D&D 4E Mouseferatu weighs in on 4e

[rkanodia]

lol. That was Paladin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Gun,_Will_Travel

Huh? We were talking about Westerns where someone goes from place to place solving the local problems. Have Gun - Will Travel is one example.

 

[Lizard]

Correct, I meant in the stat block. And you've got to know how skills work, and also just the looser design philosophy that ... arrrrg NDA.

Is there any reason to believe the SWSE skill system isn't 95% of the way the D&D 4e skill system will work? (No details needed or expected, a simply "Yes", "No", or "More like 79.12%" will be fine if it doesn't break the NDA. BTW, thank you for taking time to reply on these threads; I appreciate the information even if I'm still ambivalent about 4e. Facts good, speculation bad.)

 

[king_ghidorah]

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.

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.

Haven't editions of D&D since AD&D have have some implied setting? The entire section of the AD&D 1st edition DMG detailing artifacts is filled with fluff; the background on monsters talks about their interactions; named spells imply major personages. In 3rd edition, the fluff was much more explicit by having an implied setting in Greyhawk, harking back to and expanding on much of the fluffly bits from 1st edition. How is the meta-setting different from and harder to remove than this?

 

[LEHaskell]

Huh? We were talking about Westerns where someone goes from place to place solving the local problems. Have Gun - Will Travel is one example.

Yes, I know. I was amused by the fact that someone mentioned Have Gun, Will Travel in a D&D discussion -- the protagonist's name was Paladin. The attached file was his calling card.

I think you are spot on with the analogy. The new PoL conceit lends itself to that type of episodic story-telling. The heroes move from point to point, being hired at each one to help the towns folk. It's a easy and fun way for new DM's to get started without having to worry about building a big world. Even better, as you gain experience, you find that a world emerges from various bits and pieces.

 

[Pozeltum]

Never doubted that it'd be a class act mechanically. I just hope that the warforged hexblade wielding a spiked chain factor is minimised in the core, because WOTC's idea of cool is not always my own.

Here's seconds to that

 

[Counterspin]

Here's seconds to that

So the idea is that the system will somehow prevent people from taking three things you don't like about it, from three different books, and combining them into one thing you really don't like? That doesn't strike me as being terribly likely.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Is there any reason to believe the SWSE skill system isn't 95% of the way the D&D 4e skill system will work? (No details needed or expected, a simply "Yes", "No", or "More like 79.12%" will be fine if it doesn't break the NDA. BTW, thank you for taking time to reply on these threads; I appreciate the information even if I'm still ambivalent about 4e. Facts good, speculation bad.)

Most NDAs are not written that specifically. They normally say "Don't discuss the rules at all with anyone" and it's up to each person who is under the NDA to decide what constitutes talking about the rules. Most of the time people are given the advice that when in doubt don't say anything.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Most NDAs are not written that specifically. They normally say "Don't discuss the rules at all with anyone" and it's up to each person who is under the NDA to decide what constitutes talking about the rules. Most of the time people are given the advice that when in doubt don't say anything.

Based on Ari's and Jon's actions it seems that WotC's NDA is a bit more specific than that, and has separate language regarding (1) the rules, and (2) their opinion of the rules. Professionally I would be curious to see how it's drafted (I draft NDA's for big banks and hedge funds at my day job).

I'm really glad that Jon and Ari have shared what they have, and I love reading their posts. It's so frustrating though knowing that they know so much more than they're saying. I almost wish I had heard of 4E sometimes, and just got the books as a nice present, "out of the blue" so to speak. The suspense is killing me.

 

[BryonD]

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.

True, but you can't read the stuff that isn't there for space and the new DMs can't get a more thorough treatment of the starter stuff.

 

[Shroomy]

Based on Ari's and Jon's actions it seems that WotC's NDA is a bit more specific than that, and has separate language regarding (1) the rules, and (2) their opinion of the rules. Professionally I would be curious to see how it's drafted (I draft NDA's for big banks and hedge funds at my day job).

I'm really glad that Jon and Ari have shared what they have, and I love reading their posts. It's so frustrating though knowing that they know so much more than they're saying. I almost wish I had heard of 4E sometimes, and just got the books as a nice present, "out of the blue" so to speak. The suspense is killing me.

According to some posters on the Paizo boards, WoTC sent out an email to the playtesters today that allowed playtesters to share their positive experiences, but not the negatives.