option (not saying that is the case with Wisdom Penalty).
One of my M&M players, who is running a 3.5 DND campaign for another group is a good example. His prior DND campaign was his very first time running any game. To make the situation worse, he had only been rpging for a few months when he took over the DM duties. His game got so out of hand from supplements and allowing whatever options that the players wanted, he was at his wits end.
It was not until he saw me placing limits that he came to another myself and another player to start discussing GMing philosophy (and asking for advice) that he realized that setting limits could be a good thing- for both his game and his sanity.
Since starting a new campaign and carefully picking the allowable options, he has found the game much more enjoyable to run as has all of his players save the resident munchkin (based upon description of behavior), who refuses to accept his authority (strangely, the player does not have this problem in my M&M game or the Rolemaster game run by another player).
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 1st January 2009 at 04:05 PM..
Location: In a state of regret for allowing myself to get so damned fat.
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
NP-- I was aiming at Wisdom Penalty.
Like the late great John Candy, I'm an easy target.
Look...I did have nuts once. Before I got married and before we started playing 3e. I'm not trying to blame 3e for my faults, but I definitely noticed a change between 1e and 3e insofar as my DMing was concerned.
In 1e, I made judgment calls. Sometimes I even had to make rules, because nothing existed to cover the situation. My players accepted this process for three reasons: (1) it's what everyone did back then, (2) they thought I had a modicum of intelligence, and (3) they trusted I wasn't out to screw them.
But 3e came along and things started to change. Why? I'd submit because there was a rule for nearly everything. Not at once, mind you, but over the evolution of the game and the expansion of splats. Want to kip up from prone as a free action? There's a DC somewhere in some book for that. Want to climb with a rope while bracing against two walls? There's a DC somewhere. Bad examples, I know, but I don't feel like revisiting that.
So suddenly I started walking forward on shaky steps. I couldn't make judgment calls because I was fearful that in some book, somewhere, there was a RULE that governed that action.
So, yes, I lost my balls. But it was a slow, gradual castration that went unnoticed until 4e came forward and said: "Dude, stop being a p----. Your player wants to do something? Figure out a DC and roll with it."
So mock me, Mr. Ratbane - I'm not so much of a schlep that I don't recognize my own shortcomings. I bet, however, that my pathetic story is not an outlier.
At some point, the Rules trumped the DM. Some folks like that, some don't. I'm in the latter category.
I have a pretty good system that I use in my 3.5e World of CITY campaign. I don't ban anything outright. See banning would require vetting, or at least some thought about what material to include or not, I am too lazy a DM for all that. I'd have to do too much reading of often ill-written (and ill-conceived) gaming material.
So I allow everything, with the caveat that I can remove anything if I have a problem with it during play. So far, it's worked like a charm.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
At some point, the Rules trumped the DM. Some folks like that, some don't. I'm in the latter category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg K
Since starting a new campaign and carefully picking the allowable options, he has found the game much more enjoyable to run as has all of his players save the resident munchkin, who refuses to accept his authority (strangely, the player does not have this problem in my M&M game or the Rolemaster game run by another player).
Sounds like the "resident munchkin" Greg K was talking about seems to follow the axiom that Rules trump the DM.
I have seen it in some small form since my first 1e days (circa 1978), but as much as I like 3.x, I believe this got out of hand with the 3e ruleset.
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
Look...I did have nuts once. Before I got married and before we started playing 3e. I'm not trying to blame 3e for my faults, but I definitely noticed a change between 1e and 3e insofar as my DMing was concerned.
In 1e, I made judgment calls.
But 3e came along and things started to change. Why? I'd submit because there was a rule for nearly everything.
So mock me, Mr. Ratbane - I'm not so much of a schlep that I don't recognize my own shortcomings. I bet, however, that my pathetic story is not an outlier.
Yikes! Not at all. In fact this conversation is almost identical to one I had with Destan... Uncannily similar.
I'll tell you what I told him:
If you don't know what the DC is for climbing a rope while bracing against two walls, wing it. Why would you want to look that up? Is your game going to be better or worse for the delay you incur?
The fact that the rule is out there doesn't mean that you can't wing it; nor that your game is going to break down if you do decide to wing it and get it "wrong."
The fact that the rule is out there doesn't mean that you can't wing it; nor that your game is going to break down if you do decide to wing it and get it "wrong."
Rules Lawyers have existed since before D&D.
In my case, I was similar to Wisdom, but not really reluctant to wing things. It's just that inevitably I knew anytime I winged something there was a 95% chance the resident rules lawyers would whine. Which just causes a headache.
But thats not the DC for ice!
It's the DC for THIS ice!
But complete figureskater says the DC for walking on ICE is DC X!
Yeah but this ice seems much more slippery, roll the dice.
Thats the whole reason I decided to walk on the ice in the first place!
ROLL THE DAMN DICE!
I like that variable DCs are built into the system from the start. It just seems to make the rules lawyers a little less yappy.
Plus a handy dandy chart of how challenging something is based on the number you choose is useful for winging it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
