Create Your Own Dungeons And Dragons Convention
In 2007, we skipped Gen Con.
You see, my Dungeons and Dragons gaming group is an interesting mix of folks. We’ve got small business owners, health care professionals, a college professor, IT professionals, fast food workers, an electrician, housewives, and even someone in the printing business.
Oh, and then there’s me, but you all know what I do. I’m a writer.
We have single guys, engaged guys, married folks with kids, and married folks without kids.
At any rate, the stars were aligned in 2007 such that most of us either couldn’t afford Gen Con or couldn’t attend because of work or family commitments.
We realized, by July of 2007, that we were really going to miss Gen Con. So, we came up with a stopgap measure: Cabin Con.
What is Cabin Con? Well, we decided that one of the best parts about Gen Con was the gaming. Specifically, gaming with our friends. So, we rented two small cabins at nearby county park for two nights in late August last year. We spent the better part of three days gaming. We played Dungeons and Dragons, Three Dragon Ante, and even some board games.
We cooked our food over a campfire, and made jokes at night about who was sharing a sleeping bag with whom.
We did all of this on the cheap; with food and everything, I think we all got away for about $75 a person.
Cabin Con was such a damned good idea that we’re doing it again this October. This time, we’re renting a vacation home for 4 days to the tune of $600. Split between a dozen or so of us, we’ll still be under $100 apiece including food. Gen Con or not, I think Cabin Con is going to become a tradition.
Why am I telling you all of this? Because it would never have occurred to us to do something like this if we hadn’t missed Gen Con in 2007. Maybe it’s something your group could do, too.
So, if you want to organize your own convention, here’s what you need to do:
- Figure out how many people you have going. Get as firm a commitment as possible.
- Find a good location. Depending on your budget, you could have your Cabin Con in tents in the woods, or you could have it at the Hilton. For me, I think the vacation home or hunting lodge type rental is the best way to go.
- Divide your weekend up into time slots for games. These can be 4-hour slots, or they can be shorter or longer depending on your group’s preferences.
- Get your friends to commit to running games. If you’re like me and usually are the DM, GM, or StoryTeller, a Cabin Con can be a nice opportunity to play on the other side of the screen.
- Send out the list of games, and have everyone sign up for the games they want to play.
- Plan a menu and buy the food. You can live on sandwiches and cereal all weekend, or you can cook full-blown meals. Here again, it just depends on your group’s preferences.
- Set up a KP duty chart. Give everyone a chance to help out with the cooking, cleaning, and whatnot.
I’d love to hear from others. If you’ve done your own gaming weekend, what advice can you offer?
What Makes A Spell Or Power Useful In An RPG?
I’ve had an article on the site for more than a year called The Best Wizard Spells in Dungeons and Dragons. On Saturday, I found this comment on the article:
ANY spell is useful. You just have to use your imagination and get creative. Just because DMs only know to to do adventures that involve killing the orc for the pie doesn’t make spells useless. A real DM knows how to tailor a game for multiple scenarios, only 30% of which should involve actual combat.
All the useful spells you picked were spells that involved simple-minded “dungeon bashing”. Just the type of dumb mentality that created stupid 4th Edition. Thanks you 4rons
I deleted the comment, of course, as I don’t particularly like to be randomly insulted on my blog.
Now, insults and creative punctuation aside, this comment got me thinking about something:
What makes a spell or power useful in Dungeons and Dragons?
There are, in my mind, a few possible criteria:
- It should have opportunity for frequent use. Decipher script is limited in its use, Charm Person is not.
- It should be useful to overcome a challenge. That challenge doesn’t have to be combat; it can be social, or it can be plot-related.
- It should be something that can’t be done with mundane means. Light isn’t nearly as useful when you have a lantern around.
I’m sure there are other things that can make a spell or power useful in Dungeons and Dragons. What do you think? What makes an ability useful, and what makes it worth choosing over another spell or ability in your roleplaying game?
Sunday Link Smashup for August 24, 2008
photo credit: disavian | Got Links?
Lots of amazing links for you today, in the wake of Gen Con. Let’s get started, shall we?
I want to take a moment to welcome Mike Mearls to the D&D blogosphere. Mike is one a handful of truly GREAT game designers, IMHO. Check out his inaugural post entitled In Praise of Wandering Monsters.
Speaking of designers, another favorite of mine is Jim Wyatt. Check out the podcast interview that the boys from Critical Hits scored with Jim: Critical Hits Podcast #7: Interview with James Wyatt.
I have to link to this post:YA5WKEPACLB*: What Gen Con 2008 meant for me from Chatty DM, only if it proves he can actually write a post with less than 200 words. He just doesn’t usually want to 
James at Capturing Fantasy offers us an excellent post on Letting Go of You When You Play. James tells us how to become immersed in our characters, and truly stretch our roleplaying muscles.
I got a link back from the Wired.com blog earlier this week when I pontificated on the McCain staffer’s comments on D&D. Check it out! I’m in the big time 
It occurred to me that maybe not all of my readers here are familiar with my writing blog, The Writing Journey. I mention it here for those of you who may have attended the RPG blogger seminar at Gen Con, or if you listened to the podcast of that event.
Back in July, Dante over at Stupid Ranger had an excellent piece on The Silmarillion. If you haven’t read that particular Tolkien classic, give Dante’s insights a look and see if he can convince you. I personally think it should be required reading for all game masters.
In light of my recent discussion on trying to rediscover my gaming identity, I offer you Yax’s thougts on My golden rule is more golden than yours - which describes, essentially, why Yax keeps coming back to D&D over other RPGs.
Finally, check out Gnome Stew’s First Contest: Win Custom Sound Effects for Your Game and, well, win custom sound effects for your game.
Make sure an visit these folks, and tell ‘em Bob sent you!
What I Learned from Gen Con 2008 - Part 2
Last time, I offered a few observations on Gen Con 2008. Today, I want to continue that theme, but focus in a bit on the RPG side of things. I want to tell you what Gen Con did for me, in terms of my approach to gaming.
Back in March, I wrote about The 4E Malaise, and how things have changed for our group, gaming-wise, over the last year or two. I also wrote about my Thoughts on D&D 4E, and offered some thoughts from our group’s other DM on the topic, as well.
I’ve been at a crossroads, for a while, in terms of my game, and what my next campaign would be. That’s been due, in part, to the 4E announcement. Or so I thought.
My assumption going into Gen Con was that I’d come out with a clearer picture of where I wanted to go, in terms of our group’s game. Would I stay with D&D, or would I go backwards to 3.5? Would I cave to peer pressure and go with Pathfinder?
I discovered, however, that there are no easy answers. I was looking for something that I’ll never find. I was looking for an experience to define who I am as a gamer these days. Gen Con can’t do that for me.
In fact, no one else can do that for me.
You see, I’m having a gamer mid-life crisis. I haven’t run a regular campaign in a year and a half. And many of our local gaming group are in the same funk. Not all of it can be blamed on 4E, either. We’ve had folks move away, we’ve had career changes, we’ve had all sorts of lifestyle disruptions. Whatever the reasons, it’s happening to all of us.
I want to play an RPG, to be sure. I want to play something that is more than hack-and-slash. I wan an immersive game where my players get majorly geeked about playing. I want something that’s role-play intensive, with rich character histories and plenty of intrigue.
I’m not sure if that can happen in D&D anymore.
Now, I’m not blaming the system. I’ve always said that rules can do very little to encourage roleplaying, and I still believe that. But our group dynamic has gone all screwy. One of my players is so anti-4E that he actually told the guys at Paizo “I hope Pathfinder puts WotC out of business.” That’s hatred, plain and simple. And, while he’s entitled to his opinion, it creates this cloud over any discussion of a 4E game.
Even if I were to stay with the outdated 3.5 system, there are problems. We are all creatures of habit. I believe a 3.5 game would lead us into old patterns, where players are min-maxing and finding infinte combos, and I’m struggling to keep up and find anything that’s a real challenge.
Add this to the mix: I asked a couple of my local guys who were at the con this question: “What game would you play if it were up to you?” One answered, “probably something by White Wolf.” The other said, “I don’t know. Maybe Vampire.”
- So, what to do? I’ve had to ask myself the tough questions. Here are some of them, in no particular order:
- Am I willing to give up gaming altogether?
- Am I willing to run another system?
- Is there a better game than D&D?
- Can I pull off something big, like a new Mind’s Eye Theater troupe?
- Am I better off sticking with some flavor of D&D, because it’s comfortable to me and to my players?
Gen Con answered a couple of those questions for me. I’m not willing to give up gaming, I know that for certain now. I’m also willing to run something other than D&D. Based on my interest level and that of my players, it sounds like Vampire would be the way to go. I do have at least one player who won’t play anything that’s not D&D, but there’s no game right now that I can get everyone to agree to. I’m going to lose someone no matter what.
So, I guess the only question I really have left is this: do I do live action or do I do tabletop?
The more I think about it, it probably makes sense to start with a tabletop game. If that goes well over time, maybe we could expand it into a live action game. I’d say there’s about an 80% chance that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
Does this mean I’m giving up on D&D? Hell no.
Does this mean I’ll write less about D&D? Some, I’m sure. But part of the reason for the name change a few months back was just that - to open up possibilities.
I’m still very interested in D&D and what happens to the game. My suspicion is that, after a couple of years, the dust will settle. These violent emotional responses to 4E will wane, and our group might actually consider playing the thing.
I’m sure I’ll continue to buy D&D books. I want to be ready for when we come back. On top of that, I just enjoy reading them.
Will it be too late? Maybe. It could be that edition wars have splintered our group so severely as to put us off D&D forever. I hope not. The fact of the matter is that D&D is likely to be around for a long time, and I’m not ready to give it up forever.
Heck, I’m not entirely sure that the next game will be Vampire.
Ask me again in 2 weeks
Ill-informed Comments From a McCain Staffer About Dungeons And Dragons
(A quick note to all of you first time visitors: Welcome to RPG Digest! I’m glad to have you. If you like what you see here, be sure to sign up for free updates via RSS feed or via email! Also make a visit to my other blog, The Writing Journey.)
2 posts in one day? Must be something in the water…
Anyway,I offer to you the latest from Michael Goldfarb at the John McCain for President website (emphasis mine):
“In the least credible and most vicious corner of the internet, liberal bloggers at the Daily Kos are accusing John McCain of plagiarizing from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The story Solzhenitsyn told was of a prisoner who drew a cross in the dirt in a Soviet Gulag. McCain’s story is of a guard who drew a cross in the dirt in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.
The only similarity between the two stories is a cross in the dirt, but it is hardly an unlikely coincidence that there were practicing Christians in both Russia and Vietnam, or that in the prisons of those two Communist countries the only crosses to be found were etched in the dirt, as easily disappeared as the Christians who drew them.
But those desperate to discredit Senator McCain’s record will have to impugn his fellow prisoners as well. Orson Swindle, who was held as a prisoner of war along with McCain, tells the McCain Report that he heard this particular story from McCain “when we first moved in together.” That was in the summer of 1971, Swindle said, though “time blurred” and he couldn’t be sure. He said it was some time around then that the Vietnamese moved all “36 troublemakers” into the same quarters, where they “talked about everything under the sun.”
It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman’s memory of war from the comfort of mom’s basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others. John McCain has often said he witnessed a thousand acts of bravery while he was imprisoned, and though not every one has been submitted into the public record, they are remembered by the men who were there (one such only recently reported by Karl Rove though it escaped mention in any of Senator McCain’s books). But as Swindle said, this is a “desperate group of people trying to make something out of nothing.”
I’m not liberal. I won’t go into politics here, but let’s just say I’m to the right of John McCain at least. I also don’t live in my mom’s basement, and I certainly respect the sacrifice of others, including Senator McCain.
