Search Posts
If Essentials characters don't have daily powers what makes them balanced in a game using PHB Characters..also..have the Monsters in Essentials been revised to take the lack of dailies for the PCs into account? Unfortunately, I can't say much on this issue right now, but keep an eye on the D&D website this month. We're going to be previewing some stuff that should answer your questions.
Just a concern, more of an opinion(get your flame-throwers ready), but I thought 4e was already supposed to be the "friendlier to new players, easier to learn" DnD game all by itself? So, we have a newer, younger player friendly version of the newer, younger player friendly edition? To get into a bit of philosophizing here for a moment, I think when you look at the tradition of D&D as a whole, there is actually a really broad spectrum of complexity. Taking 3rd Edition for example, you have a broad range of complexity for players, with fighters on one end and, say, druids on the other (I could easily have picked wizards or clerics there, but druids add in wild shape and stuff like that). So, imagine that the complexity of D&D as a whole (even considering the varying level of complexity of other editions) as this line: |----------------------------------------|
What I think 4E did was actually cut a slice right out of the middle, so that the complexity of 4E as a game looks something like this: |--------|----4th Edition----|-----------|
So, for the people accustomed to a higher complexity in their playstyle (people that played spellcasters often, people that put a lot of work into character building, etc.) 4E looks like a less complex game. However, to the more casual player, the player who just plays the fighter and likes to hit things (I've got a couple of those guys in my regular weekly games), or the player that wants to play as straightforward a game as possible, 4E looks like a more complex game. What the Essentials do is try to broaden that center spectrum a bit by offering classes of different complexity levels. For some, that means providing a selection of classes that are simpler, faster, and more straightforward. For others, it means providing classes that scratch that druid/cleric/wizard player's itch. So it's not about "younger," but it IS about "player friendly." I think one of the great things about prior editions is that it allows the players who like vastly different levels of complexity to sit down at the same game table and enjoy the game, and that's what we're looking at doing in Essentials. And lastly, Rodney, thank you for your work on Star Wars Saga Edition. I love the rules, and my friends and I are having an absolute blast playing it! Thanks! And thanks to everyone else who has said so. I really loved working on the Star Wars books, and I think it's given me a unique perspective when it comes to working on D&D. Obviously they are two different games, but working on Star Wars also afforded me the chance to really interact with a lot of the players of the game on an up front level, which is nice! With D&D, there's a very different signal-to-noise ratio that makes it harder to have the same relationship (there's just so many more D&D fans!).
If those are the things that we didn´t especially like, is there hope we might get more enjoyment out of Essentials? I'd like to think we address all of those things to some extent, but I can't be more specific right now--don't want to step on the previews we'll be doing. I will say this: one thing I have tried to focus on is making sure that the powers and abilities included make sense in the context of the character using them, and include some explanation of how the more complex stuff (like some spells) happen in the reality of the game world.
Is Essentials a separate rule system? No. It's the 4E rules engine. What Essentials aims to do is provide new ways to use those rules for DMs and players alike. One way Essentials does that is providing different levels of complexity for different classes, but there are also some other things that are being done (which hopefully we'll be previewing over the next couple of months) to make the game more appealing to both the new player and the experienced player. However, the basic rules of the game are the same as existing D&D (though, of course, errata will be integrated into the books). We've taken steps to improve both accessibility as well as general readability, for example. Or is 4e Turning into Essentials? No. 4E is 4E. The Essentials are compatible with your existing material. The Essentials are a small line of products that work just fine with your existing books, but provide a new way into the game for players and DMs. There is no ongoing "Essentials product line" or anything; it's all just 4E. To give you an example, I'm playing a fighter in a playtest game, using the fighter material from the first Player's Essentials book. The DM is running an upcoming adventure, and my fellow players are a mix of existing classes (we have an assassin, a non-Essentials rogue, etc.) and stuff from Essentials (another player is playing a cleric using Essentials material). They work just fine alongside each other. If it is separate how will we distinguish the difference? and will we be able to distinguish the difference and "turn off" essentials in the Character Builder and Monster Builder, and see the difference in the compendium online? I can't speak to the digital tools (I don't work on them!), but you can already choose what material you use in the digital tools. You can turn off power books, campaign setting books, issues of Dragon magazine, etc. right now in the Character Builder. As to the Compendium, it's not like there are going to be two versions of the same powers. Right now I see essentials as being the old D&D Basic and a separate system all together, but I am starting to think I am wrong. That is not the case. 4E is more flexible than people give it credit for, I think, and that may be why some of the confusion is arising. The rules presented in Essentials are the 4E rules, they just have some different presentation, and some new ways that players and DMs can interact with those rules.
That doesn't mean I am going to stop trying to make products you would like. :-D One question though: What does a "monster token" look like? I assume it's not a full-fledged miniature :) Are you familiar with the kind of tokens that come in modern board games (like the ones you punch out of a big sheet)? Something like that. Also, pogs might stir some memory for you, though the tokens in board games (which were the model for the new tokens) tend to be nice and thick.
Linkified. You da man.
It's from the Enworld article: Ah. Thanks. That particular quote is not one made by Mike, or anyone from Wizards, but by whoever posted the news over at ENWorld (Morrus, I think). I'd recommend anyone interested check out the actual article, written by Roleplaying Group Manager (and my co-designer on the Player's Essentials books) Mike Mearls. It's free, and not behind the DDI pay wall. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20100706
Except the quotation directly calls it a redesign. If they don't want to give the impression it's a redesign, then [b]perhaps they shouldn't call it one. I'm sorry, I must not be aware of what you're referencing. Can you tell me where the phrase redesign is used? It may be something we want to correct, to keep from giving an erroneous impression.
Are the two words as easy to say? Of course. Is the meaning conveyed equivalent? No, because we're not just talking about builds. We're talking about a redesign ("redesign existing classes and races..."). Builds add on to what came before. Redesign replaces (and invalidates) it. It's a do-over, little more than two years after the system was released. Actually, that's not quite the case. As Mike explains in his article, there's nothing to invalidate existing characters. It's not a redesign, it's an expansion. Think of it like this: One of the new warlord builds in Martial Power 2 was the archer warlord. He uses bows, doesn't get the same armor proficiencies, fights from ranged instead of melee, etc. He doesn't use a lot of the same powers as other warlords, he doesn't even use the same weapons, and he plays very, very differently. But the essential nature of the class is the same, no matter what build you have. The same goes for the new sub-classes in Essentials. Just as an archer warlord and a tactical warlord can sit down at the same table, use many of the same mechanical bits (but not all!), etc. so too can the characters built with the Essentials books sit side-by-side with the classes that already exist in the game. The PH1 Fighter doesn't cease to exist post-Essentials, no more than it ceased to exist when the battlerager and tempest fighters came out in Martial Power. The presentation is a bit different, and the mechanics push the envelope more, but they're still all a part of the same game. I really hope people will give the Essentials books a good look, especially people from these boards who may have written off 4E before. I think there's a lot of great, classic D&D in there that maybe they didn't see the first time around.
