Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Halivar" data-source="post: 4674171" data-attributes="member: 9327">I'm having the opposite effect. While 3.x was by no stretch of the imagination the most internally consistent game on the market, it still had a set of game-physics that I could not create game-worlds without acknowledging. The effect is that, when planning campaigns, I spent more time bookkeeping and itemizing than brainstorming.So, in 4E, I don't have as much scaffolding, but by the same token, I'm no longer constrained by that scaffolding, either. The physics of the game world are now completely up to what I can imagine, and not up to what tables upon tables upon tables forced on me by the assumptions of the PHB. I spend literally hours musing over my game world, while the actual bookkeeping takes minutes to the hour.One criticism I've heard of this design philosophy I've heard in other threads, and is a valid criticism, is &quot;why even buy a DM's guide if you're going to make everything up yourself?&quot; To be honest, it's been six months since I cracked open the DM's guide. I haven't had to. It had some good advice, that I read once. I keep a little copy of page 42 on my DM screen to keep the math in sync with player abilities. This is in stark contrast to 3.x, where I had to constantly reference the DMG during world-building, or risk breaking the assumed physics of the PHB to the detriment of the campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Halivar, post: 4674171, member: 9327"] I'm having the opposite effect. While 3.x was by no stretch of the imagination the most internally consistent game on the market, it still had a set of game-physics that I could not create game-worlds without acknowledging. The effect is that, when planning campaigns, I spent more time bookkeeping and itemizing than brainstorming. So, in 4E, I don't have as much scaffolding, but by the same token, I'm no longer constrained by that scaffolding, either. The physics of the game world are now completely up to what I can imagine, and not up to what tables upon tables upon tables forced on me by the assumptions of the PHB. I spend literally hours musing over my game world, while the actual bookkeeping takes minutes to the hour. One criticism I've heard of this design philosophy I've heard in other threads, and is a valid criticism, is "why even buy a DM's guide if you're going to make everything up yourself?" To be honest, it's been six months since I cracked open the DM's guide. I haven't had to. It had some good advice, that I read once. I keep a little copy of page 42 on my DM screen to keep the math in sync with player abilities. This is in stark contrast to 3.x, where I had to constantly reference the DMG during world-building, or risk breaking the assumed physics of the PHB to the detriment of the campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification