New Podcast...

[Gundark]

It might be roleplaying to accountants. Then again, most people I know (accountants especially), like to leave as much of their work out of their hobbies as possible.

This is true. I'm a therapist, I can't stand watching Dr.Phil (for more than one reason), however the main reason it's like watching work.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Okay, so I finally got around to listening to this and I also feel more excited about what was discussed than I do about the hype and tidbits we've received.

Irda Ranger does a good job of highlighting some of the discussion, so I'll add to what he said (or give my interpretation).

1. They totally missed the point on the currency question. I'm pretty sure the guy was asking if D&D was moving to a more abstract wealth system, instead of accounting for coins. Based on their answer, the answer is 'No.'

I am also worried that Dave Noonan thinks that money 'disappears' once the PC spends it, and that there's no such thing as a "D&D economy." It's hardly a main point, but I hope they give a little more thought to the 'economic' consequences to rules.

Agreed. I will say that I hope they don't go with a wealth system, but I wouldn't mind consolodating coinage into that which is most likely to be used. As far as the various economies, I am not as concerned, although some basic guidelines may be useful if done correctly.

2. The meaning of "Core": will include expansions and D&D Insider materials, not just the first three books.

Well, he did say that you could see it as the three core books OR you could see it as also including the D&D Insider Materials.

I believe that his definition of core is more accurately described as 100% Official. Since they are also very clear that you don't need to subscribe to the online content to play the game, it makes perfect sense that the core rulebooks are the only true CORE material.

It doesn't surprise me, however, that they would encourage people to subscribe, since it will be another source of income (I am starting to lean toward subscribing - I have an account, but I mean actually paying when they start charging).

3. Different "Tiers" do have different rules; not terribly different, but not exactly the same.

Yeah, I didn't like the wording, because I would be surprised if they actually had DIFFERENT rules, but instead had ADDITIONAL rules (or rule nuances).

4. Psionics: Eventually.

Whether it's core or a later add-on, doesn't really matter to me, but I think that it has become important enough to gamers that it wouldn't make sense not to include it.

5.a Monster Roles: intended to help DM's design challenging encounters quickly. e.g., Combine an Artillery & Defender for encounter X. Also, now monsters can use the same tactics PC's have been using.

That's good, in theory. I hope that it works well in practice.

5.b Class Roles: intended to guide player expectations. Brings focus to character design. Brings focus to group design.

I hope that the Roles are dynamic enough to allow a character room to change roles during a campaign. The more aspects that a character is locked into at character creation, the more that a player may become dissatisfied with and not be able to fix (aside from creating a new character).

6. There were sacred cows, but not a "list" from the beginning - they took things out, saw if the game still worked / felt like D&D, and put it back if the game didn't feel like D&D.

Sacred cows aren't a big deal to me, but then again, I'm more concerned with how it will play rather than how much it feels like D&D. As long as I can still run the style of game that I like and the players enjoy themselves, I'll probably be happy (for the most part).

7. Spelljammer/Ravenloft - no specific plans.

This response didn't surprise me, since it's been a fairly pat answer to most question like this for quite a while.

8. Nothing has been 'off limits' in the design process.

Once again, as long as the end result is a good (or, can we pray, great) game, I'm not concerned with what was left/tweaked/changed/trashed.

9. Monsters are 'kind of' advanced by HD.

To me, this sounded like they will give rough outlines for advancing monsters, but if more specifics are needed, they will fit perfectly in a future product (DMG 2 or MM 2, perhaps).

 

[Henry]

Listening to it now ... is it just me, or is the volume of the D&D podcast extremely low(and not just this one)? I'm really havign to crank up PC speakers to hear it.

Hey Dave, if you and Mike are readin g this thread any, Olgar does have a good point: Dave's voice comes through LOUD AND CLEAR in the podcasts, and when it gets to Mike taking a turn, I usually have to crank the volume up a bit to hear him - which makes Dave's voice EXPLODE when he goes back to talking. I don't know if it's mic placement, or just Mike's voice, but there is a bit of inequality there that has me dialing the volume up and down when I listen to the podcasts. It's not a huge problem, but if you guys could look at it, I know I'd appreciate it.

 

[Glyfair]

I believe that his definition of core is more accurately described as 100% Official.

No. I think it means 100% official non-campaign specific material. Indeed, in that context, I think the focus is on the fact that core isn't tied to a specific campaign settint.

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree with everything in the above two paragraphs. Not one sentence or phrase.

When a tree falls in the woods, it makes a noise, whether you're there to hear it or not. The universe does not revolve around you. D&D world does not revolve around the PC's.

That's just how I roll.

Agreed. But you're scenery doesn't do it for me. I wouldn't be able to suspect disbelief.

Tell me, do you role-play out scenarios with yourself involving monsters, villains, and kings the PCs will never meet? Have character sheets and stat-blocks for them all? Roll dice to determine the outcomes of their actions, and then recount these solo-sessions to your players when they later show up to play?

If yes, then I'll believe you. If no, I'm afraid I don't.

When a tree falls in the woods, it makes a sound, whether the PCs are there or not in the game world. But the fact that the tree fell has some meaning to the narrative in the REAL world, because unless the PCs (or the players) see, hear, get hit by, or hear about the tree falling in the woods, the point is moot. There might be a tree, it might be in the woods, it might have fallen, and it might have made a sound, but unless you tell your players (and usually by extension, the PCs) IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, its just fluff that exists in your head that neither I nor those players will ever know about (and by extension, doesn't exist for me or them).

Me, I'd rather not worry about that tree in the woods unless its going to further my game somewhere (by blocking a road the PCs travel, hitting a PC while sleeping under it, scaring the bejeebus out of them when they are wounded and looking for shelter, etc).

EDIT: Wow, I didn't think I'd sound so post-modern about D&D.

 

[DarkKestral]

EDIT: Wow, I didn't think I'd sound so post-modern about D&D.

Just wait, and you'll start making paintings that multiple copies of a photograph of your character that are only different in the way the photo's colors are substituted...

Honestly, I can see the thing that "D&D worlds are static till your PCs come in", but I also can see that there needs to be some work done so that the mathematics work out that various NPCs have cash supplies that make sense and the world doesn't have a distinct "PCs operate by a different set of accounting rules" feel (i.e. laborers can live off their wages, even if just barely and a sword made by a PC whose skill in forging is equal to an NPC blacksmith's can be sold for the same price. generally)

When rules in a core rulebook contradict each other when faced with casual inspection, it can be hard to make things feel coherent.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

No. I think it means 100% official non-campaign specific material. Indeed, in that context, I think the focus is on the fact that core isn't tied to a specific campaign settint.

Yes, I forgot to add the non-campaign specific. Thanks. Also, I would agree that the focus, from WotC, is on the fact that core isn't tied to a specific campaign setting.

The point remains, however, that said material will not be necessary to run the game. Therefore, calling it core is probably not the most accurate, either.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's one style. Personally, I find that style, as a DM, to be very wasteful. Too much of your time is spent working on elements of the game that will have no effect on the game.

In my experience, GMs of that style tend to burn out much faster than other GMs. They get frustrated when all of their work on the campaign world goes unnoticed because it was irrelvant to the play. You may be an exception, but I've seen it happen on a lot of occasions.

Yeah, this has been my experience as well. Either that or they get annoyed at players for not making their work useful.

For instance, I knew a DM who made up a magic item that worked like a Legacy weapon in that it gained more and more power as the character wielding it accomplished some goals and gained levels. He spent a long time charting out its powers all the way to when the characters were 20th level.

The player it was given to wanted to use a different weapon, so he just started giving more and more incentive to want to use it. Like making up enemies whose DR could only be bypassed by THAT weapon.

He also spent a lot of time making up the names and stats of ALL the BBEG's minions and the BBEG himself. He kept finding excuses to make the BBEG or his minions show up and interactive with the PCs on a regular basis so he wouldn't have to wait until the PCs got to level 20 and were actually able to face them in combat.

In my games, I never worry about anything that is more than 1 degree of separation away from the PCs. Prices always stay the same, NPCs are around only when they need to tell the PCs something, buy or sell something from the PCs or are directly factored into the plot of the adventure the PCs are on (or possibly foreshadowing future adventures.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yes, I forgot to add the non-campaign specific. Thanks. Also, I would agree that the focus, from WotC, is on the fact that core isn't tied to a specific campaign setting.

The point remains, however, that said material will not be necessary to run the game. Therefore, calling it core is probably not the most accurate, either.

But from WOTC's point of view, that's what it makes the most sense to call it. They don't arbitrarily call a book "not part of D&D". So, from their point of view D&D consists of two parts: "Core" which is all the books they make that aren't made for any campaign settings (and therefore should show up in every D&D game being run whether Eberron, Forgotten Realms, or homebrew), and "Campaign Specific" that are rules that will only show up in games in that specific campaign setting.

I don't see any reason for WOTC to invent a category that basically means "You don't have to buy this book".

Of course, that's already the way it is. The only people I know who make a distinction between something that shows up in the Complete Warrior and something that shows up in the PHB are some DMs on this message board that want to limit the options in their game. In all the games I've played in and run, there is no difference between the two books.

 

[MerricB]

Nice podcast. Finally got to hear it.

I hope Mike likes Tannhauser better than some of the people I've seen posting about it at bgg. :-/

Cheers!