D&D 4E Casual DM - 4E made for ME

[mhensley]

I still think another was to capture the casual gamer is to have an introductory box set with some options removed. With 4e, the Heroic range, levels 1-10, seems like the right spot. Don't use different rules like the old Basic D&D and AD&D games were designed. Just limit the classes and races, and as a byproduct maybe some spells, skills, feats, etc. I will say the prep time in 3e is one of the major reasons that after 2 1/2 years of 3e that I went screaming back to AD&D and Basic D&D.

QFT

I would love a 4e basic set that just had 4 races and 4 classes up to 10th level.

 

[Agamon]

Which itself reinforces the importance of getting the SRD draft to the 3rd party developers so that I can get Pathfinder for 4th edition.

Yeah, if they think not letting 3rd party publishers not see the rules ahead of time means I'll buy their crappy adventures, there's another think comin' around the bend....

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

To answer a quick question, I own probably a dozen 3/3.5 books and my gaming groups has bought a half dozen more between all of us. I would have bought more, but at a certain point, you realize that "I'm never going to use this stuff", especially when all your campaigns die before 10th level. Typically buying a new source book is what gets us BACK playing, albeit with a new campaign at level 1. "Hey, this looks cool... let's try D&D again!"

I quote this because you just described my exact situation. When time, money, and the player pool all ran thin, I stopped purchasing books altogether.

I am really on the fence about 4e, but that is because of my personal situation and has very little to do with what I've heard and read of the game. 4e may be my exit from the hobby, only because I so little time to play and have no interest in the DI.

 

[Novem5er]

Thanks again for the additional comments.

And Novem5er, me, is a guy... Sorry, no hot gamer chicks here (accept my fiancee, woot!).

My #3 complaint from before is a little subjective. I could have left out the skill complaint (I love the system, but just wish it was usable across more classes) and the Fighter complaint (I've never run high-level fighters, so they could be more balanced than I've experienced myself). However, I will hold true to my criticism of Magic and new players.

Vancian Magic is counterintuitive to new players because it goes against every other popular forum of magic players have encountered over the last 2 decades. I've never played a video game, read a book, or watched a movie that had anything close to D&D magic.

It's acceptable that Wizards get tired after casting so many spells, but not that they have to select a spell a head of time and can only cast that spell. Of course, there are all sorts of meta-game reasons why this is and it's worked fairly well for 30 years as a stand alone game... but D&D's magic system is not really sucking in the new players.

Now, has anyone considered starting a 4e campaign at high level? Honestly, we wont know how the game has improved over 3e until we get to those high levels, which could take months or years, depending on ones playing schedule. I'm half tempted to make level 20 characters and just go from there, even if for just a few sessions. If we like it, if it's playable, maybe we could go "back in time" and play the same characters starting at level 1.

That could be an interesting story telling device.

I'm most excited to run an "on-the-fly", free roaming campaign where the players really choose where they want to go and what they want to do. I've always wanted to make a D&D version of an MMO, meaning that the world feels like it's always in motion, whether the characters are logged in or not.

D&D could always have been this way, but with the huge prep times of 3e, I never felt as flexible as I wanted to be... at least not past the early/mid levels.

My two campaign ideas are:

1) A dwarf city/state is forced to flee their mountain home and settle in a river valley surrounded by an ancient woods. The PCs must help the dwarves survive the hostile environment, explore the woods around them, and perhaps delve back into the mountain to fight back whatever evil usurped the dwarves in the first place.

2) A free roaming Underdark campaign. The characters are all surface dwellers that are sucked underground for some reason (earthquake, spell, etc) and their avenue IN has collapse behind them. Their mission it to make it back to the surface, but they will have many miles to go before they see light again . . . Gnome cities, drow raiding parties, new terrain rules... could be a great mega dungeon.

 

[DM_Blake]

2) If mid-high level monsters are bad, forget about NPCs. Yes, the DMG has pre-written NPCs, but their stat blocks are even worse than the monsters. Creating one from scratch? I don't have the time to assign 10 levels worth of skill points, feats (how many feats does he need again?), and then all the magic gear that he/she needs for that level (how much wealth is he/she supposed to have? Then convert that to a half-dozen magic items...) Then there's spell selection . . .

Here's a tip that works great for me.

Sometimes, when an NPC is just there as a combat plot device, don't stat him at all. Even if you know he's a bad guy that the players must fight, kill, and find the treasure map in his backpack, you still don't need to stat him.

If your group is 15th level, and they have roughly a +24 to hit (the fighters, at least), then give your NPC +24 to hit as well. Or don''t even write it down.

AC? Well, is he a fighter? A rogue? A mage? What AC does your player with the same or similar class have? Give your NPC the same or similar AC.

