When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Thasmodious]

The irony of course is that rule 0 is from 3e. And that very rule 0 means all those 'constraints' in 3e exist nowere but in your head. Conversely I see no such 'check with your GM' rule 0 in 4e. Nor do I see any advice about crafting house rules in the DMG. Perhaps you could cite some page references for me?

Rule 0 is as old as gaming. And in 3e, the DM was expected by his players to adhere to the same rules they were, since that was part of the point of the system. Monsters/NPCs had to use the same feats as the PCs to do the same things. The system was designed with the idea that the world maintained consistency through the rules.

I guess you missed the section of the 4e DMG entitiled "Creating House Rules", huh? It's on pg. 189. Like I said - EXPLICITILY STATED -

House rules are variants on the basic rules
designed specifically for a particular DM’s campaign.
They add fun to your D&D game by making it unique,
reflecting specific traits of your world.
A house rule also serves as a handy “patch” for a
game feature that your group dislikes. The D&D rules
cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns
and play styles of every group. If you disagree with
how the rules handle something, changing them is
within your rights.

 

[Rel]

Ok, the snark level in here is on the rise. Last warning before I shut the thread down.

 

[justanobody]

2. There is no statement that Graz'zt can't instant escape a battle and no need to rationalize such a story element.

Unless a player gets upset that they also cannot teleport outside of the restrictions on the spell built for encounter purposes.

This is the reason behind making spells/power uniform so that both the PCs and monsters are on level ground and not imbalanced towards the DM side.

So when monsters continually violate the powers rules, when to players and PCs get to do so?

There would need to be some ritual for teleporting farther distances that the players could also use to balance out the system. To make it fair.

Powers state explicitly all that they can do. this prevents someone from trying to use Magic Missile on the darkness, and no more need to work if it has some force that can do damage to something. A powers limitations are included in its text.

So if something says "up to X squares", then that is as far as they can go with this combat power, otherwise they need to perform some ritual during combat to achieve the longer distance not provided by a power.

 

[El Mahdi]

While it applies for some people, it's nowhere true for all. I had at least 90% of all released 2e material, yet I was more than happy to switch to 3e. I had at least as much 3e material as well (Official that is) and yet, I had no issues with switching to 4e. In fact, I was more than happy to.

I guess it how you look at things. When I buy D&D books, I do not expect to be using only them for the rest of my life. Just as with my computers, my TVs, my kitchen utensils, my cars, I buy them fully accepting that at some point, within a foreseeable future, they will have to be updated, if I wish to have the newest stuff.

I agree with this. I actually bought more stuff for 2E than I did for 3E, and I switched as soon as I was able to get my grubby little hands on a 3E PHB, and I never looked back (that is except to convert 2E material). I don't feel betrayed or left behind one bit because my old material is obsolete. I don't feel that because my old material isn't obsolete. In fact I feel I actually have an advantage over some kid just getting into the game with 4E. They have such enjoyment and wonder because of the world that's just opened up to them, and that's great, but I know that what they are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. I have such a large library of reference materials and ready made inspiration, that I can't possibly view it as no longer useful.

And, like I said, I actually bought less 3E stuff than I did 2E, and still didn't switch to 4E. 4E just doesn't have the versatility and complexity I desire. But, I don't feel betrayed or left-behind by 4E. It just isn't for me, but even if it was, it would by no means nullify any of my previous material. Fluff material is good for any edtion and, as said before, doesn't have an expiration date. Even 3E crunch can still be kept around for 4E. If there's things you don't like about a 4E rule, and want to houserule a fix, 3E material is a great place to go looking for guidance. The truth is, 4E wouldn't be the game it is without 3E, just as 3E wouldn't be the game it is without 2E, and every other edition that came before. The changes in the game aren't about planned obsolescence or even Darwinian evolution, as some have claimed, it's the evolution of concepts and ideas. New ideas don't nullify old ideas, they build on top of the old ideas. Sometimes they take detours that don't work or don't appeal to some. And that's okay. But it does not nullify or marginalize those older ideas.

And of course, what comes around goes around. So, I'm more than happy to wait for 5E or even 6E. Until then I'll use what works for me. I'll even use some 4E ideas. I won't disregard anything that can make my game better, regardless of where it comes from. To do so would be spiting myself just to prove a point.

 

[Halivar]

Unless a player gets upset that they also cannot teleport outside of the restrictions on the spell built for encounter purposes.

#1 reason why 3.x should never have been written, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, completely new to the third edition. I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.

It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge. That, more than any other mechanic, would turn my D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame.

In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, and it has always been thus.

 

[justanobody]

#1 reason why 3.x should never have been written, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, completely new to the third edition. I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.

It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge. That, more than any other mechanic, would turn my D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame.

