The latest post by Schaefer has me a little worried.
Before 3rd edition was released, most of our group used to play Magic: The Gathering. When we switched to D&D, I saw a few things that definitely reminded me that the same company made both games, the best example being the Sorcery/Instant/Interrupt of Magic being similar to the full-round action/standard action/free action (and now immediate action/swift action) of D&D. I wasn't against it, since the Deckmaster game system was a good one, and if there are good points that can be moved over, why not?
But now Schaefer mentions something that Radney-MacFarland brought up in a meeting, something called an "aftereffect". Of course, there's no full explanation of what it is, but it immediately made me think of Magic. I haven't played Magic for a few years now, and certainly don't know the latest abilities, but it reminded me about something called Feedback or ... well, some idea of a repeating effect -- in essence, something you have to keep track of which happens next round.
I thought the idea was to make 4th edition easier, more streamlined. To me, having to remember that an effect is going to happen next round (or maybe a few rounds later) just seems to complicate it. Yes, it sounds like an interesting mechanic, and I'm sure it works great in a game like Magic, where there are all sorts of things to keep track of, but the rules and the cards are the game in Magic, but in D&D, role-playing and conversation make up a larger part of it. This sounds like something that is better suited to miniatures, where the game is what's in front of you, the cards of the miniatures and the figures themselves on the gamegrid.
It's perhaps wrong to jump to any conclusion based on a word, but that's the point of this blog, isn't it? With the inundation of miniatures articles on the Wizards site, I find I have to convince myself a few times a day that the developers know that this is a role-playing game first, that miniatures are a convenience for the role-players, and that DDM is a different game entirely.
But if I ever have to tap my character sheet, I quit.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Time flies 4ward
I haven't bothered to go read about the uproar about the Eberron campaign setting being moved ahead a few years, and then the uproar about that being reversed; nor did I bother to go see all the hubbub about the Forgotten Realms setting being moved a few years ahead, hinted at in the Grand History of the Realms discussions and in Wyatt's latest post.
Eberron, as I've said before, has yet to draw me in, even though Dungeons & Dragons Online is the sole computer game I play, and it takes place in Eberron. It wouldn't matter to me one way or the other if a few years got skipped for plot purposes, because I haven't a clue about the history there - I could probably name a half-dozen of the Houses, and I know there was a Great War.
But even though Faerun is my home-away-from-home, I don't care what the other fans think about this leap in time, because frankly, TSR and then Wizards have done one helluva job with this campaign setting, and ... I trust them. It's their world, and we play in it. Sure, as a DM, I, too, make Faerun what I want it to be, and my campaigns may or may not collide with canon about the Forgotten Realms. If I don't like something, I don't have to use it, which is why I don't have any tolerance for the zealous fanposts where they feel that because they've been given a voice, everyone ought to listen.
I avoid forums for a reason, is it obvious?
So please, guys, change my Realms! Add a god, remove a god, just tell me a story about why. Wizards can't cast this spell all-of-a-sudden? That's okay! Rogues are now running around using axes? Great. But I do have one request.
When I write a Forgotten Realms campaign, I do remain conscious of the date in Faerun, making sure I know what Year Of it is, the Dalereckoning year, both to add flavor as well as to allow for background canon events to be happening nearby or faraway, but still happening nonetheless. However, it's hard to know what the date is in Faerun now -- I would hope that a company going heavily into an online presence, with a webpage specific to the Forgotten Realms, might have something a little in-context by having today's date reckoned in Daletime, just so we know where in the timeline we are. As it is, I have to go to the most recent Forgotten Realms sourcebook I can find and find a date reference in there to get a sense for when we are in the universe.
Oh, and maybe the Eberron fans would like a clock, too.
Eberron, as I've said before, has yet to draw me in, even though Dungeons & Dragons Online is the sole computer game I play, and it takes place in Eberron. It wouldn't matter to me one way or the other if a few years got skipped for plot purposes, because I haven't a clue about the history there - I could probably name a half-dozen of the Houses, and I know there was a Great War.
But even though Faerun is my home-away-from-home, I don't care what the other fans think about this leap in time, because frankly, TSR and then Wizards have done one helluva job with this campaign setting, and ... I trust them. It's their world, and we play in it. Sure, as a DM, I, too, make Faerun what I want it to be, and my campaigns may or may not collide with canon about the Forgotten Realms. If I don't like something, I don't have to use it, which is why I don't have any tolerance for the zealous fanposts where they feel that because they've been given a voice, everyone ought to listen.
I avoid forums for a reason, is it obvious?
So please, guys, change my Realms! Add a god, remove a god, just tell me a story about why. Wizards can't cast this spell all-of-a-sudden? That's okay! Rogues are now running around using axes? Great. But I do have one request.
When I write a Forgotten Realms campaign, I do remain conscious of the date in Faerun, making sure I know what Year Of it is, the Dalereckoning year, both to add flavor as well as to allow for background canon events to be happening nearby or faraway, but still happening nonetheless. However, it's hard to know what the date is in Faerun now -- I would hope that a company going heavily into an online presence, with a webpage specific to the Forgotten Realms, might have something a little in-context by having today's date reckoned in Daletime, just so we know where in the timeline we are. As it is, I have to go to the most recent Forgotten Realms sourcebook I can find and find a date reference in there to get a sense for when we are in the universe.
Oh, and maybe the Eberron fans would like a clock, too.
Role-play
Podcast 16 had a few interesting things about my favorite topic, monsters.
I liked the discussion about the humanoid monsters, such as goblins, gnolls and hobgoblins, which differed mainly in their hit dice and challenge rating, and really just filled a role as "the humanoid monster at this level". Instead, more focus is going into their tactics and abilities, so the players don't just gloss over what kind of humanoid monster they're fighting. Pack mentality, flanking, stealth, etc. should do a good job or keeping these different creatures useful as individual monster concepts, instead of as filler.
The final part of the podcast was even more interesting, however, when James Wyatt was given a test on the spot to create encounters from some of the new monsters. This gave quite a bit of insight into the game design... not only did we get to find out the names of some of the monsters (rune-carved aidelon, quickling runner, eye of flame), but we got a sense of what the monster entries are like: when designing the encounters, he was looking at their roles, throwing around terms like "elite soldier" for the human fighter death knight, "controller" for the goblin hexer, and "artillery" for the eye of flame.
I can certainly see the benefit from these role names, to help DMs balance out an encounter, and I assume there will be tables sorted by these roles to help a DM find them easily, but a part of me cringes at the explicit nature of the roles. These "simplistic" terms such as "brute" and "soldier" remind me of the thing I disliked most about d20 Modern, which were the "Smart Hero"/"Fast Hero" names of classes.
Perhaps I just need to get used to the role concept for 4th edition. I can't quite put my finger on it... it's almost like I want these roles to exist in a table somewhere, listing those monsters that qualify as "artillery", but don't want that actual word associated with the monster. I know that as the DM, I can do anything with the monsters that I damned well please, but it still feels restricting to have these roles given, instead of helpful.
I liked the discussion about the humanoid monsters, such as goblins, gnolls and hobgoblins, which differed mainly in their hit dice and challenge rating, and really just filled a role as "the humanoid monster at this level". Instead, more focus is going into their tactics and abilities, so the players don't just gloss over what kind of humanoid monster they're fighting. Pack mentality, flanking, stealth, etc. should do a good job or keeping these different creatures useful as individual monster concepts, instead of as filler.
The final part of the podcast was even more interesting, however, when James Wyatt was given a test on the spot to create encounters from some of the new monsters. This gave quite a bit of insight into the game design... not only did we get to find out the names of some of the monsters (rune-carved aidelon, quickling runner, eye of flame), but we got a sense of what the monster entries are like: when designing the encounters, he was looking at their roles, throwing around terms like "elite soldier" for the human fighter death knight, "controller" for the goblin hexer, and "artillery" for the eye of flame.
I can certainly see the benefit from these role names, to help DMs balance out an encounter, and I assume there will be tables sorted by these roles to help a DM find them easily, but a part of me cringes at the explicit nature of the roles. These "simplistic" terms such as "brute" and "soldier" remind me of the thing I disliked most about d20 Modern, which were the "Smart Hero"/"Fast Hero" names of classes.