One house rule I've seen some people use is to say that when you reach a milestone your lowest-level daily power recharges, if it's been used. At heroic tier that's a bit butch, but once you get into paragon and epic tier those powers aren't that much more powerful than some of your encounter powers, so it ends up being OK.
So what would be some examples of the kinds of adventures you'd like to see in 4E? What kinds of adventures would be so different from the early crop? Feel free to point to a particular adventure as an example. See, my favorite Dungeon adventures were in the Shackled City/Age of Worms paths. I never got to run Savage Tide, but I'm sure they were fine adventures too. But thinking back, even those great adventures were essentially dungeon crawls with some extra material. You had the occasional adventure that broke the mold (the Prince of Redhand, for example), but for the most part it was go here, fight some guys, learn some stuff, lather rinse repeat. And I, for one, loved it. (I'd also like to point out that, while you can say that many of the best WotC adventures were written by 3rd regulars, I think many of the best 3rd Party adventures are written by WotC regulars, like Chris Perkins, Dave Noonan, Chris Thomasson/Youngs, Jesse Decker, Ari Marmell, Robert Schwalb, etc. Credit where credit's due.) I also think that judging an adventure path by its first adventure may be a bit harsh. Life's Bazaar was just a big dungeon crawl. Now, Life's Bazaar did set up the whole city of Cauldron, and of course the Whispering Cairn set up Diamond Lake; for Rescue at Rivenroar, Brindol was already set up by Red Hand of Doom. I also don't think RaR gets enough credit for what it does do in unique ways: it has a series of linked encounters that are part of a village raid, and it has a puzzle surrounding the captives...where the captives themselves are the clues. I'd call that fairly atypical. Beyond that, I think that Siege at Bordrin's Watch and the Shadow Rift of Umbraforge both are as chock-full of interesting locales, background, etc. as you can get. Overlook is a great, detailed, useful city. I'm super jealous of Rob Schwalb's city design, as it makes Mithrendain look so ho-hum next to it. Scott Gray brings the Shadowfell to life. I think both adventures are extremely detailed and leave a lot of hooks for the DM to develop on his own. Back to my original premise, I'll agree that I tended to run 3rd-party adventures in 3E, so what makes them more interesting? It may be too big a topic for just this thread, but when you think of adventures from the past that you'd like to see something that good in 4E, what do you think of? Me? I think of Test of the Smoking Eye and Ravenloft.
It may be well beyond the scope of this discussion, now, but regarding the Shardsouls... I created the Shardsoul Slayer for Monster Manual V because I thought about how constructs could be elementals bound into construct bodies, and I thought it might be interesting if some derro tried to take a shortcut and break an elemental into bits, placing each bit in a body to create many constructs from one elemental. This, of course, meant that the shardsoul slayers were insane, as they only possessed part of their original "soul." So, if you feel that's a WoW ripoff, I'm sorry, but it really has nothing to do with WoW. It's just a monster I created for MMV that the FR guys decided to pick up and put into FR.
For those concerned about creative spellcasting, I'd urge you (if you have the time, capability, and interest) to read the DMG. I can't tell you how many times recommendations on rewarding creativity pop up. In the skill challenges chapter there's a whole section titled "Reward Clever Ideas." There's a sidebar in the traps section called "Winging It." In the "running the game" section, there's a section on saying Yes to creative ideas. Also, here's my little "secret" about the DMG: Everything you need to run 4th Edition is on page 42. Seriously. The table on that page provides everything you need to improvise challenges, monsters, and skill challenges, plus the rules on "actions the rules don't cover" which is pretty much the "How to adjudicate player creativity" section of the rules.
Indeed, Dragon magazine has an article slated for later this month about putting some Illusions back into the Wizard (I'm excited to see it, since Class Acts was always one of my favorite columns!) Since I'm playing a wizard in my Wednesday night game, I assure I wrote that article for completely selfish reasons. ;)
I had a great time at GameDay here in Seattle. They asked me to help out as a DM, and I was happy to oblige. Originally, I was only supposed to be showing up from 1-5, but I decided to have breakfast with Mearls, Andy Collins, and some other guys in Renton before heading up there. I figured I would hang out for 3 or 4 hours before I ran the game...but I was mistaken! When we got there, people were lined out the door, so they put me right to work. I had the advantage of having run the adventure once before on Employee Gameday, but I must say I really like this one as an intro module. The riddle at the beginning lets people kind of get into the mode of gaming without throwing a ton of new mechanics at them, and frankly I thought it was a nice, kind of classic dungeon crawl set up. I liked that it encouraged the heroes to find their way into the dungeon and didn't just throw them in right away. I still maintain that the first trap in the adventure is fantastic, as it is really tempting for the players to trigger. The rest of the adventure went well, but my Gameday group nearly got themselves into trouble by having to fight the statues and the final encounter all at once! By the end, everyone had a pretty solid handle on the mechanics, so it was just some classic dungeon crawling and adventuring. We had a great time, and lots of other people seemed to as well. The white dragon encounter is a bit less engaging, only designed to take about half an hour, and really is more to show off how solo monsters work and let people play with their powers. It's too bad Jason didn't get there early enough to play in my Shadowhaunt game!
When I hear your voice speaking those words in my head, it always ends with mad, mad cackling.
I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions. Can I join your game?
Actually, I have been invited to play in a couple of 4E games with the Wotc folk already.They like you more than they like me, I think. No, Jason is just more likely to bring beer. ;)
As was pointed out earlier, this isn't Chris Youngs' first rodeo. He was EIC of Dungeon for the start of the Shackled City adventure path, and he's the EIC of Dungeon/Dragon now. And I know that two of the authors, Dave Noonan and Jesse Decker, both worked on Paizo APs; Jesse wrote on both Shackled City (Secret of the Soul Pillars) and Age of Worms (Spire of Long Shadows), while Dave wrote Zenith Trajectory and Test of the Smoking Eye for the Shackled City path. APs have come a long way since Shackled City, and as James mentioned it's no easy task to wrangle one of these puppies into existence. I think it's going to be a fun challenge, and one Chris seems to have really embraced. Also, I'm writing the fifth adventure in the path...but that probably doesn't mean much. :D I'm pretty excited about this AP, as I also really loved Red Hand of Doom and the APs as a whole (you should see my shrine to Age of Worms on my cubicle wall here). Plus, Chris is doing a great job organizing everything. I'm pretty sure Rob Schwalb is working on one of the adventures too, and he's not only a great guy but also a talented designer who worked for Green Ronin. And don't take Dawn of Defiance as a sign of how this AP will go; our delays are mostly due to a lack of manpower and licensing issues, two things Dungeon doesn't have a problem with.
And the idea of complex skill checks appeared back in Alternity. I know Bill Slaviscek was one of the writers. How about you, Rodney? Were you on that team? No, I actually hadn't started doing professional design at that point. Hadn't considered that initially. Interesting... Of course how often does that actually happen? Is it really a good idea to have the fighter "help" the rogue? Well, the Thievery skill isn't the only way to disable some traps. Just a while back my wizard used magic missile to destroy a poison-spouting statue that was part of a trap. The DMG gives some very specific guidelines on dealing with non-traditional methods of defeating traps. Rodney, if you are still there, could you please explain what happens when the bloodrager gains an additional attack from Death Strike/Inspire Ferocity (after being reduced to 0 hp) and uses his Blood for Blood ability? Hm, this is probably not going to get me in trouble for talking about it, but the way Death Strike is worded it is no action, meaning it occurs when the condition occurs without requiring an action. So, with Death Strike, the bloodrager hits 0 and makes his attack, but he's both dying and attacking simultaneously. So, when the attack is resolved, he still dies. Likewise, since Inspire Ferocity is a reaction, the orc is technically hitting 0 hit points and then attacking. Reactions resolve after the triggering action, so basically the Chieftain lets the dying orc make one final attack before he dies. A dead character can't take an action on its own, but basically the chieftain forces the dying orc to make an attack as it does down. The two abilities are essentially identical, but are worded slightly differently because the Inspire Ferocity is an ability with a recharge that costs the Chieftain a reaction, whereas the aura is always-on and requires no action from the Eye of Gruumsh. At least, I'm pretty sure how that works. :D I may be wrong about one of these, because it's late and I've been at the Emerald City ComiCon all day.
Okay, I can see how it would be more exciting in combat, particularly if you can make more than one thievery roll, and I can appreciate the not having everything rest on making a single check, but it still seems like a dull mechanic - it's almost like rolling 10 times instead of taking 10. I suppose since they are working to integrate traps into combat encounters, they will typically be encountered in a setting where the amount of time it takes to disable a trap is important, so it's probably just a problem of looking at it in a vacuum. Also, if you've got more than one person working on a trap, it lets you know how long it takes to disable.
So I just multiclassed into Fighter with my Wizard a few weeks ago. One of the things I think gets lost when you look at the multiclass rules in isolation is how it interacts with the new power system. When you start trading out powers you are trading out the way you behave on a round-by-round basis in combat. So, for example, my Wizard traded our ray of enfeeblement to get a nice, reactive fighter power that causes the target to grant combat advantage to my allies. I throw that in there between magic missiles and I end up with a couple of rounds per encounter where I feel like I've got some really nice sword training. Couple that with the way powers scale up with you as you go along and a "dip" doesn't really mean the same thing it does in 3.5. In 3.5 a dip into a class like wizard or cleric quickly means that those spells you learned are rapidly reduced in usefulness in combat (creative players never reach 0 usefulness with them, but I think we can all agree that 1st-level spells are doing little except utility at high levels). However, if I dip into a class in 4E, those powers don't lose their usefulness like they would in 3.5, and that dip remains a solid percentage of my actions during every single encounter. It's true that you can't really do the "half and half" character in 4E, though you can get darn close by taking all the multiclass feats and multiclassing instead of taking a paragon path. You'll probably identify yourself as "A fighter that casts some spells" or "a warlock that provides some healing" but, from my experience (and fully acknowledging that YMMV), the fact that you are consistently (and effectively!) using powers from your second class on an encounter by encounter basis makes your multiclass character feel as much, or as little, like your second class as you want.
Wisely, Timitius refrained from snapping any photos of me; I had feared his camera might burst into flames. ;) Had a good time this weekend. Thanks to all who organized and participated.
the pap and teets of gygax and greenwood If I never hear this phrase again, it will be too soon. Rainier Wolfcastle: "My eyes! Ze goggles do nothing!"
So, I'm actually playing a wizard right now in my Wednesday night 4E campaign (Vargas, 6th-level eladrin wizard). Keeping in mind that I have a very experienced DM, I can say I DEFINITELY start feeling the pressure once my daily spells are gone, and when my encounter spells go too then it's sort of a race against the clock. My at-will spells are fine for letting me continue to contribute something while still feeling wizardly, but they pale in comparison to my encounters and dailies. I find myself trying to conserve my encounter and daily spells for just the right time when I feel they'll be MOST effective, because once I'm out of those spells I don't have nearly as much sway over how the battle comes out. It's a different kind of resource management, trying to figure out when it's best to use a certain spell as opposed to fighting against my per-day spell limitations for when I get to use the fun stuff. I also just got my first magic item (yes!) so I've got a little bit more to play with now as well. As to the OP's question, is running out of spells a problem? Obviously that largely depends on your playstyle. I think people that play wizards mostly (and this is pure personal speculation) do so because they want to cast spells. Requiring them to spend a few levels as a commoner with a crossbow, or pushing them into doing the item creation tango, just to be able to consistently cast spells is certainly one way of making that possible. It's not the way I would choose. In many ways it's like having to earn the fun; you only get to do the things you want to do with your character if you put in the time and effort to make it happen. On the other hand, you have the fighter who can Power Attack to his heart's content, and does nothing to earn his fun. Some people like that, and it's a perfectly legitimate playstyle, but I don't think it's necessarily a critical part of what makes D&D a fun game.
I'm still here. I just haven't had much to say. 4E board has slowed down considerably.
One day, all will heed the call of Banjulhu.
The point of the whole journal post wasn't that skill challenges were something new or something you couldn't do before. In fact, I explicitly say that. Rather, the point is that I like that the non-combat encounter section of the game not only becomes more about resolving a scene using skills and roleplaying rather than individual tasks, and also makes it a core assumption and expected part of the game. Nowhere did I claim it was that revolutionary, but I do think it's clearer and easier to use, and opens up a lot of possibilities for interesting scenes involving every character. To draw a parallel to 3E, the DMG's section on skills mentions some stuff about using multiple skill checks. I just read over the example of the night's watch, which requires you to make 3 Listen checks, one for each segment of the watch. OK, that's functional. What 4E does is provides a simple and accessible framework for making that night's watch into a non-combat encounter that involves multiple characters rather than just 3 straight-up Listen checks. Like I say, it's an evolution of the concept, not something radically new. My personal opinion is that the non-combat encounter system takes some great ideas and makes them easier to adjudicate, and helps involve multiple characters in creative ways.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised at Erik's response. Not because he doesn't have valid points, but because that's not what I'd thought he was going to say. Now, I'm not completely ignorant of Greyhawk, and I ran Age of Worms all the way through, but I do consider myself to be less well versed in Greyhawk than most folks. To me, though, the appeal of Greyhawk as a non-hardcore fan is in the really exciting people, places, and organizations. For example, I think Iuz is very compelling, and the Scarlet Brotherhood is extremely interesting. Castle Greyhawk itself is a big draw of such a setting because it's so iconic. While admittedly leaping into any setting with such a storied history is...intimidating, there are lots of specific aspects of the world of Greyhawk that I would have thought Erik would have talked about. Now, maybe the response to this is just, "You don't know what you're talking about," but I have not gotten the impression that the intrinsic value of Greyhawk is that it's more deadly than the average campaign setting, or more gritty. But Greyhawk as the "Classic" D&D setting? That I can buy. I am not sure I agree that things like Vancian fire-and-forget spellcasting or a particular method of adjudicating death and dying or healing are necessarily integral to that, but again I'm not the expert, and I'll fully admit that. I do think that once the 4E rules get into peoples' hands (and for the love of all that is holy I want that day to come soon so I can start playing D&D with my friends at other companies again) some attitudes will change about some aspects of the rules. Now maybe Erik's right that without fire-and-forget Vancian casting or low-hit point 1st level characters you can't do Greyhawk, but I'll be interested in having this conversation with everyone, say, 6 months from now. I actually agree that maybe it's not such a big deal to say, "There aren't any dragonborn or tieflings in Greyhawk." Likewise, I think you can change background, stories, and cultures to fit the setting. Look at what Eberron did with drow, or goblins. They're radically different from their core incarnations...and I think that makes them interesting in that setting. Likewise, Eberron did its own cosmology, so there's no reason that the Great Wheel couldn't be done for Greyhawk. That's all my personal opinion, though, so don't take it as any kind of statement on behalf of Wizards. Honestly, I think that's one place where campaign setting books have a chance to shine in that they show how you can do things differently. If every campaign setting has to have the same races, they kind of blur together, and lose a lot of what makes them interesting. Eberron and FR are kind of exceptions in that they are sort of "everything in the pot" settings anyways. I guess this just shows how the same stuff can appeal to people in different ways. Maybe some GH fans, like Erik, see the setting as tied to the old school mechanics. Me, I'm more interested in Greyhawk as a setting full of intrigue and (as Chris Tulach describes it) the sort of "wheels within wheels" interaction between various elements of the setting. I get the feeling that, though I'm not a GH superfan right now, I could become one with the right introduction to the setting, and I would imagine there are many like me out there just waiting to be introduced to the setting. Given how zealously I follow some settings (*coughStarWarscough*) I actually kind of fear getting sucked into another one.