But I won’t be voting for McCain in November. Not as long as Mr. Goldfarb remains on staff. Here was the reply I sent to the McCain for President website:
I am thoroughly disgusted with the comments of Mr. Goldfarb at http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459
I am further to the right, politically, than John McCain. I’m also a Dungeons and Dragons player. I don’t know why Mr. Goldfarb felt the need to connect liberals with D&D, but his comments were ill-informed. Most of the D&D players I know aren’t liberals. In fact, most of them don’t live in their mothers’ basements, either.
There are more than 1 million gamers in the United States. I’m glad to know that Mr. McCain’s lead is so pronounced that he can alienate this segment of the population.
As for me, I won’t be voting for John McCain in November, certainly not as long as Mr. Goldfarb remains on staff.
Here’s the Contact Form for McCain for President, if you need it.
Forget politics for a minute. I’m amazed that this stereotype still exists of gamers in their mom’s basement. What do we have to do to prove it?
Goldfarb is a moron who needs to be fired, plain and simple.
Thoughts on D&D 4E: Round Two
Hello, all.
You may have noticed that I decided to give my good friend Randy a shot at expressing his thoughts on Fourth Edition, and why it isn’t for him. I did this for a couple of reasons:
- I’m interested in Randy’s opinion. We are part of the same extended gaming group and while, because we both tend to DM we don’t often play at each others’ tables, I am interested in what our shared players might think and feel from the other side of things. Beyond that, we’re good friends and I genuinely wanted to know the reasoning behind his distaste for 4E.
- I think our gaming group is probably not that different than other gaming groups. Some folks play 4E and say “I like it” or “I don’t like it,” some folks don’t even read the books and say “it’s crap,” and some folks (like Randy) DO read the books and decide they don’t want to try it. The dynamic between those positions is worth discussing in a public way.
Now, I haven’t said a whole lot about 4E here since release. I mentioned I liked the idea of Rules Convergence and I gave a peek into what I thought about Keep on the Shadowfell both before and after I played it. Before release, I talked about liking the new cosmology (which I believe Randy’s adopted at his table. Correct me if I’m wrong here, bro). I also talked before release about why I was confident that 4E would be a good product. But I haven’t given a thorough opinion.
I’ll be doing that, over the next few posts (hopefully they’ll come more often than once a week, LOL). But I want to specifically address Randy’s complaints, and tell you all what I think about them. I’m not doing this as much to argue with Randy (we’re completely cool between us on the issue) but to broaden the discussion with my readers. Let’s go through the list, the way he presents them:
1)The powers section for PCs just scream ” goofy” to me.
I haven’t had the same experience. I think I’ve figured out why it is, too. See,once I accepted the fact that “Hit Points” were no longer representative of physical damage, it opened up a whole new world of possibilities. D&D isn’t about physical health anymore; it’s about heroic acts and the flow of battle. An ally’s ferocity or focus in battle is boosted when I fell my foe? I can buy that easily.
Would it have been easier to accept if they dropped hit points and called it “Hero points?” Maybe, but that sounds a bit wonky. No, I think this is the right move. Let’s get away from this idea that every hit does physical damage. The fact is, hit points as physical damage makes no sense when a naked character can be run through from behind at the dinner table without hardly getting a scratch on him, while it would kill any peasant or king.
As for the ritual thing, I’m not certain Randy’s got a correct reading of the rules. As I understand it, a fighter can’t just pick up a resurrection scroll and use it. Even If he can, though, I can live with it - the magic is in the item, not the user. It doesn’t affect my gameplay that much. I’ve been accused of handing out resurrections too freely, yet my players keep coming back. What do I care if the fighter can read the resurrection scroll I conveniently leave for the party?
2) The game is way too board/minis gamey for me.
Having played through two sessions, I can tell you 4E is the same amount of board-gamey as 3E, no more, no less. There’s very little different in this regard. The leap from AD&D to 3E was what made D&D more like a board game, and nothing’s changed in gameplay. Besides, it’s the DM and his ability to foster good roleplaying (which Randy, for example, does with extreme awesomeness) that keeps a D&D session from becoming a board game anyways.
3) The game just looks boring.
Again, having played 2 sessions, I can tell you 4E wasn’t boring for me. Quite the opposite, I had a blast.
Part of Randy’s argument here is the question of how things scale. I think there’s a danger when you’ve only got core books to say, “gosh, this looks limited. How boring will this be at 30th level?” By the time most of us play 30 levels, though, there will be scores of new books with all sorts of options we haven’t even thought of. That’s how Basic D&D worked; that’s how 3E worked; that’s just how D&D works. Core provides a startup experience with a high learning curve; supplements shake the shit up, so to speak.
The other part of this has to do with everything being “damage.” I think this goes back to the conversation about hit points. 4E uses familiar terminology in a new way to redefine how things work. You no longer make a will save, your opponent attacks you with an attack against your will “defense.” Is that different? Absolutely. Too different for some folks? Probably. Does that detract from gameplay? Not in my experience.
4) The GSL.
I’m more or less indifferent to the GSL and couldn’t tell you whether current rumors are speculation or not. Here’s why: I’m not an indie publisher. For the most part, I don’t usually play with Indie D&D products. I like the idea of there being competition in the marketplace, because it makes everyone’s products better. There’s nothing here to elicit any emotion from me in either direction on the GSL. I’m agnostic on this point. I can see where third party publishers might be really pissed, if the rumors are true.
5) The new DnD stuff is cheap looking crap.
I mentioned my problems with the production value in Keep on the Shadowfell already. However, the core books are better, much better. There are some printers errors and some indexing problems in the PHB, but I haven’t seen anything else that would make me say the books were cheap-looking or crap.
I can’t speak intelligently about the D&D minis. I don’t collect them. I buy individual figs I might like. Mostly, I paint my own minis. Yes, it’s discouraging if the D&D minis start to suck, but it doesn’t affect me much more than the GSL. Randy (and some of our other local guys) are big collectors, so I know this probably bugs them. All I can say here is this: don’t buy the minis if they suck. Reaper minis look a thousand times better anyways.
As far as repeat art, I don’t think the volume was particularly overwhelming. The Monster Manual certainly had plenty of new and interesting artwork.
See, I’m OK with some re-used art. Always have been. I want to think about this statement: “WOTC can afford new art.” First off, D&D isn’t and will never be the most profitable division of Hasbro, or even WotC. Magic has a much higher margin, for cample. This isn’t the right question, though, whether or not W0tC has enough money. The question is this: “Will consumers pay $X more per book to get 100% new art vs. 95% new art?” There is a point of diminishing returns, a point at which we either pay more for the books or they substitute a few older pictures.
Don’t get me wrong; I like new art. But I don’t buy D&D books for the artwork any more than I buy them for the stories. Stories belong in novels, artwork belongs in art books (Vallejo books, for example, are about half the cost of D&D books for twice as much art). I like stories and art in my rulebooks, but they’re not the reason I buy them.
6) Paizo and Monte Cook.
I asked the question a while back: Does Monte matter? Read my comments on that post, but I’ll throw out one quote from there: “if you press me, I’m going to tell you that I like Jim Wyatt and Mike Mearls at least as much as I like Monte, or probably more in the case of Jim.” Monte’s a non-starter issue for me. I like the guys at Paizo, they do great work. But I’m not dumping D&D for them. I recognize that’s a purely personal preference, and that Monte’s got a HUGE fan base. He is *the* rockstar in the D&D world.
———-
As you can tell, a large portion of the 4E debate comes down to personal preferences and habits. For my part, I don’t collect D&D minis. I don’t intend to publish anything under the GSL. I’m not worried at all about what Monte Cook does; I have other favorite designers. I like the idea of rules convergence. I accept the idea of hit points as totally separate from physical damage. I like the idea that the magic in an item is really in the item. Not everyone buys into these preferences, and I’m cool with that completely.
Do I think Randy will go 4E within a couple of years, like he jokes about? Maybe. Maybe not. There are guys, many of whom read this blog, that still play some version or another of AD&D or even OD&D. I’m cool with that. We’re all friends in the big D&D world. They don’t spit on my version of the game and I don’t spit on theirs. It’s all good.
What about the rest of you? How’s your gaming group handling it? What do you think about Randy’s problems with 4E and my replies? Do share.
Image by mborowick
How Do You Foster Good Roleplaying?
When I was 13 years old, RPGs were all about killing things and taking their stuff. In a lot of ways, back then, D&D was a major precursor to today’s MMORPGs. Sure, we had some storylines back then, but they were usually pretty standard quests.
It was mostly “roll” playing, and less “role” playing. That was fine, for back then. Really, I didn’t mind.
But things changed. Eventually, I grew up, put off RPGs for a while. When I came back to them as a young adult, I found I’d changed. Suddenly, I was a lot more interested in the story than in the spoils.
Here’s the cool thing about RPGs: They are what you make of them. If you’re a 13 year-old boy who wants to slay dragons, go for it. If your a guy that wants to explore his feminine side by playing a female pixie sorceress, go ahead.
If you really must.
At any rate, my group today prefers roleplaying over hack-n-slash. Some days, though, hack-n-slash is all I’ve got in me as a DM. I’m sure you’ve had sessions like that, too.
So, let me put the question to you, both players and GMs: How do you foster good roleplaying?
I’ve got a few tricks up my sleeve, and I’ll share those in due time. I’m curious, though, what you all can come up with first.
Reflections on RPGs, branding and the blog name
Good evening, all.
I want to cover a few things tonight, in no particular order.
First, if you don’t already get updates to RPGDigest, do it now. You can get updates via feed or via Email, and I’ll never share your addy with anyone, or send you anything except these blog updates. Pinky swear.
Next, I want to note a slight shift in this blog. To this point, I’ve focused on Dungeons & Dragons. Now, D&D is my #1 RPG and always will be, but as part of the move to a new name, I felt like it was time to expand the brand a bit. This allows me to blog about other RPGs, for example. It also gives me opportunity to feature articles from some folks who might play other RPGs or who play older versions of D&D.
I might even talk about a play by post World of Darkness game, from time to time.
Hence the “RPG” portion of the new name.
Not to worry; there will still be plenty of good ol’ D&D. I promise. After all, it’s the game that’s been kicking so much ass for so long.
I want to thank everyone who put in an entry for the contest, too. You all made it hard, damn hard, to decide.
In the end, I narrowed it down to four:
- RPGDigest (the winner, obviously, contributed by InShaneee)
- DnD4Ever (contributed by Ericc)
- RPGRenaissance (contributed by James of Capturing Fantasy)
- and RPG-Journey (contributed by… no one. It was a last minute entry by me, to try to keep things branded similarly to my writing blog - Writing Journey).
DND4Ever was cool - it even had 4E in it. However, I wanted to keep my options open just in case 4E were to flop.
I didn’t feel like RPG-Journey would be fair to everyone who worked so hard to come up with ideas. Plus, I couldn’t really pin down the value of sharing a brand with my writing blog (though I’m sure there is one).
I like the sound of RPGRenaissance, but it’s damned hard to spell. I just figured it out last week. It wouldn’t have done well for me to not known how to spell my own blog, would it?
Here were some of my other favorites, in no particular order:
- angrygoblinhorde from Greywulf
- ParagonGamer from Nate-Ball
- TenRanksDM from Arceo
- RoleForInitiative from Patriarch917
- NoHorsesinDND, Boccobsblessedblog, and mordysfaithfulwatchblog from Nevyn
- dispelignorance from Graham
- how-i-role from Geek’s Dream Girl
- RPGDungeonDragonDnD from Sage
- blogofscrying from Noctambulist
- fromthedragonsmouth from Kameron
- LettersFromHommlet from Thomas D
- DnDlicious from Shekaka67
- tavernpostings, attackingthedarkness, and undergroundadventuringsitesandflyingreptilianbeasts.com from Colin
So, there you have it. Again, many thanks to all that participated.
Economics in D&D: A Blast from the Past
(Good evening, all. I realize I still owe you all a post about my thoughts on the naming contest. Unfortunately, paying work has got in the way of goofing off here so far this week. I hope to have something soon. In the meantime, enjoy this post from January of this year. I’ve got a lot of new readers, so please chime in with your thoughts!)
