New Sage Advice Video

[The Little Raven]

I gotta wonder about the effort that went into getting this video made and posted when all it essentially boiled down to, "Yes, there will be mechanics for that, but we're not giving specifics right now." Thanks?

The Rouse already said that all the video podcasts were made at the same time, when GamerZero came in and filmed them all in a day. They're just being released in pieces. So, it's probable they asked Perkins a bunch of things, and are segmenting it.

And plus, it's a simple Q&A, not articles like we get in Dragon. I expect we'll see more on non-combat mechanics in an article, rather than a podcast.

 

[Henry]

Regardless, if Scott, Chris, or any of you guys are listening: I LOVE the video-answers idea. Keep it up!

 

[The Little Raven]

Regardless, if Scott, Chris, or any of you guys are listening: I LOVE the video-answers idea. Keep it up!

Much more personal, I think. Even though it's still one-sided (them giving us info), seeing their face and hearing their voice makes more of an impact than reading sterile text on a screen. Now I have faces and voices to associate with the names in the books, which moves them from "distant, faceless designers/developers" to "that funny dude with the flowery shirt who writes kickass fluff."

 

[Bishmon]

The Rouse already said that all the video podcasts were made at the same time, when GamerZero came in and filmed them all in a day. They're just being released in pieces. So, it's probable they asked Perkins a bunch of things, and are segmenting it.

And plus, it's a simple Q&A, not articles like we get in Dragon. I expect we'll see more on non-combat mechanics in an article, rather than a podcast.

I'm not talking about all the videos, but this one in particular. There's some merit to the idea of posting little Q&A snippets in video form, but not when those snippets are, "Yes, but we can't tell you now." That's why I was wondering why even go through the effort of chopping this video up and posting it online if this is the result. At least make it worth the while, you know?

 

[KarinsDad]

I reward the characters in my games with a new level whenever the stars are right. Usually after one very long adventure, two long adventures, three medium adventures or four short adventures. I wouldn't even know how many xp they have without consulting a chart somewhere.

I was considering this type of approach, but decided that sometimes, players want to level up mid-adventure. Nothing better than meeting the BBEG a few times and the last time, pulling out some new tricks that the PCs had not previously used.

So, I decided upon:

0 points for a yawn battle.
1 point for a challenging battle (lots of resources used and the potential for a PC death, i.e. at least some PCs go unconscious or close to unconscious)
2 points for a potential TPK battle (most PCs on the edge, PCs forced to pull out their big gun resources).
1 point for "change the course of the adventure" roleplaying (not derailing the adventure, rather coming up with intelligent plans or ways to enhance the adventure, but it has to be significant, party or PC).
1 point for a major goal (like the end of a storyline or subplot, party or PC).

10 points = level

This keeps to DND's combat oriented leveling roots, but still allows players to gain individual points for major personal or party accomplishments. It also encourages players to take risks and not be afraid to go after more challenging avenues. It is a little more bookkeeping than your approach, but nothing near the 3.5 XP system.

But, I can definitely see the appeal for a "number of adventures" or "when the current storyline ends" or "when a given goal is reached" approach.

 

[The Little Raven]

I'm not talking about all the videos, but this one in particular. There's some merit to the idea of posting little Q&A snippets in video form, but not when those snippets are, "Yes, but we can't tell you now." That's why I was wondering why even go through the effort of chopping this video up and posting it online if this is the result. At least make it worth the while, you know?

It sounds like the question was "Are there going to be rewards for non-combat encounters" and the only necessary answer was "Yes," but he elected to tell us more by saying that the rules were still being refined (playtesting), so they didn't want to talk about them until they were in their final form. That's no different than old Sage Advice questions which had a longer question than the answer given.

 

[KarinsDad]

It sounds like the question was "Are there going to be rewards for non-combat encounters" and the only necessary answer was "Yes," but he elected to tell us more by saying that the rules were still being refined (playtesting), so they didn't want to talk about them until they were in their final form. That's no different than old Sage Advice questions which had a longer question than the answer given.

I disagree.

At least the old Sage Advice answers usually gave some type of semi-worthwhile answer.

This video showed absolutely nothing that the community didn't already know. Goal oriented experience. Not exactly a new concept and a concept that would have been changed by many DMs if it were not in 4E.

I agree with Bishmon.

 

[lkj]

I disagree.


This video showed absolutely nothing that the community didn't already know.

I sometimes wonder if WotC is not always targeting the 'community' we're assuming in those sage advice thingies. I doubt everyone in the community at large is scouring the news sites for every tidbit they can find about 4E. It's quite possible that there are a lot of more casual folks who just check the front page of the D&D site occasionally. I don't recall exactly where the info on the non-combat rules was originally, but I can't imagine it hurts to mention it again in a quick question and answer format on the front page. Anyway, I guess I'm saying that it's probably not always us junkies they are trying to communicate with.

AD

 

[Incenjucar]

A lot of these tidbits are what show up on the Google Wizards news widget, so I'm going to agree on the casual browser assumption.

Many people have other things to do, especially this far from release.

 

[Davelozzi]

I'm not sure why they bother with these videos. The images are so dark as to be worthless, and it's just more annoying to have to load, watch, and listen to a video rather than just read a short blurb that says the same thing.