Denethor seems too tame to me despite his madness. I was thinking Drow internal politics when I read this, something I have always really liked and found at least plausible but given all the baggage that has accumulated over the years and the general dislike for a certain angst-filled, scimitar wielding member of the race, doesn't see enough game time. As a comparison to the Fomorians? Sure. I was more drawing a parallel between the way they might be able to interact with members of their own court. A Fomorian will likely be more aggressive, more brutal, and more violent, but by the same token his minions seem likely to be more capable and willing to handle that kind of leader. One thing I like about the Fomorians (and the feywild in general) is that they're a lot more alien than we're used to, so there's that sense of the unexpected there as well. You never know what the Fomorian king is going to do next, because he's just thinking along a totally alien mindset from you--and one filled with paranoia and aggression.
This is actually an honest question because I'm NOT all that familiar with Greyhawk: what, exactly, is it about Greyhawk/4E that makes you think they are not compatible?
I like to think of it kind of like Denethor in Return of the King (the film, anyways). He's clearly mad--but he manages to hold it together. Sort of this paranoid-but-aggressive attitude that allows them to have allies but there's sort of this two-strange-cats-in-a-room attitude between any two members of the fomorian's court.
Hey gang, I thought I might re-post something here that I posted over on the ENWorld forums, which may (or may not) address some of your concerns.
In a dungeon for example you would fight the vampire lord in his crypt, the move into the next encounter in the cells next to the room filled with his ghoul minions. The two encounters would never mix just because they are seperate encounters. If you stumble into a second encounter while in the middle of the first one, they don't just freeze; it all becomes one big encounter. Next, the action points thing I could see being exploited. I have no experience with Ebberron and its action point system so this is just specualtion. I can imagine the min/max group that I used to DM would just save all it action points till the end and use the extra actions to utterly destroy the final BBEG. It just strikes me a system completely open to abuse. It was explained in the document that you can only spend one action point per encounter. Also the move thing bothered me. They make out like it is entirel new when it was the basic assumption of all battlemaps, with the exception of the diagonal move.... It's similar, yes, but remember that there may be people at D&D XP who have no experience with D&D at all.
Reach: Because it's really silly to think reach isn't useful defensively. Reach is one of the mechanics that can quickly lock down a battlefield and significantly ratchets up the complexity of a given character. That having been said: threatening reach isn't gone (as explained in the primer) just reduced in frequency. Durations: Because effects should be able to reach between encounters, both good and bad. This is, poison shouldn't end just because I killed the snake, and I liked that the multi-minute duration of many buffs encouraged a continued offense instead of stopping to regroup and loot. That assumes that an encounter ends when all foes are dead...which is doesn't. If you're poisoned and all the foes are dead, the encounter is still going, meaning you've got to get the poison taken care of before it takes care of you. Charging: Because tactical effects with tradeoffs are supposed to make for interesting choices. 'All benefit' choices aren't choices. That's not true at all. An option doesn't have to have penalties to impose a choice. And there are costs associated with these choices--for example, the action costs associated with some choices, or what I call "choice of effectiveness." If a wizard can choose between casting fireball and casting magic missile, there is still a choice there. One might be better in a certain situation than another, but they both have a positive effect. In that case, choosing what spell to use is an all benefit choice, you just choose which one benefits you the most. Rest durations: The rules seem to assume a Neverwinter Nights approach to resting. You click rest. No worries about where to camp or what might attack you halfway. Sorry, resting isn't some magical effect. If you camp in the middle of a battlefield, you're going to get messed up. Just because resting is more defined doesn't mean that you're mystically invincible during a rest. I hate 'per encounter' durations, even with a Barbarian's fatigue in 3E. Who decides when an encounter ends? In AoW, the Hextorian temple in Three Face of Evil became one-dragged out fight, even though there was a round or two with no enemies, because they were fetching reinforcements. Does that make it one encouter, or two? With standard durations and the knowledge that 10 rounds = 1 minute, I didn't need to make that decision. Timed duration produce just as many, if not more problems, directly related to out of game time. "My spell lasts 14 minutes? How long did it takes us to set up that rope, climb down the mine shaft, fight those kobolds, heal up using wands, cast our other buffs and walk down the muddy cave to this room?" If you can tell me that you precisely track every single action and have no problem tracking multi-minute or multi-hour durations every time, I'll believe that it's easier than per encounter for you.
Can you tell us when we can expect the floodgates of information to open up? Probably after D&D Experience next week. The two bolded lines seem to be contradictory to me. But work was less than ideal today, so I may just be cranky. Not contradictory at all. If we hear a lot of complaints about a certain system, we take a good, hard look at it. From there we determine whether to make changes, jettison the system entirely, find other ways to fix it, or do nothing. It sounds like exactly what you're talking about. There are also times when a game designer comes up with something may be unpopular at first blush but playtesting reveals actually works. For example, the removal of the 5-foot step from Saga Edition was largely met with derision when first announced, but we had playtested the game with that change and knew that it worked. That would be a case where game design principles trumped "popular opinion." The truth of the matter is that it's always a give and take. Game designers are game designers because they have a solid grasp of what makes good game mechanics. At the same time, a good game designer knows that sometimes he's going to be wrong, and that there is no playtesting like the playtesting done by the millions of D&D players worldwide. Sure, the designers at Wizards will have a vision for the game, and players may have their own, but the key to good design is knowing how to strike a balance between the two (a fact that all the designers here are aware of).
