D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e

[Kwalish Kid]

If this were so, we wouldn't have mountains of backstory about Tieflings, elves, dwarves, giants, several lost empires, etc, etc, etc. We wouldn't have a much more integrated "assumed pantheon". We wouldn't have a detailed planar cosmology. We wouldn't have so many connections between the histories of various races.

What are beginning players supposed to do? It would be absolutely crazy not to have these things. It would also be crazy not to have an example of such a world, at least loosely, for more experienced players (including DMs) to use as an example.

Two or three paragraphs saying "The best places for adventures are along the frontier or borderland areas, where villages struggle to survive on the edge of monster-infested wildlands. Not only do these places provide fodder for all kind of adventures, but they're a good way for DMs to learn the basics of building a small part of a world before working up to larger nations, alliances, and politics" could replace all the fluff and accomplish the same job.

Hardly. New players to RPGs should be encouraged to not think of their characters or their games as a pike of numbers. There has to be some sort of story that is part of the game. D&D is definitely a beginners market game, so it absolutely requires some sort of setting information.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Thanks

I'm gonna try again to pretend what I've seen so far doesn't mean what it says and just assume it means something completely different. You comments and Jonrog's make me want to at least try again.

You would think that they could come up with preview text that doesn't undermine what they're trying to get across about the game. If that means *gasp!* revealing actual information before it's allowed by the schedule inscribed on ten-foot high stone tablets in Renton, then so be it. At least we wouldn't be constantly having to listen to the developers go on about how we're jumping to conclusions and we don't see the big picture and we'll understand when we see the rules...

Protip: When you restrict access to information, and your customers are coming to erroneous conclusions based on the information you're releasing, you have only yourselves to blame. If your strategy involves providing less information than is necessary to correctly evaluate the product, then don't blame the customers for incorrectly evaluating it.

 

[Lizard]

What are beginning players supposed to do? It would be absolutely crazy not to have these things. It would also be crazy not to have an example of such a world, at least loosely, for more experienced players (including DMs) to use as an example.

You weren't around in the 70s, were you?

 

[Greg K]

Based on the limited information we have so far, 4e is moving away from "DM as worldbuilder and God", .

I agree with this.

and back to the 2e model of "DM as Adventure Facilitator", running the players through pre-built adventures with his creativity being limited to adjudicating what happens when the players veer off-script.

As someone who played 2e and never used prebuilt modules, I disagree with this.

 

[Warbringer]

Re Implied setting...

Gods have names
Identified races being core
There is a history about the fall of Nerath, a distant war between the tieflings and dragonborn
Named historical places of power and adventure

Implied Setting!

However, it will not be a Developed Setting from what we know

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hey, guys. Don't have a lot of time right now, and I'll be away from the computer for a few days, but...

I'm not going to start trying to dance around the NDA with winks and nods, or by confirming what's not in the game. Sorry about that, but there it is.

I'm a huge believer in the notion that an RPG must have strong flavor, in addition to mechanics. Mechanics do not inspire the imagination the way a good descriptive passage can. I believe D&D is at its worst when it tries to provide only crunch with nothing else.

Does the implied PoL style of play inform some of the game rules and decisions? Yes, it does. Of course it does. Is it going to be any harder to homebrew 4E than it was to homebrew prior editions? As someone who's been homebrewing multiple settings since 1E, my answer is "Certainly doesn't seem any harder to me."

 

[jonrog1]

Hey Jon, Mouse. Thanks for your comments.

Question time. Now, as I understand the NDA, you can't reveal anything, you can't tell anyone anything. But saying "No, things aren't that way" isn't revealing anything except the absence of correctness. But my interpretation could be wrong, so if you opt not to answer, understood. With that in mind:

You two seem to know the 4e boards enough, you've seen the threads. What do you think is the biggest misconception or concern that doesn't pan out that people here have about 4e?

On the same veins, are there any predictions/assumptions on how certain things work that you can tell us "No, it does not work that way"?

Also, while I hesitate to ask this because it might fan some more flames, is there anything you feel that 4e does not do well? Or something you wish was in there? Like Monster X not being in the MM, or something else from 3e you can say "This isn't in the document I have"?

I didn't really have an answer until I skimmed this thread. Biggest misconception -- power being taken away from the DM as world-builder, DM being assigned as "pre-fab adventure runner".

It seems some people won't be happy unless the system is utterly setting neutral, and others won't be happy unless there's a full on Greyhawk Empire in there. 4E is roughly dead-center as far as I can tell. There's flavor in there for the newbies, but the flavor's generally independent of mechanics for the tweakers/builders.

As far as omissions, nothing bumped me.

As far as the cranky DM's who don't want beginner DM help cluttering up their book -- easy enough to skip. It's not like the DMG is "Dungeon Mastering for Dummies". The thing is, the system's just cleaner. Not dumbed down, not simple. Clean.

 

[Rechan]

There's flavor in there for the newbies, but the flavor's generally independent of mechanics for the tweakers/builders.

Does this mean that the Wizard Traditions aren't hard-wired to the mechanics of the wizard?

I know that having Emerald Frost as far away from Wizard mechanics as possible would make a lot of people here breath a sigh of relief.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

It sounds like you may be disappointed then.

In Worlds and Monsters it says that they have been working on the humanoids to give them distinctly different flavours, so fighting each type of humanoid feels distinctly different (so Gnolls are sorta cowardly bullies, orcs are tough brutes, hobgoblins are skilled soldiers).

Personally I applaud this, I think it is a big step forward. I think it will probably be welcomed by the majority of DMs (and the relatively fewer number who want to customise things to the degree that you do will quickly gain the experience and confidence to make bigger changes, if you believe the post that Mouseferatu made a little higher up - and I can't think of any reason to not believe him).

Cheers

In addition, you have a lot of paint to work with on your palette. Let's say you want your orcs to be the D&D equivalent of the Third Reich. How to do this? Well, hobgoblins are skilled soldiers and have all sorts of soldiery abilities that make them effective in that role. Cross out "hobgoblin" and write in "orc". Then, let's say you want to have some big gobliny troll-like things that are cruel to things smaller than them, but fearful and toadying to things bigger than them. Well, gnolls fit that bill and have mechanics that support that role. Cross off "gnoll" and write in "big gobliny thing".

When monsters, particularly humanoids, have unique roles supported by their own idiosyncratic game mechanics, you have a hell of a lot more to work with than when it amounts to simply "1 HD humanoid, 2 HD humanoid, 3 HD humanoid..." I am very pleased that when I get the 4E Monster Manual it will contain many different kinds of humanoids, rather than just one, with a larger or smaller number of hit dice.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But that isn't true. Several other people have said that it is invaluable for them, whether as busy DMs or DMs with writers block. I'd bet it does more good than harm for new DMs too.

So while it might be wasted space as far as you're concerned, it isn't wasted space as far as the whole potential community is concerned (unlike printing every other page blank would be, say. That would be wasted space in anyones book ).

I just mention this because broad generalisations make your observations seem weaker, and other people are more likely to dismiss them rather than engage in interesting conversation.

Cheers

Thirtysomething grad student w/ 2 kids here. Time is valuable. While I might not love everything that appears in the fluff sections of the MM, I can change the parts I don't want and use the parts I do. Which is different than a crunch-only book in which I have to write all of it myself. Guess which option makes more work for me, and reduces the amount of time I can spend on the parts of preparing a game that actually make it more fun on a session-by-session basis?