D&D 4E Your plans for 4e

[el-remmen]

Upside? 4e is going to be very good.

I remain unconvinced.

 

[(contact)]

I remain unconvinced.

I am convinced you're creative enough to find work-arounds for the more glaring gamist inclusions, and you never know, you might like running a 4e game better.

What intrigues me is that they've said they'll address the things in D&D that really try me.

 

[(contact)]

This sums up my opinion better than I did. I got distracted from it by gleemax.

And well you might. That's the way things work in reality. Labeling somethinga as the "4th pillar of D&D," and then having it look 85% likely to be mediocre makes . . . D&D look mediocre.

The ideas and concepts behind the web initiative are all very good, but as usual in the electronic realm, the execution lags and isn't strong enough to add percieved value to the brand.

Who knows? Maybe the reason everything looks like poo at thet mo is because the awesomeness is all being carefully tinkered and perfected so it can be sprung on us in the Spring. It could happen. DnDi is being built by someone other than the Wizards internal web staff, so there's a possibility that they're very good. Early signs point to "not likely," but if D&D taught me one thing, it's "always check for traps."

Whoops, I mean it taught me "that as long as you have an action remaining, there's always hope."

If I were the design team, I'd roll the social networking initiative out separate from an edition launch. I'd roll it out on the down-low, invitation only (per the gmail beta), and get my early adopters/cutting edgers involved, work out the kinks over the course of a year -- oh, and name it something non-retarded. Like, (contact), or maybe [contact] if I was feeling daring.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

If I were the design team, I'd roll the social networking initiative out separate from an edition launch. I'd roll it out on the down-low, invitation only (per the gmail beta), and get my early adopters/cutting edgers involved, work out the kinks over the course of a year -- oh, and name it something non-retarded. Like, (contact), or maybe [contact] if I was feeling daring.

This is, frankly, the thing that makes me most pessimistic about the online offerings -- the invocation of the "Social Network" term.

I don't have anything against social networks. I use them, I run them, I live in them much of the day. I have some strong opinions about the "my space" or "ning" variety that puts user profile ahead of content, rather than the older, BB style networks like . .. . wait a minute, I was trying to remember the name of that old style BB . . . Eric Noah's Attic? Was that it?

The newer profile-first networks put the cart before the horse, IMO. They are attractive because a user doesn't have to have an opinion. They can create their page, and they show up right there on the home page, front and center. You see who else has an account and ask to be their friends . . . and make connections from one profile to the other . . . and you're still not actually talking about anything. You're just holding hands and waiting for something cool to come along. Whoopee.

BB style networks put the ideas out front, and once you discover that you like someone's ideas, then maybe you follow links to their profiles. I mean, we all know who Piratecat is on these boards . . . and it's not something we learned from reading his profile page. We know it because his ideas and posts are insightful, memorable, and always worth reading.

But the biggest problem, and the one that bugs me about the WOTC invocation of "social network" is that it sounds to me like every client who walks in the door and wants to harness the social network idea for their own business. These clients know the term, know it can work wonders, and they walk in the door asking for it without having a clear idea of what the network will be or how it will work -- only the expectation that it will turn their business into an overnight success, thanks to the mystical black box of powers that is the social network.

I have yet to hear anything or see anything on Gleemax that suggests that they have any more detailed or complex idea of what goes on with a social network, except that they expect it to turn on a firehose of money for the brand, because that's what social networks do.

BUT . . . the ideas they have for the game itself DO have me very excited. And what I'm reading in posts and hearing about in other places makes it clear that they're using it -- playing the new version of the game, trying stuff out, kicking the tires, really getting their hands dirty trying to see what truly works and what isn't worth the effort.

I only wish I had the feeling that they had the same sort of hands-on expertise and focus on these online offerings that they're touting so highly, but not really talking about with any specificity.

-j

 

[el-remmen]

I am convinced you're creative enough to find work-arounds for the more glaring gamist inclusions, and you never know, you might like running a 4e game better.

You may be correct, and I am trying to keep an open mind, but at the same time I worked hard to make 3E into something I enjoy running playing and while I know that no "out of box" D&D game is every going to satisfy me (or my long-term players), I do not look forward to doing all that work again.

What intrigues me is that they've said they'll address the things in D&D that really try me.

That's another thing - the stuff they talk about being a problem has never been a problem for me and my groups. We've never had the 5 minute adventuring day (except in extremely rare cases). No one complains about Vancian magic b/c we feel any magic system is as aribtrary as any other and I guess we're used to how it work and enjoy the challenge.

They talk about 3 to 5 rounds per combat - but my games have 12 to 13 round combats on average (I did the math) - which means we have had 30 and 40 round combats that were a ton of fun.

We haven't had alignment arguments since we were teenagers and no one who played a cleric ever worried about being the group healer or even the role in the group. We're playing adventuring "people", we make do with what we got.

I have never been a "red-lining" DM. If the party is making a 300 mile trek across the wilderness - stuff is happening in that trek because that is the fun "see the world" and sidetrek stuff. That is the fun "holy crap! did we bring enough rations?" stuff. . .

I also don't enjoy chronic "bad-assery" - both for PCs and NPCs.

Even with most of what was coming out for 3.xE I realized that I was not the target audience for it, and I basically know the same with 4E - I am just not looking forward to making it into something that *is* for me.

 

[el-remmen]

As for "social networking": I think Facebook is great and a D&D version with player profiles and gaming group profiles, etc. . . would be a great idea.

 

[(contact)]

You may be correct, and I am trying to keep an open mind, but at the same time I worked hard to make 3E into something I enjoy running playing and while I know that no "out of box" D&D game is every going to satisfy me (or my long-term players), I do not look forward to doing all that work again.

Do you not feel that 3e is an better-playing game? I thought it was a huge step forward.

 

[el-remmen]

Do you not feel that 3e is an better-playing game? I thought it was a huge step forward.

Oh, if I didn't think so I would still be playing 2E.

And I like it enough to not feel crazy pressure to switch to 4E - but if I do go to 4E I will likely run games that go from 1st to 10th and 10th being the basic max of PCs and 15th (or so) being extraordinary "epic" characters.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, if I didn't think so I would still be playing 2E.

And I like it enough to not feel crazy pressure to switch to 4E - but if I do go to 4E I will likely run games that go from 1st to 10th and 10th being the basic max of PCs and 15th (or so) being extraordinary "epic" characters.

Don't forget, the 'sweet spot' is 1 to 30 in 4E!

-Hyp.

 

[(contact)]

Oh, if I didn't think so I would still be playing 2E.

And I like it enough to not feel crazy pressure to switch to 4E - but if I do go to 4E I will likely run games that go from 1st to 10th and 10th being the basic max of PCs and 15th (or so) being extraordinary "epic" characters.

What about converting PCs? I want to run Drake De La Lanco Negro in Aquerra. And all of his levels are legit-- Piratecat initialed the "43rd" on his character sheet. I wrote Gary Gygax a letter in 1987, and he wrote me back giving me carte blanche to play Drake Darklance in other people's games, so no worries on that front.