From WOTC boards :
OK, let's see how well I can managed multiple quotes in a single message. I'm terrible with board markup code, and I have a feeling that the boards will eat this post anyway. But, here goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
Well, you assume that *every* player considers the rewards (treasure and XP and magic) to be the “most important” thing in D&D, but this is not actually inherently true. Some players (and DMs, too) might actually think that *role-playing* or the *story* in itself is the "greatest" reward in D&D (or in any RPG, for that matter).
This is the heart of the matter. I can't write rules that say "And as a reward for defeating this encounter, the DM does some really good roleplaying."
I can't do that. I have no control over the DM. I have no input into his abilities. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. I can put suggestions on how to DM, which based on how people have reacted to the quest card *suggestion* gets taken as the One True Way and villified.
What I can do is stick XP and treasure at the end of the mouse maze du jour, be it combat, social encounters, or bringing a pizza to the game session, and hope that's enough to get most gaming groups moving in the same direction as the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
I don't see how this "card thing" would be a better system (i.e. more organized) than players taking notes (in a character sheet, diary/book or separate note papers). That way (by taking notes), your *players* decide which names or facts or pieces of flavour are relevant and need to be written down -- i.e. you encourage them to *think*, instead of relying on your cards to tell which things are important. As for my group, we have two “record keepers” in my group who both write down stuff in their notebooks –- usually just shorthand notes on events, but sometimes even on a round by round basis (including each character’s combat actions). As I already said, I fail to see how any kind of card system would work better or be “more organized” than this. By using cards, I think some players (especially beginners) may become even more passive in contributing to the story -- they *expect* the DM to guide the story/campaign with the cards, and do not truly interact (role-play) with the setting or pursue any character goals because they won’t be rewarded for that. Hence, it is a “metalevel” effect that has a negative impact on role-playing –- just as much as the “clearly defined” character roles do (“Dude, stop talking with those NPCs –- they are not important and we don’t get any XP for that. Lord Lightspear is already waiting for us to give us a *Quest*!”). Another aspect of this system that troubles me is that you need to *very* carefully think about where to draw the line –- let’s assume that Baron Blacksword (an ally of the PCs) slyly mentions that “the world would be a lot happier place without that cursed Duke Duskshield meddling in everyone’s affairs”. Was that a subtle hint and did he just offer the PCs a Quest? What if they ask him and he denies it -- if you don’t give them a card, they automatically know that this is not a Quest, although perhaps you intentionally tried to subtly guide them to do the dastardly deed. If they kill the duke, should they be rewarded although the baron mentioned no reward (assuming that none of them are of good alignment)? Especially beginners –- both players and DMs -- might have a lot of problems with this system, unless it is presented in a very coherent and “clear-cut” manner in the Core Books.
First, the cards are not a system, but I suspect you're talking about the quest mechanic anyway. The cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of how a quest work, just like paper and pencil don't determine how hit points work. They are tools used to implement a mechanic, but not a mechanic. You can use the mechanic without those tools.
Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?
Third, I think there's something of a cognitive dissonance at work here. Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address that?
The central message of the DMG for 4e is pretty simple: make the game fun for everyone. Communicate with your players. Make expectations clear. Work with the players, not against them. True, a DM who mindlessly applies the quest mechanic can cause problems, but that's not what anyone wants.
From a purely mercenary POV, it is in WotC's best economic interest to do whatever it takes to make more good DMs. Good DMs create interesting worlds and fun adventures. They work with the players to create a fun game. They listen. They adopt a funny voice when portraying a kobold. They bring the game to life.
We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we do what we can to help that.
As for player initiative, that's not something we can necessarily force on to people. Some people are perfectly happy playing D&D with a DM who leads them through adventures by the nose. These guys want to be entertained while bashing monsters.
Their style of play (or lack thereof) has no effect on players who want to be more active. Just as I can't force people to be good DMs, I can't force people to become "good" players, by whoever's standard of good we want to apply. What I can try to do is take the doorway into D&D and force it as wide open as possible, to let as many people at least try this hobby, and maybe get more people playing it.
See, here's the thing. Down below (and I'll get to this) you ask if we're making a 4e a game that gamers want, or a game that I want. Well, I'd ask you the same question: do you want us to make a game that gamers want, or do you want us to make a game that you want?
We all have different styles of playing D&D, and that's the beauty of the game. I'm not going to design a game that forcibly evicts anyone from playing it. If a bunch of mindless couch potatoes can now enjoy D&D, I don't mind. They're not going to effect how anyone else plays the game. If Joe in Peoria doesn't roleplay, that doesn't stop Barbara in San Jose from playing her character to the hilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
And it’s not just the Quest Cards that make me feel very concerned about 4E. I don't fear *change*, because I was *very* excited when 3E came out. Why don't I feel the same way now? Why I only feel *very* disappointed about everything we've seen of 4E? I'll try to point out some things that I feel are either mechanically or thematically "wrong" in my opinion. First of all, it's not just the DM's story *only* that matters, because players are "co-authors", too, so what about their preferences and contribution? How will the changes presented in 4E affect "Player input" in the game? I understand the concept of “story” in D&D to roughly mean: “A campaign consisting of a storyline/script written by the DM, which is then influenced and altered during the game by the DM and the players improvising through their characters as it is played in separate sessions”. We should also note that mechanical and thematical “metalevel” effects are also important, because it’s not just about the rules or the flavour or the story –- it’s about how *players* (consciously and subconsciously) feel about and react to them. If we’re discussing characters and player and DM roles and responsibilities, and their influence on the story, I have a suspicion that 4E won’t address these issues in a very *coherent* manner. Perhaps it will offer a mix of different “tools” to deal with them, but so far I have seen a bunch of articles that have (in my opinion) contained only half-hearted attempts at trying to convince us that 4E will be about more than just combat and encounters (and how *cool* and *fun* 4E will be -– especially when compared to that “horribly broken 3E”, which was, incidently, designed by the same guys ).
My honest opinion is that I see 4E actually stressing and emphasizing “coolness” and “combat effectiveness” over player input, thinking and role-playing –- not to mention that DM’s are more-or-less subtly manipulated into thinking that their “job” has become “easier” and requires less work and creative effort than ever before. For example, in 4E, DMs are “able to drop things out of the books” without any pre-play prep work -- is that cool or what? Somehow in my mind this translates as “fostering” or encouraging new DMs to be lazy –- maybe the idea behind this “design goal” is to lower the threshold of DMing, but I see it discouraging improvisation and thinking on a DM’s part (and these skills are –- in my opinion –- quite relevant to being a DM). James Wyatt’s first ‘Dungeoncraft’-article actually seemed to underline the point that the *setting* and *NPCs* are not very relevant –- just steal some ideas and get the ball rolling, and the PCs will take care of the rest. I’d call that “sloppy” DMing. Your own blog also contains a very telling example of this as you said that you don’t want to “waste” time in having to explain things to your players –- if that’s how you generally view DMing chores, I personally wouldn’t want to play in your campaigns (and this is my honest personal opinion/criticism and *not* meant as a deliberate “attack” –- hope you see the difference ). I wish to ask you some questions: it appears that your own “houseruled” version of 3E contains many mechanical aspects from 4E (monster “roles”, "simplified" special abilities, movement rate in ‘squares’, etc.) –- have you always played 3E in a more “simplified” way or did you “playtest” some 4E game mechanics in your recent 3E campaigns? Is 4E how Mike Mearls want to play D&D, or how the majority of us –- or a new generation of gamers -- want to play it? That is the central question here.
See, again, I have to turn that question around to you. I don't like putting a lot of detail into my campaign worlds, but you do. Which of us is right? The answer, to me, is neither, as long as we and our groups have fun.
There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests.
You want to encourage players to think? Here are some quotes I've pulled from the DMG. I hope they stay in, because if they don't I'm going to look really stupid in a few months:
"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation. ...
In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards."
"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players: reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.” Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the range of applicable skills."
When it comes to DM "chores" we want DMs to only do as much work as they want to do. Again, I have to turn the question back around to you: is it good for D&D as a whole if DMs need to do a lot of work on building a world, or is that how *you* like to DM? If there are DMs out there like me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?
D&D is not a religion or a social movement. We're all just DMs and players doing our own thing in our own way. Not every D&D player is a good match for every D&D group. There are groups that I'd never want to game with, yet they have an awesome time every week, and vice versa.
I cut the paragraph about mechanics because no one outside of playtesters have seen the full mechanics yet. A lot of people are assuming that we're adding X or Y without counterbalancing it, or they don't see everything in the context of the full system yet.
Suffice to say that there are still plenty of hard choices to be made. If the game was easy, no one would play.
What is easier is all the bookkeeping and mechanics that had a poor return on fun. If you think that ability score loss a la 3e is the only possible way to model a weakening effect, then I think that 3e is the only game you'll like.
I'm serious. If you look at 3e and think that its mechanical definition of various effects is the only valid expression of those effects, just stick with 3e. We are not going to hold on to mechanics for the sake of holding on to mechanics. When we can achieve the same goal with less work, we will always do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
Another aspect I’m very leery about in the game is the “clearly defined” character roles –- I just don’t see this concept encouraging role-playing or “character introspection”. I wouldn’t mind it if they were just briefly mentioned in the books, but I’m a bit alarmed about these roles being “integrated” into the game mechanics as well (e.g. into the character “powers”). Why don’t I like them? Because you’re effectively telling your players how they should behave in the game (i.e. how to role-play that type of character –- at least in combat) and which types of abilities/feats they should prioritize (e.g. “Dude, you’re a defender, so don’t take that ‘Rain of Blows’, because ‘Waterfall of Parries’ is more fitting for you role and gives the rest of us some cool and nice bonuses!”). All in all these “roles” make me feel like we’re not talking about an adventuring party in a “pseudo-medieval” setting but a modern military “special ops” strike team (“Hey, fighter, stop fooling around and step into your role! You should be covering the strikers and the tanks!”). Then the concept of ‘Social Challenges’ –- while I’m not against them as such, they need to be carefully thought about. Can I state that my goal in the Challenge is to make the Guard Captain break down in tears, drop his magical sword and run away? Should I get XP for that, since I kind of “defeated” him? What is the difference between “small intent” vs. “big intent”? Can I just waltz into the King’s Throne Room and convince him with my uber-high Diplomacy skill to step down and crown me as the next king? These are tricky issues and should be taken into consideration, because even mid-level PCs may run amok the campaign world if you can use the social skills in such “creative” ways. And how do the existence of this system influence role-playing in general –- will it de-emphasize its meaning, because you’re allowed to “just roll” or does it actually encourage it? If you always need to at least *try* to role-play the situation “in character” (whether you roll before or after you deliver your “speech”), it probably *will* encourage it –- if not, at least beginners may shy away from it, telling their DM: “I’m gonna insult that captain – do I get to roll now?”.
The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they are in 3e. Social challenges, and other non-combat challenges, are mechanics added to the game to make skills more useful and to broaden the types of encounters DMs can have in adventures.
Essentially, a non-combat challenge turns skills from a pass-or-fail check into a series of checks made toward achieving a larger goal. Rather than make on Diplomacy check, the group needs to make a number of differnet skill checks, including Diplomacy, to forge an alliance with the dwarf king. Players can't simply say "I want to do X with a skill" without the DM saying that's OK.
I'll let the DMG design notes speak on the issue of roleplaying and skill challenges:
"For “pure” RP, if you say the perfect thing that the duke would absolutely agree to, then the DM gives you a +arbitrarily high bonus on the roll—and it’s OK if the bonus is so big that it makes the roll irrelevant."
I don't think your example for party roles holds water. Whether a role is there or not, if the fighter stands at the back of the party the rest of the group will yell at him. The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do. Mechanically, it simply calls to attention the reason why wizards in 3e can't cast healing spells. Every class needs a unique role to foster teamwork and to give everyone a chance to shine. It also helps enforce class balance in design.
And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded. Roles have no mechanics attached to them. They simply serve to inform players about a class and help people make clear, understandable choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
And I also wish to mention the “flavour” about the classes being integrated into the game mechanics (or actually being "force-fed” to us) –- what if I just don’t want to have Golden Wyvern or Emerald Frost Wizards in my homebrew setting? Yes, I don’t need to use them. but it’s not just that I have to rewrite the whole class (probably changing their powers as well) but Feats (‘Golden Wyvern Adept’) but other sections of the book that contains any info about the ‘traditions’ (I’m guessing the ‘Magic’-chapter, at least) as well. Not to mention that I have to think about where all those previous edition “specialist” mages just suddenly vanished to. I understand that this system may actually benefit *some* beginners in defining their character backgrounds for them, but how about encouraging them to write their own? Sometimes, the best adventure hooks come from character backgrounds -– i.e. if I want to create a cleric of the God of Justice and tell my DM that “he was originally born in the Slave City of Adaran-Kesh, and sold to slavery as young boy, before a friendly servant helped him escape from the hands of a cruel and powerful master –- eventually he was rescued from the wilderness by a wandering priest and was then trained by him”. Even with such a brief and simple background, I am actually giving my DM a lot of potential story hooks to use in the campaign, instead of just being “trained by the clergy of the God of Justice” (this would work especially well with the ‘Slavers’-modules). That produces better stories, too, and with a strong pre-campaign input from the *players* with adventure ideas that *matter* to them and their *characters*.
