Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drammattex 10-06-06, 12:17 PM	This thread discusses the D&D podcasts, hosted by David Noonan and Mike Mearls, featuring various guests. This is an old thread, so please proceed to the end of the thread to discuss the most recent podcast. ________________________________________ ________________________ Yesterday, the first D&D Podcast was posted here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pod/20061005a)on Wizards.com. Near the end of the podcast, Mike Mearls and Andy Collins debate the article on rolling for initiative that was displayed here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060901a)on Wizards.com on September 1. From Andy's point of view, beginning a game with "Roll for initiative" is an excellent way to instantly invest the players in the game. Mike agreed, however he did point out that this device could become very tiresome once the players expected it. Andy mentions that role-playing encounters often involve only one or two PLAYERS, while the rest of the group is left to daze into space, read books, check football scores, etc. At the end of the podcast, they solicited input as to how people are dealing with this sort of thing, and how they're handling role-playing encounters with a group. Please give the podcast a listen, and read the Roll for Initiative article linked above, then post your comments. Mine follow below. ________________________________________ ___________ The Problem: With the onset of 3e and the further development brought by 3.5 and D&D Miniatures, D&D has become much more a strategy game than a role-playing game. To state the cliche, this is both a blessing and a curse. * The blessing- there are much clearer definitions of what your character can physically do. A great deal of 1e & 2e combat was abstract. * The curse- mechanics have a strong influence on the game itself. With such defined rules, every aspect of the game can be dictated by a die roll, even conversation, if you wish, simply by the roll of a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Charisma check. The Players Right NOW, with the rules existing as they do, character and story are the province of the DM, and will be as strong or as weak as the DM makes them. The rulebooks offer helpful tips and suggestions, sometimes fluff content, but the rules as they apply to actually role-playing are pretty light; there is comparitively very little content in the rulebooks to encourage the PLAYERS to think creatively beyond the application and manipulation of the rules themselves (i.e. "What if I took this feat with that class?" "What if I web this hallway while the rogues hide in that alcove?"). To further complicate the problem, think on this: Andy Collins speaks of one or two PLAYERS interacting with the DM in a role-playing encounter while the others lose interest. But... What players? Who are you playing with? Hardened gamers? Game designers? Actors? How many women are playing the game? They certainly have their own preferences for how a D&D game should be played. While there are many female gamers who enjoy D&D, they are unquestionably outnumbered by the massive population of male gamers in the community. Why is this? Is D&D an innately male thing to do, or does it have something to do with the way D&D is played? There was a recent article on Women in Gaming from the BBC. Check out the article and my experience with female gamers here, at Hordelings (http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/forums/postView.php?post_id=22574). In short, EVERY female gamer I've played with (and I've played with several) are the most engaged when they're interacting and making character choices, and the least engaged when they're in combat. Another problem with role-playing encounters, probably the one Andy was facing, is that the DM can only meaningfully interact with a few players at a time. In a group of as many as six players, any role-playing encounter in which the players are all involved becomes nothing so much as an inquisition, each character firing off a question at the DM, leaving the NPCs pinned to the wall. My Solution: Start by Encouraging Creative Play within the Mechanics I recently picked up Mike Mearls's own Iron Heroes alternate Players Handbook. Iron Heroes out-combats D&D combat and introduces Stunts & Challenges, which provide a simple system for your character to try just about anything in combat in order to gain an advantage. Throw sand in your opponent's eyes, swing on a rope to knock your foe off a ledge, break a bottle over one adversary's head, then kick a chair into a charging enemy's path. Iron Heroes uses this simple set of rules to encourage players to think creatively on a mechanical level, while at the same time making the the combat aspect of the game a lot crunchier. When I decided to start using Mike's Iron Heroes rules, my players expressed the concern that it might make the story much more violent and combat-centric and that they would lose the strong character/story elements that have always been at the center of my game. I decided then that my job as DM was to play TWO games with the players. Yes, TWO GAMES, simultaneously. Play The Puzzle Game One game is the dice and paper game that exists within the statistics on their character sheets and the numbers we roll to determine the success of their actions. Game two is what I call The Puzzle Game. The Puzzle Game is the game of decisions and choices (and sometimes puzzles) that you as DM put in front of the players. I think of it like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Fill your adventures full of choices, dilemmas, and interactions that aren't stat-based. This is a part of the game you are playing with your players more than their characters. There should be little danger to their actual statistics when playing this part of the game, so they should be encouraged to make decisions as their character would make them, "to the hilt." It is important to consider every character in the group when doing this. Each and every interaction that a PC has with his or her environment should be carefully observed by the DM as a game move, and there should be a consequence, however minor. A PC kicks over a chair: the people playing cards at the next table give him a dirty look. A PC asks the town guard a question: the town guard now recognizes the PC- any actions he or his group takes may well be scrutinized by the local law. Here in Chicago, improvisation is a huge part of the theater scene. D&D is a long-form improvisation, with dice. The best improvisors are the ones who are always listening, the ones who respond to every detail, no matter whether it has anything to do with "the plot" of the scene or not. Often, the responses to these details end up spinning new directions and possibilities in the scene. It doesn't take a genius to be a good improvisor. It just takes a good listener, and if we try we can all be good listeners and good participants. Improvisors look at their craft as a game. They always talk about what the best "game move" would be in a long-form improv show. As DMs, if we start taking a step back from the rules and start seeing the larger picture of the stories we're creating, we can craft those stories with much greater resonance and much more interesting developments. We just need to listen and play that second "puzzle" game. Role-play is only a part of the puzzle game. There can also be puzzles, of course, and complex situations in which the PLAYERS must put their heads together to figure things out (the DM should, of course, give more hints to the characters who are smarter or wiser in certain cases). If the DM works with the players, listening closely to and honoring their character concepts/ideas, even role-play that doesn't involve the whole group should be riveting, so long as the DM is conscious of the adventure's pacing. At any rate, I strongly believe that if you commit one part of your DM self to running an awesome, crunchy adventure, and you start looking at everything OUTSIDE of combat as a different kind of game with its own set of consequences, each part will enhance the whole. However, groups exceeding five players will crush your puzzle game as you try to keep all the balls in the air. If your players get bored when the role-playing starts, try watching/listening to them more and create responses to their every word and action. When the players feel their characters are alive, then role-play scenes play like good cinema and create stronger emotional content which will enhance both combat and creativity. Final word: Starting an adventure with combat is a great idea because yes, it gets everybody invested right away. Traditionally, stories should always start with action, NOT boring exposition. Action doesn't mean combat, however. An equally good way to begin a story with a role-playing encounter is to move time/events forward with a surprising event or news which would propel them immediately forward into action.
CryoSilver 10-06-06, 12:25 PM	I'll dispute one point of yours: I've played D&D with 3 girls, and of those 3, 2 were most engaged in combat or die-rolling situations, while the other favored RP/character development.
RobertJ 10-06-06, 04:24 PM	Whether or not any particular girl is "into" the mechanics aspect of a D&D game is irrelevant to the larger point that girls in general don't seem terribly interested in mechanics qua mechanics. Though anecdotal experience is not data, almost every male D&D gamer I've ever played with has been interested in building heavily optimized characters, and none of the female gamers I've played with have been interested in doing the same. I feel this experience corresponds to findings in neurobiology and psychology that, roughly stated, indicate women are interested and proficient in social, interpersonal, and verbal areas than in abstract mathematical areas (such as maximizing your character's damage output). If you want to attract more female players to D&D then I think the goal should be to reduce the gamist element of play and try to emphasize narrativism. Right now it seems to me that your ability to participate in D&D as a story is largely dependent upon your ability to optimize your character, and that's a big hurdle to overcome for someone who doesn't care much about that style of play. Hypothetical example: If you're a gamist player, and if you had to sort through 10 different campaign-setting sourcebooks and write a 3-5 page background story (aka Character Sheet) and get it approved by a GM before you could begin playing your character, would you bother playing that game? I doubt I would, even though I don't even consider myself that big of a gamist. It's just too much of a hurdle to getting into the game.
Grand Theft Otto 10-06-06, 04:39 PM	Part of the problem with RP encounters is that not every class can really contribute equally. A fighter is hindered by few skill points, and intimidate as his only non-cross class "social" skill. This leads to their contribution in many RP encounters as unimportant. Personally, I find that unfortunate. Most every character can realistically contribute in problem solving and combat. I solved this by removing the CC skill penalty (essentially all skills are class skills), and giving most every class 4+ skill points per level. Further, while one character is gouing to have the higher score, I encourage other platyers to "assist another" by speaking and providing their own points, typically netting a +2 towards the face man's total check. Its worked wonders to get everyone involved in encounters.
MindWandererB 10-06-06, 04:57 PM	I started another thread with this, but since that thread seems to have died, I'll repost here: On starting sessions with an encounter: I only wish I could try this. My players are pretty inexperienced, and we have sessions that last 3 hours at most, so one fight is about all we get. I try to start with the fight rather than ending with it, but sometimes it's just not possible to do so, especially if enthusiasm is fading along with energy levels, so that I have to save RP and downtime for next session. On spicing up role-playing: Drama. That's all. If you as the DM are a decent actor, ham it up. Make every NPC exxagerated and interesting. I can't tell you what a big difference it makes when you adopt an accent or odd mannerisms, versus just using your own voice, or worse, do everything in third person ("he tells you that...). Energy levels during the exchange multiply by five. If you aren't much of an actor, there's another solution: get one of the players to do it (or better yet, someone who happens to be around but isn't playing). Give them a brief background on the character and tell them to ham it up. You will often get hands-down the most memorable encounters you've ever had (although if the player's PC is around, it's a bit awkward for them; it's best to arrange otherwise). On mundane gear and encumbrance: My players have the unfortunate tendency of playing 10 Str halflings who try to carry around all the comforts of home. So using the encumbrance rules is almost mandatory. Handy Haversacks are among the first things any of them end up buying.
a_psh 10-06-06, 05:41 PM	Andy mentions that role-playing encounters often involve only one or two PLAYERS, while the rest of the group is left to daze into space, read books, check football scores, etc. At the end of the podcast, they solicited input as to how people are dealing with this sort of thing, and how they're handling role-playing encounters with a group.This is because the D&D books never really address the actual act of collaborative imagination or the social contract that is really at the heart of any RPG, and most D&D players don't have extensive experience with situations that do make you explicitly think about these things. Improv is the best example to use here, because improv folks have developed some very terse and simple explanations for all this stuff, and that's better than reading 50 pages. "Don't say 'No', say 'Yes, and'," the adage goes. In essence, when someone offers something up, you can't reject it, because then the scene dies since the social contract of it has been broken. The shared imaginative space goes *poof*. So, you have to say "yes". But not just "yes". "Yes, and." What's the difference? "Yes" is just an acknowledgment. It doesn't move the scene forward. You have to accept someone else's creative input and then actually integrate it with your own. Many D&D gamers I know have a vague concept of the difference between "No" and "Yes" but not the difference between "Yes" and "Yes, and". Moreover, quite a few can't deal with "Yes, and". Groups that run this way are easy to spot: everyone kind of spins out his own little story but they don't really relate at all. Steve's character might be the king's bastard son, for example, but nobody in the group notices and it never matters unless Steve brings it up or the GM has a "just for Steve" "plot arc". Or, perhaps worse, Steve may get offended and outright defensive when you piggy-back on that character detail, as if you have no right to bring it up in play. This massive case of talking past each other seems to be the character of like half the D&D games out there. Many gamers think of the collaborative storytelling as simply taking turns being sole-author and just aren't comfortable jumping into a "roleplaying encounter" after someone else has already stepped up to play the main role. Moreover, I don't think "RP encounter" boredom is really any different from players being bored in combat. It's just that combat enforces a turn order such that everyone takes turns doing a little thing and then sitting around and doing nothing for a while, so the illusion of participation is greater. But look at how people react when it's "not their turn to roleplay" vs. what they do when it's not their turn in combat and I think a lot of similarities will emerge. Here's something Vincent Baker wrote in DitV. I thought it was cool and insightful, and he posted it freely on his website, so it's not breaching anything to copy it here.Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know, do things like that.) Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about digressions. ... Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job. With the above in mind, it seems like another reason some folks tend to clam up in "roleplaying encounters" is that it's often more acceptable to chatter and laugh and give advice in combat than it is to do so in an "RP encounter". Certainly most GMs and players will glare at you less. But, overall, it's a symptom of the fact that most roleplaying isn't nearly as much about "collaborative imagination" as it's hyped up to be. Which is fine because there are plenty of ways to have fun and all, but it's something to keep in mind. The best way to not have any fun doing something is to build up insanely high hopes and have them all crashing down, after all. If you really really want to live up to the "collaborative imagination" idea, think hard about how you play and why you play and really work share your input rather than just putting it all together in a confined space but keeping it from mixing, as lots of folks tend to do.
Wilamac 10-06-06, 06:52 PM	Our sessions always start with the rolling of an initiative chart (usualy 4 sets of initiative). When it comes to an encounter we just roll a d4 and go with the coresponding initiative count. I can't remember where I read this helpful tool but once we started using it we have not gone back. We find that this saves time when an encounter starts and also helps to focus the players during that chaotic first half hour of the session. We do this even when I as DM know that the players may not even have a combat encounter in a session (this has happened). So in our group rolling for initiative at the begining of a session does not garuntee combat. It is just a useful tool for us to save what limited play time we have. I find it unusual that people have a hard time keeping players involed and interested so that they don't wander off. We haven't had that problem sinces our 13 player games back in high school. If combat flows nicely, I find that my players don't have time to wonder off and are interested in what the others are doing even when it is not their turn. :D
Moleculor 10-06-06, 10:02 PM	Ok, I have no comment (yet) on the actual topic of this thread, however, this thread is indicated as the proper place to discuss the October podcast when you click on the Discuss this Article link on the article, so I'm here to discuss it. 1. Please stop using m4a files in the XML feed. I do not own a m4a player. I own an mp3 player. Every. Single. Other. Podcast in existence uses MP3s. At least, all the ones I listen to do, and I listen to 15-20. Just because iPod might (MIGHT, I don't even own one) play m4a files, and iTunes MIGHT be the biggest podcast aggregator out there does NOT make iPod the ONLY mp3 player out there, and it does NOT make iTunes the only aggregator out there. 2. You need a point of contact. There wasn't one given in the September podcast. I haven't listened to the October one yet (because it's in m4a, and I'm still downloading the mp3 version manually after searching for it on the website). Email, phone, mp3s attached to email, something. 3. You need an actual URL. A website, something you can punch into the browser to get a list of ALL the podcasts, if you're actually considering making this into a real podcast. Something that you can rattle off on air. www.wizards.com/dnd/podcast would work nicely. The current system of having each podcast hosted individually in its own separate article is kludgy at best. Annoying too.
snakeheadfish33 11-21-06, 04:40 PM	I just wanted to shout out that Dark Horse Press will be publishing all of Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar books. Actually the first volume was released on November 15th and the second volume is available for pre-order. For those who like pictures to go along with their reading, Dark Horse Comics will also be re-publishing the comic book adaptaions written by Howard Chaykin and Mike Mignola in March 2007. So contrary to what was stated in the podcast ... Leiber's work is not so hard to find.
Drammattex 11-22-06, 10:44 AM	Absolutely loving the podcasts. I think the practical advice given is very valuable-- important for new DMs and players, and really good reminders/focus points for veterans. Specifically, the point in the discussion with Gwendolyn Kesterel regarding keeping the game moving rather than flipping through rulebooks. I think hearing this sort of discussion amongst the designers is REALLY good for those of us out in the field. There's an onus to get things "right" which can frequently impede gameplay. The comparison to Axis & Allies and Monopoly and the purpose of those rules as opposed to the purpose of the D&D rules was great. I also loved the discussion of the city. Mike Mearls is always focusing on "creative gameplay." It comes up in every podcast. Creative gameplay, as Mearls references it, involves players and DMs making choices that take advantage not necessarily of the specific game rules but the story environment and the options the players and DM open up as they play. I'm using Iron Heroes as my main ruleset right now because I feel it strongly encourages that sort of play, although I'm still buying D&D books like Cityscape that apply to the fantasy world in general. Thanks, guys. These podcasts have been incredible.
Drammattex 11-22-06, 10:47 AM	I notice that the "Discuss this article" icon on the podcast web page directs to this forum thread that I started. In order to keep it all together, here's the link for the discussion for the SECOND podcast, regarding Ravenloft and horror: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=724642
tryco 11-22-06, 11:12 AM	why is the november edition so late.
WotC Mearls 11-22-06, 12:37 PM	why is the november edition so late. We had a podcast traffic jam! From what I understand, each team at Wizards (D&D, Magic, Dreamblade) was allocated 1 podcast a month. However, the podcasts have been so much fun that we keep doing more, more, and more. Unfortunately, we did so many that our Mighty Production Team is completely buried in work! They're catching up. I know that we have 2 more 'casts in production for D&D. Moleculor - I think a lot of the issues you raise tie back into what I said above. The podcasts have been far more popular than anyone anticipated. I think they were started as kind of a lark and have grown ever larger. I'll bring up your issues at our next production meeting, but it might take time to implement changes. In particular, it'd be nice to have a more formal way to read and respond to feedback. Drammattex - Sorry I didn't see this thread earlier! I really, really like your advice for playing two games at once. It strikes me as an interesting way to look at D&D, and it addresses a lot of the issues I see with the story/game divide. About creative gameplay: one thing that I want to add is that I also see creative gameplay as the union of DM and player creativity. For instance, I'm writing up Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain for one of my D&D campaigns. One of the things I like about the module is that it's open ended. There's not really a story contained within the module, or in the notes I've made to run it, but when the players interact with the environment a story will arise. The characters might try to burn the steading to the ground; they might sneak in and assassinate giants one by one. They might use illusions to trick the giants and turn them against each other. To me, a major element of creative gameplay lies in the limitless options that RPGs provide. The players, through their decisions and actions, create situations and events that I as DM couldn't predict. IMNSHO, some of the best parts of a D&D campaign are when the players react to things, or make plans, that are at best tangentially related to the rules. To take an example from the latest podcast, when chasing a villain through the city streets one character jumps on to a passing wagon; another climbs a building to run across the roof and intercept the villain; another points at the fleeing guy and yells, "That guy stole my coin purse. 100 gold to whoever stops him!" Those are all smart ideas, but none of them are (likely) inherently tied to a feat, spell, or magic item. They're just smart, interesting things to do to catch a fleeing bad guy. BTW, if anyone is interesting in other gaming podcasts, I recommend 2d6 Feet in a Random Direction. You can find it here: www.2d6feet.com In particular, the latest episode has some really good advice on building links between the PCs in an adventuring party.
Drammattex 12-01-06, 03:08 PM	This week, Mike spoke with Keith Baker about Eberron, followed up by a conversation with Matt Sernett and Steve Schubert regarding the recent Blood War D&D Miniatures set. Keith spoke a little bit about Eberron and the process of bringing the world from its "setting bible" stage, when the final three concepts were competing for the honor of being "the" setting WotC would produce. He explained Eberron as a medieval world where magic had thrived instead of technology. The most interesting point of the interview was when Mike asked Keith if there was anything that he was sorry did not make it into the setting. Keith said that he had divided even the oceans into different political zones, giving sahuagin a great empire. He talked about how the sahuagin are generally smarter than people are, and that they're the equivalent of Deep Ones, further expounding on this other realm that lies beneath the surface of the water on Eberron. I must say, the concept of all these political zones existing beneath the ocean was pretty cool, and I hope that it appears in a future product. I'm happy I didn't succeed in running Keith over with my car last August(see the link to my Gen Con blog for the complete story). Mike went on to speak with Matt & the man we know as "Shoe" about Blood War. It was a very informative interview for those of you who don't hang out daily at the WotC DDM forums, at Maxminis, and Hordelings, slavering over every scrap of info we get. Since that's where I've spent my message board time in the past, there weren't big surprises for me, but the talk was interesting, especially the discussion on how/why minis made certain sets and how/why they didn't. I gleaned from the conversation that there had been another yugoloth scheduled for Blood War, but it was just too big to fit in the box. The Maug and Pit Fiend had to be altered so they would fit; the Maug lost his weapon in the process. Shoe also noted that The Night Below set which comes out next summer may take his top slot for "best. set. evar..." If you haven't listened to the podcast yet, I highly recommend it. It gives you a lot of great insights into design.
rutherfordr 12-12-06, 04:26 PM	I agree -- that was an excellent podcast, and it was really interesting to hear what the miniatures designers had to say. In one of the next podcasts, I'd like to hear an interview with Gwendolyn Kestrel -- she has written so many interesting things that it would be fascinating to hear what she's been working on lately. -- Rick
Drammattex 12-17-06, 03:12 AM	The most recent D&D podcast was an interview with R.A. Salvatore. I liked this one for personal reasons. I went through middle school on DragonLance. The Forgotten Realms books were just starting to go into print when I was in 8th grade. After I'd finished the first two Moonshae books, I read The Crystal Shard, and I was instantly taken with Drizzt, Wulfgar, Bruenor, Regis, and Catti-Brie. I had just as hot a fever for the Icewind Dale trilogy as I had had for DragonLance previously. When the Dark Elf books were printed, it took me a while to get into them, but eventually Homeland hit its stride, and I burned through the first two books of that series until I reached Sojourn, which was slow going for me. Finally, there was The Legacy. I won't ruin it for you, but some big events occurred in the book that made me want to put it down and never return. I put it down. I never returned (incidentally, Dragons of Summer Flame had the same effect on me in the DragonLance world). Since the publications of The Legacy and Dragons of Summer Flame, I have not read any more DragonLance or Forgotten Realms novels. This year has been a kind of rebirth. While I still haven't read any more DragonLance or Forgotten Realms novels, this is the year I've come to appreciate their authors. I met Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman at the Borders in Chicago when they came through promoting their new book this summer, and then I met Tracy again and again at Gen Con-- in elevators, next to booths-- and I must say he's got to be the nicest guy in the writing biz. Where I had pigeon-holed him into the "authors I liked when I was a kid" category of my mind, I have a newfound respect for the man, and I think I'm going to be going back to read his stuff-- probably even the new DragonLance Chronicles (dark Chronicles? lost Chronicles?). He's had that much impact on me. As for Salvatore, listening to him speak on the podcast was wonderful. I'm sure most of you have seen/heard him before- he seems to have innumerable fans- but this was my first time hearing him. He was warm, funny, conversational... and he loves gaming and he loves telling stories. I'm not sure I'll ever read another Drizzt novel, but I have to respect Salvatore himself; he seems like a truly excellent guy. I'm so glad he was interviewed on the podcast.
