|
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071121
In D&D, the words "adventure" and "quest" are virtually synonymous. They both mean a journey, fraught with danger that you undertake for a specific purpose. We sometimes joke that the game is all about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but the reality is that the game is about adventures. You go into the dungeon and kill monsters with a larger purpose in mind: to stop their raids on caravans, to rescue the townsfolk they've captured, to retrieve the lost Scepter of the Adamantine Kings for the rightful descendant of those kings.Quests are the story glue that binds encounters together into adventures. They turn what would otherwise be a disjointed series of combats and interactions into a narrative -- a story with a beginning, a middle, and a climactic ending. They give characters a reason for doing what they do, and a feeling of accomplishment when they achieve their goals.
Quests can be major or minor, they can involve the whole group or just a single character's personal goals, and they have levels just like encounters do. Completing a quest always brings a reward in experience points (equal to an encounter of its level for a major quest, or a monster of its level for a minor quest), and it often brings monetary rewards as well (on par with its XP reward, balanced with the rest of the treasure in the adventure). They can also bring other rewards, of course -- grants of land or title, the promise of a future favor, and so on.
The idea of quest rewards is nothing new to D&D. Second Edition, in particular, promoted the idea of giving story rewards of experience points when players completed adventures. The quest rules in 4th Edition are directly descended from that idea, integrated into the economy of rewards in the game. They're a rules wrapper around the story of the game, a way to keep players mindful of the purposes behind all their adventuring.
One of the suggestions in the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is to give players a visual, tactile representation of a quest as soon as they begin it. At the start of the adventure, after the baron has briefed the characters on their mission and been bullied into paying them more than he intended, you can hand the players an index card spelling out the details of the quest -- including the agreed-upon reward. In the middle of the adventure, when the characters find a key with a ruby set in its bow, you can hand them a card, telling them that finding the matching lock is a quest.
When the players have cards or some other visual representation of their quests, it's easy for them to remember what they're supposed to be doing -- and to sort out goals that might be contradictory. That's a really interesting ramification of the quest system: It's okay to give the players quests they don't complete, quests that conflict with each other, or quests that conflict with the characters' alignments and values.
For example, the mentor of the group's paladin might ask him to find and destroy the Ruby Tome of Savrith the Undying. At the same time, a shady character is offering the rogue a sizable sum in exchange for the same tome, and the wizard's research turns up a reference to a ritual contained in the Ruby Tome that the characters will need to use in order to complete another quest. Three quests stand at odds, and it's up to the players to decide what they want to do.
There's a story that's a lot richer and more interesting than simply going into the dungeon to see what treasure is there.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
*grumble grumble*
Why don't they just include one of those black baseball caps with the big yellow "!" on it with every copy of the 4e DMG? Then the DM can just put it on when the PCs interact with a quest-giver and the players will know that this NPC is going to give them a quest.
|
|
*grumble grumble*
Why don't they just include one of those black baseball caps with the big yellow "!" on it with every copy of the 4e DMG? Then the DM can just put it on when the PCs interact with a quest-giver and the players will know that this NPC is going to give them a quest.
*nod*
I think it's fair to say that you and I are really not the targets of this product, my friend. I had a similar reaction towards the whole "quest card" thingy.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Its hard to put into words... i am offended about what they seem to consider the typical D&D session to be. Keep in mind that i pretty much stepped back from the new edition, and decided to let it be what it will be. But it still flies into the face of the GMs work in preparing NPCs, encounters and pretty much anything not easily handled with "Attack Damage Save" rolls.
"Go into the dungeon to see what loot is there" has never been a motivation in even the worst game i ever attended (and gawd, it was bad, it was so bad i could not sit through its entirety). This kind of motivation is more akin to what i would expect in a MMOG.
But then, the "Yellow !" comment might be merited.
*grumble grumble*
Why don't they just include one of those black baseball caps with the big yellow "!" on it with every copy of the 4e DMG? Then the DM can just put it on when the PCs interact with a quest-giver and the players will know that this NPC is going to give them a quest.
