D&D 4E 4e - Opportunity for DMs to Take Your Power Back

[Sundragon2012]

Well my oppinion on the matter is that with all the changes(mechanical and fluff wise) you could easily have the same type of "fresh start" with a new game system. So I don't see how 4e really helps(though I don't see it hindering this either) this type of thing.

EDIT: I guess I'm missing the point of what makes 4e better or even worth spending money on as opposed to any new gaming system. You seem to say mold it into whatever you want, but there are plenty of generic systems out there that, IMHO, are better at that than D&D. I wonder if at least a few people play D&D to play D&D.

I have moved from D&D relatively recently to True20 and Conan D20. D&D 4e excites me because I have been a D&D DM for over 20yrs and maybe 4e will bring me back. Its simply D&D that draws D&D players and DMs. We want to play the game we love and we either welcome the coming of 4e or we don't depending on our preception of what D&D is supposed to be like.

I have never seen D&D as anything but a rule set, I never played in the world of dungeons and dragons with its kitchen sink fantasy, I have never been fond of Vancian magic or the Great Wheel. However despite this and other things, there is a deep psychological bond I have with the game because of my enjoyment of it it for so many years. I don't want to quit D&D, I love the game. I want to see D&D change as necessary to improve upon what it has been ( a subjective assessment to be sure), and to thrive. D&D is the 8,000lb gorilla in the room and those who love role-playing games want to see D&D do well because it is good for the hobby.

I want a fresh start with a sleeker, smoother, more transparent rule set that is still D&D to me. From what I am reading 4e very well may be the ticket. Even as I write this I am working on the first draft version of my homebrew setting which will be for 4e if it proves to be a good system.



Sundragon

 

[shadewest]

I appreciate and agree with Sundragon's position here. I think a lot of the trouble here stemmed from the fact that all we've had for 4E preview has been flavor. Some of the changes I like. Some I don't. I'll have a lot more house rules for 4E than i do for 3.5. I too hope for more DM development material, but it doesn't look too forthcoming.

 

[Khairn]

I don't want to quit D&D, I love the game. I want to see D&D change as necessary to improve upon what it has been ( a subjective assessment to be sure), and to thrive. D&D is the 8,000lb gorilla in the room and those who love role-playing games want to see D&D do well because it is good for the hobby.

I dont agree with much of what you've said, although you have made some interesting points along the way. But this last line is one that I think is really incorrect.

In the past, I would have agreed that "what is good for D&D (WotC) is good for the hobby". But I do not believe that is true any longer.

Many creative and well run RPG companies have published some outstanding games in recent years. From White Wolf to Paizo, Paradigm Games to Gurps, the RPG industry is no longer defined by only D&D and WotC. I think that those who really love RPG's know this and are very willing to move to whatever game fits their play style. "Good for D&D" no longer means "good for the industry", and people who are making their gaming decisions based on that restrictive thinking are doing themselves and their gaming group a disservice.

I want a fresh start with a sleeker, smoother, more transparent rule set that is still D&D to me. From what I am reading 4e very well may be the ticket. Even as I write this I am working on the first draft version of my homebrew setting which will be for 4e if it proves to be a good system.

Wanting change for the sake of change can sometimes be a good thing, and if you think that 4E is going to provide you with what you're looking for, then I'm happy for you.

For me and my groups the info about 4E aren't making us go "oooh and aaah" in the least. Of course my groups have never found the system very complex, think the stat blocks are clear, the rules well written (with a few house rules thrown in) and the GM'ing takes very little time to set up ... so the marketing reason behind the need for a change from 3E to 4E have never had much traction with us.

 

[Psion]

For me, sticking with 3.5 is my chance to take my power back as GM. Because all the players who get the new shiny book every month and expect me to allow new stuff into my game from it at a whim and throw a hissy when I say "no" will be moving on to 4e and thus self-selecting out of my game.

But good luck to you 4e GMs who will be playing with these guys.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I dont agree with much of what you've said, although you have made some interesting points along the way. But this last line is one that I think is really incorrect.

In the past, I would have agreed that "what is good for D&D (WotC) is good for the hobby". But I do not believe that is true any longer.

Many creative and well run RPG companies have published some outstanding games in recent years. From White Wolf to Paizo, Paradigm Games to Gurps, the RPG industry is no longer defined by only D&D and WotC. I think that those who really love RPG's know this and are very willing to move to whatever game fits their play style. "Good for D&D" no longer means "good for the industry", and people who are making their gaming decisions based on that restrictive thinking are doing themselves and their gaming group a disservice.