I think you're contradicting yourself here a little. On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world. Don't those names encourage exactly what you want? None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds. They might have some pointers, but they are there precisely to get players to think of the skills their characters learned as coming from somewhere or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
I also don’t have very high hopes about the ‘Points of Light’-concept, and certainly didn’t feel assured by Mr. Wyatt’s article (as I already noted). It’s a good concept for a campaign, but I wouldn’t want my every campaign being about “flickering points of light in monster-filled Darkness” –- especially as it feels like a very shaky concept without reasoning why these tiny and isolated settlements have managed to avoid being wiped out (something that James doesn’t apparently even think about in his article). Some people have compared the ‘PoL’-concept with the Dark Ages (or some other historical RW era) but that’s a poor analogy, since I don’t recall a time when monsters and magic threated the existence of known civilization. All in all, this is a very “black-and-white” concept about PCs being the most important beings (i.e. the only heroes) in the world –- of course a story is *always* about its protagonists, but (as I have said before) I feel that there just should be some powerful and interesting NPCs, too. If not, how come the Darkness has not already triumphed? Why must the PCs be the only “heroic” characters in their home town/village? If I were a player in such a campaign, I’d want to hear answers to all those questions.
Again, this is purely subjective. Nothing in the rules stops you from running whatever campaign you want. The core background is in the game to give beginners something to start with. If anything, it encourages DM and player creativity because it sets up the core D&D world as a huge, blank cavnas waiting to be filled with ideas.
I think at times your thoughts are a little contradictory. You want a lot of player input, roleplay, and DM creativity, yet you don't like the steps we take to help foster that. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but I'm not sure it makes sense to want DMs and players who are creative world builders while dismissing the point of light concept.
The core thrust of the PoL is pretty simple: it lets the DM invent what he wants. It gives room for players to create stuff in the world, with the DM's OK of course. If I sit down at a DM's table and say, "I want to play a Thor-worshipping Viking-style cleric" it's a lot easier to accomodate that if the DM hasn't detailed every inch of his campaign world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
Summa summarum: I feel that 4E is not actually a new edition of D&D -- it’s a whole new *game*. It has vastly different ("simplified") thematical emphasis and mechanical differences to previous editions, and it is very clearly marketed at a whole new consumer base. As for us “older” customers, some like the changes and some don’t –- I feel that my arguments and concerns are echoed by many fans on these boards and therefore are valid. If we're talking about beginners, this system may actually remind them strongly of boardgames, CRPGs or MMORPGs -- and consequently de-emphasize role-playing because they might play D&D the same way they would play those games (again I refer to those “metalevel” effects –- e.g. those Quest Cards that may be seen functioning a bit like Quest Logs in CRPGs and MMORPGs). I guess we will see how 4E turns out, but my intuition already tells me that I’m not going to pick it up –- unless a lot of things we’ve seen glimpses of will be radically different in the end product.
We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be. Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.
The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.
EDIT: I wanted to add that I think your original post was very interesting and well thought out. It's good to have a dialogue with someone that doesn't become mindless anger or frustration. You ask a lot of good, hard questions, and you have many of the same concerns that I would have were I not in the seat I currently occupy.
__________________
---
Mike Mearls
Lead Developer, Dungeons & Dragons R&D
Friend to norkers, ally to qullans, champion of Fiend Folio 1e
"Mike Mearls = Gary Gygax on steroids...those poor hapless and unsuspecting players..." - nastynate, CO Boards
Very interesting
OK, let's see how well I can managed multiple quotes in a single message. I'm terrible with board markup code, and I have a feeling that the boards will eat this post anyway. But, here goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
Well, you assume that *every* player considers the rewards (treasure and XP and magic) to be the “most important” thing in D&D, but this is not actually inherently true. Some players (and DMs, too) might actually think that *role-playing* or the *story* in itself is the "greatest" reward in D&D (or in any RPG, for that matter).
This is the heart of the matter. I can't write rules that say "And as a reward for defeating this encounter, the DM does some really good roleplaying."
I can't do that. I have no control over the DM. I have no input into his abilities. I can put DM advice into a book, which frankly based on reviews and comments everyone ignores anyway. I can put suggestions on how to DM, which based on how people have reacted to the quest card *suggestion* gets taken as the One True Way and villified.