Dante over at stupidranger.com raises some interesting questions today.
Dante’s point, which he makes so well, is that the economics of the D&D world are completely screwed up, primarily by magic items.
Let’s think about it: in our world, if there were wands that could cure diseases instantly, or if there were rings that could make you invisible, they would be the “gold standard” of the economy. Magic, rather than precious metals, would be at the heart of the stock market.
D&D has none of that. Hell, magic items are a regular commodity, as available as leather or wine.
There is another factor to think about in terms of D&D and economics. Just how much gold is there buried in all of those lost dungeons? And how much has been found? Wouldn’t the single dragon’s horde, discovered outside of a small town or village, completely decimate that town’s economy with the influx of all of that cash? Gold in the cities surrounding Myth Drannor would be so devalued as to be almost worthless, considering the thousands of lairs that have been raided.
These aren’t unique questions to D&D, either. The MMORPGs have the same problem, arguably on a much larger scale.
Having said all of that, there is still one question: does it even matter?
I say yes. We strive, as DMs, to provide players with a “realistic” fantasy world: a world that resembles our own in most ways, but has these supernatural, monstrous, and heroic elements. Those are what makes Dungeons and Dragons a fantasy role-playing game. Suspended disbelief.
But, economics? Having a completely unrealistic economic system doesn’t add to the fantasy element any more than having completely unrealistic geographic features adds to it (deserts and tundra can’t co-exist).
What’s the answer, then? Hell if I know. I was a philosophy major in college. But, I do think that there may be something on the horizon that helps: in 4E D&D, they’re talking about fewer magic items. That may be a step in the right direction.
Any professional economists out there who’d like to give it a go? That might even make a decent product for a 3rd-party designer: Economics of the Fantasy World.
Balance and Rules Convergence in Dungeons and Dragons 4E
It’s all about balance.
Greywulf had an excellent post up at his Lair today. He offers up some of his thoughts on 4E, and how he sees some of the emerging trends.
Here are a some of the main points he makes:
- Game balance should be secondary to enjoyment of the game.
- 4E is combat-heavy, and has little to offer in the way of role playing.
- Because 4E is combat heavy, the classes have all been adjusted to be balanced in combat.
I agree completely that game balance is secondary. I’d even go as far as to say that game balance is, in some ways, an illusion. D&D isn’t a perfect system, mathematically, and it never will be. In my group especially, I don’t worry about game balance because we’re all friends. No one is going to be jealous of another player because of character abilities.
I don’t, however, agree with the other two points. On the first point, I’ll offer you the comment I left over a the lair:
I’m intrigued by what you’re saying here about 4E being so heavy on combat. To me, Keep on the Shadowfell was impressive the way that it handled the NPC interactions during the “interlude” stages. For the first time in a while, I felt like I really knew the NPCs, and could role-play them effectively without having to re-create them in my own head.
True, Shadowfell was a bit encounter-heavy, but no more so than Demonweb Pits.
So, my experience was totally different that Greywulf’s. Which one of us is right, or most reflects how 4E will be? Hell if I know. Time will tell. But here’s the thing: I believe, firmly, that a rule set can’t encourage good role-playing. That’s up to the people playing the game. A complex ruleset can get in the way of good roleplaying, as can one with social “skill checks” like in 3E. But, like with 3E, there are ways around that.
As to the question of the classes being more closely matched in combat ability, I think what Greywulf and others are seeing is simply rules convergence. This is the idea, very present in 4E, that the classes ought to play in a similar fashion, even if their abilities are vastly different. In other words, differences in classes matter most in flavor, not in mechanics.
I like this. In fact, here’s the other part of what I said at the Lair:
In fact, I’m of a mind that the rules convergence may well prove to be the smartest thing D&D ever did. Think about it: my friend who’s only ever played a paladin because he understands the mechanic can now play anything he wants. That’s a boon to many folks, especially newcomers to the game.
So, what do you all think? Really, there are 2 questions here. First, how important is game balance, if at all? Second, is rules convergence a good thing?
photo credit: SuperFantastic
-
Updates