Hey cool, Rodney answered. In that case, and despite the fact he seemingly ignored my earlier questions, I've got a few more: Sorry it took me so long to get back, I had an extremely busy day at work. Also, if I didn't answer your questions, it was probably because I either had no ability/authority to answer it, or because it was worded in such a way that I thought it would only produce an answer the poster wanted to hear and not a real, honest answer. In your case, I'm just not qualified to answer some of the questions. -If gnomes are being reimagined, what will happen to gnome character's in various novels, such as the Drizzt stories? I think we've already seen that not every race has to be exactly the same across campaign settings. Look at what Eberron does with halflings, for example, or goblins. Though I'm speaking purely in speculation here, I suspect that such changes can exist across continuities of several settings. There are no novels set in the core D&D non-setting, so there's no continuity to worry about there. Will there be stats for the Shade in 4E? I'm at home so I don't have an MM with me, sorry, but if there's not you'll be able to whip one up very quickly.
1. Wow, that's a bit more complex than I can answer in a short forum post. I'll give you some one-liners on them, but keep in mind that a role just defines some of the basic expectations of the class, and that it can go about accomplishing those expectations in MANY ways, and it can certainly do MORE than that. Also, some classes are one role, but have the ability to lean into others (paladin is a defender who leans into leader, while fighter is a defender who leans into striker, for example). Defenders should protect his allies, either directly or indirectly, and encourage opponents to deal with him first. Leaders should pump up the abilities of their allies, provide healing, and do battlefield control on the side of his allies. Controllers on the other hand specialize in battlefield control for the opponents, sometimes by eliminating opponents (think area effects like fireball) and sometimes through trickier means (web, ray of enfeeblement, or wall spells come to mind). Strikers excel at damage against a low number of targets, and tend to want to pick off enemies one or two at a time. 2. It starts in multiple places; "we want paladins" and "we need a divine defender" are both perfectly legitimate starting points for class design. Class design can be tricky because you want to find interesting and unique ways to fill the core role while still providing a lot of options for how the class plays. For example, let's say we're designing the whirling dervish class. We know we want to make him a mobile attacker who can sometimes hit all the foes around him, so we probably want him to be a striker who leans into controller a little bit. Once we get down his core abilities that let him be a striker, we want to provide some methods of providing control. Of course, we pick skills and bonus feats that are appropriate for the class' flavor, too (in this case, things like Acrobatics to help him tumble around, or Streetwise if this guy is supposed to grow up on the mean streets of a Zakharan city), and then the rest is all power design. 3. Wow, a lot. I personally run Star Wars Saga Edition, but we play D&D 3.5, Savage Worlds, or Call of Cthulhu on Mondays depending on Mearls' mood. We bust out the ol' Marvel Superheroes or M&M from time to time. There's a lunchtime Savage Worlds game going, and I know there's a contingent of Hero System players as well. As for board games, far, far too many to name. My personal faves are Shadows Over Camelot, Ticket to Ride, and Catan. There are also a lot of minis players; SRM is a big 40k and Warmachine player, I believe. 4. Heh. Mike and Rich are great guys and talented designers. I couldn't stop 'em if I wanted to. My question -- with the changes to death and dying, critical hits, negative levels, and magical healing, it seems at first impression that the game is a lot less deadly, or more specifically, there are fewer penalties for players who are not 'skilled', be it at tactical combat, resource management, or teamwork, which concerns me. Can you share an example of how 'game mastery', or skill at playing, has been kept in the game, and is rewarded? I wouldn't say skilled play is unrewarded. For example, movement, positioning, character creation choices, etc. all come into play regularly, and skill of play is rewarded through those venues. Also, despite how it may seem, people do die in 4E. The Wednesday night game I play in has had 3 deaths already, and we're only 5th level. That having been said, if you find yourself behind the 8-ball (say, if you have a particularly creative DM who loves to push you to the brink, ahem) it's easier to find creative ways to get out. I find combat in 4E to be much more of a rollercoaster than before, with the tide shifting one way and then the next over the course of the encounter. Much of this is due to monster design, but also because there are few situations where you find yourself just completely screwed. Resource management is still part of the game, however, and if you try and push too hard or make some bad decisions it can come back to haunt you. Teamwork, especially, is encouraged by the game, I think; if you suck at teamwork, you won't for long, as the game opens up a lot of creative ways to work together. My wizard, for example, works great with the warlord, who helps keep me out of danger when I've got a pack of bad guys in my face; just recently in a fight against a black dragon, the dragon immobilized everyone and came swooping in after me, but thanks to the warlord I only spent one round under the tender ministrations of the black dragon before he was able to move me away and save my life. A lot of the changes that seem to be coming through (emphasis on combat, everything measured in 'squares') says to me that 4th Edition is going to be to all intents and purposes a board game...But isn't there any worry at Hasbro that this big board game that they've spent so much money planning and developing may very well end up competing for time/shelf-space with products that they already own, (such as the former Parker Games lines), instead of drawing new players into the board game market from online or 'video' games? I think many people will be pleasantly surprised with how much 4E plays like an upgraded version of 3.5E. If you don't think 3.5 is just another board game, I don't think you'll think 4E is. 4E isn't a board game, it isn't a miniatures game. Without sounding like I'm self-promoting, we switched to the "squares" nomenclature for Saga Edition and it hasn't transformed that into a board game. Maybe this is why I'm not concerned, but I heard all of the same accusations leveled at Saga Edition before it's launch, and I think when it comes out you'll see it's another roleplaying game in the D&D tradition. Yes, it's minis compatible because a large portion of the D&D audience uses minis or some similar representation, but so was 3.5. Calling a 5-foot square a square isn't going to change that.