Perhaps I just need to get used to the role concept for 4th edition. I can't quite put my finger on it... it's almost like I want these roles to exist in a table somewhere, listing those monsters that qualify as "artillery", but don't want that actual word associated with the monster. I know that as the DM, I can do anything with the monsters that I damned well please, but it still feels restricting to have these roles given, instead of helpful.
Damn you Heinsoo!
Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Or maybe I'm still seething from last night's frustrating battle with putting up a frickin' shelf (Damn you Ikea!). Whatever it is I've gotta vent.
Rob Heinsoo drives me freakin' nuts!
When he bothers to blog at all it's always utterly inane chatter. The man is a featured brain on the new 4e PHB. His name is on the goddamn cover. But, does he offer any insights? Drop any tantalizing hints? Teasers?
No.
He describes in painstakingly boring detail the minis that are arrayed across his desk.
News flash Rob. Nobody cares about the minis on your desk. Or the pens in your drawer. Or the pictures of your wife and kids (although I'm sure they're lovely).
There is however one thing on your desk that we do want to hear about. The new PHB. Is that too much to ask for?
Rob Heinsoo drives me freakin' nuts!
When he bothers to blog at all it's always utterly inane chatter. The man is a featured brain on the new 4e PHB. His name is on the goddamn cover. But, does he offer any insights? Drop any tantalizing hints? Teasers?
No.
He describes in painstakingly boring detail the minis that are arrayed across his desk.
News flash Rob. Nobody cares about the minis on your desk. Or the pens in your drawer. Or the pictures of your wife and kids (although I'm sure they're lovely).
There is however one thing on your desk that we do want to hear about. The new PHB. Is that too much to ask for?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
d%'d dude
Once again, Noonan has been reading my thoughts... his "monkeys without blinders" is how I've been doing treasure generation for some time now.
Okay, perhaps my method is not as in-depth as his -- we'll have to wait and see -- but for years now, when determining random treasure, I've always given bonuses and (as Didier Monin would put it) maluses to the subsequent rolls, depending on how the previous roll came out. Did they get very little coin? Add 10 to the gem roll. Did that end up getting them the maximum gem return? Perhaps -5 for the art and jewelery.
Perhaps, though, they're going to take it a little further (and a little more exacting -- my plusses and minuses are pretty much determined by mood), and actually have loot that makes sense together? So no Quaal's feather token in the same chest as a +3 longsword and set of +2 full plate; no fireball wand stored with the repeating crossbow. A drow with an SR11 ring and darkvision goggles??
Of course, I'm a little disappointed that such a system change didn't get put into the Magic Item Compendium. A new treasure generation system doesn't have to come with a new ruleset like 4th edition, and the new system will now have to get retrofitted into the dozens of tables that the Compendium provides.
How long after the release of the new treasure generation system until someone has made an online system that contains the full Compendium? Time me.
Okay, perhaps my method is not as in-depth as his -- we'll have to wait and see -- but for years now, when determining random treasure, I've always given bonuses and (as Didier Monin would put it) maluses to the subsequent rolls, depending on how the previous roll came out. Did they get very little coin? Add 10 to the gem roll. Did that end up getting them the maximum gem return? Perhaps -5 for the art and jewelery.
Perhaps, though, they're going to take it a little further (and a little more exacting -- my plusses and minuses are pretty much determined by mood), and actually have loot that makes sense together? So no Quaal's feather token in the same chest as a +3 longsword and set of +2 full plate; no fireball wand stored with the repeating crossbow. A drow with an SR11 ring and darkvision goggles??
Of course, I'm a little disappointed that such a system change didn't get put into the Magic Item Compendium. A new treasure generation system doesn't have to come with a new ruleset like 4th edition, and the new system will now have to get retrofitted into the dozens of tables that the Compendium provides.
How long after the release of the new treasure generation system until someone has made an online system that contains the full Compendium? Time me.
Monday, October 1, 2007
4th edition - a novel approach
Bilsland's blog today didn't upset me as much as his previous one did, so he's off the hook for now.