DeathCompany 12-17-06, 02:33 PM	Hey there, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this podcast immensely. I happened to have ran "The Fire in L'Trel" many years ago, it was one of my first experiences at DMing and running a pre-written adventure. I must say it was wonderfully written, with a lot of great elements. I particularly remember Kerga the gypsy, an NPC that the party helped along the way. Kerga and the party's ranger got along quite well, and of course he received the gypsy earring, marking him as a friend of gypsies. I was able to use that a number of times throughout the campaign as an adventure hook or a way for the PCs to obtain help from their gypsy companions. Kerga even made several reappearances once in a while ;) , and overall that one encounter really added a ton of flavor to the campaign later on. Thanks for taking me down memory lane :)
Escef 12-17-06, 03:29 PM	I met Salvatore a few years back on the Silver Anniversary Tour. Seemed a fairly down to earth guy. His work isn't Shakespear, but it's entertaining and I identified with Drizzt back when I was in high school. I envy how prolific the man is.
Seeker95 12-17-06, 05:24 PM	Whether or not any particular girl is "into" the mechanics aspect of a D&D game is irrelevant to the larger point that girls in general don't seem terribly interested in mechanics qua mechanics. Though anecdotal experience is not data, almost every male D&D gamer I've ever played with has been interested in building heavily optimized characters, and none of the female gamers I've played with have been interested in doing the same.I'll "counter" the anecdote. Almost every first-time player I've played with -- male or female -- has been clueless about the mechanics, and trying to get a hold on some grasp of the RP. Almost every long-time player I've played with -- male or female -- has been a toss-up of focus on mechancis optimization or RP delineation, with the majority focusing on a rather significant blend of both.
Moleculor 12-20-06, 10:35 PM	Yay! The podcasts are MP3 files now! *cheers*
noctambulist 01-16-07, 11:26 AM	I just stumbled upon this podcast and wanted to say how much I enjoy it. Great content and interviews, I hope you keep making them.
Edymnion 01-16-07, 12:40 PM	The Problem: With the onset of 3e and the further development brought by 3.5 and D&D Miniatures, D&D has become much more a strategy game than a role-playing game.I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this one. Its a tired old fallacy, and it just isn't true. The amount of rules that any given system has does not indicate nor encourage one style of play over another. I have personally seen people powergame in BESM, and spend entire sessions playing Champions without ever rolling dice. If someone is having a problem with the game turning into a strategy game instead of a roleplaying game, then the fault is with the DM and the players, not the system. If the DM thinks its getting too tactical, then why does he keep throwing nothing but combat encounters at the group? If the Players think its too combat heavy, why do they keep fighting? The only comparison you can make between rules complexity and play is that the more complex the rules, the more proficient with them any given player must be in order to get a desired result, and anyone proficient with any given set of rules will be able to make them work to their advantage. But the bottom line is that the problem is not with the system, it is with the DM and the Players. Nowhere in the rules has roleplaying ever been more encouraged in D&D than in 3e (seriously, go back and check the previous editions and tell me how much material you find for personal interaction between characters, I'll wait). The worst crime the recent rules has commited against roleplaying is that its made it easier for lazy people to be lazy when it comes to roleplaying. Lazy players that just want to roll dice, and lazy DMs that just don't care enough to say anything about it. Again, its not a problem with the game, its a problem with the players, and its the same problem that has been around since day 1.Yay! The podcasts are MP3 files now! *cheers*They are? I might have to listen to one then, if they've finally decided that using a standard format that everybody can actually play is a good idea.
Drammattex 01-22-07, 11:52 AM	I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this one. Its a tired old fallacy, and it just isn't true. No, that is your opinion vs. my opinion. It's not a "fallacy" if there are others who believe it to be true, as well.
Drammattex 01-22-07, 02:07 PM	The new podcast was on the history and politics of the Nine Hells, from the original article in The Best of The Dragon II (way back when) all the way to the current Fiendish Codex II. Mike & Andy brought in Steve Winter and James Wyatt to speak. It's always great to hear what Steve has to say. I loved the 2nd Ed. "Complete Psionics Handbook" when it came out, as well as the recent stuff Steve has been doing on the D&D Web Site, such as the "Reclamation" solo scenario he drew up last year for D&D minis. I thought this podcast was entertaining, and it certainly was fun to reminisce back on the olden days of 1st Ed. (I was there!) when you could buy a Monster Manual for $10!!! The only comment I really have to make is I find it odd that everyone on the podcast liked Baalzebul's incarnation as a big, bug-eyed guy instead of his current incarnation as a giant slug thing. I too find the slug thing pretty weird; I liked the old one much better.
lucifer777 01-22-07, 03:02 PM	I like the fact that my question got answered ON AIR, with words and stuff :P *Is Adam with the "creepy evil wizard guy" question.:D
Shrindi 01-22-07, 03:23 PM	No, that is your opinion vs. my opinion. And if it is a "tired old fallacy," there are others who believe it to be true, as well. Calling BS doesn't make you any more right, just another ego on a message board. If you'd like to discuss this with me, please PM me or start a thread on the D&D boards and make me aware of it. There is a huge thread on this very subject burning up the boards right now. I think it is closed now. This argument makes me laugh though. The game can be whatever the players and the dm want it to be really. All the books are even called "guides". Not authoritative concrete rules. It's pretty flexible I think and I have only been playing for a year or so. "The Stormwind Fallacy" http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=758698&page=37
a_psh 01-22-07, 04:04 PM	The game can be whatever the players and the dm want it to be really.Umm, no. The system coordinates the interactions between players, their little real-world game props (dice), and the shared fiction of the game. Like so (http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html). For example, when we have a big swordfight in D&D, the system is telling us how it plays out, and what happens in the end, which then influences the shared fiction. The HP abstraction, for example, causes pretty much all battles to go til death or unconsciousness, since those are the outcomes the mechanics really supply (whereas an outcome like "I chop off the orc's hand at the wrist," in contrast, is only available if you try really hard to force it on top of a system that doesn't support it very well at all). Therefore, a D&D battle will progress different and end differently than a battle in a "realistic" (or just critical-happy) system, such as Rolemaster or something. So, how is the system not influencing the events in the shared fiction here? All the books are even called "guides". Not authoritative concrete rules.You're talking about small changes. Tweaks and house rules and whatnot. This is wholey different from changing entire games. Anything that actively determines how players, props, and the shared fiction of the game relate to each other inherently sets up some limits related to that shared fiction, since it determines how the props and players influence it. A set of rules that doesn't do this contributes nothing to actually creating the shared fiction, which is the whole point of playing the game to begin with. Moreover, RPG rules inherently contain a social contract, which can be bent but not outright broken. This channels the shared act of imagination in a specific direction. And RPG that doesn't do this is useless, because, once again, it's irrelevant to the actual shared imagining of things. It's pretty flexible I think and I have only been playing for a year or so.As I said above, any set of rules that is overly "flexible" doesn't actually accomplish anything, because it's powerless to channel the group's creativity into a productive form. Also, when you play D&D, you have to understand what you're playing. Specifically, this genre of "D&D fantasy". There are some critical choices the game makes that you may not even see as choices unless you really step really far back and look at the big picture. Take this whole idea that practically everything in the world is either ridiculously stronger than you or substantially weaker than you with only a fairly small subset of potential enemies being "just right," combined with the idea that personal power is more important than numbers. Those are big design assumptions that are embedded into the very heart of the game. "The Stormwind Fallacy"... has nothing to do with this. It says nothing about the role of system in an RPG. Hell, system is, definitionally, the way the group agrees to imagined events during play. That's its sole real purpose. To say that system doesn't actually do this is to say that you're not using the system at all.
Drammattex 01-22-07, 04:23 PM	It's pretty flexible I think and I have only been playing for a year or so. I agree with you. I've seen a dozen flame-ridden threads on the D&D boards regarding whether D&D 3.x is role-play friendly or not. I'm an actor, and I play with improvisors, actors and writers. Our games are always story/character heavy, no matter what edition we play. I've been playing since 1982, DMing since 1990. The point I was trying to make earlier follows this way: - the older editions were somewhat ambiguous in many places, especially in terms of where you were standing in combat; combat took place in the mind, or somewhat haphazardly on a gaming table. Since most (most, not all) gamers didn't have/carry around tons of miniatures or counters in the 80's, it was especially important to describe where you were and what you were doing, and it was important that the GM understand this as well. Thus, the game tended to be more verbal and less visual. - 3.x improved the game (IMO) by giving firmer rules for what you could physically do, including five foot steps, line of sight, etc. You don't have to use miniatures, per se, but if you're playing by 3.5 rules and you get into combat, you're looking at a graph and you're using strategic and tactical thinking in those situations more than you would be in the earlier editions, where you were essentially telling the story of what you were doing and the DM verbally affirming that and responding. - there have been power gamers in every edition and role-players in every edition. Despite this, I have noticed that the same folks I was playing the early editions with are playing the game a different way now. It's not because they want to stop being role-players. It's because the game gives them much clearer rules for what their characters can and can't tactically accomplish in combat or with magic. If the rules for Fantasy Flight's DESCENT were suddenly called "D&D 4th Edition," it wouldn't mean that we had to stop role-playing, but the way the game played would certainly shift. Since there was more focus on combat, the players would take that into account. - again, to clarify: my point isn't that 3.x forces you to role-play less. It's that IN MY EXPERIENCE the nature of the standard game has shifted a little from a more verbal medium to a more visual/tactical one. D&D is a game of heroic adventure. So you CAN role-play as much as you like-- you don't have to roll a single die in a session if you wish, it's up to you-- but looking through the three core books, you're not going to find a lot of "game elements" that have to do with creative character development or the introduction of dramatic action to further story and affect the characters emotionally (which is the HEART of real drama). It's not set up that way. My :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents: :twocents:
WotC Mearls 01-22-07, 07:34 PM	I like the fact that my question got answered ON AIR, with words and stuff :P *Is Adam with the "creepy evil wizard guy" question.:D Awesome. Hope the answer was useful. - Mike
Deekin 01-22-07, 07:56 PM	I just listened to the podcast, and though it was good. Only two problems. 1. On Bags of Holding If a bag of holding is turned inside out, its contents spill out, unharmed, but the bag must be put right before it can be used again. 2. It's Pronounced Sig-el not Sij-el. Correct pronunciation (http://www.planewalker.com/downloads/soundsLike/files/SIGIL.WAV)
neostrider 01-22-07, 08:58 PM	There should be a link in the podcast pages to a email address or something where we can e-mail suggested topics of discussion. I like it when they address players more than promote new books. Don't get me wrong, I think the book discussions are the best way of finding out how badly I need the next book. This is a great idea, and I can only wish they'd post new episodes weekly :)
goldjas 01-23-07, 12:34 AM	I just listened to the podcast, and though it was good. Only two problems. 1. On Bags of Holding 2. It's Pronounced Sig-el not Sij-el. Correct pronunciation (http://www.planewalker.com/downloads/soundsLike/files/SIGIL.WAV) I remember it being pronounced si-jil in Planescape Torment, so thats what I've always called it. I don't think it hardly matters anyway, generally the people that originially write that stuff don't think of how the words are pronounced anyway.
