4E DMG: No guns?!?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This attitude comes up a lot as a defense for the things missing for 4E. In the former case, 4E is supposed to be introductory, and as such the idea that people should just "make stuff" up is a little disingenuos. New gamers aren't necessarily goin to have the exposure necessary to realize they can swing wide of the core game and still be "doing it right". The inclusion of little incongruous elements goes a long way toward giving tem that confidence. i know that the Gamma World/Boot Hill sections in the 1E DMG opened my eyes as a 14 year old, after 4 years of playing BECMI as pretty much "straight fantasy".

In the latter case: well, core games should be complete.

I don't think 4E is incomplete if it lacks rules for firearms. But it would certainly be improved if it contained more material.

I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't have been better if WotC had an extra year of development for 4E, so they could create even more material and more subsystems that might make the game more "universal". But I suppose the realities of the economy make this impossible. Design & Development costs money, and if your designers are busy with 4E, they can't produce suppmements for 3E to keep your money coming in.

But what I applaud the designers for is that they didn't give us any half-finished subsystems that needed more development. Statistics for one firearm and for one laser rifle are not enough to give us a complete feeling for such kinds of weapons. You would really want more - rules for automatic firearms, reloading, ammunition. Look at the firearm rules in the 3E DMG and compare them to the rules in d20 Modern! There is barely a connection. If you really wanted to include firearms in your game, you need more than just statistics for one or two weapons.

The disadvantage of this approach of course is that
1) Beginners might not even get the idea that such things are "possible" in their game (and that can shape their perception on later rulebooks that introduce such weapons)
2) Experienced players could use these statistics as a basis and develop their own rules to complete the game. Now, they really have to start from 0. (But maybe that's not that bad? d20 Modern firearms don't really resemble DMG 3E firearms)

 

[Reynard]

Well that certain playstyle is standard D&D, everything else are variants or conceptual different settings ( Eberron, Iron Kingdoms, etc.). But core D&D is a standard adventure group dealing with monsters with steel & magic. Any variation from this is just a variation, that should be dealt with supplements or house ruling.

I disagree. The traditional inclusion of rules for followers and the building of keeps (or guilds or temples), for example, indicates that D&D is also about being a leader and doing more than simply going into holes and stabbing things. The intentional exclusion of these things limits the core baseline of D&D significantly. In some cases it isn't ommission that limits the playstyle, it's the inclusion of certain things. let's take magic items and rituals: in a complete reversal of anything resembling a real world economy, player characters cannot produce and then sell items or rituals at a profit. one more style of play that, from my experience, was relatively common is gone: no more building a business or acting as peddlars (obviously in addition to adventuring). This is also an example of an anti-simulationist bias in the rules set, but that's probably an issue for another thread.

The point is, D&D has never been Hero or GURPS, but it has always had an open, toll kit quality to it, often due to the random cramming of half baked rules and setting elements into the core. I understand the perspective that these kinds of subsystems should be given full shrift -- I don't agree; giving people a taste a) sells supplements on the subject and b) opens the door for players and GMs. 4E's playstyle is certainly a D&D playstyle (and, I assume, the most popular one at the moment) but it is still only one playstyle, one way to engage the game. and because it is a well, tightly designed game, anything that moves off that playstyle is going to take a lot of development time. Look at the complete lack of summoning rules in the core: the "economy of action" element to 4E's intended playstyle limits the possibilities presented by the game.

 

[cangrejoide]

I disagree. The traditional inclusion of rules for followers and the building of keeps (or guilds or temples), for example, indicates that D&D is also about being a leader and doing more than simply going into holes and stabbing things. The intentional exclusion of these things limits the core baseline of D&D significantly. In some cases it isn't ommission that limits the playstyle, it's the inclusion of certain things. let's take magic items and rituals: in a complete reversal of anything resembling a real world economy, player characters cannot produce and then sell items or rituals at a profit. one more style of play that, from my experience, was relatively common is gone: no more building a business or acting as peddlars (obviously in addition to adventuring). This is also an example of an anti-simulationist bias in the rules set, but that's probably an issue for another thread.

All those extra options run in the periphery of what the actual core of D&D is: Adventure as a group and fight monsters with steel & magic.

As for anti-simulationist, well I am glad they did away with that stuff. It's pretty obvious their design choices are to limit 4E to what core D&D should be. Everything else ( castles, a complete economic system, guns, Mecha, Aliens, Republicans, etc.) will be handled with optional supplements. But the core D&D will stay. This design choice doesn't make the game incomplete.

The point is, D&D has never been Hero or GURPS, but it has always had an open, toll kit quality to it, often due to the random cramming of half baked rules and setting elements into the core. I understand the perspective that these kinds of subsystems should be given full shrift -- I don't agree; giving people a taste a) sells supplements on the subject and b) opens the door for players and GMs. 4E's playstyle is certainly a D&D playstyle (and, I assume, the most popular one at the moment) but it is still only one playstyle, one way to engage the game. and because it is a well, tightly designed game, anything that moves off that playstyle is going to take a lot of development time. Look at the complete lack of summoning rules in the core: the "economy of action" element to 4E's intended playstyle limits the possibilities presented by the game.

