D&D 4E Things I Learned From 4e

[I'm A Banana]

..stuff...

The big thing to remember here is that a good DM is system agnostic. A good DM doesn't need rules support. A good DM can run a good game of FATAL. You can't argue that a system is good because a DM can make it good. That's always true. For a system to be good, it has to be good regardless of what is DMing it.

BUT ANYWAY, do you have some things you've learned from 4e you'd like to post?

 

[Zaukrie]

What I learned:

1. Making the game complicated to enter reduces my ability to convince new players to start playing.

2. Combat more than about 15-25 minutes is too long on one combat.

3. I like the minutiae stuff more than I thought, but it shouldn't be in every encounter.

4. Fluff and story are more important than I thought. While combat remains the core of the games I run, we have had times when we sat in the living room and talked through the game for 90 minutes before even going to the game room.

5. It's hard to keep a story going for 30 levels.....

6. Players like magic items and gold and stuff. I don't give much out, and my players miss it.

7. There are probably a hundred more things....but that's a good start for today.

8. Oh yea...solo monsters need the ability to shake off effects.

 

[keterys]

What I learned:

2. Combat more than about 15-25 minutes is too long on one combat.

Is that always true?

I'd love a system that let me have both:
1) 10 minute easy combats that still had meaningful results
2) 90 minute big boss set piece combats

Otherwise I might get the case where #2 takes more time to setup than in actual play, which is less fun.

 

[Zaukrie]

Is that always true?

I'd love a system that let me have both:
1) 10 minute easy combats that still had meaningful results
2) 90 minute big boss set piece combats

Otherwise I might get the case where #2 takes more time to setup than in actual play, which is less fun.

Good point. I guess I want options....

 

[hanez]

The big thing to remember here is that a good DM is system agnostic. A good DM doesn't need rules support. A good DM can run a good game of FATAL. You can't argue that a system is good because a DM can make it good. That's always true. For a system to be good, it has to be good regardless of what is DMing it.

I disagree with that quote, and if your sure about it how can we prove it? I believe it is entirely possible that many DMs found it hard to insert stories, non combat action, and a deeper sense of purpose in characters in 4e. Or perhaps I am the only DM that felt that way. But I tried very hard, but sometimes the system, the flavour of the books, the mystical and interesting way a spell is written, the complicatedness of the rules that helps the DM just be the one guy who knows the answer, all this stuff helped me be a better DM in Ad&D and 3e, IMHO

Perhaps we could say, a great system makes it easier to be a great DM. Or the inverse, some systems make it harder to DM (ignoring what area you want to be good at, I believe 4e makes it easy to be a great tactical combat DM, if thats what your looking for)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I disagree with that quote, and if your sure about it how can we prove it?

Well, the logic goes like this:

a) One of the necessary (though insufficient) qualities of a "good DM" is the ability to ignore, enhance, or replace the rules-as-written when the rules-as-written conflict with their group's fun.
b) When a "good DM" runs up against a system with poor rules, assuming no alternative is available, she will then ignore, enhance, or replace the rules-as-written, for the fun of her own group.
c) Thus, a "good DM" is rules-agnostic. A good DM ignores, enhances, or replaces the rules-as-written when they conflict with what is fun for her group, so she does not depend on any particular rules set to have fun.

I believe it is entirely possible that many DMs found it hard to insert stories, non combat action, and a deeper sense of purpose in characters in 4e. Or perhaps I am the only DM that felt that way.

I think you're not alone. I do think, though, that those DMs who found it hard to run games that were fun under 4e mostly found other rulesets that made it easier for them. In as much as they COULD have made 4e into a game they wanted to play, it was a lot less effort for them to make Pathfinder, or Castles & Crusades, into the game they wanted to play. Even a good DM usually doesn't want to walk uphill when there's a perfectly good escalator available.

Perhaps we could say, a great system makes it easier to be a great DM. Or the inverse, some systems make it harder to DM (ignoring what area you want to be good at, I believe 4e makes it easy to be a great tactical combat DM, if thats what your looking for)

I think your parenthetical kind of hits the right place -- different systems are better for different DMs (and even for different kinds of games), and some DMs are going to find 4e easier to run than Pathfinder, and others will find Castles & Crusades easier to run than 4e, etc. Probably no DM will find FATAL to be easy to run for their style of fun, unless their style of fun is....deeply disturbing?

The difference between a horrible ruleset and a good ruleset is thus how many DMs prefer it -- how many "good DMs" find it easier to play that ruleset than others. If 5e is right about this modularity thing, and does it in a way that makes it easy to DM, then it has the hallmarks of a really, really good ruleset, that can be preferred by many diverse DMs who enjoy many diverse things. Which would be awesome.

But you can't really say that because a system can be good under the right DM, that the system is necessarily a good system. Because you can say that about horrible, horrible systems, too. A good DM is a defense against all sorts of badness.