For those of you that don't know "banana bread" is a popular slang term; the literal translation is "chimp with a yeast infection."

Quote from: Aos;361741For those of you that don't know "banana bread" is a popular slang term; the literal translation is "chimp with a yeast infection."

My pants just got tighter.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;361728Oh, like wearing uncured leopard skin over your junk won't kick up a smell. :rolleyes:

!i!

How do you think Tarzan was able to get Jane? It was the leopard scented man funk...

Pheromones mixed with aged crotch-cheese.  The ladies can't resist it!

Quote from: StormBringer;361754Pheromones mixed with aged crotch-cheese.  The ladies can't resist it!

...and they say there is no romance left in the world.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361710Really? Would you have done it this way? That suprises me I thought you were a better DM.

 I would just have said  'Ah Fareie Fire does not produce heat it is like most faerie magic based on glamour and illusion. It just creates a halo of flame like light around the target." That would have taken me um 15 - 20 seconds to explain. The player would feel like they had a good understanding of why the spell didn't work that went beyond written text on a card and put the effect in a larger context and I certainly wouldn't have asked the guy to pass me the card so I could rules lawyer their arse and patronise them. Like I said ...its a dog on a bike...

This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

Read your explanation right there again, but imagine not having 30 years of context and then try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is hoping to learn the game, on camera, and trying to be funny at the same time (this is a professional funny guy after all).  He doesn't want to look dumb, but now most likely he ends up with at least two more questions he likely keeps to himself ("why the heck would I ever want to use this power?" and "well, how am I ever going to know what powers do what just based on the title..")

Now, I'm not sure that I would have brought up the 'Creature" line of Darkfire myself if I were in that situation, but a rules question does deserve a rules answer, especially when you are working with a new player.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361763This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

...

Now, I'm not sure that I would have brought up the 'Creature" line of Darkfire myself if I were in that situation, but a rules question does deserve a rules answer, especially when you are working with a new player.

 By way of context.

I wouldn't generalize it in the way you did. Personally, with new players about the only thing I tell them is the opening line in the 4E PHB (or nearly enough): "In this game, you can attempt anything you can imagine." So I start to translate their actions into rules for them. The part of playing a character is key, and rules take a back seat. Then, during the session, or even only in the second and third, I encourage players to play the rules and learn about them.

Session 1 (me): "You want to push the guy into the wall? then please roll me a d20" and I work out the actual mechanics for the player behind the screen, as it were.

Session 2 or 3 (me): "You want to do a Bullrush maneuver? Because this is how it works: ...".

Session 4 (player): "I want to bullrush this guy."

That's actually the recommended procedure for introducing new players in the 3.5 DMG. The Dungeon Mastering for Dummies book (3E version) uses the same advice, but expands on it brilliantly - as in, what are the bits of rules (in the d20 system) a DM ought to introduce to newbs rather early, what can take a back seat for quite soem time, and so on.

The problem in the video is basically this:

Session 1 (player, holds up a card with maneuver information which he's barely glanced at): "It says bullrush here. It'd like to use that on that door."

My actual response would be exactly like the one Perkins gave: "Read the card. You can't bullrush an object, let alone a door in a wall."

But here's the catch: I'd communicate from the get-go this to the player: "Either tell me what you want your character to do, and let me do the rules bit for you (erstwhile). Or tell me what rules bit you want to use; if you do that, be aware that I'm going to clarify and correct stuff from time to time - that's only natural when you start out in this game."

Assburgers?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361698Just saying it doesn't work is perhaps too quick.

For a promotional video? Naw. His goal isn't to teach the Robot Chicken gents how to play. Nor was he making a video that shows people how to play. Explaining the rules isn't the point - showing Robot Chicken fans what D&D is like in general is.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;361714If they already knew how to play, then they would most likely know that Darkfire wouldn't be the in-game tool to use in burning a door, and if they're not new I'm not sure how you can know they would never play again.

From what I recall from the intro, two or three of them had experience with D&D, ranging from playing in a weekly game to having tried it a bit. The others didn't.

