4E DMG: No guns?!?

[Reynard]

This is exactly where I think you're overstretching.

Everyone's entitld to a little hyperbole at 2 AM.

"No guns in the core rulebook release" does not limit the game's play-style in any way, shape, or form. Just as not having lasers in the 3e DMG doesn't prevent a DM from putting a crashed spaceship in their game, not having guns in 4e's core books doesn't prevent a DM from putting in firearms, lasers, sharks with lasers, and so on.

If you can show me where it says, "You should not use guns, even if it's simple to add them," I'll concede the point that they're trying to limit play-styles. That's nowhere in my DMG, though. Heck, the DMG I'm reading encourages DMs to be creative and make up new stuff.

It's just an example, a thing that jumped out at me as indicative of a difference between previous editions and 4E.

Well, crap. It looks like I've been running 4e wrong!

Snark leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Dark Side.

 

[brocktoon]

It's just an example, a thing that jumped out at me as indicative of a difference between previous editions and 4E.

That is what you consider indicative? No guns?

What about the significant changes in the rules, the preconceptions about classes, non-Vancian casting, races not in the PHB....

But that fact the there was not 3" of column space dedicated to providing stats for 4 guns and a katana was what clued you in to the fact that this game was different?

If it was all the same, folks would complain- why do we need a new edition (3.0 to 3.5, although I think most folks might admit that they did clean some stuff up, I think we all felt a little burnt), but if you change too much, folks will also complain.

The design team made some bold choices, no doubt about it, and could they have included Giff and rules for firearms? Sure, but when Spelljammer4e comes out in 2012, we'll all get that in spades.

If you don't like something, that is one thing. But looking for any reason not to like it-
"yes the homemade ice cream and pie was very good, but the color of the plate...."

There were plenty of changes betwen 2e and 3e, changes that would shake up campaigns if folsk wanted to convert, changes that altered the landscape of the setting and game implicitly through changes in the rules, and no doubt folks did not like some of those changes.

 

[Obryn]

Everyone's entitld to a little hyperbole at 2 AM.

Hah. OK, true enough.

It's just an example, a thing that jumped out at me as indicative of a difference between previous editions and 4E.

The thing is, though, I don't think it's an example in the way you're using it. I think you've reached your conclusion, and have been looking for stuff (present or missing) to justify that conclusion.

Snark leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Dark Side.

No, snark makes the internet enjoyable.

-O

 

[Reynard]

The thing is, though, I don't think it's an example in the way you're using it. I think you've reached your conclusion, and have been looking for stuff (present or missing) to justify that conclusion.

I don't know what to tell you. i wasn't even thinking about 4E when it happened. I was, as I said, perusing the 3.0 DMG, mostly trying to decide whether I wanted to work with 3E or 2E to try and get a game off the ground, and ran across the section on asian weapons, guns and lasers. I literally stopped reading and ran to get my 4E DMG and check and see if there were guns in there -- not because I was looking to take a shot at 4E, but because as much as I don't like the way the game is built from the players' rules perspective, I do like the 4E DMG (both as a guide to running a certain kind of D&D and from a technical, utility perspective) and I wanted to know if that little tidbit that has always been there was in fact there in the 4E DMG.

Like a lot of folks here, I have been gaming for decades, the majority of it with one version of D&D or another. Modelling guns/lasers/cyborg dinos in the rules isn't the issue; me personally needing to be told it's okay to have guns/lasers/cyborg dinos in my game isn't the issue. I am a verteran gamer. I can do those things and not feel bad about it.

The issue -- and I'll try and use a little less hyperbole now that it's not 2 AM -- is simply that 4E feels more limited, more tightly focussed, more gamey and less simmy in its core set than any other edition. For me, obviously, this is a bad thing. And just as obviously, for some it is a good thing (likely because they prefer the style of play and scope of meta-genre 4e aims for and hits dead on).

I don't hate 4E, i just don't like its focus. If a 3rd party publisher or WotC provides some well written, well designed book that shifts or broadens the game away from the core's tight focus on cinematic action/tactical skirmishing, I'll likely run the game. When there's a collection of classes and/or powers that differentiates characters and roles more, that supports my preferred play style, I'll be happy to become a fan of the game. It just seems like something of a waste to try and shoehorn 4E characters, as they are designed in the core, into the kind of game I prefer to run. That's not an attack on 4E, it's just a fact of where my preferences and those of the designers don't mesh particularly well.

And ultimately the only reason it troubles me is that it's easier to find people to play the current edition of D&D than it is to find people to play an older edition. Not objective, I know, but whatcha gonna do?

 

[Reynard]

I don't hate 4E, i just don't like its focus. If a 3rd party publisher or WotC provides some well written, well designed book that shifts or broadens the game away from the core's tight focus on cinematic action/tactical skirmishing, I'll likely run the game. When there's a collection of classes and/or powers that differentiates characters and roles more, that supports my preferred play style, I'll be happy to become a fan of the game.

This is one of those moments -- one of those things I really like about discusion forums* -- where I realize, almost immediately after writing something, that it sounds sort of stupid. In this case, is sort of stupid. I don't like (my view of) 4E's playstyle focus, so I am going to sacrifice playing with my friends, engaging in the active community and enjoying the good parts? That seems like something of a waste, doesn't it? What's the saying: cuting off your nose to spite your face?

I don't know what I'm going to do about it right at the moment, but throwing out the possibility of enjoying D&D out of hand seems like the wrong thing to do.

*It irritates the crap out of my wife, but I'm one of those people that has to discuss stuff in order to find out how I actually feel or think about it. I'm not contradictory, I'm complex!

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

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

[citation needed]

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is one of those moments -- one of those things I really like about discusion forums* -- where I realize, almost immediately after writing something, that it sounds sort of stupid. In this case, is sort of stupid. I don't like (my view of) 4E's playstyle focus, so I am going to sacrifice playing with my friends, engaging in the active community and enjoying the good parts? That seems like something of a waste, doesn't it? What's the saying: cuting off your nose to spite your face?

I don't know what I'm going to do about it right at the moment, but throwing out the possibility of enjoying D&D out of hand seems like the wrong thing to do.

*It irritates the crap out of my wife, but I'm one of those people that has to discuss stuff in order to find out how I actually feel or think about it. I'm not contradictory, I'm complex!

Hmm. Is it schizophrenia or just introspection?

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

...or just wait for the supplement.

What makes anyone here think this will be covered in an official supplement? If it happens, guns and lazers will likely be covered by a third-party publisher before WotC gets to them.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

In the Darksword series...

Now I remeber that series, but it was a different one I was thinking about.
Something about a survey crew scouting some parallel worlds to get the resources, and the other side's magical military finds them and one guy panics and starts a war. They had flimsy barriers that would stop fireballs and such, but they assumed you couldn't fire 'spells' across the dimensional boundaries, but the technological side fired mortars and shredded them.
I read the first book, but it got too boring, was more about politics than action.
The technology side actually had magic too, but just psychic equivalents, while the magic side was Final Fantasy-ish.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Let's not forget the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Book-Amber-Complete-Chronicles/dp/0380809060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220219433&sr=1-1"]Guns of Avalon[/ame], but that might be a little too old school for many younger readers.