I... know somebody who does this. She also has a hat with a gold question mark on it, too, for when the party returns for their reward.
What I like: The idea that quests and following your character's personal agendas can be the primary method of gaining XP in the game. For example, a character's father has been gone since his childhood and though his mother and fellow townsfolk fill his head with stories of what a ratfink he was, the character has set out to look for him. His first objective is to find someone who's heard of him (ECL 1). He might actually stumble into the town he lives in (ECL 5). That way you can reward characters for doing what they want rather than killing goblins as the only (or even primary) source of XP. I like this a lot. I don't think that's what the guy's really talking about it. I don't think it requires anything like a new edition. But nonetheless this has now become my new way of running games.
What I dislike: Your players are too stupid to understand that they aren't in a dungeon to level up. If you hand them a "quest card" that says they're there on a quest, this will fix the problem. This is not an attempt to turn the game into Diablo. Really. It's just that so many players get so lost in the glee of killing goblins that they forget that there's more to life--so you have to give them little cuecards from time to time to tell them what they should be doing and what their options are.
On the other hand--were Paizo to come up with a set of Quest Cards along these very lines, that look like the background graphics you get in the Quests page of a rpg video game (little tattered scrolls with interesting icons on one side and the box for quest info on the other)it would probably be useful enough I might buy a pack or two. While I don't think it's necessary by any stretch of the imagination, it might be fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
What I dislike: Your players are too stupid to understand that they aren't in a dungeon to level up. If you hand them a "quest card" that says they're there on a quest, this will fix the problem. This is not an attempt to turn the game into Diablo. Really. It's just that so many players get so lost in the glee of killing goblins that they forget that there's more to life--so you have to give them little cuecards from time to time to tell them what they should be doing and what their options are.
How does giving them a piece of paper fix them being too stupid to remember why they went into the dungeon in the first place? They might be able to read the card, but they'll still be stupid ;)
Now, seriously - what i dislike is the implication that some mechanical solution is needed because of players not knowing what the heck is going on around them. That, and the inherent limitation of quests as "accept quest, grind, turn in". Many interesting stories do not follow this archetype at all (case in point: Hall of Harsh Reflections in the AoW adventure path).
I do like the more story-focussed XP model, though.
In D&D, the words "adventure" and "quest" are virtually synonymous.
This is not really true for me. I guess I'm backwaard though. An adventure in a more free form character driven set of goals that I associate with P&P games. A quest is a very linear, non character driven, set of tasks typically seen in MMOs. If you asked me the same question five or ten years ago my answer may be a bit different, but for D&D it has always been called an adventure.
As far as the mechanics go, ok so you get xp for not killing things. Not new to me or my group and to be honest it is so subjective it's hard to have hard fast rules for it. I typically base it on the players actions, how well they did and where they are at in their adventuring career. I'd like to see that on a table. ;)
Granted while I may sound negative, it a great thing if the game really moves in that direction as a whole in my opinion. I'm not sure a single mechanic can achieve that unless the other supporting mechanics do as well.
|
I've pretty much ONLY used quest rewards in my games. You get zero xp from killing creatures, most "creatures" have very little if any loot, the lions share being evil NPCs and "rewards" for deeds done. So in a sense I have already been doing this and quite frankly I don't another edition, let alone a chapter or sub-chapter in a DMG, to tell me how to do it.
The WoW comparison is there, but of late I have been of two minds. What sucks in WOW may not necessarily suck in a PnP game and visa versa. Handing out quest "cards" seems a little cheesy, for sure, but its not quite the same thing as the Yellow Exclamation point overhead. The comparison would be the cliched, "your sitting in a tavern when a stranger approaches offering you a quest". BUt handing a card after a succesful roleplay encounter is no different than the players writing it down on a peice of paper for future reference. I haven't been in a game nor run one yet where at least one player keeps notes.
