Legends and Lore - Maintaining the Machine

645 posts / 0 new
Last post
Legends and Lore
Maintaining the Machine
by Monte Cook

I’ve always liked to look at the DM as the conduit between the players and the fantasy world. He is their eyes and ears, describing what they see, and he is the arbiter of what they can and cannot do to affect the (unreal) world around them.

Talk about this column here.

The poll results from last week made me vomit in terror.


And I guess I should talk about the article too;  as much as I agree that the DM's primary purpose is as an interupeter, I simply do not think the rules should ever be written around the DM making judgement calls on a regular basis.  That way lies madness as inconsistency, from session to session and DM to DM, becomes a codified part of the rules. 

If I wanted a rules-light storytelling system, I certainly would not be playing D&D.  I don't want that.  I want to know that my character will be able to do the same things in the same time at my home table as he will at a friend's table as he will at a LFR table.  And as a DM, I want the rules to cover every common circumstance and not handwave it because it's impossible to cover every circumstance.

You don't have to cover how long it takes a barbarian to ride a shark through a flaming porthole into an astral ship.  But if you don't cover how long it takes to move X feet, make an attack, drink a potion, or any other number of extremely common situations, your system is incomplete and I see no reason to play it.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
those questions are such a stacked deck, imo.

mr. cook, i dislike so very much of what you have said in this series of articles.  the current article is no exception.  i am in sincere fear for 5e.
The poll questions from this week are right up there with "Do you sometimes feel anxiety?" or "Do you like food that is delicious?"
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
those questions are such a stacked deck, imo.

mr. cook, i dislike so very much of what you have said in this series of articles.  the current article is no exception.  i am in sincere fear for 5e.


The fact that "PCs should only take one action a round" got 1200 votes is specifically what I refer to.

I can't imagine that being a good idea or a fun system, and the fact that 1200 people thought it was not just a good idea, but a GREAT idea is what is inspiring my terror.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
Good news!

Those polls are misnamed.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

There are only 235 people who think that. And half of them probably think Monte just meant no out-of-turn actions.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
A DM has the most power and responsibility in the group, so they can make or break the gathering. A bad player can be ignored or handled by more experienced players, but if the players have to hop over to help the DM it's going to be a loooooong night. More things can go wrong with the DM's job than with anything else. There are also a smaller number of people who have the time, energy, and willingness to DM, and many DMs get burned out.

It's not an issue in an area with a lot of gaming groups, but if your DM is the only DM you know, a lot is riding on them being one of the good DMs.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
I do not understand why people fear DMs that much. I've had bad DMs and great DMs. We just stuck with the good one and the problem was solved.

It's like players. Who wants to play with the guy who attacks or stea lfrom other players? And that player ain't the rules fault.



I am primarily a DM myself, and I don't trust myself to be able to be consistent, every session, every action.  At some point, I'm going to forget what I did before, and it'll be different, and that will end up being unfair in one situation relative to the other situation.


I'm awesome, and I have a solid memory, so it won't happen to me every session, but it'll happen sometimes, and I don't think it's acceptable for a system to not only accept, but encourage, me making that mistake.


Also, glad to hear about the polls!
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I do not understand why people fear DMs that much.

I definitely can't and won't try to speak for everyone, but I can tell you that a lot of the people who strongly object to leaving everything up to the DM don't *fear* DMs, they *are* DMs.

This article by Mr. Cook reminds me of the Republican Party platform - as described by a rabidly partisan Democrat. Or vice versa. It's trying to create absurdities in other people's positions, so it can use them to justify his preferred solutions to non-problems.

For starters, I've never heard the suggestion that it's bad for the DM to adjudicate. What I've heard is that it's bad for the DM to *have to* adjudicate *frequently*. The only way the system can cover everything is if there's a rule that anything not specifically allowed is forbidden (and even then it'd be tough), so the DM will definitely have to adjudicate from time to time; but there still needs to be a body of clear, consistent, comprehensible, halfway-sensible rules to cover common actions in common situations.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I just have to say that this is the 3rd time I took a minute to read one of this L&L articles and once again I find myself shaking my head at the points elaborated.

