4E Poorly Rated on Amazon...

[MerricB]

I would love to hear why ANYONE who has ever seriously read the DMGs in the previous editions could possibly rate the 4th Ed. version higher than one star. AND yes, it would be 'legitimate' for me to review the 4th Ed. DMG without playing it first because there are almost no rules in it. It pails even in comparison to the 2nd Ed. DMG (*shudder*).

Palls, not Pails. Unless you mean it's kicking the bucket... hmm.

I'm another old-timer, having started back in 1981, and my rating of the 4e DMG is much closer to 4 or 5 stars. At present, I haven't actually played enough 4e to give it a proper rating, but here are a few of my thoughts on the 4e DMG.

First, I'm not fussed with how many rules a particular book has. 4e, when you get down to it, has an astonishing lack of rules. The core system is very clean and is explained in remarkably few paragraphs in the PHB. Probably the thing I want in the DMG the most is help in producing adventures.

This is something both the 3E DMG and 4E DMG do pretty well. The 1E DMG was more limited (although it has some great stuff for making dungeons), and the 2E DMG was a joke.

The most astonishing thing about the 4E DMG to me, something that hadn't been touched in the previews, is the advice for including Puzzles in an adventure. This detailed advice is something that hasn't existed in a previous DMG (not counting the DMG2 of 3.5e, which informs a lot of the 4E DMG). I'm very, very glad to see it here. In many ways, it hearkens back to 1E AD&D adventures, although the 1E DMG didn't give advice on it.

Something else that is new in the 4E DMG is specific advice on scaling adventures for different numbers of players. There's nothing like this in 3E (one of the chief bits of wonkiness with 3e's CR/EL system was how it didn't adapt well to non-standard parties). 1E & 2E just assumed certain party sizes as well.

I'm delighted with the new way diseases are handled.

The 4E DMG is not as rich as either the 3E DMG or 1E DMG in features to stock your dungeons with, although it is not bereft of such things, nor are they consigned to appendices. I feel that the 3E DMG went into to many specifics at times with these things - just check the effects of different floor types! 1E really just gave lists of things and then you had to use your imagination to fill in the rest.

The way 4E handles traps is superior, IMO, to both 3e and 1e/2e.

Advice for running NPCs? Well, I thought there wasn't much, but then I realised I'd overlooked "Cast of Characters" (pp116-7) which, when added to the Skill Challenges, does give some rather useful advice. Probably more than most previous DMGs. Gygax's advice in the 1E DMG really boiled down to "run them as if they were real", and his example was how to use a NPC to irritate the players!

The new way of dealing with Artefacts? Wow. I want more!

Most of all, I feel that the 4E DMG gives you a very solid understanding of the basis upon which 4E stands - how the parts fit together, things you have to think about when designing encounters, adventures and campaigns, and how to make it all work.

Yes, the book is mainly advice (although there are a few key rule areas, such as NPC creation, artefacts and PAGE 42!), but, for the most part, I find it advice that solidifies my understanding of the art of DMing and helps spur adventure ideas.

Cheers!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hmmm...

On Amazon.ca, there's only 1 review and its a 5 star... but with actual comments.

Canadians are always wrecking the curve.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would post a review of it on enworld, but interestingly (hum...) the review section doesn't seem to be working at such an important moment.

Mmmm, snide.

ENWorld's review section has been having trouble for years now. Clearly, the conspirators planned ahead.

 

[marv]

MerricB, nice reply to my request.

Probably the thing I want in the DMG the most is help in producing adventures.

Agreed. I wasn't inspired with ideas from it but it's good that it did for you. However, there's also the long term use of it: do you sincerly think you'll be lugging it any games you're going to DM?

and the 2E DMG was a joke.

Too true. The only reason I broaght it to the gaming table was for the magic items (which I stopped doing once the 2nd Ed. Magic Compendium books came out).

The most astonishing thing about the 4E DMG to me, something that hadn't been touched in the previews, is the advice for including Puzzles in an adventure. This detailed advice is something that hasn't existed in a previous DMG (not counting the DMG2 of 3.5e, which informs a lot of the 4E DMG). I'm very, very glad to see it here. In many ways, it hearkens back to 1E AD&D adventures, although the 1E DMG didn't give advice on it.

Very good point. In the past I've relied on Dragon magazine to fill me with puzzle ideas. But since that wonderful magazine is no more.....[yes, I know you view something calling itself Dragon Magine online - not my cup of tea - I need something in print].