In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, and it has always been thus.

This is where older editions, not new to 3rd, held some kind of balance in that NPCs were made the same way as PCs and had to use the same spells. They could have new versions, but most times, just used the exact same spell as the player could use.

This kept things fair because the DM was following the same rules with NPC magic as were the PCs.

While magic can and should be able to do anything, when two same level, INT, etc people using the exact same spell differ in min and max abilities of that spell for some reason, there is reason to question it. It is called unified mechanics.

So then why should the DM follow any of the same rules the player do? Why aren't monsters and NPCs just using a completely different system for everything including the way they attack, take damage, etc?

So I ask do you feel you should, as a DM, be held to allow your monsters to take damage, or they should be immune to damage from PCs because it "would turn [your] D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame".

Excessive use of "DM can do what they want" is what breeds contempt of player to create a DM vs Player attitude.

 

[El Mahdi]

But many of the group that could be classed as the "haters" have hated 4e since months before its release. A single detail or two that became known early was their first reason (powers, frost giants, 1-1-1, etc), but it snowballed as more things became known. It's not really some big mystery. People make snap judgments all the time and then go to great lengths to rationalize them, despite evidence to the contrary. They made the decision to hate it first, now they have a want to justify it.

You don't hear from many people who had an open mind all the way, looked forward to the release of a new edition, then thought it was complete crap and will never play it again. People made their decisions months in advance. I went the same route. When I first heard the announcement, my reaction was negative. Then I thought about it a bit, remembered how I've loved every edition of the game, even 3e, which I was very skeptical about before release. So I decided to not sweat it this time around and just look forward to a new edition.

And yes, when people playing the game are telling those who "despise" it that despite their perception, the value of the ruleset is that it disappears into the background and it actually helps you play the game the way you want to play it, that is evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure I agree with all of this. I've been pretty vocal about what I like and don't like about 4E (although I'll admit I've never gone as far as saying, or even feeling that I hate 4E). But, when the anouncement came out for 4E, I was extremely excited. Just as excited as I was about 3E. Over the course of the year leading up to it's release, I was glued to every release and talk about what 4E would accomplish. The whole reason I joined ENWorld was because I was looking for 4E info. Every concept they talked about, every rules concept they released, sounded awesome. I was really amped up for 4E.

Then I got my books.

As soon as I started reading the rules, I started realizing all of the things I couldn't do anymore (namely with character concept creation). The underlying concepts I think are still awesome, however the execution just didn't work (for me). I had been extremely excited about the new edition, even incorporating pre-4E rules concepts WoTC released into my 3E game. I kept telling my players all the good things that were changing, and that some of the new things we were using in our 3E game would give us an idea of what our game would be like when we started using the new edition. Then reality hit home when I actually saw the concepts as they applied them. Needless to say, that was when we decided not to switch.

However, I'm not saying I'm in a majority, but there are more open minded people that followed all the pre-release material and then were disapointed when they got the books, than you might think.

 

[Thasmodious]

Unless a player gets upset that they also cannot teleport outside of the restrictions on the spell built for encounter purposes.

This is the reason behind making spells/power uniform so that both the PCs and monsters are on level ground and not imbalanced towards the DM side.

So when monsters continually violate the powers rules, when to players and PCs get to do so?

I'm not talking about powers. I'm talking about what a monster can do outside of combat. The MM stats are not the end all of the monster any more than the stats are the end all of the PCs. I think you missed what I was getting at. PCs at that level can teleport with rituals. Epic demon lords have the ability to get around the cosmos. You have no need to justify it in relation to the rules for PCs, anymore than you have to justify a magic fountain and grants a +1 str when you drink from it.

 

[Benimoto]

So I ask do you feel you should, as a DM, be held to allow your monsters to take damage, or they should be immune to damage from PCs because it "would turn [your] D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame".

Excessive use of "DM can do what they want" is what breeds contempt of player to create a DM vs Player attitude.

No one's made the suggestion that the DM should just ignore the teleport speed listed and have Grazzt constantly teleporting around the battlefield in violation of the general rules of the game. Nor that monsters should ignore the HP mechanic. The only thing that's been specifically suggested is that if the plot demands it, Grazzt should be able to use some sort of instantaneous, long-range teleport to escape.

I agree with your last statement, but you're taking the position that one single use is excessive.

 

[Thasmodious]

#1 reason why 3.x should never have been written, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, completely new to the third edition. I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.

It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge. That, more than any other mechanic, would turn my D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame.

In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, and it has always been thus.

Exactly what I was getting at (other than feeling 3e should have never been written ). That particular legacy is something I could definitely live without. An epic demon lord will always have the ways and means to get around the cosmos in my games.