Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SSquirrel" data-source="post: 4019746" data-attributes="member: 5202">Funny I never said "Down w/DMs!".  I said that your comments make it appear that anything that pushes D&D away from you being the godlike entity controlling everything and let the players fear you is a bad thing.  I'm not anti-DM, I'm anti bad-stuck-in-the-early-80's-DM.  Whether you fit this or not I don't know, but your comments sound like those I imagine of the people I know who do fit the description.Why is wanting a game to be more collaborative a bad thing?  Example from a past game.  Yes the DM came up with a story, but our group is focusing on another aspect of the story ad it's making him flustered b/c he doesn't have plans and he wants HIS story to get told.  Too bad his story doesn't sound that interesting to us or our characters and we're following this tangent of it.  A good DM keeps the storyline he had developed in the back of his mind or works ways to have it dovetail w/the new direction of the game.  A bad DM just says we can't do that or closes off every lead we try and follow so all we have left to do is his idea, which as I said sounded boring.That group didn't stay together too long b/c the DM and players had very different playstyles.  We all wanted to play D&D, but obviously D&D meant something different to us than to him.You still seem to be barking up the wrong tree about the whole Quest card thing.  I find Ari's comments from his blog about 4E very interesting as well.  Here's the bit I found most interesting: "It feels like they've managed to create a complete game that doesn't feel cluttered. In a way, it's a feeling I haven't had since the Red Box basic set.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying thatA) 4E is as simple as Basic, orB) That Basic didn't have a great many flaws and mechanical problems.But I believe that Basic D&D did a good job of separating out what did and did not need hardwired mechanics. I don't need ranks in "tailor" on my character sheet, if that's never going to have a mechanical impact on gameplay.I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5, come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules say.4E manages, IMO, to give you exactly the mechanics you need, without giving excessive mechanics to what you don't, in a way that no prior edition has managed."The sky is not falling, you are free to customize how you want, and as previously stated, the quest card thing is just a snippet of what was already said in the game.  Nothing restricts you from saying "You know I was just going to giv everyone 1k XP for that quest, but it turned out to be al ot harder and more involved than I originally imagined.  You all get 2k.".  It's not like you have to say "Well this was harder than I expected and if I could change it I would give you guys 2k each, but the card won't let me".    You probably have an idea how much of a level you want everyone to gain from an adventure and maybe shoot for rough point totals for different spots.  This is no different, you're just verbalizing what is already on your head and maybe on your paper behind your DM screen.</blockquote>

Verification