Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5467013" data-attributes="member: 98032">Forgive the juvenile title <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;Also, I'm new here and haven't been hashing out these issues like you guys on the forums with thousands of posts, so forgive me if this is ancient history.&nbsp;So we were discussing skill challenges in a separate thread. I remarked how it seemed to me that the 4e DMG was more of a training manual than previous books. It felt written mostly for a novice DM IMO. Which isn't a bad thing as it is a great way to grow the hobby. Well, I just read Ryan Dancey's blog about the demographcis of RPG players. The market survey he references has this to say:&nbsp;&quot;And if they can be induced to become a DM/GM, expenditures skyrocket.Will DM/GM: $2,048Will not DM/GM: $401&quot;&nbsp;I'm probably behind on the curve as this has been floating around for years on the net and this is the first I have seen it. However, it puts my thoughts in a new perspective. 4e is the DM creator edition <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> It also perhaps explains why I never took a liking to it. I'm an old set in his ways sort of DM. *Manual? I don't need no stinking manual!* said in a horrible southwestern bandito voice...&nbsp;So my questions to those of you with a better connection to the 4e scene:&nbsp;Is this way off base or not? Has 4e actually inspired more people to DM games?&nbsp;Is DMing 4e &quot;easier&quot; (my read through and limited experience says so and I've heard others with more experience say the same. I know my edition of choice, 3.5, is a real bugger to DM at times)?&nbsp;And a thought - If this is true, did the move to a new edition targetted at cultivating new players alienate the experienced base of the hobby too much and instead of incorporating new players into it, fracture it?&nbsp;As always, not looking to slam editions here - just observations and objective discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CuRoi, post: 5467013, member: 98032"] Forgive the juvenile title :) Also, I'm new here and haven't been hashing out these issues like you guys on the forums with thousands of posts, so forgive me if this is ancient history. So we were discussing skill challenges in a separate thread. I remarked how it seemed to me that the 4e DMG was more of a training manual than previous books. It felt written mostly for a novice DM IMO. Which isn't a bad thing as it is a great way to grow the hobby. Well, I just read Ryan Dancey's blog about the demographcis of RPG players. The market survey he references has this to say: "And if they can be induced to become a DM/GM, expenditures skyrocket. Will DM/GM: $2,048 Will not DM/GM: $401" I'm probably behind on the curve as this has been floating around for years on the net and this is the first I have seen it. However, it puts my thoughts in a new perspective. 4e is the DM creator edition :lol: It also perhaps explains why I never took a liking to it. I'm an old set in his ways sort of DM. *Manual? I don't need no stinking manual!* [I]said[/I] [I]in a horrible southwestern bandito voice...[/I] So my questions to those of you with a better connection to the 4e scene: Is this way off base or not? Has 4e actually inspired more people to DM games? Is DMing 4e "easier" (my read through and limited experience says so and I've heard others with more experience say the same. I know my edition of choice, 3.5, is a real bugger to DM at times)? And a thought - If this is true, did the move to a new edition targetted at cultivating new players alienate the experienced base of the hobby too much and instead of incorporating new players into it, fracture it? As always, not looking to slam editions here - just observations and objective discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification