Wil Wheaton plays and reviews 4th.

[delericho]

Also he really dug the DMG like no other. I presume he has read the 3.5 DMG and maybe even the Pathfinder beta.

The 4e DMG certainly does read a lot better than the 3e equivalents (and includes a lot of 'group management' advice that is notably missing from the 3e DMG 1, but present in DMG2). It is fair to say that the 3e DMG had something of the feel of a textbook about it.

That said, I do feel the 3e DMG is considerably more useful than the 4e equivalent. The 4e book seemed awfully good on generalities, but woefully short on specifics, where the 3e book excelled.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure the 4e DMG would end up seeing very little actual use - page 42 is of great value, but beyond that I can't see using much other than the Skill Challenges stuff... which doesn't really work as written. Indeed, the 4e DMG might see less use even than the very poor 2nd Edition DMG. At least that version included magic items.

 

[Ravellion]

Indeed, the 4e DMG might see less use even than the very poor 2nd Edition DMG. At least that version included magic items.

Well, there is the toolbox. Templating monsters, adding hit points, that kind of thing. Only roughly 20 pages, yes, but still very good (especially that it only takes 20 pages, come to think of it).

 

[Fifth Element]

Interesting that bolded part.

So you find it laughable, but consider it newsworthy? Not sure I follow.

 

[Shroomy]

The 4e DMG certainly does read a lot better than the 3e equivalents (and includes a lot of 'group management' advice that is notably missing from the 3e DMG 1, but present in DMG2). It is fair to say that the 3e DMG had something of the feel of a textbook about it.

That said, I do feel the 3e DMG is considerably more useful than the 4e equivalent. The 4e book seemed awfully good on generalities, but woefully short on specifics, where the 3e book excelled.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure the 4e DMG would end up seeing very little actual use - page 42 is of great value, but beyond that I can't see using much other than the Skill Challenges stuff... which doesn't really work as written. Indeed, the 4e DMG might see less use even than the very poor 2nd Edition DMG. At least that version included magic items.

In addition to the toolbox chapter and page 42 chart already mentioned (which I constantly refer to) there's the traps, skill challenges, additional rules (disease, poison, mounted combat, etc.), treasure parcels, encounter templates, XP tables, sample artifacts, sample terrain, etc. There's plenty of important information to refer to in the 4e DMG other than the DMing advice.

 

[delericho]

Well, there is the toolbox.

In addition to the toolbox chapter and page 42 chart already mentioned (which I constantly refer to) there's the traps, skill challenges, additional rules (disease, poison, mounted combat, etc.), treasure parcels, encounter templates, XP tables, sample artifacts, sample terrain,

You're right, I failed to remember these while making my assessment. I do find many of these sections quite lacking (skill challenges don't work well as-written; there are very few sample traps, and no system for developing new ones; I find 'treasure parcels' useful only as a supplement to proper treasure tables; and the environmental hazards section still talks only in generalities, without specifics).

However, my assessment of the 4e DMG vs the 2nd is incorrect - the 4e DMG is clearly the superior work. My 3e vs 4e assessment remains the same, though - the 4e book is better written, and better for learning to DM, but the 3e book is much more useful after that point.

 

[DonTadow]

I am just constantly amazed...

The comparsions come from the casual game play aspect, you're obviously a hard core, but if i tried, i can probably get to 80 sometime in the next two months, i just choose to only play every other week or so, so for me its something i pick up play. The adventures are pretty generic for everyone and its n't like i need a lot of thinking to figure out how to kill a certain mob. Things are straight forward and limited.

4e felt very pick up and play, the structure of the characters were very simple, the adventures felt very hack and slash style, if there was not a role for it it was not a rule and something the dm had to fiat. If I spent a lot of time with it, I didn't feel like there was a lot different I could do unless I started making up stuff, and at that point I'm just incorporating previous editions into it.

If I wanted to, i could probably figure out how to play 4e hardcore, but at that point I'm mimicking 3.5 so much that why don't i just play 3.5. The difference for me is more like comparing a crpg with a console rpg. The keyboard allows me to do more stuff, and if its other stuff i like I'd like the crpg. But if i wanted something that was straight forward and easier to play, I'd play the console rpgs because I'm only looking at 5 buttons.

Play wise one is superior to the other only depending on your preference.

4e strongly supports a hack and slash playstyle more so than the simulation playstyle that some like. I don't think 3.5 supported the hack and slash style very well because of its complexity and rules.

 

[Kishin]

WoW is easy, do not be amazed. Getting a few 80's can be done in very little (relatively) time.

Agreed.

WoW is ludicrously easy if you are even moderately competent, which most D&D players/gamers would be almost by default. A friend from my old guild IMed me the other day to inform me that it had taken them 3 weeks from the release of the new expansion to get to 80 and clear all presently available raid content.

XP gains have been bumped, there are add ons that will calculate the most efficient route from questgiver to questgiver in any area....

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

WoW is easy, do not be amazed. Getting a few 80's can be done in very little (relatively) time.

The comparsions come from the casual game play aspect, you're obviously a hard core, but if i tried, i can probably get to 80 sometime in the next two months, i just choose to only play every other week or so, so for me its something i pick up play. The adventures are pretty generic for everyone and its n't like i need a lot of thinking to figure out how to kill a certain mob. Things are straight forward and limited.

4e felt very pick up and play, the structure of the characters were very simple, the adventures felt very hack and slash style, if there was not a role for it it was not a rule and something the dm had to fiat. If I spent a lot of time with it, I didn't feel like there was a lot different I could do unless I started making up stuff, and at that point I'm just incorporating previous editions into it.

If I wanted to, i could probably figure out how to play 4e hardcore, but at that point I'm mimicking 3.5 so much that why don't i just play 3.5. The difference for me is more like comparing a crpg with a console rpg. The keyboard allows me to do more stuff, and if its other stuff i like I'd like the crpg. But if i wanted something that was straight forward and easier to play, I'd play the console rpgs because I'm only looking at 5 buttons.

Play wise one is superior to the other only depending on your preference.

4e strongly supports a hack and slash playstyle more so than the simulation playstyle that some like. I don't think 3.5 supported the hack and slash style very well because of its complexity and rules.

I am afraid you are misunderstanding me. I am just continually amazed, that's it! You don't have to explain to me how easy WoW is or isn't!

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I'm wondering about Colbert. I'd love to sit at a table with Steve, Vin and Will even more then Rouse, Noonan, and Williams (granted, I would love to sit at that table too).

I read that Robin Williams was a gamer too... I'd love to be a player with him as DM (listening to him speak like a barmaid, dwarf warrior, elf wizard, and troll in quick succession must be a blast!)

 

[Herschel]

I could have written that article.

But who would care?

Well, actually I would. I value your insight just as much as his on the game.