a_psh 01-23-07, 08:57 AM	I don't think it hardly matters anyway, generally the people that originially write that stuff don't think of how the words are pronounced anyway.There's a quote in the Planescape boxed set, probably Sigil and Beyond page 10-ish, where they tell you how to say it. ;) I agree that pronouncing it like the common word is, well, easier and more natural, though.
johnnype 01-23-07, 11:54 AM	To the powers that be, I love the podcast, just have one criticism: can we lose the "hot seat" portion of the broadcast. It's actually quite lame. Surely we can find something more interesting and useful to talk about.
Drammattex 01-23-07, 12:25 PM	Aw, I think the hot seat is kinda fun. Gives you a little bit of an insight into how the complexities of the rules work.
johnnype 01-23-07, 01:09 PM	But does it really? I mean, how often are you going to bother with centaur riding paladins? Maybe it's just me but I've always found rule questions profoundly uninteresting.
Drammattex 01-23-07, 02:40 PM	Definitely never going to bother with the centaurs bearing an attacking rider, that's true. What I did glean from that question, though, was the prospect of using two lancesin a charge, and how Mike tried to address it. As a DM, I'd never let that happen, but not because of the 'centaur allowing a rider' rule, but rather because it goes against the spirit of the rules. Since when can two creatures attack as one, coordinating those attacks to do more damage on the same initiative count? I would probably allow one of them to use the "Aid Another" action, but not give them two charge attacks. Trying to coordinate two lances hitting the target at the exact same time, and presuming the target continues to stand straight after the first lance has hit it... that's a gamble. It goes against the grain of the D&D rules. I WOULD, however, allow a player to attempt the same thing as a combat stunt in Iron Heroes. Coordinating something gutsy, risky, and weird like that is what I think Iron Heroes is all about. Also, since you're fighting standard D&D creatures without the use of magic or healing in Iron Heroes, you need all the help you can get. So yeah, I just thought it was interesting to think about that. Not necessary--it will never come up in my game--but I thought it was an interesting topic. In the same way, I thought the results of the hypothetical situation of a polymorphed creature being swallowed were interesting. D&D 3.x has fixed things so that in general no rule/ability should allow a loophole to bypass the normal process of things. For example, in 2nd Ed, one of our PCs used to use Shrink spells on guards' helmets to crush their heads and kill them instantly with a low-level spell. Nothing in 2nd Ed explicitly says you can't do this (like it does in 3rd Ed). So, the question of the polymorph/swallow was interesting for that same reason. My guess was that the creature would appear next to the creature that had swallowed it. That's the spirit of 3rd Ed. However, as DM, as long as it wasn't a PC, I would probably rule in favor of having the swallowed creature do the coolest thing story-wise, whether perishing in the creature's innards or bursting forth from its chest. Anyway, that's why I found the speculation interesting. Those situations will probably never come up in my game, but I enjoy a little of the "meta-talk" of the rules sometimes.
Dragon Snack 01-23-07, 03:12 PM	No, that is your opinion vs. my opinion. It's not a "fallacy" if there are others who believe it to be true, as well. It's misleading though, since it doesn't HAVE to be true. It's a common 3.x dig and you're perpetuating something that is not necessarily true. Lots of people used to believe that the Earth was flat. That doesn't mean it wasn't a fallacy...
Drammattex 01-23-07, 03:32 PM	It's misleading though, since it doesn't HAVE to be true. It's a common 3.x dig and you're perpetuating something that is not necessarily true. Lots of people used to believe that the Earth was flat. That doesn't mean it wasn't a fallacy... Go back and read my entire post to see what I am perpetuating.
Leress 01-24-07, 08:32 PM	What if I used Diplomancy to make the Centaur Fanatical?
johnnype 02-01-07, 04:50 PM	Something just occured to me. How about interviewing some of the artists? I'd love to learn more about Wayne Reynolds and Kyle Hunter to name just two. I'm sure that they are more than just artists they are in all likelyhood, fans of the game as well. Just a thought.
johnnype 02-26-07, 04:34 PM	Dorkness Rising? Please. I'd be fine with topics like this if this were a weekly podcast but to blow an entire episode on this is a waste of time. Time best devoted to other subjects. Guys, I know that you eat, breathe and sleep D&D and are probably bored to tears of it by now. You want to talk about something else and this movie fits the bill and also is marginally related to D&D. It's fine if you want to devote 5 or 10 minutes to this but an entire podcast is a bit much. All the meta-game talk makes me want to put a bullet in my head. It's like beating a dead horse. For that type of talk just go listen to any of the other RPG podcasts out there. Dorkness rising, although quaint and interesting in a footnote kind of way hardly makes for interesting material when you have 50+ books in your library you could be talking about. Hell, just grab one of the writers and ask him or her to discuss a recently released project. You've done it in the past. I know you can do it again. How about having Keith Baker as a recurring guest. Have him give us a 5 minutes on Eberron. Same with Eric Boyd and the Realms. Sorry to be so hard on you guys but I look forward to podcast and was unimpressed with the last episode.
Jinnetics 02-27-07, 12:34 AM	I'm hoping for a killer podcast for the Magic Item Compendium. I was tired of the hotseat after the first one.
WizO_Cat 02-28-07, 05:50 PM	Ok, let's keep the posts polite. That includes attributing rude quotes to people who didn't make them. Better yet, keep the discussion on the topic of the thread, not other guests. Thank you.
Jinnetics 03-10-07, 11:04 AM	Any idea when the next podcast is coming?
tryco 03-10-07, 11:25 AM	yeah, i think the podcasts are taking a long time to come up. i enjoy listening to them (ok, the last one wasn't great). i hope the next one will be about dungeonscape, giving ideas about unique adventures and stuff.
noctambulist 03-29-07, 04:46 PM	Maybe it's just me but I've always found rule questions profoundly uninteresting. I actually like the "hot seat" section. I'm rather new to D&D so maybe I'm just not jaded to "rule questions" just yet. My big complaint is that the podcast doesn't come out often enough. I agree that the Dorkness Rising episode was a bit of a let down. I wouldn't mind checking out the movie or even hearing this podcast if it was a weekly episode, but after waiting a month + for the podcast to come out, I wanted something a little more "on topic" I guess.
tryco 03-29-07, 05:42 PM	what's keeping the new podcast so long.:rant: it's been a month now, and april is waiting at the door :P. at least let them give note for when the new one is expected. or were mike and andy put down by the bad podcasts from last month.
Jinnetics 03-30-07, 10:31 PM	It's out now! And it's a whopping good one. Thanks, David and Mike, for keeping me awake at work today.
tryco 03-31-07, 04:01 AM	yeah... it took a long time but it's finally here. i must say, it was quite interesting. i'm not dissapointed. next time... magic items. should be interesting.
Drammattex 04-02-07, 12:02 PM	I liked the podcast. I think they brought up some good points in regards to the attitude towards dungeons (i.e. players & DMs who don't want to run them because they appear limiting, as opposed to wilderness/city/rpg adventures where the choices are endless). I love what Jason Buhlman and Rich Burlew did with Dungeonscape. In that book, they detail ways to make a dungeon an environment that can be just as rich in role-playing and decision making as any other. WotC's new view on traps is also pretty cool, pointing out the problems traps pose in keeping a game session running. David Noonan says he doesn't think anyone noticed that he didn't use any door traps in The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde. As DM, I did notice that, but my players don't seem to have caught on yet. They're 2/3 of the way through and they're still stopping, listening, checking, etc. It's funny-- the days that the rogue can't make it to the game session, the games move faster because the party doesn't have many ways to avoid traps. Thus, they kick in the door and take on the monsters. I think I'll be adjusting the trap procedure, making rolls for the rogue or giving little clues, while letting the player know that they don't have to formally declare it in the regular course of things. It's a step away from tradition, but man does it ever slow the game down. Encounter traps (in Dungeonscape) are awesome. At any rate, the discussion was very enjoyable. I like dungeons nowadays, but after Slaughtergarde I'm going to take a break from them-- from BIG dungeons, anyway. As cool as they really can be, they're definitely not my preference. I DO like small dungeons, though. Small sites, ruins, caves, and the like can really fit well into an adventure that's included role-play, overland travel, a civilized area, etc. Good stuff.
johnnype 04-04-07, 04:33 PM	I enjoyed this latest podcast as well. Thanks to Mike and David for taking time out of their busy day to put it together. The guests were also fun to listen to. I'm surprised and a little dissapointed they didn't tell us more about Dungeonscape. I buy a lot of WotC's D&D books and Dungeonscape is one I'm on the fence about. It would have been nice to get a little more detail on it.
WotC Mearls 04-05-07, 05:57 PM	I enjoyed this latest podcast as well. Thanks to Mike and David for taking time out of their busy day to put it together. The guests were also fun to listen to. I'm surprised and a little dissapointed they didn't tell us more about Dungeonscape. I buy a lot of WotC's D&D books and Dungeonscape is one I'm on the fence about. It would have been nice to get a little more detail on it. Ha! We try to avoid going too much into selling the books, because we want the show to be entertaining without turning into a blatant commercial. That said, do you have any specific questions about the book? Glad people liked the show, by the way. We're definitely learning as we go. I felt that our last show was one of our better ones, and the two Chrises were great guests.
Elemental_Elf 04-05-07, 10:05 PM	I absolutely LOVE the Podcasts. I'm a new DM, well relatively new, my campaign has been going on for 5 weeks or so. These Podcasts have helped me immensely; I can't really describe how helpful they have been. The Podcasts have broadened my D&D horizons with out actually spending hours and hours at the gaming table. I have learned so much... I know I'm sounding a bit like a broken record here but... I just enjoy them so much. Anyways, I do have a complaint (or 2). First off these Podcasts are so fun, so fresh, so informative that 1 a month just doesn't satisfy. I need more. If that is too much to ask, and it probably is, I would love for the podcasts to be extended, form an hour (or so) to maybe an hour and a half. Squeezing an extra segment in would... It would make my month! :D And finally, thank you for making these Podcasts.
