D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e

[catsclaw227]

So "Hobgoblins are disciplined soldiers. They get +1 when within 5' of another hobgoblin." is Crunch. I'm down with that. Er...yo. I will then decide WHY they're soldiers, if there are non-soldier hobgoblins and what they do, how they relate to other races (Hobgoblins are the 'Klingons' of my world, honorable, brutal, warriors who put the LAWFUL in Lawful Evil.)

"Hobgoblins were soldiers of the ancient Apos'tro'phe Empire, until they rebelled when they were order to kill their kobold allies, and then they served the ancient lich-king Evillus"...Waste of space. Bugger it. Degree of hatred directly proportional to wasted space. Suddenly talking like Rorschach. Should not reread Watchmen before bed. Use that paragraph to give me a few hobgoblin-specific feats (or their 4e equivalent) I can use to customize my hobgoblins and as a model for adding my own abilities.

"Here's a page and a half of a hobgoblin war camp with maps and a bunch of high-level hobgoblins statted out with the rules we already gave you so you could do it yourself."... We hates it! We hates it FOREVER!

The fact the gnome will have a "lair" in the MM fills me with dark, cold, dread...

(I do not wish to claim this stuff doesn't have a place. I did write Ultimate NPC for Mongoose, after all, part of which was filled with stat blocks. But that was the advertised purpose of the book, and I tried to pack it with original crunch, too. AND NO LAIRS! Encounter tables for places, but NO LAIRS! Sorry. Hate lairs. I'll go away now.)

I understand why you might not like any of this, it's really a DM/Worldbuilding style thing, and a matter of individual opinion.

But for me, a DM with very little time for prep due to his "other" life, I really dug the lairs. I can swap a few names here and there, but prestatted lairs really ROCKED for me. It's kindof like the small side-trek adventures that were in the Mystic Eye series of supplements, Foul Locales.

Now, for some DMs that want to have full creative control, I see where this stuff won't work, but hating it for being there for 1) New DMs, 2) Busy DMs, or 3) DMs with writers' block, doesn't really server much purpose.

I think that if they are tightly consistent with use of Apos'tro'phe Empire and the evil Evillus, across all books, then I see nothing wrong with it.

Remember, a big goal of 4e was to help bring in new DMs. And this is a good thing.

 

[vagabundo]

Now, for some DMs that want to have full creative control, I see where this stuff won't work, but hating it for being there for 1) New DMs, 2) Busy DMs, or 3) DMs with writers' block doesn't really server much purpose.

Bingo!! I need this stuff, I do not have the time to put together something from scratch. Being able to pull this stuff out at a moments is nice.

I cannot see why it would be hated, it may not be of direct use to you, but everything in there could inspire you with your own creations. I think a stats only supplement would be for a very minority of DMs/writers. I support the Default POL Setting.

 

[Lizard]

Now, for some DMs that want to have full creative control, I see where this stuff won't work, but hating it for being there for 1) New DMs, 2) Busy DMs, or 3) DMs with writers' block, doesn't really server much purpose.

Remember, a big goal of 4e was to help bring in new DMs. And this is a good thing.

I hate them because they're wasted space. Unlike a Big Book O'Crunch, where I might use some in one game and some in another, I can be pretty sure I'll never use a lair. And I am not sure they help new DMs. They're too complete. Too plug&play. They teach newbie DMs that their goal is to take the pieces WOTC hands them and string them together. Compare&contrast the 'sample dungeon' in AD&D 1e -- it had, what, THREE rooms documented out of the whole map? They showed the DM what to do and then said, "Go for it. You're a big boy. Take it from here."

They also tend to undermine creativity and worldbuilding by making new DMs feel beholden to use the fluff and flavor text as-written. Balancing rules is much harder than worldbuilding; space in a book should be focused on useful rules (and meta-rules to help make up new crunch in a balanced way), with worldbuilding being in the form of advice, guidelines, and "Ten questions to answer about your world" kind of things, with a few brief examples mostly to show format and structure.

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

 

[Plane Sailing]

I hate them because they're wasted space.

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

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I hate them because they're wasted space. Unlike a Big Book O'Crunch, where I might use some in one game and some in another, I can be pretty sure I'll never use a lair. And I am not sure they help new DMs. They're too complete. Too plug&play. They teach newbie DMs that their goal is to take the pieces WOTC hands them and string them together. Compare&contrast the 'sample dungeon' in AD&D 1e -- it had, what, THREE rooms documented out of the whole map? They showed the DM what to do and then said, "Go for it. You're a big boy. Take it from here."

They also tend to undermine creativity and worldbuilding by making new DMs feel beholden to use the fluff and flavor text as-written. Balancing rules is much harder than worldbuilding; space in a book should be focused on useful rules (and meta-rules to help make up new crunch in a balanced way), with worldbuilding being in the form of advice, guidelines, and "Ten questions to answer about your world" kind of things, with a few brief examples mostly to show format and structure.

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

(bold emphasis mine)

What have you read that makes you think this? It seems, to me, to be contrary to what Jon said in his post.

As another guy with a job, kids, wife, etc. I like having pre-gen stuff to work with. I might not use all of it, but if it's there I can plug it in or take what I want from it to make my ideas work better. It doesn't make me 'beholden' to wotc, It cuts my prep time down. Obviously it's not what you like, but I hope they keep throwing fluff in with the crunch.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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

I'm not getting this vibe at all - and since one of the main objectives of 4e was to reduce the effort required for DM prep (IIRC) it seems to me that what we are going to see is the opposite of that... more power for the DM to easily create their own adventures rather running players through pre-built adventures.

(c.f. Mouseferatu's recent discussions)

 

[AZRogue]

I don't need the MM fluff either, but as some have pointed out recently (and I realize that I agree), the fluff can be used to spark ideas and get a DMs juices going.

What do I NOT want? I don't want to know that my gnolls have an innate +2 to cook or that they're considered "Skilled" in Skinning and Basket Weaving. I don't need "crunch" to reflect things that don't need a mechanic to resolve. Tell me what he does when it matters: when the PCs are there.

But good fluff text will help a DM adjucate the creature's actions while outside the PCs' influence. Also, as mentioned, the ideas that can be sparked. So, I guess that I would like fluff, if it's colorful and interesting fluff and not fluff that has little optional rules slapped on.

 

[Lizard]

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 ).

Sorry. I assume there's an implied "IMO" when discussing things which can't be put on a lab bench and dissected.

 

[Wormwood]

It doesn't make me 'beholden' to wotc, It cuts my prep time down.

The *ridiculous* amount of prep-time necessary to run 3.5 is the reason I no longer do it.

I'll take any help 4e can provide.

 

[Lizard]

I'm not getting this vibe at all - and since one of the main objectives of 4e was to reduce the effort required for DM prep (IIRC) it seems to me that what we are going to see is the opposite of that... more power for the DM to easily create their own adventures rather running players through pre-built adventures.

(c.f. Mouseferatu's recent discussions)

Reduce time for prep==just pull a module off the shelf. At least that's who I'm seeing it, and I'd like to be wrong, but the focus on providing more of an "assumed world" and on ramping up module production (compare to 3e, when it was assumed modules would be mostly produced by 3rd parties), just sends me the wrong message. The amount of design time focused on "reimagining" the fluff for monsters, for example, also tells me WOTC is interested in providing worlds, not tools.

This is an impression, not an objective fact. Just to be clear, here.

I view worldbuilding as the most enjoyable part of DMing; WOTC seems (impression, again) to view it as a tedious chore which they must alleviate with their "Assumed world" and the POL setting which is designed (by explicit admission) to eliminate the need to create a world, or even more than one village and one dungeon.