PeterWeller
First Post
I'm sure I'll end up picking these up. I spend close to $100 a month on books of all sorts anyways, and this stuff looks like it will at least make decent toilet reading.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Will you buy the preview books?
- Thread starter Delta
- Start date
Commonblade
First Post
Where is maybe? I am sure one will end up at my table.
Baron Opal
First Post
Maybe. The art will have to thrill me in a photocopy-and-use-as NPC-portrait kind of way. I figure someone will post what the classes and races are so I won't need it for that. Maybe if Najo gives me a good discount... 
RigaMortus2
First Post
Mourn said:
Part of deception is not getting caught
JoeGKushner
First Post
Mourn said:
It's tempting but I'm gonna have to see it before making any final decesions. If this is a sealed book, it's dead to me.
Crunch is crunch is crunch. Either I will learn to like the new crunch or I will stick myself with playing a dead game for eternity. However, I hope to get excited about the new game. The preview books will most likely determine whether or not I really want to get into switching over to 4e.
Rule sets really don't matter to me all that much. I have a family and a career, now, and I don't want to devote time to developing my own setting and flavor for that setting. What I need is a setting that interests me and inspires me when I want to think of my own storylines, antagonists, etc. A secondary need (a very close second) is the ability to stick within the rules and have the flexibility to create whatever I want to create within those rules (thus, the love of monster advancement, class-levels, templates, etc). A tertiary need of the game is the ability to houserule/exclude elements without throwing other parts of the game out of whack (cannot multiclass into Barbarians or Sorcerers and can only be Raised by a cleric of your same faith...a couple of minor examples).
So, yes, I'll be getting the preview books. If those books don't inspire ideas for storylines and if the authors' notes don't inspire confidence that the game line in general will inspire even more ideas....then I'll just keep my "story idea pipeline" full of 3.5-based information.
Rule sets really don't matter to me all that much. I have a family and a career, now, and I don't want to devote time to developing my own setting and flavor for that setting. What I need is a setting that interests me and inspires me when I want to think of my own storylines, antagonists, etc. A secondary need (a very close second) is the ability to stick within the rules and have the flexibility to create whatever I want to create within those rules (thus, the love of monster advancement, class-levels, templates, etc). A tertiary need of the game is the ability to houserule/exclude elements without throwing other parts of the game out of whack (cannot multiclass into Barbarians or Sorcerers and can only be Raised by a cleric of your same faith...a couple of minor examples).
So, yes, I'll be getting the preview books. If those books don't inspire ideas for storylines and if the authors' notes don't inspire confidence that the game line in general will inspire even more ideas....then I'll just keep my "story idea pipeline" full of 3.5-based information.
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
You mean "STOOPID marketing plan."Delta said:
Merova
First Post
Design Philosophy
I'm also a big fan of game design philosophy. However, I don't think that I'll be picking up these books; I'm not certain that a substantial clarification of the design goals of 4E can be made without providing the concrete examples of game mechanics. Sure, empty expressions of enthusiasm and ancedotal tales of playtest thrills can fill a bunch of pages. Heck, they can make for entertaining reading as well. But they don't add value to my games.
Let me offer an example to elucidate this concern.
First, I'm interested in the mechanics behind resolving "social" challenges. The current 3.5 ruleset gives little support for social challenges. Either the situation is answered with a single skill check or the DM has to deal with the situation using narrative techniques of task delineation and determination. However, the D&D core rules offer no advice on implementing narrative technique; the DM must simply improvise the situation. Some DMs are happy with this style of arbitrary and flexible roleplay. Personally, I'm capable of running a narrativist encounter, but I'd rather have some robust mechanics. Therefore, I have an interest in reading about the 4E design philosophy of task resolution, as applied to diverse facets of gameplay beyond the typical challenges of dungeoneering.
So, I have just offered a "why" for altering the current system of social challenge resolution. What about the "how" of the game design? Here, we can get into the basic concepts of the design philosophy, such as the "gamist/narrativist/simulationist" criteria or the Robin Laws Player Type catagorization. But what value does that have in terms of making our games any better? How does pumping out a 1000 word essay saying that 4E social challenge will have cool and easy gamist mechanics which will offer enough guidance that even new DMs can handle dramatic social encounters with all the thrills of a cinematic combat scene, while eschewing tedious and intrusive simulationist complexities, so that player types as diverse as "tacticians" and "method actors" will be satisfied in actual play, but without offering any proof or substantiation to the claim, improve my game?
I could offer many other examples in which I have an interest, such as the turning mechanics, combat maneuvers, and creature creation/utilization. The "whys" behind redesigning these elements are easily explained, just take a glance through the Rules forum. The "hows" can only be meaningfully explained when given a concrete example by which we can judge the design.
In short, I feel that game design talk without examples of the results of such design is merely enthusiastic pablum. Some might find it a fun read. But I don't perceive any value that it might have for me and my games.
As always, YMMV. Good gaming!
Mourn said:
I'm also a big fan of game design philosophy. However, I don't think that I'll be picking up these books; I'm not certain that a substantial clarification of the design goals of 4E can be made without providing the concrete examples of game mechanics. Sure, empty expressions of enthusiasm and ancedotal tales of playtest thrills can fill a bunch of pages. Heck, they can make for entertaining reading as well. But they don't add value to my games.
Let me offer an example to elucidate this concern.
First, I'm interested in the mechanics behind resolving "social" challenges. The current 3.5 ruleset gives little support for social challenges. Either the situation is answered with a single skill check or the DM has to deal with the situation using narrative techniques of task delineation and determination. However, the D&D core rules offer no advice on implementing narrative technique; the DM must simply improvise the situation. Some DMs are happy with this style of arbitrary and flexible roleplay. Personally, I'm capable of running a narrativist encounter, but I'd rather have some robust mechanics. Therefore, I have an interest in reading about the 4E design philosophy of task resolution, as applied to diverse facets of gameplay beyond the typical challenges of dungeoneering.
So, I have just offered a "why" for altering the current system of social challenge resolution. What about the "how" of the game design? Here, we can get into the basic concepts of the design philosophy, such as the "gamist/narrativist/simulationist" criteria or the Robin Laws Player Type catagorization. But what value does that have in terms of making our games any better? How does pumping out a 1000 word essay saying that 4E social challenge will have cool and easy gamist mechanics which will offer enough guidance that even new DMs can handle dramatic social encounters with all the thrills of a cinematic combat scene, while eschewing tedious and intrusive simulationist complexities, so that player types as diverse as "tacticians" and "method actors" will be satisfied in actual play, but without offering any proof or substantiation to the claim, improve my game?
I could offer many other examples in which I have an interest, such as the turning mechanics, combat maneuvers, and creature creation/utilization. The "whys" behind redesigning these elements are easily explained, just take a glance through the Rules forum. The "hows" can only be meaningfully explained when given a concrete example by which we can judge the design.
In short, I feel that game design talk without examples of the results of such design is merely enthusiastic pablum. Some might find it a fun read. But I don't perceive any value that it might have for me and my games.
As always, YMMV. Good gaming!
Similar Threads
