D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Maxperson]

Makes throwable magic weapons much more valuable across the board, that's for sure! Returning weapons are rare as unicorns in 1e...

Thinking back to my 1e experiences, I encountered many more unicorns than returning thrown weapons.

 

[Fenris-77]

My adventuring study has several stuffed unicorn heads over the mantle but only a single account of a returning weapon. Some truths are possibly lost to the mists of time, but that evidence corresponds to my admittedly hazy recollections of the time.

 

[Lanefan]

Thinking back to my 1e experiences, I encountered many more unicorns than returning thrown weapons.

Reversal of my own experience: I think I've DMed one - maybe two - unicorns in my life, and seen perhaps one other as a player; but I've DMed at least ten returning weapons* and seen several as a player as well.

* - not counting a particular item that more or less functions as a returning arrow; we've had a dozen or so of these over the years as well.

 

[Maxperson]

Reversal of my own experience: I think I've DMed one - maybe two - unicorns in my life, and seen perhaps one other as a player; but I've DMed at least ten returning weapons* and seen several as a player as well.

* - not counting a particular item that more or less functions as a returning arrow; we've had a dozen or so of these over the years as well.

I and the other DMs were a bit fond of Belts of Giant Strength and Gauntlets of Ogre Power. They weren't common, but they were out there, so I'm guessing that we didn't put too many returning hammers in for a reason.

 

[pemerton]

So, please, do tell me how someone who sees the book on a shelf, and picks it up, with no prior contact with the gaming community is going to know the tradition? Are you figuring it comes through the Jungian collective subconscious, or something?

Traditions are communicated by people. Is it "conjecture on thin evidence" to say that someone who does not have contact with the people is highly unlikely to have it communicated?

I did say some, not all, and you referred to oral transmmission. And I quoted anther poster too!

I was just pointing to something that is easily knowable - namely, that the book being discussed (4e DMG) has a section called "House Rules" that talks about the GM as game desinger and gives both general advice and worked examples. To me that is relevant to the question of whether or not the game supports the GM changing the rules. And probably moreso than conjecture about transmission by oral tradition.

EDIT: It's true that a game is a social things with a social existence. But in the absence of detailed study of RPGIng communities, we don't have a lot of access to that.

But we do know what the various books say. To me that seems like something firm to point to in trying to determine what sorts of play, GMing approach, etc a game supports. Not definitive. But not ingorable, at least in the absence of strong contrary evidence about actual practice.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Chaosmancer]

it states that while you have authority to change the rules, it ominously states that "your efforts won't help you if you have no group."

Pulling out this particular bit to think about.

I wonder if this was a response to some of the things the designers feared would happen, and so they tried to give a much more realistic portrayal of GM power and responsibility.

We've all heard stories of DMs who act crappy towards their players, changing rules that benefit them or creating rules that people don't really want to deal with, but forcing the players to deal anyways. And this always leads to bad feelings between the DM and the players.

So, I wonder if the intent with that line is to remind DMs that even if they think this hyper-realistic, true to history, armor vs weapon chart including quality of steel and rolling for hidden fracture is interesting, if the players find it a burden you won't get a lot of traction.

Sure, you can homebrew a monster. If you make an unkillable grudge monster because the players forgot to chip in pop money, nothing good is going to come of it.

Maybe it isn't the place of the book to say that, and I don't really know why the 4e book would feel the need to say that, perhaps the designers felt bad behavior was a little rampant in 3.X, but, I think the intent is to simply state: "You as the DM have a lot of power. Make sure to use it responsibly, because without a group, there is no game."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arilyn]

I always felt Basic was the game in the early years which gave GMs the freedom. AD&D has lots of warnings in the Dungeon Master introduction. "Change things at your own risk, in case you upset the perfect balance of the game. Be careful, lest you stray so far, you are no longer playing D&D." Reminds me of the warnings in my old high school chemistry class.

It actually made sense. AD&D was written for "serious" hobbyists who would be competing in tournaments. Gygax wanted the game to be the same no matter which table you were at. Meant players could move freely between tables and have the same ruleset. Basic, Holmes, and OD&D were meant for more casual gamers. So, I'd say AD&D discouraged home brewing. Sure, there are lots of options in the DM's guide, but aren't they mostly Gygax ideas, with that stern warning ringing in your ears?

3e opened the game up, but is fiddly for today's tastes. 4e just felt hard to tinker with. I'm sure people did, but it didn't feel like a game you should be messing around with, rules wise. 5e, on the other hand, is very easy to play around with. It's structure is right out in the open. I just find it super easy to make up new things, tinker with the rules, etc. It's pretty robust that way, plus easy to see where you've screwed up.

PF 2 feels harder to play around with too, but I might just need more time with it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*