4E DMG: No guns?!?

[GoodKingJayIII]

And the award for missing the point by the most goes to...

it's not an issue of having stats or not, not at all. It just struck me as odd, even emblematic of the specific focus and limited scope of 4E relative to previoous editions, 1E and 3E in particular.

First of all, please don't be rude. (And no, the cute smiley does not make it ok.) I was not rude to you, and asked a legitimate question. I asure you, I got your point. As an addendum to my first post, I was suggesting that even though there is no table labeled "Guns" with a series of stats below it, you have a baseline with which to work, from both the current and previous editions. The current edition has broken a lot of traditions. Yes, here's another one. But don't get so caught up in the fact that it's not there, when you could easily put it there (assuming you were interested in playing in the first place).

There are a myriad of criticisms you could level at 4th edition. I have some myself. I certainly can't disagree with yours; it's an empirical fact that no rules for guns exist in the DMG. But it is so easily corrected that it seems a rather picky nit.

 

[Reynard]

First of all, please don't be rude. (And no, the cute smiley does not make it ok.)

I apologize. it was only a joke. But with the forums being as tense as they are, I should have rethought it.

There are a myriad of criticisms you could level at 4th edition. I have some myself. I certainly can't disagree with yours; it's an empirical fact that no rules for guns exist in the DMG. But it is so easily corrected that it seems a rather picky nit.

Well, the existence of guns in your game is easily corrected, but the presence of guns -- and by extension a degree of openness, options and "this is your game, even if you want elves firing laser blasters at mutant cyborg dinosaurs" -- in the DMG is not easily correctable. As I said, it is emblematic of an overall design philosophy, one that, instead of giving you the toys and telling you to go play, tells you how to play.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think the DMG is still quite good at getting across the feeling of playing whatever kind of game you wish. Hell, it even discusses how the play a variety of games.

Simply because they didn't include firearms doesn't mean that this is no longer the case. I rather have them in a supplement personally (this is from someone who has relatively advance (Civil-War Era) firearms in basically all my D&D games).

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I apologize. it was only a joke. But with the forums being as tense as they are, I should have rethought it.

Not a problem, it's difficult to tell what someone is really trying to say on the web, and lately some folks hide behind the smileys. No harm done.

As I said, it is emblematic of an overall design philosophy, one that, instead of giving you the toys and telling you to go play, tells you how to play.

Huh. See, I feel the opposite: the DMG has tons of toys for me to play with: skill challenges, monster design, dungeon design, traps, templates. They've thrown the door wide open in terms of revealing their design philosophies (which is typically not so clear, in any edition of any tabletop game) and said "have fun." So I feel very comfortable saying "This rule doesn't exist, but with XYZ tools, I can create a satisfactory representation."* If you feel that, by excluding certain items (e.g., guns, certain feats, certain skills, certain classes), they've closed doors rather than opened them, that's certainly valid, but it's not something I've experienced.


*Let me be clear: I'm not saying this couldn't be done in 3.x. I'm just more comfortable doing it with 4th. There are a number of reasons why, not the least of which is that I started with 3e when I was 17, I'm now 25 and have a lot more experience as a player, DM, and amateur designer.

 

[Imaro]

...
Well, the existence of guns in your game is easily corrected, but the presence of guns -- and by extension a degree of openness, options and "this is your game, even if you want elves firing laser blasters at mutant cyborg dinosaurs" -- in the DMG is not easily correctable. As I said, it is emblematic of an overall design philosophy, one that, instead of giving you the toys and telling you to go play, tells you how to play.

Reynard, I agree with you on this point, and I think it's what makes 4e feel both incomplete, limited and like WotC is being purposefully stingy with material.

I think the DMG is still quite good at getting across the feeling of playing whatever kind of game you wish. Hell, it even discusses how the play a variety of games.

Simply because they didn't include firearms doesn't mean that this is no longer the case. I rather have them in a supplement personally (this is from someone who has relatively advance (Civil-War Era) firearms in basically all my D&D games).

