Yea, We'll have to wait and see... but if one of the drives of 4E is supposed to pushing the Dungeons and Dragons 'verse... it seems like an odd move to push the onus to flesh out the in-character reasonings for paragon features onto the DMs and players.
I mean, I know that the majority of players often just grab a PrC because of the abilities, and the "new market" probably isn't interested at all in the minutiae of what/how/who they get their powers from, but rather the end result, killing things... but come on.
I've slashed monsters in a multitude of directions enough times to get to level 11. I have reached the paragon of arbitrary slashing motions, which I hereby dub: "omnislash".
That works in video games, but it just seems silly for pnp to follow that sort of logic. I hope it doesn't come to that.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Really? Because personally I could've lived without being a Thief of Slartybartfast or a Knight of Nii. I'd have welcomed having the opportunity to be a Super Thief or Awesomeo-Knight with less restrictive (and face it, arbitary) story/career path requirements. Because if necessary the GM could've enforced those kind of requirements anyway...
But having to put up with the nuances of being a Thief of Slartybartfast or a Knight of Nii are what made them what they were. It was part of the flavor of the game.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Guys, I just got around to reading the warlord article and noticed this.
INT effects your reflex save now? Hasn't that been the purview of Dex since the dawn of forever?
A lot of the saves use a "use the highest of two" setup for the defense stats. There's a sample pdf of the known rules. I think the OP links it too. It's been a while since I skimmed it though so I could be wrong.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Yes, every defense has two stats linked to it. This was a "fan mod" they swiped with a vengeance. Of course, it started out trying to defuse the massive save leveraging of a Cleric/Druid....
Really? Because personally I could've lived without being a Thief of Slartybartfast or a Knight of Nii. I'd have welcomed having the opportunity to be a Super Thief or Awesomeo-Knight with less restrictive (and face it, arbitary) story/career path requirements. Because if necessary the GM could've enforced those kind of requirements anyway...
I very much agree that this was often the case when you were trying to shoehorn 3.5 PrC's from 10 books into a campaign. Conversely though, the homebrew I'm making is shaping up to be pretty cool, and I might want some Ppath options to mix in from that along with the characters internal advancement options.
I don't expect 4e to try or succeed at knowing what works best at each game table's setting (barring the Eberron/FR/GH etc specific stuff that would go with each book) - and I think 3.x tried and failed to some extent with PrC's - but I'd wouldn't mind a mechanism. All in all this isn't something that would be difficult to houserule in, I think.
You'd be stuck with Swashbuckler, but you're kind of looking at it the wrong way. Swashbuckler is merely a refinement of the skills you already had and were focusing on, some additional powers, not a new class per se. What's more, say you get contacts with the Assassin's Guild. Okay, what precisely is stopping you from being an assassin Swashbuckler? You're still a rogue, you can still sneak, etc.
Actually, due to retraining, I don't believe you're stuck. It's just you can only have one paragon path at a time. So say you start out as a swashbuckler at 11th level; at level 15 you can cash out and become an assassin. You'll lose all your swashbuckler bonuses, but gain the assassin ones.
On the PrC/Paragon discussion, I like how paragon paths are being presented so far. I like the "it's you picking up some neat tricks" after adventuring for a bit. But I do believe that it can easily be modified to work with organizations as well. Heck, it will probably be possible to have a specific path be available to multiply organizations; they just flavor the abilities differently.
Also, for those who prefer PC's get into a PrC by joining an organization; how'd the first person to get the PrC get the abilities? Someone had to be the first to discover the techniques the PrC grants, why not the PC? Interesting possibilities with that. Perhaps NPC's flock to the PC, hoping to learn the secrets he knows. Perhaps villians will start trying to remove him from the picture; afraid of the new techniques they don't have access to.
I was always under the impression that the Lawful and Chaotic requirements to Monks and Barbarians was a mechanics thing to make those two classes mutually exclusive. On the axiomic axis, either of them could conceivably both be neutral really. I just thought that since they both represented powerful melee fighters with good defensive abilities they wanted to make sure you couldn't double dip with multi-classing. Huge hit die, damage reduction, monk armor class, evasion abilities, rage, etc.
Obviously the combination isn't so overpowered now that there are so many powerful things in Tome of Battle and various prestige classes. But compared what came out in the core 3E books, it's leagues better a combination than any other multi class I can think of. Anyone know if this has any truth to this or if I'm just mistaken?