What I can do is stick XP and treasure at the end of the mouse maze du jour, be it combat, social encounters, or bringing a pizza to the game session, and hope that's enough to get most gaming groups moving in the same direction as the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
I don't see how this "card thing" would be a better system (i.e. more organized) than players taking notes (in a character sheet, diary/book or separate note papers). That way (by taking notes), your *players* decide which names or facts or pieces of flavour are relevant and need to be written down -- i.e. you encourage them to *think*, instead of relying on your cards to tell which things are important. As for my group, we have two “record keepers” in my group who both write down stuff in their notebooks –- usually just shorthand notes on events, but sometimes even on a round by round basis (including each character’s combat actions). As I already said, I fail to see how any kind of card system would work better or be “more organized” than this. By using cards, I think some players (especially beginners) may become even more passive in contributing to the story -- they *expect* the DM to guide the story/campaign with the cards, and do not truly interact (role-play) with the setting or pursue any character goals because they won’t be rewarded for that. Hence, it is a “metalevel” effect that has a negative impact on role-playing –- just as much as the “clearly defined” character roles do (“Dude, stop talking with those NPCs –- they are not important and we don’t get any XP for that. Lord Lightspear is already waiting for us to give us a *Quest*!”). Another aspect of this system that troubles me is that you need to *very* carefully think about where to draw the line –- let’s assume that Baron Blacksword (an ally of the PCs) slyly mentions that “the world would be a lot happier place without that cursed Duke Duskshield meddling in everyone’s affairs”. Was that a subtle hint and did he just offer the PCs a Quest? What if they ask him and he denies it -- if you don’t give them a card, they automatically know that this is not a Quest, although perhaps you intentionally tried to subtly guide them to do the dastardly deed. If they kill the duke, should they be rewarded although the baron mentioned no reward (assuming that none of them are of good alignment)? Especially beginners –- both players and DMs -- might have a lot of problems with this system, unless it is presented in a very coherent and “clear-cut” manner in the Core Books.
First, the cards are not a system, but I suspect you're talking about the quest mechanic anyway. The cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of how a quest work, just like paper and pencil don't determine how hit points work. They are tools used to implement a mechanic, but not a mechanic. You can use the mechanic without those tools.
Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?
Third, I think there's something of a cognitive dissonance at work here. Beginning DMs need some structure to help them learn the game and learn how to DM. Yet, isn't part of DMing learning how to improvise? Isn't it logical that we'd cover that in the DMG and make some effort to address that?
The central message of the DMG for 4e is pretty simple: make the game fun for everyone. Communicate with your players. Make expectations clear. Work with the players, not against them. True, a DM who mindlessly applies the quest mechanic can cause problems, but that's not what anyone wants.
From a purely mercenary POV, it is in WotC's best economic interest to do whatever it takes to make more good DMs. Good DMs create interesting worlds and fun adventures. They work with the players to create a fun game. They listen. They adopt a funny voice when portraying a kobold. They bring the game to life.
We expect DMs to exercise their judgment when applying any rule, and we do what we can to help that.
As for player initiative, that's not something we can necessarily force on to people. Some people are perfectly happy playing D&D with a DM who leads them through adventures by the nose. These guys want to be entertained while bashing monsters.
Their style of play (or lack thereof) has no effect on players who want to be more active. Just as I can't force people to be good DMs, I can't force people to become "good" players, by whoever's standard of good we want to apply. What I can try to do is take the doorway into D&D and force it as wide open as possible, to let as many people at least try this hobby, and maybe get more people playing it.
See, here's the thing. Down below (and I'll get to this) you ask if we're making a 4e a game that gamers want, or a game that I want. Well, I'd ask you the same question: do you want us to make a game that gamers want, or do you want us to make a game that you want?
We all have different styles of playing D&D, and that's the beauty of the game. I'm not going to design a game that forcibly evicts anyone from playing it. If a bunch of mindless couch potatoes can now enjoy D&D, I don't mind. They're not going to effect how anyone else plays the game. If Joe in Peoria doesn't roleplay, that doesn't stop Barbara in San Jose from playing her character to the hilt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
And it’s not just the Quest Cards that make me feel very concerned about 4E. I don't fear *change*, because I was *very* excited when 3E came out. Why don't I feel the same way now? Why I only feel *very* disappointed about everything we've seen of 4E? I'll try to point out some things that I feel are either mechanically or thematically "wrong" in my opinion. First of all, it's not just the DM's story *only* that matters, because players are "co-authors", too, so what about their preferences and contribution? How will the changes presented in 4E affect "Player input" in the game? I understand the concept of “story” in D&D to roughly mean: “A campaign consisting of a storyline/script written by the DM, which is then influenced and altered during the game by the DM and the players improvising through their characters as it is played in separate sessions”. We should also note that mechanical and thematical “metalevel” effects are also important, because it’s not just about the rules or the flavour or the story –- it’s about how *players* (consciously and subconsciously) feel about and react to them. If we’re discussing characters and player and DM roles and responsibilities, and their influence on the story, I have a suspicion that 4E won’t address these issues in a very *coherent* manner. Perhaps it will offer a mix of different “tools” to deal with them, but so far I have seen a bunch of articles that have (in my opinion) contained only half-hearted attempts at trying to convince us that 4E will be about more than just combat and encounters (and how *cool* and *fun* 4E will be -– especially when compared to that “horribly broken 3E”, which was, incidently, designed by the same guys ).
My honest opinion is that I see 4E actually stressing and emphasizing “coolness” and “combat effectiveness” over player input, thinking and role-playing –- not to mention that DM’s are more-or-less subtly manipulated into thinking that their “job” has become “easier” and requires less work and creative effort than ever before. For example, in 4E, DMs are “able to drop things out of the books” without any pre-play prep work -- is that cool or what? Somehow in my mind this translates as “fostering” or encouraging new DMs to be lazy –- maybe the idea behind this “design goal” is to lower the threshold of DMing, but I see it discouraging improvisation and thinking on a DM’s part (and these skills are –- in my opinion –- quite relevant to being a DM). James Wyatt’s first ‘Dungeoncraft’-article actually seemed to underline the point that the *setting* and *NPCs* are not very relevant –- just steal some ideas and get the ball rolling, and the PCs will take care of the rest. I’d call that “sloppy” DMing. Your own blog also contains a very telling example of this as you said that you don’t want to “waste” time in having to explain things to your players –- if that’s how you generally view DMing chores, I personally wouldn’t want to play in your campaigns (and this is my honest personal opinion/criticism and *not* meant as a deliberate “attack” –- hope you see the difference ). I wish to ask you some questions: it appears that your own “houseruled” version of 3E contains many mechanical aspects from 4E (monster “roles”, "simplified" special abilities, movement rate in ‘squares’, etc.) –- have you always played 3E in a more “simplified” way or did you “playtest” some 4E game mechanics in your recent 3E campaigns? Is 4E how Mike Mearls want to play D&D, or how the majority of us –- or a new generation of gamers -- want to play it? That is the central question here.
See, again, I have to turn that question around to you. I don't like putting a lot of detail into my campaign worlds, but you do. Which of us is right? The answer, to me, is neither, as long as we and our groups have fun.
There are no mechanical elements that allow player input into story in 3e. In 4e, we have mechanics that have that potential: allow you players to make up their own quests.
You want to encourage players to think? Here are some quotes I've pulled from the DMG. I hope they stay in, because if they don't I'm going to look really stupid in a few months:
"When a player puts forward what you consider a plausible countermeasure for a trap, the next step is to determine the best resolution method and a suitable action cost for the countermeasure—even if that countermeasure doesn’t exist in the trap’s presentation. ...
In short, always find ways to reward quick thinking and fun when it comes to traps and hazards."
"Corollary to the Second Principle: Thinking players are engaged players: reward clever ideas.
In challenges as freeform as these, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say “No.” Instead, let them make a roll using the skill but at a high DC, or make the skill good for only one victory. This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth and engages more PCs by broadening the range of applicable skills."
When it comes to DM "chores" we want DMs to only do as much work as they want to do. Again, I have to turn the question back around to you: is it good for D&D as a whole if DMs need to do a lot of work on building a world, or is that how *you* like to DM? If there are DMs out there like me who don't like designing worlds, does that hurt you?
D&D is not a religion or a social movement. We're all just DMs and players doing our own thing in our own way. Not every D&D player is a good match for every D&D group. There are groups that I'd never want to game with, yet they have an awesome time every week, and vice versa.
I cut the paragraph about mechanics because no one outside of playtesters have seen the full mechanics yet. A lot of people are assuming that we're adding X or Y without counterbalancing it, or they don't see everything in the context of the full system yet.
Suffice to say that there are still plenty of hard choices to be made. If the game was easy, no one would play.
What is easier is all the bookkeeping and mechanics that had a poor return on fun. If you think that ability score loss a la 3e is the only possible way to model a weakening effect, then I think that 3e is the only game you'll like.
