Who's Actually Read the DM's Guides

[Ryujin]

Sorry, but nothing in the DMG could possibly change my reaction to the actual mechanics of the game that feel videogamey to me. It's not a playstyle thing, it's a game mechanics thing.

IMHO it's always a playstyle thing. I don't remember thinking that Traveller felt like Yatzee, just because I was always rolling D6 all the time. Mechanics are only intrusive, in role playing, if you let them be. Granted, some are more flexible and fluid, like the way that the World of Darkness system lets you combine different attributes in order to obtain the same ultimate result, but suspension of reality is the game, not the mechanics that you use in order to get there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, the healing surge mechanic feels like what I experience in arcade fighting games like Tekken, and in some computer combat games.

YMMV, but that is my subjective experience.

For my buddies- one of whom is a professional computer game programmer- other mechanics reminded them of other games.

Whereas for me the hit point bar with no real healing except magic far more resembles almost every arcade fighting game ever. It's a video game mechanic, with healing potion replacing health packs - see Doom for details or any FPS. The 3.X healing mechanics are those of mainstream video games whereas the 4e ones are those of much more niche games that try to work out how to do things right in that specific circumstance rather than going for more obvious choices.

4e is to me the least video-gamey edition out there. If your friends can think of 4e mechanics that resemble a video game, good for them! I can do the same for 3e - except I just need to say "Baldur's Gate". Or 2e and "Planescape Torment". Some of the 4e mechanics might be like those in video games - I have no problem with this idea. There are after all a limited number of mechanics possible, and video games have been trying to find as many as possible of them.

But when I look at the 3.X ruleset I see something that ought to be a video game. Lots of petty little details to keep track of that could better be done by computer. Statsheets that need regular rewriting due to cascading effects from buffs - again something that ought to be part of a video game because making humans do it that way is silly. Spellbooks and needing to wrangle them - very easy on computer with tickboxes, unnecessarily hard on paper unless you have a default loadout. Inventory management (e.g. scrolls) - again something that ought to be part of a video game - video games do exactly the same thing as is done in 3.X, but make it feel fairly easy.

Possibly this is both why 4e feels like a good video game (easy to pick up and very streamlined faffing) while at the same time 3.X has mechanics that are much more like those of most actual video games (especially those based on itself). The play experience of 3.X is in many ways noticeably improved by turning it into a video game. That of 4e is not - it was designed that the players would seldom have to do things that a computer would do better.

 

[S'mon]

Is that actually IN the DMG? I never got confirmation of that.

Page 105, bottom right paragraph, "FUN".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e feels like a arcade fighting game...
Next time I try to do some combos... maybe I unlock a secret special move...

at least it feels retro and not like WOW...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've never encountered a fighting game (Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Soul Caliber, etc) with heals. That would sort of defeat the purpose of the game.

In Tekken- and as I recall in MK & SC as well- you can recover health by performing certain actions as long as you don't get hit, usually by doing certain move and/or strike combos, and also between combats.. It is done entirely within the character- and generally with no external sources (I'm told that in certain modes on the home console versions, there are apparently some items in certain games that affect healing).

IMHO it's always a playstyle thing.

Not in my case- my playstyle hasn't really changed in 30+ years.

4e feels like a arcade fighting game...
Next time I try to do some combos... maybe I unlock a secret special move

Or just take a class that includes powers that let you recover HP when you strike in combat.

It's a video game mechanic,

Technically, a mechanic video games borrowed from RPGs.

(Which is all I'll say, since I'm not debating people's subjective experience.)

Lots of petty little details to keep track of that could better be done by computer...

Like marks, conditions & modifiers that last only a round or so in 4Ed? That was the first critique offered up by the game designer.

Again, it's all personal experience, and debating it won't chage people's personal experiences.

 

[TerraDave]

DMG1 was a pretty good read, but not a great reference. I think all the crunchy bits have been errated, and I really have no reason to look at it again. DMG 2 is a little more useful.

But, seriously, I use my 1E DMG more as an ongoing reference. (and not just the wandering prostitute table).

 

[delericho]

I read the 4e DMG, cover to cover. I was not terribly impressed.

I haven't read either the DMG2 or the Essentials equivalent. By the time they were published, 4e had passed me by.

To be honest, though, the standard for DMGs is actually shockingly poor.

The 1st Ed DMG is a badly-written mess, with parts that make no sense at all (initiative). The appendices, however, are spectacular.

The 2nd Ed DMG is almost completely worthless, with only the magic item descriptions holding any value.

The 3e DMG (and 3.5e version, and Pathfinder's DMing chapters) is okay, but incredibly dull. We really, really don't need several pages of description of different types of door!

The 4e DMG has some good advice, some really bad advice, a couple of faux pas, and almost no value after that first read-through. All of the crunch has now been rendered obselete, and it doesn't have even the magic items of the 2nd Ed version. It's one to borrow, read once, and then never reference again.

Surprisingly, the very best DM book I've encountered is the DM's booklet included in the BECMI Red Box. Probably due to the reduced page count, it is forced to get to the point, do the job it sets out to do, and then end.

Of the "second DM books", I'll hold up the 2nd Edition "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide" is being the high-water mark. Frankly, the contents of this book should have been in the DMG, and it's almost inexcusable that it was not.

The 3e DMG2 has some good advice, but really came into the product line far too late - by the time it came out, almost anyone who would benefit from it probably knew it all by then.

As I said, I haven't read the 4e DMG2, so can't comment.

Finally, the Pathfinder "GameMastery Guide" is excellent, and well worth a read-through (even for 4e DMs). The only hesitation I have in recommending it is that I don't know how far it overlaps with the 4e DMG2, so it might be redundant. It's not quite as good as the CS&CG from 2nd Ed, but it's not far off.

 

[Incenjucar]

Sorry, but nothing in the DMG could possibly change my reaction to the actual mechanics of the game that feel videogamey to me. It's not a playstyle thing, it's a game mechanics thing.

I'd wager it's actually a presentation thing. Fighters have always had a variety of at-will basic attack powers, they just haven't been written in a way to make it obvious. You can write every edition in a 4E format.

--

I've read both DMGs. The first had important rules, but the advice wasn't useful to me specifically because I've been at this since 2nd edition, but it was reasonably well-presented. DMG2 is really, really nice, regardless of experience. As it happens, I've had an extremely smooth DMing experience the entire edition. I understood the loose nature of skill challenges from day 1, so never had any issues with them; my first custom skill challenge was saving a beached whale.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd wager it's actually a presentation thing

You'd lose that wager in our group, at least.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Not in my case- my playstyle hasn't really changed in 30+ years.

One might be inclined to say that lack of change over a three decade span is more of a personal limitation than a benefit. Especially if you're not adapting to change that occurs around you.

just take a class that includes powers that let you recover HP when you strike in combat.

Those types of mechanics exist in Pathfinder as well. See a number of witch spells that function in reverse. (Hit something else, you take damage).

---------

Not intending to debate. Everyone's got their preferences, but I think every game in a general genre affects other games over time, evolution and all that. I'd be more worried if D&D remained the same game over 3 or 4 decades and didn't get rid of some sacred cow and introduce new things.

I also think that the maturity level of the people playing the game (granted a small but vocal minority) needs to be evaluated when reading the commentary that flames a game. Speaking from personal experience, when I get flamey, I'm usually just being a little b****.

More important things than D&D to get antsy about.