For my part, I often make my own settings from scratch and include my own things. That being said, I found the 4e fluff to be far too minimal. Not for myself but for new DMs.
Fluff and pre-made settings should be there for new DMs. Experienced DMs don't need Eberron/FR Gazeteer #159 because they know well enough what they're doing in their campaigns and have been doing it for ages. New DMs on the other hand are learning and need all the help they can get and the lack of details in 4e really wasn't a favour to them. Actually, considering 4e was in theory supposed to be new-generation friendly, it had surprisingly little to support new GMs and seemed to take the approach that all GMs would have been playing for ages, complete with parental anecdotes in the DMGs. (Not saying I didn't like those, quite the opposite actually as they were my favourite parts)
I think fluff should take priority over powers/spells/magic items/wossnames in the initial books. I'd rather have an awesome section on character background design in the PHB and see a return of the classes books than have a book largely devoted to items and loot while being virtually devoid of fluff and RP material. I mean really, do we want to return to the days when we asked someone about their character and the response was:
"Well I'm playing a level X class Y with an item Z! Name? Hang on, I'll have to check the sheet."
This counts doubly so when I consider how much errata goes on these days. Devote the base PHB to things that aren't going to be changed in 2-6 months.
As to the monsters, they needed more. I'd rather have one set of stats and 2 pages of ideas on how to use them then 2 pages of stats and one paragraph on their behaviour.
The base setting books were good in 4e, but failed to be expanded on outside of subscription, which was a mistake. I'd pay money for a book focused on the setting I use but paying money for online content that might or might not include the setting material is more iffy. I know a lot of people who were flat out turned off the idea entirely.
Really, we should have gotten more setting supplements published and in the stores.
As for the "new DMs" argument, seriously, please stop. Everybody. When us old-timers started playing, there were no settings. We managed just fine to create them on our own. People can easily figure this stuff out. If there is no setting info at all, just directions on how to build your own? People will figure out very fast that they're supposed to make their own. If there is minimal setting info and some suggestions, along with advice on how to make your own, people will figure out that you can make your own, and it could be fun.
New gamers, old gamers, lapsed gamers and returning gamers... all can easily figure out that you can make your own setting, and even when I was 10 or 12 it wasn't hard to figure out how to do it. Granted, I have gotten much more sophisticated about it over the years, but the basic idea is the same. Start with something you think is cool, and run with it.
Ideas don't appear in a vacuum. Its easy for those of us who have been playing forever to forget what originally got our creative juices going. Not sure what version you played, but in AD&D in my experience the inspiration came from the rules, especially the rule-dense DMG. For example: Disease, Parasitic Infestation, Followers for upper class charaters, Paladin's Warhorse, Spying, Use of poison, Lycanthropy, Repluted magical properties of gems, Hirelings, Henchmen - and that is just 24 pages of 238 page book. And don't forget the Appendixes. All of these gave ideas to players and DMs as to what they wanted to be doing with their characters or the campaign. You got inspired by realizing what you could do and wanting to do it.
The debate over whether 4e had sufficient/insufficient fluff misses the real issue, which as a 4e DM I encounter all the time. 4e books lack inspriational content. A pep talk on how you are free to do anything you want doesn't cut it. The Points of Light "setting" lacks anything resembling culture, which may leave room for creativity but does not inspire it. Powers are well described in their game mechanic but not in their in-game appearance. There are few rules for how the world works outside of combat.
As a result I am always pilfering the 3.5 books, not for fluff but for out-of-combat rules which are both a source of inspiration and a way to create a consistent framework to make it easy for my players to willingly suspend their disbelief. A good example would be the possession rules in the Eberrong Campaign Setting, which by themselves have opened a world of possibilities.
If WotC wants to get people hooked on DDN the core source material needs to have some inspirational qualities about it. If reading the books gives you ideas then you are going to get excited about the new game. Given the apparent modularization of the new system it seems that this is unlikely to come from the rules themselves, which will likely be sparse in the core books. So they are going to have to think of something else.
As for the "new DMs" argument, seriously, please stop. Everybody. When us old-timers started playing, there were no settings. We managed just fine to create them on our own. People can easily figure this stuff out. If there is no setting info at all,
There are few rules for how the world works outside of combat.
Just to note, this is how I prefer my games: rules should be there to resolve conflict, while other mechanics ought to be campaign-specific. If something is part of the story, the story should be the driving force behind it. Establishing core mechanics for too many things is, in my opinion, too much weight on the part of the DM, who would now have to either memorize all the new mechanics, or wing it and basically consider them nonexistent (but if that was the case, why should it be core in the first place?).
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Just to note, this is how I prefer my games: rules should be there to resolve conflict, while other mechanics ought to be campaign-specific. If something is part of the story, the story should be the driving force behind it. Establishing core mecha
There are few rules for how the world works outside of combat.
Just to note, this is how I prefer my games: rules should be there to resolve conflict, while other mechanics ought to be campaign-specific. If something is part of the story, the story should be the driving force behind it. Establishing core mechanics for too many things is, in my opinion, too much weight on the part of the DM, who would now have to either memorize all the new mechanics, or wing it and basically consider them nonexistent (but if that was the case, why should it be core in the first place?).
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Missing my point. My point is, whatever they come up with needs to capture the imagination somehow.
And for the record, nobody actually used most of those out-of-combat AD&D rules after the first time they encountered them without heavy modification. They were usually pretty unwieldy. But they served as a hint as to what you could do, or what areas you could build your own rules in. They were a skeleton upon which to hang flesh.
And it was pretty rare that the rules bogged down play in AD&D. Never actually heard that complaint before. Not quite sure what to do with it.
Just to note, this is how I prefer my games: rules should be there to resolve conflict, while other mechanics ought to be campaign-specific. If something is part of the story, the story should be the driving force behind it. Establishing core mecha
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds.
That's weird. 4E runs fine in that regard. Maybe my definition of complicated/complex is higher than normal?
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds.[/quote]That's weird. 4E runs fine in that regard. Maybe my definition of complicated/complex is higher tha
There are few rules for how the world works outside of combat.
Just to note, this is how I prefer my games: rules should be there to resolve conflict, while other mechanics ought to be campaign-specific. If something is part of the story, the story should be the driving force behind it. Establishing core mechanics for too many things is, in my opinion, too much weight on the part of the DM, who would now have to either memorize all the new mechanics, or wing it and basically consider them nonexistent (but if that was the case, why should it be core in the first place?).
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Missing my point. My point is, whatever they come up with needs to capture the imagination somehow.
And for the record, nobody actually used most of those out-of-combat AD&D rules after the first time they encountered them without heavy modification. They were usually pretty unwieldy. But they served as a hint as to what you could do, or what areas you could build your own rules in. They were a skeleton upon which to hang flesh.
And it was pretty rare that the rules bogged down play in AD&D. Never actually heard that complaint before. Not quite sure what to do with it.
I think that's where part of the issue lies. If the rules as written are so unreliable that you basically have to make your own version of it, how would that fly in public play? Why the added effort that not all DMs can give their time and effort to fix?
When I buy something, I expect it to work as intended. If I have to take a wrench to it to work as intended, then why buy it?
Just to note, this is how I prefer my games: rules should be there to resolve conflict, while other mechanics ought to be campaign-specific. If something is part of the story, the story should be the driving force behind it. Establishing core mecha
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds.
That's weird. 4E runs fine in that regard. Maybe my definition of complicated/complex is higher than normal?
If it's higher than normal, then we're near the same level. I find narrative more than easy to sculpt with the tools within 4th edition, and the rest of the system sings along quite well.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds.[/quote]That's weird. 4E runs fine in that regard. Maybe my definition of complicated/complex is higher tha
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by an attack against you + the DM has informed you that you hear more enemies approaching. Thinking ahead works much better in more static combat systems.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by
you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by an attack against you + the DM has informed you that you hear more enemies approaching. Thinking ahead works much better in more static combat systems.
Agreed! I have rarely had my preplanned strategy actually work because the battle kept changing.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by an attack against you + the DM has informed you that you hear more enemies approaching. Thinking ahead works much better in more static combat systems.
That means you need to be paying attention while it is not your turn. It's the same thing. You should be planning accordingly as it progresses. Again, this really minimized our combat length by emphasizing this.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by an attack against you + the DM has informed you that you hear more enemies approaching. Thinking ahead works much better in more static combat systems.
That means you need to be paying attention while it is not your turn. It's the same thing. You should be planning accordingly as it progresses. Again, this really minimized our combat length by emphasizing this.
Has absolutely nothing to do with lack of paying attention. You're grasping at straws here to try and save your argument. The person that goes before you can change the entire outcome of the whole battle with his last action before it's your turn. Paying attention can't change the outcome of something that is beyond your control. Sometimes you may get lucky and your planned action can go ahead but more times than not you are having to choose another course when your turn comes around.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Nope, PC's can die because the DM used better tactics than the PC's. Losing is not all about using bad tactics, it's about using a tactic that might not have been good enough. You can't always blame losing on bad tactics or bad rolls, the DM does have the full use of all the powers and tactics of a creature to use at his disposal.
I still believe the DMG conflicts with the actual rules. The DMG was written by a human being and they can be wrong at times you know. DM himself trying to kill player's would be fudging rolls and telling player's they didn't hit when they actually would have just to keep them from killing the creatures. I can still try and kill the PC's and it be perfectly alright as long as I stick with the rules.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
That means you need to be paying attention while it is not your turn. It's the same thing. You should be planning accordingly as it progresses. Again, this really minimized our combat length by emphasizing this.
Who says I'm not paying attention while it's not my turn? I am. It's just that the dynamic nature of combat means that trying to plan ahead is mostly wasted mental effort. When you're used to more strategic games, you quickly learn that conserving mental effort is key to success. Trying to formulate an answer to all the things that can happen before your turn (the fighter going down, the cleric becoming dominated, several enemies deciding to accept the penalties for ignoring their marks to charge you, an enemy becoming bloodied and unleashing a special attack as an immediate reaction, etc) simply isn't the way you do it. At least the not the way I'll ever do it, because it runs counter to everything I've ever read about strategical gaming and learned from experience.
The way you play faster is to learn all your abilities and powers by heart, so that you can quickly tell what is a good course of action given the current situation. If you want to look for the optimal course of action, then that might indeed require quite a bit of time.
Who says I'm not paying attention while it's not my turn? I am. It's just that the dynamic nature of combat means that trying to plan ahead is mostly wasted mental effort. When you're used to more strategic games, you quickly learn that conserving me
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Nope, PC's can die because the DM used better tactics than the PC's. Losing is not all about using bad tactics, it's about using a tactic that might not have been good enough. You can't always blame losing on bad tactics or bad rolls, the DM does have the full use of all the powers and tactics of a creature to use at his disposal.
I still believe the DMG conflicts with the actual rules. The DMG was written by a human being and they can be wrong at times you know. DM himself trying to kill player's would be fudging rolls and telling player's they didn't hit when they actually would have just to keep them from killing the creatures. I can still try and kill the PC's and it be perfectly alright as long as I stick with the rules.
There is a difference between challenging the PC's and actively trying to kill them. If your goal is to kill them, then that is DM vs. PC mentality. You're doing your normal shifting of goalposts now, though.
Again, Tomb of Horrors is DM vs. PC. That is not a challenge to them. It is specifically designed to kill them with no chance of them winning.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Nope, PC's can die because the DM used better tactics than the PC's. Losing is not all about using bad tactics, it's about using a tactic that might not have been good enough. You can't always blame losing on bad tactics or bad rolls, the DM does have the full use of all the powers and tactics of a creature to use at his disposal.
I still believe the DMG conflicts with the actual rules. The DMG was written by a human being and they can be wrong at times you know. DM himself trying to kill player's would be fudging rolls and telling player's they didn't hit when they actually would have just to keep them from killing the creatures. I can still try and kill the PC's and it be perfectly alright as long as I stick with the rules.
There is a difference between challenging the PC's and actively trying to kill them. If your goal is to kill them, then that is DM vs. PC mentality. You're doing your normal shifting of goalposts now, though.
Again, Tomb of Horrors is DM vs. PC. That is not a challenge to them. It is specifically designed to kill them with no chance of them winning.
