The 4E DMG's Guide to Engaging Different Types of D&D Players | Stealing from Older Editions
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ส.ค. 2024
- In this episode, I read from a book that was published 14 years ago - turns out, it still holds up!
Also, I know I’m asking for another battle of the Edition Wars to break out in my comments, so I’ll just say… please be cool.
00:00 - The 5e DMG’s Guide to Player Types
01:53 - In Which I Say Nice Things About 4th Edition
03:12 - The 4e DMG’s Intro to Player Types/Player Motivations
04:36 - Actors
06:43 - Explorers
08:00 - Instigators
9:00 - Power Gamers
10:10 - Slayers
11:12 - Storytellers
12:10 - Thinkers
13:09 - Watchers
14:11 - Outro
PATREON: / supergeekmike
DISCORD: / discord
NEWSLETTER: www.supergeekmike.com/newsletter
____________________________________
WEBSITE/BLOG: www.supergeekmike.com/
WISHLIST: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Address for Packages:
Mike Christensen
100 W. High St., #1326
Moorpark, CA 93021
- PLEASE don't address things to "SupergeekMike"; I need to show I.D. when I pick up packages, and that isn't the name on my driver's license
Address for Letters:
Mike Christensen
P.O. Box 1326
Moorpark, CA 93020
TWITTER: / supergeekmike
INSTAGRAM: / supergeekmike
TIKTOK: / supergeekmike
TWITCH: / supergeekmike
____________________________________
More Links, including my One Funny link: www.supergeekmike.com/links - เกม
The advice for "watcher" type players really can't go understated, especially the part about never mistaking their quietness for not having fun. For these type of players the fact they keep showing up should be proof enough that they want to be there.
Exactly!
The watcher can also be a "support main" who's okay with letting others do all the talking and instigating and storytelling, and is there to pitch in when needed and to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. Quietly helping out from the rear, and fine with never being the one who gets all the praise or recognition, because THEY KNOW that things would have gone to shit without their help, even if none of the NPCs or other party members are saying so.
There is some truth to this, but some people will show up to games because they feel like others need or expect them to. Check in with your players if you're not sure.
Agreed! I remember a guy in our group used to bring his girlfriend along, and she didn't know the rules at all but was honestly a better player than he was, often suggesting really smart strategies or pointing out clues he was missing. Then one day the GM (and, I'll admit, everyone else) peer-pressured her into making her own PC, and from that point onward, she was miserable. In the end she stopped attending at all.
This is incredible wisdom. As a DM, I love those list-end tips for engaging different kinds of players in the nuts and bolts of DM-ing: having slayers help track initiative, tap thinkers for quest ideas, encourage explorers to map, etc. Brilliant.
Thanks for posting!
Here's a player who takes lots of notes and who, before the pandemic, used to track initiative, concentration and conditions as well. As I move towards running games, even though I was already planning on asking for help, I'll try and apply this to see who might enjoy what the most.
I also really like that. I think there's a big assumption that DMs should do everything to "create" the game and players are there to play, go home, and not think about it til next week. As well as being unfair, I think that puts a lot of people off getting into DMing, both because it becomes such a daunting job and because they haven't learned any of the necessary skills while they were players. If the ranger is making maps based on the DM's descriptions, the bard is writing the campaign log, and the fighter is keeping track of who's where on the battlefield, that's work off the DM's plate and it makes those players more likely to take the reins for the next campaign.
fantastic video. somewhat surprised 5e removed these descriptions but this video should be watched by players/gms alike.
I have to say though: Players don't always, if ever, fall into one category or another specifically. People can love the fighting AND the roleplaying, it's just a balance of what each players like the most, and by what amount. Not only that, players can change. If I may bring up Critical Role as an example: Ashley Johnson was clearly a "Watcher" type for the first campaign and most of the second one, in large part due to her on-and-off appearances, but since the end of Campaign 2 and especcially with Fearne in Campaign 3, she really became quite an Instigator!
That’s an excellent example!
@@SupergeekMike While I am a okay DM lately when it comes to would building physical writing and editing can be extremely difficult. I am finding it hard to do even though I record everything and have a transcription program. What can I do?
Mmm-hmm. He's reading off a list of all these player types and I'm nodding along and saying, "Yeah, I do that sometimes" with bullet points out of almost every category.
This point is sort of made clear in the video at 3:30 ish. It explicitly states that players can be more than one of these types.