You're probably right. I think this was the designers attempt at limiting certain multi-classing they saw as too powerful. I just disagree with how they went about it. I have no clue how else they could have done it, other then just come out and say "We recommend you not allow these two classes to mulit-class as the combination will be too powerful."
On the PrC/Paragon discussion, I like how paragon paths are being presented so far. I like the "it's you picking up some neat tricks" after adventuring for a bit. But I do believe that it can easily be modified to work with organizations as well. Heck, it will probably be possible to have a specific path be available to multiply organizations; they just flavor the abilities differently.
I quite like the sound of that: very in keeping with the reaffirmed idea of all the party being extraordinary people who, should their campaigns go on long enough, can quite possibly end up reshaping the very setting as a whole.
I've yet to see any indication that their are rules for changing your class/Path/Destiny at all.
Also Barbarian and Monk weren't mutually exclusive. It just required alignment changing. If you're the kind to considering doing it those rules aren't going to stop you.
The problem as I saw it with the PrC system is twoflod:
1) It was work. You had to sit down, sometimes for hours, and work out how your character would be built throughout all twenty levels at level one. You couldn't just "play what you want" because in the end you would have found that you screwed your character over. The idea of punishing people for trying new things in my opinion was the worst part of 3e.
2) The system was too complicated for new players. Oftentimes, when helping noobs, I wouldn't even talk about base classes but rather have the player choose their PrC and build the character toward that end, oftentimes with no room for deviation or player choice.
In 3e, you didn't get to design your character; the rules did that for you.
As an aside, I think we should come up with another term for noobs, so as to partially separate from the video game culture (well, not really, but it might be fun to discuss). I suggest "nate", as in short for neonate. Other suggestions?
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
As an aside, I think we should come up with another term for noobs, so as to partially separate from the video game culture (well, not really, but it might be fun to discuss). I suggest "nate", as in short for neonate. Other suggestions?
Or...or we could not. I'm gonna go with lets not do anything like that at all and just call them new to tabletop RPGs.
As an aside, I think we should come up with another term for noobs, so as to partially separate from the video game culture (well, not really, but it might be fun to discuss). I suggest "nate", as in short for neonate. Other suggestions?
Or...or we could not. I'm gonna go with lets not do anything like that at all and just call them new to tabletop RPGs.
Agreed. :P
Hmm... When playing say, World of Warcraft you have the option of trying out any talent configuration you want for your class. If it came out as a mish-mosh of stupid, then you could get them reset. In either case, forethought was a base requirement for leveling the character to avoid that situation.
One of the more merciless versions of said forethought could be found in Ragnarok Online... where you were free to have a Swordsman class character with 99 INT, or a priest with 99 STR. Later versions made int swds logical given their later classes, and priests one had the fastest unarmed melee speeds in the game... but still. Forethought required. In 3.xE DM could just the same allow for a character to make adjustments (within reason, naturally) should such a case arise. You are the final arbiter in your game.
At the onset of my current game, one of my players started off as a fighter. The he bought the Tome of Battle, and wanted to play a sword sage. I allowed the change, but then his stats made him into a horrendously bad Sword sage. So I allowed him to buyback adjust his stats to better reflect a sword sage.
While PrCs add a certain flavor to a game, btw... they aren't really necessary for a character to have either. Building backwards like that for a new player isn't something that I would have done. :P
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Not every GM allows for character retools, and if you let a new player "just go", odds are, when they see everyone else around them with three PrC's and a gajillion cool special abilities, it makes the new player feel his character is underpowered or not as cool. Eliminating prereqs, as they seem to have with the Paragon paths, is a much better choice in my opinion, as it allows the character to be built any way the player chooses without limiting their choices at higher level.
I personally find it better to let people play what they want without restriction rather than make them jump through a bunch of hoops just to have the character they want, then tell them at the end, "Oops, you took one misstep. Looks like no PrC for you!"
Just because we here are all really good at building characters does not mean everyone else is. I mean, for Christ's sake, people sometimes need to use Excel spreadsheets just to design their characters! And you're trying to say that it's not overly complicated?
This all comes down to the topic of player empowerment. In my opinion, telling a player they can do something, rather than telling them they can't, is almost always the better choice, and the new rule set seems to cater to that premise, whereas the old PrC system didn't.
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I've yet to see any indication that their are rules for changing your class/Path/Destiny at all.