Ah, I understand now. One thing I've come to believe is that very few game designers ever are really satisfied with their work. On a project as large as D&D there will continue to be changes up through the day it goes off to the printers. Heck, on Saga Edition, I made some emergency changes AFTER it went off to the printers. To be more accurate, most of these changes are tweaks. Should this be a +2 bonus, or a +3? Should this spell be a level lower, or higher? Should this weapon do 1d12 or 2d6? Ultimately, no amount of testing and refinement will ever be enough, as evidenced by the fact that there's no such thing as a perfect roleplaying game, but as more and more people play the game we continue to find ways to refine it. So, no, I woudln't say there's any more last minute work on this game than there is on any other game of its complexity, and I know for a fact that the same thing happened with Saga Edition and even 3rd Edition before. Do the designers and developers determine the difference between what people don't like, and what is really a problem - and if I can tack a sub question on, what is being done to ensure that alterations are really needed? Such thoughts are definitely on the minds of D&D designers, developers, editors, etc. A lot of times, the discussion goes "People don't like system X; do we jettison it, or try and fix it?" Sometimes, the answer is neither, and we change something else that makes system X work more smoothly. The bottom line is that D&D is being designed to provide the D&D experience and do so in a way that is fun, interesting, and smooth. That being said, if a lot of people say, "I don't like X," it's a good bet that X is worth taking a look at. The reduced treasure option is a possibile work around for my character development concerns stated above, giving both ample time for development and avoiding the Monte Haul game. I've read the article in question, but I wonder of the game's "assumed item" values will be explicitly stated. Will I have a chart stating "+3 to ST's at xx level" or is it something that I need to wing? It's pretty evident in the PHB where those bonuses should come into play. After people expressed disappointment that gnomes wouldn't be a core race, there has been some rather confused talk concerning their being playable via the Monster Manual. Can you confirm whether or not the Monster Manual will feature non-standard races, and if so will they also get the same progression of racial feats as the other races in the Player's Handbook? I'm pretty sure gnomes have been slated for the playable race index since well before the game's announcement. You won't have quite as much material on them as you would one of the PHB races, but they're certainly playable. As I asked in another thread, with a minor revision. Was the past so terrible that it needs to be dropped? Is wizards predicting the new interest in 4E to be so great they can ignore a fracture of it's core fan base? Look, I'm not going to try and justify the edition any more than Bill did. Suffice it to say that at a certain point the build up of new game design tech just lends itself well to a new game. For several years until I moved out to Seattle I would ride with Robert Schwalb (of Green Ronin publishing) up to Origins in Columbus. Right after Book of Nine Swords came out, Rob and I had a long conversation on the way home about how Bo9S could be adapted to rogues, rangers, wizards, etc. We talked about some of the changes we were making on Star Wars. We talked about d20 Modern. Eventually, I started to realize that continuing to try and bolt on these other systems (each of which I thought presented some great gameplay options) would ultimately lead to unbalanced mechanics and rules bloat. No matter how good the ideas are, and how good the game design is, you're always going to run the risk of completely obsoleting the core rulebook, which is something you never want to do. That's why 4E was fine by me when they told me they were working on it. I felt like it was time before I got here, and I stand by that. How does the 30+ years of D&D mythology, lore, and tradition come into play in 4E? Every preview we see has been "what we have changed/thrown out." What about the stuff you kept? Well, it wouldn't be a very interesting preview for me to say, "Well, zombies are the same. Also, mind flayers. Also beholders. Also the githyanki and githzerai. Also, not much changing on the Yuan-Ti." Yeah, you're going to hear about the new stuff, but I think a lot of the classic D&D mythology remains intact. Some stuff gets reimagined or tweaked, but that happens with every edition. A lot of planar stuff got changed, it's true, but a lot of it is still around. All I'll say is that I had a very, very interesting conversation with Chris Youngs the other day about the Lich Queen's Beloved adventure and how we could use stuff from it in 4E adventures. I think a lot of people are just startled that the 4E designers weren't declaring anything sacred, and things that were feared to be touched got, well, touched. My hope is that, when the books come out, it'll be easy to see how almost any classic D&D concept can be done in 4E. I certainly haven't had any problems with my Al-Qadim conversions I've been doing (for personal use only, don't get any rumors started or hopes up). Considering that the designers seem to be worrying a lot about rogues' combat capabilities and such things, how much effort is put to integrate those campaigns where combat does not play a major role to 4th edition? Combat requires the most work to get it right, as it requires the most balance. That said, the non-combat encounter system is pretty sweet, and I've heard numerous people say that the 4E DMG is excellent (including Nick Logue over here). I think it does a fine job, at least on par with 3rd Edition and IMO better thanks to the noncombat encounter system. It definitely encourages more people to get involved in noncombat scenes.
I wasn't at GenCon UK so I'm not familiar with what happened. That having been said, I think we all expected some skepticism and worry at first. Though there have certainly been some adamant and zealous naysayers, though, there's also been a lot of positive response. My coworkers tell me that the parallels with the 3rd Edition launch are extremely strong. Are there any plans for or discussion about a brand new setting at all? Sadly, I can't talk about what might (or, heck, might not) be coming out in the future. I can't even say what we're NOT publishing for the Star Wars RPG, and that's my primary responsibility! That's it for now. I'll try and check back soon.
When did you stop beating your wife? Pretty much, yeah. Assuming that the OP actually wants to have a civil discussion and ask some questions, I'll be happy to answer the parts that I can. However, some of the questions already are extremely hostile and designed to produce answers that validate the poster's views. Please forgive me if I don't address those, as I'd honestly not know how to answer them. As stated many many times in the video and Game design posts, you state your reasons for "improving" D&D. Can you please explain why improving our game meant discontinuing several game worlds, and nuking the one you decided to keep to the point of making us wonder why you even kept the name in the first place? First of all, Eberron isn't going anywhere as far as I can tell, and it's getting support from a variety of sources. Regarding the "nuking" of the Realms, while a lot of people have been vocally upset, a lot of people have been just as excited about the Realms. I don't work on FR as a designer, but I know those guys are making changes they feel confident will retain the spirit of the Realms while making it more accessible to D&D players of all stripes. If you disagree with those changes, that is of course your prerogative--not everyone is going to like everything. However, the designers clearly believe that they are producing a Realms that can be enjoyed by old and new fans alike, and I think they'd want you to see the final product before declaring the Realms "destroyed." Why now? Kind of an open-ended question, but one that's been answered before. In fact, I believe it's been answered multiple times by Bill Slavicsek: Why 4th Edition and why now? Because the time was right. My R&D team has been watching the play environment since the release of the 3.5 rules, listening to what you, the players, have been telling us. Two years ago, I assembled a team of designers, led by Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, and James Wyatt, to review all the data we’ve been collecting and see if we could make the d20 Game System (the engine that powers the D&D game) better, more intuitive, and more fun. When I saw the first expressions of that effort, I knew we could make D&D better, stronger, faster, more fun. We could rebuild it. We could take the d20 Game System we all know and love and rocket it to the next level. So, like Bill is saying: the tech of game design never stops. When those new ideas reach a critical mass and you think it's time to implement them in a fully-integrated way, the time becomes right. Are you aware of how your work is perceived by the gaming community? Given that we're on message boards every day, in gaming stores, constantly conducting research into the opinions of existing and lapsed players, and attending conventions year-round...yes. Assuming you're not just saying, "Are you aware that I think you suck," or something, I know many designers pay close attention to the reception of their work. And, like it or not, sales numbers also tell us a lot about what people like and what they don't, so we've always got that bit of hard data to rely on. I know that just after a new product I worked on comes out I'm constantly scanning the message boards and reviews for any conversation about it, because I'm always jazzed to hear what people think. In fact, the most disappointing thing is when no one is even talking about it, because it's like the work vanishes into the void. Even if someone doesn't like something, it at least lets me know what areas I need to improve and what kinds of things people would have liked to have seen instead. How far in development were the rules last August? I'm not sure exactly how to answer this one, to be honest. It'd been through playtesting and was in development, but it's such a fluid process I couldn't really get more specific. If you have a more specific way of phrasing the question, though, I'll be more than happy to take a crack at it. "What parts of a role-playing game do you consider 'fun', and should a gaming session try to maximize 'fun'?" I absolutlely believe that a gaming session should try and maximize the fun. Now, fun means different things to a lot of people, so I think it's important to keep that in mind. Personally, I think fun revolves around having a good time with my friends, getting to participate in an interesting story, getting to participate in multiple scenes of that story, having a character that tangibly contributes to achieving the party's goals, overcoming challenges as a team and making sure that other people at the table are doing the same. To define the fun parts by defining what I don't consider fun, I don't care for exclusionary elements that completely remove a player from the gaming environment for long stretches of time. It's one thing to have a split party and different scenes going on, but it's quite another to tell one player that he just doesn't get to participate for the next hour or two. That's just my opinion, though. Fun means different things to different people, and the best games make it possible for people to have fun in different ways while sharing a core experience. Why would you bother answering any question on this thread given the non-constructive way the questions are being asked? Because I'm stubborn and don't believe a few people with bad attitudes represent the whole of a forum.
