Newsgroup: it.hobby.giochi.gdr.dnd
Titolo: QUARTA edizione 4th - opinioni di altri playtesters

WotC's Rodney Thompson and Mike Mearls say that custom NPCs are easy.
From Rodney's blog:
When it came to doing encounter design, specifically, for D&D 3.5 I
was usually inclined to pull existing monsters and NPCs out of the
"toolbox" of books I had at my disposal....I tended to create new
monsters sparingly, and NPCs only when necessary.
For my Dawn of Defiance adventures, and any other encounter I've
designed so far, my tendency is the exact opposite. I actually prefer
to design my antagonists from scratch with a few exceptions (I don't
bother redesigning stormtroopers or Imperial officers, but I have been
known to create alternate versions)....
I've been working on a D&D 4th Edition adventure lately as well, and
I've once again found myself designing the antagonists in each
encounter from the ground up. Sure, I've got a whole Monster Manual to
pilfer from, but I haven't been. Granted, I think it's much easier to
design a monster in 4E than designing an NPC in Saga Edition, but
that's not really the point. Saga Edition still uses most of the basic
design philosophies embraced by 3E for opponent design, while 4E, of
course, does its own thing. I wonder if I've gone to a "build from the
ground up" philosophy because Saga Edition/4E make it easier to do, or
if it's because of some other reason (constant exposure to the inner
workings of game design, for example, or just having been put in a
position to get faster at stat block design).
He has more stuff on SW encounters. And from Mike Mearls' blog:
Total time it took to create a level 8 gnoll warlock and level 11
human wizard NPCs, both with templates applied: 40 minutes.
If I had access to physical books and wasn't writing these guys for an
adventure (necessitating a lot of extra writing; for a home game I
might just note the what page I could find a spell or whatever), I
think it would've taken me 20, 25 minutes tops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Marmell isn't the only person to have been given a go-ahead to
talk about their 4E playtest experiences. John Rogers speaks out:
... I just got my go ahead to talk a little about playtesting. And
since there's no way I can profit from my blurbage, there should be no
lingering doubts about whether it's because I'm looking for a future
gig. Although anyone who even suspects that of Ari should be ashamed
of themselves.
For those of you who don't know me, I'm John Rogers. I write the Blue
Beetle comic book for DC, wrote and produced the pilot for a TV
version of Warren Ellis' Global Frequency, and I occasionally write
movies. I'm not a game designer, but primarily a writer in multiple
formats. I only mention this because some of you have been looking for
feedback from a non-designer, and so you can evaluate my opinions in
the context of how I use the game.
4E is the edition that promotes storytelling to primacy in the
gameplay.
It does so by streamlining the rules -- by giving you cleaner, more
relevant information for the situations when you actually need
information. My first thought when I read the ruels was "Hmm, somebody
at WOTC got a hold of The Paradox of Choice ." There are multiple
levels of choice in playing the game and building the characters, but
now there only mechanics for those choices for when they are
mechanically relevant.
Don't think "simple." Think "clean."
I think the reason there's so much buzz around 4E combat is because
that's where the most massive fun-change has come in, and so it
naturally dominates discussion and perception. By the time my NDA
playtest group got through our first session, we'd (unintentionally)
fought three massive combats in one four hour session, many multiple
opponents each time. When we finished we all kind of sat back, glassy-
eyed, and went "wow." Except for the rogue. He was punching the air
and cackling "More stabby! MORE STABBY!"
Because 3E combat had gotten so ... er .. gunky, combat's the first
thing you notice when playing 4E. It's hard not to talk about it. A
bit like if you bought a new car and got it up to 250 mph. The fact
that it has a great interior, amazing safety features and a kick-butt
stereo never really comes up in your first conversations about the
car.
There are mechanics in place in the rules, separate from the combat
rules, to fill in the non-combat tools of a PC/NPC/monster. Stat
blocks are there for when they're needed -- when you need to look at
stats. In a block. Fast. Like, during combat. Not only that, as the DM
I felt I had all the info I needed for the bits I needed help with
(combat) but the freedom not to be bound by unnecessary information
when we were roleplaying. That's what prompted me to post -- the above
gentleman's concern that "If you want [monsters] to use to something
besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation)." What is that
"something" besides basic combat? Roleplaying, right? What in that
stat block actively contradicts any roleplaying, and more so, what
more in the stat block do you need to use it in a story? Each monster
(as I understand it) will come with well-nigh a full page of flavor
text in the MM. That should be the base for the non-combat-y bits,
while the stat block is the wrench you use for the combat-y bits.
That's why, as a writer, the edition tickles me pink. No more
rummaging about for the appropriate monster with the appropriate
trained skills and appropriate background to fit my plot -- or
adjusting the fiddly stats of cool monsters to wedge them into my PC's
level and story setting. No more building NPC's for hours so they not
only do what I want them to do, they also have every fiddly bit
necessary to work but that I'll never, ever access in-game. Enough
detail to guide, never so much to cripple.
As far as simple/boring combat -- that Pit Fiend? He's elite, so
there's going to be two of them, summoning in multiple other high
level monsters with their own funky abilities, all set in a matrix
against the multiple combat powers and spells of your five own high-
level NPC's. While some people seem disappointed by the lack of
options in this situation and somehow see MORE prep here, the prospect
of running that combat on its own in 3E would make me, as a DM, throw
up in my mouth. With 4E, I'd have no problem running it. And that's
why a streamlined mechanic system is important for storytelling,
because it's easier to throw a wide variety of stuff at my players,
and easier to play out the results of said throwage. Whenever I have
more choices in storytelling, for me, that's always a good thing.
In short, my playtest experience for what it's worth:
Less prep time for the DM, with no loss of versatility in combat, and
plenty of added value and unexpected strategies. Monster design is
superior for what I need, which is versatility in the service of
storytelling. Trap design in particular made me want to kiss Dave
Noonan on the mouth. While roleplaying, we had more freedom, because
when you actually need a roll in the roleplaying you're working off a
cleaner system, rather than page-hunting for one of the independently
designed subsystems.
Take it as you will.



4E - Owen Stephens Thoughts on 43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case anyone missed it, from his blog:
So, as Mousferatu has mentioned before me, a lot of us working on 4e
projects now have special permission to talk about them a tad more. I
promised I would when I could, so now I am.
I have gotten to see and play with playtest 4e rules, and I have
received some 4e design work. I haven't been able to play with the
rules as much as I would like, because I went and got an office job
late last year. :-) That said, I've kicked the tires, and none of them
game off the game design.
Yes, it's very different in many ways. But it's also very similar in a
lot of important ways. Ican;t go into a point by point comparison (and
by the time I can, I bet someone more qualified will beat me to it).
But I do have one important observation about 4e I want to get out
there.
It's fun.
It's a fun game. I enjoyed playing it. I foresee playing it more. I
plan to run a campaign using it. These decisions are outside any need
I might have as a freelancer. Actually, the fact I went and got a job
outside gaming lets me look at 4e with a fresh set of eyes. I don't -
have- to like it. If I thought it was awful, I could shrug my
shoulders, decline any work regarding it, and my mortgage would still
get paid.
Instead, I enjoy playing it, I enjoyed writing for it, and I look
forward, as a matter of fun, to getting to do both again in the
future. I also look forward, as a pure consumer, to seeing what my
friends at Wizards and fellow freelancers have in store for it. _I_
can think of lots of fun potential ways to expand it's core set-up,
and I'm sure they have thought of ways I haven't. I want to see those.
In short, I'm looking forward to it.