But he did talk about R.A. Salvatore's latest novel, The Orc King, which Bilsland believes is a "bridge" from the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms to the 4th. This made me pause and wonder, "what are they doing to the realms that they need to consciously change them to fit the new rules?"
There was mention that the Grand History of the Realms ends with some hints about the changes that are coming about, and if Griff doesn't hurry up and buy it... Griff did have a point, though, that with the change in the cosmology, they might need to introduce the new lay of the planes to explain why the universe has changed so drastically.
With my growing interest in the Forgotten Realms, I've been wanting to read more of the novels, but find I'm too busy keeping up with 4th edition rumors to do so. Perhaps once winter sets in, I'll be snowed in and will have to finish the Icewind Dale trilogy, and buy, borrow or steal any other Realmslore I can find. But I'll admit, just this little mention of The Orc King having a lead-in to 4th edition -- even if so slight -- has pushed it up the list of to-be-read books.
But he did talk about R.A. Salvatore's latest novel, The Orc King, which Bilsland believes is a "bridge" from the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms to the 4th. This made me pause and wonder, "what are they doing to the realms that they need to consciously change them to fit the new rules?"
There was mention that the Grand History of the Realms ends with some hints about the changes that are coming about, and if Griff doesn't hurry up and buy it... Griff did have a point, though, that with the change in the cosmology, they might need to introduce the new lay of the planes to explain why the universe has changed so drastically.
With my growing interest in the Forgotten Realms, I've been wanting to read more of the novels, but find I'm too busy keeping up with 4th edition rumors to do so. Perhaps once winter sets in, I'll be snowed in and will have to finish the Icewind Dale trilogy, and buy, borrow or steal any other Realmslore I can find. But I'll admit, just this little mention of The Orc King having a lead-in to 4th edition -- even if so slight -- has pushed it up the list of to-be-read books.
Manual monsters
As Stephen Schubert's latest post mentions, they're all still hard at work on the Monster Manual, which as my last bunch of posts might indicate, has my feelings all mixed.
Shoe teased about what the highest-level monster was going to be. I didn't expect the tarrasque to be it, since we've seen higher level monsters since the 3rd edition Monster Manual. Still, I do hope they include the tarrasque in the new book, since it's quite an iconic monster for those who play. And I hope that it follows a formula when created... *grumble*
The slaadi, though. I always seem to forget about these menaces, but I really like them. I never think to use them in my own campaigns, and I think the last time they appeared in our group was in the Lord of the Iron Fortress module. This got me thinking about why I don't use them, and I think the problem is that I think of the environment of a campaign first, and populate it later -- and in the case of the slaadi, they just never occur to me as "applicable" to the quest.
As an experiment, I should grab the Monster Manuals and flip through them, and see if I can come up with a campaign idea based on the foes, putting story and plot around them, instead of the other way around. In fact, this would be a good exercise for coming up with submissions for the Side Treks; as well, this would make a good web enhancement for the Monster Manual... it would be quite fun to come up with a different encounter for each monster.
Or perhaps just the underutilized monsters -- who needs help sticking an orc into a module?
Shoe teased about what the highest-level monster was going to be. I didn't expect the tarrasque to be it, since we've seen higher level monsters since the 3rd edition Monster Manual. Still, I do hope they include the tarrasque in the new book, since it's quite an iconic monster for those who play. And I hope that it follows a formula when created... *grumble*
The slaadi, though. I always seem to forget about these menaces, but I really like them. I never think to use them in my own campaigns, and I think the last time they appeared in our group was in the Lord of the Iron Fortress module. This got me thinking about why I don't use them, and I think the problem is that I think of the environment of a campaign first, and populate it later -- and in the case of the slaadi, they just never occur to me as "applicable" to the quest.
As an experiment, I should grab the Monster Manuals and flip through them, and see if I can come up with a campaign idea based on the foes, putting story and plot around them, instead of the other way around. In fact, this would be a good exercise for coming up with submissions for the Side Treks; as well, this would make a good web enhancement for the Monster Manual... it would be quite fun to come up with a different encounter for each monster.
Or perhaps just the underutilized monsters -- who needs help sticking an orc into a module?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