It's not just firearms. Numerous threads have popped up about the limited number of classes, rituals (spells), equipment, etc. It's all these things together and the fact that they were parsed down from the previous edition that is the bigger overall issue.

Can I just ask why, you would rather have them in a supplement. I mean I'm all for supporting a gaming company, but you're telling me if they said... "Hey everybody's PHB will have firearms in it...except Fallen Seraph's and it will be the same price" ...you would see this as a good thing for you?

...
Huh. See, I feel the opposite: the DMG has tons of toys for me to play with: skill challenges, monster design, dungeon design, traps, templates. They've thrown the door wide open in terms of revealing their design philosophies (which is typically not so clear, in any edition of any tabletop game) and said "have fun." So I feel very comfortable saying "This rule doesn't exist, but with XYZ tools, I can create a satisfactory representation."* If you feel that, by excluding certain items (e.g., guns, certain feats, certain skills, certain classes), they've closed doors rather than opened them, that's certainly valid, but it's not something I've experienced.

*Let me be clear: I'm not saying this couldn't be done in 3.x. I'm just more comfortable doing it with 4th. There are a number of reasons why, not the least of which is that I started with 3e when I was 17, I'm now 25 and have a lot more experience as a player, DM, and amateur designer.

Where are the rules for building your own traps? Where are the rules for designing your own classes or balancing powers? 4e breaks certain things down, I'll readily admit that... but it's woefully inadequate about other things, so in my mind it kinda balances out.

Yeah, I've had all sorts of cross over stuff in the past. Not so much in 3e, but certainly before that.

I hope we do get some decent firearms rules. It would be nice to use the 4e rules for a more Steampunk style game.

I would point out though that they yoinked pretty much ALL equipment from the DMG - magic items, and all. So, it's not a huge surprise that guns didn't make the cut. I could easily see it being in the Adventurer's Vault or in a later supplement.

One of the points the Devs were very adamant about was only including elements that actually worked. No half assed chucking in random stuff that sort of worked. ((Now, whether they succeeded at that is a different issue)) So, I can understand why they wouldn't include firearms until such time as they do it right.

You know this line... " One of the points the Devs were very adamant about was only including elements that actually worked. No half assed chucking in random stuff that sort of worked." ...is getting real tired real quick. I mean at what point do you actually say... "Hey, if you don't have the material to fill a $35 to $40 dollar book then don't publish the book till you do. And no, increasing the font size doesn't make up for it. IMHO, the 3.5 books had way more in them than the 4e books, it was an all around better deal for it's price and it allowed more information to go in the PHB's.

3.5 PHB ( 320 pgs & smaller font)
3.5 DMG (320 pgs & smaller font)
3.5 MM ( 320 pgs & smaller font)

4e PHB (320 pgs & larger font)
4e DMG (224 pgs & larger font)
4e MM (288 pgs & larger font)

so we've got a net loss of... 960-832= 128 pgs... and this doesn't even take into consideration the amount loss to font size.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

*Shrugs shoulders* I haven't found any issue with having less things in 4e so far. I have been able to easily do a extremely wide variety of things by simply refluffing.

As for why I rather have them in a supplement well, it comes down to this. I rather have something like firearms have lots of time, space and effort devoted to it and making it fit in nicely then simply cramming it into a DMG.

 

[Reynard]

Huh. See, I feel the opposite: the DMG has tons of toys for me to play with: skill challenges, monster design, dungeon design, traps, templates. They've thrown the door wide open in terms of revealing their design philosophies (which is typically not so clear, in any edition of any tabletop game) and said "have fun."

It isn't that 4E doesn't give you a great number of toys to play with (or tools to use, whichever you prefer). It's that it gives you toys/tools for a particular style of play. I'm tempted to try and label that style of play, but whatever I called it it would insufficiently descriptive and would likely cause an argument. Instead, let me try and explain what I mean and maybe we can come up with the right terminology together.