Absolutely, White Wolf, GURPS, Palladium, Mongoose, etc. have created a very successful number of RPGs outside the bounds of WoTC and are actually WoTC's competition. I don't know their market share but they seem to be doing fine.

However, D&D is from everything I have seen often synonomous with role-playing games for good or ill. Probably the latter actually. Its like Microsoft vs. everyone else. In the RPing game niche market WoTC's position as the owner of the IP that is the game that gets most people started in RPing games in the first place makes them very important. Neither myself nor the great majority of folks I have known who DM/Play RPing games would have ever gotten into them if it weren't for D&D. I think this is probably the case for most people though I can't prove this.

If WoTC tanks, D&D tanks and if D&D tanks many people will not even be exposed to RPing games at all. WoTC has the power and resources to market and promote like no other company in the industry and I belive if D&D were to fail, RPing gaming, which are already an obscure and esoteric hobby for most, would dwindle to the point of near non-existance. Maybe I'm wrong, but the brand recognition that is D&D makes it THE game most everyone playes first. Is it the best game ever, not necessarily, but it sure seems that every young gamer's memories are of OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2e, 3e or 3.5 as the game that first allowed them to know RPing even existed.

If D&D died I believe the hobby would survive with White Wolf taking the reigns as RPing game superpower followed by Mongoose, Green Ronin and maybe some others but I doubt they have the capital to really draw new gamers into the hobby and without new blood the hobby, as anything more than grognards playing with 15-20yr old books, will die.

Wanting change for the sake of change can sometimes be a good thing, and if you think that 4E is going to provide you with what you're looking for, then I'm happy for you.

I don't want change for changes sake, I want things I don't like (Vancian magic, Alignment mechanics, D&D heroes as christmas trees, talent trees instead of PrCs, etc.) changed. It seems that 4e is going in a direction I like.

For me and my groups the info about 4E aren't making us go "oooh and aaah" in the least. Of course my groups have never found the system very complex, think the stat blocks are clear, the rules well written (with a few house rules thrown in) and the GM'ing takes very little time to set up ... so the marketing reason behind the need for a change from 3E to 4E have never had much traction with us.

That's fine to each his own. You are satisfied with 3.5 as it is. I, on the other hand am not which is why I stopped playing it. Right now Conan D20 and True20 are more my cup o' tea but I'll give 4e a fair trial to see what it brings to the table. If it is what I want I will go with it. If not I will stick with Conan D20 and True20. If True20 makes some changes to fill in the blanks with the next edition I might not even bother much with 4e at all. We'll see.



Sundragon

 

[AffableVagrant]

This thread was sounding very familiar as as I read down, until it hit me:
This discussion has the flavor of the "working mom" vs "stay-at-home mom" battle that's been raging since women's lib. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read a concise article about it here: http://searchwarp.com/swa51277.htm

Empowering the players translates into players spending more money on splatbooks under the guise of greater choice. Oh yeah, it engendered choice to the point where it seemed to term DMs into jellyfish.

I'd like to take a libertarian approach to this conversation and ask: Why the great interest in how other people play their game? Is calling people "jellyfish" really necessary? I don't see how anyone could be so offended by the way another table wants to sling dice. :\

 

[Imaro]

Absolutely, White Wolf, GURPS, Palladium, Mongoose, etc. have created a very successful number of RPGs outside the bounds of WoTC and are actually WoTC's competition. I don't know their market share but they seem to be doing fine.

However, D&D is from everything I have seen often synonomous with role-playing games for good or ill. Probably the latter actually. Its like Microsoft vs. everyone else. In the RPing game niche market WoTC's position as the owner of the IP that is the game that gets most people started in RPing games in the first place makes them very important. Neither myself nor the great majority of folks I have known who DM/Play RPing games would have ever gotten into them if it weren't for D&D. I think this is probably the case for most people though I can't prove this.

If WoTC tanks, D&D tanks and if D&D tanks many people will not even be exposed to RPing games at all. WoTC has the power and resources to market and promote like no other company in the industry and I belive if D&D were to fail, RPing gaming, which are already an obscure and esoteric hobby for most, would dwindle to the point of near non-existance. Maybe I'm wrong, but the brand recognition that is D&D makes it THE game most everyone playes first. Is it the best game ever, not necessarily, but it sure seems that every young gamer's memories are of OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2e, 3e or 3.5 as the game that first allowed them to know RPing even existed.