Something else that is new in the 4E DMG is specific advice on scaling adventures for different numbers of players. There's nothing like this in 3E (one of the chief bits of wonkiness with 3e's CR/EL system was how it didn't adapt well to non-standard parties). 1E & 2E just assumed certain party sizes as well.

Good point. But don't you find the concept of Monster level as a tool to balance the adventure a bit stupid? There are much more interesting ways you can modify monsters on the fly 'fix' the adventure.

I'm delighted with the new way diseases are handled.
The way 4E handles traps is superior, IMO, to both 3e and 1e/2e.
The new way of dealing with Artefacts? Wow. I want more!

You'll have to refresh my memory on these three, as I no longer have the book. I don't recall anything interesting about the new rules for them.

Advice for running NPCs? Well, I thought there wasn't much, but then I realised I'd overlooked "Cast of Characters" (pp116-7) which, when added to the Skill Challenges, does give some rather useful advice. Probably more than most previous DMGs.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Most of all, I feel that the 4E DMG gives you a very solid understanding of the basis upon which 4E stands - how the parts fit together, things you have to think about when designing encounters, adventures and campaigns, and how to make it all work.

True, but I found the section on campain styles very obvious and not so inspiring.

 

[Aexalon]

Palls, not Pails. Unless you mean it's kicking the bucket... hmm.

Euhm, iirc, it's "To pale in comparison". Not "To pall". Nor "To pail".

And it doesn't. It even has a bit in it that looks like I could have written it. (P113, "Drawing Diagonal Walls", see here, applied to squares).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Euhm, iirc, it's "To pale in comparison". Not "To pall". Nor "To pail".

Lock at the previous posts to see why they did that...

Spoiler

Damn, can it be hard to create a sentence with an intentional typo that still "works" as an answer...

 

[rounser]

The most astonishing thing about the 4E DMG to me, something that hadn't been touched in the previews, is the advice for including Puzzles in an adventure. This detailed advice is something that hasn't existed in a previous DMG (not counting the DMG2 of 3.5e, which informs a lot of the 4E DMG). I'm very, very glad to see it here. In many ways, it hearkens back to 1E AD&D adventures, although the 1E DMG didn't give advice on it.

Very good point Merric, I'm a big fan of puzzles too.

The way 4E handles traps is superior, IMO, to both 3e and 1e/2e.

There's no rules for making them, though. This was a bit of a dealbreaker for me.

I also liked the suggestions for handling wilderness and urban adventuring environments. Between puzzles, wilderness and urban, the width and breadth of the game expands, even if the focus in the PHB is almost purely on the combat straitjacket, a corner that seems to have been backed into. It's still not into full on exploration (which D&D should support to the hilt in the same way it does combat, IMO) but steps in the right direction. Look at the "D&D boardgames" and the good ones support combat and exploration well.

And the lack of rules for making traps are equivalent to me to a lack of rules for making monsters. I don't know why they're holding these back.

 

[Weregrognard]

And the lack of rules for making traps are equivalent to me to a lack of rules for making monsters. I don't know why they're holding these back.

DMG p.184 "Creating Monsters" for monsters. DMG p.85 "Traps and Hazards" for traps. Traps work similarly to monsters (see "Trap and Hazard Roles" p. 85), so you can use the same rules.

 

[Jack99]

Very good point Merric, I'm a big fan of puzzles too.

There's no rules for making them, though. This was a bit of a dealbreaker for me.

I also liked the suggestions for handling wilderness and urban adventuring environments. Between puzzles, wilderness and urban, the width and breadth of the game expands, even if the focus in the PHB is almost purely on the combat straitjacket, a corner that seems to have been backed into. It's still not into full on exploration (which D&D should support to the hilt in the same way it does combat, IMO) but steps in the right direction. Look at the "D&D boardgames" and the good ones support combat and exploration well.

And the lack of rules for making traps are equivalent to me to a lack of rules for making monsters. I don't know why they're holding these back.

Comments like these make me wonder if you actually read the rules or merely based your decision on comments by people who didn't either read them, or didn't understand them.

They are in.

Cheers

Edit: ninjaed by the poster above

 

[Fester]

and my rating of the 4e DMG is much closer to 4 or 5 stars.

This might actually mean something if it weren't for the fact that you pretty much rate everything that WotC produces as a 4 or 5. You and critical awareness are not exactly a match made in heaven, so excuse me if I take your rating with a grain of salt.