Drammattex 04-09-07, 03:23 PM	I buy a lot of WotC's D&D books and Dungeonscape is one I'm on the fence about. It would have been nice to get a little more detail on it. Hey johnnype, just a user opinion, but I was more impressed with Dungeonscape than any of the other environment books, so much so that I actually consider Dungeonscape CORE now. Here's a little discussion of Dungeonscape on Hordelings (http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/forums/postView.php?post_id=61144). I'm one of those DMs who has an aversion to dungeons because I'm trying to run my campaign like a TV show, comic, or movie-- it's really important to me that the game is about characters, and character change above all else. The concept of going down into a hole in the earth and fighting things to take their stuff was exciting to me twenty-five years ago, but I got bored with it. That is, until now. Dungeonscape is (IMO) very well thought-out, and Rich & Jason turn the dungeon into an environment both like and unlike any other. It's like other environments in that they talk about having different factions in the dungeon (i.e. not everything in the dungeon is out to kill them necessarily), and the PCs can deal/negotiate with or between these factions, as well as meet outsiders who may not be cooperating members of monster society. They essentially give you a reason to have a Charisma score in a dungeon. :D Anyway, there are also encounter traps (Indiana Jones-esque traps that require the entire party to avoid/break them while the rogue tries to disarm them), and there's a new "jack of all trades" class which is nothing whatsoever like the bard. It's SUPER cool, in my opinion, and has made me reconsider the dungeon in a big, big way. Putting a full cast of NPC characters down there, each struggling to reach his own ends while using the PCs to their best advantage sounds like a lot of fun. Not only do you get to bash monsters, but you can interact/ally with them as well. Sure, everyone has a story of how they've done that in this or that campaign, but the dungeon "norm" is the kill things and take their stuff model. I truly love how Rich & Jason have written around that (lead Design: Mike Mearls).
Escef 04-09-07, 04:09 PM	<snip> Well, you've just convinced me to at least look at a book I never had any interest in.
Drammattex 04-09-07, 04:43 PM	Well, you've just convinced me to at least look at a book I never had any interest in. :) Yeah, take a look. One of the things I like most about it is what I'd call "dungeon philosophy," which is the parts near the back of the book discussing their thoughts on dungeons. I just remembered-- another cool thing about the book is a section where they recommend setting up encounters based on purpose/function... before you even draw the room. You take an archer encounter, for example, and look at ways to optimize that encounter for the archers, providing them with blockers, terrain, etc. You run your "test party" into the room. What would they do first? If the fighters could charge the archers, you know you have a problem. So now you know you need to add difficult terrain, some fallen pillars, some cover, maybe even ledges for the archers to fire. Traps? Door mechanisms? Etc. The thought is that you're designing every encounter from the standpoint of the specific challenge it poses to your PCs, and you're trying to mix that up so that different areas have different challenges. You're trying to make the most of the challenge by thinking like a PC and adjusting, and then you're drawing the terrain to fit the challenge. It's a backwards way of doing it, but it makes the game part of the game more interesting/challenging/inventive. Anyway, flip through the book at Borders or B&N and check out both the crunch AND the fluff. I think both have some interesting points.
Escef 04-09-07, 05:01 PM	Anyway, flip through the book at Borders or B&N and check out both the crunch AND the fluff. I think both have some interesting points. I don't know if either of those chains are out here. And even if they were, I doubt they'd have an English copy I could look at. :P There's a place downtown I can check out, though.
Drammattex 04-09-07, 06:45 PM	I don't know if either of those chains are out here. And even if they were, I doubt they'd have an English copy I could look at. :P There's a place downtown I can check out, though. Woah! You moved since last I saw you! :D Cool!
Jinnetics 04-10-07, 02:01 AM	As much as I enjoyed the recent podcast on dungeons, I think the shows are better when there are 2-3 segments instead of just 1. I think the latest podcast ended too abruptly.
grrtigger 04-10-07, 07:35 AM	As much as I enjoyed the recent podcast on dungeons, I think the shows are better when there are 2-3 segments instead of just 1. I think the latest podcast ended too abruptly. I agree. although some topics do merit a lot of attention. Maybe have one "main" topic that takes most of the podcast, with a second topic that fills in the rest of the time. I also wish the sound balancing was better. Sometimes one person's volume is really low, and another's is really high, so when you turn up the volume to hear the question your ears get blasted with the answer.
mindrot 04-30-07, 09:35 AM	ugh- when is ep 10 due?
Drammattex 05-14-07, 10:45 AM	Podcast: MAGIC ITEMS. Again, a great discussion on magic items. Lots of great ideas are posited by the designers in this one, including an excellent discourse on how magic items in fiction (the One Ring, Stombringer) differ from the function/purpose of magic items in the game. In fiction, a magic item is usually a part of the plot, so its effects may be mysterious or unpredictable. In D&D, magic items usually have a fixed purpose to help characters overcome obstacles. Anyway, it was a cool talk. I liked it.
RogerC 05-14-07, 11:23 AM	Yep, another good podcast. As far as buying magical items go, I liked what... someone who I forget now, said about the process. "The character got a new sword and spent 100,000 gold throwing an enormous party for the entire city for a whole week." It was an interesting example of how to interpret the gold cost of things in a slightly-less literal manner. Here's a magic item rules question: That rule about weapons and armour requiring at least a base +1 to get other special abilities. Is this a good rule? I'm not entirely so sure. Also, no discussion of intelligent items?? Boooo. Artifacts... man. Back in the day, I think everyone was too scared to use artifacts. They were always shrinking you 1" every time you used them, or changing your alignment to CE, or something similarly awful. A bit of discussion on charged items versus permanent items might have been useful too. Another rules question: All those magic item crafting feats -- Craft Ring, Craft Rod, etc etc -- are those really a good idea? Heck, the entire topic of PCs crafting magic items probably deserved a bit of discussion. Mike, in the "About the Hosts" section, nice to see you managed to get yourself described as "well-endowed". Can't wait for the next one! Cheers, Roger
Drammattex 05-14-07, 03:17 PM	One thing that did rub me the wrong way was the implication that magic items act as the PCs' rewards in-between levels, without which the PCs would have insufficient motivating goals. The designers seemed to frown on DMs who would not give magic items to the PCs. I'm confused by this for two reasons: 1. Mike Mearls wrote Iron Heroes, a system that works because it removes magic items and replaces them with super cool stuff the characters can physically do. 2. Yes, most of us who play the game DO love fantasy fiction. We strive to tell stories that are cool and interesting. The closer a story is to a D&D session (where you can "hear the dice rolling in the prose," as it were), the less interesting it generally is to anyone who wasn't present for it. At certain points in this thread, people have pointed out that D&D is a tool that you can use to tell whatever kind of story you like-- that you can role-play as much or as little as you care to, whether or not role-playing is built into the crunchy core mechanics of the game sytem itself, outside the Charisma/Diplomacy/Bluff scores. Why then should we imply that magic items are necessary for PC motivation? Isn't a good story enough? Dramatic conflicts for characters? New allies and enemies? Can't developing story drive the PCs' actions and provide significant rewards that make the player feel like he/she has accomplished something? It just seemed as though in the podcast the designers were implying that there were two choices: bore your PCs with long, obscure histories of your campaign world, or give them magic items. I'm sure that's not what they meant to say, but it certainly sounded like it. Maybe the problem is that teaching strong storytelling techniques is beyond the scope of the game, or maybe it's assumed that most players aren't interested in that, and maybe both of those assumptions are correct. However... there are a lot of players/DMs out here for whom it is THE most important aspect of the game. Aren't there?
WotC Mearls 05-14-07, 03:56 PM	I like to think that a steady stream of magic item rewards is nice insurance against players who aren't crazy about the story. I'd like to think that I'm half-decent at the story end of DMing, but I also know that there are times when my skills aren't up to snuff - I'm tired, everyone is in the mood to socialize or just stomp monsters rather than think, and so on. The way I see it, magic items/rewards are a net plus for motivating the players. I don't think they replace an interesting story, but they can add a flat increase to the players' fun regardless of what the DM is doing. If your narrative is awesome, mechanical rewards make it better. If it's blah, mechanical rewards still make it better. Does that make sense?
Drammattex 05-14-07, 04:12 PM	If your narrative is awesome, mechanical rewards make it better. If it's blah, mechanical rewards still make it better. Does that make sense? :thumbsup: lol. Yeah, that makes sense. I just get worried that too much magic loses the "magic" of magic sometimes, if you know what I mean-- that's all.
Loki5654 05-14-07, 05:56 PM	I miss the hot seat.
Mr. the Hun 06-04-07, 11:45 PM	Anybody know what the next podcast is about?
Wotc_Mark 06-08-07, 11:30 PM	Drow http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/pod/20070608e11 Enjoy MJ
Drammattex 06-11-07, 11:09 AM	I didn't think I'd be into this podcast when I saw the "Drow" theme pop up on my iPod, but on the contrary I was really surprised by it. I suppose the most surprising thing was how Dave & Mike started off by identifying the two camps-- the ones who LOVE drow and the ones who HATE them-- and identifying (correctly, I think) how the hate seems to stem from Drizzt and the "stereotypical" good drow (which has been parodied so well in Order of the Stick (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0044.html)). I think the reason a lot of people love Drizzt/drow is because the idea of the misunderstood lone wolf (who happens to have extraordinary abilities) is a romantic and attractive notion to many gamers who may feel like outcasts themselves. The same archetype is attractive in many guises (Wolverine, Raistlin...). I think people hate Drizzt/drow because fans of that character latch onto that idea and want to play a clone of him. It's hard being in a party with someone playing a "loner" type, especially when that PC wants to run around and do things on his own or keep information to himself because he's "role-playing." That kind of thing tends to annoy the other players. At the gaming table, people are going to play what they like. I like Gaius Baltar and Colonel Tigh on Battlestar Galactica, so yes, I'd love to play a character that resembled one of them. My only hope for role-play is that players will use the template of their favorite character as inspiration for what they ultimately come up with, not steal whole cloth from often replicated characters like Drizzt. If they want to play a drow loner, that's cool-- I just want to see how their drow loner is different than all the other drow loners out there. But hey, if an animated Drizzt movie came out, I'd buy it, and I pre-ordered my D&D Icons: Legend of Drizzt pack from Amazon several months ago, so regardless of my personal feelings on Drizzt, I'm spending money on him. Good stuff, Mike & Dave.
Qwicksilver 06-11-07, 01:44 PM	Loved the new podcast, i'd say it was a strong one. But please please... BRING BACK THE HOTSEAT.
Jinnetics 07-13-07, 04:14 PM	Episode 12 is out, and IMO it was a blast!
