Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5754370" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>No. It had advice talking about what "skilled players" do: for example, they plan their mission in advance of the session, organise the equipment they will need in advance of the session, choose suitable PCs out of a stable of PCs in advance of the session, and then actually undertake the session in "operational" fashion, with a caller, a main mapper with a couple of backup mappers, etc.</p><p></p><p>I've GMed and played a lot of AD&D, but never a session in which these things were done. The implication being, I guess, that I and those I played with are not skilled.</p><p></p><p>AD&D may have been a broad church in play. It is not a very broad church in its text.</p><p></p><p>Yes. It is a game built around encounters. It doesn't hide that fact, it advertises it.</p><p></p><p>AD&D has equally narrow advice, for a game built around operational play focused on the "skillful" exploration and looting of dungeons. If you want to run a situation-based, player-driven, story-generating game (say of the sort that Burning Wheel might be expected to generate if played in its default style), you won't find helpful advice in the AD&D books.</p><p></p><p>This isn't a criticism of AD&D. It's just a fairly basic point - that 4e is not unique in D&D editions in presenting a certain way of playing the game. It's just different from much of what came before.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed (but can't XP you at this time). The rest of the DMG, plus the PHB, provide plenty of context to (in my view) make the meaning clear.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps. Although the relevant sample wouldn't be 1,000 random people, would it, but 1,000 actual or potential players of D&D.</p><p></p><p>Here is another quote from Wyatt's DMG (p 103):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!</p><p></p><p>Again, there are criticisms to be made. For example, player-designed quests are likely to produce the need for improvised encounters, and while I think 4e can handle these fine there is little advice in the DMG on how to do this.</p><p></p><p>Nevertheless, when <em>I</em> look at 4e vs PF and it's adventure paths, I don't think "How could WotC have made such outrageous suggestions about how to play the game!"</p><p></p><p>Instead, I think "Who would have thought that pre-packaged plots, in which the main way players can introduce their own priorities (mostly colour) into the game is by having essentially meaningless interactions with bit NPCs like two guards at the city gate, would turn out to be more popular than a game aimed at player-driven, situation-focused play, where the players don't need to introduce colour through meaningless interactions because they are driving the encounters which are dripping with colour as well as meaning?"</p><p></p><p>I'm happy to accept that WotC, with its access to market research, should have known better than just to follow along with Ron Edwards' intuitions. But I nevertheless feel the force of the intuitions, and find their refutation by experience fairly surprising. </p><p></p><p>Maybe if WotC had produced better advice in the DMG (drawing on the available examples like Maesltrom, HeroWars etc) or produced adventure supplements that exemplified, rather than contradicted, their own advice (like player-driven quests and avoiding meaningless encounters), 4e would have been more popular. But my overall impression of the response to the game, reinforced by what some posters in this thread are saying, is that those sorts of improvements wouldn't have addressed the underlying issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5754370, member: 42582"] No. It had advice talking about what "skilled players" do: for example, they plan their mission in advance of the session, organise the equipment they will need in advance of the session, choose suitable PCs out of a stable of PCs in advance of the session, and then actually undertake the session in "operational" fashion, with a caller, a main mapper with a couple of backup mappers, etc. I've GMed and played a lot of AD&D, but never a session in which these things were done. The implication being, I guess, that I and those I played with are not skilled. AD&D may have been a broad church in play. It is not a very broad church in its text. Yes. It is a game built around encounters. It doesn't hide that fact, it advertises it. AD&D has equally narrow advice, for a game built around operational play focused on the "skillful" exploration and looting of dungeons. If you want to run a situation-based, player-driven, story-generating game (say of the sort that Burning Wheel might be expected to generate if played in its default style), you won't find helpful advice in the AD&D books. This isn't a criticism of AD&D. It's just a fairly basic point - that 4e is not unique in D&D editions in presenting a certain way of playing the game. It's just different from much of what came before. Agreed (but can't XP you at this time). The rest of the DMG, plus the PHB, provide plenty of context to (in my view) make the meaning clear. Perhaps. Although the relevant sample wouldn't be 1,000 random people, would it, but 1,000 actual or potential players of D&D. Here is another quote from Wyatt's DMG (p 103): [indent]You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible![/indent] Again, there are criticisms to be made. For example, player-designed quests are likely to produce the need for improvised encounters, and while I think 4e can handle these fine there is little advice in the DMG on how to do this. Nevertheless, when [I]I[/I] look at 4e vs PF and it's adventure paths, I don't think "How could WotC have made such outrageous suggestions about how to play the game!" Instead, I think "Who would have thought that pre-packaged plots, in which the main way players can introduce their own priorities (mostly colour) into the game is by having essentially meaningless interactions with bit NPCs like two guards at the city gate, would turn out to be more popular than a game aimed at player-driven, situation-focused play, where the players don't need to introduce colour through meaningless interactions because they are driving the encounters which are dripping with colour as well as meaning?" I'm happy to accept that WotC, with its access to market research, should have known better than just to follow along with Ron Edwards' intuitions. But I nevertheless feel the force of the intuitions, and find their refutation by experience fairly surprising. Maybe if WotC had produced better advice in the DMG (drawing on the available examples like Maesltrom, HeroWars etc) or produced adventure supplements that exemplified, rather than contradicted, their own advice (like player-driven quests and avoiding meaningless encounters), 4e would have been more popular. But my overall impression of the response to the game, reinforced by what some posters in this thread are saying, is that those sorts of improvements wouldn't have addressed the underlying issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
WotC's Annual Xmas Layoffs
Top