So, I've only been at Wizards for a year now (on Tuesday it'll be 1 year, in fact) but I can take a stab at this by stating my experiences with my own game. We spend a lot of time observing how people play the game. This comes from many sources: conventions, RPGA play, feedback from the internet, feedback from Customer Service, more formal market research, etc. Over time, you notice trends in these experiences, and you do your best to make sense of them. Personal experience comes into play as well, as most everyone here is running/playing in games 3-4 times a week. As for why changes are being made, the simple answer is because the change produces some tangible benefit for players or Gamemasters enjoying the game. No change is ever going to be universally better for everyone, and no one is implying that. However, I think it's fooling yourself to say that any edition of any game is perfect, and sometimes changes need to be made to improve the game. Moreover, some changes have far-reaching impact into other parts of the game. While it may seem odd to change, say, the death and dying rules as its own system, those changes are informed by, and in turn influence, other aspects of the game. Very few systems exist in isolation, so sometimes you have to make far-reaching changes to achieve an overall play experience.
Keeping in mind this is subject to change: 1) It's probably a cap as far as official support goes; however, given the construction of the 4E rules it probably wouldn't be hard to keep things going past that. The point of going to 30 is to support epic play in the first place right out of the gate, preventing the need to a separate add-on expanding the levels upward. Like I say, though, you can probably keep going after 30...but the vast majority of D&D games will never make it that far, so anything 30+ probably won't see a lot of official support. That said, you can keep playing at 30th-level all you want...you'd just stop advancing. 2) You can certainly slow down advancement the same way you always could: by reducing XP awarded. As for treasure, you just distribute treasure at the same levels you normally would. Also, as Mearls mentioned on another thread on ENWorld, it's pretty easy to strip magic items out of 4E, because it's really only assumed you have a very few enhancement bonuses, and you'll know exactly where those belong. So, theoretically, you could run a game without magic items with just a couple of numeric tweaks, preventing the whole "vast wealth" problem, methinks. Everything released so far about 4E suggests it is intended for a cinematic action/adventure (some claim "video game" but really, those are a simulation of cinematic action/adventure themselves) game, somewhat in line with "wu-xia" cinema or anime films. Frankly, I think the claims of wuxia and anime influence are mistaken. This probably comes from the statement that Bo9S was an infleunce on 4E. This is true in the way that the mechanics shook out, but certainly not true in the end result. Now, cinematic, I think, is a good way to think of it, because a lot of the more advanced powers (particularly the martial powers) would be pretty amazing stunts. If you can handle the kind of stuff Legolas and Gimli were doing in Lord of the Rings, you're likely going to be fine with all of the martial aspects of 4E. Even the Legolas stuff is pretty much limited to paragon and epic levels. That having been said, the noncombat encounter system in 4E is designed to cater to the kinds of challenges you'd find in a less cinematic setting. I mean, you won't roll a Diplomacy check to do a backflip and recite the Gettysburg Address to succeed, so it leans a bit more toward the "down to earth" side of the game. I hope people will like those rules and use them to create some exciting social encounters. One of my favorite adventures in the Shackled City campaign was Dave Noonan's Test of the Smoking Eye, which included a mixture of fun combat and interesting noncombat challenges. Dave also wrote the noncombat encounter rules for 4E, so I hope that gives you some of the confidence I have in the system. The 3.E DMG had notes on variations in game plays and how to incorporate them. 4E is taking out some things that define Dungeons and Dragons for me. Will the 4E DMG have comments and notes for adding Vancian Magic, the nine alignments and even spell schools back into the game? I actually don't know the answer to this question. I will say that I personally think such rules would be interesting in an Unearthed Arcana type product. Now, some of those would be easier than others; the nine alignments, for example, I think would be easy to put back in (after all, alignment's not GONE, just changed). Spell schools aren't technically out, just their representation is changed; for example, I still know when a spell is a charm effect, or an illusion, or a necromancy effect. Looks like that's all for now, but I'll pop back in (and see if I can direct SRM this way too) from time to time.
So I'm pulling Jeff's quote out here because it's emblematic of a series of posts by various people, not to pick on Jeff. I think that you present a very pessimistic view of what is being said here. While it may be true that you've seen this kind of mechanic (by which I mean running D&D without the need for magical healing) before, it wasn't part of the core D&D game experience. Now, it may not seem that important, given that very few people run core only, and I can understand why you'd say such a system was "old hat." However, the more important part of such changes is that, with these ideas being integrated into the core of what 4th Edition is, it allows those assumptions to be used in a whole variety of supplements, adventures, and sourcebooks. Also, since no change exists in a vacuum, having non-magical healing (to continue using the example, though it can certainly be applied to dozens of other concepts being used in 4E)) integrated into the core rules means that every auxiliary system in the game has been tweaked and balanced to play well with those rules. While it's easy to say, "Here's a nonmagical healing system" off the cuff, it's more difficult to predict how that interacts with the various other systems in the game. Compatibility is a big part of why integrated various concepts, some of which have been around a while, into the core rules is so important. It might be easy for me to try and run a game with no divine magic if I'm doing it in isolation with only a few books, but if I try and run Age of Worms with no divine magic it can become tricky, because many supplements and adventures have only the core rules baseline to go off of. It's not that the idea of non-magical healing is revolutionary, it's that, by making it a core assumption, you open the door for new campaign worlds and adventures that also make that assumption without the need for a designer to design a whole new healing system or take into account the healing methods when designing their new core class/feat/spell/whatever. Like the old saying goes, there's nothing new under the sun, but I think the way D&D takes the best ideas and puts them toward promoting the D&D experience is its biggest strength.
Funny thing is, most folks are really nice face to face. It's the anonymity aspect that causes people to act like this. I'd be willing to bet that a large number (if not all) of the more vitriolic critics would be polite if SRM or I spoke to them at GenCon. In fact, that's OVERWHELMINGLY the most common experience I have at GenCon. This past year I had one guy make some snide comments, but dozens of other highly critical folks were at the very least polite and listened to what we were saying without turning into a snarling lunatic.
