New Dungeoncraft: The Dungeons of Greenbrier Chasm

[BryonD]

I'd prefer to build several really cool, detailed and rich encounters with that time, rather than spending most of it crunching numbers for a couple monsters for a single encounter (which will take up less time than it takes me to prepare for it). What you call "stick figure adventuring," I call "not giving me needless homework."

What I've seen advocated in this thread and described in a general throughout the 4e presentation doesn't meet my standard of "cool, detailed and rich".
Since my idea of stick figure adventuring is good enough for you it is very clear that we have sharply different standards. 4E is clearly built with your standards in mind. That's fine. But the difference remains and those of us who want more are going to be talked out of it or browbeat into pretending that the difference isn't there.

And the ultimate consequences regarding the overall range of DMs out there will reflect this divide.

 

[hong]

What I've seen advocated in this thread and described in a general throughout the 4e presentation doesn't meet my standard of "cool, detailed and rich".
Since my idea of stick figure adventuring is good enough for you it is very clear that we have sharply different standards. 4E is clearly built with your standards in mind. That's fine. But the difference remains and those of us who want more are going to be talked out of it or browbeat into pretending that the difference isn't there.

See, all these problems would be solved if only people would stop worrying about bodily fluids.

 

[Hussar]

Setting aside the absurd exaggerations regarding such things as hundreds of hours, tea parties and fanfic, I believe the attitude you are describing will be a core reason why two years from now it will be a lot more difficult to find a really good DM. They will still be out there. But they will be fewer and farther between.

Really? Absurd exaggerations? How much time do you think it takes to get a setting like Farland, or Urbis? Or Ptolus, and that's just a single city. You can create entire settings in less time? As far as tea parties go, take a look at the WOTC site and the Forgotten Realmslore section. There's a six page treatise on the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in the Realms.

D&D has always celebrated this sort of great clomping nerdism, to borrow a phrase. The idea that the only "good DM" is one that has laboriously built this massive ship in a bottle. To me, a good DM is someone who spends all his time developing adventures and the setting comes in a very, very far second.

Hell, a Descent character can grow and develop.

I don't have a fraction of the time I wish I had for my gaming. I'm one of those real job, 40 hours is for losers, wife and kids types. But if I've only got one hour to spend, I'd prefer to build a really cool, detailed and rich single encounter rather than an entire stick figure adventure. D&D, to me, is about a hell of a lot more than grinding through a string of encounters that are set up like so many bowling pins. And moving away from that is a very sad thing that will make D&D a lot less distinct when compared to the throngs of other quick and easy games out there.

The love for the texture of the game and being a great DM have a pretty notable correlation.

Isn't it funny. Here we see exactly what I talked about above - a good DM MUST world build, or his campaign is nothing but a string of stick figure adventures. This attitude just blows my mind. It absolutely astonishes me how intolerant people have become about the hobby. Why in hell do I have to detail out the shape of windows in my campaign setting? My time is FAR better spent creating adventures than screwing around developing calendars for my world.

I loath world building. That 4e seems to nicely step away from the idea that all DM's must worldbuild is one of the best selling points to me. That I can start with a PoL setting, detailing it only as much as necessary to run my adventures means that I no longer have to screw around with all the wasted time and energy of what amounts to fanfic.

 

[BryonD]

Really? Absurd exaggerations? How much time do you think it takes to get a setting like Farland, or Urbis? Or Ptolus, and that's just a single city. You can create entire settings in less time? As far as tea parties go, take a look at the WOTC site and the Forgotten Realmslore section. There's a six page treatise on the SHAPE OF WINDOWS in the Realms.

You are mixing and matching published material and home material.
You claims are absurd exaggerations in regard to anything I myself or anyone I know of has ever spent their recreational time on. And that was the point.

D&D has always celebrated this sort of great clomping nerdism, to borrow a phrase. The idea that the only "good DM" is one that has laboriously built this massive ship in a bottle.

Again, you are completely changing what was said.

DM is someone who spends all his time developing adventures and the setting comes in a very, very far second.

That doesn't contradict my point that really good DMs will be disproportionally drawn to games that are built like 3E rather 4E.

Isn't it funny. Here we see exactly what I talked about above - a good DM MUST world build, or his campaign is nothing but a string of stick figure adventures. Tis attitude just blows my mind. It absolutely astonishes me how intolerant people have become about the hobby. Why in hell do I have to detail out the shape of windows in my campaign setting? My time is FAR better spent creating adventures than screwing around developing calendars for my world.

I think what I actually said is a lot less mind blowing than the mischaracterizations you are trying to put in my mouth.

I loath world building. That 4e seems to nicely step away from the idea that all DM's must worldbuild is one of the best selling points to me. That I can start with a PoL setting, detailing it only as much as necessary to run my adventures means that I no longer have to screw around with all the wasted time and energy of what amounts to fanfic.

I already agreed 100% that some people will be on board with the change. That changes nothing of my point.

 

[Doug McCrae]

really good DMs will be disproportionally drawn to games that are built like 3E rather 4E.

Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.

 

[hong]

Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.

Only hobbyist gamers bother about that kind of stuff.

 

[Hussar]

I already agreed 100% that some people will be on board with the change. That changes nothing of my point.

Just so I'm not further accused of mischaracterizing what you said.

You're claiming that because 4e does not force DM's to world build, that good DM's won't play it. In other words,"Good DM's" spend their time building worlds, and bad DM's don't.

Is that a fair characterization of your point?

 

[BryonD]

Yeah but the hot chicks will be playing 4e.

You haven't met my wife.

 

[BryonD]

Just so I'm not further accused of mischaracterizing what you said.

You're claiming that because 4e does not force DM's to world build, that good DM's won't play it. In other words,"Good DM's" spend their time building worlds, and bad DM's don't.

Is that a fair characterization of your point?

Nope.

Not even close.

 

[hong]

You haven't met my wife.

Is she an elite dungeon master as well?