Same for HP. This one's easy. Class average: lowest roll on the die is always 1, highest roll varies by class, add low + high then divide by 2, round up, add CON mod, multiply by level. Raise it or lower it a bit depending on whether he is supposed to be tough or easy. Example for a tough fighter NPC: 1 + 10 / 2 = 6 (rounded up) +4 (CON mod) = 10 x15 (he's 15th level) = 150 HP, bumped up to 165 just to make him a bit tougher.

All this takes way longer to read than it takes to do. That same fighter has +25/+20/+15 to hit and does 1d8 + 10 damage with a crit on 17-20/x2.

I came up with that in less time than it took to type it.

That's the end of my stat-block for the NPC.

Sometimes I don't even do that much.

Now I give him some magic items. You already mentioned it in your post: you want to supply the group with items they need to survive encounters at even higher level. But this NPC probably has way too many magic items, and you don't want to turn this into Christmas morning for the groiup, so duplicate some stuff they already have. The PC fighter has +4 full plate? Great, so this NPC has +4 Half Plate. Probably by now everyone PC has rings of protection, so give one to this guy that is equal to the weak one in your PC group (or maybe a point better so that PC can trade up). Give him an expensive but practically worthless item (say maybe he has a backup weapon, a +2 vermin bane shortsword - fairly expensive, but nobody in the group will equip it, though one of the PCs might make it his own backup weapon in case they ever run into a really nasty bug or rat). Make sure to give him something that the PCs will actually be happy to find.

Don't forget to put that treasure map into his inventory.

So what if the items don't add up to the actual AC or +hit or damage status you gave the guy? Nobody but you will ever know.

So now you NPC looks like an item list with a couple numbers (HP, AC, attacks) and nothing else.

Need him to sneak around? You don't need a Move Silently skill all calculated out. Just roll a d20 and add some number to it (he's a fighter, not sneaky, so don't add much, but if had been a rogue, add a lot - you probably have a good idea about how much your PC's rogue has in this skill).

Need him to Spot? Listen? etc.? No problem, Just make it up.

Here's the key. This is important: You're not just a DM. You're a story teller. You think JRR Tolkein had stats for orcs, trolls, oliphants, Saruman, rign wraiths, etc.? Nope, he told a story. The outcome was what he wanted, and he told a story to achieve that outcome.

You can do this with NPCs too. During the fight, roll some dice, but make up numbers. Do you want this to be a close fight? Then make up high hit rolls and saving throws. Want it to be an easy fight? Make up lower numbers.

Heck, you don't even need HP. You decide when the fight is over. If it's supposed to be a touch and go close fight, then the NPC doesn't keel over until your players are starting to panic and worry that they are about to die.

Just be careful doing this. Too often, and the Players will figure it out, and then they will feel like you robbed them of the game element. And if you overdo it, if your bad guys make every save and never miss any attacks, then the Players will think you're cheating.

Just don't let the players know you're up to this trick.

As long as you're subtle, your NPC creation will take less than 5 minutes (most of that is the inventory) and you're players will love you for it because the combat will be much more interesting than what boring old die rolls are likely to produce.

So give it a try.

I recommend making the NPC the old fashioned way. Have a stat block. Then try not to use it during the fight. Make a point of ignoring the stat block, then check it after the fight and see how you did. Pretty soon you'll have a good feel for this, and won't even need the stat blocks anymore.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Here's the key. This is important: You're not just a DM. You're a story teller. You think JRR Tolkein had stats for orcs, trolls, oliphants, Saruman, rign wraiths, etc.? Nope, he told a story. The outcome was what he wanted, and he told a story to achieve that outcome.

You can do this with NPCs too. During the fight, roll some dice, but make up numbers. Do you want this to be a close fight? Then make up high hit rolls and saving throws. Want it to be an easy fight? Make up lower numbers.

Heck, you don't even need HP. You decide when the fight is over. If it's supposed to be a touch and go close fight, then the NPC doesn't keel over until your players are starting to panic and worry that they are about to die.

While I do feel that a good DM should be able to ad-lib barebones stats, and your earlier suggestion to crib off the PCs is sound, the gamist in me feels ill just thinking about a DM just deciding what should happen. Part of the point of having a system of task resolution is to avoid "Bang, you're dead," "No, you missed." If the DM can just decide what happens, then why are the players even there at all? To listen to him dictate his epic novel? Screw that. I'm there to participate in storytelling, and part of playing the game is letting the dice decide how things turn out. If I found out that a DM was just making up outcomes and ignoring all our input (the encounter ends when he decides it does, not when the monsters are legitimately beaten), I'd find myself a new DM.

Just be careful doing this. Too often, and the Players will figure it out, and then they will feel like you robbed them of the game element. And if you overdo it, if your bad guys make every save and never miss any attacks, then the Players will think you're cheating.

