WotC Blogs II

[Gundark]

for some reason I thought halflings...not sure why.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I wonder wich race it is.... Dwarf ? They had some trouble with it, and the size problem of dwarves make them a first suspect for this.

I'm betting the Halfling. Halfings have been described as "lucky", which is hard to implement in a game that depends on statistical "balance" to be fun. My guess is that they found a mathematically correct, and simple, way to represent this that "raises eyebrows" at first glance, because of some appearance of unfairness.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm not sure how I feel about this - is he sorta talking about introducing special case mechanics for special cases... a direction that leads to madness (and the 3e undead turning rules. Or perhaps the grapple rules)

It doesn't have to be a special case mechanic, even if only one class/race/PrC uses it. For instance, Turning Undead could be incorporated into the core spell rules as a blast effect (20' radius) resisted by a Will Save by the undead in the AoE. It would still be a one-class-only ability.

No, it sounds to me more like there was something that everyone has on their character sheets (like HP or Ref save) has been moved to just one person's character sheet (like a spell list). In one sense, it's the opposite journey that Open Locks made when it ceased to be a Thief-only thing and became a Skill anyone could take ranks in.

So the question becomes, what is accounted for on everyone's character sheet, but hardly anyone uses? It could be anything, even something as small as vision type or BAB v. Trip attacks.

 

[Mercule]

I'm betting the Halfling. Halfings have been described as "lucky", which is hard to implement in a game that depends on statistical "balance" to be fun. My guess is that they found a mathematically correct, and simple, way to represent this that "raises eyebrows" at first glance, because of some appearance of unfairness.

If this is true, I might actually allow halflings in my games.

Currently, both halflings and gnomes seem to have no purpose other than to annoy. The halfling is the Martial Annoyance role and the gnome fills the Arcane Annoyance spot. Bland mechanics and uncertain concepts.

 

[Glyfair]

David Noonan has asked for your suggestions for for common DM tasks and DM issues.

This morning I'm working on some organizational issues for the Dungeon Master's Guide. One of the things I'm playing with--and keep in mind that this might be a dead end--is organizing the book by DM task.

(And before I see a bunch of "OMG WTF they haven't started the DMG yet" messages, I should be clear. A lot of the DMG rules are written and quietly lurking in our version control software, waiting to get slotted into the actual book. I'm working on organization/presentation issues.)

What do I mean by DM task? Here's the (admittedly tenuous) theory: There are a discrete number of reasonably common tasks that collectively make up, say, 80% of a DM's function. Rather than have the DM flip pages all over the place, you could put all the stuff for "generate a treasure hoard" in one place.

Here's the list of DM tasks I jotted down this morning, off the top of my head. They're in no particular order. And while I think I nailed most of the important tasks, this list probably isn't complete.

"I'm adding a new player to my table."
"One of my players needs a new PC--fast."
"I'm about to start an encounter."
"I just finished an encounter."
"The session just ended."
"I need to generate a treasure hoard."
"I'm making up an NPC."
"I'm making up a new monster."
"I'm customizing an NPC/monster."
"I'm making up a major villain."
"I'm making up a new magic item."
"I'm making up a new trap."
"I need to fill this room with stuff."
"I need to populate a big set of encounters."
"I want to write an adventure."
"I want to design/run a negotiation/interrogation/etc."
"I want to design/run an encounter with a strong obstacle/hazard/chase element."
"I want to do a puzzle/mystery."
"I want to start a campaign."
"I want to adapt a published adventure."
"My game starts in a half-hour, and I got nothin.'"
"My players want to shop/research/train/whatever."

Beyond the tasks, there are a number of common DM issues that might benefit from the same organizational approach--putting all the advice/resources/suggested resolutions in one place. Issues are like tasks, except they're at least somewhat resistant to a checklist approach.

"I have to adjudicate a thorny rules issue."
"The PCs are all dead/captured."
"The PCs missed a clue/are 'stuck' and don't know how to proceed."
"The PCs are seriously going way off the map (literal or figurative)."
"I'm going to have one or more absent players."
"I've introduced a game element, and now I'm having second thoughts."

Here's where you can help: I've started a thread here for your suggestions for common DM tasks and DM issues. Some guidelines:

• A DM task is the sort of thing that you have a mental checklist and at least a vague order of operations for. A DM issue is the land of judgment calls, ad hoc solutions, and solid advice.
• DM tasks in particular should be specific and repeated. In other words, try to drill down to the nitty-gritty of what the DM is actually doing when he sits there staring at the graph paper or the computer screen or whatever. And it should be something that a DM will do more than once.
• It's OK if a DM task leads to other, smaller DM tasks. "I want to write an adventure," for example, is a broad task that's probably going to include a lot of "I need to fill this room with stuff" and "I need to generate a treasure hoard" tasks. But you can imagine a broad checklist and order of operations guiding the adventure writer, so "I want to write an adventure" would be a useful task for the DMG to cover.

So have at it. I look forward to reading your DM tasks/issues, and we'll see whether this approach takes us anywhere interesting.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

This morning I'm working on some organizational issues for the Dungeon Master's Guide. One of the things I'm playing with--and keep in mind that this might be a dead end--is organizing the book by DM task.

Based on the follow-up explanation, I will go on record now as 100% in favor of this approach.

 

[blargney the second]

It seems to be something that in 3.5 has a layer of complexity that only exists to support the "special cases." Having a specific rule for those special cases isn't too bad, if it is unified.

As it stands, I can't think of anything that obviously fits the bill. Maybe something in spell casting?

AoOs.
-blarg

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

AoOs.
-blarg

Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't need to know how this works unless you're a particular sort of melee character?

 

[Klaus]

Based on the follow-up explanation, I will go on record now as 100% in favor of this approach.

Ditto.

Very clever organizational structure. Even 3.x DMs might buy the 4e DMG because of it.

 

[The Lost Muse]

I don't remember if it was an appendix of the 3e DMG, or in the little booklet that came with the DM screen, but the collection of all the tables together was invaluable, and I missed having it in 3.5