I think most of these kinds of posts are relatively lame in so far as they are the kinds of things I've been reading in Dragon Magazine for nearly 20 years. Its not really all that appropriate for a DMG IMHO unless its no more than a paragraph or so. Space is too precious.
But the general theory isn't all that bad.
|
|
This is not really true for me.
In D&D, the words "adventure" and "quest" are virtually synonymous.
I'd have to agree. Adventure is what characters do. Quests are why they do it (and may not be called a quest)
I am hungry. I will go hunting boar to eat (quest). While hunting boar X, Y, and Z happened. It was an adventure!
*grumble grumble*
Why don't they just include one of those black baseball caps with the big yellow "!" on it with every copy of the 4e DMG? Then the DM can just put it on when the PCs interact with a quest-giver and the players will know that this NPC is going to give them a quest.
I so want a hat like that now. I may not make it out of our next session alive, but it'd be worth it just to put that hat on during a game.
The "Clue Card" idea ignores one basic DM tool: The McGuffin. When the PCs start their "quest" for the "McGuffin", there is no guarantee that they will continue that quest. In fact, it may be impossible or undesirable for the characters to continue on the quest. "It's a dangerous business, going out your door. You never know where you might end up." The ostensible mission for the party may just be a means of kicking them out the door, with no real follow-through expected.
That is really lame. In most games I´m in, there is a diary of some sort, or at least some player taking notes. When I´m the DM, keeping a diary is mandatory, as my games have enough detail that I don´t expect my players to remember them all anyway. Handing out a card with the goal on it would state to me as a player"you are too stupid anyway to remember longer than one hour what you are supposed to do, so here´s a reminder."
This is one idea I won´t adopt.
Stefan
It does say "one of the suggestions" not "You Vill DM Zis Vay Und You Vill Like Itt!".
I love you guys! Seriously if there was no other indicator that this was the board for me...wow. Never have I seen assembled such a thoroughly dedicated character based gamers. It brings this ol' fool to tears.
Yeah, generally our games run in the XP per session ballpark. I hate the whole encounter structure and have never used it. I think the card thing is a bit lame and unneccessary--specifically because if the PCs were as dumb and prone to getting lost or distracted from their "quest" as the article says they seem to be, they would certainly be no less lost with a little index card to stare at. I think the idea of rewarding PC personal goals as encounters though is really novel and fun. I intend to use that part as a suppliment to per session rewards.
As far as the chart, it would be the same one in the DMG. You look up the level of the character whose personal journey it was, guage how important an accomplishment it is relative to the story arc of the character (finding dad's signet ring at the side of a forest path 1 CR, finding dad and liberating him from an ogre mage stronghold CR 10 or more) and what total you get is the number of XP the character earns for tying up that particular bit of his story. I like that a lot.
It does say "one of the suggestions" not "You Vill DM Zis Vay Und You Vill Like Itt!".
I hope so. I got the impression from this and several similar articles that there's much more intervention in the 4e books trying to get DMs to run their games in a much more standardized way.
Things like in fourth edition the game is run from the city level rather than the world map, in fourth editon the roles of the party and teamwork are what's really most important, or in fourth edition there aren't 10x10 dungeon rooms anymore--all the rooms are HUGE!
I just get the creeping impression that the 4e books are a lot more clingy and trying to get you to play the game their way.
Then again the "Back to the Dungeon" section in the 3.0 DMG just about made me throw the book into my fireplace in horror and attempt to exorcise the ashes.
What I dislike: Your players are too stupid to understand that they aren't in a dungeon to level up. If you hand them a "quest card" that says they're there on a quest, this will fix the problem. This is not an attempt to turn the game into Diablo. Really. It's just that so many players get so lost in the glee of killing goblins that they forget that there's more to life--so you have to give them little cuecards from time to time to tell them what they should be doing and what their options are.How does giving them a piece of paper fix them being too stupid to remember why they went into the dungeon in the first place? They might be able to read the card, but they'll still be stupid ;)
Now, seriously - what i dislike is the implication that some mechanical solution is needed because of players not knowing what the heck is going on around them. That, and the inherent limitation of quests as "accept quest, grind, turn in". Many interesting stories do not follow this archetype at all (case in point: Hall of Harsh Reflections in the AoW adventure path).