Just don't let the players know you're up to this trick.

Ah, so you do understand what's wrong with this...

As long as you're subtle, your NPC creation will take less than 5 minutes (most of that is the inventory) and you're players will love you for it because the combat will be much more interesting than what boring old die rolls are likely to produce.

...but you think it's okay to do it so long as you're a good liar and a believable fake. I'd rather be known for credibility and honesty, thanks.

 

[MojoGM]

I'm most excited to run an "on-the-fly", free roaming campaign where the players really choose where they want to go and what they want to do.

Back in the 2E days we'd play SPELLJAMMER for 10-12 hours (with occasional breaks) and I'd DM with little more than a vague notion in my head. 3E does not seem condusive to this style of play, as it is hard to run "on the fly" and it can get quite tiresome.

Of course, part of this could be ME (I'm not as young and energetic as I used to be), but that's what I'm feeling anyway.

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . [SNIP] . . . See, I believe 4th ed was built for me. . . . [SNIP] . . . I am a casual DM. . . . [SNIP] . . .

I agree with your analysis of the shortcomings of 3x almost without exception. For such reasons, I was delighted to hear 4e was on the way.

I agree that 4e's greatest selling point is that it is supposed to to easier and faster to play than 3x.

Two matters have come up that have given me pause after my initial enthusiasm:

First, and not really germane to your point, 4e seems to be going well beyond what is needed simply to make an easier and faster game. Gratuitous change seems to be in the offing. But anon.

Second, and to your point, as described, 4e does not sound like it will, in fact, be easier and faster to play. It seems 4e was initially touted as easier and faster but that the reality in the details emerging is that is will be just as cumbersome as 3x but in a different fashion.

At this point, I am in full agreement with those posters who have opined that 4e had better deliver easier and faster play or I will have zero interest in it as a different dog with the same fleas, so to speak.

 

[Wormwood]

At this point, I am in full agreement with those posters who have opined that 4e had better deliver easier and faster play or I will have zero interest in it as a different dog with the same fleas, so to speak.

The promise of easier DMing sure makes for strange bedfellows

I'm one of 4e's most enthusiastic supporters---but I will drop it like a sack of dirt if the system is as cumbersome as the current incarnation of D&D.

That is my SOLE remaining non-starter.

 

[Novem5er]

DM_Blake, good suggestions and I take a similar approach for lower level combats. I use note cards for monsters and typically just write down a few basic stats: HP, AC, Attack, Dmg, and Spot/Listen.

For NPCs, I've do basically the same for combatants. If the PCs jump someone I didn't intend for them to fight, I have to wing the stats.

But as Dr. Awkward suggests, this can be dangerous to do long term. High level PCs tend to know their stuff and the gamer in me wants to be fair. I'm okay with fudging the number for a goblin warboss (okay, +4 to hit versus +1 for his minions), I have a much harder time doing that with higher level creatures. For one thing, higher levels combats are almost never just hit/damage. Most often there are special powers, spells, feats, magic items, etc, and that combination (in a single monster or NPC) is what I can't fake!

But I agree that a DMs job is to be a story teller and I've often fudged a hit/miss on a monsters attack roll. It's a fine line, but when you can only get together every couple weeks or months, it's no fun to have a character get hit EVERY time like the dice can do to you (hey, I roll a lot of 18's... what can I do?!). I actually have a set of yellow dice that I will NEVER use as a DM against my players. They simply roll too well... They aren't weighted or anything, but they routinely will out-roll my players. Now, when a player is routinely rolling bad, I just pass them the yellow dice... "give these a try, they're luckier".

There are two types of D&D games: the tactical simulation and the adventurous story. Simulationists need strict rules and a real sense of danger so they can feel accomplished when winning. Story players just want to have fun, which means getting their butts kicked, but not dying because you get hit with 2 crits in a row or because you roll misses back-to-back-to-back while the Bugbear never seems to miss.

It's a balance that I feel comfortable with at the early levels, where the numbers aren't too high and each creature/NPC is pretty one-dimensional.

My one fear with 4e is that I'm going to open up the book and not be able tell immediately that it's a new edition. If the only difference are number scales on a chart, I'll be underwhelmed. I realize that's an opposite opinion to many on this forum.

My feeling is that I already own 3e and if I want to keep playing, then there are dozens of source books that I've not picked up yet. I need a new edition with significant changes, otherwise why start purchasing books all over again? I want them to keep the d20 basics: "higher is better", the core races, the core classes, skills/feats... and then I'm okay with them "improving" everything else. But improve is a funny word.

Make it quicker, keep it fun, and give me options. Maybe I'll get to DM more than a couple times a year, and maybe I'll get to "play" even more than that.