Oh here we go with the "shifting your goalposts" copout. Please please please, if you can't come up with a legit argument then just say so or leave it. Nobody is shifting goalposts at all. I haven't changed the circumstances at all and i am sticking by what I say. Breaking the rules to kill PC's is not the same as using the rules to the kill the PC's, whether or not you do it is not up to debate. I always try to kill the PC's when I have an encounter, now I don't get mad or happy if I succeed or not because it's all a part of the game.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Nope, PC's can die because the DM used better tactics than the PC's. Losing is not all about using bad tactics, it's about using a tactic that might not have been good enough. You can't always blame losing on bad tactics or bad rolls, the DM does have the full use of all the powers and tactics of a creature to use at his disposal.
I still believe the DMG conflicts with the actual rules. The DMG was written by a human being and they can be wrong at times you know. DM himself trying to kill player's would be fudging rolls and telling player's they didn't hit when they actually would have just to keep them from killing the creatures. I can still try and kill the PC's and it be perfectly alright as long as I stick with the rules.
There is a difference between challenging the PC's and actively trying to kill them. If your goal is to kill them, then that is DM vs. PC mentality. You're doing your normal shifting of goalposts now, though.
Again, Tomb of Horrors is DM vs. PC. That is not a challenge to them. It is specifically designed to kill them with no chance of them winning.
Oh here we go with the "shifting your goalposts" copout. Please please please, if you can't come up with a legit argument then just say so or leave it. Nobody is shifting goalposts at all. I haven't changed the circumstances at all and i am sticking by what I say. Breaking the rules to kill PC's is not the same as using the rules to the kill the PC's, whether or not you do it is not up to debate. I always try to kill the PC's when I have an encounter, now I don't get mad or happy if I succeed or not because it's all a part of the game.
Then you have a DM vs. PC's mentality. This is what the DMG discourages. That is why it suggests the monster not do actions like coup de grace and the like. However, I doubt you've ever read through it. There's no way for it to be "wrong". If you follow the guidelines written in the DMG, you will set up a challenge for them. If it said keep throwing level +10 encounters at them so they have no chance of winning, that would be DM vs. PC.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for bein
In my campaigns, the monsters are trying to kill the PCs, not me. I would assume the same with all DMs worth their salt.
If you don't understand the difference, then "role playing" is truly a foreign concept to you.
In my campaigns, the monsters are trying to kill the PCs, not me. I would assume the same with all DMs worth their salt.If you don't understand the difference, then "role playing" is truly a foreign concept to you.
DM vs. PC: When the DM is actively trying to get a TPK. Anything else is not DM vs. PC. Now, the DM should always try and challenge the PCs, but death is not the only challenge, nor the only failure mechanic within battle.
Also, the one minute timer thing works for me too. Perhaps Xun and Respecter have a slower, less efficient table than Sam and I?
DM vs. PC: When the DM is actively trying to get a TPK. Anything else is not DM vs. PC. Now, the DM should always try and challenge the PCs, but death is not the only challenge, nor the only failure mechanic within battle.Also, the one minute timer
Also, the one minute timer thing works for me too. Perhaps Xun and Respecter have a slower, less efficient table than Sam and I?
Yes, play at my table was slower. We never did try the timer technique, because a) it would seriously alter the atmosphere around the table, and b) if you can only speed up the game by forcing people to make sloppy decisions, maybe it's better to simply play a different game (which is what we ultmately did).
Yes, play at my table was slower. We never did try the timer technique, because a) it would seriously alter the atmosphere around the table, and b) if you can only speed up the game by forcing people to make sloppy decisions, maybe it's better to sim
First off, it doesn't matter how long an encounter is, as long as everyone is having fun.
When we first started 4E, combats were definitely longer. After a few sessions, they were considerably faster and now we never see the marathons that people proclaim are rampant in 4E (unless the encounter is designed to be a marathon).
We do have one player that suffers from analysis paralysis. He knows it. We all know it. It happens. But he's gotten better over time as well and we can joke about it.
One of the things that I have seen slow combat down, however, is the player that doesn't understand his character's powers and consistently needs to read the powers before acting. This is one of the reasons why I request that players reflavor their powers. They become much more knowledgeable of their powers and are able to act much more quickly.
First off, it doesn't matter how long an encounter is, as long as everyone is having fun.When we first started 4E, combats were definitely longer. After a few sessions, they were considerably faster and now we never see the marathons that people pro
Playing 4E, combats do take a while for my group... but there are three kids around. When the kids are out? Snappy, snappy. It's nice, and the out-of-turn actions definitely keep everybody involved, if you are paying attention to the game.
I think what 4E requires isn't system mastery, but character mastery. Know your character, what they can do in what situations, and everything falls into place quickly. Tonight took all night for one encounter, but that was... about 8:00PM to 11:00PM, with dinner interrupting and frequent requests from children. Our actual table time was maybe an hour, and combat was 5 PCs vs. 8 monsters. There were two acid pits which really hastened stuff... our monk is a forced move specialist, and that poor troll just couldn't roll a successful save to stay out of those pits.
Attentive players with thorough character knowlege and few distractions? Snappy combat. I find it no worse than 3.x, and slower than 2E or earlier, but also more interesting. Also, in only 3 rounds, we all got a fair bit more than three actions.
Playing 4E, combats do take a while for my group... but there are three kids around. When the kids are out? Snappy, snappy. It's nice, and the out-of-turn actions definitely keep everybody involved, if you are paying attention to the game.I think wha
Also, the one minute timer thing works for me too. Perhaps Xun and Respecter have a slower, less efficient table than Sam and I?
Yes, play at my table was slower. We never did try the timer technique, because a) it would seriously alter the atmosphere around the table, and b) if you can only speed up the game by forcing people to make sloppy decisions, maybe it's better to simply play a different game (which is what we ultimately did).
What the timer seemed to to was keep everyone focused. I don't have to use it much anymore, unless focus wanes. With everyone focused on the game, and learning or having learned what their powers do, the game goes much faster. Not knowing what you can do can make a battle take hours. Knowing what your powers can do, and possibly what the powers of others can do can make play very fast indeed.
Yes, play at my table was slower. We never did try the timer technique, because a) it would seriously alter the atmosphere around the table, and b) if you can only speed up the game by forcing people to make sloppy decisions, maybe it's better to sim
What the timer seemed to to was keep everyone focused. I don't have to use it much anymore, unless focus wanes. With everyone focused on the game, and learning or having learned what their powers do, the game goes much faster. Not knowing what you can do can make a battle take hours. Knowing what your powers can do, and possibly what the powers of others can do can make play very fast indeed.
Couldn't agree more about the last part (it even echoes precisely what I said earlier). But there are several distinctions here:
a) For some players, internalizing the powers and the rules simply isn't a high priority in their lives. Other aspects of roleplaying are much more appealing to them. This means they will take more time at their turn, and that's simply the way it is.
b) For other players, swift decisions simply isn't what they do. Since they have been given a lot of options, all of these should be given due consideration or else the tactical decision-makery is just an illusion. My philosophy is that most of the time you only need to find a good course of action (if the situation is critical, then optimalization might be necessary) and this allows me to play very quickly. But a player who rejects this philosophy will take his sweet time regardless of the situation and his internalization of powers and abilities.
Couldn't agree more about the last part (it even echoes precisely what I said earlier). But there are several distinctions here: a) For some players, internalizing the powers and the rules simply isn't a high priority in their lives. Other aspects of
Keep in mind, the timer wasn't there to punish anyone. You didn't lose your turn or anything. It was strictly a small incentive and itkept people focused on what was going on outside of their turn. There were no sloppy decisions. I find they're more sloppy when someone hasn't been paying attention until their turn comes.
Keep in mind, the timer wasn't there to punish anyone. You didn't lose your turn or anything. It was strictly a small incentive and itkept people focused on what was going on outside of their turn. There were no sloppy decisions. I find they're more
I just hope the 5e offers the option of faster combat... Against the BBEGs, the whole big tactical combat thing is fine, but for the most part I want combat to be quick and cinematic so we can get back to the important thing--the story. If all I wanted to do was combat with miniatures, I'd play one of the tabletop war games that I own.
I just hope the 5e offers the option of faster combat... Against the BBEGs, the whole big tactical combat thing is fine, but for the most part I want combat to be quick and cinematic so we can get back to the important thing--the story. If all I want
Keep in mind, the timer wasn't there to punish anyone. You didn't lose your turn or anything. It was strictly a small incentive and itkept people focused on what was going on outside of their turn. There were no sloppy decisions. I find they're more sloppy when someone hasn't been paying attention until their turn comes.
Indeed. The timer is a method of encouraging the players to know what their powers do.
Indeed. The timer is a method of encouraging the players to know what their powers do.
Fluff is very important to D&D. Yes, its been commented that not every DM has time to make all the fluff themselves, I'm one of those DMs thats why I use Forgotten Realms. They have lots of fluff in the rule books and then you can branch out into the novels. 3rd and 3.5 had minimal fluff in all the books with the exception of "Grand History of the Realms" which didn't have a single blasted rule in it. 3rd/3.5 got pretty rules heavy toward the end. I never ventured much into the 4e territory so I don't have much to say on that in regards to fluff. However, the best fluff came from AD&D, or 2nd edition, Monster Manual. They gave you description, combat styles, habitat and society of the creature and ecology, all on one page. Every creature got its own well written page. This book and the Complete Book of "insert race here" provided great levels of fluff that could be used to flesh out characters and worlds.
Fluff is very important to D&D. Yes, its been commented that not every DM has time to make all the fluff themselves, I'm one of those DMs thats why I use Forgotten Realms. They have lots of fluff in the rule books and then you can branch out into the
"Speeding up combat" is something I can get behind. But if they do, they really need to get experience points "in tune" with it, somehow. Or just give up on the whole "xp-per-monster" concept entirely.
"Speeding up combat" is something I can get behind. But if they do, they really need to get experience points "in tune" with it, somehow. Or just give up on the whole "xp-per-monster" concept entirely.
you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by an attack against you + the DM has informed you that you hear more enemies approaching. Thinking ahead works much better in more static combat systems.
Agreed! I have rarely had my preplanned strategy actually work because the battle kept changing.
Strange. My preplanned strategies usually work for at least half a round.
I don't usually make detailed plans any farther ahead than that - but at the end of my turn I have two or three things in mind that I would like to see accomplished by the end of my next turn, and ideas of how I can accomplish each of them if they haven't been taken care of before then. Usually the other party members have at least one of them firmly in hand well before my turn comes, so by the turn before mine I have a fairly solid idea what will be where and in what condition at the start of my turn.
Occasionally, on the other hand, I know exactly what I plan to do for the next couple rounds - and quite often end up doing it.
The problem with thinking ahead is that the combat is in a constant state of flux. By the time you're up, the action you were planning to do is no longer any good because everyone's changed position three times over + your character just got dazed by
At its simplest, I want rules-simple, rules-light gameplay, where story created by both players and DM alike is the main driving force of the campaign.
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has the reputation for being one of the rules-heaviest systems on the market and one of the most difficult to run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and house runs that ruin the balance.
I'll tag along to comment: 4E is not rules heavy in the least, it can be run narratively without horrible amounts of DM fiat and the balance is strong even after houseruling and more importantly reflavoring.
Also you know the main reason I still play D&D? It's the easiest system to run heroic fantasy in that I have ever read.
I don't think we were playing the same game. 4th edition is so rules heavy I'm surprised the book could withstand the weight.
Eh, I'd call it rules medium. It doesn't have the subsystems of other games to memorize, causing you to basically relearn the game every time you try something new. GURPS is something I would definitely calls rules heavy, but 4e D&D isn't that bad. The only thing that really has a major learning curve are out of turn actions, at least that's what I have seen slow things down due to not understanding them at first.
I've never even experienced the long combats that people complain about. 30 minutes max for a non climactic battle.
We experienced this "all" the time. 4th edition is very much DM vs Player in my opinion. It boils down to a battle of tactics and each player wanted their actions to have maximum effect. Now I will say that our group always wanted our DM to give us his all while staying in the rules. If we felt the DM was just letting us win then we couldn't enjoy the game. Now what this led to was us formulating our tactics only to find it crushed by the DM with his tactics and we would have to regroup, the same would go for us, sometimes our tactics would cause the DM to have to rethink his. Also, all the triggering could really slow things down. One person's turn could turn into everyone at the table having to take another turn at doing something because it their triggers were set off.
