D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Fallen Seraph]

But lack of Rules Mastery is an invitation to a poor DM. Every DM I've played with has known the core rules better than me. Better. The splat books and 3rd party stuff, that's always been my bailiwick. But the core.... No DM I've played with has had a poor grasp of the rules.

I'm the DM for our group and I certainly don't have Rules Mastery nor does anyone at the table. It simply doesn't matter to us, what matters is knowing enough of the rules to smoothly tell a story, that is about it.

Each of us contribute and know their part of the rules/story/narrative just like I do as the DM.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

No. No, that's not the way it works. If the DM cannot be bothered to read through an adventure, reviewing the monsters, noting anything that may be a bother down the line... Why are they DMing? Or if they can't be bothered to pick up the danged Monster Manual... Can 4th be run without reading the Monster Manual? Serious question -- not trying to be snarky. I haven't run or played 4th, just read the books.

I'm DMing because I enjoy DMing. Due to 15 hours per day of working and commuting, a wonderful wife, two great children and other hobbies and interests, I really don't want to spend too much of my time away from game night reviewing monster stats like I am preparing for a test.

I have run the H series modules without having to crack open the MM for an entire gaming night. I do have to open it sometimes, usually for the lore section of a creature, but rarely to look up a rule. When I ran 3.5 I constantly needed the MM, PHB, and sometimes splatbooks to look up the details of a creature's abiliites. I don't have an eidetic memory, so even though many spells have been around since I ran 1E, I still need to look up the details.

But lack of Rules Mastery is an invitation to a poor DM. Every DM I've played with has known the core rules better than me. Better. The splat books and 3rd party stuff, that's always been my bailiwick. But the core.... No DM I've played with has had a poor grasp of the rules.

Most great DMs I have played with have a better understanding of the basic rules than the non-DMing players. No DM I have played with has been able to memorize all the details of every spell, spell-like ability and feat contained on every monster in an adventure they are running. All of them needed to reference the books constantly to run monsters pre-4E.

 

[Mallus]

IMO (as well as IME) anyone who finds this "burden" to be more than they can manage will never be a great DM.

Sez you.

Or at least has a long way to go yet and will never get there without playing robust systems.

Your robust is my cumbersome.

Whereas the payoff of that "burden" is even more ability for great DMs to shine.

A great DM doesn't need to tame an unwieldy rule system in order to shine.

 

[Mallus]

But lack of Rules Mastery is an invitation to a poor DM. Every DM I've played with has known the core rules better than me. Better.

For roughly half of the now five year old campaign I'm running, my players knew the rules better than me. My grasp on them did improve... though two of my players are real 'system masters' and they'll always have that over me.

And yet they kept coming back. Week and week. Knowledge of the rules is one component of being a great DM. But one can make up for weakness there with other talents...

 

[FunnyDice]

Their plus and minus. I'm undecided.

Some of the challenges of 3.5 is what made it fun. There was real resource managment going on with the spell casters. Some people find that kinda frustrating, but I liked the strategy of picking spells. Do I need waterbreathing or feather fall today? There is little-to-none of that in 4E as far as I can tell. And that kinda turns spell casters into a fancy long range fighter, imo.

On the flip side, the fighters and fighter-like folks have some interesting abilities which add some flavor to BDF's. Though, some of them take serious suspension of belief, even for DnD, but I can roll with it. (Okay, so if you hit, then your budy across the room get's healed by it... um, sure. Dunno how the hell that would work, but it sounds good for me. I'll guess I won't say no.)

Working out combat seems pretty similar to me when it comes to "simplification". You are still scrambling for the pluses (ok - plus 1 from the warlord, plus 2 for combat advantage, ... um... plus... um... anything else guys? common I just need one more point!!)

Some stuff I like is not running out of spells, and not needing to rest for the day after the first battle. That's nifty, but you didn't need to overhaul 3.5 for that. You could do that with house rules.

The ONE THING that TOTALLY GETS MY GOAT is the Per Encounter and Per Day abilities. I've played probably 6 games so far, and ONLY HIT WITH MY PER DAY ONCE! ONCE! WTF is that?!?! I've probably only hit twice with the Per Encouter powers. That really, REALLY pisses me off. It's sooo frustrating, and such a freaking tease. Why even have them if they hit less than 1/2 the time? (my dice are also very close to getting punished in the microwave)

We haven't been grappled yet, or had to Turned Undead. I suspect it's much simpler now, and I would be surprised if I miss those rules. They were like doing your taxes.