And I agree with ankiyavon, the fact that, according to the results displayed on the bottom, a lot of people thought having only one single action a turn was a good idea is a really frightening thought for me. I really hope this things are not the "feedback" and "research" that will end up making the desing philosophies for the next Edition.
Good news!

Those polls are misnamed.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

There are only 235 people who think that. And half of them probably think Monte just meant no out-of-turn actions.



Good news indeed! Thanks for clearig the smoke around that.

As far as rules go, I'm not far from ankiyavon's first post above - if I'm going to be playing D&D, I expect the game mechanics to be consistent from table to table, not subject to the whims, moods and preferences of the GM of the moment. If the rules are any good, there's plenty of room for the GM to be creative and interesting without having to figure out what an 'action' is or how long it takes. Frankly, when I run a game, I often depend on the players to keep tabs on system details - not that I don't know the rules, but others know them just as well, and will keep each other more or less in line. On the infrequent occasion I do add houserules or other variations, I almost never touch anythng realted to the mechanisms the players employ, it's all stuff on the GM side (for example, I've used three or four variations on minions in my campaign, but haven't changed a single PC power). 

My favorite label for the GMs role is 'Facilitator' - the one who sets the scene, keeps things flowing, and keeps the action within the established rules; who guides and influences events, with a light touch and always with the intent of keeping the player and PC in the spotlight; who allows and encourages the players to develop and express their characters, in cooperation with the rest of the table. In my view, 'Referee' is too limiting, and 'Storyteller' implies too much control over plot and action. Rules knowledge is important but not sufficient; planning a plot and pushing it along is a good contribution, but when the GM makes his/her plot the overriding focus, it's called 'railroading' and lessens the game for most people. Consistent, structured rules (along the lines of 4e) I find to be a fine tool for doing this: enough rules to cover the basics without getting bogged down in detail.

When I run, I don't want to have to worry about rules too much: they should be there so that everyone knows what to expect and how the world works, but not to the point of having to look up just the right table every few minutes to find the specific case. Behind the screen, I want to have as much time and energy available as possible - within the structure of the rules - to develop characterization and plot and description, not have to make judgement calls about specific PC actions. With a decent set of rules, well-presented, a lot (or most) of the rules load can be shifted onto the players, leaving the GM free to run the game.

It's late and I'm kind of babbling. The main point is that I prefer consistent, structured rules, which can be learned and used by the players and GM, and which don't burden the GM with constant judgement calls. The rules are there to enable the game to flow, and having good rules should free players and GMs of uncertainty and extra effort, allowing b etter focus on in-game activity.
While I was not one of the people who voted for having only one action...

I'd be ok with it if (and only if) combat rounds were assumed to be shorter.  Aside from D&D, I also play GURPS which has 1 second combat rounds instead of 6 second rounds like D&D has.  In the context of that game, it makes perfect sense to be able to do less during a round.  However, part of the reason for the shorter rounds in that particular game is also because there is more granularity within a turn also.  In a D&D turn, a lot of things such as aiming are assumed to have happened.

I'm still digesting the current article. 
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
 The Best in Gaming!
I do not understand why people fear DMs that much. I've had bad DMs and great DMs. We just stuck with the good one and the problem was solved.

It's like players. Who wants to play with the guy who attacks or stea lfrom other players? And that player ain't the rules fault.




It's not a matter of bad DMs, so much. It's more a matter of new DMs, and making sure that the system works for them, out of the box.


And yes, I want the players and DM to be more equal than they were in previous editions.

But even more, I love that 4e works out of the box, with or without a skilled DM. What does that mean? It means that being a good DM is easier than ever.  
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I do not understand why people fear DMs that much.