I'm assuming devout is following this closer than me since he's updating this thread... but it could very well wind up being the same song, with a different beat in terms of character abilities.
They seem to be removing the flavor from it... which is what I don't like.
I design my characters by hand, then put them into Excel or my DB... [strike]but not before stamping them with my own blood.[/strike]
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
The problem as I saw it with the PrC system is twoflod:
1) It was work. You had to sit down, sometimes for hours, and work out how your character would be built throughout all twenty levels at level one. You couldn't just "play what you want" because in the end you would have found that you screwed your character over. The idea of punishing people for trying new things in my opinion was the worst part of 3e.
2) The system was too complicated for new players. Oftentimes, when helping noobs, I wouldn't even talk about base classes but rather have the player choose their PrC and build the character toward that end, oftentimes with no room for deviation or player choice.
In 3e, you didn't get to design your character; the rules did that for you.
As an aside, I think we should come up with another term for noobs, so as to partially separate from the video game culture (well, not really, but it might be fun to discuss). I suggest "nate", as in short for neonate. Other suggestions?
Oh god.
The problem with prestige classes wasn't any of that, the problem was that no one at wotc ever did a balance pass on any of them before just throwing them out there.
So you had fairly well balanced 1-20 classes in the PHB that no one ever used, and some fairly reasonable PRCs that no one ever used, and everyone picked some random class from some obscure book that made no sense in the campaign because hey we absolutely need to be leet and crit people on a 12/have full spell progression and fighter bab/etc.
So rather than just follow some basic guidelines and making a decent system (ie prestige classes should be approximately equal to the last 10 levels in a base class, good abilities should come at the end and abilities should be approximately evenly distributed through levels, etc) you just ended up with a giant abortion.
3.5 is actually a decently well balanced system (not perfect, but not horrible) if you only use the PHB classes, and maybe the psionics and complete book base classes.
The problem as I saw it with the PrC system is twoflod:
1) It was work. You had to sit down, sometimes for hours, and work out how your character would be built throughout all twenty levels at level one. You couldn't just "play what you want" because in the end you would have found that you screwed your character over. The idea of punishing people for trying new things in my opinion was the worst part of 3e.
2) The system was too complicated for new players. Oftentimes, when helping noobs, I wouldn't even talk about base classes but rather have the player choose their PrC and build the character toward that end, oftentimes with no room for deviation or player choice.
In 3e, you didn't get to design your character; the rules did that for you.
As an aside, I think we should come up with another term for noobs, so as to partially separate from the video game culture (well, not really, but it might be fun to discuss). I suggest "nate", as in short for neonate. Other suggestions?
Oh god.
The problem with prestige classes wasn't any of that, the problem was that no one at wotc ever did a balance pass on any of them before just throwing them out there.
So you had fairly well balanced 1-20 classes in the PHB that no one ever used, and some fairly reasonable PRCs that no one ever used, and everyone picked some random class from some obscure book that made no sense in the campaign because hey we absolutely need to be leet and crit people on a 12/have full spell progression and fighter bab/etc.
So rather than just follow some basic guidelines and making a decent system (ie prestige classes should be approximately equal to the last 10 levels in a base class, good abilities should come at the end and abilities should be approximately evenly distributed through levels, etc) you just ended up with a giant abortion.
3.5 is actually a decently well balanced system (not perfect, but not horrible) if you only use the PHB classes, and maybe the psionics and complete book base classes.
Even the more broken PRCs are only really unbalanced if you:
1) Take PRCs /feats from one setting (Forgotten Realms I am looking in your direction) and use them out of context.
2) Don't firmly apply the roleplaying requirements and restrictions that go along with the PRC. EG: You can only take levels in the Knights of the Huge Golden Wang if you meat the stat reqs and in game convince them to let you join and follow your superiors orders.
Personally, I'm glad "respec" rules are a built-in assumption of the game this time around.
Agreed. In a way this cuts against my "Tough Choices" policy but it's no fun screwing up once and being screwed for ever and ever for it.
As regards Prestige Classes one of the big issues is that Design Policy shifted about halfway through 3.5. There is no way you can say that Eldritch Knight and Abjurant Champion are balanced with regards to each other.
The problem with not having respec rules is that... well, they're making new shit all the time!
New feats, paragon paths, powers, etc. will continue to get added to the game.
What if I start a Fighter, and by the time the Martial Power book comes out I'm like, level 23, and they make some wicked shit that would be perfect for my character, but they're powers and feats for like 17th level dudes?
Should I be punished because I bought a new book? Should I always have to make a new guy to take advantage of the new things I got?
Alignment was interesting in Planescape, and, if you used it casually, rather than as some sort of binding behavior quota, it was fine.
I expect the people who were in love with Alignment are along the same lines as people who greatly enjoy having distinct races they're allowed to kill on sight and still be Lawful Good.
I was just reading back a bit, do people actually play like this?
The groups I used to run in, unless it was something like an outsider or undead (or a priest wearing symbols of a known evil cult, etc) or actively hostile, attacking first/unprovoked without reason was considered out of alignment for good (not that you couldn't do it, but you wouldn't be good very long if you did).
I mean if I were DMing, randomly attacking, say, a bunch of goblins sitting around a campfire minding their own business with no provocation would be a fall worthy offense for a paladin and would push anyone else down to neutral on the second or third offense (and down to evil for especially egregious things like torture or killing children, regardless of race).
Also I always interpreted the detect alignment spells to be more about intent. If an evil wizard is planning to murder someone, or trying to decieve with the intent of hurting, then detect evil detects him. If an evil wizard is sitting at the bar having a drink thinking about how he's going to pay his taxes this month, then no dice.
"Whatever is back there is just your imagination away~"
PC: "I jump over this wall!"
DM: "Ok, you jump over the wall. You see barren fields, stretching out to infinity. The wall is higher on this side. You can not jump back."
The explanation of the Insider software makes 4E seem like it's an MMO that makes you do the calculations and rolls for combat/etc. I don't know if that would really fly well with the newer market. f"The kitchen table on the internet." It'll be sexy if you hook your PC/Laptop up to your widescreen LCD or HD Projector, but other than that... huddling around one PC to play a game would be kind of weird these days.
Scott Rouse looked disgruntled for that entire interview. :U
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
I dunno, I would totally play on my desktop, but I have two monitors. I could keep stats and DM shit on one screen, the player's map and other things on the other. Alternately, I could steal a projector screen from work.
I've used my old laptop and excel at the table before, I was the party's official note-taker, map guy, and combat info tracker. I just like that there are programs for this shit now. Makes it easier to not have to find a chess board at somebody's house when something impromtu breaks out.
I used my pocketPC and an Excell sheet to keep track of group inventory and monies. It worked beautifully.
I have the den in my house set up so when I DM I can set at my computer to have access to all my sheets/tables/books/etc. I hope I can pump the Digital Initiative battlegrid to my HDTV.
The use of a computer can really help a game, for DMs and players alike.
Yea, I use my laptop when I DM too. I have all the npc and char stats in a db, myself. I also wrote a few programs to track init and combat junk but most times I've found that the ol' pen/paper is better for that. at least, until I get my tablet laptop and start that fervor again xD
The other thing I noticed now that I think about it is that I don't think they mentioned you use dice to play... at all. I'll have to watch it again later though.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Posts
I mean, I know that the majority of players often just grab a PrC because of the abilities, and the "new market" probably isn't interested at all in the minutiae of what/how/who they get their powers from, but rather the end result, killing things... but come on.
I've slashed monsters in a multitude of directions enough times to get to level 11. I have reached the paragon of arbitrary slashing motions, which I hereby dub: "omnislash".
That works in video games, but it just seems silly for pnp to follow that sort of logic. I hope it doesn't come to that.
INT effects your reflex save now? Hasn't that been the purview of Dex since the dawn of forever?
Fort=Str/Con
Reflex=Int/Dex
Will=Wis/Chr
Always use the higher.
page 99
I very much agree that this was often the case when you were trying to shoehorn 3.5 PrC's from 10 books into a campaign. Conversely though, the homebrew I'm making is shaping up to be pretty cool, and I might want some Ppath options to mix in from that along with the characters internal advancement options.
I don't expect 4e to try or succeed at knowing what works best at each game table's setting (barring the Eberron/FR/GH etc specific stuff that would go with each book) - and I think 3.x tried and failed to some extent with PrC's - but I'd wouldn't mind a mechanism. All in all this isn't something that would be difficult to houserule in, I think.
Actually, due to retraining, I don't believe you're stuck. It's just you can only have one paragon path at a time. So say you start out as a swashbuckler at 11th level; at level 15 you can cash out and become an assassin. You'll lose all your swashbuckler bonuses, but gain the assassin ones.