DM vs. player = using tactics? lolwut? DM vs. player is when the DM is constantly trying to screw over the players, i.e. throwing impossible challenges at them, making up stuff that they're suddenly supposed to know, that kind of stuff. Tactics just makes it interesting. Being unpredictable is a good tactic.
I was just saying that we were economical with our time. I find that the thing that slows down combat is when the player sits there for 5 minutes making a decision about what to do. We solved this with an egg timer. You have 1 minute to take your turn (you should be thinking about what you want to do in between turns instead of playing on your ipad or whatever), if you make a decision before then, you get a poker chip. 2 poker chips can be traded in for a +1 to a roll of your choice. It gave people an incentive to keep things moving, and it worked extremely well.
A good many people around here see DM vs Player as when a DM is trying to kill you even though they are still using the rules. I've never heard of DM vs Player as the DM breaking the rules to kill players, that's just flat out breaking the rules.
Who says the DM is trying to kill you? The DMG actually specifically discourages this kind of behavior. They're using tactics to challenge you. That does not = trying to kill you. If that was the case, every combat in every RPG would be DM vs. player. There is a chance of death. Unless you think they should just stand there and let you hit them.
A good many people think this? This is the first time I've seen someone on these boards say this.
Well the DMG is wrong I'm afraid. Technically the DM is trying to kill the PC's, if he wasn't then yes he would just stand there. When I run an Orc in battle, I run that Orc as an Orc would act if it was real and was trying to kill someone. If a DM uses the all of Orc's powers andn tactics to the best of his ability then he is trying to kill the PC's. If this is not the case then mechanics aren't needed to be honest, all it needs to be is a narrative game where all outcomes are planned. If you roll the dice and you hit PC's doing damageg to them until their HP is gone do you follow through with it? The rules of the game and the DMG apparently conflict each other. If I am not supposed to try and kill the PC's when I play creatures then the math really needs to be removed and I should be allowed to narrate the whole thing but that's not the case with the default rules of the game. The game is written to where it's the DM trying to kill the PC's.
The DM is trying to challenge the PC's. Not specifically trying to kill them. There is a difference. Also, lol @ the DMG being wrong, man. If the PC's get killed, it's usually because of bad tactics on their part. They should be able to overcome level appropriate challenges. This is a goal of 4e. Like I said, the DM vs. PC mentality is completely different. That is specifically using what is beyond the PC's capabilities. Tomb of Horrors is a good example of DM vs. PC. Something that is specifically designed to give the PC's little hope of survival. Tomb of Horrors is an example of DM vs. PC mentality.
Nope, PC's can die because the DM used better tactics than the PC's. Losing is not all about using bad tactics, it's about using a tactic that might not have been good enough. You can't always blame losing on bad tactics or bad rolls, the DM does have the full use of all the powers and tactics of a creature to use at his disposal.
I still believe the DMG conflicts with the actual rules. The DMG was written by a human being and they can be wrong at times you know. DM himself trying to kill player's would be fudging rolls and telling player's they didn't hit when they actually would have just to keep them from killing the creatures. I can still try and kill the PC's and it be perfectly alright as long as I stick with the rules.
There is a difference between challenging the PC's and actively trying to kill them. If your goal is to kill them, then that is DM vs. PC mentality. You're doing your normal shifting of goalposts now, though.
Again, Tomb of Horrors is DM vs. PC. That is not a challenge to them. It is specifically designed to kill them with no chance of them winning.
Oh here we go with the "shifting your goalposts" copout. Please please please, if you can't come up with a legit argument then just say so or leave it. Nobody is shifting goalposts at all. I haven't changed the circumstances at all and i am sticking by what I say. Breaking the rules to kill PC's is not the same as using the rules to the kill the PC's, whether or not you do it is not up to debate. I always try to kill the PC's when I have an encounter, now I don't get mad or happy if I succeed or not because it's all a part of the game.
Then you have a DM vs. PC's mentality. This is what the DMG discourages. That is why it suggests the monster not do actions like coup de grace and the like. However, I doubt you've ever read through it. There's no way for it to be "wrong". If you follow the guidelines written in the DMG, you will set up a challenge for them. If it said keep throwing level +10 encounters at them so they have no chance of winning, that would be DM vs. PC.
I'm thinking that this whole "DM vs. PC mentality" discussion has to clarify what the hell we're talking about, before it gets any further. For me, if the intent of the DM is to punish players and kill PCs outright (without having to say "rocks fall, everyone dies!", if possible, to leave the DM with a clear conscience), then that'd be DM vs. PC mentality. - - - - - I'd consider rules-heaviness of a system based on the number of subsystems within the system. D&D 4E is almost rules-free outside of combat, has the option of running either large-scale combat or trivial combat in such a way that the whole thing is settled in seconds (skill checks/skill challenges), virtually everything can be refluffed as desired to fit the needs of the group, the DM can readily change stuff on the fly if need be [since the template could readily stay the same, even though the actual monsters behave and fight differently], and the main aspect of the edition that's rules heavy -- the combat section -- has just about every aspect of it boil down to three simple steps: 1. Roll a d20 2. Add modifiers and compare to a target number 3. Determine effects of action based on result
[EDIT: which is exactly how skill and ability checks are carried out as well ]
Care to compare with other editions of D&D?
Spoiler:
Show
Then you are quite frankly playing the wrong system. There are half a dozen that do what you say you want better than D&D like Savage Worlds. Why is it that so many D&D players don't know any other systems or even that D&D has th
4E actually has a lot of fluff...it just seems that people ignore it for some reason. Check out my blogs for more on this. Summary: 4E powers have a far larger percentage of fluff than any past edition (though I was unable to go back before 2nd...so people who have older books, feel free to add stuff!).
Every race and class also has fluff.
Monster Manual 1 was a bit short on fluff, but each monster still got a paragraph or two plus the Lore section. The later monster books (Monster Vaults especially) have been much better when it comes to fluff.
The campaign setting books have fluff galore. Then there are entire books that are mostly devoted to fluff: Manual of the Planes, Shadowfell, Plane Below, Plane Above, Open Grave, etc.
Honestly, my problem as a DM in 4E isn't coming up with fluff and stories...it is picking out the coolest fluff and stories from the tons of options presented in all the books. My current campaign is based on one tiny section within one of the books (I forget if it is Manual of the Planes or Plane Below).
So for people who found 4E to be "all mechanics", how much fluff do you want? Describe your perfect D&D book.
4E actually has a lot of fluff...it just seems that people ignore it for some reason. Check out my blogs for more on this. Summary: 4E powers have a far larger percentage of fluff than any past edition (though I was unable to go back before 2nd...s
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
Yes, one could just publish settings books for that. But, D&D already has one of the steepest entry costs for a game. To play the game I really need 3 books to start, Core rulebook(with character creation), DM manual and Monster Manual. (list price $104.95) I, also, need a mat ($10+) and minis($9 per box), as the current edition's powers require more spatial precision than many other games. With a lot of other games I can get by with buying one book to start ($20-50 depending on setting)and expanding my collection later on, if I want new options.
Adding in a 4th book or like the recent setting of Dark Sun a 4th(the Campaign Setting at $39.95) and 5th book(Campaign Guide at $24.95) is just a bit too much to purchase all at once.
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunc
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
Yes, one could just publish settings books for that. But, D&D already has one of the steepest entry costs for a game. To play the game I really need 3 books to start, Core rulebook(with character creation), DM manual and Monster Manual. (list price $104.95) I, also, need a mat ($10+) and minis($9 per box), as the current edition's powers require more spatial precision than many other games. With a lot of other games I can get by with buying one book to start ($20-50 depending on setting)and expanding my collection later on, if I want new options.
Adding in a 4th book or like the recent setting of Dark Sun a 4th(the Campaign Setting at $39.95) and 5th book(Campaign Guide at $24.95) is just a bit too much to purchase all at once.
Ugh. 70/30 means I'm wasting 70% of my money. No thanks: as you said, D&D is expensive already.
Ugh. 70/30 means I'm wasting 70% of my money. No thanks: as you said, D&D is expensive already.
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
Yes, one could just publish settings books for that. But, D&D already has one of the steepest entry costs for a game. To play the game I really need 3 books to start, Core rulebook(with character creation), DM manual and Monster Manual. (list price $104.95) I, also, need a mat ($10+) and minis($9 per box), as the current edition's powers require more spatial precision than many other games. With a lot of other games I can get by with buying one book to start ($20-50 depending on setting)and expanding my collection later on, if I want new options.
Adding in a 4th book or like the recent setting of Dark Sun a 4th(the Campaign Setting at $39.95) and 5th book(Campaign Guide at $24.95) is just a bit too much to purchase all at once.
Ugh. 70/30 means I'm wasting 70% of my money. No thanks: as you said, D&D is expensive already.
"90% of everything is crap." So a 70/30 ratio is pretty durn good.
However, the given list of equipment is the DM entry level, not the player entry. The player can start easily enough with PH1 and a $1 piece of plastic or metal, and can start with much less in a pinch. Now we might need all of the above for a group of newbies, but that splits the cost among 6 and can mean an even cheaper figure.
Ugh. 70/30 means I'm wasting 70% of my money. No thanks: as you said, D&D is expensive already.[/quote] "90% of everything is crap." So a 70/30 ratio is pretty durn good. However, the given list of equipment is the DM entry level, not the pl
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
Yes, one could just publish settings books for that. But, D&D already has one of the steepest entry costs for a game. To play the game I really need 3 books to start, Core rulebook(with character creation), DM manual and Monster Manual. (list price $104.95) I, also, need a mat ($10+) and minis($9 per box), as the current edition's powers require more spatial precision than many other games. With a lot of other games I can get by with buying one book to start ($20-50 depending on setting)and expanding my collection later on, if I want new options.
Adding in a 4th book or like the recent setting of Dark Sun a 4th(the Campaign Setting at $39.95) and 5th book(Campaign Guide at $24.95) is just a bit too much to purchase all at once.
Ugh. 70/30 means I'm wasting 70% of my money. No thanks: as you said, D&D is expensive already.
Ditto this. Now, flip it, and you've got a deal.
Ugh. 70/30 means I'm wasting 70% of my money. No thanks: as you said, D&D is expensive already.[/quote]Ditto this. Now, flip it, and you've got a deal.
"Speeding up combat" is something I can get behind. But if they do, they really need to get experience points "in tune" with it, somehow. Or just give up on the whole "xp-per-monster" concept entirely.
XP is in tune in 4e. The XP per monster system works extremely well. Changing the makeup of a combat has never been easier to do, while keeping combats at the level of difficulty you want.
I'd actually like to see them expand the concept into the skill system. Xp rewards per check, based on difficulty and level.
Sneaking unseen into the manse to get the artifact that will open the hidden temple is XP worthy, obviously, but how XP worthy?
And what if the sneaker has to take out a couple guards here and there along the way?
What if your group hates skill challenges, or the game no longer has them because someone decided to be a reactionary idiot when designing the game?
Why not have per enemy XP and per check XP, so that each component of that challenge can simply be added up and the XP rewarded at the end.
I'd also like guidelines for rewarding purely roleplaying solutions, as well as bonus XP for clever problem solving/planning/tactics.
Something like, taking out the guard in one round, before he has the change to sound an alarm results in bonus XP equal to a hard difficulty, at-level skill check. Successfully getting the ambush on the dragon results in bonus XP equal to group skill check one level above the party, and X difficulty. Etc.
Just some thoughts on how XP could work in next.
XP is in tune in 4e. The XP per monster system works extremely well. Changing the makeup of a combat has never been easier to do, while keeping combats at the level of difficulty you want. I'd actually like to see them expand the concept into the ski
I agree, except for minions. They're largely not "worth" the faction-of-a-monster they're listed at, and their "worth" fluctuates wildly from group to group. Moreso than (most) other monsters.
I agree, except for minions. They're largely not "worth" the faction-of-a-monster they're listed at, and their "worth" fluctuates wildly from group to group. Moreso than (most) other monsters.
Or just give up on the whole "xp-per-monster" concept entirely.
That's a very common houserule in 4E. In fact many tables go further and never award XP at all.
XP per monster is still used to build encounters, but that's all it's used for; the party (everyone) levels up when it's plot-appropriate.
That's a very common houserule in 4E. In fact many tables go further and never award XP at all.XP per monster is still used to build encounters, but that's all it's used for; the party (everyone) levels up when it's plot-appropriate.
Or just give up on the whole "xp-per-monster" concept entirely.
That's a very common houserule in 4E. In fact many tables go further and never award XP at all.
XP per monster is still used to build encounters, but that's all it's used for; the party (everyone) levels up when it's plot-appropriate.
I can attest this works very well too.
That's a very common houserule in 4E. In fact many tables go further and never award XP at all.XP per monster is still used to build encounters, but that's all it's used for; the party (everyone) levels up when it's plot-appropriate.[/quote]I can att
Or just give up on the whole "xp-per-monster" concept entirely.
That's a very common houserule in 4E. In fact many tables go further and never award XP at all.
XP per monster is still used to build encounters, but that's all it's used for; the party (everyone) levels up when it's plot-appropriate.
I can attest this works very well too.
I much prefer to give XP (my players are XP centric), but After seeing how minions included as part of another monster were not giving XP (MM3, I believe, the minions are summoned by and part of the XP for a different monster unless the minions appear on their own in a fight), I've had a bunch of fun building sessions figuring out how to work an endless stream of 0 XP minions; basically, after you kill the first 4, anything past that is no XP if they are flowing continuously.
That's a very common houserule in 4E. In fact many tables go further and never award XP at all.XP per monster is still used to build encounters, but that's all it's used for; the party (everyone) levels up when it's plot-appropriate.[/quote]I can att
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.[/quote]I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
Why do you say that Lugnut? The character builder has all the crunch that you are going to need without all that terrible fluff getting in your way.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.[/quote]I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.[/quote]Why do you say that Lugnut? The cha
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
Why do you say that Lugnut? The character builder has all the crunch that you are going to need without all that terrible fluff getting in your way.
If you were to ask me, it's because DnD Insider-available material has quite a lot of fluff, including entire articles that are 100% fluff. See: Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine.
The Character Builder is just a part of the whole package, after all.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.[/quote]I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.[/quote]Why do you say that Lugnut? The cha
If you were to ask me, it's because DnD Insider-available material has quite a lot of fluff, including entire articles that are 100% fluff. See: Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine.
The Character Builder is just a part of the whole package, after all.
The Online Compendium appears to have all the fluff on powers, as well - and unlike previous editions, in 4E all powers have fluff.
The Online Compendium appears to have all the fluff on powers, as well - and unlike previous editions, in 4E all powers have fluff.
I agree, except for minions. They're largely not "worth" the faction-of-a-monster they're listed at, and their "worth" fluctuates wildly from group to group. Moreso than (most) other monsters.
Agreed.
@general:
Those who don't want to deal with fluff are best of subscribing. How is that even arguable?
DDI sub, and thus the builder, is the easiest way to get straight to the crunch, and you don't have to buy a book that is half fluff when all you care about is the crunch.
If you only care about crunch, I can't imagine a single reason to ever buy a single game book.
I agree, except for minions. They're largely not "worth" the faction-of-a-monster they're listed at, and their "worth" fluctuates wildly from group to group. Moreso than (most) other monsters.[/quote]Agreed. @general:Those who don't want to deal wi
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
Why do you say that Lugnut? The character builder has all the crunch that you are going to need without all that terrible fluff getting in your way.
If you were to ask me, it's because DnD Insider-available material has quite a lot of fluff, including entire articles that are 100% fluff. See: Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine.
The Character Builder is just a part of the whole package, after all.
But obviously if you do not want fluff then you would not bother to read the Dragon or Dungeon articles, would you.
Reading other peoples fluff might spoil your own brilliant story.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.[/quote]I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.[/quote]Why do you say that Lugnut? The cha
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
Why do you say that Lugnut? The character builder has all the crunch that you are going to need without all that terrible fluff getting in your way.
If you were to ask me, it's because DnD Insider-available material has quite a lot of fluff, including entire articles that are 100% fluff. See: Dragon Magazine, Dungeon Magazine.
The Character Builder is just a part of the whole package, after all.
But obviously if you do not want fluff then you would not bother to read the Dragon or Dungeon articles, would you.
Reading other peoples fluff might spoil your own brilliant story.
lol Yes, of course. It's totally hard to just not read the pure fluff articles and scroll right past the fluff in the mixed articles.
Of course, I tend to thnk that the people that talk about all the fluff being crap have inflated views of their own creative talent. I tend to think that because in most cases where I've been given the opportunity to view the creations of people expressing those opinions, that has been the case. :P
Those who don't want to deal with fluff are best of subscribing. How is that even arguable?
Hello, welcome to the internet.
You must be new here?
I guess I just forget sometimes. Oh well. Some things just can't be changed, I suppose.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.[/quote]I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.[/quote]Why do you say that Lugnut? The cha
If you only care about crunch, I can't imagine a single reason to ever buy a single game book.
DDI subscription costs 6$ per month. A book costs about 30$ and lasts forever. Five months of subscription means I can buy a book. Multiply this for every person at the gaming table. We are five: in 3 months' time we'd spend more money on DDI subscriptions than on ALL the Core books. What you are saying is that we, who like to add our own flavor to the mechanics because we do not play "standard D&D" and like to have all our options supported, should pay hundreds of dollars more than you because of this.
No way.
DDI subscription costs 6$ per month. A book costs about 30$ and lasts forever. Five months of subscription means I can buy a book. Multiply this for every person at the gaming table. We are five: in 3 months' time we'd spend more money on DDI subscri
Considering it a little more I do think it might be a good idea to release a campaign source book out of the gate alongside the three core rulebooks. So at 5e release put out a Players Handbook, a Dungeon Master's Guide, a Monster Manual and also a campaign setting sourcebook for whatever campaign WotC wants to promote first. That way DMs who need a solid campaign setting to work from can have it while everybody else can skip the campaign book and just get the other information they need like game mechanics, etc. I think trying to cram an initial campaign setting into everything else included in the DMG and PHB is probably a mistake since it just dilutes the background information between sources and isn't even needed at all by a lot of groups.
This was one area 4e messed up at launch, in fact. They didn't even release all three of the main core books together, we had to wait a couple of months between the release of the PHB and the other two books, and the first campaign setting book didn't come out until a while after that. They really should schedule things so all three core books plus the first of their campaign settings all come out all at the same time, probably even sold as a bundle.
[EDIT: erm...thought I was responding to someone else...I should probably sleep now. :P]
Seriously, though, I would be fine with a setting book that came out alongside the core books. If that frees up space in the core books for more options, awesome.
I'd rather not have it be one of the published settings, though. Or if it is, make it one that's been idle for a while, like Mystara or something. Even Greyhawk, now that I've learned a bit more about it in that one thread about ethnicity and art.
Or, they could do what they did that ended up with us getting Eberron.
A contest, to find the most awesome homebrew setting to turn into a new official DnD setting! :D
Or just compile all the existing info (quite a lot at this point) on the Nerath setting, fill in some blanks/flesh it out a bit, and use that.
Just not FR, Dark Sun, Eberron or even Dragonlance.
If I had to choose one of those for it to be, though, I'd pick Eberron. It's the one that supports the widest range of game styles, IMO.
[EDIT: erm...thought I was responding to someone else...I should probably sleep now. :P]Seriously, though, I would be fine with a setting book that came out alongside the core books. If that frees up space in the core books for more options, awesome.
persoanly i have no real need for the fluff in the books. this is why i stoped buying books as DDI with the compendium character builder and monster builder. includes al raw data i need.
this was a great way for me to stop spending money on books that are filled with fluff that is useless to me.
Then the books can be for more fluff while DDI focuses on the crunch.
No. DDI should stay as it is, a nice mix of the two.
And so should the books.
Don't care about fluff, use DDI and ignore the fluff articles. You've got the CB, MB, Compendium and VT. Ready, go. There's the whole game for the type of groups/players that don't need/want fluff material.
The rest of us can have the mix of fluff and crunch that we need in order to be willing to spend money on this stuff.
@general: Regarding powers, I find that simply reading the fluff text of the power when using it evokes exactly what the power does, and allows people to visualize it just fine.
Then the books can be for more fluff while DDI focuses on the crunch. [/quote]No. DDI should stay as it is, a nice mix of the two. And so should the books. Don't care about fluff, use DDI and ignore the fluff articles. You've got the CB, MB, Compendi
I'm one of those gamers that will buy games just to read them. If I page through a book and the fluff isn't there or isn't unique and evocative it doesn't get bought. So for me, the fluff is the game. I'd love to see a 70/30 split of fluff to crunch.
I am with you 100% on that.
If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.
I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.
Why do you say that Lugnut? The character builder has all the crunch that you are going to need without all that terrible fluff getting in your way.
Yep basically Chaosfang's answer, both Dungeon & Dragon have heavy fluff every month. Setting specific as well as setting generic.
I am with you 100% on that.If you want to just get pure mechanics then subscribing to the DnD Insider would be the way to go.[/quote]I'm guessing you never subscribed to D&D Insider because you are way off.[/quote]Why do you say that Lugnut? The cha
I can see why some people do not like it, but it gives useful story ideas and backstory on enemies. It makes the world seem more real. Some DMs lack in creativity and the ability to tell a story, and in that case the fluff would be useful to them (I just like to read it, as it is cool). For the people that can tell their own stories, though, D&D Insider is the way to go. There you can avoid fluff without having to flip through pages. I think so far WotC has done a great ob of pleasing both sides of the issue, and shouldn't change their organization of the fluff.
I am one of those guys that like the fluff.I can see why some people do not like it, but it gives useful story ideas and backstory on enemies. It makes the world seem more real. Some DMs lack in creativity and the ability to tell a story, and in that
I don't want to give the impression I think fluff should be banished... I just don't think we need more than was in 4E. There was a lot more than many give credit for, but not too much for my taste. It should be there, and I think they got it exactly right in 4E. More would be too much for me, and make me less likely to buy it.
In response to DoctorBadWolf with regards to people making their own fluff and their view on it, I tend not to think that my stuff is superior by virtue of my amazing creative prowess, but by being mine. It's like when I roast my own coffee at home. I can get a better roast from the old guy down the street who's a pro, and well-respected locally. But it's not my roast. Creating my own stuff is fun, just like roasting my own coffee.
People get too hung up on whether or not their own stuff is 'good enough' or not. If you made it, it's good enough. This extends to music, poetry, visual art, the works... if you do it, it's good. If you make up your own setting, this is a good thing just for you having done it. The creative process is almost more important than the results. If your friends don't appreciate that you made a setting just for them to explore, get new friends.
I don't want to give the impression I think fluff should be banished... I just don't think we need more than was in 4E. There was a lot more than many give credit for, but not too much for my taste. It should be there, and I think they got it exactly
If you only care about crunch, I can't imagine a single reason to ever buy a single game book.
DDI subscription costs 6$ per month. A book costs about 30$ and lasts forever. Five months of subscription means I can buy a book. Multiply this for every person at the gaming table. We are five: in 3 months' time we'd spend more money on DDI subscriptions than on ALL the Core books. What you are saying is that we, who like to add our own flavor to the mechanics because we do not play "standard D&D" and like to have all our options supported, should pay hundreds of dollars more than you because of this.
Your math needs a little work. A book may last "forever", but your use of it is a much shorter time. I have shelves of old D&D books gathering dust. I'd be better off throwing them out. Whether my book gets lost or I end my DDI subscription, I only get value from either for a fairly short period of time. And the cost of DDI is distinctly lower if you are a serious buyer of D&D books. Your CORE books cost about the same as a year of DDI, and then you start buying PH2, MM2, DMG2, Aventurers Vault, and several other books and you continue to spend well above the DDI cost year after year. We might say $6 x 12 is less than $30x4. And in a few years when you are starting to say you don't need another book, out comes the new edition and the whole thing starts over. Now you seem to have the idea of the whole table sharing one copy of a book, which pretty much only works when everybody is too broke to afford more books. Once there is a little money available, the players will want their own copies, meaning we are back to comparing 1 DDI suscription vs book costs, not 6 DDI vs 1 book. And even in the broke case, DDI may well be cheaper. It is not as convenient to share a computer as to share a book, but it is quite doable and so DDI would be the cheaper way [in theory massively cheaper. One month of DDI is $10 and if you can download everything you would actually need, you could get the value of $1000 of books. Highly unlikely in any real case, but if you can go online, DDI is likely going to be cheaper for you than dead trees. The real questions involve service. You do need that online service, which is not available everywhere and can be expensive. And reading a computer screen is still not the same as reading a book. I still likely spend more time reading my D&D books than I do checking out DDI and other online D&D programs. But on a cost basis, DDI is an easy winner.
DDI subscription costs 6$ per month. A book costs about 30$ and lasts forever. Five months of subscription means I can buy a book. Multiply this for every person at the gaming table. We are five: in 3 months' time we'd spend more money on DDI subscri
Look at this quote from the Grognardian. What would you rather have?
Take, for example, the old standby -- and something even I will admit is a rip-off from Tolkien -- the elven cloak. This is what OD&D has to say about it: "Wearing the Cloak makes a person next to invisible." Next to invisible? What does that mean? Contrast this to AD&D, whose description of the item, now dubbed the cloak of elvenkind, is much more specific:
A cloak of elvenkind is of a plain neutral gray which is indistinguishable from any sort of ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when it is worn, with the hood drawn up around he head, it enables the wearer to be nearly invisible, for the cloak has chameleon-like powers. In the outdoors, the wearer of a cloak of elvenkind is almost totally invisible in natural surroundings, nearly so in other settings. Note that the wearer is easily seen if violently or hastily moving, regardless of the surroundings.
The description then goes on to give specific percentage chances of how invisible the wearer is, from 100% in heavy growth in natural surroundings to 50% while underground and illuminated by the continual light spell. I'm not keen on this degree of specificity, but, even with it, there's still some wiggle room for the referee -- and players! -- because what constitutes "heavy growth" as opposed to "light growth" is a matter of opinion. You can see, though, that, even with all the expansive physical/metaphysical description of the cloak, its functioning ultimately comes down to a D100 roll.
Third Edition, as it so often does, pares down Gygaxian flavor text and reduces AD&D's baroque mechanics to banality: "This cloak of neutral gray cloth is indistinguishable from an ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when worn with the hood drawn up around the head, it gives the wearer a +5 competence bonus on Hide checks." Fourth Edition is even more laconic: "Gain an item bonus to Stealth checks equal to the cloak’s enhancement bonus." There's not even a nod to flavor text.
I prefer the former to make the magical item seem more special, more magical and more desireable. Fluff is cornerstone in my opinion. Fluff should come first and then the mechanics should try to model it. Sometimes the mechanics should be nothing more than an agreement between player and DM.
Look at this quote from the Grognardian. What would you rather have?I prefer the former to make the magical item seem more special, more magical and more desireable. Fluff is cornerstone in my opinion. Fluff should come first and then the mechanics s
A book may last "forever", but your use of it is a much shorter time. I have shelves of old D&D books gathering dust. I'd be better off throwing them out. Whether my book gets lost or I end my DDI subscription, I only get value from either for a fairly short period of time.
Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week. Also, DDI subscription either lasts a year, or costs more than 6$ every month (which is still HUGE); also, books can be shared easily while DDI subscription is personal.
And the cost of DDI is distinctly lower if you are a serious buyer of D&D books. Your CORE books cost about the same as a year of DDI, and then you start buying PH2, MM2, DMG2, Aventurers Vault, and several other books and you continue to spend well above the DDI cost year after year. We might say $6 x 12 is less than $30x4. And in a few years when you are starting to say you don't need another book, out comes the new edition and the whole thing starts over.
Well this reasoning is pretty much flawed. First, DDI for a year for every player and DM costs much, much more than the Core three (which on the other hand are very easily shared). Second, even counting one subscription once you stop buying books continuously you start losing money. In order to break even you need to buy 4 books every year: I don't know you, but I generally don't. I buy splats I need and I often share expenses with the whole group.
Now you seem to have the idea of the whole table sharing one copy of a book, which pretty much only works when everybody is too broke to afford more books. Once there is a little money available, the players will want their own copies, meaning we are back to comparing 1 DDI suscription vs book costs, not 6 DDI vs 1 book.
Heh, you might be able to pull money out for every book but I'm sure as hell not able to. Nor do I want to, money is still money.
And even in the broke case, DDI may well be cheaper. It is not as convenient to share a computer as to share a book, but it is quite doable and so DDI would be the cheaper way [in theory massively cheaper. One month of DDI is $10 and if you can download everything you would actually need, you could get the value of $1000 of books. Highly unlikely in any real case, but if you can go online, DDI is likely going to be cheaper for you than dead trees.
Is this even possible? Surely it's not legal, but is it possible? To download everything you need and then recide the subscription? O.o It seems very unlikely to me...
The real questions involve service. You do need that online service, which is not available everywhere and can be expensive. And reading a computer screen is still not the same as reading a book. I still likely spend more time reading my D&D books than I do checking out DDI and other online D&D programs. But on a cost basis, DDI is an easy winner.
I disagree. Monthly subscriptions suck. Of course, if you can download everything as you mentioned, you are right; but I somehow doubt that is the case. I will note that I frankly don't care about reading from a screen (I prefer it to books) and I also do not care about online / offline service either. I care about monthly costs, because those are quite a bit heavier than having the actual books in the medium to long run. Really, just make some calculations on 4E: unless you bought every single splat, including things like Open Grave and that useless city book, and especially if you didn't bother with essentials, you will see that DDI subscription costs A LOT more than a collection of books.
Really, now. Let's see...Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week. Also, DDI subscription either lasts a year, or costs more than 6$ every month (which is still HUG
I don't want to give the impression I think fluff should be banished... I just don't think we need more than was in 4E. There was a lot more than many give credit for, but not too much for my taste. It should be there, and I think they got it exactly right in 4E. More would be too much for me, and make me less likely to buy it.
In response to DoctorBadWolf with regards to people making their own fluff and their view on it, I tend not to think that my stuff is superior by virtue of my amazing creative prowess, but by being mine. It's like when I roast my own coffee at home. I can get a better roast from the old guy down the street who's a pro, and well-respected locally. But it's not my roast. Creating my own stuff is fun, just like roasting my own coffee.
People get too hung up on whether or not their own stuff is 'good enough' or not. If you made it, it's good enough. This extends to music, poetry, visual art, the works... if you do it, it's good. If you make up your own setting, this is a good thing just for you having done it. The creative process is almost more important than the results. If your friends don't appreciate that you made a setting just for them to explore, get new friends.
And that's fine. I love my homebrewed campaign setting, and my modifications to FR and Eberrron in different campaigns.
But a lot of people make comments about how terrible the published fluff is, often making comments that "all of it" is "worthless", combined with comments that they could write better fluff without even thinking hard.
And, IMO, those people either need to publish their fluff, or shut their whining gobs. Because they're probably full of crap. :P
And that's fine. I love my homebrewed campaign setting, and my modifications to FR and Eberrron in different campaigns. But a lot of people make comments about how terrible the published fluff is, often making comments that "all of it" is "worthless"
The real questions involve service. You do need that online service, which is not available everywhere and can be expensive. And reading a computer screen is still not the same as reading a book. I still likely spend more time reading my D&D books than I do checking out DDI and other online D&D programs. But on a cost basis, DDI is an easy winner.
We don't agree often, but this case, you're absolutely spot on.
Well, I do disagree with the implied statement (and forgive me if you meant no such implication) that reading books is nicer/better than reading on a screen. I'll give you that old monitors aren't that awesome, but take any modern tablet, or even most modern laptops, and there is little or in some cases literally no practical difference between the two.
Which only adds to your greater point, I suppose.
I really should be paying my DDI sub a year at a time...
We don't agree often, but this case, you're absolutely spot on. Well, I do disagree with the implied statement (and forgive me if you meant no such implication) that reading books is nicer/better than reading on a screen. I'll give you that old monit
Fourth Edition is even more laconic: "Gain an item bonus to Stealth checks equal to the cloak’s enhancement bonus." There's not even a nod to flavor text.
I prefer the former to make the magical item seem more special, more magical and more desireable. Fluff is cornerstone in my opinion. Fluff should come first and then the mechanics should try to model it. Sometimes the mechanics should be nothing more than an agreement between player and DM.
From the compendium, for the Elven Cloak: "This cloak of swirling leaves, crafted in the elven tradition, increases your stealth."
I prefer the former to make the magical item seem more special, more magical and more desireable. Fluff is cornerstone in my opinion. Fluff should come first and then the mechanics should try to model it. Sometimes the mechanics should be nothing mor
I disagree. Monthly subscriptions suck. Of course, if you can download everything as you mentioned, you are right; but I somehow doubt that is the case. I will note that I frankly don't care about reading from a screen (I prefer it to books) and I also do not care about online / offline service either. I care about monthly costs, because those are quite a bit heavier than having the actual books in the medium to long run. Really, just make some calculations on 4E: unless you bought every single splat, including things like Open Grave and that useless city book, and especially if you didn't bother with essentials, you will see that DDI subscription costs A LOT more than a collection of books.
I spend ten bucks a month, in 30 dollar installments. I also use material from every book. My entire group has one sub. Mine. That's it. Were I to decide I no longer could afford that cost, I'd download all of the magazine articles I like/use, and have to at some point buy all the books.
Counting what I already have, in order to keep using all the options I use, that's 3 PHBs, 2 DMGs, The Essentials books, Monster Vaults, MM3, both Adventurer Vaults, at least half of the various X Power books, Heroes of Shadow, the Feywild and the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell box, the various adventure books I regularly take monsters from, and probably at least one or two books I'm forgetting.
And of course, I wouldn't have the compendium, cb or monster builder, so it would take more time and effort to tweak monster or make them up from scratch, make a new character for someone or look up an item, rule feature, etc than it is now.
Also, if I hadn't ever had the DDI sub, I wouldn't have the articles, which probably make up more text than all the published books combined.
I pay $120 a year for access to every single option for the edition, fully updated and errata'd, along with the online tools. That is a far better deal than the cost/benefit of functioning without DDI. If I payed a year at a time, it'd be $72.
You seem to have a problem with subscriptions. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not DDI is a better deal than just using books.
Right now, I am getting all the mechanical options of all the books, plus all the DDI articles (fluff and crunch, so twice the crunch that I'd have access to without DDI), with the absurdly convenient online tools, for 120 bucks a year.
There's no contest.
I spend ten bucks a month, in 30 dollar installments. I also use material from every book. My entire group has one sub. Mine. That's it. Were I to decide I no longer could afford that cost, I'd download all of the magazine articles I like/use, and ha
A book may last "forever", but your use of it is a much shorter time. I have shelves of old D&D books gathering dust. I'd be better off throwing them out. Whether my book gets lost or I end my DDI subscription, I only get value from either for a fairly short period of time.
Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week.
You are easily shown to be very much in the minority here. There are of course holdouts for every edition, but the standard pattern is for play of the old edition to just about vanish when the next one comes out. 3.5-4e was something of an exception here since 4e was so different, but even here, the 3.5 players are almost entirely playing Pathfinder and the 3.5 books are seeing very little use. I belonged to a 3.5 online group called CORE that ran dozens of tables for hundreds of players. There is now one table and it is at best surviving.
Also, DDI subscription either lasts a year, or costs more than 6$ every month (which is still HUGE);
$6x12=$72. $30x3 books =$90. You can get discounts and cut the $90 down to maybe $60, but DDI is just not going to be much more expensive than the books, and will be way cheaper if you buy more than the basic set.
also, books can be shared easily while DDI subscription is personal.
In my 30+ years of play, I don't know of a case where sharing was really successful. Maybe father & kids, or brothers, which would have happened out of my sight, but the group? The players either ended up buying the books or quiting. And 4e has got to be the worst here. The game would be pretty much be unplayable without several books for each player, or the expanded character sheets that DDI puts out. Sharing happens, even fairly often, but it is only a suppliment, not a replacement for the players having their own books or DDI. But if you have the will to make a sharing system work, that can be done with DDI easily enough. The DM just does the keystrokes for the entire table and the characters get printed out from this one account and that way you get access to all the classes and races, etc without having to buy anything. Again, a DDI cost that is the same as the book cost, or less than the book cost.
And the cost of DDI is distinctly lower if you are a serious buyer of D&D books. Your CORE books cost about the same as a year of DDI, and then you start buying PH2, MM2, DMG2, Aventurers Vault, and several other books and you continue to spend well above the DDI cost year after year. We might say $6 x 12 is less than $30x4. And in a few years when you are starting to say you don't need another book, out comes the new edition and the whole thing starts over.
Well this reasoning is pretty much flawed. First, DDI for a year for every player and DM costs much, much more than the Core three (which on the other hand are very easily shared).
You do presist in comparing apples and oranges here. However... Books are by no means easily shared. In fact at character creation time, they are very hard to share. And the rest of the time, it's amazing how often the book you want was left at home, is in use, or is otherwise unavailable. Libraries [sharing] never threatened bookstores [buying]. In fact they may have encouraged them. If you had serious need for a book, you bought your own copy.
Second, even counting one subscription once you stop buying books continuously you start losing money. In order to break even you need to buy 4 books every year: I don't know you, but I generally don't. I buy splats I need and I often share expenses with the whole group.
a-It was 3 books, not 4, to break even. b-At that point you are way ahead since the character builder allows you to avoid a host of errors, both in character creation and in play. c-There have been around a dozen books a year, and just about all of them are going to be useful for somebody at the table. That makes the number of books you and/or the group want is way above the break-even point.
And even in the broke case, DDI may well be cheaper. It is not as convenient to share a computer as to share a book, but it is quite doable and so DDI would be the cheaper way [in theory massively cheaper. One month of DDI is $10 and if you can download everything you would actually need, you could get the value of $1000 of books. Highly unlikely in any real case, but if you can go online, DDI is likely going to be cheaper for you than dead trees.
Is this even possible? Surely it's not legal, but is it possible? To download everything you need and then recide the subscription? O.o It seems very unlikely to me...
The pure legality I will leave to lawyers, tho the practical legality is that they have no way to catch you, much less get anything out of you. Now as a practical matter, downloading entire books is just too much work and expense [if you try to print them out]. But when you only want a few pages, it seems to be no great problem and apparently been done fairly often. [I was too lazy.] And we are discussing here the minimal costs. So if you want to put in the needed time and effort, yes it is possible enough.
Really, now. Let's see...Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week.[/quote] You are easily shown to be very much in the minority here. There are of course holdou
I disagree. Monthly subscriptions suck. Of course, if you can download everything as you mentioned, you are right; but I somehow doubt that is the case. I will note that I frankly don't care about reading from a screen (I prefer it to books) and I also do not care about online / offline service either. I care about monthly costs, because those are quite a bit heavier than having the actual books in the medium to long run. Really, just make some calculations on 4E: unless you bought every single splat, including things like Open Grave and that useless city book, and especially if you didn't bother with essentials, you will see that DDI subscription costs A LOT more than a collection of books.
I spend ten bucks a month, in 30 dollar installments. I also use material from every book. My entire group has one sub. Mine. That's it. Were I to decide I no longer could afford that cost, I'd download all of the magazine articles I like/use, and have to at some point buy all the books.
Counting what I already have, in order to keep using all the options I use, that's 3 PHBs, 2 DMGs, The Essentials books, Monster Vaults, MM3, both Adventurer Vaults, at least half of the various X Power books, Heroes of Shadow, the Feywild and the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell box, the various adventure books I regularly take monsters from, and probably at least one or two books I'm forgetting.
And of course, I wouldn't have the compendium, cb or monster builder, so it would take more time and effort to tweak monster or make them up from scratch, make a new character for someone or look up an item, rule feature, etc than it is now.
Also, if I hadn't ever had the DDI sub, I wouldn't have the articles, which probably make up more text than all the published books combined.
I pay $120 a year for access to every single option for the edition, fully updated and errata'd, along with the online tools. That is a far better deal than the cost/benefit of functioning without DDI. If I payed a year at a time, it'd be $72.
You seem to have a problem with subscriptions. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not DDI is a better deal than just using books.
Right now, I am getting all the mechanical options of all the books, plus all the DDI articles (fluff and crunch, so twice the crunch that I'd have access to without DDI), with the absurdly convenient online tools, for 120 bucks a year.
There's no contest.
I think my only thing is I want to own the stuff, so paying for the books is a better value for me.
I spend ten bucks a month, in 30 dollar installments. I also use material from every book. My entire group has one sub. Mine. That's it. Were I to decide I no longer could afford that cost, I'd download all of the magazine articles I like/use, and ha
I spend ten bucks a month, in 30 dollar installments. I also use material from every book. My entire group has one sub. Mine. That's it. Were I to decide I no longer could afford that cost, I'd download all of the magazine articles I like/use, and have to at some point buy all the books.
Counting what I already have, in order to keep using all the options I use, that's 3 PHBs, 2 DMGs, The Essentials books, Monster Vaults, MM3, both Adventurer Vaults, at least half of the various X Power books, Heroes of Shadow, the Feywild and the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell box, the various adventure books I regularly take monsters from, and probably at least one or two books I'm forgetting.
And of course, I wouldn't have the compendium, cb or monster builder, so it would take more time and effort to tweak monster or make them up from scratch, make a new character for someone or look up an item, rule feature, etc than it is now.
Also, if I hadn't ever had the DDI sub, I wouldn't have the articles, which probably make up more text than all the published books combined.
I pay $120 a year for access to every single option for the edition, fully updated and errata'd, along with the online tools. That is a far better deal than the cost/benefit of functioning without DDI. If I payed a year at a time, it'd be $72.
You seem to have a problem with subscriptions. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not DDI is a better deal than just using books.
Right now, I am getting all the mechanical options of all the books, plus all the DDI articles (fluff and crunch, so twice the crunch that I'd have access to without DDI), with the absurdly convenient online tools, for 120 bucks a year.
A book may last "forever", but your use of it is a much shorter time. I have shelves of old D&D books gathering dust. I'd be better off throwing them out. Whether my book gets lost or I end my DDI subscription, I only get value from either for a fairly short period of time.
Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week.
You are easily shown to be very much in the minority here. There are of course holdouts for every edition, but the standard pattern is for play of the old edition to just about vanish when the next one comes out. 3.5-4e was something of an exception here since 4e was so different, but even here, the 3.5 players are almost entirely playing Pathfinder and the 3.5 books are seeing very little use. I belonged to a 3.5 online group called CORE that ran dozens of tables for hundreds of players. There is now one table and it is at best surviving.
Also, DDI subscription either lasts a year, or costs more than 6$ every month (which is still HUGE);
$6x12=$72. $30x3 books =$90. You can get discounts and cut the $90 down to maybe $60, but DDI is just not going to be much more expensive than the books, and will be way cheaper if you buy more than the basic set.
also, books can be shared easily while DDI subscription is personal.
In my 30+ years of play, I don't know of a case where sharing was really successful. Maybe father & kids, or brothers, which would have happened out of my sight, but the group? The players either ended up buying the books or quiting. And 4e has got to be the worst here. The game would be pretty much be unplayable without several books for each player, or the expanded character sheets that DDI puts out. Sharing happens, even fairly often, but it is only a suppliment, not a replacement for the players having their own books or DDI. But if you have the will to make a sharing system work, that can be done with DDI easily enough. The DM just does the keystrokes for the entire table and the characters get printed out from this one account and that way you get access to all the classes and races, etc without having to buy anything. Again, a DDI cost that is the same as the book cost, or less than the book cost.
And the cost of DDI is distinctly lower if you are a serious buyer of D&D books. Your CORE books cost about the same as a year of DDI, and then you start buying PH2, MM2, DMG2, Aventurers Vault, and several other books and you continue to spend well above the DDI cost year after year. We might say $6 x 12 is less than $30x4. And in a few years when you are starting to say you don't need another book, out comes the new edition and the whole thing starts over.
Well this reasoning is pretty much flawed. First, DDI for a year for every player and DM costs much, much more than the Core three (which on the other hand are very easily shared).
You do presist in comparing apples and oranges here. However... Books are by no means easily shared. In fact at character creation time, they are very hard to share. And the rest of the time, it's amazing how often the book you want was left at home, is in use, or is otherwise unavailable. Libraries [sharing] never threatened bookstores [buying]. In fact they may have encouraged them. If you had serious need for a book, you bought your own copy.
Second, even counting one subscription once you stop buying books continuously you start losing money. In order to break even you need to buy 4 books every year: I don't know you, but I generally don't. I buy splats I need and I often share expenses with the whole group.
a-It was 3 books, not 4, to break even. b-At that point you are way ahead since the character builder allows you to avoid a host of errors, both in character creation and in play. c-There have been around a dozen books a year, and just about all of them are going to be useful for somebody at the table. That makes the number of books you and/or the group want is way above the break-even point.
And even in the broke case, DDI may well be cheaper. It is not as convenient to share a computer as to share a book, but it is quite doable and so DDI would be the cheaper way [in theory massively cheaper. One month of DDI is $10 and if you can download everything you would actually need, you could get the value of $1000 of books. Highly unlikely in any real case, but if you can go online, DDI is likely going to be cheaper for you than dead trees.
Is this even possible? Surely it's not legal, but is it possible? To download everything you need and then recide the subscription? O.o It seems very unlikely to me...
The pure legality I will leave to lawyers, tho the practical legality is that they have no way to catch you, much less get anything out of you. Now as a practical matter, downloading entire books is just too much work and expense [if you try to print them out]. But when you only want a few pages, it seems to be no great problem and apparently been done fairly often. [I was too lazy.] And we are discussing here the minimal costs. So if you want to put in the needed time and effort, yes it is possible enough.
Fair enough, you've convinced me. It really is convenient, considering the expected life of an edition. You still lose out with time (especially if you don't really need all of the books), but with the expected interesting book / year and lifetime of the edition, it is still convenient. Also, if you can download everything legally from your subscription, there is absolutely no need for the books. Hmmm...
Spoiler:
Show
Really, now. Let's see... Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week.[/quote] You are easily shown to be very much in the minority here. Th
I think my only thing is I want to own the stuff, so paying for the books is a better value for me.
Fair enough. Sometimes I buy something if I see a used copy at my local store, or if I'm really excited about it, but mostly I'm cool with DDI. I'd just rather have the tools and mags than the physical books, if I had to choose. :P
Just personal preference, really. I get so much out of DDI that it's value is rediculous, for me.
I spend ten bucks a month, in 30 dollar installments. I also use material from every book. My entire group has one sub. Mine. That's it. Were I to decide I no longer could afford that cost, I'd download all of the magazine articles I like/use, and have to at some point buy all the books.
Counting what I already have, in order to keep using all the options I use, that's 3 PHBs, 2 DMGs, The Essentials books, Monster Vaults, MM3, both Adventurer Vaults, at least half of the various X Power books, Heroes of Shadow, the Feywild and the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell box, the various adventure books I regularly take monsters from, and probably at least one or two books I'm forgetting.
And of course, I wouldn't have the compendium, cb or monster builder, so it would take more time and effort to tweak monster or make them up from scratch, make a new character for someone or look up an item, rule feature, etc than it is now.
Also, if I hadn't ever had the DDI sub, I wouldn't have the articles, which probably make up more text than all the published books combined.
I pay $120 a year for access to every single option for the edition, fully updated and errata'd, along with the online tools. That is a far better deal than the cost/benefit of functioning without DDI. If I payed a year at a time, it'd be $72.
You seem to have a problem with subscriptions. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not DDI is a better deal than just using books.
Right now, I am getting all the mechanical options of all the books, plus all the DDI articles (fluff and crunch, so twice the crunch that I'd have access to without DDI), with the absurdly convenient online tools, for 120 bucks a year.
A book may last "forever", but your use of it is a much shorter time. I have shelves of old D&D books gathering dust. I'd be better off throwing them out. Whether my book gets lost or I end my DDI subscription, I only get value from either for a fairly short period of time.
Well, I don't know you, but I still use my D&D books even now. I use them pretty often; in fact, I use most of them every week.
You are easily shown to be very much in the minority here. There are of course holdouts for every edition, but the standard pattern is for play of the old edition to just about vanish when the next one comes out. 3.5-4e was something of an exception here since 4e was so different, but even here, the 3.5 players are almost entirely playing Pathfinder and the 3.5 books are seeing very little use. I belonged to a 3.5 online group called CORE that ran dozens of tables for hundreds of players. There is now one table and it is at best surviving.
Also, DDI subscription either lasts a year, or costs more than 6$ every month (which is still HUGE);
$6x12=$72. $30x3 books =$90. You can get discounts and cut the $90 down to maybe $60, but DDI is just not going to be much more expensive than the books, and will be way cheaper if you buy more than the basic set.
also, books can be shared easily while DDI subscription is personal.
In my 30+ years of play, I don't know of a case where sharing was really successful. Maybe father & kids, or brothers, which would have happened out of my sight, but the group? The players either ended up buying the books or quiting. And 4e has got to be the worst here. The game would be pretty much be unplayable without several books for each player, or the expanded character sheets that DDI puts out. Sharing happens, even fairly often, but it is only a suppliment, not a replacement for the players having their own books or DDI. But if you have the will to make a sharing system work, that can be done with DDI easily enough. The DM just does the keystrokes for the entire table and the characters get printed out from this one account and that way you get access to all the classes and races, etc without having to buy anything. Again, a DDI cost that is the same as the book cost, or less than the book cost.
And the cost of DDI is distinctly lower if you are a serious buyer of D&D books. Your CORE books cost about the same as a year of DDI, and then you start buying PH2, MM2, DMG2, Aventurers Vault, and several other books and you continue to spend well above the DDI cost year after year. We might say $6 x 12 is less than $30x4. And in a few years when you are starting to say you don't need another book, out comes the new edition and the whole thing starts over.
Well this reasoning is pretty much flawed. First, DDI for a year for every player and DM costs much, much more than the Core three (which on the other hand are very easily shared).
You do presist in comparing apples and oranges here. However... Books are by no means easily shared. In fact at character creation time, they are very hard to share. And the rest of the time, it's amazing how often the book you want was left at home, is in use, or is otherwise unavailable. Libraries [sharing] never threatened bookstores [buying]. In fact they may have encouraged them. If you had serious need for a book, you bought your own copy.
Second, even counting one subscription once you stop buying books continuously you start losing money. In order to break even you need to buy 4 books every year: I don't know you, but I generally don't. I buy splats I need and I often share expenses with the whole group.
a-It was 3 books, not 4, to break even. b-At that point you are way ahead since the character builder allows you to avoid a host of errors, both in character creation and in play. c-There have been around a dozen books a year, and just about all of them are going to be useful for somebody at the table. That makes the number of books you and/or the group want is way above the break-even point.
And even in the broke case, DDI may well be cheaper. It is not as convenient to share a computer as to share a book, but it is quite doable and so DDI would be the cheaper way [in theory massively cheaper. One month of DDI is $10 and if you can download everything you would actually need, you could get the value of $1000 of books. Highly unlikely in any real case, but if you can go online, DDI is likely going to be cheaper for you than dead trees.
Is this even possible? Surely it's not legal, but is it possible? To download everything you need and then recide the subscription? O.o It seems very unlikely to me...
The pure legality I will leave to lawyers, tho the practical legality is that they have no way to catch you, much less get anything out of you. Now as a practical matter, downloading entire books is just too much work and expense [if you try to print them out]. But when you only want a few pages, it seems to be no great problem and apparently been done fairly often. [I was too lazy.] And we are discussing here the minimal costs. So if you want to put in the needed time and effort, yes it is possible enough.
Fair enough, you've convinced me. It really is convenient, considering the expected life of an edition. You still lose out with time (especially if you don't really need all of the books), but with the expected interesting book / year and lifetime of the edition, it is still convenient. Also, if you can download everything legally from your subscription, there is absolutely no need for the books. Hmmm...
Well, see Kalnaur's most recent post for why buying at least some of the books may still be worth it.
Of course, for me, that means WoTC really needs to put out cheaper paperback, black and white, essentials book sized reference books, and the nicer ones we're used to.
Cuz I'll buy a paperback rules compendium. I have only so many screens for all the digital stuff I like to have handy, and it's convenient to be able to toss my rules compendium to the other DM and have him look something up while I'm adjuticating something else/doing whatever I'm doing with the computer stuff.
And of course, I still buy the fluffier books, since I can't get the cool fluffy stuff via the CB or compendium. I just refuse to buy books that are mostly crunch. It's not worth it. :P
And man, the DDI articles...:D
So, I'd say that it's worth it to have a DDI sub, and buy a couple of the most useful books. Maybe a rules compendium and DM book.
No need for the MMs/MVs, because the monster builder allows you to easily search, adjust, make from scratch and print out monsters. You can even plug powers from one monster into another.
A few weeks ago, I wanted semi-undead ogres, so I took standard ogres, halved-ish their HP, gave them conditional Insubstantial and Regen, and some powers from monsters like wights and ghouls, then combined some priestly monster or other with bits from a couple different vampires, fiddled HP, defenses, etc into place, and had a nice vampiric Catholic priest to lead the dread ogres. :D The whole thing took maybe half an hour.
Pretty fricken cool, right?
Fair enough. Sometimes I buy something if I see a used copy at my local store, or if I'm really excited about it, but mostly I'm cool with DDI. I'd just rather have the tools and mags than the physical books, if I had to choose. :P Just personal pref
Here is what it boils down to. DDi may be cheaper but you don't get to keep it and you get less. You may pay more for books but you get to own them and get access to everything.
Here is what it boils down to. DDi may be cheaper but you don't get to keep it and you get less. You may pay more for books but you get to own them and get access to everything.
Here is what it boils down to. DDi may be cheaper but you don't get to keep it and you get less. You may pay more for books but you get to own them and get access to everything.
I agree.
Which feels so weird to say, considering . . .
I agree.Which feels so weird to say, considering . . . ;)
Here is what it boils down to. DDi may be cheaper but you don't get to keep it and you get less. You may pay more for books but you get to own them and get access to everything.
Get less?
You're joking right?
The only thing I'm missing out on from the books I don't purchase is fluff text. Maybe some sidebars. I get all the crunch (literally all of it. player options, rules, rules updates, etc. all of it.), and all of the art.
So, I'm getting only slightly less from the physically published books than someone who buys them and doens't have DDI.
What I'm getting that they aren't is access to every single DDI article, which ends up being a huge amount of the same kinds of things that are in the books, art galleries for the books that come out that I can easily save the good stuff from onto my computer* on top of an incredibly convenient CB, MB, VT and compendium, all of which are regularly updated and integrated.
I have the entirety of the game, minus part of the fluff that's out there, for as little as 72 dollars a year.
I'm getting much more from being a DDI sub than I would without a sub. Even if I purchased every single book that came out.
Even if the two cost the same.
*(and now that I have a huge hard drive, I could easily just download every paid article and art gallery onto my computer and one of a number of available cloud storage services, and have permanent access to them)
Get less? You're joking right? The only thing I'm missing out on from the books I don't purchase is fluff text. Maybe some sidebars. I get all the crunch (literally all of it. player options, rules, rules updates, etc. all of it.), and all of the art
Here is what it boils down to. DDi may be cheaper but you don't get to keep it and you get less. You may pay more for books but you get to own them and get access to everything.
Get less?
You're joking right?
The only thing I'm missing out on from the books I don't purchase is fluff text. Maybe some sidebars. I get all the crunch (literally all of it. player options, rules, rules updates, etc. all of it.), and all of the art.
So, I'm getting only slightly less from the physically published books than someone who buys them and doens't have DDI.
What I'm getting that they aren't is access to every single DDI article, which ends up being a huge amount of the same kinds of things that are in the books, art galleries for the books that come out that I can easily save the good stuff from onto my computer* on top of an incredibly convenient CB, MB, VT and compendium, all of which are regularly updated and integrated.
I have the entirety of the game, minus part of the fluff that's out there, for as little as 72 dollars a year.
I'm getting much more from being a DDI sub than I would without a sub. Even if I purchased every single book that came out.
Even if the two cost the same.
*(and now that I have a huge hard drive, I could easily just download every paid article and art gallery onto my computer and one of a number of available cloud storage services, and have permanent access to them)
(content removed).
(content removed)
DDI gets you more mechanical options, rules text and has those things more recently updated, then goes ahead and throws in a ton of fluff in articles, every single piece of art that has been published, online or in a book, in 4e, and extremely useful tools that are all integrated.
(content removed)
ORC_Jubjub: Edited- Continuity
Get less? You're joking right? The only thing I'm missing out on from the books I don't purchase is fluff text. Maybe some sidebars. I get all the crunch (literally all of it. player options, rules, rules updates, etc. all of it.), and all of the art
Content has been removed due to violations of section 3, Baiting of the Code of Conduct.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Content has been removed due to violations of section 3, Baiting of the Code of Conduct.Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Here is what it boils down to. DDi may be cheaper but you don't get to keep it and you get less. You may pay more for books but you get to own them and get access to everything.
Get less?
You're joking right?
The only thing I'm missing out on from the books I don't purchase is fluff text. Maybe some sidebars. I get all the crunch (literally all of it. player options, rules, rules updates, etc. all of it.), and all of the art.
So, I'm getting only slightly less from the physically published books than someone who buys them and doens't have DDI.
What I'm getting that they aren't is access to every single DDI article, which ends up being a huge amount of the same kinds of things that are in the books, art galleries for the books that come out that I can easily save the good stuff from onto my computer* on top of an incredibly convenient CB, MB, VT and compendium, all of which are regularly updated and integrated.
I have the entirety of the game, minus part of the fluff that's out there, for as little as 72 dollars a year.
I'm getting much more from being a DDI sub than I would without a sub. Even if I purchased every single book that came out.
Even if the two cost the same.
*(and now that I have a huge hard drive, I could easily just download every paid article and art gallery onto my computer and one of a number of available cloud storage services, and have permanent access to them)
I will say it once again. If that is what you believe then knock yourself out but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Get less? You're joking right? The only thing I'm missing out on from the books I don't purchase is fluff text. Maybe some sidebars. I get all the crunch (literally all of it. player options, rules, rules updates, etc. all of it.), and all of the art
I will say it once again. If that is what you believe then knock yourself out but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion.
There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it.
The only possible thing I can think of is that you for some reason think that none of it counts because it's cloud hosted.
And frankly, that's just silly.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion. There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it. The only possible thing I can think of is that y
I will say it once again. If that is what you believe then knock yourself out but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion.
There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it.
The only possible thing I can think of is that you for some reason think that none of it counts because it's cloud hosted.
And frankly, that's just silly.
I think the thing is, if it's digital, it can go away at any time. Sure, books can burn, or be ruined by water damage, or whatever, but they have a sense of permanence. Digital feels fleeting because there's nothing really to it. It doesn't exist physically, nor can I own something that I have to stay subscribed to in order to interact with it.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion. There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it. The only possible thing I can think of is that y
I will say it once again. If that is what you believe then knock yourself out but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion.
There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it.
The only possible thing I can think of is that you for some reason think that none of it counts because it's cloud hosted.
And frankly, that's just silly.
I think the thing is, if it's digital, it can go away at any time. Sure, books can burn, or be ruined by water damage, or whatever, but they have a sense of permanence. Digital feels fleeting because there's nothing really to it. It doesn't exist physically, nor can I own something that I have to stay subscribed to in order to interact with it.
And that's fair, as long as you're just telling me why you prefer the physical books.
Once someone starts telling me that I'm wrong, or suggesting that I'm delusional for stating that I get more out of the DDI sub, because I have access to more crunch, about as much fluff and a suite of services/tools, they're being rediculous.
I'm not paying to own the software for those tools. Any belief that that was ever the case was a mistake. DDI subs pay for access to tools, and for the other material that comes with it.
So I can download every article published in DDI for 4e, and even some from before, I think, onto my hard drive, and then back them up in cloud storage.
On a practical level, that makes them more permanently mine than they would be sitting on a shelf. Not to mention that I could print them out if I really wanted to.
If I ever end my sub, all I will lose is the use of tools that I was "renting" the use of, and access to those books that I didn't purchase. Not a big deal.
Now, for some reason, some people prefer physical books to digital books, and that's fine. It does not, however, mean that digital books are worth less.
I don't get any less out of reading an ebook than reading a physical book, unless I'm reading it on a crappy platform. Even on my smartphone, the experience in equal. If I ever start to miss the smell of old books, I can go hang out in a library and read my ebooks, or get a vanilla scented candle. :P But honestly, the only reason I still own physical books is that i still get them as gifts sometimes. Otherwise, my library is digital, and I've never been a happier bookworm.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion. There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it. The only possible thing I can think of is that y
I will say it once again. If that is what you believe then knock yourself out but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion.
There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it.
The only possible thing I can think of is that you for some reason think that none of it counts because it's cloud hosted.
And frankly, that's just silly.
I think the thing is, if it's digital, it can go away at any time. Sure, books can burn, or be ruined by water damage, or whatever, but they have a sense of permanence. Digital feels fleeting because there's nothing really to it. It doesn't exist physically, nor can I own something that I have to stay subscribed to in order to interact with it.
And that's fair, as long as you're just telling me why you prefer the physical books.
Once someone starts telling me that I'm wrong, or suggesting that I'm delusional for stating that I get more out of the DDI sub, because I have access to more crunch, about as much fluff and a suite of services/tools, they're being rediculous.
I'm not paying to own the software for those tools. Any belief that that was ever the case was a mistake. DDI subs pay for access to tools, and for the other material that comes with it.
So I can download every article published in DDI for 4e, and even some from before, I think, onto my hard drive, and then back them up in cloud storage.
On a practical level, that makes them more permanently mine than they would be sitting on a shelf. Not to mention that I could print them out if I really wanted to.
If I ever end my sub, all I will lose is the use of tools that I was "renting" the use of, and access to those books that I didn't purchase. Not a big deal.
Now, for some reason, some people prefer physical books to digital books, and that's fine. It does not, however, mean that digital books are worth less.
I don't get any less out of reading an ebook than reading a physical book, unless I'm reading it on a crappy platform. Even on my smartphone, the experience in equal. If I ever start to miss the smell of old books, I can go hang out in a library and read my ebooks, or get a vanilla scented candle. :P But honestly, the only reason I still own physical books is that i still get them as gifts sometimes. Otherwise, my library is digital, and I've never been a happier bookworm.
I have no smartphone, no Pad or e-reader. I'm poor. Can't pay for a subscription. Only have a couple handfuls of books. So really, offline is best for me for a multitude of reasons, the primary being my non-existent cash flow.
lol at this point, I don't even know what you're refering to, because what I posted is fact, not opinion. There isn't a way to measure content that doesn't come out to a DDI sub getting you more of it. The only possible thing I can think of is that y
I have no smartphone, no Pad or e-reader. I'm poor. Can't pay for a subscription. Only have a couple handfuls of books. So really, offline is best for me for a multitude of reasons, the primary being my non-existent cash flow.
I feel your pain. I can't really afford the smartphone right now either, but I also can't afford to cancel my contract. I was fine when I signed up, but my recent job switch was...less than lateral in the pay department.
Luckily, I've so far been able to afford 30 bucks when my 3 month sub comes up. I wish I could get 72 bucks together next time, so I could just pay a year, and save 48 dollars over the course of the year, but 30 bucks every three months is really pretty cheap, so long as I keep my job. And of course, my group helps when I need it. :D
If we couldn't afford it for some reason, I'd just make sure all necessary char sheets are printed or at least saved, save a bunch of monsters that I like to use, etc.
I'm working on a personalize MV, basically, using the monster builder. I think of concepts, and stat them up, usually at different levels, and with different roles, then save them in a folder, with sub folders for categories. It's pretty awesome.
I've got some spartan inspired orcs warbands, Oni Samurai, undead-ish ogres, trolls and other giant-kin, solos turned into elites, but still with multiple turns per round(brutal battles), and in some cases, just monsters that I like that I needed in a different level range than normal. Like high level goblins, or early paragon frost giants. Every time I edit a monster or make one in the MB, I save it there for potential future use, either by me or another DM.
Now, I'd like for the MB to support this in some way, perhaps even allowing community sharing of moster stat blocks within the DDI tools, for instance.
I think that's the next step. Integrating the tools with social community software, allowing DDI subscribers to share with eachother in interesting and useful ways.
lol sorry. I get really pumped up about this kind of stuff.
But I get where you're coming from. That other guy, not so much, but I totally understand your POV. For you, the books are better. For me, DDI is better. I think we can both happily coexist, right, brony? :P
I feel your pain. I can't really afford the smartphone right now either, but I also can't afford to cancel my contract. I was fine when I signed up, but my recent job switch was...less than lateral in the pay department. Luckily, I've so far been abl
I want 50/50 of good quality fluff, or maybe 65/35 if it's not doable. However, I want the fluff to matter, as in AD&D and 3e sourcebooks. Not just a single line of 'a ball of fire burns your enemy' as in 4e. Also, I want fluff to be present in the core sourcebooks, not just in the additional modules. I want to have all races' available described in terms of society and culture (as it was done in Races of Wild/Races of Stone etc.)... so that we know what to roleplay.
On the other side, overtly complex and long stuff, like the monster ecologies someone mentioned, can be safely scrapped or demoted to a "optional content" module.
I want 50/50 of good quality fluff, or maybe 65/35 if it's not doable. However, I want the fluff to matter, as in AD&D and 3e sourcebooks. Not just a single line of 'a ball of fire burns your enemy' as in 4e. Also, I want fluff to be present in the c
I have no smartphone, no Pad or e-reader. I'm poor. Can't pay for a subscription. Only have a couple handfuls of books. So really, offline is best for me for a multitude of reasons, the primary being my non-existent cash flow.
I feel your pain. I can't really afford the smartphone right now either, but I also can't afford to cancel my contract. I was fine when I signed up, but my recent job switch was...less than lateral in the pay department.
Luckily, I've so far been able to afford 30 bucks when my 3 month sub comes up. I wish I could get 72 bucks together next time, so I could just pay a year, and save 48 dollars over the course of the year, but 30 bucks every three months is really pretty cheap, so long as I keep my job. And of course, my group helps when I need it. :D
If we couldn't afford it for some reason, I'd just make sure all necessary char sheets are printed or at least saved, save a bunch of monsters that I like to use, etc.
I'm working on a personalize MV, basically, using the monster builder. I think of concepts, and stat them up, usually at different levels, and with different roles, then save them in a folder, with sub folders for categories. It's pretty awesome.
I've got some spartan inspired orcs warbands, Oni Samurai, undead-ish ogres, trolls and other giant-kin, solos turned into elites, but still with multiple turns per round(brutal battles), and in some cases, just monsters that I like that I needed in a different level range than normal. Like high level goblins, or early paragon frost giants. Every time I edit a monster or make one in the MB, I save it there for potential future use, either by me or another DM.
Now, I'd like for the MB to support this in some way, perhaps even allowing community sharing of moster stat blocks within the DDI tools, for instance.
I think that's the next step. Integrating the tools with social community software, allowing DDI subscribers to share with eachother in interesting and useful ways.
lol sorry. I get really pumped up about this kind of stuff.
But I get where you're coming from. That other guy, not so much, but I totally understand your POV. For you, the books are better. For me, DDI is better. I think we can both happily coexist, right, brony? :P
Oh, indeed. I'm still using the old offline software to build monsters, the likes of Cactaurs and Tonberrys.
New avatar! I made it with the Facebook Ponymaker. The mark is a video game controller.
I feel your pain. I can't really afford the smartphone right now either, but I also can't afford to cancel my contract. I was fine when I signed up, but my recent job switch was...less than lateral in the pay department. Luckily, I've so far been abl
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to the sellers and to the authors), so you can afford at least as many e-books than paper books.
Of course, for all I know you only post here while at work...
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to t
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to the sellers and to the authors), so you can afford at least as many e-books than paper books.
Of course, for all I know you only post here while at work...
I post from home (on net I bogart from the local Japanese joint about 20 feet from my place), and I don't really trust the computer to hold all my books for me. Especially not after having now 3 computer hard drives die on me, two internal and one external.
Oh, and I'm unemployed.
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to t
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to the sellers and to the authors), so you can afford at least as many e-books than paper books.
Of course, for all I know you only post here while at work...
I post from home (on net I bogart from the local Japanese joint about 20 feet from my place), and I don't really trust the computer to hold all my books for me. Especially not after having now 3 computer hard drives die on me, two internal and one external.
Oh, and I'm unemployed.
In that case, I suggest to you, cloud storage. Computer crashes? eh.
many e-book reader software programs store your books online, so that if your computer crashes, you can retrieve them on a new computer. Worth looking into, if you ever decide to look into switching to digital.
Or keep reading physical books. honestly, I'm fine with people supporting brick and mortar booksellers...wait...you're not buying physical books from amazon are you?
Every time you buy a physical book through amazon, Bane kills a puppy.
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to t
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to the sellers and to the authors), so you can afford at least as many e-books than paper books.
Of course, for all I know you only post here while at work...
I post from home (on net I bogart from the local Japanese joint about 20 feet from my place), and I don't really trust the computer to hold all my books for me. Especially not after having now 3 computer hard drives die on me, two internal and one external.
Oh, and I'm unemployed.
In that case, I suggest to you, cloud storage. Computer crashes? eh.
many e-book reader software programs store your books online, so that if your computer crashes, you can retrieve them on a new computer. Worth looking into, if you ever decide to look into switching to digital.
Or keep reading physical books. honestly, I'm fine with people supporting brick and mortar booksellers...wait...you're not buying physical books from amazon are you?
Every time you buy a physical book through amazon, Bane kills a puppy.
I have to order through amazon. I don't have a brick and mortar store that sells RPG stuff within 50 miles of me.
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to t
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to the sellers and to the authors), so you can afford at least as many e-books than paper books.
Of course, for all I know you only post here while at work...
I post from home (on net I bogart from the local Japanese joint about 20 feet from my place), and I don't really trust the computer to hold all my books for me. Especially not after having now 3 computer hard drives die on me, two internal and one external.
Oh, and I'm unemployed.
In that case, I suggest to you, cloud storage. Computer crashes? eh.
many e-book reader software programs store your books online, so that if your computer crashes, you can retrieve them on a new computer. Worth looking into, if you ever decide to look into switching to digital.
Or keep reading physical books. honestly, I'm fine with people supporting brick and mortar booksellers...wait...you're not buying physical books from amazon are you?
Every time you buy a physical book through amazon, Bane kills a puppy.
Then I've helped Bane kill a lot of puppies.
You appear to have a computer. I assure you the major - and minor - e-book sellers are EAGER to GIVE you software for your computer so that you can buy e-books from them. Most e-books are cheaper than the paper versions (while giving more profit to t
But beyond the fact that I wish Amazon had a real competitor (and my distaste for some of their business practices), I just believe strongly in supporting smaller businesses when I do buy a physical publication of some kind.
I have to order through amazon. I don't have a brick and mortar store that sells RPG stuff within 50 miles of me.
Bummer....
I used to, as well. But beyond the fact that I wish Amazon had a real competitor (and my distaste for some of their business practices), I just believe strongly in supporting smaller businesses when I do buy a physical publication of some kind. Bum
But beyond the fact that I wish Amazon had a real competitor (and my distaste for some of their business practices), I just believe strongly in supporting smaller businesses when I do buy a physical publication of some kind.
I have to order through amazon. I don't have a brick and mortar store that sells RPG stuff within 50 miles of me.
Bummer....
When it comes to my inconsistent cash flow for fun purchases, my logic dictates spending less on more, which is what I get from ordering from Amazon. I'd like to have the ability to support Olympia Cards & Comics, but . . . ten bucks more per book is just not feasible when I don't really have money to spend more than once or twice a year.
I used to, as well. But beyond the fact that I wish Amazon had a real competitor (and my distaste for some of their business practices), I just believe strongly in supporting smaller businesses when I do buy a physical publication of some kind. Bum
But beyond the fact that I wish Amazon had a real competitor (and my distaste for some of their business practices), I just believe strongly in supporting smaller businesses when I do buy a physical publication of some kind.
I have to order through amazon. I don't have a brick and mortar store that sells RPG stuff within 50 miles of me.
Bummer....
When it comes to my inconsistent cash flow for fun purchases, my logic dictates spending less on more, which is what I get from ordering from Amazon. I'd like to have the ability to support Olympia Cards & Comics, but . . . ten bucks more per book is just not feasible when I don't really have money to spend more than once or twice a year.
yeah, WoTC needs to give more deals and perks to their brick and mortar hobby shop guys.
My local store stopped participating in Game Day type stuff last year, because they just weren't getting as much out of it as it cost to participate.
Not because of any problems with getting butts in seats to play 4e. There's a couple tables every wednesday evening, and Lair Assault is usually pretty popular, nevermind the regular games people rent table space for. It's just the game day stuff.
I used to, as well. But beyond the fact that I wish Amazon had a real competitor (and my distaste for some of their business practices), I just believe strongly in supporting smaller businesses when I do buy a physical publication of some kind. Bum
]
