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

[Brown Jenkin]

As a serious question, yes I have, and you can in two ways: (1) is the standard way, and you could do it with 3e too, it just takes longer -- pre-writing the whole monster stat block into your notes, so you don't have to open it. With 4e, it's been easier because the stat blocks are vastly simplified -- "dumbed down", perhaps.

(2) is my favorite -- use the charts from pages 184 and 185 from the DMG. I love 'em so much I've copied them and clipped them to my DM screen. With them I can create a monster on the fly, or duplicate an existing monster from the MM, making him level appropriate for my players. I create a monster, give him 1 or 2 special abilities, one of which is per encounter, and let 'er rip. The players I don't think have ever figured out the difference. They could DEFINITELY tell when I was fudging up a 3e monster's stats, because I would sometimes over or underestimate the AC, or saves, or attack bonus, or damage.

I am happy to see you beat me too it. I find it interesting with all the points about 4E statblocks being easier to use as a reason they like 4E better. Maybe it is just me, but I look at formatting issues as being seperate from whether the rules themselves work well or not.

As a serious question, is the formatting really that big of an issue, namely if someone wrote OGL adventures and Monster Books with a reformatted statblook that spelled out all feats and abilities would that make a difference in the playability of 3.x? Too me it seems like some of the improvements between editions were more formatting in nature and books for 3.x could have been layed out in a similar manner without the need to limit that kind of a change to being edition specific.

 

[MerricB]

As a serious question, is the formatting really that big of an issue, namely if someone wrote OGL adventures and Monster Books with a reformatted statblook that spelled out all feats and abilities would that make a difference in the playability of 3.x? Too me it seems like some of the improvements between editions were more formatting in nature and books for 3.x could have been layed out in a similar manner without the need to limit that kind of a change to being edition specific.

The problem with 3.x statblocks doesn't just come from having abilities you have to look up: it also comes from the statblocks being absurdly long! (I think Kyuss wandered onto 3 pages in the Age of Worms path).

If you included all the full text of the abilities for your standard demon, the statblock would be terribly, terribly long. Monsters just could do too much in 3.x. NPCs would be intolerable, especially NPC wizards.

At that point, it becomes information overload: there's just too much to absorb, it's formatted terribly. You don't actually need a dragon with 30+ spells to make a memorable dragon encounter... especially if it's going to survive only a handful of rounds in any case.

Cheers!

 

[Mallus]

Your statement of the highly obvious is noted.

I like to start with obvious, it's the discovered country.

I agree with this irrelevant point.

Great!

... and if a system gives up options for simplicity, the level of shine that may be achieved is dampened.

In the end rule systems are tools. Some people prefer complex tools, others simple ones. You might prefer, and produce the best results with, a complex set of tools. That doesn't imply someone else will achieve inferior results with a simple set of tools.

Or, in other words, OD&D is the one true game and everything else is an imitation (for some of us...).

A home run is a home run, but a tee ball home run doesn't have the same shine in my book.

A home run is a home run... and I assume in this analogy, a 'home run' is an enjoyable, engaging campaign (or adventure). In that case, I want a set of rules that makes it as easy as possible to hit a home run. I want to hit the ball off a tee, not face down some ace pitcher throwing viscous breaking balls.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

Once you have a sufficient idea of what damage level the party can sustain, yes. Same as with 3E; the last time I GMed I decided around 12th level that there was no way in the world I was bothering to sit down and fully stat out encounters. So, all I had to know was a monster name, maybe a special ability or two, then I could plug in the appropriate BAB, number of attacks, Damage and AC. That's it; technically they were not fighting a 'vrock', they were fighting 'level 10 monster' with an already-decided BAB, damage and AC which was dependent on their level. I didn't open an MM for the next three months except when i forgot to make a picture handout.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The problem with 3.x statblocks doesn't just come from having abilities you have to look up: it also comes from the statblocks being absurdly long! (I think Kyuss wandered onto 3 pages in the Age of Worms path).

If you included all the full text of the abilities for your standard demon, the statblock would be terribly, terribly long. Monsters just could do too much in 3.x. NPCs would be intolerable, especially NPC wizards.

At that point, it becomes information overload: there's just too much to absorb, it's formatted terribly. You don't actually need a dragon with 30+ spells to make a memorable dragon encounter... especially if it's going to survive only a handful of rounds in any case.

Cheers!

I have found this to be the case many times. Give my old Basic statblocks please. I have everything I need to run the encounter. I should only need to look at the MM text when choosing what critter I want at design time, mostly for the ecology/flavor information.

 

[Zil]

The ONE THING that TOTALLY GETS MY GOAT is the Per Encounter and Per Day abilities. I've played probably 6 games so far, and ONLY HIT WITH MY PER DAY ONCE! ONCE! WTF is that?!?! I've probably only hit twice with the Per Encouter powers. That really, REALLY pisses me off. It's sooo frustrating, and such a freaking tease. Why even have them if they hit less than 1/2 the time? (my dice are also very close to getting punished in the microwave)

Yea, this also was a gripe at out game table during the 4E games we played. The flippin' per encounter and per day powers seemed to be missing more often than not and it's frustrating. For some reason missing with a spell or ability in previous versions of the game was never quite so frustrating.

Overall our gaming circle has decided to stick with 3.5/Pathfinder for our main games and only play 4E once in a blue moon. 4E didn't really do it for us.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yea, this also was a gripe at out game table during the 4E games we played. The flippin' per encounter and per day powers seemed to be missing more often than not and it's frustrating. For some reason missing with a spell or ability in previous versions of the game was never quite so frustrating.

Thats because most spells prior to 3E didn't miss. They might be saved against but at least they hit. Non-magical abilities missing still sucked but at least you could try again without having to wait for the next fight.

 

[BryonD]

I want to hit the ball off a tee, not face down some ace pitcher throwing viscous breaking balls.

That sums it up right there. And I haven't got the slightest issue with that being the need for your enjoyment of the game.

What I can't for the life of me understand is why you would think that anyone who can handle the pitches would not find the tee vastly underwhelming.

I don't see anything for us to disagree over. Your game provides for your needs and my game provides for my expectations.

 

[BryonD]

So I do not believe "overly complex" rules make for a better game and DMs who have mastered every flipping detail are the best DMs. If it was true, we'd all be GURPS DMs.

I think you are missing the point that many of us take great issue with the presumption of "overly complex".
Overly complex rules make for an inferior game. Inadequately complex rules also make for an inferior game.

What determines if a game is overly or inadequately complex is a combination of the capacity of the players and the level of expectation that those players have of the game mechanics.

If you need to force an embracing of a loaded term like "overly complex" on other people in order to make your point, then perhaps you need to take a more critical assessment of your reasoning.

 

[Psion]

I think you are missing the point that many of us take great issue with the presumption of "overly complex".
Overly complex rules make for an inferior game. Inadequately complex rules also make for an inferior game.

Just so.

I still recall, to this day, my 7th grade English teacher's admonition on how long an essay should be. She said, "It should be like a girl's skirt: short enough to be interesting, but long enough to cover the subject."

This is my attitude towards rules. It's not always "fewer rules is better" as some would suggest. If it were, we can all pack our 3e and 4e books up and play RISUS.

What determines if a game is overly or inadequately complex is a combination of the capacity of the players and the level of expectation that those players have of the game mechanics.

I would say it even goes so far as a per-topic level on what players expect details to be provided. But IME, different players have different expectations; covering them all may have one player wondering if it's necessary to cover something in such detail when another is thankful for that particular detail.