One of the stated design goals of 4E is that the game plays "the same" from 1st to 30th level. This is is different than the game has been before, and not to its benefit (or at least to the benefit of my enjoyment of the game). Earlier editions assumed shifts in the types of adventures and play over the level spread. For example, when characters in 1E and 2E reached a certain level (and built a stronghold) they acquired titles and followers. The books didn't go into great lengths to describe many details beyond this (1E did nore than 2E, but I think only because 2E asumed you'd be buying the appropriate supplements). And while 4E has it's "tiers" of play, those tiers describe the level of fantastic the characters are likely to encounter and explore more than anything else. Heroic characters go into a dungeon, Paragon characters go into a demi-plan and epic characters go knock on orcus' own door, but they are still engaging in the kind of adventure that involves 2 fights, a rest, rinse, repeat. By contrast, earlier editions assumed -- via things like strongholds and followers -- that high level PCs didn't do so much dungeoneering, but instead tamed wild frontiers, rules lands and built nations. Even 3E -- the "back to the dungeon" ediiton -- had followers rules in the core.

I guess what I am trying to describe, which was brought into sharp focus for me by something as innocuous as the lack of guns in the 4E DMG, is a tone and design philosophy built around how Mearls and Co. like to play D&D. It's the first edition that feels like a game in the true sense, rather than a toy. Now, if the style of game that i liked coincided with the one presented in 4E, I'm sure I would be doing cartwheels over 4E. unfortunately, it is pretty much the opposite: I like operational play; I like a changing gamescape; I like immersion (as opposed to constantly being pulled out of the game to consult character sheets, minis on a battleboard, power cards, or whatever).

Of course, i understand it is simply a matter of taste and that my tastes are obviously not the most common or profitable ones -- even Pathfinder isn't becoming more like "my" D&D, it's trying to improve on something already flawed (namely, 3.5). And I also understand that it is reasonable to assume that as 4E matures, the liklihood of styles of play and the tools to engage in them that I prefer appearing increases. Eventually, someone, 3rd party of WotC is going to do a 4E "Strongholds" book or a book dedicated to PC classes that aren't all monsters in combat. I'm not worried about that because the core rules set the tone for the game and define what the game is about, and 4E's core has left me uninspired and cold.

 

[Imaro]

*Shrugs shoulders* I haven't found any issue with having less things in 4e so far. I have been able to easily do a extremely wide variety of things by simply refluffing.

As for why I rather have them in a supplement well, it comes down to this. I rather have something like firearms have lots of time, space and effort devoted to it and making it fit in nicely then simply cramming it into a DMG.

I find these two statements kinda humorous. On the one hand you "have been able to easily do a extremely wide variety of things by simply refluffing" and this is adequate for you, yet...for firearms you'd "... rather have something like firearms have lots of time, space and effort devoted to it...". Just seems a little contradictory. I don't see firearms needed alot of time, space and effort. They're a ranged weapon...now just give me the stats.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well I mean in that, if there are to be specific rules lets have lots of time devoted to them. But in-general refluffling will simply work. Basically, if WoTC is making rules for something I want them to have the time to do it right and proper.

As for effort being put towards firearms well it depends on what kind of game you want to play. For me, I would like to see stuff like rules for six-shooters, scatter-shot for shotguns, powers based around firearms, feats, different kinds of ammo, etc.

 

[Imaro]

Well I mean in that, if there are to be specific rules lets have lots of time devoted to them. But in-general refluffling will simply work. Basically, if WoTC is making rules for something I want them to have the time to do it right and proper.

As for effort being put towards firearms well it depends on what kind of game you want to play. For me, I would like to see stuff like rules for six-shooters, scatter-shot for shotguns, powers based around firearms, feats, different kinds of ammo, etc.

Ok, but going along this line of thinking...shouldn't there be different types of arrows for bows in the core, or mercurial greatswords, etc. I mean the core is for the base rules, and I feel some of the stuff you mention above is more supplemental than base, honestly how many things in the 4e core books stand up to that type of detail?