D&D 4E Stephen Radney-MacFarland on Conversions and Adventures in 4e

[mach1.9pants]

"If you are a DM who uses or wishes to use the D&D rules for a physics of the world, where monsters and players always live by the same rules and building monsters and NPCs is a rigorous and time consuming as building PCs, the ease may make you feel a little queasy at first. "


To each their own.....I love this. And I used to be a real simulationist DM, ie I had about 5 pages of stuff on various types of armour with a system for hit locations. But we had a sit down and chat as a group when one of the PCs brought in Bo9S. I am now a convert to a totally different campaign style. I am after ease of creation and quickness of play.
I just don't have the time anymore to do the level pf prep I used to (in the forces you get a lot of time on Ops/Exercises/standby to do this stuff- and my 3E house ruling has built up over lots of years)

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

D&D is horrible at simulating physics or, well, anything. Look at the economy. It's not meant to demonstrate a living breathing world effected by the flow of gold, it's just a mechanic to show how wealth by level works and how to designate the level appropriateness of a magical item. Look at Falling Damage. It's not realistic, it's not related to physics, it's just there.

I believe you missed the point, the rules are the physics of D&D World not the real world. I don't care if they mirror reality so long as they're reasonably consistent in their own context. That tends to break down in the economic system but that's because of the multiple purposes it serves, economy + point-buy powers system + reward. That and the prices were for the most part plucked from thin air with little to no coherence. Still it was close enough that with some alterations it could serve.

Trying to treat the D&D rules like world physics and simulation is trying to use a tuba as a hammer. You can, but it's a hell of a lot more work and just not the tool for the job.

It all depends on whether you demand they simulate the SAME physics the real world runs on. The rules can be the physics of the game without even resembling RL physics, because they're modeling fundamentally different places.

Different strokes, I guess. It's a selling point for me.

I don't mind, in fact if 4e is better for you wonderful. But for me its a long plunge away from the gaming experience I want to have.

 

[Rechan]

I believe you missed the point, the rules are the physics of D&D World not the real world. I don't care if they mirror reality so long as they're reasonably consistent in their own context. That tends to break down in the economic system but that's because of the multiple purposes it serves, economy + point-buy powers system + reward. That and the prices were for the most part plucked from thin air with little to no coherence. Still it was close enough that with some alterations it could serve.

I don't understand. Are you saying that 4e isn't consistent?

 

[mach1.9pants]

is trying to use a tuba as a hammer. You can, but it's a hell of a lot more work and just not the tool for the job.

LOL

to facilitate how many days Farmer Brown has syphilis.

ROFLMAO and wetting my pants!

 

[FourthBear]

As long as the DM is the one generating the monsters and NPCs, I don't think there's a significant problem. A more freeform system prevents unintended consequences in the system from causing the gameworld to drift away from the intended gameworld consequences. If the DM doesn't think NPCs should ever have abilities the PCs have, they need simply restrict themselves completely to the PH for NPC generation. If I wish to have a set of evil cultists who have made a pact with the Hells for greater power, then I can feel free to give them powers outside the norm. If another DM doesn't like that idea, they need merely not use it.

Are people worried that DMs won't have the discipline to maintain what they see as necessary to the gameworld?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I get it. I got it the first time. I accept it. But I can't read it any more.

I think I got it the first time, too.
Some people seemed to have missed something, or want to be assured that it applies to X too, isn't just a marketing scheme (as if they would tell us if it was ) or just can't get into the mindset of it, or don't want to believe it (or something else).

Yes, sometimes, I still find this stuff interesting. Sometimes, there is still something that seems describing the thing from a different perspective...

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I don't understand. Are you saying that 4e isn't consistent?

Based on the comments and bits revealed, some of them in a thread on this very forum by Mearls I think that it will have ramped up the gamist aspects so far that self-consistency fails. Not that gamism isn't fine in moderation but I think it has subsumed the ruleset to a far greater extent than I'd prefer.

 

[NewfieDave]

I believe you missed the point, the rules are the physics of D&D World not the real world. I don't care if they mirror reality so long as they're reasonably consistent in their own context. That tends to break down in the economic system but that's because of the multiple purposes it serves, economy + point-buy powers system + reward. That and the prices were for the most part plucked from thin air with little to no coherence. Still it was close enough that with some alterations it could serve.

Who says they won't be consistent within the 4e D&D world?

The way I'm reading these changes is that you can provide your NPCs and monsters with as much detail as necessary and ignore extraneous information that will have no impact on actual gameplay. I think we can all agree that this concept is good.

What you seem to be concerned about is that these details will not make sense, or maybe that what some people might consider extraneous you will consider to be very relevant. I don't see a precedent for this concern within the information we've been given.

If 4e's NPC/monster creation chapter states "Here are the most important stats. You can handwave everything else. End of chapter." then your concern would be justified as that doesn't seem to promote a coherent system of physics. I just don't think they'd be that slack.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Based on the comments and bits revealed, some of them in a thread on this very forum by Mearls I think that it will have ramped up the gamist aspects so far that self-consistency fails. Not that gamism isn't fine in moderation but I think it has subsumed the ruleset to a far greater extent than I'd prefer.

I still fail to see any problem.

Fact, YOU make the call, which seems better.

 

[Rechan]

Based on the comments and bits revealed, some of them in a thread on this very forum by Mearls I think that it will have ramped up the gamist aspects so far that self-consistency fails. Not that gamism isn't fine in moderation but I think it has subsumed the ruleset to a far greater extent than I'd prefer.

Could you give some sort of concrete example instead of just tossing around gamist gamist gamist?

I don't see how the rules aren't consistent.

Saying the rules aren't consistent = 1+1=2 today, and 1+1=6 later.