D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[qstor]

I don't agree that it's bad in play. Where it really bogs down for me is before: creating adventures. That's the real time suck.

This is getting off top of the thread. Perhaps I should post a long in depth thread with my issues with 4e but....

I think if you have familiarity with any RPG system, the setting you're using and ideas of where your players are headed you can throw encounters together quickly. I would say that I could throw a 1e, 2e, 3e or Mongoose Traveller adventure outline together in 20 minutes one that I'd use for a home game. I've written five Living Greyhawk adventures and those took a while since they were like twenty to forty pages.

GURPS maybe a little longer. I don't have in depth knowledge of 4e yet but with the DMG, MM in front of me maybe two hours.

There's online NPC generators for 3.x so high level NPCs and towns could be done quickly.

As to Merric's post about the latest 3.0 stat block, I agree that its difficult to use. I was so used to the older stat block that I had trouble using it.

Mike

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When 3E first came out, I loved the statblock.

Every monster was written up like a PC. As a DM, I hated trying to figure out how a monster interacted with the world. But then after actually using it, I realized the 1e/2e sstem was much better for actual use. It READS good but conversely it is not so good in use.....

Makes no sense having a statblock for half a page when the monster doesn't even last 3 rounds

In a way, there seem to be two extremes in stat blocks that earlier editions seemed to "achieve" - both leading to a reduced usability.
Some editions didn't give enough information, if you wanted to know more then the most basic combat stuff, you were on your own. Or they gave you a ton of combat and non-combat information, but you had to reference further sources to make sense of them. (And if you wanted to build them yourself, you had to deal with both aspects at the same time).

For usability at the table and for prepeation of new stat-blocks, 4E seems to have met a happy medium. (But it probably loses in other aspects, like world detail or descriptiveness for example, if I compare to 3E)

 

[Greylock]

I have no idea what it does for the giant, but I do know that by the time I look it up (as well as everything else on the frakkin' stat block) I don't really care any more.

This post, and the one prior to it that you made, confuse the heck out of me. That's a core monster feat, out of the Monster Manual, the first one, and there are what, 10 monster feats?

I knew right off that bat, without looking, what Awesome Blow does, and I'm not a DM, just a guy who plays the occasional Summoner. If you can't recall basic feats out of the three core... Hint - the monster Feats are at the BACK of the Monster Manual.

 

[Obryn]

This post, and the one prior to it that you made, confuse the heck out of me. That's a core monster feat, out of the Monster Manual, the first one, and there are what, 10 monster feats?

I knew right off that bat, without looking, what Awesome Blow does, and I'm not a DM, just a guy who plays the occasional Summoner. If you can't recall basic feats out of the three core... Hint - the monster Feats are at the BACK of the Monster Manual.

I don't think that's quite the point... When you get into numerous feats and spell-like abilities that add to a monster's capabilities, it's a burden on the DM. It's not a matter of where a feat is located - it's a matter of looking up the feat and keeping all the things it can do in mind. Ditto - but even moreso - with spell-like abilities. When prepping demons, I resorted to printing out a few pages from the SRD to reduce my lookup time.

These are all shortcuts - it's not a matter of knowing it right away, or knowing where to look, or having reference tools theoretically available. It's a matter of needing to do all those things.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

This post, and the one prior to it that you made, confuse the heck out of me. That's a core monster feat, out of the Monster Manual, the first one, and there are what, 10 monster feats?

I knew right off that bat, without looking, what Awesome Blow does, and I'm not a DM, just a guy who plays the occasional Summoner. If you can't recall basic feats out of the three core... Hint - the monster Feats are at the BACK of the Monster Manual.

The problem is that the feat (stuck quietly in the "feat" line of the MM) is pretty much wasted. Most DMs I know don't look too often at the feat line, and less recall off the top of their head the mechanic needed to us it. It's something that could be spelled out nicely IN the statblock, but WotC chose not to. (the same could be said for most SLA's which is a bigger pain because now I have two books open in my lap)

So, for those of us with less-than-photographic memories, constantly flipping around books and wasting time looking up something as mundane as a knockback effect is a lost oppertunity.

(PS. Its easier for players than DM's, they typically only have one character to track. DM's have many more things to track along with monster stats they probably didn't memorize).

 

[BryonD]

I don't think that's quite the point... When you get into numerous feats and spell-like abilities that add to a monster's capabilities, it's a burden on the DM. It's not a matter of where a feat is located - it's a matter of looking up the feat and keeping all the things it can do in mind. Ditto - but even moreso - with spell-like abilities. When prepping demons, I resorted to printing out a few pages from the SRD to reduce my lookup time.

These are all shortcuts - it's not a matter of knowing it right away, or knowing where to look, or having reference tools theoretically available. It's a matter of needing to do all those things.

-O

IMO (as well as IME) anyone who finds this "burden" to be more than they can manage will never be a great DM. Or at least has a long way to go yet and will never get there without playing robust systems.
Whereas the payoff of that "burden" is even more ability for great DMs to shine.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

IMO (as well as IME) anyone who finds this "burden" to be more than they can manage will never be a great DM. Or at least has a long way to go yet and will never get there without playing robust systems.
Whereas the payoff of that "burden" is even more ability for great DMs to shine.

Some people actually believe that a great DM is one that can keep a compelling plot going and is a wonderful story-teller. Rules Mastery does not have to be there for a "Great DM."

 

[Greylock]

All of the sudden, I've got this image of 4th Edition DMs sitting at the table with nothing in front of them but the incredible published adventures with their perfect stat-blacks, and a pile of barely browsed Core 4th Edition books behind them, barely a thumbmark on any page...

No. No, that's not the way it works. If the DM cannot be bothered to read through an adventure, reviewing the monsters, noting anything that may be a bother down the line... Why are they DMing? Or if they can't be bothered to pick up the danged Monster Manual... Can 4th be run without reading the Monster Manual? Serious question -- not trying to be snarky. I haven't run or played 4th, just read the books.

 

[Greylock]

Rules Mastery does not have to be there for a "Great DM."

But lack of Rules Mastery is an invitation to a poor DM. Every DM I've played with has known the core rules better than me. Better. The splat books and 3rd party stuff, that's always been my bailiwick. But the core.... No DM I've played with has had a poor grasp of the rules.

 

[Ourph]

Can 4th be run without reading the Monster Manual? Serious question -- not trying to be snarky. I haven't run or played 4th, just read the books.

Without reading the MM ever? No. But I have yet to crack open the MM during a game, which is a nice feature. In fact, the number of times I've cracked open any rulebook (usually the PHB) during the 7 sessions of 4e I've run so far is less than 10.