D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[Vocenoctum]

Well... I like my 3.0/3.5 fine the way it is really. I find the push for 4E by WotC a sort of sad transition.

WHat push for 4e? You mean them constantly telling people there is no 4e?

Seriously, people overreacting to 3.5 and doomsaying ever since does not mean it's WotC's fault. I mean, these sorts of 4e posts just serve to take the spotlight off the current actual system and fragment folks into hiding.

 

[Ranger REG]

So, basically, it's a battle between two fan factions: pro-4e and anti-4e.

Gawd, I hope blood will be spilled, flesh be torn from bones, and guts disemboweled.

(Summer heats makes me violent. No apology.)

 

[BluSponge]

Careful to whom you attribute the quote. Those are Ryan's words, according to the EN News front page. I don't want to get credit for one of Ryan's many insights.

Sorry Mark. I've fixed my post.

 

[FireLance]

There have quite a few intelligent comments made about the idea of "changes to alter the need for an impartial DM" or "taking the DM out of the equation", and what the DM in an RPG ought to do to distinguish it from a board game with "equal" players. I thought I'd repeat them here:

Yes, some of the roles of the DM are being passed to the rules. But not everything can, and those bits are where the DM has the chance to shine. World Building. Adventure Crafting. NPC Design. And a lot more. Passing some stuff into rules makes it easier for the DM to concentrate on the fun DMing parts.

Unfortunately the DM is in a direct conflict of interest right now. He controls both the rules and the NPCs. Judge and prosecutor.

Yes, I suppose you could remove either one to lessen the conflict of interest. As I see it; Removing the rules from the DM's control, good. Removing NPCs from their control, bad.

D&D is a Role Playing Game. If everyone is a player playing the role of their character, who plays the role of the world around them? Monsters, NPCs, and even environments have roles and having them played is just as important as having the roles of the adventurers played. Without a DM to play these roles, everything becomes a list of scripted actions or, at best, a larger set of possible scripted actions from which one is selected randomly or based on circumstance. All of the flexibility goes away and the game ceases to be an RPG.

I'll assume that "MMORPG with Minis" means "all creative control is out of the DM's hands." This is bullocks. The DM still has the following obligations to fullfill:

* Creating and maintaining a setting/environment to run adventurers in.
* Establishing plots and stocking dungeons
* Running NPCs, Villians, and Monsters both in and out of combat.
* Rewarding adventures with treasure and XP
* maintaining game cohesion (aka keep in moving smoothly)
* Mediating actions not covered explictally by the rules (aka swinging from the chandelier)

...

However, I don't see the DM being taken out of the equation. I think he'll fill the role of "storyteller" rather than "rule-arbiter" though.

There seems to be some unstated assumption that a DM must have the right to change the rules or he is not really a DM. Why should that be the case?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

It would not be RPing as we know it, but I could imagine a game where the role of DM is rotated, the "point value" of the PCs is totaled up, the DM gets a certain number of points based on a chart, and he runs a "Warhammer-style" tabletop battle against the heroic PCs. It would be easy to add wrinkles to keep the game unpredicatable, e.g. the DM can draw from the Nasty Surprise deck at the cost of a certain number of points.

The RuneRPG game, by Robin D. Laws, has parts that are like this.

Everyone at the table brings their own viking hero, and everyone shares the duties of running part of the evening's encounters. Everyone creates an encounter that they will run. There is a primary runner, who creates the beginning, ending, and maybe a middle encounter. Everyone else creates encounters on the way to the finish.

It's competitive by design as it came out of the Rune First Person Melee Computer Game.

It's a blast to play for one shots, and there are a ton on very innovative RPG "technology" in it. I was always impressed with how the monsters automatically scaled in difficulty along with the PC heroes, personally. A runner didn't have to worry about making sure they chose a strong enough monster (ogre instead of troll) to challenge the PCs. No matter how tough the PCs are, an ogre will always be a challenge. Anyway...

 

[Skaven_13]

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.

Yeah, when I first read that, I started thinking of the old Heroquest board game, pushing the miniature line, and generally dumbing down the game. Gave me the chills.

Skaven13

 

[Melkor]

And no offense but I like to play with people who are intelligent on many levels with good imaginations. No computer or video game has ever interested me, multiplayer or not, to the extent that a face to face role playing game does.

Great post Ferrix...and the above bears repeating!

 

[sullivan]

There seems to be some unstated assumption that a DM must have the right to change the rules or he is not really a DM. Why should that be the case?

If only it was just unstated in D&D. I know it used to be refered to as "Rule 0". I'd have to dig out my books to find the exact current reference. But it reads pretty much like a dictatorship manifesto.

 

[Nyeshet]

However, there could be a silver lining...people who come in new with 4e might start wanting to do more with their mini's after a while than combats on a battlemat, leading to a new RPG system being cobbled together by the players; it'll be called Mini's and Monsters (M+M, you heard it here first ) and in scope and complexity it'll look a lot like OD+D...

And so the wheel goes round.

Lane-"but all this speculation could still be wrong"-fan

This was pretty much what I was thinking. If 4e is more mini-focused it will be a modern Chainmail game. Actually, I tend to recall that evolution comic from a while back when thinking of this seeming circular edition transition:

Something, somewhere, went terribly wrong.

 

[Skaven_13]

It would not be RPing as we know it, but I could imagine a game where the role of DM is rotated, the "point value" of the PCs is totaled up, the DM gets a certain number of points based on a chart, and he runs a "Warhammer-style" tabletop battle against the heroic PCs. It would be easy to add wrinkles to keep the game unpredicatable, e.g. the DM can draw from the Nasty Surprise deck at the cost of a certain number of points.

As I said, it is not a substitute for RPing, but having played in a Bloodbowl League one summer (individual players on your team roster experience up, so there is RPing-lite in the experience) and having watched all those WH40K happily slam their beautiful armies together, I can see how a game of this style could be appealing.

Ugh! If I was going to go to a more "Warhammer-style", I might as well go to WFRP, which really revolves around the setting more than the combats you are involved in. Besides, the point system doesn't necessarily create a playable game that is also fun for all players. How many points in that custom made Nasty Surprise card worth? Why does one GM spend all his points on one monster that could defeat the party easily why a different GM spends his points on balanced encounters that challenge the party? Warhammer and 40k suffer from this problem (I've played my fair share of warhammer fantasy games where half of the points were spent on the "unstoppable" general on dragon steeds...)

Warhammer miniatures are one of the top 3 pillars that keep your average game store above water financially. I can see why WotC might be thinking that they could leverage the D&D game to take a slice of that sales pie while not necessarily hurting the RPG aspect of the game.

It could be done if marketed and packaged correctly. Keep a core that has a common base of rules. Then split off a RPG line and a Miniature Wargaming line.

This is not necessarily true. Games Workshop is constantly shooting themselves in the foot by raising prices. They have put out new editions relatively quickly, alienating a lot of older players by creating new rules that remove options/models/units from play. Once a player has 1 or 2 complete armies, they might be done, and the store has to look at where the next gamer is coming from. I myself have 2 fantasy armies, 2 40k armies, and have no desire to start another. Usually if you are carrying warhammer, you are also carrying 40k, and whatever extra games that GW is pushing next. There is a lot of money invested in (mainly) 2 game systems. The store I used to be the gaming manager of dropped the line because it wasn't worth the expense, and I had a good 40k following. Another store in the area is thinking about dropping it because the interest doesn't seem to be there anymore, and a lot of that is due to price.

While not suggesting this is what WOTC is thinking, they might want to consider the problems associated with doing things like GW.