I definitely can't and won't try to speak for everyone, but I can tell you that a lot of the people who strongly object to leaving everything up to the DM don't *fear* DMs, they *are* DMs.



QFT

I don't DM a lot but when I do I hate having to make judgement calls. Especially when I'm asked to make frequent judgement calls. For one thing if it's not an extreme corner case the game should have a rule for it. But it's more than that. Frequent judgement calls take everyone out of the game. Suddenly we're not playing the game anymore we're waiting and wondering how the DM will rule our action this time. The focus has now shifted from the game to the DM. As a DM I already have a million and one things I need to keep track of from monster stat blocks and hitpoints, to rules, story, xp, treasure, etc the list goes on. To expect me or any DM to start making frequent judgement calls simply because as a human I'm good at it seems like a dumb reason to leave a rule out.

If we go from the current system where the game rules handle what type of action it is to draw/sheathe, attack, move, open a door, drink a potion, etc to just defining moving and attacking/casting I'm going to be severely annoyed and most likely not play whatever the new edition is.
I'm starting to think the L&L articles are some bizarre strategy by WotC to get us to like 4e more.

"You will play 4e and think it's the greatest system ever, or we'll let Monte kill a puppy."

Mark my words, there will be an L&L article proposing clubbing baby seals instead of rolling dice to determine damage. You'll see!
I do not understand why people fear DMs that much. I've had bad DMs and great DMs. We just stuck with the good one and the problem was solved.

It's like players. Who wants to play with the guy who attacks or stea lfrom other players? And that player ain't the rules fault.




It's not a matter of bad DMs, so much. It's more a matter of new DMs, and making sure that the system works for them, out of the box.

It is an unattainable utopia what you are suggesting.

I remember when we started playing DnD. It was a mess, but we learned and we improved. You know what? We had a lot of fun even when it was a mess.




But utopia is always something to strive for. Especially when that utopia has a chance to make your game the easiest game to start, and thus rakes in most of the new player base. Gateway drugs, man. They make it make money.
Is it just me, or is this another one of those articles that just make you think Monte hasn't played 4e much?

A lot of it (particularly the idea that the DM and players should co-operate to create a fun story and all have a good time) is not new.  Which, in itself, is not new.

Sigh.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
It just really sounds like he hasn't touched a game since 2000.

Or try to write anything since 2000.
Good news!

Those polls are misnamed.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

There are only 235 people who think that. And half of them probably think Monte just meant no out-of-turn actions.



oh thank god

Every week it's the same damn thing.  Monte gives us some BS article that shows his lack of understanding of even basic game design principals, when we justly and rightfully shoot him down he gets all butt hurt and takes a piece of our argument out of context and turns it into a straw man and lays into it with his twisted notions about how people should play the game.  Then he writes a couple of trap poll questions and proceeds to rinse and repeat.


Every week it's the same damn thing.  Monte gives us some BS article that shows his lack of understanding of even basic game design principals, when we justly and rightfully shoot him down he gets all butt hurt and takes a piece of our argument out of context and turns it into a straw man and lays into it with his twisted notions about how people should play the game.  Then he writes a couple of trap poll questions and proceeds to rinse and repeat.




And your professional game design credentials include...??

I happen to like the direction MM and MC are taking the discussion for 5th Edition.  If they do as good a job as I think they'll be doing with it, I can probably stop upgrading to newer versions of the game with 5th. 

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Good news!

Those polls are misnamed.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

There are only 235 people who think that. And half of them probably think Monte just meant no out-of-turn actions.



Could you elucidate on how you drew that conclusion (or tell me which page of the 50 odd pages of responses to the column in your link I'm supposed to be looking at)?
those questions are such a stacked deck, imo.

mr. cook, i dislike so very much of what you have said in this series of articles.  the current article is no exception.  i am in sincere fear for 5e.



LOL  I absolutely love these articles and am greatly anticipating the release of 5e.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I can't imagine that being a good idea or a fun system, and the fact that 1200 people thought it was not just a good idea, but a GREAT idea is what is inspiring my terror.