For folks who say there's no roll playing - it's there if you WANT it, and it always will be. Talk in silly voices and have elabrate plots, and in that way roll playing cannot be taken out of paper-n-pencil DnD. I think the issue is how it's under-emphasized in the book. (oh don't get me started on that book - one page for an index? you're f'ing kidding me. But 3.5 indexes never had what I was looking for either. It's a wash.)

So, some pluses, and some minuses. But, sometimes I kinda do miss 3.5... Maybe it's time to take a closer look at what Monte Cook's been up to...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

All of the sudden, I've got this image of 4th Edition DMs sitting at the table with nothing in front of them but the incredible published adventures with their perfect stat-blacks, and a pile of barely browsed Core 4th Edition books behind them, barely a thumbmark on any page...

No. No, that's not the way it works. If the DM cannot be bothered to read through an adventure, reviewing the monsters, noting anything that may be a bother down the line... Why are they DMing? Or if they can't be bothered to pick up the danged Monster Manual... Can 4th be run without reading the Monster Manual? Serious question -- not trying to be snarky. I haven't run or played 4th, just read the books.

Using published adventures then 4th ed can be run without looking at the MM. I have run Keep on the Shadowfell that way. That said I have run a session of Rescue at Rivenroar and was expecting only 3 PC, that did cause me to use both the DMG and the MM to redo the level of some monsters and to replace others with less lethal variants given the lower party size.
When it came to run the adventure,it turned out i had an extra player so I had some more rejigging on the fly to keep the encounters challenging.

In my case the problem in 3rd ed was monsters with spell like abilities, both to remember that the ablilty existed and what it did. What did for me was reading though Shackled City monsters and NPC to transfer all of them to cards for running and haveing some with 3 or 4 cards of dense 8 point type of special effects, that and monsters with grapple check double their base attach roll.

 

[BryonD]

Sez you.

Yep.

Your robust is my cumbersome.

Your statement of the highly obvious is noted. If you'll look back at my quote you'll see I was saying the same thing from the other end. I'm glad to see we agree.

A great DM doesn't need to tame an unwieldy rule system in order to shine.

I agree with this irrelevant point. That doesn't change that not all systems are created equal and if a system gives up options for simplicity, the level of shine that may be achieved is dampened. It may be that standards simply vary.

A home run is a home run, but a tee ball home run doesn't have the same shine in my book.

As to cumbersome and unwieldy, I refer you back to what I "sez" about great DMs.

 

[AstroCat]

Hey you! Jumping in on my gaming debate indulgence! haha Ok, to your points...

Some of the challenges of 3.5 is what made it fun. There was real resource managment going on with the spell casters. Some people find that kinda frustrating, but I liked the strategy of picking spells. Do I need waterbreathing or feather fall today? There is little-to-none of that in 4E as far as I can tell. And that kinda turns spell casters into a fancy long range fighter, imo.

There is plenty of resource management, try playing a 9th level wizard vs a 1st level one, and check it out.

On the flip side, the fighters and fighter-like folks have some interesting abilities which add some flavor to BDF's. Though, some of them take serious suspension of belief, even for DnD, but I can roll with it. (Okay, so if you hit, then your budy across the room get's healed by it... um, sure. Dunno how the hell that would work, but it sounds good for me. I'll guess I won't say no.)

You have to get over hit points as actual physical damage. Hit points are moral, drive, physical strength and more all rolled in to one. I hit a monster, and you get a surge of Adrenalin as the combat is swinging in your favor. I look at a lot of hit points as moral, and moral is a huge part of any conflict.

Working out combat seems pretty similar to me when it comes to "simplification". You are still scrambling for the pluses (ok - plus 1 from the warlord, plus 2 for combat advantage, ... um... plus... um... anything else guys? common I just need one more point!!)

Combat in 3.5 is a lot more picky about all the AOOs, cover and other stuff. 4 is more too the point but I think without over simplifying the tactics.

Some stuff I like is not running out of spells, and not needing to rest for the day after the first battle. That's nifty, but you didn't need to overhaul 3.5 for that. You could do that with house rules.

Agreed but its better that they are part of the system from the get go.

