Do you consider 4e D&D "newbie teeball"?

[wedgeski]

I loved my old group. They were good friends and great guys. But geez could they whine! They'd survive an encounter and then whine about hard it was! It's enough to make a DM roll to see what random demon prince decides to invade the prime material on the very spot the PCs are standing.

You've just perfectly stated the relationship with my own longest-running group. 4E seems to have mellowed them out a bit, to be fair.

 

[Phaezen]

I think it a good idea to assume that new DMs will be among the readers; the opposite assumption could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy! The 1st ed. AD&D books, by Gygax's own later estimation, took prior D&D experience too much for granted (for all that they were labeled "Advanced" works). The original set, by the same token, had assumed too much familiarity with customs of the miniature-wargames hobby.

I am not sure that 4e actually suits beginners much more than 3e. What I have mostly seen is evidence that it better suits some experienced DMs who may be almost a decade older than when they first embraced 3e. It may be drawing in newbies, but it's that already-in "bulge in the python" demographic that really stands out (and indeed makes the usual arguments for the whole "edition" strategy sensible in the first place) .

By the same token, streamlined rules sets are part of what makes old TSR-D&D (or even the likes of RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip) more attractive than either WotC game to some very experienced D&Ders.

Complicated mechanical systems are not fundamentally what D&D is about, to the extent that they might be what (say) RoleMaster or HackMaster is about. Other kinds of complexity won for it the enthusiasm that made not only the name of the game but the popularity of the RPG hobby.

What I wanted to say, but more readable. Now please get out of my brain.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.

This. Also, "Creative Campaigning" had pretty good advice (pacing, campaign styles etc.). You'd think TSR left those parts out of the 2e DMG on purpose...

 

[Jack99]

Just a point of information that may add a touch of perspective.

If I had to vote, I think I'd name Piratecat as the best DM I've ever read material by or played with. I've never actually played in a game with him, but thats how I vote.

I understand that PC runs 4E. That has been my understanding for a while.

I stand by everything I've said.
And every bit of it is compatible with the best DM I know of running 4E.

If your reaction to my position is not compatible with that, then your reaction may be a little too much on the knee-jerk side and not enough on the looking at the context and considering the actual statement side.

just maybe

I know this is a few pages back, but Christ you guys post a lot while I sleep - Anyway, I think I get you. You are saying that 4e is easier to run (than 3.x) for a bad DM? If so, we completely agree. You think it's the simple design, I think its the superior design - I guess that's where we disagree

Cheers

And it isn't ByronD.

It's Bryon. Sort of like Brian, except spelt with a Y and a O.

Cheers!

Fun fact of the week.

In my country, the name Brian became associate with losers. And when I say associated, I mean synonymous with being a loser. So it went from being a very common name (in fact, it was like our John or Michael) in the 70'ies and 80'ies to being a loser-name. In 97, only 2 people were named Brian in all of Denmark. That's a fraction of just 10 years ago. A very small fraction.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think I've set my finger on what was bugging me about the "tee-ball" description applied to any roleplaying game.

The implication is that a "tee-ball" RPG will not teach you to run a "big boy" game, obviously. However, RPGs don't work like that. When you talk about throwing someone into the deep end or forcing them to come to grips with a big robust system, that doesn't make them a big boy, either. The real skills of game mastering come when you aren't particularly happy with stuff right out of the book and start tinkering to find something that suits you better.

System mastery isn't the sign of a good GM. It's the sign of a system master. Someone who's mastered a simple system is not innately any less proficient at running a game as someone who's mastered a complex system. There are too many other elements to running a game, such as knowing when to leave the dice alone, how to build an interesting plot, and how to read your fellow players. If you can make a complex system jump through hoops and produce the result you want, great, that'll help you out. But so will the ability to make a simple system jump through hoops and produce the result you want.

One of the key elements to becoming a "big boy" gamer is, interestingly enough, dissatisfaction. People push themselves to do more with a system when they can't just pull what they want out of a book. People devise new monsters, antagonists, and player character powers when the ones provided aren't enough. You don't develop critical thought without having something to critique.