If D&D died I believe the hobby would survive with White Wolf taking the reigns as RPing game superpower followed by Mongoose, Green Ronin and maybe some others but I doubt they have the capital to really draw new gamers into the hobby and without new blood the hobby, as anything more than grognards playing with 15-20yr old books, will die.

Sundragon

I'd have to disagree with this, it's funny because in another thread this line of thinking was presented and I made basically the same reply I'll make here...D&D=/= the rpg industry. Now that's with the caveat that that may be your, and others oppinion(which I can respect) but there is no hard evidence to support this claim.

The closest we've had of a time period where D&D flpopped was the mismanagement of TSR into the early 90's. Did the rpg industry die? No. White Wolf stepped in with their games and had unprecedented success with a new game(no brand recognition), and created their own subset of fans that have become pretty loyal overall. Sometimes I think if D&D did loose some of it's marketshare then those who play rpg's would be forced to try new games and maybe discover something they like better. This is all conjecture of course.

Another thing I want to address is D&D marketing...what marketing? I haven't seen a D&D commercial on tv in decades, major bookstores are no longer the sole providence of D&D, and the magazine they promoted themselves in is no more. I really don't see to much marketing that will appeal to those who are not in the know, even with 4th ed. This is the same type of marketing places like The Grand Lux and Cheesecake factory rely on, a word of mouth thing. Which can work wonderfully, but also means it is important not to alienate a large section of your exsisting fanbase.

I'd like to take a libertarian approach to this conversation and ask: Why the great interest in how other people play their game? Is calling people "jellyfish" really necessary? I don't see how anyone could be so offended by the way another table wants to sling dice. :\

While I don't agree with the term "jellyfish" being used he does make a good point in so far as recruiting new players into your games. This seems especially important if the DDI is suppose to facilitate more people playing together.

In my personal oppinion WotC's focus on Player options is a mistake which will hurt them in the long run. DM's are what make or break a game and they have been sorely laking throughout 3e with support material...even basic adventures. Like another poster said in a different thread. An average WoW game is better than a bad D&D game...and I would go so far as to say even an average to slightly below average D&D game. The cost, the time, rules memorization all count against D&D vs. games like WoW, to be competitive D&D has to offer something you can't get from WoW...and the only thing different is the DM and his interaction with the players.

 

[AffableVagrant]

The cost, the time, rules memorization all count against D&D vs. games like WoW, to be competitive D&D has to offer something you can't get from WoW...and the only thing different is the DM and his interaction with the players.

That's a really good point. WoW seems (not to knock its players) to offer the lowest common denominator of dungeon crawls. I've only played WoW a few hours and I immediately found myself furiously clicking through the pointless character interactions so I could move on to the next XP farm. The story wasn't a fun part of the game, it was an irritating cut scene that was eating into my hack time. The P2P interaction was incidental. For the most part, I didn't care about anything that was going on around me unless some guy I knew wanted to go raid a cave with me. If it wasn't massively multiplayer, I'd hardly even notice the difference.

Tabletop RPGs can be like this, but not when they're being run well. Player interaction is crucial. D&D also allows for creative problem solving that has nothing to do with fighting. I can't count the number of inside jokes and bragging stories that have developed out of my D&D games, but I can't think of one for any computer/console game (and I've played plenty).

To summarize my rant: If tabletop RPGs are going to survive, I think the flexibility of a DM and the priceless social interaction should be stressed as the one thing videogames don't (and maybe never will) have. For these reasons, Gleemax and the DDI Tabletop sound like a great ideas, and I'm really excited to see this work for D&D and all its fans.

 

[zoroaster100]

It does seem that the exceptions based approach to monsters will put more power in the hands of DMs. Having so many abilities standardized meant savy players could know as much or more than the DM about how everything was supposed to work. That had some benefits, but had the downside that it tended to destroy the sense of wonder in players. Granted, a good DM could compensate for that, but it seems that job will be easier for the DM perhaps.

 

[Fifth Element]

You are the DM, you call the shots and you don't need to feel tied to anyone else's vision of your game but your own. A lot of DMs now feel that the game is less in their hands than it used to be due to nothing more than a philosophical shift in the design/marketing philosophy of the game.

In understand your point, but I submit that the DM is not the only one entitled to enjoy the game. I believe that DMs should get more say in the vision and direction of the campaign, since they/we put in so much more work than the players, but if you insist on your players simply being along for the ride, you may find yourself soon needing new players.

Everyone at the table has a right to enjoy the game. Keep in mind that your enjoyment (whoever you are) should not overshadow everyone else's.