What specifically is your problem with this?  I happen to be one of those people who think it is an excellent idea to make combats move faster.  One of the biggest problems we have around our gaming table is people losing interest in combat between their turns.  If eveyone only takes a single action it is far less likely that a single player will agonize over just the right combination of actions to take during their turn, ensuring that other players have no chance of zoning out before their turn comes up again.  It also simulates simultaneous actions more faithfully as everyone gets at least two actions before the character at the top of the initiative order completes what would be considered a normal turn in 4e.  I see it as win/win.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I do not understand why people fear DMs that much. I've had bad DMs and great DMs. We just stuck with the good one and the problem was solved.

It's like players. Who wants to play with the guy who attacks or stea lfrom other players? And that player ain't the rules fault.



This +1!

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

A DM has the most power and responsibility in the group, so they can make or break the gathering. A bad player can be ignored or handled by more experienced players, but if the players have to hop over to help the DM it's going to be a loooooong night. More things can go wrong with the DM's job than with anything else. There are also a smaller number of people who have the time, energy, and willingness to DM, and many DMs get burned out.

It's not an issue in an area with a lot of gaming groups, but if your DM is the only DM you know, a lot is riding on them being one of the good DMs.



And yet D&D survived, and even thrived for decades with the DM as the final arbiter of everything.  Your arguments and fears hold no water.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

Good news!

Those polls are misnamed.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

There are only 235 people who think that. And half of them probably think Monte just meant no out-of-turn actions.



Could you elucidate on how you drew that conclusion (or tell me which page of the 50 odd pages of responses to the column in your link I'm supposed to be looking at)?



Last week's third poll question was "The DM should feel empowered to adjudicate any situation that comes up in play, with guidance and examples rather than hard and fast rules." not "Characters should take just one action per round."  That was the third question from two weeks ago.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.


Every week it's the same damn thing.  Monte gives us some BS article that shows his lack of understanding of even basic game design principals, when we justly and rightfully shoot him down he gets all butt hurt and takes a piece of our argument out of context and turns it into a straw man and lays into it with his twisted notions about how people should play the game.  Then he writes a couple of trap poll questions and proceeds to rinse and repeat.




And your professional game design credentials include...??
 



thats not a very good argument at all. what i cant say i dont like a death metal album unless ive...made a death metal album?

And your professional game design credentials include...??



False appeal to authority. One doesn't have to be a cook themselves to know when food tastes bad.

I do have one good thing to say about this article though, it finally helped me understand Monte's core philosophy going forward... "Make the DM's do the design work I'm being paid to do."

I definitely can't and won't try to speak for everyone, but I can tell you that a lot of the people who strongly object to leaving everything up to the DM don't *fear* DMs, they *are* DMs.



THIS. So much this. I currently GM three different games on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and I just don't have the time to prep or invent rules any more than I currently do.

4E is awesome because it takes most of the heavy work off my shoulders so that all I need to worry about are NPC motivations and can actually throw an encounter together in a matter of minutes (via the index with levels at the back of the monster books and dungeon tiles) if the players do something I don't expect.

It's WONDERFUL and the reason I will NEVER GM a 3.x or earlier version of D&D again. Being a DM should be FUN, not a chore that someone has to be assigned for the group to be able to have fun.

Every week it's the same damn thing.  Monte gives us some BS article that shows his lack of understanding of even basic game design principals, when we justly and rightfully shoot him down he gets all butt hurt and takes a piece of our argument out of context and turns it into a straw man and lays into it with his twisted notions about how people should play the game.  Then he writes a couple of trap poll questions and proceeds to rinse and repeat.




And your professional game design credentials include...??
 



thats not a very good argument at all. what i cant say i dont like a death metal album unless ive...made a death metal album?