However it does fail to mention the concept of players changing over time. So you do make a good point that it could reference how a player may move between some of these over time.
@@Abelmars11 A lot of the time the answer to DM overwhelm is to delegate to the players (I really like how the tips in the video encourage this - like getting a Storyteller to assist with narrative ideas, and the Explorer to draw maps). The unfortunately common assumption that the DM should do EVERYTHING - game-master, scríbe, artist, secretary, rules tutor, sometimes even host and chef - is unfair. Sure, you want to keep your notes for UPCOMING sessions to yourself, but if you want to keep a running log of past sessions, what's stopping one of the other players from taking over that responsibility? The fact that you already have a transcription programme takes most of the work out of it, so that all they have to do is edit it together. They could even write it up in their own character's voice - perfect for a bard composing a heroic epic about the party, or a character who keeps a journal or writes regular letters home. (Actually the idea of a campaign log written in the form of a collection of personal papers from a different party member every week sounds really cool, I'd love to try doing that sometime.)
This has helped me understand one of my fellow players in my game better. He's a watcher and none of us could understand why he hasn't dropped out of the game months ago or what he gets out of not really engaging with the party. I think he does just like watching and getting involved occasionally. The rest of us are much more into roleplay and combat.
I am glad to see someone else who started DMing from 4e and can see where it had positive points.
This and possibly Matt Colville's Type of Players video are modified and D&D specific versions of the types from the 2002 system agnostic book "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering" by Robin D. Laws. That book was REALLY influential in terms of how to approach GMing a game.
They actually brought in Robin Laws to write part of DMG 2.
@@DocEonChannel of 3E, right?
@@billrubine1318 Well, I was thinking of 4e. But now that I checked, I see he did both.
@@billrubine1318 The D&D 4E DMG was built partially on the 3E one where robin laws was involved. In the DMG2 for 4E then they hired him again.
I love playing on "instigator-mode" sometimes. It's a fine line to walk, and you have to make sure you're not disrupting the other players' plans like preventing them from talking to an NPC or being stealthy (I've been on both sides), but every now and then you find that beautiful opportunity to set something on fire and watch it burn.
I really appreciate this video. I’ve only played a couple times, but I definitely identify with the Watcher and Thinker player types. I love puzzles, hate overly strict time limits, and enjoy when I can follow a story without constantly occupying my brain space with how my character would respond differently than I would. I really like having these categories to help understand how different people might prefer to play. For example, I’ve long struggled with a player making an obviously “wrong” choice like opening an obviously trapped chest, but the different motivations discussed in this video help me understand why people might do that.
I really liked this, acting is very often my primary motivation in games, I love getting into character, it probably comes from my experience as a theatre kid in high school. But I can spot different playstyles within most of my party too. In a different campaign I was in we did have a problematic watcher, she never remembered her abilities between each session and had to be reminded what you could do on a turn, and whenever we tried to interact with her character we’d have to say her name multiple times which bogged everything down a lot. (This campaign was online, in general while I think watchers can still have a lot of fun in dnd I definitely think they are one of the most affected from an online group instead of in person, but this group was scattered all across the country so there is little we could do about that)
I love this list because it challenges DMs to accept player motivations as legitimate and shows why they’re beneficial to the game.
The list of problems doesn’t from motivations, it’s bad behavior that can come up. This is a really important distinction and it allows the DM to redirect the problem EARLY without blaming the player for playing wrong.
That was rather valuable and like others I'm surprised it wasn't included in 5th. Even as a leveled GM I still have issues balancing things with a party of diverse interests at times. These ways of thinking about it and advice, again, is rather useful.
I'm honestly surprised you also didn't talk about Matthew Coville's Type of Players video! It's one of his older ones, but it covers a lot of what was said here too.
As someone who’s only ever played 5e, I loved this video. I will definitely be figuring out which role my players are and use that info to build a better and more appealing game.
this was a very good video! as a newer DM i have been trying to find ways to keep everyone truly engaged. everyone at the table says they are having fun and im doing a good job but i know there is room for improvement with my DMing. Knowing how to tailor a game for each player is a valuable skill i did not know how to do cause i didn't know before how to categorize players behavior. Thanks Mike!
You said what I wanted to say, but better!
These are honestly all amazing, and honestly, I think the biggest problem that 4e had was it was too different from 3.5e. There's so much that they had in 4e that they really should've carried over to 5e. I honestly would love to try 4e again now that I am in a different state of mind, and with a different group of people.
4e kind of has a renaissance and in the subreddit and siscord you find A LOOT of ressources for it including vtt support
I really appreciate you taking the time to read through both the strengths and the weaknesses of each of these categories-especially the watcher category. I’ve only ever heard negatives about this kind of player, but so many people who are just being introduced to D&D fall into this category. Thank you for sharing this with us.
This is also reasonably helpful for players well. Helps them to understand what parts of the game they actually engage with, what they might like to see more of, and what habits to avoid. I can certainly see parts of myself in these descriptions and its really useful to understand where I should be pulling back a little, and also understand how others might be enjoying the game.
4e did a lot of things right, I think the most major issue was people were thrown off by it using nothing but game mechanic descriptions.
Close blast 3 sounds more like a game than a 15 foot cone.
I think a related issue was that the uniform format for power descriptions, and putting the classes' roles front and center, made them seem even more similar than they really were. I mean, there wasn't that much difference between a Sorcerer and a Warlock, but just browsing the books, I had a hard time finding the little differences there were.
It's also a lot easier to handle and envision. People however also forget all those powers have flavour descriptions of what they're visually doing.
@@WilliamMoses355 what? Ranger is more similar to Warlock then Sorcerer
My mother is a watcher. Her FAVORITE part of D&D is watching my brother and my niece play the game. They are SO entertaining.
It's nice to see that validated.
This has actually been one of my favourite videos you've done yet. It engaged me and caused me to think about what roles I - and my players - fit into. The 'Watcher' segment at the end was interesting and I think I agree with you that the latest edition of D&D is less for its absence. Because having a 'Watcher' in my party is often something I rail against and see as a personal failing when DM'ing or a lack of engagement with what the DM is offering to us as a player.
Wow I loved this section of the 5E DMG, but you're right! This was so much better! The "Watcher" type of player is absolutely legit!
At the core these had been originally outlined by Robin D Laws, with the exception of the Instigator which resonated so much with me that this insight alone made the 4th edition DMG worth it for me.
When the 4e DMG2 was cheap as dirt during early 5e, I just to gift it to new DMs just for his essay in that volume
I think this brings up an interesting point of the "edition wars" for me. I first got started with ttrpgs with 3rd/3.5. As such, I really did not appreciate the WoW streamlining of 4E. I've never been a fan of making systems "user friendly" by removing options or control from experienced users. I understand WoTC wanted to make d&d more accessable to new players, but they did that by mechanically neutering the system. However, while i really did not appreciate the MASSIVE cut in content and control, I actually did love the added emphasis 4th put on lore and roleplay. One my absolute favorite campaigns my group played was set in the Tiefling/Dragonborn war directly inspired by just those two races histories in the phb. My favorite character i played was in that campaign. It's just a pity what they did to combat and leveling.
I heard a bunch of bad things about 4e, but after being somewhat disappointed with some of the setting books in 5e I downloaded some 4e books like the underdark book and heroes of the feywild, and I was amazed and the level of detail in the lore and every description was just oozing with creativity,
I agree, I was not a big fan of 4E MMO mechanics (though small things like cantrips were a good addition to D&D) but they put a _lot_ of emphasis into the lore, especially as they advanced the Forgotten Realms setting. I still use the 4E lore books when running games in Faerûn.
4e was no more the "World of Warcraft" edition than 3e was the "Diablo" edition. Pretty much every time a new edition rolls out there will be people who accuse it of being dumbed down. This should be all the more clear right now with One-D&D looming over the horizon.
Yes. This was very valuable to me. I have been building a world that I'm very excited to share but I worry about my ability to cater to the group. This was extremely insightful and has helped me come up with a "game plan" so to speak as it will be my first time dming lol
Good luck!
I love it - going back to past books or publications for how they can influence the game today
Great video!
That is some useful information! I did not play any of 4E and honesty haven’t heard many good things about it. So this was a cool look at something worth while that the edition brought to the table. ;)
this was a GREAT video!
This was super helpful. I kind of skipped over 4e (more incidentally than intentionally) and this really helps me place one of my characters and helps me accept that he s still having fun even if he isn't jumping into the play every time. Thanks
I'm in the process of building a new world and starting again. I've so far built parts of it based on the players I have. To make it accessable to them.
I'm going to use this as tool to help me write their future adventures so I can find good ground with them and also so they can see each others style.
Also the watcher is so key. It's a shame they got rid of it. I can see the negative in it but I 100% have a watcher. And this has helped me to think how to engage with them.
I had a session that made me think of this video. I think of myself as an "Actor" or "Storyteller" players. I love to talk in character, I like following narratives all that. But the latest session of an Adventurer's League brought out the instigator in me. I think some of it was frustration with the other players who were dithering about what the best move was and some of it was me getting more confident as a player and trying out risky moves to see what will happen
I haven't finished watching this video yet, but I only played 4e I think twice at conventions, and never really got into it, but when I started DMing 5e, my fiance got me the 4e DMGs because about half the books are just excellent general advice for DMing really any edition.
I'm loving your subjects and the way you discuss them. Keep up the good work. :)
I liked this very much and more videos that dive deeper into similar content would be amazing. I've been DMing for a little while now but the more I learn the more I see I need to learn. and hearing new and interesting takes and ways to look at the craft really helps me.
Very neat!! It's helpful to hear what I may be doing without realizing as a player, and even more helpful to get advice on how to best accommodate my friends' different interests/playstyles
4E is an amazing version of D&D. Unfortunately, the echochamber some gamers are in don’t give it a chance. We are doing a 4E campaign as our next one.
Hope you have a great time!
I'm a weird player because I'm very involved and like to get invested but I also enjoy EVERY pillar of play, so I'm hard to please.
I just try and cope with what I got, which is awesome.
That was so good! Why didn't they include that in the 5e DMG. We have a watcher in our group, and some days I'm even the watcher just because it's where my head is at that week. Loved those categories, and yeah its essential we remember we're likely a combination of some of them
I never played 4E, so this was a useful look back at the older DMG. Definitely looking forward to more hints from the past.
Just, thank you.
Very interested
My brother is a Watcher type player and it’s something I’m still trying to get used to and account for. He doesn’t RP much if at all, and he seems to enjoy combat, but he doesn’t get amped for it like my power gamers and slayers, so at times it feels like he isn’t engaged, or he’s bored. I try to keep reminding myself that he’s having fun watching everyone else and doesn’t need to be forced into anything. If he asks for it, that can change, but otherwise let him enjoy the game how he wants. 🙂
I’m still trying to get back into D&D as a player after a loooong hiatus, but your videos make me want to try DMing 😍
I’m very glad!
I would probably put myself as Explorer, Storyteller (of the world's story, not my own), and a bit of Powergamer.
Reminds me of the Bartle types, though those are supposed to be for MMOs and they're described along two axes, rather than a list. Explorers and Achievers are primarity environment-focused, and Socializers and Killers are primarily interaction-focused. Explorers and Socializers tend not to be very competitive, while Achievers and Killers are.
You have 200 points to spend among those four types, so you can think of it as similar to the alignment grid. Whenever I take the Bartle test, I end up with 90+ Explorer, roughly 50 in Achiever and Socializer, and under 10 on Killer. Of A&S, I usually lean toward Achiever, since there are often areas to explore that require a minimum level to access relatively safely. Socializing is often necessary to further exploration as well, since there are often areas that require a group. I really don't get the Killer type, since making someone else have a bad time doesn't interest me, and having to watch out for Killers just detracts from the exploration I really care about.
Of these 4e D&D player types, I'm obviously an Explorer, but also a Thinker. I like solving puzzles or just being good at lore skills, especially when those unlock access to something new to explore. Or you could flip the order and say what I really want is information, and exploration tends to provide novel forms of it.
I really wish the watcher was more talked about in 5e. It's one of the categories i'd fit into the most and i'd always feel so guilty thinking i was letting people down
4e still has the best combat of any edition, imo.
My take on 4E is simple:
Having played 3.5 a fair bit, 4E felt like it fixed every last problem I had with that edition.
All the clunky mechanics, the dead levels, having spellcasters that need crossbows, all of that was fixed in 4E.
Combined with the superb DM tools for creating encounters, it was my favorite TTRPG of all time.
It was D&D but with actual thought put into making it a functional game first compared to older editions that seemed to think about the lore first and try to make up rules around them later, ending up with some very bad designs.