I do like the more story-focussed XP model, though.
The story focused idea is fine, but this way of going about is literally turning into "D&D for Dummies". The mechanical limitations of software created the artificial parameters of the McGuffin cue, but to backwards engineer D&D for such a clumsy, party trick style mechanism for a live action game is just wrong-headed. Nuances, such as conflicting quests, the reliability of patrons or other factors may get shoved aside for a cut and paste "quest".
D&D is not an educational tool, but it does require intellectual rigor to some degree. This whole thing smacks of turning the game into a prop laden party game for the ritalin generation. I know the game has to change, but stepping backwards isn't going to be good in the long term. It's going to be the equivalent of pinning your mittens to your sleeves. I fully expect to see all kinds of related geegaws being hawked to "enhance the game experience".|
|
It does say "one of the suggestions" not "You Vill DM Zis Vay Und You Vill Like Itt!".
Sure!
But STILL, that's a Design & Development column for God's sakes, not a footnote in supplement X! That column is supposed to showcase the design logic, the intent in the making of this edition. So I assume that's what we're getting here.
That's probably not some kind of mandatory part of the rules, but it DOES say something about the target customer for 4E nonetheless, don't you think?
|
|
The whole index card for quests thingie doesn't bother me in the least.
It's a suggestion on how to keep (inexperienced? really really young?) players focused on the main theme.
A DM can be blunt and give them a note with the "retrieve the sword from the undead knight" indication or be subtler and provide a nice handout, maybe a page of a journal or the transcription of a lenghty talk with an NPC.
Nothing really new.
However, the phrase "The quest rules in 4th Edition" worries me a lot. Rules for quests. Mmhhh. Railrrr... ehrm.
Not narrative suggestions, or basic adventure frameworks/templates, or ideas on how to better build tempo and rythm in the action-roleplaying scenes. Rules. For quests. Railrrrr... sorry.
Guess we'll have to see them for good, but for the time being I'll stay worried, or at least perplexed. I'm one of those pessimistic guys.
I want a mini with karate chop action! And a kung-fu grip!
This is one of the few things about 4th edition that sounds cool to me. I usually remember where I left off, but I have been in several groups where people forget from week to week where they were and what their characters were doing.
Yeah! Me too!
And I also want a mini with a "!" over his head so the players won't kill him in their goblin slaying glee.
I mean I want a mini with Kung Fu grip and karate chop action.
And I want a gninja mini too. That would be cool for Christmas. A gninja mini with kung fu grip and karate chop action.
What I like: The idea that quests and following your character's personal agendas can be the primary method of gaining XP in the game. For example, a character's father has been gone since his childhood and though his mother and fellow townsfolk fill his head with stories of what a ratfink he was, the character has set out to look for him. His first objective is to find someone who's heard of him (ECL 1). He might actually stumble into the town he lives in (ECL 5). That way you can reward characters for doing what they want rather than killing goblins as the only (or even primary) source of XP. I like this a lot. I don't think that's what the guy's really talking about it. I don't think it requires anything like a new edition. But nonetheless this has now become my new way of running games.
I agree with this idea, which is why I attempt to do this with all my homebrewed games (it's not always successful, sadly). I dislike the idea of passing out cards to remember quests. I have my notes, I expect my players to take notes they feel relevant to their characters, and I especially expect them to keep track of things relevant to their own back story.
What bugs me is this feeling of "quests" they are trying to invoke. It isn't a quest, it's the story being told by the party and myself. It might be a journey, an assassination, a dungeon delve, a shake down, research, or even a flight for their very lives. It seems as if they continue to take 4th edition down the road to feeling like a video game, and that's something that just doesn't sit with me. It's not something they should feel they have to do.
