SamTheCleric
2008-03-03, 06:11 PM
The original blog can be found here: http://gloomforge.livejournal.com/
Some interesting viewpoints coming from him.
Part 1:
With DDXP in full swing, there's lots of news about Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons on the net this week. I just read the first part of a fairly extensive review of the system, posted by a playtester at http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776 . He's already said much of what I'd say, so I'll refrain from discussing the system itself it too much detail. But I do want to highlight a few points.
First, Massawyrm - the aintitcool reviewer - makes a critical point. Simple doesn't mean stupid. 4E D&D has simplified many things, and these systems will as a result be more accessible to a wider audience. But this doesn't mean that they have somehow sacrificed quality in the process. They've simply improved the systems. There's nothing admirable about being clunky or esoteric. When I was running a game for a friend and his kids yesterday, I thought "Damn! I wish I could run 4E!" And part of this WAS because I knew that the kids would have a far easier time with it. But it wouldn't have simply been a sacrifice made to cater to the children; I'm enjoying 4E more that third.
A second thing I've heard is that 4E is somehow a copy of World of Warcraft. To set my credentials on the table, I've not only been playing D&D for almost 30 years, I've spent 7 years designing massively multiplayer computer games (MMOs). So, is there a basis for these accusations? Certainly. There are basic principles in 4E that are reflected in MMOs. The most obvious of these is the concept of character roles. Defining the fighter as the "guardian" and the rogue as the "striker" is a obvious parallel to the role of these classes in WoW. The rogue deals more damage than the fighter, but can't absorb as much. The fighter is the tank, and specializes in drawing attacks away from his allies. And the 4E fighter has abilities that allow him to do just that - encourage enemies to face him instead of his teammates.
But does that make 4E D&D a clone of WoW? Does it make the experience of playing 4E just like playing WoW? Does it sacrifice the inherent experience of D&D? In my opinion, the answer is no on all counts. Combat in WoW is a real-time experience set against foes driven by AI routines. If you REALLY wanted to make a WoW clone, you'd give the DM instructions along the following lines: "Keep track of the amount of damage each player inflicts on the monster. Any concombat spell such as healing or summoning will be given an equivalent damage value. The monster will always attack the player who has inflicted the most damage on it. The attacks of a fighter are considered to inflict double damage only for this purpose, and his taunt ability adds an immediate thirty points to his threat value."... or something like that. Decision making would be taken out of the DM's hands, and you'd ignore the tactics of the situation.
Scaling it back slightly, you could simply give the fighter an ability that said "Taunt: Target must make a Will saving throw. If he fails, he must attack the fighter." More D&D, perhaps, but equally hamfisted.
Fourth Edition doesn't do either of these. Instead, it gives the guardian classes tools that hinder or harm the target if he chooses to ignore the fighter. It creates a tactical situation - something more complex than you will typically see in the real-time combat of WoW. As DM, I get to decide: is the monster going to turn against the fighter in response to his efforts? Or will he still attack the wizard, in spite of the consequences he'll suffer as a result?
So 4E D&D does draw INSPIRATION from the MMOs, in saying "Let's provide the fighter with a way to actively defend his allies - a way to protect the low hit-point/AC wizard BEYOND simply whacking the guy with a sharp piece of metal." As someone who has always enjoyed playing fighters, I think this is great. I still have my high AC, my high hit points, my high strength, my excellent weapon selection, and the ability to deal decent damage. I haven't been stripped of the basic things that have always defined fighters in D&D. But I have been given new abilities that expand what I am capable of... that allow me to defend my allies even while smashing my foes.
Games evolve, and that's what's happening here. In my years working on MMOs, I always looked to my experiences with pen-and-paper RPGs and live roleplaying for ways to add depth of story to the MMO experience. You couldn't simply transfer the pen-and-paper game to the computer and expect it to work perfectly; they're completely different mediums. But there are lessons to be learned, ideas we can try. And that's what's been done here, in reverse. 4E isn't simply World of Warcraft ripped from the computer and played at the table, because WoW wasn't designed for that. But it does draw inspiration from MMOs, looking at the ideas that have evolved over the course of a decade of MMO development and seeing if there's anything there that could enhance the traditional pen-and-paper experience. And for what it's worth, so far I love the result. The action of the game is fast and fun. It's something I wish I could share with more of my friends, and I look forward to having the chance to play instead of just DMing!
Next time around I'll talk about some of the issues facing Eberron in 4E... but I think that's enough for now!
Part 2
So. Fourth Edition comes out in June. A dedicated 4E Eberron sourcebook won't be out until sometime in 2009. So what do you do?
Well, one obvious answer is to keep using 3.5. You may want to do that anyway; I'm NOT promising that everyone will prefer fourth edition to third. However, *I* do, and besides, if you're going to stick with third you don't need help from me. So, if you want to switch to running an Eberron campaign in June, how hard is it going to be?
It's not as bad as you might think. As was revealed at the DDXP, most of the races that play a significant role in Khorvaire - changeling, shifter, warforged, gnome - get a solid "How to use these as PCs" treatment in the Monster Manual. My Eberron groups currently include a gnome, a shifter, and two changelings. These races don't get quite as many racial options (feats, etc) from the get-go as those covered in the PHB, and that's the sort of thing you can expect to see in a 4E ECS. But they are certainly completely viable as PCs straight out of the MM. Beyond that, DDI is going to be providing some level of support; I know there's an article on the Warforged coming out in May, and I expect that to provide the same sort of options the PHB races get.
So in terms of basic mechanics and races, you're good to go. But things you'll definitely be missing off the bat are dragonmarks, the artificer, psionics, and the kalashtar. It's POSSIBLE that one or more of these will get coverage in DDI, but I'm not in a position to set odds on that.
With this in mind, you have a few options. I went ahead and whipped up my own version of the kalashtar and least dragonmarks to fill the gap; as a result, I do have a Lyrandar heir in one of my groups. However, in lieu of making house rules or getting DDI support, your best bet is to set these things aside. "But what about my kalashtar artificer?" you say. Well, the first thing I'd advise is that you start a new campaign. If you want to switch over, don't try to do it mid-story. Get to a good stopping point in your 3E campaign and then create an entirely new party of 4E characters. Among other things, low-level play is very different in 4E than in 3E, and you should really give it a try.
I know this may not be what you want to hear. "I've been building a story for two years - now you want me to drop it?" What I'm suggesting is that you put it on hold until you have access to the 4E ECS and have a better chance of a proper conversion. For that matter, you could continue to run that story in 3E while ALSO running a new story in 4E. But consider 4E as an opportunity to try something completely different. Here's your chance to play the all-goblinoid party - the strike force of the Kech Volaar seeking to recover artifacts from the Empire of Dhakaan, to battle the cults of the Dragon Below and engage in military and political conflict with the Kech Sharaat and Lhesh Haruuc. Start a group of adventurers in the Lhazaar Principalities - the gnome warlock from Lorghalen, the changeling rogue from the Gray Tide, the Cloudreaver dwarf fighter, Bloodsail elf wizard, and cleric from the Heavenly Fleet, who have banded together to defeat an evil prince and lay claim to his fiefdom. Try playing Ghaash'kala orcs holding the Labyrinth against the barbarians and fiends of the Demon Wastes. A team of Dark Lanterns of the Citadel, fighting on the front lines of the cold war. All of these could be easily done... and none of them require an artificer, kalashtar, or psionics (though that Dark Lantern team could certainly use some of them!).
Now, artificers, dragonmarks, and psionics aren't going anywhere. All of these things are integral parts of the setting. But you can still have the flavor of the setting even if no PC has access to these things. Don't pretend that artificers aren't there. You can go ahead and use the dragonmarked houses as patrons and story hooks. It just happens that no PLAYER can be a warforged artificer (yet). Again, there's so many possibilities that you can now explore (like the paladin of the Blood of Vol in one of my games) that I believe you can work around these things. As a DM, it's a matter of saying "OK, if psionics aren't in yet, I'll use the Aurum instead of the Dreaming Dark" - it doesn't mean that the Dreaming Dark is GONE, just that you shouldn't make it the basis of your story... yet.
Personally, I'm using Stormreach as the basis for my campaign. I like Stormreach because it's a relatively small town on the edge of the world, close to uncharted lands and even more dangerous than Sharn. It's a place where adventurers can quickly make a mark, because you don't have the established forces of Morgrave, the Citadel, or the like. Beyond this, the City of Stormreach sourcebook says it's going to have 4E support when the rules come out. Now, before someone says "We can't trust anything you say!" I'll point out that I don't actually get royalties from the sale of sourcebooks, so this isn't some ploy to try to get you to rush out and buy CoS (for all that I'm happy with the book). However, if DDI does come through with the promised 4E support, it could be one of the easier places to use.
So in conclusion, if you want to continue the story exactly as you're running it, or if you're set on playing your kalashtar psion or Cannith artificer, you may have to stick with 3E for now. But if you're willing to start a new story and try something new - avoiding the early potholes of psionics, dragonmarks, and artificers - you should be able to start a 4E Eberron campaign right away.
Next I'll talk about why I've done just that - why *I* like running Eberron in 4E. Again, I'm not promising that everyone will like 4E; it's not the magic ultimate system. But I think that it is a good system for Eberron, and next time around I'll tell you why.
