Blog post on the feel of D&D (marmell, reynolds et all)

[Wolfspider]

And for thousands of years, people copied books by hand. The existence of scriptoria is a lousy argument against the printing press.

Yeah, easier is obviously always better....

 

[hong]

Yeah, easier is obviously always better....

Your point, spider-boy?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Adventure design for more than 30 years supported this supposedly flawed approach. In 28 years of DMing using this approach and running plenty of adventures involving non-stop action and end-of-the-world deadlines, I never had players of spellcasters get bored enough to leave the table and fire up the Atari 2600 or Atari 5200 or or Sega Genesis or Nintendo 64 or Atari Jaguar or Sega Dreamcast or Playstation or Playstation 2 or X-box or X-box 2 or Playstation 3 or Wii.

That never happened in my games, either. Though I remember some people taking long bathroom breaks (but not during rounds), and people sleeping (but not during combat, and there is/was only one player I know that had the problem, who sadly is no longer among us...)

I obviously must be doing something wrong.

I am getting a bit tired hearing this.
My first answer:
You must altered something. Or ignored something. Or have different sensibilities. You probably cheated or something. or you had fun where the rules certainly didn't suggest you were allowed to. What do I know? Fact is, you did it wrong, and I am glad you can't do it wrong any longer in 4E. Now you will only have fun if the game mandates it. (BTW: Wasn't there a mandatory fun webcomic?)

My second answer:
Or you are just a better DM then me. I know that my idea of a "quick, run/fight your way through the center of this wandering ice storm before it destroys the next village" didn't work out as I would have liked too. Yes, it was my fault. The "run through the dungeon" shouldn't have contained more then 4 encounters, or maybe more, but each of them with a lot lower EL. But I couldn't pull it off, since I want every combat to feel exciting, and my (Power)gamist players only have fun when they are firing spells right and left and are dropped to 0 hit points at least once per combat. I just can't work well with the tools 3E gave me. I think I might work better with the new 4E tool set. I fully admit, I am a lesser man for it. But I always suspected something wasn't right with me, and I never believed it could be something good. So, here it is. I am a bad DM. Horrible, in fact. I might be sometimes okay (at best) at coming up with a basic storyline including the prerequisite twist and stuff. But everything else, I am bad at.

 

[Wolfspider]

Your point, spider-boy?

That the Book of Kells is a lot more beautiful than the NIV bible that I have sitting on the shelf next to me, even though the NIV version is certainly easier to read and run adventures with.

That easier isn't always "better."

Maybe I just don't know what the kell I'm rambling on about....

 

[Wolfspider]

That never happened in my games, either. Though I remember some people taking long bathroom breaks

Did they happen to take a copy of the original AD&D Monster Manual with them?

If so, that might explain this phenomenon....

 

[hong]

That the Book of Kells is a lot more beautiful than the NIV bible that I have sitting on the shelf next to me, even though the NIV version is certainly easier to read and run adventures with.

Screw "beautiful".

That easier isn't always "better."

Screw "scare quotes".

Maybe I just don't know what the kell I'm rambling on about....

Exactly.

 

[JeDiWiker]

At any rate: I appreciate the replies, and I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say after the full release.

The funny thing is--and I think people who respond to me lose sight of this--I think it's very possible that 4E will grow on me, and I'll eventually come to like it. Maybe not within minutes of finishing reading the Monster Manual, but eventually.

The fact is that Wizards has played things so close to the chest with 4E--the considerably smaller pool of playtesters than 3E; the delayed GSL; the refusal to include industry professionals in the playtest pool, and, to a lesser extent, the freelance pool; the lack of real information on their web pages and the designers' own Gleemax blogs--that they have made it impossible for *anyone* to develop an informed opinion of the game, positive or negative.

There are things I like about 4E (the reduction in the "recharge rate" of combat readiness, the additional hit points at 1st level, and so on), and things I don't (the arbitrary shuffling of the races, the aforementioned "coffee break" mechanic, etc.). Some of those things other posters agree with, some they don't. That's fine: We can agree to disagree, just as we do about Macs and PCs, Republicans and Democrats, Baptism and Catholicism, and any number of other purely preferential issues.

If my original post had any message, it was not "Don't like 4E," but rather "Look at 4E with a more critical eye." I'll say it again: Wizards has not shown *any* of us enough yet to declare that 4E is indisputably superior to 3.5. Some of the features they have shown us certainly correct a lot of what is wrong with 3.5, but, 4E being an entirely new edition, it's going to have flaws that don't appear until the game has been out for a month, or three months, or a year. If I've learned anything in my 9 years of professional game design, it's that, when you go back to the drawing board, it's not just a chance to introduce more improvements--but a chance to introduce more errors.

Feel free to ignore my advice. Buy 4th Edition the moment it comes out, throw away your old rulebooks, and hold parades in honor of the designers. Whatever floats your boat. I, personally, intend to approach it considerably more cautiously (much the way I did with Windows Vista, Area 51: Blacksite, and Scientology): I'll read *impartial* reviews (assuming I can find any), I'll talk to my FLGS about whether they've seen numerous returns, and I'll talk to people who have tastes similar to mine and see what *they* think of the game.

And I will keep it firmly in mind that Wizards is in business to make money for Hasbro, and it is therefore in their best interests to only show us the parts about 4E they want to showcase. What lies beneath the surface, like Schrodinger's cat, has at this point an equal chance of being an unequivocal success and equal chance of being a colossal failure. Personally, I'm betting it's going to fall somewhere in between--and I'm hoping it leans more toward the success side.

At any rate, I think I've said about everything I can say here. If you disagree with me, fine. If you disagree with my right to an opinion, then never sit down at a gaming table with me. But, if you want to discuss this more with me, you're more than welcome to come by my LiveJournal at jediwiker.livejournal.com; obviously, I'm there more than I'm ever here.

Good luck to all of us.

JD

 

[Wolfspider]

Screw "beautiful".

Sure. When are you coming over?

 

[hong]

Sure. When are you coming over?

I'm coming over Wolfspider RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

 

[Wolfspider]

Well said, JD.

I certainly shake my head when I read about people selling all their D&D 3.5 books in order to make way for a game they really know little about.

Of course, their hastiness means that I'll be able to save money completing my collection, so it's not all a bad thing.