On the PrC/Paragon discussion, I like how paragon paths are being presented so far. I like the "it's you picking up some neat tricks" after adventuring for a bit. But I do believe that it can easily be modified to work with organizations as well. Heck, it will probably be possible to have a specific path be available to multiply organizations; they just flavor the abilities differently.
Also, for those who prefer PC's get into a PrC by joining an organization; how'd the first person to get the PrC get the abilities? Someone had to be the first to discover the techniques the PrC grants, why not the PC? Interesting possibilities with that. Perhaps NPC's flock to the PC, hoping to learn the secrets he knows. Perhaps villians will start trying to remove him from the picture; afraid of the new techniques they don't have access to.
You're probably right. I think this was the designers attempt at limiting certain multi-classing they saw as too powerful. I just disagree with how they went about it. I have no clue how else they could have done it, other then just come out and say "We recommend you not allow these two classes to mulit-class as the combination will be too powerful."
I quite like the sound of that: very in keeping with the reaffirmed idea of all the party being extraordinary people who, should their campaigns go on long enough, can quite possibly end up reshaping the very setting as a whole.
Also Barbarian and Monk weren't mutually exclusive. It just required alignment changing. If you're the kind to considering doing it those rules aren't going to stop you.
1) It was work. You had to sit down, sometimes for hours, and work out how your character would be built throughout all twenty levels at level one. You couldn't just "play what you want" because in the end you would have found that you screwed your character over. The idea of punishing people for trying new things in my opinion was the worst part of 3e.
2) The system was too complicated for new players. Oftentimes, when helping noobs, I wouldn't even talk about base classes but rather have the player choose their PrC and build the character toward that end, oftentimes with no room for deviation or player choice.
In 3e, you didn't get to design your character; the rules did that for you.
As an aside, I think we should come up with another term for noobs, so as to partially separate from the video game culture (well, not really, but it might be fun to discuss). I suggest "nate", as in short for neonate. Other suggestions?
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Or...or we could not. I'm gonna go with lets not do anything like that at all and just call them new to tabletop RPGs.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
ding 100? ::irony::
Agreed. :P
Hmm... When playing say, World of Warcraft you have the option of trying out any talent configuration you want for your class. If it came out as a mish-mosh of stupid, then you could get them reset. In either case, forethought was a base requirement for leveling the character to avoid that situation.
One of the more merciless versions of said forethought could be found in Ragnarok Online... where you were free to have a Swordsman class character with 99 INT, or a priest with 99 STR. Later versions made int swds logical given their later classes, and priests one had the fastest unarmed melee speeds in the game... but still. Forethought required. In 3.xE DM could just the same allow for a character to make adjustments (within reason, naturally) should such a case arise. You are the final arbiter in your game.
At the onset of my current game, one of my players started off as a fighter. The he bought the Tome of Battle, and wanted to play a sword sage. I allowed the change, but then his stats made him into a horrendously bad Sword sage. So I allowed him to buyback adjust his stats to better reflect a sword sage.
While PrCs add a certain flavor to a game, btw... they aren't really necessary for a character to have either. Building backwards like that for a new player isn't something that I would have done. :P
I personally find it better to let people play what they want without restriction rather than make them jump through a bunch of hoops just to have the character they want, then tell them at the end, "Oops, you took one misstep. Looks like no PrC for you!"
Just because we here are all really good at building characters does not mean everyone else is. I mean, for Christ's sake, people sometimes need to use Excel spreadsheets just to design their characters! And you're trying to say that it's not overly complicated?
This all comes down to the topic of player empowerment. In my opinion, telling a player they can do something, rather than telling them they can't, is almost always the better choice, and the new rule set seems to cater to that premise, whereas the old PrC system didn't.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
We haven't seen them yet but we know that much.
I'm assuming devout is following this closer than me since he's updating this thread... but it could very well wind up being the same song, with a different beat in terms of character abilities.
They seem to be removing the flavor from it... which is what I don't like.
I design my characters by hand, then put them into Excel or my DB... [strike]but not before stamping them with my own blood.[/strike]
I just know the source for "retooling" is the preview from last week that gave us the levels at which powers are gained.
At this stage, we still have no clue how multiclassing works.
The thing is that 4E has retraining as an assumption rather than an option.
Oh god.