For example, the mentor of the group's paladin might ask him to find and destroy the Ruby Tome of Savrith the Undying. At the same time, a shady character is offering the rogue a sizable sum in exchange for the same tome, and the wizard's research turns up a reference to a ritual contained in the Ruby Tome that the characters will need to use in order to complete another quest. Three quests stand at odds, and it's up to the players to decide what they want to do.
I want to know when plot twists like this became a new DM tactic, and why a new edition was needed to bring it out in people. I thought everybody DM'd this way, or at least, tried to. This is standard adventure creation fare. It's like they've forgotten how to create plot twists and intrigue into their storylines.
I hope so. I got the impression from this and several similar articles that there's much more intervention in the 4e books trying to get DMs to run their games in a much more standardized way.
Not to sound like too much of an ass, but of course there is.
For years that is what the regular posters on the WotC forums demanded. I don't mean in the sense that they wanted in their game... But in the sense that if you weren't running things their way, you were doing it wrong. (And, more often than not, were welcome to get the hell out of "their" boards.)
And, I get the strong feeling that their message boards are a large part of their "market research." It would explain a lot.
Well I prefer the good old method: player / characters should take notes. There is no need for cards, another thing distracting from gameplay as do minis and battlemaps.
If the GM is expected to review and prepare a session, players can be expected to review their notes. And if they miss important clues, its up to the GM to fix this and not the use of a stupid card. Thats one of the existing things of the game: improvisation. Another job for GM is tailoring adventures and throw in some ties to an individual's background and personal goals.
/sarcasm on / Just another method to make money. Oh yes, perhaps they make the cards collectible /sarcasm off /
|
|
I think this is a brilliant idea!! It would SO increase the realism of the game. I just can't count the number of times per day at my job that someone has to hand me a card to remind me what I'm supposed to be doing. (Face the customer. Say, "Hello." etc.)
I've always wanted a game mechanic that would allow me to play D&D with a group of people who, collectively, have the I.Q. of broccoli.
I hope so. I got the impression from this and several similar articles that there's much more intervention in the 4e books trying to get DMs to run their games in a much more standardized way.Not to sound like too much of an ass, but of course there is.
For years that is what the regular posters on the WotC forums demanded. I don't mean in the sense that they wanted in their game... But in the sense that if you weren't running things their way, you were doing it wrong. (And, more often than not, were welcome to get the hell out of "their" boards.)
And, I get the strong feeling that their message boards are a large part of their "market research." It would explain a lot.
I have a horrible suspicion that you're right
I want to know when plot twists like this became a new DM tactic, and why a new edition was needed to bring it out in people. I thought everybody DM'd this way, or at least, tried to. This is standard adventure creation fare. It's like they've forgotten how to create plot twists and intrigue into their storylines.
I'd rather put forth the suggestion that it is not a driving force behind a new edition. Instead, /because/ they are coming out with a new edition, they are including it and many other things in the collective advice that they're making available in their products.
Also, I don't view any of the reposted article as insulting. First off, the man plainly states that it's 'one suggestion'. Second off, having physical representation of the quests and optional quests that your characters have accumulated is not a bad thing. If anything, it allows a DM to present MORE options for reward because they'll all be kept track of.
And just because you need, or desire, the cards in your game doesn't make /anyone/ stupid. At least some of us gamers have lives outside of gaming. We have families, friends, jobs... the list goes on. There's a lot to keep track of, and we don't always have the time or focus to remember everything we're supposed to be doing or might want to do over the course of weeks and months. Sometimes things fall through the cracks.
And to be perfectly honest? Not everyone is some brilliant game savant who can juggle 3 campaigns, their RL lives, and whatever else. Some of us out here /like/ these suggestions and changes WotC is making to make the game easier, faster, and more streamlined to play.
I'll be damned if I'm going to look down my nose at someone because they need or want to use some of these simple suggestions in their games. I'm not stupid, /they're/ not stupid, and I don't think there's any place for that elitist tripe in the hobby.