The ONE THING that TOTALLY GETS MY GOAT is the Per Encounter and Per Day abilities. I've played probably 6 games so far, and ONLY HIT WITH MY PER DAY ONCE! ONCE! WTF is that?!?! I've probably only hit twice with the Per Encouter powers. That really, REALLY pisses me off. It's sooo frustrating, and such a freaking tease. Why even have them if they hit less than 1/2 the time? (my dice are also very close to getting punished in the microwave)

I've never had this problem and remember as you go up in levels you get more encounter and daily powers. Think how lame a 1st level 3.5 spell caster is heck, any low level caster in 3.5 is bbbboooorrriiinng.

We haven't been grappled yet, or had to Turned Undead. I suspect it's much simpler now, and I would be surprised if I miss those rules. They were like doing your taxes.

Agreed.

For folks who say there's no roll playing - it's there if you WANT it, and it always will be. Talk in silly voices and have elabrate plots, and in that way roll playing cannot be taken out of paper-n-pencil DnD. I think the issue is how it's under-emphasized in the book. (oh don't get me started on that book - one page for an index? you're f'ing kidding me. But 3.5 indexes never had what I was looking for either. It's a wash.)

I really think the new books are some much more logically laid out. No more flipping through multiple sections for related materials and worse book to book! Role playing does not need rules...The DM guide is a great book for how to role play in your game. Better than the 3.5 DM I think.

So, some pluses, and some minuses. But, sometimes I kinda do miss 3.5... Maybe it's time to take a closer look at what Monte Cook's been up to...

For me 4E is a better game, I don't care if it was called small caves and furry rabbits, it would be better than 3.5 to me. For one thing the balance on player imersion and involvement is just so much better in 4E, I think the game just plays better.

Doing a 3.75 just seems like tape on a broken record to me... but I'm open, maybe I'll try it one day.

 

[Remathilis]

IMO (as well as IME) anyone who finds this "burden" to be more than they can manage will never be a great DM. Or at least has a long way to go yet and will never get there without playing robust systems.
Whereas the payoff of that "burden" is even more ability for great DMs to shine.

No. No, that's not the way it works. If the DM cannot be bothered to read through an adventure, reviewing the monsters, noting anything that may be a bother down the line... Why are they DMing? Or if they can't be bothered to pick up the danged Monster Manual... Can 4th be run without reading the Monster Manual? Serious question -- not trying to be snarky. I haven't run or played 4th, just read the books.

But lack of Rules Mastery is an invitation to a poor DM. Every DM I've played with has known the core rules better than me. Better. The splat books and 3rd party stuff, that's always been my bailiwick. But the core.... No DM I've played with has had a poor grasp of the rules.

Wow, just wow.

When I was 15, D&D was my life outside of school. When I was in college, I still had plenty of time to devote to it. I'm an adult now, working and juggling relationships, commitments, and other things. I REALLY could care less to memorize what type of save Unholy Blight is, or what an obscure feat in the back of the monster manual does. I know the rules, I just don't have the time or energy to form an encyclopedic knowledge of every. single. rule.

I'd rather take the time to develop stories, create NEW foes, draw dungeons, and flesh out my campaign setting. In 15 years of DMing NO ONE has called my DMing skills poor because I don't know the damage dice on Flame Strike.

So I do not believe "overly complex" rules make for a better game and DMs who have mastered every flipping detail are the best DMs. If it was true, we'd all be GURPS DMs.

 

[AllisterH]

All of the sudden, I've got this image of 4th Edition DMs sitting at the table with nothing in front of them but the incredible published adventures with their perfect stat-blacks, and a pile of barely browsed Core 4th Edition books behind them, barely a thumbmark on any page...

No. No, that's not the way it works. If the DM cannot be bothered to read through an adventure, reviewing the monsters, noting anything that may be a bother down the line... Why are they DMing? Or if they can't be bothered to pick up the danged Monster Manual... Can 4th be run without reading the Monster Manual? Serious question -- not trying to be snarky. I haven't run or played 4th, just read the books.

Er, you DO realize this WAS an intended consequence, right?

The WOTC folks have stated many times that 4E was designed/written so that in-game, you don't actually have to crack open the books.

Everything you should need or want for a DM is either on the DM-screen or in the adventure itself. Same goes for the players (and why we have power-cards).

Neither the DM or the player is supposed to be opening the book during play (the player's need the book when they level, the DM needs the book to create the adventure, but in actual play. Nope?)

The theory being is that it would speed up play and make the DM's job less frustrating. If play speed is faster, you go through more encounters (both combat and non-combat) and if the DM job is easier, less chance of DM burnout and more chances of players becoming DMs.

While it is always bad to generalize, the general assumption has always been that there is an excess of players and that you lose more potential gamers through the lack of DMs.