The problem with prestige classes wasn't any of that, the problem was that no one at wotc ever did a balance pass on any of them before just throwing them out there.
So you had fairly well balanced 1-20 classes in the PHB that no one ever used, and some fairly reasonable PRCs that no one ever used, and everyone picked some random class from some obscure book that made no sense in the campaign because hey we absolutely need to be leet and crit people on a 12/have full spell progression and fighter bab/etc.
So rather than just follow some basic guidelines and making a decent system (ie prestige classes should be approximately equal to the last 10 levels in a base class, good abilities should come at the end and abilities should be approximately evenly distributed through levels, etc) you just ended up with a giant abortion.
3.5 is actually a decently well balanced system (not perfect, but not horrible) if you only use the PHB classes, and maybe the psionics and complete book base classes.
Even the more broken PRCs are only really unbalanced if you:
1) Take PRCs /feats from one setting (Forgotten Realms I am looking in your direction) and use them out of context.
2) Don't firmly apply the roleplaying requirements and restrictions that go along with the PRC. EG: You can only take levels in the Knights of the Huge Golden Wang if you meat the stat reqs and in game convince them to let you join and follow your superiors orders.
As regards Prestige Classes one of the big issues is that Design Policy shifted about halfway through 3.5. There is no way you can say that Eldritch Knight and Abjurant Champion are balanced with regards to each other.
New feats, paragon paths, powers, etc. will continue to get added to the game.
What if I start a Fighter, and by the time the Martial Power book comes out I'm like, level 23, and they make some wicked shit that would be perfect for my character, but they're powers and feats for like 17th level dudes?
Should I be punished because I bought a new book? Should I always have to make a new guy to take advantage of the new things I got?
No, that is dumb.
So, respec rules, yay!
Retraining doesn't solve every problem. Plus, I was under the impression you slowly retrained across multiple levels.
You can't be a dwarven defender, you're not dwarven.
I get drunk, cut off my legs, and grow a beard!
I was just reading back a bit, do people actually play like this?
The groups I used to run in, unless it was something like an outsider or undead (or a priest wearing symbols of a known evil cult, etc) or actively hostile, attacking first/unprovoked without reason was considered out of alignment for good (not that you couldn't do it, but you wouldn't be good very long if you did).
I mean if I were DMing, randomly attacking, say, a bunch of goblins sitting around a campfire minding their own business with no provocation would be a fall worthy offense for a paladin and would push anyone else down to neutral on the second or third offense (and down to evil for especially egregious things like torture or killing children, regardless of race).
Also I always interpreted the detect alignment spells to be more about intent. If an evil wizard is planning to murder someone, or trying to decieve with the intent of hurting, then detect evil detects him. If an evil wizard is sitting at the bar having a drink thinking about how he's going to pay his taxes this month, then no dice.
Please stop being about alignment. Isn't that Warlord class excerpt pretty cool though?
Your pal,
Arcanis
Eh.
Worse comes worse, mindwipe ritual with your friendly neighborhood psion followed by a polymorph. :P
isn't it random backdoor combos like this that 4e is weeding out? :P
http://www.g4tv.com/mmoreport/videos/21318/The_MMO_Report_4th_Edition_DD_Special.html
Some new information (free app Dungeon Builder!)
PC: "I jump over this wall!"
DM: "Ok, you jump over the wall. You see barren fields, stretching out to infinity. The wall is higher on this side. You can not jump back."
The explanation of the Insider software makes 4E seem like it's an MMO that makes you do the calculations and rolls for combat/etc. I don't know if that would really fly well with the newer market. f"The kitchen table on the internet." It'll be sexy if you hook your PC/Laptop up to your widescreen LCD or HD Projector, but other than that... huddling around one PC to play a game would be kind of weird these days.
Scott Rouse looked disgruntled for that entire interview. :U
I've used my old laptop and excel at the table before, I was the party's official note-taker, map guy, and combat info tracker. I just like that there are programs for this shit now. Makes it easier to not have to find a chess board at somebody's house when something impromtu breaks out.
I have the den in my house set up so when I DM I can set at my computer to have access to all my sheets/tables/books/etc. I hope I can pump the Digital Initiative battlegrid to my HDTV.
The use of a computer can really help a game, for DMs and players alike.
EDIT - has everyone seen this:
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tutorials/tabletopprojection/
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The other thing I noticed now that I think about it is that I don't think they mentioned you use dice to play... at all. I'll have to watch it again later though.