4E DMG: No guns?!?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Traps appear to me as a combo of monster creation and the Damage/DC rules. It's not spelled out, and I'm sure it will be eventually, but there's enough to extrapolate for now.

There is a Dragon Article on this:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080818a

 

[Hussar]

While yes we lost pages in the 4e DMG, and I do not deny that at all, considering the light years improvement of the 4e DMG to the 3e DMG, I do not begrudge the loss at all. The 4e DMG is simply one of the best RPG Game Mastering books in years, bar none. So, if getting that cost me a few pages of half assed rules on guns (which is what you had in the 3.5 DMG) so be it.

Heck, perfect spot for some enterprising 3rd party publisher to make a mark once the GSL crap gets sorted out.

 

[Reynard]

While yes we lost pages in the 4e DMG, and I do not deny that at all, considering the light years improvement of the 4e DMG to the 3e DMG, I do not begrudge the loss at all. The 4e DMG is simply one of the best RPG Game Mastering books in years, bar none. So, if getting that cost me a few pages of half assed rules on guns (which is what you had in the 3.5 DMG) so be it.

I like the 4E DMG. It lays out all the information in a clean manner and gives some good advice, but I don't see where it is light years ahead of the 3.0 DMG, which not only covers all the same ground as the 4E DMG, just as well, but also covers more ground, broadening the game in the process.

I have to admit my 3.5 DMG has always been little more than a rules reference so I have never been particularly inspired by it. If I had to rate the DMG's independent of the editions themselves, they would go, from most inspirational and useful to least: 1E 3E 4E 3.5E 2E

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

News Flash! This just in: they had guns in the middle ages. They figured prominently in the Hundred Years War for example. You had cannons, hand culverins (handgonnes) and even organ (Ribaldi) guns. This wasn't some kooky pirates of the caribbean-themed war, either... it was a regular medieval war with knights and bows and Kenneth Branagh and stuff.

At the Battle of Mohacs, the Turkish Jannisaries used guns, and the Europeans had none to reply with. That took place in 1526, after the end of the Hundred Years' War.

If you have evidence about culverins and Ribaldi, I'd like to see them.

Also, they have to somehow add to the game. I've yet to see a set of musket rules that did so. Realistically, longbow rules wouldn't be that fun, as they're usually mass fire weapons. I've yet to see a player follow any set of rules on when they should string and unstring a bow, for instance - the player wants to be ready to shoot at any time. However, when it comes to guns, people demand realism, which means you need to spend several rounds prepping a weapon that won't hit anyway.

By the way, I'm not counting cannons. Those were (in those days) not anti-infantry weapons, and could fire maybe once every few hours anyway.

 

[cangrejoide]

Sigh, I see this have developed yet into another edition war.


Well if you want guns they will be included in the Adventurer's vault coming next month.

And as for gun being included in the DMG, well IMHO there is no need for that. This is not Boot Hill nor Gamma World. If you want guns for your variant games you can either create rules for them yourself ( not that difficult, just reskin a crossbow) or just wait for the supplement.

I am glad the DMG did not waste rule space with guns, and that space was saved for more important things for D&D and a DMG.

And Gonzo gaming is good fun, but something that should better be relegated to other books, not the first ones that should focus on teaching how to play and GM. It's the whole 'learn to walk before learn to run' thing.

 

[cangrejoide]

3.5 PHB ( 320 pgs & smaller font)
3.5 DMG (320 pgs & smaller font)
3.5 MM ( 320 pgs & smaller font)

4e PHB (320 pgs & larger font)
4e DMG (224 pgs & larger font)
4e MM (288 pgs & larger font)

so we've got a net loss of... 960-832= 128 pgs... and this doesn't even take into consideration the amount loss to font size.

For the record, my failing eyesight is glad for the bigger font.

 

[Reynard]

Sigh, I see this have developed yet into another edition war.

It only becomes an edition war if people start fighting rather than discussing -- and I say this to remind myself as much as anything. Since we tend to talk about D&D and its various iterations, comparisons are only natural and in fact necessary.

And as for gun being included in the DMG, well IMHO there is no need for that. This is not Boot Hill nor Gamma World.

It's funny that you mention those two games specifically.

If you want guns for your variant games you can either create rules for them yourself ( not that difficult, just reskin a crossbow) or just wait for the supplement.

