D&D 4E 4E tidbits from WotC blogs (Updated:David Noonan on Social Interactions)

[RFisher]

Why a 'bad thing'? It's not like they are going to outshine your specialists any time soon.

Well, I suppose I could come up with arguments myself, but I think Dave himself comes up with an awfully good argument against them:

And creating hybrid characters involves a careful balancing act. Multiclass characters can't be optimal at a focused task (because that horns in the turf for the single-class character) and they can't be weaksauce (because then you've sold the multiclass character a false bill of goods and he doesn't actually get to use the breadth of his abilities). There's a middle ground between "optimal" and "weaksauce" that I'll call "viable." But it's not exactly a wide spot of ground.

& is viable for your campaign going to be the same as viable for mine? If it's that tricky to get right, let's just skip it or err towards the "weaksauce" side. A viable gish isn't so fundamental to the game as to waste the effort on. IMHO, of course.

 

[SSquirrel]

Once a month here, my friend. Sometimes more. Although i fondly recall the days of once or twice a week gaming.

Man I remember when I was no longer in college (bad grades) but still living in the college town w/friends. I gamed every night of the week, playing in 8-10 games each week including various pickups and a LARP. Man I miss that heh

 

[Glyfair]

Matthew Sernett updated his blog with a very long post about designing monsters.


The meat of the bit (and I'm leaving out a lot, read the original):

Thankfully, we use a tool here at Wizards of the Coast that provides target numbers based on type and CR, and we can build the 3rd-edition monster in it to get close to those numbers. Yet even that process is crazy. We end up jumping through dozens of hoops set up by the rules of monster design. If I don’t use all the monster’s skill points, it’s “wrong.” If I give it more than the “correct” number of feats, I have to explain that it has a bonus feat. And don’t even think about putting that ogre in full plate without advancing it enough to gain the Armor Proficiency (heavy) feat.

Good grief. I want to design a cool monster, not wrestle with the system for hours.

Thankfully, 4th edition is doing it completely differently. Monsters are being designed for their intended use: as monsters. We’re not shoehorning them into the character system and hoping what comes out works in the game. Of course, they look alike in many ways and use the same game system, but now the results matter, not the rules for minutiae.

 

[Korgoth]

Slightly OT, anybody else having trouble with the D&D mainpage?

 

[A'koss]

Slightly OT, anybody else having trouble with the D&D mainpage?

Yeah, I haven't been able to log on for at least a couple of hours now...

 

[Wormwood]

Thankfully, 4th edition is doing it completely differently. Monsters are being designed for their intended use: as monsters. We’re not shoehorning them into the character system and hoping what comes out works in the game. Of course, they look alike in many ways and use the same game system, but now the results matter, not the rules for minutiae.

I am so freakin' thrilled about this change.

As a DM who tried to run a by-the-book game as much as possible, altering or inventing monsters is needlessly frustrating drudgery.

After a couple of years, I just threw up my hands and skipped the whole messy business: now, I just write down the stats that I think are appropriate and let the monster creation rules be damned. My players never know the difference and I save hours of prep time wasted on useless tedium.

Unfortunately, I lack a solid enough framework upon which to build the monsters, so I sometimes make mistakes. 4e seems to be going a long way to addressing my exact dilemma, and I could not be more happy.

 

[Nebulous]

I am so freakin' thrilled about this change.

After a couple of years, I just threw up my hands and skipped the whole messy business: now, I just write down the stats that I think are appropriate and let the monster creation rules be damned. My players never know the difference and I save hours of prep time wasted on useless tedium.

Exactly what i do; i just jot down the relevant stats, usually skipping skills 100%, (i ad hoc them if needed) write down a note as to special attacks, and go from there. The players never know the difference and the fight is usually done within a few rounds. As far as original monster design, i've tried it, but it follows the process above: I eyeball what i want a monster to do in a fight, make sure it's AC and damage output isn't too high, and go from there. i've never once worried about if it's "3.x" compatible or if there are mistakes. I'm not a game designer, i just want to have fun.

With that said, i'm really excited about the direction the monsters are taking. I had no idea there was such a mathematical formula that the creators had to laboriously manage. That doesn't even sound like...fun. More like work, which i guess it is for them.

 

[Glyfair]

David Noonan's blog has a lot of playtesting, especially the social interaction rules.

3) The system we were testing involves skill checks (big surprise, huh?). One of the things I found fascinating was that some players preferred to deliver their dialogue, then roll the skill check and report the result. Others preferred to roll the skill check first, then deliver dialogue that matched their result (good or bad). The system works either way, so I might just make it explicit that you can "roll, then talk" or "talk, then roll."

4) There is a totally valid D&D playstyle that haaaaates the idea of social interactions being resolved with a die roll. This system should work for that playstyle, too, once you flip a few switches. That just isn't the playstyle we were testing last night.

The upshot? We had about 20 minutes of great dialogue at the table, then the lich was sufficiently convinced that the dragon was dangerously insane that he cautiously aided the PCs in attacking the dragon. Of course the lich turned on the PCs as the dragon fight was winding down. But the social challenge mattered, because the PCs were able to fight the dragon (with a little help), then fight the lich. That sure beats fighting dragon + lich.

 

[Glyfair]

BTW, I'm just pulling out the 4E bits for this thread, but there are a lot of interesting other bits in the blogs, so I do recommend reading them from the source.

For example, want to know what other RPGs are popular with WotC designers?

Logan Bonner gives us this tidbit:

Before I left the office, I asked people who were staying back at the office if they wanted anything from the con. The response was universal: "Gimme some Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition." I picked up four copies of it—one for myself and two for Dave Noonan and Chris Sims. We all play in a lunchtime game run by Steve Winter, and have been mooching off his book for a while. $10 for a full-color 160-page book is a damn good deal.

So, it's not D&D all the time. They aren't living in an RPG "bubble."

 

[Umbra_Kaitou]

Drop it and save it for later. It really does not fit in most campaigns, it is too oriental flavor. A spot in the book you plan to place the Psion would be much better place for it.

And it fits in mine (and psions don't), its a very futile argument that should be dropped either way.

Besides

from Dave's blog

For race and class stuff specifically, I believe the current plan is that we stay mum until the relevant preview books come out this winter. So mum's the word there.

Pretty much all but the 4 core classes are going to probably be in flux until then (unfortunately since thats all I really care about) but what can you do *shrugs*