The video is a marketing tool. As I'm sure you're aware, when a celebrity holds up product [blank] and endorses it, that doesn't mean they actually use or are interested in using [blank.] They're just doing a commercial.

The writers who don't currently play D&D clearly know it exists and work with people who do play. If they were interested in trying it before shooting the video, I'm sure they would have had ample opportunity. They were at the table to shoot a commercial - once that's done, I'm sure they'll go on with their lives.

Quote from: Sigmund;361714Plus, it might not be just the people in the video who misinterpret what the guy says.

That's a fine point. But this isn't a how-to video, it's a promotional video. I doubt anyone who doesn't know how to play but whose interest in sparked from the video will remember the example to be confused by it. It's the folks who already know about the game who are experiencing nerdrage.

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361763This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

I disagree. I'll say that, at best for your argument, it depends on the particular adults and particular game we're talking about. Explaining the decision from the rules' point of view certainly will clear up some issues down the road and will appeal to people who are inclined to look at a game situation from a rules/logical metagame point of view to begin with, but most people I've introduced to the game are not interested in that aspect in the first place.

What they want is precisely to be sucked into the adventure, the fantasy action, the fiction, no matter how you want to call it. The make-believe. Explaining that Dark Fire creates an illusory halo of pseudo-flames isn't rocket science, and it helps the new players understand that it's about the make-believe, not the rules.

(let me point out that an adult gamer I introduced to the game is standing right next to me as I write this).

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;361547It was how he handled it and how he made the decision.
He made the decision based on combat-centric rules minutia of it targeting a creature. If Perkins had said "darkfire doesn't produce any heat", I don't think anyone would have had an issue with it..

This is an example of the TRPG definition at work.  

In this case, the designer didn't look at the spell as existing in a particular setting, with a particular set of physics/cosmology, etc.  If he did, and said as Slaad suggested that "darkfire doesn't produce heat" then all answers to questions about melting, etc. would flow naturally from that ruling, which would have defined a physics element of the settings that use 4e rules.

What the designer did, was look at the rules, find how that spell could be used against a single creature and made a ruling based on that, for the purposes of game balance.  Completely different set of goals behind the game design.

Such a Tactical RPG design move, can rub Immersive RPGers the wrong way, as they don't agree with the core design principles behind the decision.

Is 4E a role-playing game?  Of course it is.  It just happens to be one that doesn't care too much for Immersion, preferring mechanical balance as the primary focus of the rules.

Of course 4E takes the additional step of extending mechanical balance to things like encounters, treasure awarded, etc... usually things that are 100% within the GM's purview and basically tries to make the rules for the GM as mechanically balanced as the rules of the game itself.  That's what typically is the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes the anti-4e sentiments.  

A lot of people can't define what they don't like about 4e, and it boils down to "it isn't a rpg", "it isn't D&D" etc. and why it feels that way to them is the degree to which 4e is willing to ignore or sacrifice immersion or the GM's traditional role for the sake of rules balance.

I consider myself an Immersive Roleplayer.  Could I run 4e?  Sure.  I'd ignore everything about the set encounters and treasure, get rid of the do-it-yourself magic item creation, go over the classes and powers tuning, redescribing, adding or eliminating and eventually I'd get something that made sense to me logically within my chosen setting.  Would it be anywhere near as balanced as 4e? No.  It would probably have a hole or two that a munchkin could drive a freight train through, but that's what I'm there for, not to slavishly follow the rules as written but to interpret the rules when they don't make sense.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;361763This isn't really a matter of DMing, it's about teaching (and specifically teaching non-gamer adults). When they start out, it isn't about the fiction, and the fanciful imaginings.. That only happens once you get a certain amount of context. Instead, you have to start at teaching the rules simply as rules.

Read your explanation right there again, but imagine not having 30 years of context and then try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is hoping to learn the game, on camera, and trying to be funny at the same time (this is a professional funny guy after all).  He doesn't want to look dumb, but now most likely he ends up with at least two more questions he likely keeps to himself ("why the heck would I ever want to use this power?" and "well, how am I ever going to know what powers do what just based on the title..")

