Who's Actually Read the DM's Guides

[Dannyalcatraz]

One might be inclined to say that lack of change over a three decade span is more of a personal limitation than a benefit. Especially if you're not adapting to change that occurs around you.

Dude, I've played in about 100 different RPG systems since 1977- I have no problem adapting to different systems.

This is about how I subjectively perceive the HS mechanic in 4Ed, not an inability to adjust to it AND- to put this back in its proper context- that this perception would not be altered by some text in the DMG, as the OP posited.

Those types of mechanics exist in Pathfinder as well. See a number of witch spells that function in reverse. (Hit something else, you take damage).

So what? That doesn't change my perception of 4Ed.

I'd be more worried if D&D remained the same game over 3 or 4 decades and didn't get rid of some sacred cow and introduce new things.

Several games out there do just fine without the kind of wholesale changes some feel changed the unique nature of D&D with the introduction of 4Ed. Until this year, I'd have counted HERO in that group, but CoC, GURPS and many others keep their feel edition after edition with minor tweaks to the engine instead of wholesale mechanical and fluff changes.

I also think that the maturity level of the people playing the game (granted a small but vocal minority) needs to be evaluated when reading the commentary that flames a game.

I don't flame 4Ed. I think it's a good FRPG with solid mechanics. I just feel it has videogamey elements in areas that bug me, and changed enough of the mechanics & fluff of prior editions that it no longer feels like D&D to me.

 

[Argyle King]

Or just one of them?

After DMing 4th edition since the beginning I finally sat down to read DMG and DMG2, and I am amazed. If people actually read this thing, I don't think there would be half the problems with 4th edition that people have.

Dunno, still a bit in shock. Thoughts?

I've read all of them. What shocked me as a new 4E GM (back when I was fresh to the system) was that I was better off ignoring a lot of the advice given about skill challenges. The guidelines for monster creation in DMG1 were pretty good guidelines to get you started, but I quickly learned that I was better off modifying those guidelines a bit. They were still good guidelines to get somebody started; I just realized they weren't a good end point in creation. Getting better results came from seeing how things worked in play and modifying a lot of the tables to account for how things worked in play rather than how things were said to work in theory.

I've also read all of the 3rd Edition DMGs, GURPS Campaigns (which I suppose is the equivalent to a DMG), and a few others.

 

[Argyle King]

On the up side, I actually like the new fluff a lot. I grew up having a big interest in mythology. I feel the new cosmology has more of a mythic feel to me. I also like the points of light idea; I just wish more of it had made it into the game.

I never had a problem with 3rd's cosmology, I just find myself preferring a lot of 4th's fluff.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I'm not sure what you mean by this - can you explain?

There are several types of RPGs out there, mostly differentiated by levels of who the story depends on. You can have entirely player dependent, like Fiasco and 3 Crows, where the story is so dependent upon the players that there isn't a DM. You can also have more of a cooperation, like in Burning Wheel, where the players suggest what they get for succeeding, and the DM suggests what happens if they fail.

Then you have DM-dependent narratives, like in Dungeons and Dragons and, to a certain extent, World of Darkness and most traditional RPGs. The players make characters that are a set of mechanics that interact with the DM's world and story hooks. Now, the genius of the DMG2 is that it shows you how you can either make this totally yours or you can shuffle some of it off onto the players to make things easier on you. You can make it more player dependent, or you can totally take it on for your own. Regardless, running the story and making it work is entirely up to the DM. Both guides do a pretty good job of helping a DM do that, although DMG2 is markedly better than DMG.

 

[Kobold Boots]

@ Mr. Alcatraz
In response to no problem adapting to other systems: Fair enough, Then I'll presume your commentary in total means you have no problem adapting to systems you "like" determined by personal preference.

In response to "So What, that doesn't change my perception of 4Ed: But it should impact your opinion of Pathfinder and 3rd edition equally, unless personal preference demands otherwise. Your ball to call obviously.

In response to "Some games do just fine...": I guess that depends on your definition of just fine. All games have their audiences. I can't seem to find anyone who wants to play CoC or GURPS in my own group of elder players and the changes to HERO 6th were well received enough to revive my own Champions campaign from mothballs.

In response to "flame": That wasn't directed at you, and probably poorly placed as tangential commentary to end the post. My apologies if I offended. Not intentional

 

[Rechan]

DMG1 was a pretty good read, but not a great reference. I think all the crunchy bits have been errated, and I really have no reason to look at it again. DMG 2 is a little more useful.

Have the Treasure Parcels and XP charts been errata'd? Those are the only things I ever reference out of the DMG1.

In Tekken- and as I recall in MK & SC as well- you can recover health by performing certain actions as long as you don't get hit, usually by doing certain move and/or strike combos, and also between combats.. It is done entirely within the character- and generally with no external sources (I'm told that in certain modes on the home console versions, there are apparently some items in certain games that affect healing).

Wow I've never heard of that (but I only ever played regular or story mode). I mean the health is back to normal at the beginning of each round (except in some games that have marathon matches - I'm looking at you MK9).

Thanks for the correction. Ok enough from me about arcade fighters.

 

[the Jester]

I've read every edition's DMG. The 4e ones are pretty good; but I don't think they have much to do with the dislike that h4ters feel.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've read every edition's DMG. The 4e ones are pretty good; but I don't think they have much to do with the dislike that h4ters feel.

I think the 4E DMGs tone and authorial voice does contribute to some of the dislike, though often second-hand, as the people most likely to dislike it will already do so before they read those. It is like the Burning Wheel Revised advice in this regard--often good within the niche of the author(s) conveying what they intend, but sometimes grating.

Contrast that, with for example, the 3E DMG. Monte Cook could tell you that you ought to verbally abuse your players every time they raise their heads, and you'd find yourself nodding along for awhile until the substance of the statement finally penetrated. Then you'd still be, "Wait, he can't mean that. What did he mean?" (Not an actual example, for those hyperbole impaired. )

Tell people not to let their toddlers play in traffic, using the style of some of the 4E writing, and it will irritate at times.

 

[Redshirt]

Something about it not being fun to play out an encounter with guards at the gate. I can't remember seeing the infamous "...until I took an arrow in the knee" quote.

Warning-Language
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSewoAqmhsc"]ARROW IN THE KNEE FUNTAGE! (The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim) - YouTube[/ame]

Sorry, I had to do it!

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand those issues, but some of those (particularly the video-gamey elements and the "feel" of 4th) are covered extremely well in both DMGs, which teach the DM how to use these things to produce a fantasy game.

I've read DMG1 and some of DMG2. Where exactly are these issues discussed in DMG1?