If you want to make comments about the production values of a death metal album, or the muscianship it helps to be able to prove that you have some understanding of what goes into those aspects of death metal instead of just an opinion like every other arse.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

False appeal to authority. One doesn't have to be a cook themselves to know when food tastes bad.



You've made my point.  You may think baba ganoush tases terrible regardless of the cook's ability, whereas I love baba ganoush and have a much better sense of whether baba ganoush is made well or not.  Like it or not knowing what you're talking about is not a false appeal to authority, it is a baseline requirement for having a meaningful discussion that isn't just arses spouting noxious fumes just because something disagrees with them.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

 from the sound of it kalex you have some criticisms of 4th edition. you should bite your tongue, after all you never designed an edition of dnd-youre not allowed to have opinions. thats your argument right?
 from the sound of it kalex you have some criticisms of 4th edition. you should bite your tongue, after all you never designed an edition of dnd-youre not allowed to have opinions. thats your argument right?



I state my opinions as such, and don't try to pass them off as fact as the person I quoted did.  Neither do I call professional game designers names even when I disagree with their design choices.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

 from the sound of it kalex you have some criticisms of 4th edition. you should bite your tongue, after all you never designed an edition of dnd-youre not allowed to have opinions. thats your argument right?



I state my opinions as such, and don't try to pass them off as fact as the person I quoted did.  Neither do I call professional game designers names even when I disagree with their design choices.



And your psychology accredidations include ???


"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
I do not understand why people fear DMs that much. I've had bad DMs and great DMs. We just stuck with the good one and the problem was solved.

It's like players. Who wants to play with the guy who attacks or stea lfrom other players? And that player ain't the rules fault.




It's not a matter of bad DMs, so much. It's more a matter of new DMs, and making sure that the system works for them, out of the box.

It is an unattainable utopia what you are suggesting.

I remember when we started playing DnD. It was a mess, but we learned and we improved. You know what? We had a lot of fun even when it was a mess.



But the mess is not why you had fun.  You had fun despite the mess.  Why not remove the mess, and leave the fun?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The poll questions from this week are right up there with "Do you sometimes feel anxiety?" or "Do you like food that is delicious?"

Yeah, lol, so true!
That is not dead which may eternal lie
But the mess is not why you had fun.  You had fun despite the mess.  Why not remove the mess, and leave the fun?



Agreed, but what constitutes "the mess" is what seems to be at issue in this thread.  I see the entirety of Mike Mearls' and Monte Cook's efforts to be "cleaning the mess" to an extent that has not been attempted to date.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I hope that's the case.  Because a lot of it seems to be "Hmm, check out that pile of refuse!  That sure was fun to play with before it started to rot twenty years ago!"
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I hope that's the case.  Because a lot of it seems to be "Hmm, check out that pile of refuse!  That sure was fun to play with before it started to rot twenty years ago!"



See my latest post in your L&L thread.  I think it is entirely acceptable to use old solutions to design challenges if they work better than the new solutions.  Just because it is new, doesn't mean it is better.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

I hope that's the case.  Because a lot of it seems to be "Hmm, check out that pile of refuse!  That sure was fun to play with before it started to rot twenty years ago!"




Pretty much, I mean - isn't vanilla 2nd AD&D basically what the system that Monte is advocating in this article?

If the players wanted to do anything, the DM was the one who made the estimate of how long it would take to do something and that in order to do it you rolled against your attribute?  Then when you got into combat it was in the rules? 

I remember my 2e games basically going "Can I run up to the Orc and hit him with my sword" and the answer from the DM would be either "Yes" or "No, he's too far away, but you can move closer".

I mean...isn't that the system they are talking about? 

If you want that system, just play 4e and get rid of move/standard/minor action and just have the players tell you want they want to do in a turn and you can tell them yes or no.  You don't need a whole new system for it.

Don't like the grid, get rid of it too or use 3.5.

I don't see anything this system thus far that will do anything that previous systems didn't already do, and I don't see it doing it any better.

Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/