Well I dont think that not including this stuff in the core will preclude people form buying further suplements that deal with extra variants. And like you reiterated 4E is a D&D playstyle, and it was designed with that playstyle in mind. Other playstyles will be dealt further down the road( Eberron next year). Some people will like this playstyle, while others wont. But the game was designed with this playstyle, and this playstyle alone.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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?

Since the DMG is vastly shorter than the PHB, and yet costs the same amount... I suspect the answer is more than WoTC initially did. Ditto for the MM. No Frost Giant my behind.

 

[Reynard]

Well I dont think that not including this stuff in the core will preclude people form buying further suplements that deal with extra variants. And like you reiterated 4E is a D&D playstyle, and it was designed with that playstyle in mind. Other playstyles will be dealt further down the road( Eberron next year). Some people will like this playstyle, while others wont. But the game was designed with this playstyle, and this playstyle alone.

Narrowing the scope of the game narrows your audience. if someone who is interested simulation, for example, gives up on 4E early because 4E was designed around a different, singular playstyle, that person isn't invested in the game and won't be around when the "Simulationists' Handbook" comes out three years down the road. So while they might have gotten the core book sales out of that person, they won't be getting any future sales out of that person. Maybe core set sales are enough to sustain the game, but I doubt it.

Of course, I have no idea (I doubt anyone does) what percentage of potential players/consumers expect or desire a play experience different than the one for which 4E was designed. The number might be insignificant, at least in comparison to those that come to 4E specifically because of the playstyle for which it was designed. Hopefully not, because if my playstyle preferences are insignificant (and therefore not economically viable to support) i don't play 4E, which means I don't get to enjoy being a part of the current commuity of the game I have been in love with for close to 25 years, and i don't get to play with my friends unless I take a hit to my personal "fun" in order to be with them.

 

[Imaro]

Since the DMG is vastly shorter than the PHB, and yet costs the same amount... I suspect the answer is more than WoTC initially did. Ditto for the MM. No Frost Giant my behind.

Huh? I'm not really understanding what you're saying here and I don't want to respond, unless I'm sure. Are you saying there is more in the 4e books than the 3.5 books?

 

[fba827]

I never use (or wanted) firearms in my D&D games, so it's never come up and therefore not missed. If it was there as an option for those who did want it, it would just be wasted space to me that could be used for something else in the initial core books where they had so much more information they needed to get out.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Huh? I'm not really understanding what you're saying here and I don't want to respond, unless I'm sure. Are you saying there is more in the 4e books than the 3.5 books?

I was saying in response to "how many things in the 4e core books stand up to that type of detail?" that it should have been MORE since they short shafted the DMG by some odd 96 pages. They could've thrown in rules for different base rules assumption, more hard core detail on making monsters, more hard core detail on marking alternative planes, more hard core detail on making paragon paths, etc...

 

[Imaro]

I was saying in response to "how many things in the 4e core books stand up to that type of detail?" that it should have been MORE since they short shafted the DMG by some odd 96 pages. They could've thrown in rules for different base rules assumption, more hard core detail on making monsters, more hard core detail on marking alternative planes, more hard core detail on making paragon paths, etc...

Then we are definitely in agreement.

On a Side Note: Those claiming WotC is holding things back until they work, or are balanced for the system...answer me this, how did the skill challenge system get through the way it was presented in the DMG? And why are we already seeing power creep and a widening of the skill gaps with the backgrounds presented in FRPG previews and the Dragon article?

It would have been great if the above mantra had been was actually being adhered to, but so far it's looking a little shaky as far as reasons go.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think 4E is incomplete if it lacks rules for firearms. But it would certainly be improved if it contained more material.

I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't have been better if WotC had an extra year of development for 4E, so they could create even more material and more subsystems that might make the game more "universal". But I suppose the realities of the economy make this impossible. Design & Development costs money, and if your designers are busy with 4E, they can't produce suppmements for 3E to keep your money coming in.

I agree that D&D 4e could have definitely used some more time to be polished up and to include enough material that it would feel worth it to purchase it at full price (I only bought mine because I have a friend who works at Borders and she was able to give me her discount). Eh, I think the "Design & Development" argument only goes so far, if you're product isn't up to snuff...then don't release it, especially when your'e the top selling...market dominating company. And let's not forget WotC makes money off MtG, DDM, Star Wars minis, etc.

But what I applaud the designers for is that they didn't give us any half-finished subsystems that needed more development. Statistics for one firearm and for one laser rifle are not enough to give us a complete feeling for such kinds of weapons. You would really want more - rules for automatic firearms, reloading, ammunition. Look at the firearm rules in the 3E DMG and compare them to the rules in d20 Modern! There is barely a connection. If you really wanted to include firearms in your game, you need more than just statistics for one or two weapons.

I feel like everyone who argues this has totally subconsciously blocked out the skill challenge system...which has basically been totally rewritten since the books were released 3 months ago.

Why can't you start with basic rules... you know like the excuse for why there are only so many powers, feats, classes, traps (which we don't even have real rules to create yet, just examples), etc. in the game and expand in supplements after that?

The disadvantage of this approach of course is that
1) Beginners might not even get the idea that such things are "possible" in their game (and that can shape their perception on later rulebooks that introduce such weapons)
2) Experienced players could use these statistics as a basis and develop their own rules to complete the game. Now, they really have to start from 0. (But maybe that's not that bad? d20 Modern firearms don't really resemble DMG 3E firearms)

Agree with both statements.