Drammattex 07-16-07, 02:29 PM	I enjoyed the podcast as always. Thought about the fudging/anti-fudging discussion a bit, and I find I fall more on the Mearls side if I'm running homebrew and more on the Noonan side if I'm running a published adventure. Mearls said that in interest of the game, he may occasionally fudge a little in the interest of the player's enjoyment. Noonan said that he never fudges rolls anymore because now that he has established that trust with his players, they know that the dice are never loaded, and so the game is always fair. > When I ran Noonan's Slaughtergarde module last winter, I did everything straight up and by the book. That was fine for Slaughtergarde, a module that was (I assume) tested for balance. However, in the course of my own homebrew games, sometimes I'm not quite certain whether an encounter is entirely balanced or not. In weird situations where I've made an encounter too difficult or too ambiguous, I'll happily make use of "circumstance modifiers." I'd say that if the players don't figure out a tough encounter I've created, 85% of the time it's my fault. They shouldn't have to suffer for that.
aelryinth 07-16-07, 05:28 PM	Keep in mind that magic items also make up for the things PC's cannot do. Iron Heroes is a 'low-magic' setting. To be balanced against monsters, the PC's will either have to be 'more capable' then standard core classes, or they have to have magical items to make up the shortfall. This is why you get things like the Vow Of Poverty. The whole point of the Vow is to not be reliant on magic items, but to do that, your character has to be tremendously, innately potent. In effect, all the effects of the Vow have to duplicate what you reasonably should be capable of as a character with magical items at that level. Iron Heroes does the same sort of thing by changing how the game really works. Import IH PC's into a D@D world, and they break VERY quickly with the cumulative buffing ability. So, in effect, magical items just represent 'incremental increases' in ability. In IH, they call them 'class effects'. In d20, it's called 'gold spent by level on Stuff.' One is just a little bit more flexible then the other. ===Aelryinth
RogerC 08-20-07, 01:09 PM	Congrats on getting a direct link from the main DnD page now! Very well deserved. Cheers, Roger
Kahn265 08-20-07, 02:46 PM	Please update the RSS. A streaming show is NOT a "podcast" because I cannot listen to it on my "ipod".
Jinnetics 08-20-07, 03:40 PM	Yeah, it's not showing up in iTunes under the Podcasts yet....
Wotc_Mark 08-20-07, 05:53 PM	There was something wrong with the feed and it wasnt showing the last two podcasts on itunes. It took a while but I got it working. --MJ :cool:
Jinnetics 08-20-07, 09:41 PM	There was something wrong with the feed and it wasnt showing the last two podcasts on itunes. It took a while but I got it working. --MJ :cool: Muchas gracias!:P
Qwicksilver 08-21-07, 03:33 AM	Listened to episode 14 and 13. 14 was as good as anyone could have done when they had been given direct orders not to be specific. As for 13, I found that there were a lot of interesting points. However, It'd have been nice if either Dave Noonan or Mike Mearls had expounded on their distaste for the bard, what they disliked mechanically or role-playing wise. I know there's a lot of speculation that bard won't make the 4E cut, some have even gone as far as to use direct quotes from podcast episode 13 to support their claims. So in the end, perhaps the topic will once again come up during conversation about 4th edition. All in all, I like the mailbag aspect of the podcast, it would be nice to focus mailbag entries, perhaps one week asking for entries only on a specific subject or hand-picking some questions about a focused topic. Perhaps mailbags will have to cease for now, if the podcasts are going to be focused heavily on parsing out specific 4th edition info.
Keenath 08-21-07, 02:31 PM	I'm interested, for some future podcasts, to hear more about some of the products that were 'testbed' concepts for things that eventually went into 4th edition. The official number that's been thrown around a lot is 2 years in production, and in the podcast he said they've been working on it in a less official way for a lot longer. So I'm curious what classes or concepts were sort of explicitly thought of as "this is a test to see how it'll work", or what wasn't really that, but ended up becoming a first attempt at what has been since refined and added. I think it's obvious that Tome of Battle was a first attempt at some concepts that will be showing up later -- if nothing else, Star Wars Saga Edition includes the maneuver system as its method of administering force powers, and it seems like a good and stable way to handle certain abilities. But some other books that came out during the design process -- the Magic of Incarnum, the Tome of Magic, even the Complete Arcane with the Warlockn class -- Were they considered (beyond their use in a game) as proofs-of-concept for elements that have (or have not) ended up in 4th edition?
Drammattex 08-22-07, 12:12 PM	Mike & Dave, Thanks for the peek behind the curtain. I always enjoy what you guys have to say. I was a pro stage actor in my twenties. The announcement of 4e at Gen Con was like one of those shows where the actors onstage are trying hard to deliver the laugh lines, but the audience just doesn't think the show is that funny. The actor punches the line, waits... awkward silence... and the actor moves on, now feeling anxious and nervous. I don't know if that's how Chris Perkins felt up there, but that's what it looked like. It was no more comfortable for those of us in the audience. The main reason, I think, is that those of us who have been the biggest fans and supported the system the most are the ones who are the hardest hit. This is only one of my bookshelves: http://www.hordelings.com/cache/cache46cc3f838fb30.png Even at Amazon prices, that's about $25/book. There are about 40 books on this shelf. The math on that is not pretty. It's unreasonable to expect that there won't be quite a lot of frustration. But now for the positives... Mike and Dave, I feel that there has been constant improvement in the game, and your names have been on a lot of the best stuff. It's really hard to deny that. And though Mike never really talks about Iron Heroes, I think it's an excellent design and it's the thing that queued me in to the brilliance of Mearls as a designer. Sure, we all grumbled about 3.5 coming out so quickly on the heels of 3.0, but again... I can't deny that there were some marked improvements in the mechanics of the game. Listening to the podcast and reading some of the 4e articles, I do believe that 4e is a better system. I hear the grumblings about WotC being a company that needs to crank out materials to make new editions to sell more product, and while I'm sure that's true to an extent, I honestly believe that those materials are being crafted to the best possible level by designers who are passionate about the game and making the game the best game it can be. It may sound like I'm spouting the company line here, but I've been contemplating this for the last week and I truly feel that it is the case. I have one big concern, and while I realize that Mike and Dave are really busy working on the game and putting out fires, I would really, really, really like to know the answer to this somewhat complex 4e question: "How customizable will 4e be?" In other words, with the streamlining and the simplification, I get that the basic essence of D&D is going to be there; it's going to be really easy for anybody to quickly learn how to go into a dungeon, kill orcs, and have fun taking their treasure. That's the most basic level, and so far it looks as though the design is making that bare essence of the game very strong, very easy, very cool. But say I want to play fantasy in the style of Elric or Conan? Or what if I want to run a low fantasy game in the style of Martin's "A Game of Thrones," rife with scheming lords, their (all too human) knights, and the gritty peasantry of the land? How easy will 4e be for DMs to customize the system around their own fantasy preferences? Will D&D be a more universal fantasy system, or are we getting more into the nitty gritty of the specific essence of D&D with 4e?
sanguine 08-22-07, 01:09 PM	The way I see it, magic items/rewards are a net plus for motivating the players. I don't think they replace an interesting story, but they can add a flat increase to the players' fun regardless of what the DM is doing. If your narrative is awesome, mechanical rewards make it better. If it's blah, mechanical rewards still make it better. Does that make sense? I've been going through the D&D podcasts in reverse order (good job on all of them I've heard so far, by the way) but I was struck most strongly during the Magic Item podcast just how much my and my friends' expectations differ from the world that is described in baseline D&D, and the kind of expectations you describe above. Intuitively, magic items being as common and utilitarian as they are in baseline D&D is a real buzzkill. If you can just go buy a magical sword in the nearest big town, then it is in no way cooler than a normal sword. I thought the "Sharper Image catalog" comment was especially funny and accurate in hitting on this mood problem -- I'm buying specific tools to do a specific job. My formative published gaming experience was Shadowrun rather than Dungeons & Dragons. In our game, people were pretty much fully kitted out from the beginning, and the "leveling up" portion of game fun came from progression of character skills and abilities. Money earned in the course of the characters' criminal enterprise was largely spent on maintaining the equipment they already had (replacing ruined armor, buying new ammunition) and on lifestyle (paying for a nicer place to live). I can't think of a single "special" item that anyone received or held onto for any appreciable length of time. I'm now planning on running a Star Wars game (just received the new Saga Edition rules) and I suspect it will end up the same way. People have the gear they have, and the "leveling up" excitement comes from personal change in the character. I think, for me and my friends, the expectation -- driven heavily by the media we grew up with -- is that magic items (or their SF equivalents) are plot devices almost all the time, rather than utility items. Making them utility items makes them far less special. On the other hand, if I'd grown up playing Final Fantasy or WoW, I'd probably want to equip my character with more magic items than he or she could reasonably carry. YMMV, and all that. My take-home message would be that for me and my friends, magic items are not a net plus, and can kill a game outright. After all, Padawan Obi-Wan had a lightsaber and some robes. Thirteen years later, Jedi Master Obi-Wan still has a lightsaber and some robes.
sanguine 08-22-07, 01:16 PM	Yep, another good podcast. As far as buying magical items go, I liked what... someone who I forget now, said about the process. "The character got a new sword and spent 100,000 gold throwing an enormous party for the entire city for a whole week." It was an interesting example of how to interpret the gold cost of things in a slightly-less literal manner. That would be Jeff Rients, from his essay How to Awesome-Up Your Players (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-awesome-up-your-players.html).
Drammattex 08-22-07, 02:40 PM	I think, for me and my friends, the expectation -- driven heavily by the media we grew up with -- is that magic items (or their SF equivalents) are plot devices almost all the time, rather than utility items. Making them utility items makes them far less special. Hear hear! I kinda doubt that's the way 4e will be, since the trend is towards more magic rather than less, but I agree with you. I like magic to be magic.
Nom 09-04-07, 08:18 AM	Since the guys were discussing responses to the 4th Ed announcement, I'd like to add my take. I'd been very interested in some of the stuff I'd seen from Star Wars Saga Edition (not least the skills), and had been wondering how to adapt and retrofit it into my game/s. On hearing of 4th Ed, my two responses were: (1) That's about a year sooner than I expected (2) Hey, now I don't need to worry about incompatibilities and oddities of integrating Saga; I can just wait 12 months (less with playtest and previews, perhaps) and it will be done for me.