I'm serious. If you look at 3e and think that its mechanical definition of various effects is the only valid expression of those effects, just stick with 3e. We are not going to hold on to mechanics for the sake of holding on to mechanics. When we can achieve the same goal with less work, we will always do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
Another aspect I’m very leery about in the game is the “clearly defined” character roles –- I just don’t see this concept encouraging role-playing or “character introspection”. I wouldn’t mind it if they were just briefly mentioned in the books, but I’m a bit alarmed about these roles being “integrated” into the game mechanics as well (e.g. into the character “powers”). Why don’t I like them? Because you’re effectively telling your players how they should behave in the game (i.e. how to role-play that type of character –- at least in combat) and which types of abilities/feats they should prioritize (e.g. “Dude, you’re a defender, so don’t take that ‘Rain of Blows’, because ‘Waterfall of Parries’ is more fitting for you role and gives the rest of us some cool and nice bonuses!”). All in all these “roles” make me feel like we’re not talking about an adventuring party in a “pseudo-medieval” setting but a modern military “special ops” strike team (“Hey, fighter, stop fooling around and step into your role! You should be covering the strikers and the tanks!”). Then the concept of ‘Social Challenges’ –- while I’m not against them as such, they need to be carefully thought about. Can I state that my goal in the Challenge is to make the Guard Captain break down in tears, drop his magical sword and run away? Should I get XP for that, since I kind of “defeated” him? What is the difference between “small intent” vs. “big intent”? Can I just waltz into the King’s Throne Room and convince him with my uber-high Diplomacy skill to step down and crown me as the next king? These are tricky issues and should be taken into consideration, because even mid-level PCs may run amok the campaign world if you can use the social skills in such “creative” ways. And how do the existence of this system influence role-playing in general –- will it de-emphasize its meaning, because you’re allowed to “just roll” or does it actually encourage it? If you always need to at least *try* to role-play the situation “in character” (whether you roll before or after you deliver your “speech”), it probably *will* encourage it –- if not, at least beginners may shy away from it, telling their DM: “I’m gonna insult that captain – do I get to roll now?”.
The Diplomacy skill and similar abilities are no more abusable than they are in 3e. Social challenges, and other non-combat challenges, are mechanics added to the game to make skills more useful and to broaden the types of encounters DMs can have in adventures.
Essentially, a non-combat challenge turns skills from a pass-or-fail check into a series of checks made toward achieving a larger goal. Rather than make on Diplomacy check, the group needs to make a number of differnet skill checks, including Diplomacy, to forge an alliance with the dwarf king. Players can't simply say "I want to do X with a skill" without the DM saying that's OK.
I'll let the DMG design notes speak on the issue of roleplaying and skill challenges:
"For “pure” RP, if you say the perfect thing that the duke would absolutely agree to, then the DM gives you a +arbitrarily high bonus on the roll—and it’s OK if the bonus is so big that it makes the roll irrelevant."
I don't think your example for party roles holds water. Whether a role is there or not, if the fighter stands at the back of the party the rest of the group will yell at him. The roles are there so that players have a better understanding of what they are supposed to do. Mechanically, it simply calls to attention the reason why wizards in 3e can't cast healing spells. Every class needs a unique role to foster teamwork and to give everyone a chance to shine. It also helps enforce class balance in design.
And yes, we are telling people what they are supposed to do. If we get more people playing D&D because of that, then we've succeeded. Roles have no mechanics attached to them. They simply serve to inform players about a class and help people make clear, understandable choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
And I also wish to mention the “flavour” about the classes being integrated into the game mechanics (or actually being "force-fed” to us) –- what if I just don’t want to have Golden Wyvern or Emerald Frost Wizards in my homebrew setting? Yes, I don’t need to use them. but it’s not just that I have to rewrite the whole class (probably changing their powers as well) but Feats (‘Golden Wyvern Adept’) but other sections of the book that contains any info about the ‘traditions’ (I’m guessing the ‘Magic’-chapter, at least) as well. Not to mention that I have to think about where all those previous edition “specialist” mages just suddenly vanished to. I understand that this system may actually benefit *some* beginners in defining their character backgrounds for them, but how about encouraging them to write their own? Sometimes, the best adventure hooks come from character backgrounds -– i.e. if I want to create a cleric of the God of Justice and tell my DM that “he was originally born in the Slave City of Adaran-Kesh, and sold to slavery as young boy, before a friendly servant helped him escape from the hands of a cruel and powerful master –- eventually he was rescued from the wilderness by a wandering priest and was then trained by him”. Even with such a brief and simple background, I am actually giving my DM a lot of potential story hooks to use in the campaign, instead of just being “trained by the clergy of the God of Justice” (this would work especially well with the ‘Slavers’-modules). That produces better stories, too, and with a strong pre-campaign input from the *players* with adventure ideas that *matter* to them and their *characters*.
