D&D 4E Ryan Dancey on 4E

[LostSoul]

DM's shouldn't be pulling punches now.

It's hard not to.

If the DM is doing whatever he can to stop you, when you gain a level it means that much more. You don't have to wonder if the DM decided that, "This encounter is too tough for these dorks; I'll reduce their HP and instead of 6 ogres there'll be 3." Instead he says to you, "Man, 6 ogres, you guys are gonna die, and I'm gonna win!"

Then you kick ass and take names and high-fives go all around and it's too bad for the DM.

That's not too hard to do with regular D&D, just stick strictly to the % of EL encounters per adventure, and make it known that if the DM breaks that chart, he's cheating.

How you would do it with non-combat encounters - "roleplaying encounters" - I don't know.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yeah... that's what got me. The differences between the two systems were "little changes."

Nothing huge, but 3e is sort of based on the idea that it's a delicate balance. Change one thing and you alter said balance.

I think you have it exactly backwards. Quite the opposite is true.

3e is based on the idea if you do the hard to make a solid and consistent design such that the guts of the system are easily understood, if you give the DM useful benchmarks (even if those benchmarks are imperfect like CR and wealth guidelines), if you get the rough balance right, then all that is left is minor tweaking any experienced DM/player can easily do themselves without destabilizing the system.

A balanced system that is well designed is not inherently delicate. It is inherently robust. When tweaks are made the system will bend in ways that are understandable and predictable by the DM. A DM can thus foresee how to make the minimal changes to keep the game on course or correct course if the campaign is drifting off.

 

[LostSoul]

The game will need to ship with methamphetamine if DMs are supposed to be awake and refereeing at all times.

That would certainly make it a big seller...

 

[Ranger REG]

While I think 1% is low-balling it a bit for the purpose of making a point, it's not really more than 5 or 10% in my opinion. The change between 2E and 3E I'd put as high as 60 or 70% - it's still possible to get a good sense of power levels of characters. In 3 to 3.5, all changes except one or two were almost cosmetic.

Perhaps, but not to most consumers. When 3.5e came out, almost everyone move to the latest edition, while just a few (like me) held onto 3.0e.

Nowadays, we don't talk about 3.0e, on this board or on Wizards board, and almost we look down on gamers who uses 3.0e like they're 8-track owners.

 

[sullivan]

DM's shouldn't be pulling punches now.

Unfortunately the DM is in a direct conflict of interest right now. He controls both the rules and the NPCs. Judge and prosecutor.

Yes, I suppose you could remove either one to lessen the conflict of interest. As I see it; Removing the rules from the DM's control, good. Removing NPCs from their control, bad. I think that is what you were saying to with regards to the M:tG refrees?

 

[Ranger REG]

I was a bit surprised at Mr. Dancey's assertion that a departure from the SRD rules would cause a huge, absolute split. I guess I'm confused because the 2E to 3E change was huuuuge (as compared from 1E to 2E). The two systems weren't compatible, and yet most of the AD&D market transferred over. Why would this not be the case if there was a new, "totally awesome*" system for 4E?

*What I mean by "totally awesome" in this context is the concept that they make a new edition with lots and lots of changes, like from 2E to 3E, but changes which people like and appreciate (as it seems most people did from 2E to 3E).

While we may appreciate WotC to make a totally awesome ruleset, some of us may be turned off if 4e is no longer supportive of the OGL movement. This would shut down many small businesses that rides on the coattail of the OGL/SRD.

For a strictly D&D label fan, it may not affect you, but there is a community of d20 gamers that are going to feel abandoned.

For me, personally, I don't know. I have already cut down my RPG time and what enthusiasm I've had back in 2000-2002 is somewhat diminished.

 

[Ranger REG]

Good question. To be honest, if you listen to the suggestions of how some of the "sacred cows" of D&D should be replaced, you start wondering why there aren't more people playing HARP.

Because we're waiting for Rolemaster to be revived.

 

[cildarith]

Because we're waiting for Rolemaster to be revived.

QFT

 

[LostSoul]

Unfortunately the DM is in a direct conflict of interest right now. He controls both the rules and the NPCs. Judge and prosecutor.

That's what I was trying to say! Good stuff.

 

[Henry]

Perhaps, but not to most consumers. When 3.5e came out, almost everyone move to the latest edition, while just a few (like me) held onto 3.0e.

Nowadays, we don't talk about 3.0e, on this board or on Wizards board, and almost we look down on gamers who uses 3.0e like they're 8-track owners.

Yeah, I admit that it bugs me, because 90% easily of pre-3.0 D&D is perfectly usable. I recently recommended the 3.0 take on Spellfire to someone in the Rules Forum because a 3.5 take wasn't available. Heck, I could grab a 3.0 Lasher and he'd fit like a glove in most 3.5 campaigns. As long as you alter save DC bonuses to caster level bonuses, limit keeness stacking (for very little reason, I might add) and eliminate powers that grant extra standard actions or their equivalent, there's very little material from 3.0 that wouldn't fit.

This is the point where I have to disagree with Delta: The spell changes might be significant as a body of work, but they don't amount to significant divergence in their rules. (there might be changes in damage dice, or in spell resistance, but from one to another at least there IS still spell resistance, or the same hit point ranges for targets. In the 2E to 3E change, both of these were different enough in methematics and target averages that it was a very different situation.)

I'd say it's as easy to integrate 3.0 material into 3.5 as it used to be to integrate 1E material into 2E - I can and DID do that latter all the time back in the 1990's, with absolutely no repercussions. On the other hand, I couldn't say the same about 2E material into 3E, because the very classes themselves and their means of accumulating XP are very different; such a fundamental change means that the flavor of most things could be translated, but not its mechanical aspects.

=======================

Now, with relation to expecting a divergent break from SRD to 4E: Until Eric's rumor source, I would've dismissed it out of hand. (I sort of do again, now that Eric finds it less believable. ) A change that totally broke from the SRD, I know for a fact, would not be followed by my group, because we have no interest in such a game; otherwise, we'd have been playing Battletech instead of D&D these past six years (and I don't think I've played Battletech in five years tops.)

Not to say you couldn't roleplay with a minified D&D - hell, that's where D&D got its start, for that matter. (Dave Arneson decides this one-to-one wargame rules called Chainmail would be good for a crawl through the sewers of castle Blackmoor, and BAM! The nascent genre of roleplaying is born!) But I enjoy the story element more than the battle aspects, and I have it now with what I have, PLUS a whole lot of other games besides.

But would a minified D&D bring in droves of new potential roleplayers? I have to agree with Wulf Ratbane, it would. I have two players sitting at my table each weekend whose first tabletop experience was Magic the Gathering -- they played computer games before that time.