Now, I'm not sure that I would have brought up the 'Creature" line of Darkfire myself if I were in that situation, but a rules question does deserve a rules answer, especially when you are working with a new player.

Well my explanation assumes they know what faries are and have an inkling of a classical knowledge of illusion and glamour but I could assess the subject and pitch it differently f2f. I think the real issue for me would be that the effect shouldn't be limited to creatures.
As a player I would want to use the effect on a mirror to bluff some , npc that I had some powerful divination spell or on a door to freak out my pursuers that I was travelling to another plane and they shouldn't follow me or on a sword so that I could sell it as an enchanted Drow blade to a likely looking merchant.
I guess its an immersion thing. In fact in combat couldn't I cast it on a dummy to draw enemy bow fire ? Does it cast enough light to allow me to read a scroll  or pick a lock? How about casting it on a set of dice if I thought my opponent was cheating and swapping the dice on me or on the pea in a shell game? That could be a very useful utility effect.... If you give the players a bit of scope.

Quote from: Seanchai;361800From what I recall from the intro, two or three of them had experience with D&D, ranging from playing in a weekly game to having tried it a bit. The others didn't.

The video is a marketing tool. As I'm sure you're aware, when a celebrity holds up product [blank] and endorses it, that doesn't mean they actually use or are interested in using [blank.] They're just doing a commercial.

The writers who don't currently play D&D clearly know it exists and work with people who do play. If they were interested in trying it before shooting the video, I'm sure they would have had ample opportunity. They were at the table to shoot a commercial - once that's done, I'm sure they'll go on with their lives.



That's a fine point. But this isn't a how-to video, it's a promotional video. I doubt anyone who doesn't know how to play but whose interest in sparked from the video will remember the example to be confused by it. It's the folks who already know about the game who are experiencing nerdrage.

Seanchai

Not having seen the video, I can't really argue the point further, but if what you say is true then I'll have to agree with you.

Quote from: RPGPundit;360705I can think of a couple. For starters, the idea that magic users have a basic attack spell they can cast an unlimited number of times. I think that's basically a good idea, it supplants the uncomfortable notion of magic users having to rely on sub-par weapons, without actually increasing the Magic-user's power in any meaningful way.

Another element I think is a good idea is the idea, in principle, of ritual magic. I'm not sure that the particular execution of rituals as presented in 4e is great, but the idea that wizards should be able to, if given enough time (much more than can be done in the middle of a battle), cast (certain kinds of) spells without using up their spell slots, is a fundamentally good one.

RPGPundit

Both can be good ideas for appropriate settings.

It's worth pointing out that these are not concepts that 4e came up with, but extensions/variations of ideas fleshed out in 3e/OGL territory in the first place (Relics & Rituals, the Warlock, Monte Cook's design thoughts on magic users and finally the the Book of Experimental Might come to mind).

I think the idea of powers as game units that translate in terms of rules balance across the board, from class to class, is a good one. I find the implementation to be poor at the very least, but the idea itself is interesting.

Another good idea is the concept of rests, short and extended. That's interesting because it helps tailor recovery to the specs of a particular gaming group, if you're a bit liberal with the rules and reinterpret them to fit the campaign, and also helps give more dimensions to the game's bean-counting than just "once per day/after sleeping for X hours I can do this or that".

I think 4e is shock-full of good ideas, really (I'd mention second wind as well on that front, which, like all the others, while not appropriate for all gaming groups, is a very interesting option for the game). The particular implementation, however, is so narrow, framed, so limited in scope, and with a design focus so divorced from what I actually appreciate in role-playing, that they ultimately are drowned in mediocrity, from my POV.

If anything, the design concepts of 4e should have been stripped of most of their current specifics, offering more choices of interpretations and particular implementations on the parts of DMs and their groups out there, and entitled "Unearthed Arcana, vol. 2" or some such. That would have made for a great 3rd edition title. As a full game itself, well, it blows, in my opinion.