This attitude comes up a lot as a defense for the things missing for 4E. In the former case, 4E is supposed to be introductory, and as such the idea that people should just "make stuff" up is a little disingenuos. New gamers aren't necessarily goin to have the exposure necessary to realize they can swing wide of the core game and still be "doing it right". The inclusion of little incongruous elements goes a long way toward giving tem that confidence. i know that the Gamma World/Boot Hill sections in the 1E DMG opened my eyes as a 14 year old, after 4 years of playing BECMI as pretty much "straight fantasy".

In the latter case: well, core games should be complete.

And Gonzo gaming is good fun, but something that should better be relegated to other books, not the first ones that should focus on teaching how to play and GM. It's the whole 'learn to walk before learn to run' thing.

It doesn't have to be gonzo to include elements outside the "norm" for the genre or assumed setting. The DMG does do a good job of giving new DMs a lot of guidence. The problem is there are more than a few places where certain styles of play are badwrongfun-ed (see the definition of "Fun" in the encounter section) and the scope is limited to a certain playstyle (let's call it cinematic action adventure).

 

[Imaro]

For the record, my failing eyesight is glad for the bigger font.

First let me say Reynard covered pretty much everything I had to say about your other post (including the whole suddenly coming in and declaring a very civil thread an "edition war"...

As far as the above quote, you totally didn't address what I brought up. See you addressed the font size (which I never made a statement about positively or negatively), in my comparison and then you totally ignored the fact that they still have less pages in the books and charged an equal price for all 3. What does the fact that, even at a bigger font, they have less pages have to do with your eyesight?

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

mmm, nothing quite says "fun", like a giff with a hand cannon!!!!
"INCOMING!"
muahha!

or
"Teleport, NOW!!"
"Why?"
"We're in the Phlogiston, and he's about to fire a Great Bombard, on OUR ship...bye!"



Giff For Ever!
http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/wildspace/oakbrow.htm

 

[cangrejoide]

It's funny that you mention those two games specifically.

well it was the main reason to have those rules in the first place, for any DMs that wanted to run crossover adventures, Murlynd anyone?

This attitude comes up a lot as a defense for the things missing for 4E. In the former case, 4E is supposed to be introductory, and as such the idea that people should just "make stuff" up is a little disingenuos. New gamers aren't necessarily goin to have the exposure necessary to realize they can swing wide of the core game and still be "doing it right". The inclusion of little incongruous elements goes a long way toward giving tem that confidence. i know that the Gamma World/Boot Hill sections in the 1E DMG opened my eyes as a 14 year old, after 4 years of playing BECMI as pretty much "straight fantasy".

The 'make stuff up' has been there since the first inception of D&D. ANd I don;t think that not having gun rules in the DMG will prevent new and old DM coming up with their own rules for it. "The inclusion of little incongruous elements" may probably confuse and teach the GM to make bad judgement call in the inclusion of new house rules.

In the latter case: well, core games should be complete.

And IMHO 4E is a complete introductory game.

It doesn't have to be gonzo to include elements outside the "norm" for the genre or assumed setting.

Gonzo: Bizarre; unconventional.

Sounds to me Gonzo is a perfect description of this type of game/setting.

The DMG does do a good job of giving new DMs a lot of guidence. The problem is there are more than a few places where certain styles of play are badwrongfun-ed (see the definition of "Fun" in the encounter section) and the scope is limited to a certain playstyle (let's call it cinematic action adventure).

Well that certain playstyle is standard D&D, everything else are variants or conceptual different settings ( Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, etc.). But core D&D is a standard adventure group dealing with monsters with steel & magic. Any variation from this is just a variation, that should be dealt with supplements or house ruling.

First let me say Reynard covered pretty much everything I had to say about your other post (including the whole suddenly coming in and declaring a very civil thread an "edition war"...

I call it as I see it.

As far as the above quote, you totally didn't address what I brought up. See you addressed the font size (which I never made a statement about positively or negatively), in my comparison and then you totally ignored the fact that they still have less pages in the books and charged an equal price for all 3. What does the fact that, even at a bigger font, they have less pages have to do with your eyesight?

I only added an off comment that 'my failing eyesight is glad for the bigger font.', why do I have to address you whole comment?

But apparently I have to, don't I?

Well:

I don't care if they have more or less pages, as long as they deliver a good complete book. Which they did.