Hey man, sorry it took me so long to get to you on this, I didn't see a new post directed my way. I'd say this should be just fine. I'd probably end up going Cleric first and foremost and then taking some Ranger stuff just to boost your bowmanship. You don't have to be a boisterous battlefield commander to fill the leader role; in fact, our cleric of Melorra doesn't really say much, and tends to be more of a rear-guard kind of guy as it is. How about a Avg-Str/High-Dex *fighter* who is specialized in Longbow and has spent all his Feats accordingly (see above)? He'd definitely not "defend" anyone, as he would also stick to the rear of the party and use his bow to great effect. Honestly, this sounds just like a ranger to me. You might interpret his use of the Nature skill as something like "urban tracking" and the like; think Batman's ability to track a crook across Gotham.
Right out of the gate these will be tougher, just because there's a finite amount of space in the PHB. There's still some enchantment and necromancy stuff in the game; for example, my eladrin wizard makes liberal use of ray of enfeeblement. With the right spell selection, you can still gear yourself toward those types of spells, though right out of the PHB you might find it difficult to zoom in solely on spells from those schools. I'll admit, it's tough to build a character that doesn't have any combat capacity, but the thing is you won't have to sacrifice combat capacity to have access to those divination rituals and the like. To ask a question back at you, what does that diviner character do during combat scenarios in 3.x? I might be able to give you a better answer if you can give me an idea how he behaves in these scenes. One of the things that I feel confident that DMs will get from the DMG is some guidelines on creating new spells and having them balanced with the system. With those tools in hand, and a DM willing to work with you, you should be able to make a stab at creating some spells that cater more directly to the playstyle you're going for.
It is good to see stuff like this. Though I know that as soon as some people read this post they'll think, "Lies, all lies!" I will say that it's an attitude most folks around the offices take as well. Just because I can identify something I see as a problem with a system doesn't mean I don't like the system, and it's the same with the 4E design team. 3rd Edition gave us so many great things that it'd be hard for me to ever not like the system, personally. Heck, I still play the D6 Star Wars game from time to time. Just because it's not Saga Edition doesn't mean I'm not still a fan of it. I like Mutants and Masterminds and I like the old TSR Marvel Heroes game. But, as I said, I'm a notorious liker. I'm more inclined to like things than not, and I'm not the kind of guy to let a few little problems get me down.
For those interested, in Chris' campaign these rules come up a lot. Since there are 7 players, he likes to throw big, bad stuff at us. So far we've had two deaths, and thus far no "pop up on a natural 20" rolls. While we may get a couple of nat 20's over the course of the session, we've get to have one during play. That's anecdotal, but I think it's something to think about. If I get only a few nat 20's per session (if that many), it doesn't make me feel like I've wasted a 20 when that comes up. So far, I like the new death/dying rules, as they're kind of building off of the 3.5 rules but with a more flexible death window to account for increasing monster damage. Besides, every now and then it's good to have a "You though I was dead, but don't forget about me!" moment for your characters, a la Merry-stabbing-the-Witch-King..
My plans are running Savage Tide in 4th Edition, just replacing monsters with their equivalents (or something close enough and retaining appearance-only), adding or removing them as necessary to be a challenge. Other stuff might be more difficult, but I'm aiming to try it anyway and see how it goes. As an aside, I've been planning on doing the same thing with Green Ronin's spectacular Freeport adventures, at least the original trilogy plus Crisis in Freeport, which I helped write but have never had a chance to run. I've been kind of casually working on some conversions, and so far so good, but admittedly I'm not very far into it.
BTW, is this Pathfinder game he's running the one he was going to run online? No, I'm pretty sure that was an Age of Worms campaign.
You know, Rodney, feel free to mention to some of your coworkers that this is an ok place to play a well. I mean, us kids on the 3.5 side of the tracks might play a mean game of street kick ball from time to time, but your friends from the good side of town are welcome to play here as well. And we promise to not use any of them as the ball (ok, at least most of us promise that, but we understand if your friends choose not to play in those games). Heh. Actually, I did mention that I was firing up the ol' posting fingers a bit more here lately, and I've been trying to get Stephen Radney-Macfarland to come over here and post about his 4E Pathfinder game, since some people seemed to show some interest in that.
My only concern remaining is -- will 4e allow us to tell the same stories as 3.5? I imagine yes. But let's say I want my group to face a displacer beast . . .not a displacer beast for each member . . .I hope that options for this are accessible and simple in the new encounter system. For me it is the mechanics of the encounter system that really aid in the telling of a story. In my opinion, yes. I mean, the Wednesday night "playtest" game I'm in is another Chris Perkins campaign. Chris is one of the best DMs of all time (far and away the best DM I've ever played under), and Chris has had no difficulty thus far enthralling all of us with another incredible story. I believe Erik has played in a Chris Perkins game before, and I know Jeff Alvarez has, so one of those guys can tell you how much CP knows his stuff. As for the displacer beast thing, yeah, of course you can. In fact, just this week I was working on converting some monsters from "normal" monsters to "solo" monsters, designed to fight the whole group. The guidelines are right there in the DMG, and they work just fine.
Everything's all good...as long as you promise to call me Rodney. Mr. Thompson is my Dad's name.
This is but the most recent example, but Scott Rouse posting this thread over at ENWorld would be an example of unprofessionalism and flippant disregard to customer opinion. (The Memo to all Designers and Developers.) I think that's really more of an example of being able to laugh at yourself. I don't think there's really much arguing that the word "cool" gets tossed around a bit too much. My other favorite overused word around the office is "interesting" which seems to be reaching "cool" proportions. The same goes for the whole tiefling/gnome flash video; criticism gets leveled at Wizards, so the humorous response is really more to lighten up the situation than dismiss it.
First of all, I don't think anyone who disagrees is my opponent. Civil disagreement is just fine by me, and just because you don't like a system doesn't mean I see you as my adversary. As for stopping trying to change peoples' opinions on 4E, well, I don't know what to say. I suppose I could relegate myself to being opinionless, but that doesn't seem to promote much discussion. I like 4E (obviously, this comes as a great shock) and I want other people to at least give it a fair shake. My only crime is loving too much! In all seriousness, if I'm not going to participate in the discussion with my honest opinions, I'd might as well not even bother posting. If anything I've said so far comes off as patronizing, I'm sorry, but that's one of the reasons I've tried to limit myself to discussions where I can say more than "trust me."
You probably shouldn't use "I" when talking about these things... we know that you aren't necessarily responsible for 4e but if you take some level of ownership then you are setting yourself up as a target. :) Sorry, replace all "I" with "generic game designer" for a more accurate version of my point. As Eileen noted... if I am an existing customer, and I say this doesn't look, smell, feel, or play like D&D, and the company answer is "You're wrong, it does so, you just don't understand anything yet" then I have some choice words for said company. If that's the impression you've taken away from my posts, then I apologize. I mean no such insult when I say, "That impression seems to be based on only partial information." If you say 4th Edition doesn't feel like D&D, I respect that you've formed that opinion based on the previews, but my counter-argument would just be to ask you to take a look at the finished, completed product. Additionally, I think we can disagree about the feel of D&D without it being me saying, "No, you're wrong." I think that's the most cynical and hostile interpretation. If you say, "This doesn't feel like D&D" and I say, "I think it does because of X" that doesn't mean I've dismissed you, it just means we're having a discussion. If I have been insulting anywhere, I'm more than happy to apologize for that.
|
