D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Henry]

These two statements are completely inconsistent. If its the marketing that makes the difference, than it doesn't really matter what kind of game WotC decides to call DnD. The masses will follow.

They're perfectly consistent if you assume that it's 1) network first and 2) marketing second that drives D&D players. The existing network plays D&D as-is or really close-to. The new version's form will likely be close enough to allow OGL work compatible with it, because if it's not, the majority of the network won't follow the new edition to its new home - not because of the OGL, but because it will break so strongly with the player base it wouldn't be accepted as D&D.

I don't know if the player base is that strongly for the D&D rulebase or not (and D&D would have to find an almost all-new player base) or if it will follow the new divergent D&D at that point. I know my group would follow the rule base - we just talked about this very thing last session in chit-chat.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Not impressed.

If, as speculation has it, the DM is to be reduced to the role of a "server", then by extension the players are reduced to "terminals", and other than the need for physical mini's the game might as well be played online. Pathetic!

I've interpreted this as making the rules a bit simpler, with less need for random arbitrary rulings/clarifications that cause conflicts. IE, instead of the hunk of crap paladin code, ditch it entirely or make it VERY simple to understand.

 

[sullivan]

If, as speculation has it, the DM is to be reduced to the role of a "server", then by extension the players are reduced to "terminals", and other than the need for physical mini's the game might as well be played online.

That thinking of the GM as the 'server' is mired in the current separation of DM from players. Removing some or all of the burdens actually frees the DM to play. They don't have to pull punches so much. They can go hard. Their role can become much closer to "equal but different".

 

[sullivan]

I've interpreted this as making the rules a bit simpler, with less need for random arbitrary rulings/clarifications that cause conflicts. IE, instead of the hunk of crap paladin code, ditch it entirely or make it VERY simple to understand.

Less subjective. There being different means to achive that end.

 

[Lanefan]

That thinking of the GM as the 'server' is mired in the current separation of DM from players. Removing some or all of the burdens actually frees the DM to play. They don't have to pull punches so much. They can go hard.

DM's shouldn't be pulling punches now.

It could go either way: as you suggest, the DM might become more a player, *or* the DM instead might become simply a referee in a role not unlike that of a M:tG judge on a very small scale. It's the latter idea that makes me want to hurl...

Lanefan

 

[Mark CMG]

That is not what I'm talking about at all. This isn't about preparation time, or even nessasarily complexity of the senario. This is about the rules more as the judge than the DM and the DM as more akin to a player. That is not automatically tied to raising/lowering complexity, even if there are some relationships there.

Preparation time, in this case, refers to knowing all of the rules, how they interact, and making judgment calls when they need to be applied to a circumstance not foreseen by the rules. To remove this level of complexity in the rules and have the "rules more as the judge than the DM and the DM as more akin to a player" seems to be what both of our posts are discussing. I'm just focusing on what would have to be done with the rules to achieve what we are discussing (and pointing it out to you) while you seem to be focusing on issues you have had with some "DMs. Because all those years of not trusting the rules or the players." Mind you that I do understand that there are some DMs who abuse their position of rules arbitor but I don't cut them out by changing the rules, just by changing the DM.

 

[Delta]

While I think 1% is low-balling it a bit for the purpose of making a point, it's not really more than 5 or 10% in my opinion. The change between 2E and 3E I'd put as high as 60 or 70% - it's still possible to get a good sense of power levels of characters. In 3 to 3.5, all changes except one or two were almost cosmetic.

I'll have to moderately disagree with that. Again, changes to spells from 3.0 --> 3.5 were more significant than all the other spell changes from 1E combined (maybe folks don't see the spells as being in the core of the system). Widespread monster changes (all feat & skill numbers, many HD & CR's, DR), weapons system change, etc., add to that.

Based on that, I'd ballpark a 30% change 2E->3E, and perhaps a 25% change 3.0->3.5.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

If, as speculation has it, the DM is to be reduced to the role of a "server", then by extension the players are reduced to "terminals", and other than the need for physical mini's the game might as well be played online. Pathetic!

Doesn't this come close to slamming someone else's style of play? Online play, in this instance?

I'm not impressed with criticism about "server DMs". If making it so that the core rules are more predictable and clear from table to table makes DMs as servers... plug me in!

I'm not talking about the ability to house rule the system, I'm talking about different DMs who say they each use only Core Rules As Written, well, then players should be able to have certain expectations met for how the rules with work at each DMs table. Remove ambiguities, as you will. Surely you can make it more predictable without taking away a DMs powertrip.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Well............first of all I AM a GAWD DM . What I failed to mention is that if this the direction that WOTC wants to go with then they should go all the way. Remove the whole NEED for a DM so everyone can just play. If the DM is constrained to being used as a server function then design the rules lock-down tight and eliminate the position entirely. Nothing is as un-fun for the DM as a half done attempt at this.

I'd like to see a DM-less D&D myself.

 

[Aaron L]

I'll have to moderately disagree with that. Again, changes to spells from 3.0 --> 3.5 were more significant than all the other spell changes from 1E combined (maybe folks don't see the spells as being in the core of the system). Widespread monster changes (all feat & skill numbers, many HD & CR's, DR), weapons system change, etc., add to that.

Based on that, I'd ballpark a 30% change 2E->3E, and perhaps a 25% change 3.0->3.5.

Youre seriously saying that the changes between 2E and 3E were only slightly smaller than the changes between 3.0 and 3.5?


Wow.