Quote from: LordVreeg;387758Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

Definite agreement there.

QuoteBTW, I've really liked the Moragne stuff I've seen.

Thanks, I don't know if you read the RPG Haven, but I'm writing an adventure for it right now, which is why there hasn't been new setting material in a while. Warren of the Leper Queens




Edit: Also yes, for those starting to notices themes: Almost every game I run / world I build does feature giant arthropods, magical lepers, someone's heart getting cut out or throat getting slit, cannibals and demons/monsters worshipped as gods.

Quote from: AM

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegNo. It's not about handholding. It is simply that some rules are written to certain things better than others. Very purely and simply. In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.

I disagree.

with what part, exactly?  I was not trying to be difficult, or for once, elitest.  Are you disagreeing that Immersion and Metagaming are opposites?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387761Thanks, I don't know if you read the RPG Haven, but I'm writing an adventure for it right now, which is why there hasn't been new setting material in a while. Warren of the Leper Queens

That's where I saw it.  I loved the NPCs.

I found it funny because Isomage is mentioned and he does SO much work to help me with my IRC game.  He has coded so much for the hell of it for our game.  I have no idea how to pay him back.

Quote from: LordVreeg;387764That's where I saw it.  I loved the NPCs.

I found it funny because Isomage is mentioned and he does SO much work to help me with my IRC game.  He has coded so much for the hell of it for our game.  I have no idea how to pay him back.

Yeah, his tools are extremely useful to me as well, thus the shout-out. Haven't found another cave generator that's nearly as good.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387735Well, massive earth-threatening evils a la Sauron etc.. Orcus, Demogorgon & Vecna are written up as monsters for it that top-level PCs are meant to fight. It's epic-tier stuff, obviously, but you rise from saving the town from goblins to the kingdom from liches to the world from Orcus. The idea is a constant escalation of the conflict's stakes and scope as PCs rise in power. I do find, just empirically, that I'm willing to throw grander and more outright magical threats at PCs. (awesome example)

Alright. I see where you're going with this.

Quote from: StormBringer;387757

Quote from: Werekoala;387747Another interesting tidbit from some lunchtime reading - in the quests section of the DMG (where it talks about how to structure them for adventures) it actually says you should let players come up with their OWN quests, based on their characters - "and remember, say yes as often as possible!"

Yes, it included the exclaimation point.

O.o

Yikes.

I don't really see how that's different from the Paladin seeking atonement or a Holy Avenger sword in First Ed, honestly. I mean, yeah, the "say yes! Exclamation Point!" part strikes me as shitty advice, but the principle of it isn't bad at all, if the GM is in control. Any GM should welcome feedback and ideas from players for side quests or stuff they'd want to do in the game. Whether that fits the campaign, how it ultimately does, etc must be left to the GM to decide.

In my Ptolus game a player basically wanted to be part of one of the noble houses of the city. I just said "alright". She wanted to be an adventurer, and that didn't sit well with the family. Part of the "downtime role playing" of the game involved her dealing with her family, with the blame, the familial love still being there, the cousin who wants to become an adventurer too and wreck her future in the process, that sort of thing. This took a life of its own in the game, and it was cool for us.

So... I think the principle's fine. That's the delivery that's moronic, if anything.

Quote from: LordVreeg;387758Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design

Completely off-topic: did you put down Vreeg's rules of setting design in writing somewhere? How about discussing them in a separate thread?

Well, like I said, these are just things that jump out at me as I'm reading the rules. Its not stopping me from enjoying the game, its just reinforcing how different it is from what I've done before.

Quote from: Benoist;387774Completely off-topic: did you put down Vreeg's rules of setting design in writing somewhere? How about discussing them in a separate thread?

I'm at work right now.

I'll dig them out some time soon, but I found these crossposted in the CBG .

Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."

Vreeg's Second Rule of Setting Design,
Consistency is the Handmaiden of Immersion and Versimilitude. Keep good notes, and spend a little time after every creation to 'connect the dots'. If you create a foodtuff or drink, make sure you notate if the bars or inns the players frequent. Is it made locally, or is it imported? If so, where from? If locally made, is it exported?


Vreeg's Third Rule of Setting Design,
The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of design.  The players need to feel like things will happen with or without them; they need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but event-chains need velocity, not just speed.

Vreeg's Fourth Rule of Setting Design,
Create motivated events and NPCs, this will invariably create motivated PCs.  Things are not just happening, they happen because they matter to people (NPCs).  There is no overacting here, make sure that the settings and event-chains are motivated and that the PCs feel this.

that's all I can find right now.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387707I think Adventure is big enough as a concept. Characters are in constant danger and conflict, pursuing tasks in a dynamic and heroic manner.  

 I will say this: I have run many adventures where the PCs forgot to even bother looking for treasure after an encounter, or "search the bodies" or whatever. Often enough there are very specific missions going on, they have places to be, or for other reasons.. they can't spend time looting or selling.

I don't think that's at all specific to 4e though. AD&D 2e has always played pretty much like that in my experience, and even 3e did sometimes.

Quote from: Benoist;387721What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is what this game is exactly about. You know how you can take a game and in one or two sentences, you can pretty much convey the core concept of the game. Like "it's about going down the dungeon, killing things, taking their stuff, going back to the village, and repeat" (I seem to remember that's how Mike Mearls summarized D&D some time ago)? I'd like someone who really knows the game inside out to describe 4e using a sentence or two, like this.

I'd like to understand what this game is supposed to be used for.

In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.

Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.

To me, 4E stands out for what it isn't, more than it stands out for what it is. The original game through 2E was vague and open to interpretation, while 3E was a Frankenstein mishmash trying to be everything at once. 4E is very focused and specific, and a lot of things that were done with D&D aren't really supported by 4E at all.

In a general sense, I think they got it right. 4E better represents the game I've been trying to get out of D&D since 2E than anything previous. It also better resembles(in a general sense) the game described by the 3.5 books and the game people were trying to play with 3.5 back before the announcement of 4E split people into camps. I was a regular lurker on the WotC forums and rpg.net before the announcement of 4E, and the 3.5E system seemed in conflict in a general sense with the game people were discussing.

Quote from: Shazbot79;387846In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.

Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.

I wouldn't go that far. I'd put it more on the level of playing fantasy action heroes. There isn't as clear a break between PCs and normals as there are between Supers and normals. PCs are more defined by having more resources and being able to dig deeper for a little extra in a crisis than having more power.

Take John McLean from Die Hard. He looks perfectly normal, its only when everything goes to shit and people are shooting at him that you see he's different.

Quote from: Werekoala;387570So... now I should like it? I was always a "let the dice fall where they may" sort.

Nope. It's simply not something that's been added as advice in any recent edition.

Seanchai

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387847In a general sense, I think they got it right. 4E better represents the game I've been trying to get out of D&D since 2E than anything previous. It also better resembles(in a general sense) the game described by the 3.5 books and the game people were trying to play with 3.5 back before the announcement of 4E split people into camps. I was a regular lurker on the WotC forums and rpg.net before the announcement of 4E, and the 3.5E system seemed in conflict in a general sense with the game people were discussing.

Yeah. The uselessness of fighters in 3.5, the need for extensive buffing before combat and the dominance of save-or-dies really clashed with the kinds of games people wanted to play (the descriptions of which always seemed to include the words "deadly" and "low magic"). 4e handles those problems really well.