Game Transparency

[filthgrinder]

I really liked this article. The cover art was great, and the advice was pretty good. It wasn't that the advice was some new never thought up advice, but it was a good solid reminder of things. It also doesn't advocate "THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT" it looks at a subtle, blunt, and balanced approach.

I enjoy reading the advice and getting that reminder and seeing others thoughts on these issues.

Could you get this info from an EN World post? Probably, but don't we want to see articles on DM advice? Isn't this the type of article that SHOULD be in the magazine? I got some ideas, and a reminder to do things that I mean to do but forget a lot. Plus, it's good to read soem solid DM advice without having to wade through edition wars, thread capping, and other nonsesne that invade internet forums.

So, Andy Collins, good work!

 

[jdrakeh]

Then, when Wizards realize people perceive 4E as a tactic game with low RP (or something like that, The Rouse article posted here on EN) they don't know why....

To be fair, I don't quite get that, either — it's not like D&D 4e introduced battlemap combat, measured tabletop movement, and other tactical considerations to D&D. It wasn't even the first edition to focus very tightly on these things when compared to previous editions.

 

[catsclaw227]

Could you get this info from an EN World post? Probably, but don't we want to see articles on DM advice? Isn't this the type of article that SHOULD be in the magazine? I got some ideas, and a reminder to do things that I mean to do but forget a lot. Plus, it's good to read soem solid DM advice without having to wade through edition wars, thread capping, and other nonsesne that invade internet forums.

This.

Sure, if you asked the right question, you can get some great feedback from experienced DMs here on EnWorld. This is a great resource for DM advice and likely the best place to pose a specific question.

But we don't go "meh" when we see a KQ article with DM advice, nor did we with Monte and Wolfgang's articles inthe Paizo-age Dungeon/Dragon. It's a good article in a magazine for DMs. You know, the kinds of articles we are supposed to see in DDI-Dungeon.

 

[Mallus]

Then, when Wizards realize people perceive 4E as a tactic game with low RP...

My group perceives 4e as a high-RP game with a good tactical miniatures component.

 

[Verys Arkon]

I liked the article a lot, and hope that the DMGII has similar essays on the art of DMing. I've also got two fledgling DMs that would get a lot of millage out of the article. And I'm not so arrogant as to think I don't need articles like this to help hone my craft.

I'd like to see more articles like this, especially in the 'new' Dungeon after the upcoming division between Dragon and Dungeon ezines.

 

[Dragonbait]

I must admit I wasn't impressed. It was essentially the sort of advice you can find on ENWorld if you ask the right question but puffed up to fill six pages in Dragon.

Why does WoTC not know that all people who play D&D and DM are members of ENworld and gain gain these kind of insights here?

Okay, okay, I'll stop with the sarcasm. Sorry, Derulbaskul.

This was a good article. It's nice to see that I run my games just like the "Pro's" in this regard.

 

[Rechan]

Too metagamist for my style of DMing. Announce to players that "this miniatures are minions" is cheesy. Then, when Wizards realize people perceive 4E as a tactic game with low RP (or something like that, The Rouse article posted here on EN) they don't know why...

Except that there have been a number of threads on this very forum asking "Do you announce which are minions in a fight?"

Quite a few, including myself, do. Hell, I have minion-specific minis.

 

[Ktulu]

I liked it. There were a few things I hadn't thought to do (like subtley explaining recharge. On dragons, everyone knows it's going to happen, but on a lot of creatures, the players don't know that ability X was a recharge and not a one-use... I hadn't considered passing that information on a little better).

Good article, full of the kinds of stuff I want in my DDI articles.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I liked it. There were a few things I hadn't thought to do (like subtley explaining recharge. On dragons, everyone knows it's going to happen, but on a lot of creatures, the players don't know that ability X was a recharge and not a one-use... I hadn't considered passing that information on a little better).

Good article, full of the kinds of stuff I want in my DDI articles.

Wha.....huh? Since when is it the players business to know the power cycles of the monsters? A knowledge of what a creature may be capable of might be available with the appropriate skill but any kind of meta-knowledge about how often something is used should be learned in play.

If a monster does X three times in a fight then I know that the monster is capable of that. If a monster does something once, the DM is under no obligation to pass on the fact that what the monster just did can or cannot be repeated in the encounter. Why not just hand the player the stat sheet of all monsters at the start of the encounter so resource use can be planned accordingly? Better yet just feed all the monster and PC data into a fight simulator, let it tell you who won, how long it took, and how many resources were used up.

 

[Obryn]

Why not just hand the player the stat sheet of all monsters at the start of the encounter so resource use can be planned accordingly? Better yet just feed all the monster and PC data into a fight simulator, let it tell you who won, how long it took, and how many resources were used up.

Holy hyperbole, Batman!

-O