Lazigothi 09-04-07, 05:36 PM	I've enjoyed all of the podcasts. They have always offered a tremendous insight into D&D, and their enthusiasm is contagious. My wife and I started listening earlier this year and went through all of them. They are always a treat, and we look forward to listening to them. My own experience with magic items has been lowsy. When I had been a player, I almost never got them. I can recall getting only 2: a poisoned dagger when I was a berserker and an intelligent holy sword that dominated my paladin. I think this was due to that I wasn't a squeaky wheel, and many of the games were DM'd by my little brother. Most of the more vocal players received magic items, but these too were moments of randomized hell. I can certainly understand the other extreme where players always get exactly what they want when they want it and become spoiled. I would like to think there could be a happy middle ground. Now that I'm a DM, I have no problem handing out magic items that will make players happy. If they come across a magic item they can't use from a defeated NPC, it will hold value to somebody willing to buy it from them eventually. Without having them have to ask every passer-by until they're blue in the face from wasted rolelaying, I just pop in a store that makes the process centralized and fast. I think the alternative would be to have that apparatus of kwalish on the front lawn with a "free" sign. I also like the hot seat and the mailbag. The only 4ed question I've had concerns psionics since I'm an avid psionics fan. It's all speculation for now, but should it become included I have confidence that it will also receive improvement. It's already come so far since 2ed.
Case 09-07-07, 09:10 AM	Hey, just wanted to say that the podcast is great, both the D&D Podcast and Gamer Radio Zero's podcast really brighten up my day whenever there's a new one released. Thanks!
Drammattex 09-07-07, 11:45 AM	Great podcast this week. The more I hear, the more I'm interested in playing 4e. One of the things I love about the podcasts is listening to the rationale and thought process behind the process. I liked Mike's assessment of the community's reaction to 4e. I think it was spot on. Also liked Dave's comment about how 3e is not obsolete ("Why would I trash a book I lovingly helped to write and develop?"). I'm looking forward to trying out the social challenges. My group is a mixed bag. All of them enjoy their characters, but some of them are happier "acting" them, others are happier playing their characters in a more removed manner. It seems like the social challenges might help tie players together in this regard. Regarding magic items and the D&D economy, Dave hit it on the head when he talked about how magic items are a reward system of D&D, a kind of contract between DM and player. I've always viewed it this way as well, though I've disallowed the purchase of magic items. That has always been one of the things that broke my willing suspension of disbelief in D&D. The purchase of magic items is such a thoroughly modern idea, I can't deal with it in D&D. "Are you missing your attack roles? Tired of that old +4 sword that just doesn't cut it? Try the new Hack-Slasher 5000! With an extra +1 to hit and damage, you can kill monsters dead in fewer rounds than ever before! Operating at 3.6 ghz and speeds up to ISO 3200 with an adamantium alloy frame, custom black leather grip, and jewel-encrusted pommel, it's a steal for a mere 80k gp, this month on sale for 75k. Available at Kohls, J.C. Penny, Sears, and wherever fine Magic Items are sold. Stay ahead of the competition. Get yours today!" We use the same sort of rewards system, but it's more a case of me (as DM) finding out what the players want and then making that available to them through their efforts. Instead of awarding equivalent gold, I'll try to give them equivalent rewards. I hope 4e has something like that; I foresee the weird D&D economy someday changing to a system that makes more sense and encourages DMs and players to work together for good rewards earned as the result of action, as opposed to shopping. Getting treasure in gold pieces is like the DM giving you a gift card and saying "Okay, now go buy what you want." Definitely, gift cards are WAAAY better than socks. But a well thought out gift is better than a gift card. If the DM and players are communicating, the DM knows exactly what the players want (don't they ALWAYS discuss it after every session? "If I only had..."). Ah, anyway... Here's to hoping for an altered rewards system in the mechanics. Buying magic items has always been silly. "Nice sword. Where did you get it?" "This? Won it from a dragon." "Wow. Cool. Really?" "Yup. Yours is nice too. How did you come to win it?" "Magic item store." "Nice." "Yeah. You know, it gets the job done." "... Right. Well, good luck with that.":eek:
Drammattex 10-05-07, 04:05 PM	Just listened to the 4e Monster Manual podcast featuring James Wyatt. There's some really excellent work going into 4e, and the vague rumors are coming much more clearly into focus. Around Gen Con, I think there was a discrepancy regarding how D&D would play in 4e-- the rumor was that it was going to be like the miniatures game. This seemed to alarm a lot of folks. However, what I'm coming to understand now about 4e now is how it appears to borrow from DDM in all the ways that DDM is strong. The DDM stat cards communicate a creature's special abilities in one or two lines of concise text, and THAT becomes what the miniature is about. I like how 4e is distilling monsters down to their core essentials, figuring out what they're about and putting that into action. If anything, 4e seems like it gives you more of just about everything that makes D&D cool and takes away the stuff that makes it obscure. I say Huzzah to that.
RogerC 10-05-07, 10:05 PM	Good episode all around. I couldn't distinguish the name of the monster(s) that was mentioned a couple times as being particularly scary -- "karrocknest" or something? A lot of the comments were kind of DM-centric, which isn't a bad thing, but given that there's generally more players around than DMs, it would have been interesting to hear what some of the players think about the way the new monsters work. Cheers, Roger
Drammattex 10-05-07, 11:43 PM	I couldn't distinguish the name of the monster(s) that was mentioned a couple times as being particularly scary -- "karrocknest" or something? Hey Roger- It was the Kruthik. They appeared in the Miniatures Handbook, and there was a mini made for one in Deathknell (currently in stores!). The big ones look like the bugs from Starship Troopers. Here's the hatchling: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mhbk_gallery/76957_CN.jpg
camthalion 10-06-07, 12:08 AM	A lot of the comments were kind of DM-centric, which isn't a bad thing, but given that there's generally more players around than DMs, it would have been interesting to hear what some of the players think about the way the new monsters work. You got a point Roger. Maybe they should have a Player's Night Special Podcast ... In addition to their regular DM-centric one of course. More work for them. More listening for us.
camthalion 10-06-07, 12:11 AM	Just listened to the 4e Monster Manual podcast featuring James Wyatt. There's some really excellent work going into 4e, and the vague rumors are coming much more clearly into focus.... I like their comments about differentiating the monsters (the examples they used were all humanoid) in terms of how they fight. I've always felt that hobgoblins should be more than really big goblins. And that goblinoids as a group should not be 'not-orcs'. I'm beginning to get excited.
hal_bowman1 10-06-07, 12:35 AM	I don't know if the Wizards folks read this thread, but I do want to comment on something I heard during this podcast. I do *not* like the idea of spreading classic core monsters among multiple books. The example given was frost giants. In fact, the person saying this noted that Wizards intends to make multiple Player's Handbooks core. Are we going to see 4e classic classes spread over multiple publications? To me, this seems like a fairly cynical way to get customers to shell out more money. I'm an grumpy old guy, but I have to say everything I see about 4e says "more expensive" and that's a dissuader. Maybe I'm grumpy, old and *cheap*.
bone_naga 10-06-07, 03:11 AM	I wholeheartedly agree with hal_bowman. The core rulebooks should remain the basic 3, PHB, DMG, and MM. I am all for expansions, especially additional MMs, but the first 3 should be the core rulebooks. You should not need to buy 10 different "core" books, especially when it comes to things like the PHB. DON'T DO IT WOTC!!!!!
camthalion 10-06-07, 09:26 AM	I wholeheartedly agree with hal_bowman. The core rulebooks should remain the basic 3, PHB, DMG, and MM. I am all for expansions, especially additional MMs, but the first 3 should be the core rulebooks. You should not need to buy 10 different "core" books, especially when it comes to things like the PHB. DON'T DO IT WOTC!!!!! I agree with the 'core 3'. If WOTC holds out 'core' monsters for MMII or MMIII then they will find these are suddenly no longer core. People who don't have MMIII won't utilize materials that rely on MMIII monsters. PHB, DMG, and MM are core. Anything not in there will not be core.
Jarlax_Jlet 10-06-07, 08:03 PM	i am willing to accept some creatures that we think of as 3E core will not be in the first MM and will appear across other manuals. this gives room for each MM to be a collection of classic and new monsters right from the get-go rather than the early monster manuals being front loaded with classic D&D monsters and the later Monster manuals suffering as a result, with a lot of variant classic monsters or just more monsters of classic types, particularly the three D's (dragons, devils and demons). but then again what is considered "core" means nothing to me, i have always run games with very little book restrictions. i defiantly like the idea of an exceptions approach to monster design. that each monsters abilities are exceptions to the rules rather than reflected by existing rules, because i definitely opens up the creative options for mosnters. also the idea that a monster's encounter level is less critical. that a monster might be able to start its lifespan in a campaign as a high level power boss, and as the PCs increase in level slowly become a bodyguard, to guards, to fodder as they become weaker compared to the PCs, but still a viable encounter option.
RogerC 10-07-07, 11:29 AM	It was the Kruthik. They appeared in the Miniatures Handbook... Thanks! This kinda illustrates a point that I think is valid... To me, it doesn't really matter if a monster is in MM1 or MM5 or whatever -- that isn't what makes it 'core'. A monster is 'core' when it shows up in the SRD. The monsters that are not in the SRD are condemned to a second-rate existence. So, really, I've got no problem with PHB-X and MM-X etc etc becoming core books if it means that the SRD will be updated on a regular basis. I know that's a big 'if', so I guess we'll see how it plays out. Cheers, Roger
n0-1_H3r3 10-07-07, 11:59 AM	In fact, the person saying this noted that Wizards intends to make multiple Player's Handbooks core. Are we going to see 4e classic classes spread over multiple publications? Find a picture of the cover for the 4e Player's Handbook. Or, easier than that, here's one below: http://media.gamespy.com/columns/image/article/819/819068/dungeons-dragons-the-4th-edition-interview-20070910023240375-000.jpg Underneath where it says "Player's Handbook", it mentions "Arcane, Divine and Martial Heroes". This suggests to me that all the character classes and accompanying options within the book relate to characters who have the Arcane, Divine or Martial power source (which, from what we know about those power sources, covers all the core classes we're familiar with, plus others that've been mentioned or hinted about). By extension, it also suggests that the next Player's Handbook will cover other classes and other character power sources - likely Psionic amongst them.
camthalion 10-07-07, 01:07 PM	Thanks! This kinda illustrates a point that I think is valid... To me, it doesn't really matter if a monster is in MM1 or MM5 or whatever -- that isn't what makes it 'core'. A monster is 'core' when it shows up in the SRD. The monsters that are not in the SRD are condemned to a second-rate existence. So, really, I've got no problem with PHB-X and MM-X etc etc becoming core books if it means that the SRD will be updated on a regular basis. I know that's a big 'if', so I guess we'll see how it plays out. Cheers, Roger Another thing to consider when they divide up the monsters is ease of use. They've suggested this is going to be the easiest version to DM. Am I going to have more trouble remembering which MM a monster has appeared in? It's easy for me to remember that all the giants are in MMI. It could be just as easy to remember that all sorts of cold loving baddies showed up in MMII. If they are going to split up giants, there should be a good reason other than to make us buy more books. This isn't meant as a complaint, just friendly advice.
hal_bowman1 10-08-07, 05:24 PM	RogerC has a good point about the SRD. I hadn't thought of that. If the 4e SRD is updated with all core book MM (and class, race) material then no problem, at least for me.