Some interesting viewpoints coming from him.
Part 1:
With DDXP in full swing, there's lots of news about Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons on the net this week. I just read the first part of a fairly extensive review of the system, posted by a playtester at http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35776 . He's already said much of what I'd say, so I'll refrain from discussing the system itself it too much detail. But I do want to highlight a few points.
First, Massawyrm - the aintitcool reviewer - makes a critical point. Simple doesn't mean stupid. 4E D&D has simplified many things, and these systems will as a result be more accessible to a wider audience. But this doesn't mean that they have somehow sacrificed quality in the process. They've simply improved the systems. There's nothing admirable about being clunky or esoteric. When I was running a game for a friend and his kids yesterday, I thought "Damn! I wish I could run 4E!" And part of this WAS because I knew that the kids would have a far easier time with it. But it wouldn't have simply been a sacrifice made to cater to the children; I'm enjoying 4E more that third.
A second thing I've heard is that 4E is somehow a copy of World of Warcraft. To set my credentials on the table, I've not only been playing D&D for almost 30 years, I've spent 7 years designing massively multiplayer computer games (MMOs). So, is there a basis for these accusations? Certainly. There are basic principles in 4E that are reflected in MMOs. The most obvious of these is the concept of character roles. Defining the fighter as the "guardian" and the rogue as the "striker" is a obvious parallel to the role of these classes in WoW. The rogue deals more damage than the fighter, but can't absorb as much. The fighter is the tank, and specializes in drawing attacks away from his allies. And the 4E fighter has abilities that allow him to do just that - encourage enemies to face him instead of his teammates.
But does that make 4E D&D a clone of WoW? Does it make the experience of playing 4E just like playing WoW? Does it sacrifice the inherent experience of D&D? In my opinion, the answer is no on all counts. Combat in WoW is a real-time experience set against foes driven by AI routines. If you REALLY wanted to make a WoW clone, you'd give the DM instructions along the following lines: "Keep track of the amount of damage each player inflicts on the monster. Any concombat spell such as healing or summoning will be given an equivalent damage value. The monster will always attack the player who has inflicted the most damage on it. The attacks of a fighter are considered to inflict double damage only for this purpose, and his taunt ability adds an immediate thirty points to his threat value."... or something like that. Decision making would be taken out of the DM's hands, and you'd ignore the tactics of the situation.
Scaling it back slightly, you could simply give the fighter an ability that said "Taunt: Target must make a Will saving throw. If he fails, he must attack the fighter." More D&D, perhaps, but equally hamfisted.
Fourth Edition doesn't do either of these. Instead, it gives the guardian classes tools that hinder or harm the target if he chooses to ignore the fighter. It creates a tactical situation - something more complex than you will typically see in the real-time combat of WoW. As DM, I get to decide: is the monster going to turn against the fighter in response to his efforts? Or will he still attack the wizard, in spite of the consequences he'll suffer as a result?
So 4E D&D does draw INSPIRATION from the MMOs, in saying "Let's provide the fighter with a way to actively defend his allies - a way to protect the low hit-point/AC wizard BEYOND simply whacking the guy with a sharp piece of metal." As someone who has always enjoyed playing fighters, I think this is great. I still have my high AC, my high hit points, my high strength, my excellent weapon selection, and the ability to deal decent damage. I haven't been stripped of the basic things that have always defined fighters in D&D. But I have been given new abilities that expand what I am capable of... that allow me to defend my allies even while smashing my foes.
Games evolve, and that's what's happening here. In my years working on MMOs, I always looked to my experiences with pen-and-paper RPGs and live roleplaying for ways to add depth of story to the MMO experience. You couldn't simply transfer the pen-and-paper game to the computer and expect it to work perfectly; they're completely different mediums. But there are lessons to be learned, ideas we can try. And that's what's been done here, in reverse. 4E isn't simply World of Warcraft ripped from the computer and played at the table, because WoW wasn't designed for that. But it does draw inspiration from MMOs, looking at the ideas that have evolved over the course of a decade of MMO development and seeing if there's anything there that could enhance the traditional pen-and-paper experience. And for what it's worth, so far I love the result. The action of the game is fast and fun. It's something I wish I could share with more of my friends, and I look forward to having the chance to play instead of just DMing!
Next time around I'll talk about some of the issues facing Eberron in 4E... but I think that's enough for now!
Part 2
So. Fourth Edition comes out in June. A dedicated 4E Eberron sourcebook won't be out until sometime in 2009. So what do you do?