The only way 4e could produce new gamers who don't ever "graduate" to picking up those skills would be if it were so perfect for them that they played it without modification, cradle to grave. I like the system, and I don't think it's that perfect. People who don't like the system obviously don't think it's that perfect. So what's the worry?

I'm a big boy gamer! I am!

Actually, thanks Skemp! You're posts are always interesting to read and seem to cut through the crap while remaining civil and furthering the discussion. I, for one, appreciate it.

 

[Dire Bare]

Fun fact of the week.

In my country, the name Brian became associate with losers. And when I say associated, I mean synonymous with being a loser. So it went from being a very common name (in fact, it was like our John or Michael) in the 70'ies and 80'ies to being a loser-name. In 97, only 2 people were named Brian in all of Denmark. That's a fraction of just 10 years ago. A very small fraction.

Well, I don't think that's a fun fact! That kinda sucks!

BryonD, I don't agree with your position, but you have an AWESOME name, even if you spell it wrong . . . .

 

[JoeGKushner]

During the 2e era, I learned DMing from a splat book called "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide". My favourite 2e book by far.

The blue line (DMR) had many a solid book in the lineup.

 

[AllisterH]

The blue line (DMR) had many a solid book in the lineup.

Indeed.

I actually found the Complete Book of Villains to be the best "how to DM" resource produced by TSR during the 2e era.

The 2e DMG though? Really, other than the magic item tables, I don't think I ever used that book.....

 

[vagabundo]

In my country, the name Brian became associate with losers. And when I say associated, I mean synonymous with being a loser. So it went from being a very common name (in fact, it was like our John or Michael) in the 70'ies and 80'ies to being a loser-name. In 97, only 2 people were named Brian in all of Denmark. That's a fraction of just 10 years ago. A very small fraction.

But then again Denmark is a strange country So many funny little customs.

I mean that in the best possibly way.

Spoiler

My sister in law is a Dane and my best friend is married to her Childhood friend.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And if the players feel that the DM is cheating and setting arbitrary numbers designed to thwart their strengths, they may well get offended by that.

The DM cannot "cheat."

He can run a good game or a poor game. Sometimes running a good game means thwarting the players. Sometimes running a good game means letting the players succeed. For some players, exactly the converse is true; and for some players, they don't want the DM to make those judgment calls at all, but to simply let things fall as they may.

Point is, with such a micro-managed system as 3e, a lot of player choice has specific, defined, expected advantages within gameplay that is thwarted if you "cheat" on your monster/NPC creation and just do whatever makes it as hard as you think it should be for the PCs. You are short-changing the choices they made, and the knowledge they've gained and put to use about how the game is expected to work.

If the strength of a system is meaningful choices, you undermine that when you make those choices meaningless.

That's a fair point, but it is predicated on the assumption that "The Game" is a competition of mechanics, and the story is only a framework designed to showcase those mechanics; as opposed to The Game being a cooperative story, and the mechanics merely facilitate the unfolding plot twists so that the outcome is unknown by any of the participants.

Certainly there's a sliding scale. Some players define "meaningful choices" as "I will take this feat in order to eke out a +4 advantage to hit," as opposed to, "It might be distasteful, but we'll have to ally ourselves with the lich in order to take out the hobgoblin army."

In the grand scheme of things I am less dissatisfied when a monster proves too difficult to hit based on the mechanical choices that I made, as opposed to the dissatisfaction I feel when the story choices that I make are thwarted (ie, railroading).

I have found that the most satisfying games balance the mechanical choices to just the right ratio of success to failure to keep the story outcomes in doubt.

This is not an edition-specific observation. All sorts of D&D games have been run up and down that scale through all editions.

Now, as an edition specific observation, 4e has rather famously balanced the success/failure ratio to an optimal point; and in order to discourage "unwanted behavior" on the part of players, they have stripped away many of the "meaningful choices" that "mechanics" players exploit: Such undesired behavior is disincentivized by explicit codification into the rules.

Some players need that because they simply won't behave otherwise. If you want to run a game that focuses on the story, but you are constantly thwarted by players who define "win" in mechanical terms, you have a problem (a problem that 4e solves in a particular way).