This mentality needs to die

[Rel]

Was playing rules light with a kid last night. In almost the same amount of time as that video she knocked out a couple of goblins, then wounded, healed and befriended a timber wolf, duelled with a goblin shaman, interrogated another goblin who told her to drink from a fountain. Didn't drink from the poisoned fountain but evaporated some of the water to form a blade venom and . . .

I love this kind of stuff! As somebody who has, and continues to, run games for his daughter, I would love to read more about the adventures you've run. I'm especially interested in rules and techniques for younger players.

If you ever decide to post a thread about this topic in particular, please let me know.

 

[kevtar]

Yep. In a few threads over the last couple of years, mostly referencing the WotC podcasts, I've made exactly the same invitation. And no-one, so far as I know, has done so.

My sons are trying to round up a game tomorrow (since they don't have school - thank you 'President's Day.') So, if that happens, I'll break out the camera, record an encounter, and edit it down to a 10-minute video. I'm not saying our sessions are any better, it will just be a different take on D&D.

 

[filthgrinder]

My sons are trying to round up a game tomorrow (since they don't have school - thank you 'President's Day.') So, if that happens, I'll break out the camera, record an encounter, and edit it down to a 10-minute video. I'm not saying our sessions are any better, it will just be a different take on D&D.

And cheating. This video is part 5 of the session, it's not edited down to 10 minutes, it's just minute 40 to 50 of the game session. They didn't pick an encounter and edit it down, the camera is just rolling.

Get five people together, most of whom have little to no experience with D&D, and then try and teach them all to play, run the adventure, get them all happy, and oh yeah, overcome any possible stage fright you have about having a camera on you. Oh, and also know that everything you say is going to be nitpicked and judged by fanboys on the internet.

 

[S'mon]

And cheating. This video is part 5 of the session, it's not edited down to 10 minutes, it's just minute 40 to 50 of the game session. They didn't pick an encounter and edit it down, the camera is just rolling.

And maybe that's not such a great idea? When my wife does videos of our baby on Youtube she doesn't just let the camera run and post the whole thing, she edits it up into something decent.

 

[frankthedm]

Oh, re Darkfire, I think the correct RB GM's response is:

"OK, you outline the door with an eldritch glow. It's still frozen shut. Next!"

Yeah, that's another RBDM approach, let the players waste resources. For extra points, drop a random encounter at the worst possible time. Though honestly, if I were DMing, I might very well let them waste their powers if I know they know better. I don't like to RBDM per se, but I also don't hesitate to take advantage of really stupid PC actions either. If they're less experienced players, I wouldn't actually say no, but explain that it wouldn't work or do any good.

How many tips is a DM expected to drop? They player had the card in hand, telling them full well what the effect does. How is it rat bastardly not reexplaining what was stated on in the text in front of the player.

My main experience of Mr. Perkins is as editor of Dungeon Magazine, which I thought was one of the low points of that publication because it empathized dungeons over stories.

Sounds like he was dong his job to me.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And maybe that's not such a great idea? When my wife does videos of our baby on Youtube she doesn't just let the camera run and post the whole thing, she edits it up into something decent.

Of course, one could still complain if they were edited:
"See, they are editing it! They probably took everything out that made them look bad! They don't trust their own game well enough to just show off a regular game!"

But maybe you are right anyway. I think it's their first take on it. The Penny Arcade Podcasts (audio only) weren't edited, IIRC. But maybe you really need to do it differently with a visual medium?

I listened to the PA podcasts while driving. My eyes were busy elsewhere. If I were to watch the videos, I'd have to dedicate time for them alone, I guess boring parts might indeed hurt more than with the audio casts.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Is this how majority of 4e games are played?

NO.

For some reason, some DMs -- regardless of edition -- are afraid to use common sense.

If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny because Basic Attacks also list 'one creature' as their valid target -- so apparently you can't even try to smash a door down with your hammer or fists in Chris' game.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Well

I wouldn't have let darkfire work either -- even to make it easier to hit the door (I don't think a to hit roll against a door represents aiming at it, but rather connecting with a really solid blow).

I do agree though, that refusal because 'it is not a creature' is lame. A quick explanation of what Darkfire is would have been better.

He did draw a nice battlemap, though! And to be honest, who here hasn't made an on the fly ruling that they regretted later or that could have been delivered better?

Ken

 

[Psion]

Wow. That was a prime example of what I am talking about in my sig... letting the rules use you.

Now it may well be that it is, by concept, not a valid use of the power if it represents some life-sapping ability. But from appearances, that's not what was going on there. Perkins specifically asked to see the card, cited the creature bit as his reason, not the concept that might be behind it.

Now, I don't think this is JUST a 4e problem. I've been using that sig line since the 3e era, after all. I do think the syndrome is worsened by edition shift given the shift to a less "simulationist" philosophy, telling me that things occur some way because the game text says so, not because of the reason behind the game text.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Wow. That was a prime example of what I am talking about in my sig... letting the rules use you.

Now it may well be that it is, by concept, not a valid use of the power if it represents some life-sapping ability. But from appearances, that's not what was going on there. Perkins specifically asked to see the card, cited the creature bit as his reason, not the concept that might be behind it.

Now, I don't think this is JUST a 4e problem. I've been using that sig line since the 3e era, after all. I do think the syndrome is worsened by edition shift given the shift to a less "simulationist" philosophy, telling me that things occur some way because the game text says so, not because of the reason behind the game text.

Or you could be searching too hard to notice a phenomenon which you already see as prevalent. And the ruling just meant that certain magic simply doesn´t work on objects.
But who knows. Perhaps there IS a storm in this glass of water, and i just can´t see it.