Well, one obvious answer is to keep using 3.5. You may want to do that anyway; I'm NOT promising that everyone will prefer fourth edition to third. However, *I* do, and besides, if you're going to stick with third you don't need help from me. So, if you want to switch to running an Eberron campaign in June, how hard is it going to be?
It's not as bad as you might think. As was revealed at the DDXP, most of the races that play a significant role in Khorvaire - changeling, shifter, warforged, gnome - get a solid "How to use these as PCs" treatment in the Monster Manual. My Eberron groups currently include a gnome, a shifter, and two changelings. These races don't get quite as many racial options (feats, etc) from the get-go as those covered in the PHB, and that's the sort of thing you can expect to see in a 4E ECS. But they are certainly completely viable as PCs straight out of the MM. Beyond that, DDI is going to be providing some level of support; I know there's an article on the Warforged coming out in May, and I expect that to provide the same sort of options the PHB races get.
So in terms of basic mechanics and races, you're good to go. But things you'll definitely be missing off the bat are dragonmarks, the artificer, psionics, and the kalashtar. It's POSSIBLE that one or more of these will get coverage in DDI, but I'm not in a position to set odds on that.
With this in mind, you have a few options. I went ahead and whipped up my own version of the kalashtar and least dragonmarks to fill the gap; as a result, I do have a Lyrandar heir in one of my groups. However, in lieu of making house rules or getting DDI support, your best bet is to set these things aside. "But what about my kalashtar artificer?" you say. Well, the first thing I'd advise is that you start a new campaign. If you want to switch over, don't try to do it mid-story. Get to a good stopping point in your 3E campaign and then create an entirely new party of 4E characters. Among other things, low-level play is very different in 4E than in 3E, and you should really give it a try.
I know this may not be what you want to hear. "I've been building a story for two years - now you want me to drop it?" What I'm suggesting is that you put it on hold until you have access to the 4E ECS and have a better chance of a proper conversion. For that matter, you could continue to run that story in 3E while ALSO running a new story in 4E. But consider 4E as an opportunity to try something completely different. Here's your chance to play the all-goblinoid party - the strike force of the Kech Volaar seeking to recover artifacts from the Empire of Dhakaan, to battle the cults of the Dragon Below and engage in military and political conflict with the Kech Sharaat and Lhesh Haruuc. Start a group of adventurers in the Lhazaar Principalities - the gnome warlock from Lorghalen, the changeling rogue from the Gray Tide, the Cloudreaver dwarf fighter, Bloodsail elf wizard, and cleric from the Heavenly Fleet, who have banded together to defeat an evil prince and lay claim to his fiefdom. Try playing Ghaash'kala orcs holding the Labyrinth against the barbarians and fiends of the Demon Wastes. A team of Dark Lanterns of the Citadel, fighting on the front lines of the cold war. All of these could be easily done... and none of them require an artificer, kalashtar, or psionics (though that Dark Lantern team could certainly use some of them!).
Now, artificers, dragonmarks, and psionics aren't going anywhere. All of these things are integral parts of the setting. But you can still have the flavor of the setting even if no PC has access to these things. Don't pretend that artificers aren't there. You can go ahead and use the dragonmarked houses as patrons and story hooks. It just happens that no PLAYER can be a warforged artificer (yet). Again, there's so many possibilities that you can now explore (like the paladin of the Blood of Vol in one of my games) that I believe you can work around these things. As a DM, it's a matter of saying "OK, if psionics aren't in yet, I'll use the Aurum instead of the Dreaming Dark" - it doesn't mean that the Dreaming Dark is GONE, just that you shouldn't make it the basis of your story... yet.
Personally, I'm using Stormreach as the basis for my campaign. I like Stormreach because it's a relatively small town on the edge of the world, close to uncharted lands and even more dangerous than Sharn. It's a place where adventurers can quickly make a mark, because you don't have the established forces of Morgrave, the Citadel, or the like. Beyond this, the City of Stormreach sourcebook says it's going to have 4E support when the rules come out. Now, before someone says "We can't trust anything you say!" I'll point out that I don't actually get royalties from the sale of sourcebooks, so this isn't some ploy to try to get you to rush out and buy CoS (for all that I'm happy with the book). However, if DDI does come through with the promised 4E support, it could be one of the easier places to use.
So in conclusion, if you want to continue the story exactly as you're running it, or if you're set on playing your kalashtar psion or Cannith artificer, you may have to stick with 3E for now. But if you're willing to start a new story and try something new - avoiding the early potholes of psionics, dragonmarks, and artificers - you should be able to start a 4E Eberron campaign right away.
Next I'll talk about why I've done just that - why *I* like running Eberron in 4E. Again, I'm not promising that everyone will like 4E; it's not the magic ultimate system. But I think that it is a good system for Eberron, and next time around I'll tell you why.