I think you're contradicting yourself here a little. On one hand, you don't like the exact feat names, yet on the other you want players to create details on the game world. Don't those names encourage exactly what you want? None of those names come with fleshed out backgrounds. They might have some pointers, but they are there precisely to get players to think of the skills their characters learned as coming from somewhere or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
I also don’t have very high hopes about the ‘Points of Light’-concept, and certainly didn’t feel assured by Mr. Wyatt’s article (as I already noted). It’s a good concept for a campaign, but I wouldn’t want my every campaign being about “flickering points of light in monster-filled Darkness” –- especially as it feels like a very shaky concept without reasoning why these tiny and isolated settlements have managed to avoid being wiped out (something that James doesn’t apparently even think about in his article). Some people have compared the ‘PoL’-concept with the Dark Ages (or some other historical RW era) but that’s a poor analogy, since I don’t recall a time when monsters and magic threated the existence of known civilization. All in all, this is a very “black-and-white” concept about PCs being the most important beings (i.e. the only heroes) in the world –- of course a story is *always* about its protagonists, but (as I have said before) I feel that there just should be some powerful and interesting NPCs, too. If not, how come the Darkness has not already triumphed? Why must the PCs be the only “heroic” characters in their home town/village? If I were a player in such a campaign, I’d want to hear answers to all those questions.
Again, this is purely subjective. Nothing in the rules stops you from running whatever campaign you want. The core background is in the game to give beginners something to start with. If anything, it encourages DM and player creativity because it sets up the core D&D world as a huge, blank cavnas waiting to be filled with ideas.
I think at times your thoughts are a little contradictory. You want a lot of player input, roleplay, and DM creativity, yet you don't like the steps we take to help foster that. Maybe there's a better way to do it, but I'm not sure it makes sense to want DMs and players who are creative world builders while dismissing the point of light concept.
The core thrust of the PoL is pretty simple: it lets the DM invent what he wants. It gives room for players to create stuff in the world, with the DM's OK of course. If I sit down at a DM's table and say, "I want to play a Thor-worshipping Viking-style cleric" it's a lot easier to accomodate that if the DM hasn't detailed every inch of his campaign world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asgetrion
Summa summarum: I feel that 4E is not actually a new edition of D&D -- it’s a whole new *game*. It has vastly different ("simplified") thematical emphasis and mechanical differences to previous editions, and it is very clearly marketed at a whole new consumer base. As for us “older” customers, some like the changes and some don’t –- I feel that my arguments and concerns are echoed by many fans on these boards and therefore are valid. If we're talking about beginners, this system may actually remind them strongly of boardgames, CRPGs or MMORPGs -- and consequently de-emphasize role-playing because they might play D&D the same way they would play those games (again I refer to those “metalevel” effects –- e.g. those Quest Cards that may be seen functioning a bit like Quest Logs in CRPGs and MMORPGs). I guess we will see how 4E turns out, but my intuition already tells me that I’m not going to pick it up –- unless a lot of things we’ve seen glimpses of will be radically different in the end product.
We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be. Roleplaying is not some sacred hobby that requires a minimum mental or creative requirement. There are few enough outlets for creativity in the world that I'd never stoop to make D&D less accessible.
The core of D&D is roleplay and the DM as creator/judge/actor/storyteller. Those two tools are the advantage that we have over every other form of game out there. They are awesome advantages, powerful enough to keep D&D going for over 30 years. We'd be insanely stupid to get rid of them or de-emphasize them.
EDIT: I wanted to add that I think your original post was very interesting and well thought out. It's good to have a dialogue with someone that doesn't become mindless anger or frustration. You ask a lot of good, hard questions, and you have many of the same concerns that I would have were I not in the seat I currently occupy.
__________________
---
Mike Mearls
Lead Developer, Dungeons & Dragons R&D
Friend to norkers, ally to qullans, champion of Fiend Folio 1e
"Mike Mearls = Gary Gygax on steroids...those poor hapless and unsuspecting players..." - nastynate, CO Boards
Very interesting
Last edited:
