ghrneto
voted in the poll, "Of the following choices, select any rules elements or character options you would like to see appear as part of the core rules in the next version of D&D.".
The Slavers series would be a fun project, although the end of A3 always rubbed my players the wrong way (that said, the auto-capture works great in tournament play and sets up A4 nicely).
More on realism... Let me say that I once ran a seminar at GEN CON called "What's Wrong with '3E'". My goal was to bring fans of 2nd edition and 3rd edition together for a great debate, to see if we could iron out what should be changed for a 4th edition. Sean Reynolds was there, and I remember him saying my point about gold and magic items was good (I made that point, and invited the audience to make theirs, and I wrote on a easel-pad people's ideas for what was wrong, and right, about...
Let me say that I once ran a seminar at GEN CON called "What's Wrong with '3E'". My goal was to bring fans of 2nd edition and 3rd edition together for a great debate, to see if we could iron out what should be changed for a 4th edition. Sean Reynolds was there, and I remember him saying my point about gold and magic items was good (I made that point, and invited the audience to make theirs, and I wrote on a easel-pad people's ideas for what was wrong, and right, about 3rd edition).
I wish I could work for WotC. Like you, Mr. Cook, I've designed "my own separate rule-books". I'd like to see from a 5th edition, "just a game that upsets fewer of the players", because for me, running D&D has been a labor of love. Ever since I ran the games for friends in high school, I "just don't want to see players disappointed". I really believe that you should make a new edition "when enough demand for it is clear", not to answer any market or budget forces, and whenever you do make a new edition, it shouldn't "be a totally new game" as I once read you said maybe you'd like for a 4th edition. You'd take the game in some really new direction. I want the game to be as much like it always was as it can be, and with 4th edition, I see quite a different game there without your getting involved.
Think about what the characters in the settings want, and what they need. Changes to the game really affect their world. Elves having no level limits, for example, means that because they're so much longer-lived than humans, they civilizations would be far more powerful. This would have altered the entire history in the settings, such the elves of Faerun never losing their forests and leaving for Evermeet. I find that when you as DM care about the characters like I do, as such, all of play really benefits, and I won't ever demand my players use rules that will end the legitimacy of their characters' pasts and histories. Again, sorry for being harsh.
Really like the poll this time - can't wait to see the results, especially since I've always had a pretty harsh opinion of having a (relatively) cheap ritual with no real consequences available to raise dead characters (in contrast to things like the session run at PAX a couple years ago to revive Aeofel for Acquisitions Inc., which is a much better way to handle character revival IMO).
How can character death be meaningful if the player could always have decided to bring him back? I guess I don't have enough "author stance" separation between player and PC; I'm an immersion oriented type: "You ARE the Hero", as the old gamebooks said, not "You ARE the Author!"
I personally feel using a "rumour table" and setting out a deception such as a Cleric of Bahamut is a bit different. In terms of game mechanics. I would run it 1:2 or 1:3 so for every real deception, there would be 2 or 3 things a player could achieve either through roleplay (an item) or a roll (insight) depending on the consequence of the lie. Thereafter if you have players moaning that "it was not obvious" then you can explain to them that "had they picked up one of the relics of bahamut they...
View full commentI personally feel using a "rumour table" and setting out a deception such as a Cleric of Bahamut is a bit different. In terms of game mechanics. I would run it 1:2 or 1:3 so for every real deception, there would be 2 or 3 things a player could achieve either through roleplay (an item) or a roll (insight) depending on the consequence of the lie. Thereafter if you have players moaning that "it was not obvious" then you can explain to them that "had they picked up one of the relics of bahamut they would have realised it was fake and/or that the ritual could be lifted" ... something like that. "Rumour Tables" were something DM would roll behind their screen and often players knew this, but they didnt know exactly what the roll was for, and so the paranoia would occur. It all depends on the DM and players at the end of the night.
Kinda pumped about Heroes of the Feywild. Because flying fey PCs is awesome, and goes with the teleporting fey PCs :p. Also, I await the time when the 4e team goes to the dark side and redoes the gobliniod races as PC choices. because you know you want a goblin vampire PC in your games. Also, AV3 (or MME :P) looks awesome. Hope it has some better throwing weapons.
It's bothersome that Wizards is making the decision to release MME only through the hobby trade. I live in a town with no game store, but we have a small, locally owned and operated book store through which I order my D&D books. They don't buy direct from Wizards because they're a book store not a game/hobby store. So not only am I going to have to drive an hour to buy the book from a game shop, my local book store won't be able to get my business for that product. I've been playing and...
View full commentIt's bothersome that Wizards is making the decision to release MME only through the hobby trade. I live in a town with no game store, but we have a small, locally owned and operated book store through which I order my D&D books. They don't buy direct from Wizards because they're a book store not a game/hobby store. So not only am I going to have to drive an hour to buy the book from a game shop, my local book store won't be able to get my business for that product.
I've been playing and DMing Dungeons & Dragons since around 1980 or so and this is the first time I've had to jump through hoops to buy a product. There are many types of customers who purchase D&D products and they have lots of different ways of buying those products. To take a D&D product and suddenly restrict it to only people who live in a town with a game store (or who are willing and able to drive a distance to get it) is just plain a bad decision. This is exactly the kind of product that will eventually end up on eBay for some grossly inflated price as a result of customer demand artificially created by WotC's inexplicable decision.
Just want to try to say again how much I'd love to have this adventure released to those of us who couldn't be at PAX. It really sounds fantastic, and GREAT way to give players an intro to the Gardmore Abbey super-adventure!
Well, after going through and adding a "LIKE" to every reference I saw to the notion/idea/suggestion of making this available post-PAX, I deemed it certainly worthy of adding in writing: PLEASE - at the very least - make this available to we loyal D&DI subscribers who're loyal, but just unable to finance what would otherwise be enormous con habits. "Alms!....Alms for the poor! Alms!" and stuff.
View full commentWell, after going through and adding a "LIKE" to every reference I saw to the notion/idea/suggestion of making this available post-PAX, I deemed it certainly worthy of adding in writing:
PLEASE - at the very least - make this available to we loyal D&DI subscribers who're loyal, but just unable to finance what would otherwise be enormous con habits.
"Alms!....Alms for the poor! Alms!" and stuff.
I can interpret this as one of two ways: 1) You're replacing the skill DC with a different nomenclature (journeyman, expert, etc.). You're just putting a different shade of lipstick on a pig. 2) It also sounds like you're adding additional skills. (i.e. Expert swimming, Grandmaster climbing, etc.). So really... why the change...? Like AH_viperm4a3 said above - Train your GM's on how to use the skill system to craft good, dramatic, and fun encounters.
This is basically what I have always done. The easiest way for a player to get a DC down to where he can hit it is to play smart. Trying to Search for runes written in invisible ink is hard, unless you have researched and created the revealing reagent.
At Red Box Game Day at my FLGS, there were a number of players who expressed disapointment that they couldn't take their Red Box character directly into Encounters. I don't know if there were similar complaints elsewhere, but if there were, and WotC heard them, maybe that's what they're thinking?
Well, you lose a lot of time to character creation, which isn't good. D&D Encounters is aimed squarely at the new player, and this feels a lot like excluding more experienced players - not good for what Wizards want to be a *worldwide* experience.
Re my prior reply, in the interests of full disclosure, after your original comment I agreed with your general PoV and voted against dragon-kin entries for the rest of the contest.