DOWNLOAD MY FREE 4E ZINE!!!
Actually, I find that most players...even the ones that try hard to have a good background...tend to miss the friends angle. We usually talk a lot about the character's family and possibly lovers (which could be friends, but only a small subset of them) and sometimes their enemies. I rarely see friends get involved in backgrounds, though.Yes, it isn't a mechanical article, but I found it somewhat helpful. Could it have been an editorial instead maybe? Yeah, but not everything a player needs to know can be summed up in mechanical toys. Inspiring them to make better, more believable characters is just as important in my opinion. I understand the sentiment of not wanting all fluff articles, but it's a little tiring to watch the forums blow up over it *every* time an article doesn't have mechanics.That said, are we getting a content calendar or not? It'd be easier for us all to wait for articles we wanted to see if we knew they were coming.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
The people they are most useful for are the new gamers who often aren't the ones subscribing to DDI.
Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
The people they are most useful for are the new gamers who often aren't the ones subscribing to DDI.They aren't? Why do you think that?
i dont demand crunch from every article but even judging this one purely on fluff it comes up short compared to other recent crunchless articles. far far short. which is surprising to me bc i like sernetts work. this was just pointless though, and i am dumbfounded people will post like this was something special. this forum continues to amaze me
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
I would guess that the majority of DDI subscribers are those most heavily invested in the game.
I think there are many more kids, new players, and casual gamers, etc, who might occasionally check the D&D website, but don't have an actual subscription to DDI.
I would guess that the majority of DDI subscribers are those most heavily invested in the game.Whereas I would think most subscribers are people in a regular D&D game, and want access to the Compendium, Character Builder and Monster Builder (and of course the magazines). I imagine that cuts across all spectrums of experience.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
no it doesnt need 'crunch' to be useful. a recent example was schwalbs article about home towns for pcs. it was just fluff but so much more readable and useful than this. i personally like the old articles where there was tons of fluff and crunch (the old longer articles before they changed like a year and a half in and said they were doing shorter articles bc they could see people dled more short articles than long ones)ah when you go back and read the 1st 4e dragon, what a great mag
To those that didn't like the article: does an article need specific mechanics in order to be useful to you? If not, what types of non mechanics articles would you prefer? Are there any examples of non mechanics articles you can site that you liked or found useful?
This is actually where I find use in this specific article. The NPCs are traditionally the purview of the DM. Even as the consummate DM of my group, I appreciate the idea that the players have more control over world and campaign building. It was frankly something I would have allowed since I started DMing but that hadn't really occurred to me (or I guess anybody else in my group) but it's so simple it would be a lot of fun to do.So in that regard, the article did do something for my game. It inspired a small but significant shift in my perception of the game that will hopefully lead to a better experience at the table.
The editorial... I mean, 'article', was totally useless to me. I don't say that to be mean-- some posters clearly liked it. But for my 2 cents, this was arguably the most useless Dragon article I've ever read. It had absolutely nothing for me.
I agree! I think its a nice twist to let players drive sometimes. When I've been a player I've had DMs insert NPCs into games as a result of my background materials. Its fun and its give the player an opportunity to step up and role play a little.
To those that didn't like the article: does an article need specific mechanics in order to be useful to you?
If not, what types of non mechanics articles would you prefer?
Are there any examples of non mechanics articles you can site that you liked or found useful?
@Plaguescarred on twitter