I'd rather put forth the suggestion that it is not a driving force behind a new edition. Instead, /because/ they are coming out with a new edition, they are including it and many other things in the collective advice that they're making available in their products.
Id agree in other articles but design and development articles were to show us just that the design of the game not be advice. When you put advice and vaguely refer to a Quest Rule in a Design and Development people are going to assume its important if it needs a rule.
Also, I don't view any of the reposted article as insulting. First off, the man plainly states that it's 'one suggestion'. Second off, having physical representation of the quests and optional quests that your characters have accumulated is not a bad thing. If anything, it allows a DM to present MORE options for reward because they'll all be kept track of..
And just because you need, or desire, the cards in your game doesn't make /anyone/ stupid. At least some of us gamers have lives outside of gaming. We have families, friends, jobs... the list goes on. There's a lot to keep track of, and we don't always have the time or focus to remember everything we're supposed to be doing or might want to do over the course of weeks and months. Sometimes things fall through the cracks.
I think the objection is more how they are bieng given out, sort of like a card in a strategy board game. Kill 5 rats and level up! I think most groups have some type of review sheet of the plot.
I think it be a fine article for one of the DM advice style articles in Dungeon. For design and development, we hear a mention of the quest rule and thats it. We didnt really see what about 4e's design helps the quest.
I'd rather put forth the suggestion that it is not a driving force behind a new edition. Instead, /because/ they are coming out with a new edition, they are including it and many other things in the collective advice that they're making available in their products.
My point wasn't in regards to using the cards as a prop. That's fine. I like Gamemastery products. It was in regards to the fact that they tell us these great story arc tie-ins above and the interweaving plotlines, when technically, those have always been part of the game. It's like they've had an epiphany that you really can tie-in separate adventures with one another like it's an original feature of the game when it's not.
|
I think the point is to make XP about playing and making critters go splat.
Currently - by the book - D&D is all about the grind.
Anything that gets folks away from that is cool by me. The card thing is a good focal point. My players know the reward for making a dragon go splat but the story rewards are kinda fuzzy.
Besides props are cool.
I had item cards back in the 70s and loved them. Paizo brought them back and that is cool too.
I like the sounds of this quest thingy.
I like this idea.
1) It addresses the tendency of some players to kill just one more goblin so they can level up, even though that act of violence is otherwise unnecessary (I hate that mentality--it's so meta-game!)
2) It acknowledges an important reality--not all DMs or PCs learn at the feet of The Masters of Gaming. Some learn the game by only reading the book; anything to help in the learning curve is great (adventure design is not a skill easily--or quickly--learned).
3) Players like props!
4) No DM is required to use props (personally, I hate using miniatures; I think D&D is better when all the action is visualized in your head and acted out through conversation--it has that magic of the old radio dramas. Miniatures take away from the thrill of pure imagination)
5) Quest or adventure? A rose by any other name...
The whole thing sounds to me like the old objective cards from the "Risk" game - "Destroy the pink armies to win" or something in that vein. Putting quests at the players feet to solve is of course ok, but the idea of writing it down on a card and hand it out to the players sounds somewhat strange and is IMO unneccesary and feels condescending to the players.
Stefan
I'd have more issues with this if it wasn't actually addressing a problem for me. I've been known to ask to be reminded about, among other things, what we are doing, why we are doing it, who we are doing it for, what that guy's name was, what happened in the session that ended five minutes ago, and what character I'm playing.
personally, I hate using miniatures; I think D&D is better when all the action is visualized in your head and acted out through conversation--it has that magic of the old radio dramas. Miniatures take away from the thrill of pure imagination
This is a sentiment I hear fairly often, and it always makes me chuckle because D&D was originally a spin-off of the Chainmail miniatures rules.
And just because you need, or desire, the cards in your game doesn't make /anyone/ stupid. At least some of us gamers have lives outside of gaming....I'm not stupid, /they're/ not stupid, and I don't think there's any place for that elitist tripe in the hobby.
Okay. Being that I was the person who introduced the word "stupid" into this discussion I think it'd be useful to go back and restate my position. I do not think people who need the cards are stupid. That wasn't what I said, certainly not what I meant either. The suggestion of the article was that PC's tend to get so wrapped up in the kill-things-take-their-stuff loop that they forget that this is part of a larger story and need a little cue card to remind them. This felt to me more as an accusation, that my players are too "stupid" to know what they're doing as part of a story and if left to their own devices will just go around stabbing things. I didn't find this insulting--more sort of amusingly off-base.
I don't know if I'm a gaming elitist. Truth be told, I probably am a little bit of one, but I try not to be rude. I like rich stories and deep characters and exciting action. Sometimes all the RAW gets in the way for me, as do all the little minis and maps and whatnot. I get a little frustrated with people who don't have the same "grand vision" of the game I do. Now do I realize that's a bit silly. Sure. Do I understand that everyone has their own way of enjoying the game and that's okay. Yeah. That's what I hope makes me good company and not a complete jerk doodyhead.
Personally, I hate using miniatures; I think D&D is better when all the action is visualized in your head and acted out through conversation--it has that magic of the old radio dramas. Miniatures take away from the thrill of pure imagination
I think I'm going to cry. You're my hero man. Can I hug you?
|
|
I love you guys! Seriously if there was no other indicator that this was the board for me...wow. Never have I seen assembled such a thoroughly dedicated character based gamers. It brings this ol' fool to tears.
Betcha feel silly for being away so long. :-)
As to the subject of the thread, it seems totally obvious to me and not worth spelling out, but again I think it's for new players rather than that us ancient types. To a young, inexperienced DM, they are basically saying "Try and give the players some motivation". Which is probably a good idea. It's just a shame thay had to couch it in terms of WoW-like vocabulary, though I guess it is probably a key competitor. And quest cards? Do people with short term memory problems often play D&D.
Betcha feel silly for being away so long. :-)
In some ways, though a lot of the reason for my departure had more to do with protecting you guys from a whole lot of me being furious and loud and saying a whole lot of stupid stuff that would just make me look like an idiot and really flush everyone's respect for me down the dumper.
It always felt like there were two halves to D&D, the big impersonal corporate owned part that you couldn't do anything about--it just did what it did like a tropical storm.
Then there was Dragon.
Your voice counted with Dragon, and if they said it, then it was law. Official game content that WotC had to accept and live with. The game I loved became something where my voice was part of a great choir and the folks who created content for it would listen to our desires and create wonderful things for us. That's gone and it ain't coming back.
It took a while to sort out my feelings about talking D&D here if what I had to say suddenly didn't matter anymore. I also looked around and the one thing that Paizo produced that I could buy was getting cancelled. I don't do modules, so what was there left for me here? Yeah. So I was pretty upset. I certainly didn't want to start kidney punching my friends here who were going through the same thing I was, or start trashing on Paizo for having worthless products I can't use. I didn't want that.
But when 4e came out there was suddenly something to talk about again. I still couldn't influence anything but it gave us something to all be angry about together and it helped me vent. Then as I started to catch on to this whole Pathfinder thing it started to look better and better to me. So now there's something here where I feel like my ideas might have some traction, something I can maybe contribute again to the game I love. So here I am again.
|
|
The whole end-of-the-magazines thing was very emotional for lots of people, including me. I can't be bothered to log on the the e-zine versions since my log-on stopped working, and I just couldn't motivate myself to rejoin Gleemax. And I find the Delve format so objectionable that I have no interest in electronic Dungeon, and I was getting less and less interested in Dragon anyway. I have no real beef with WotC as a company, and I will almost certainly buy 4E, but the peripheral stuff they are bringing out on-line is passing me by (plus I can't access Gleemax at work, which basically destroys its utility to me).
The stuff happening here is more interesting, frankly. The product is still superior to WotC. Golarion looks like a really exciting world. And while the WotC efforts seem to be focussed on getting younger players weaned on computer games into D&D (not a bad idea, to be honest) Paizo seems to be more in line with the older players who are interested in story and setting.
The stuff happening here is more interesting, frankly. The product is still superior to WotC. Golarion looks like a really exciting world. And while the WotC efforts seem to be focussed on getting younger players weaned on computer games into D&D (not a bad idea, to be honest) Paizo seems to be more in line with the older players who are interested in story and setting.
Yeah. Same here really. I can never get the Insider stuff to work for me anyway, so it might as well not be free for me, y'know. Not that I don't get a lot of that content copied over here--but it's uniformly the awful soul blighting stuff. Not probably the best way to make me love 4e. I do anyway though.
Golarion is looking sweet. I totally agree. I've just started my first campaign of it, so I've read all the Pathfinders up to now and bought the Pharoah one too for background info. I have never been so intimidated by running a setting in my life. Usually it's a matter of trying to salvage the world and make it cool. Here it's like I'm sweating hard to come up with stuff that's a tenth as good as these guys. Man they tell a good story!
I'll be honest here; the vast majority of games I've been in in RL, have been so bogged down that I have had trouble remembering what they hell we were supposed to be doing. This sounds like a fun idea for the more scatter-brained among us, as well as focusing the minds of those who are more inclined to veer off into distraction.
Uck. And I said I would avoid 4E topics. But the snobbery is really draining here, and rather distasteful.
|
|
I just can't understand why people are suddenly seeing the light because a dude posts a column about quest cards and story awards. Aren't players able to take some notes during the games? Aren't DMs? Aren't DMs able to tell players to take some notes?
Are people that lazy or clueless at game tables these days?
|
|
But the snobbery is really draining here, and rather distasteful.
Well, maybe. I think most of us think this is teaching us to suck eggs, which is also a tad insulting. I don't think it is much of a revelation to suggest that people have a reason to go down a dungeon. And writing the reason on a card and handing it out? Kinda kills the romance.
The King to the Company of Heroes: "I want you to rescue the Princess - here, I've written it down for you on this card so you don't forget."
Sir Bold: "Duh, thanks, Your Worship. And who are you again?"
The King: <sighs>
Hiya.
Interesting idea. Could work for some people who have either a very poor short-term memory, or make assumptions about stuff. You know the later type, you say "You have to brave the depths of the Dungeon of Etermal Pain and recover the famed Circlet of Mogg!"...and the player hears "Go to a dungeon and kill everything".
Anyway, the biggest sticking point I think they will have is players who get all upset, bee-otchy and whine when the DM gives them a quest that is 'not true'. Lets use the example above. The DM may have presented it from a rich collector. He tells them that the Circlet is very minor (adding +1 to the wearers Knowledge(Dungeoneering)). He will pay them a handsome sum. ... ... However, the reality of it is that he has sent them on a fruitless quest. There is no Circlet. He just wants them out of the way so he can continue on with his next phase of rigging an election so he can take over the city.
...so, how does the 'Quest Card' fit into that? The PC's will get no XP from it, it can't actually be completed. Now, maybe I'm in the minority here, but when I DM I usually have NPC's motivated by what motivates *them*, and not what would motivate the players. The NPC's aren't there to hand out tasks in exchange for gold, IMHO.
So that level 0 adept in the corner praying frevantly because he knows the PC's will never talk to him and he has no reason to talk to them, and they can't do anything for each other except perhaps a bit of warmth on a lonely cold night, is doing what again.
The level 0 adept is completing the world.
Now, everyone has their own opinions about what a game should, and shouldn't, have... But this is the kind of point of view that gives some of us the impression that 4th Edition is more "video gamey."
PC's go into to town, and [action button] to every one. If they don't respond, they aren't worthwhile.
If that is how you want your game, great. Have fun with that.
Some of us want a world that seems more "real," and alive.