The DMG 2 gameday event is a special meant to showcase the fun of Dungeon Mastering, which includes building an adventure in about an hour.

I don't think "Masterminds" is standard terminology. If there was a villian who had in fact "masterminded" something, I might be tempted to call him a mastermind, but in general, I dont think it matters. Boss works just as well if it's generally a bigger monster. Standardized terminology in general, is stupid.

So, to explain the event, rather than simply have DMs involved, it involves everyone in the group as a team to build the adventure (so that the non-DMs have something to do), and then you trade your adventure to the other team so that each team can be somewhat surprised by the other team's creativity.

The real parallels between this and the forge is I that witnessed some of these same fucking conversations with the people who eventually became forgies back in 2000-2001. They were resentful and angry and felt superior to the mere D&D players, who remained completely unaware of this because they were busy  actually gaming and not coming up with theories or lamenting the old days.

I expect about half of you to be drawing triangle charts and crying bitterly on your blogs within 3 years. If you haven't started already.

Quote from: Zachary The First;332627So...how did Worldwide D&D Game Day go, though?

We played. Mostly it was our (big) group with a few extra folks thrown in. We had two tables.

I think Koltar's off his rocker in respect to much of what he's saying. "Pick your boss" means it's an MMO, particularly when the two choices are both leaders of organizatons - i.e., bosses.

I don't have enough experience with 4e to tell how well put together the pre-gens were, but the other ten participants all seemed to think they weren't fantastically solid. The Fighter was, as I understand it, the worst of them.

Although I don't see anything particularly...corporate or upsetting with the idea of one table building another table's "adventure."

However, I don't think theoretically it's the best of ideas. You potentially have a table full of strangers - geek strangers - all working together under a time crunch. They're not going to agree (sweet mother of God, they're not going to agree), get distracted, et al..

And that's basically what happened. Our table did well. The table with the group's rules lawyer (or ex-rules lawyer as the case now is) didn't fair so well.

Also, there were some hard feelings between the tables. The other group designed their two encounters for our three players - in other words, sort of easy (although they did have one dirty trick). We designed ours for a full compliment of experienced players - in other words, as difficult as we could make it with the resources at hand.

But I thought it did a decent job of doing what it was supposed to: give people a wee taste of 4e. I attended one of these for 3e and it was pretty much the same: a flimsy reason to go adventuring, a couple of encounters, and a congratulations at the end.

Seanchai

Quote from: DeadUematsu;332694You have people on this site harping a billion other things more off-putting and THIS is what draws your ire?

It's the new Koltar. Still a bit of a buffoon, but now an angry buffoon. And if he's going to follow in Pundit's footsteps, he's got to find himself a windmill...

Seanchai

Forgie terminology and MMO terminology are pretty much on entirely opposite extremes of the spectrum. Seriously.

Not to mention "boss" isn't MMO terminology. It's general video game terminology since like the '70s. They even put it in quotation marks, indicating that it wasn't the official terminology, but rather something put there to help n00bs get the idea. They then went on to say "since they’re both leaders and could be the masterminds behind your theme." What could they be? Oh, right, the masterminds.

Your complaints would be easier to take seriously if they resembled reality a bit more.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;332735I don't think "Masterminds" is standard terminology. If there was a villian who had in fact "masterminded" something, I might be tempted to call him a mastermind, but in general, I dont think it matters. Boss works just as well if it's generally a bigger monster. Standardized terminology in general, is stupid.

Well, the terms occur in the context of building encounters featuring multiple monsters. As you perfectly know, 4E shortcircuits that process by featuring encounter templates which specify which "monster roles" make for good combinations. However. The monster roles in 4E are codified in terms of their function on the battlemap (lurker, soldier, ...) and this may not be the best way to draw new DMs in, as it presupposes a certain understanding of miniature tactics.

So one way to get round that problem - building a team of monsters without presupposing acquaintance with miniature rules - is to address the task, that of buiding a team of monsters, at a more intuitive level - that of how the monsters interact in-game (as opposed to: how the miniatures interact).

This is perhaps not "standard" in 4E (to use your term), but it has strong precedents in D&D 3rd edition. If you look at your 3.0 DMG, page 120-121, there's the method of stocking a dungeon by slotting monsters into the roles of
- critter: limited bestial intelligence
- toughts: reasonable, but still limited intelligence
- fiend: high intelligence
The idea here is to figure out who "runs" the monster team, who can issue commands (i.e. the hierarchy chain) and who in the remainder of the monster team is in a position to act on such commands. And for what it's worth, 4E's term "mastermind" is a vastly more intuitive label for that position than 3.0's "fiend".

Mike Mearls revisited this theme in his work Dungeons for FFG (in the Legends & Lairs product line), pp.100-101, and here we have for the first time the switch of perspective that 4E later becomes famous for. Instead of thinking about "monster roles" at the level of the monster's intelligence, monsters become tactical pieces to play with on a battle map. As such, their "roles" aren't dictated by their own intelligence (and the intelligence of other monsters commanding them); they are neatly delineated into what the tactically intelligent DM can do with them. Mearls then uses the categorization of spellcasters, sneaks, and warriors (the last two would be lurkers and soldiers in 4E).

I think it would be good if 4E returned more to the 3.0 mold of thinking about monster tactics. It'd certainly diminish somewhat the DDM-like feel to combats, since the DM, as much as the players, is asked to base his decisions on in-game considerations rather than the synoptic POV enjoyed by a  tactical mastermind not present in the game world itself.

This thing might generate ire precisely because it effectively codifies how GMs create short adventures. That is, it reveals the secrets of the order and, moreover, shows just how banal they really are.

It looks like an effective document, to me, that reaches its target audience and delivers game. What else is to rail about but the implicit denigration of our sacred tasks as Keepers of the Secrets?

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;332672I have no problem admitting, sir, that I enjoy both PBR and the High Life. The High Life especially. I have spent many a night with the Girl on the Moon as I imbibed the light, crisp wonders of the High Life. It's my favorite of the mass-produced domestic beers. I know it's all hip to rag on those beers, but I like a lot of 'em. Doesn't mean it's all I like...now that I'm back east of the Mississippi, I miss (for example) Fat Tire, and stuff like Karl Strauss' Barley Wine and Russian Imperial Stout.

You are a more stoic man than I. Last time I drank Miller High Life, I threw up.

And how can you not get Fat Tire? They sell it at Wal-Mart here.

Who is this Moon girl?

Quote from: Windjammer;332747I think it would be good if 4E returned more to the 3.0 mold of thinking about monster tactics. It'd certainly diminish somewhat the DDM-like feel to combats, since the DM, as much as the players, is asked to base his decisions on in-game considerations rather than the synoptic POV enjoyed by a  tactical mastermind not present in the game world itself.

FWIW, I agree with you and blogged about this exact topic less than a month ago. Unfortunately, I just think that it has everything  to do with the DM in question, and will require more cultural change than a rules-change.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;332679@Jeff: From what Koltar posted, two people working on one encounter for one hour seems like a fair amount to put something solid together. Also, the person who will then run the adventure is a part of the group creating the adventure, not somebody who picks it up cold, get your facts straight.

It isn't just an encounter, it is an adventure - multiple encounters. The person running the adventure is also not part of the group writing it - which is a big disconnect made larger by the time constraints of this exercise. Go read it again, or just check out the PDF.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;332693Linky!
 
http://www.isa.pl/magic/pliki/DMG2-Game-Day-Adventure-Creation-Instructions.pdf

If this is it, it doesn't look that bad, except it appears to be written for 14 yr old beginners to the game, which isn't a bad thing either if that's the target market of 4.0.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;332765If this is it, it doesn't look that bad, except it appears to be written for 14 yr old beginners to the game, which isn't a bad thing either if that's the target market of 4.0.

Wonder if WotC's philosophy is to make DMing really easy in 4E, such that DM specific splatbooks will sell better (ie. monster manuals, open grave, etc ...).

More DMs = more groups of players = more players buying player-oriented splat books.

I remember back in the day, the people who didn't DM 1E AD&D typically did not buy the DMG, MM, or any modules.  Some of the more "casual" players didn't even buy the PHB in those days.

By the time it was the 3.5E D&D era, the players in my games typically had the PHB and maybe a splatbook or two such as the "Complete ..." books.  One player even used a "Races of ..." book.  Nevertheless, the casual players typically didn't buy anything like the DMG, monster manuals, manual of the planes, etc ... nor any modules.  They also didn't buy any Forgotten Realms or Eberron splatbooks either.

In my 4E games so far, the players have the PHB1, PHB2, and some of the "... Power" books.  No idea if any of them have any of the DM specific books such as the DMG1, MM1, MM2, Manual of the Planes, Draconomicon, etc ...

It looks like the crap group exercises we had to suffer through at school and were pretty universally hated back in the day.

Like someone else said, that looks awfully like work to someone who just expected to sit down and play. Heck, it looks like more work than I usually put in preparation for the games I run (I usually just come up with a rough idea and improvise from there).