Wye 10-15-07, 04:58 PM	The podcast feed is not working on WinAmp. I used to get it through iTunes, but I'm moving away from it--too bloated for my taste. WinAmp doesn't use my processor or memory when I don't have it running. Anyway, I get all my other podcasts (even with video) with no problems, only the D&D podcast is not working. I'm using the URL: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/rsspodcast.xml It probably is some iTunes specific thing you are using on the feed. Please, please, can you look into it? I'm not going back to iTunes and I really want this podcast. I guess I could go to the website and listen to it there, but I rather have it with the others.
AvT 10-17-07, 11:57 PM	Well that takes me back. I recall research several medieval works on the subject when I was working on the article. The Lesser Key of Solomon was particularly useful; that's where a lot of the visual descriptions came from. The Toronto reference library at Yonge & Bloor had a few shelves that would have fit in well in Giles's library. Remember that this was just a couple of years after Niven & Pournelle wrote Inferno, also an important inspiration, particularly where it implied that Hell wasn't static and that it changed over time. I had written into TSR and asked why Asmodeus was in charge (it was the original Monster Manual, right?), and I was told that that's the way Gary Gygax wanted it. I had to figure out how to get from Dante's Inferno to the setting where Asmodeus was on top. The idea of demons plotting against each other for supremacy came to me and amused me, so I ran with it. It happens that Ed Greenwood, who also was working in Toronto in the '80s and '90s, asked me a few questions about my research when he was working on Planescape. Btw, "devils" are lawful evil, "demons" are chaotic evil. Devils dress better; demons smell worse. Hope that helps. Insofar as there is ambiguity, my sense is that sometimes devils would break rules and got banished to the Abyss, and sometimes demons who wanted to settle down and hold some territory would fudge their resumes and move over to the lawful side. Working near Washington as I do now, I have no trouble visualizing a city where people are busy with their daily lives and jobs, and yet where everyone you'll meet is evil. I'm pleased people still remember the article. Amusing podcast, btw. --Alexander von Thorn
Drammattex 11-02-07, 02:47 PM	Today's podcast covered some examples of 4e changes to the Warlock and the Fighter, and gave listeners a good feel for how balance testing works in broad strokes. I'm enjoying what I've heard thus far about Teleport. That spell has been a thorn in the DM's side for a while now. I've had the energy to complain about it lately, both here (http://www.hordelings.com/forums/postView.php?post_id=111545) and here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=210917). I like the apparent tactical aspects of the spell as hinted at in 4e. It's the "avoid adventure" aspects of it that drive me buggy. Logan Bonner had a cool example of how his (custom) gnome used Teleport to escape from the mouth of a purple worm. Steve Winter shared some great insight into his (formerly broken) fighter who dealt massive amounts of damage with his greataxe. Steve pointed out that the Skullsplitter mini he uses to represent his character is one of his favorite D&D Miniatures. I'd have to concur. Skirmish-wise, it was a terrible piece, but it truly is an excellent Conan-esque miniature. There's a great funny bit about 18 minutes in, regarding the gnome's ability to speak with woodland mammals. Mearls wonders if he begins digging a hole, can he be classified as a burrowing mammal. Mearls also states "I may not be smarter than a fifth grader, but I can kick one's *****." Truly a siggable quote. Perhaps the most surprising bit of the podcast was hearing that Jeff Grubb was kicked out of the party because he doesn't have 4e clearance. I still don't know if that's a joke!
Nom 11-03-07, 08:48 AM	Logan's 10th level gnome Dessen - does his name become Doedessen at level 12?
Softfoot 11-05-07, 12:53 PM	These podcasts have taken a turn towards unenjoyable. These guys are so saturated in playtesting and 4e rules, that the podcast is almost unlistenable. Take a step back and realize who your audience is. I'm not play testing 4e and I don't know what you are talking about.
Escef 11-05-07, 01:34 PM	These podcasts have taken a turn towards unenjoyable. These guys are so saturated in playtesting and 4e rules, that the podcast is almost unlistenable. Take a step back and realize who your audience is. I'm not play testing 4e and I don't know what you are talking about. They do know who their audience is. D&D players, many of whom are insanely curious about 4e. Thank you.
Softfoot 11-06-07, 02:03 PM	They do know who their audience is. D&D players, many of whom are insanely curious about 4e. Thank you. I'm curious too, but these teasers aren't revealing anything. I prefer the content from prior to the Big 4e Taking Over Everything.
Azaul 11-06-07, 02:39 PM	They aren't going into 4e mechanics because they don't know what they are yet. That's why they're play testing. It sounds like they built up, scrapped, and rebuilt every class in the last few months. I'm enjoying the podcasts because it's a great insight into how these game designers play D&D. They're chatting with friends, and sharing their thoughts on game design. This was one of my favourite episodes so far.
WotC_Huscarl 11-06-07, 03:13 PM	Perhaps the most surprising bit of the podcast was hearing that Jeff Grubb was kicked out of the party because he doesn't have 4e clearance. I still don't know if that's a joke!No joke. That was before the announcement at Gencon and the beginning of outside playtesting. Jeff is pretty well plugged into what's going on, so I doubt that it came as much of a surprise, but he still had to withdraw when the campaign switched to 4e playtesting. It was only temporary, however, and Jeff is now back among the playtesting fold. Steve
THACO 11-06-07, 08:03 PM	I'm happy to have the podcast and appreciate any insight on the development provided. But there has been somewhat of a downturn on the fun factor. Part of that feeling for me is that I want more! I know Mike and Dave have busy schedules but as June slowly approaches couldn't they give us just a little more. I'd like to hear more about those things, mechanics, design, rules, that were hot topics on the table that we may or may not see in 4E. They don't have to reveal the outcome of any decisions, just share what's being/has been debated and what pros and cons are/were considered. i.e. critical threats - stupid idea! - it took all the fun out of rolling a 20! Tell me they're gone in 4E. (I don't use them in my game but the DM for a game I'm a player in does - ugh!)
Drammattex 11-07-07, 03:04 PM	Jeff is now back among the playtesting fold. Good to hear. Jeff was another one the folks whose work had a huge influence on me in my teenage years. In fact, it was Jeff Grubb who got me into comics. I'd never read them or cared about them before, but then a friend gave me Forgotten Realms #13, "Liches in Love," and I was hooked. The day that line was canceled, my heart broke. My comic-dependant mind bandwagoned onto the X-titles after that, then to the budding Image line, then I ran out of cash and stopped. Nevertheless, I've picked up Kurt Busiek's Conan title in recent years, which was excellent, but may stop now that he's not writing it anymore. Anyway, all of that is Jeff Grubb's fault. Azure Bonds was another one of those early Forgotten Realms titles I loved as a kid, way back before Drizzt become a superstar. Jeff Grubb is the man. I still wonder what ever became of those adventurers in the Forgotten Realms comics...
WotC_Huscarl 11-08-07, 11:42 AM	The same thing that happens to all successful adventurers -- They grew rich, built comfortable estates and strongholds, became pillars of their communities, grew old gracefully -- and were laughed at by children who had no idea who they were or what they'd done. Steve
Drammattex 11-09-07, 10:31 PM	http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/546/godinthebowl2yf5.jpg And the Cimmerian came, with a desperate leap and a humming slash of his sword. The beautiful head rolled from the top of the screen in a jet of dark blood and fell at his feet, and he gave back, fearing to touch it. Then his skin crawled for the screen shook and heaved with the convulsions of something behind. Conan had seen and heard men die by the scores, and never had he heard a human being make such sounds in the death-throes. There was a thrashing, floundering noise, as if a great cable were being lashed violently about. Robert E. Howard, The God in the Bowl Okay, so mine is the movie poster version where they get the details wrong, but the idea is there anyway.
WotC_Huscarl 11-12-07, 01:26 PM	That is superb. :ayyyy!: Steve
darkpaladin1737 02-09-08, 11:21 PM	Is anyone else having trouble downloading Ep 19 from iTunes? It keeps telling me that the WOTC URL given isn't a valid one....
Renark von Bek 02-10-08, 03:49 AM	Is anyone else having trouble downloading Ep 19 from iTunes? It keeps telling me that the WOTC URL given isn't a valid one.... yeah and I even re-subscribed using the URL on the wizards site cause I thought they might have changed it. What's up with that?
kalstrand 02-10-08, 10:55 PM	Yes it appears something is wrong. Maybe someone at WotC will see this thread so they can pass it along.
darkpaladin1737 02-10-08, 10:57 PM	I sent them an email earlier today, hopefully they'll get it fixed.
coppro 03-07-08, 07:32 PM	...
TempestBlade24 03-14-08, 04:04 AM	Anyone else having trouble with Episode 21? I can't download it or even play it off the website. When right clicking, and saving as, I get the message that the webpage is unavailable. :( These always make the bus journey in the morning easier as well! :)
urzafrank 03-14-08, 04:15 AM	Anyone else having trouble with Episode 21? I can't download it or even play it off the website. When right clicking, and saving as, I get the message that the webpage is unavailable. :( These always make the bus journey in the morning easier as well! :) This is what people are reffering to when they say "this has to stop when i pay for this" i cannot access this either
Komi 03-14-08, 01:09 PM	It's working now.
Softfoot 03-18-08, 08:36 PM	Not impressed. The DM already has too much to do behind the screen. It seems like there's going to be more added to his/her plate to keep track of, i.e. partial uses of this and daily uses of that. And with the LA +1 in general, looks like the powergaming is on. My group is passing on 4E.
mycroftb 03-20-08, 01:34 PM	Episode 21 was back to unusable .m4a format instead of universally acceptable mp3 format. I had to waste more time digging around to find a re-encoder that was able to accept the input before I was able to put it on my player and go walking.
Komi 03-20-08, 01:49 PM	Episode 21 was back to unusable .m4a format instead of universally acceptable mp3 format. I had to waste more time digging around to find a re-encoder that was able to accept the input before I was able to put it on my player and go walking. http://webcast2.wizards.com/podcasts_dandd/DnD_Episode21.mp3 On the main podcast page.
strawberryJAMM 03-24-08, 11:03 PM	Mike, David: I'm on the ConCom for VCon - the oldest Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Gaming convention in Western Canada which is held in Vancouver, Canada and we're looking for potential guests for this year's convention (Oct 3rd to 5th, 2008). Obviously with the release of 4th Edition it would be awesome to have guests from WotC at the con and since podcasting is also "trés sexy" getting either or both of you up would be excellent. Ergo, I'm looking for contact information that is a little more direct than I can pass on to the people who are actually in charge of the whole guest coordination thing. If either of you are even vaguely interested you can send me details at jenni dot merrifield at jamm dot com Thanks, in advance, Jenni Merrifield (VCon Webmaster)
rschaefer_1 04-02-08, 10:22 PM	When I clicked on the discuss this article link on the D&D demo article it came here. I have one thought on that topic: 1. Oklahoma is OK but some how not OK enough to make the list. Texas doesn't need that many demos. Neither does LA. Send some to Oklahoma City or Edmond.