Considering my favorite pantheon was from 4e, and this section on players... I might want to pick up a used copy of the 4e DMG
Been loving the videos, as a new DM they have really helped me see that mine first campaign although fun is also bad in a lot of ways. Later this week I'm going to be talking to my players about what to do moving forward: new campaign or trying to save this one. Hope to learn more from you in the future.
Edit:
Also what are your thoughts on DMPC's. Video idea?
A video about DMPCs is definitely on the list
I think I’d classify myself as 60% Actor 35% Storyteller and maybe 5% slayer. I want the character! The plot! The story! Feeling cool/competent without it being too complex that it cuts into role playing time.
I played 4e a year ago and honestly I think it’s incredible! Really wonder why it’s so hated by the wider D&D community. Running it is also very nice, especially with the monster tactic blurbs they had in the Monster Manuals.
It isn't fair. I agree. D&D 4e is a great game. As someone who has DM'd every major edition of D&D (going back to AD&D 1st edition) it was the easiest system to craft interesting and dynamic encounters for. It wasn't perfect, but I remember it fondly.
It's comparison bias. Same reason people who grew up able to completely customize and reprogram their PCs in the late 90s and early 00s completely hate everything windows is now.
@@TwoBitWriter 100%! Embracing the gameplay really helped 4e shine. Wish we got more content for it but it’s understandable why we didn’t
It would be also useful to look at what is actively droptive to players fun For example as described both the instigator and the slayer are fun destroying for me as a player.
Damn, I'm like 80% of those. Are you gonna make me read 4e? This seems very useful for a lot of games, actually.
I’ll probably make more 4e videos in the future, there’s a lot of great stuff in those books.
Pathfinder 1st edition does a good job of coming up with a decent number of archtypes for players it is also in that systems DMG. Simmilar to what your talking about here
I like the fact that 4e went out of its way to provide advice for, basically, any and all types of players. What I don't like is the "watcher". I can get behind simple social gatherings, but if I, as a DM, devote time and effort for a session, I'd very much like that appreciated. This is why I think most DMs don't like watcher type players: They feel the player doesn't appreciate this effort. I've only had a player like this once. We talked it through and they realised that it is not the type of experience I offer, so we parted ways amicably
A watcher is hard to engage with. And it's nearly impossible to have a game with two or more watchers in the party, since they won't guide the story in any direction unless you push them/railroad them, which isn't fun for anybody. I don't think it's wrong to be a more passive player, I don't think anyone does, but D&D does demand action from players. A watcher might be more comfortable just watching than playing with the group, but I'm not sure how often this happens
Also… “phrasing” lmao
I was expecting myself to not fit one of these categories but nope, I'm 100% a storyteller even when I started playing 10 years ago. I feel like all storytellers eventually become forever DMs. The few one shots or short campaigns with strangers I've been in before definitely start off with me as the watcher for a few sessions until I hit my comfort zone and then I burst onto the scene like Percy in the Briarwood arc.
Honestly you can make a whole series about things that 4E really fucking nailed over other editions and even Pathfinder. Over engineered and clunky, but extremely innovative, balanced, and really looks out for players and GMs
I’m definitely gonna come back to this subject at some point - especially with the new edition looming, it would be fun to try to refresh my memory on 4e and take a look back at what got left by the wayside.
I feel like I fall into the Powergamer, Storyteller and Instigator categories (in that order)
As a power gamer, I gotta be real, I usually make sure my character is optimal for combat, but I also like to make my character with a specific purpose in mind (because if I just went with the 'optimal' choices all the time, I'd have a difficult time making sure my character is still fresh and interesting to me). If my main combat stat is below a 16 at level 1, I usually feel pretty uncomfortable. It's a really simple thing to not be able to get over, but I always feel instinctively wrong for not having my main combat stat at a 16. Beyond that, I like to remain flexible with my choices in skills and spells. There's also something satisfying in just seeing visible progress in moving towards the next level, if I feel like I'm stagnating and not becoming more powerful in a tangible way, I get antsy and start wondering when/if I'll level up any time soon.
As a Storyteller, I enjoy making strange characters (usually I consider race, class, subclass then background) and coming up reasons for why they exist. For instance, I made a really strange Yuan-ti Oath of Ancients Paladin then I went down the rabbit hole. Why did this Yuan-ti swear an oath to protect and preserve all the beautiful and good things in nature when the Yuan-ti, by and large, don't particularly care about that stuff in the first place? So I built his backstory and then his personality to see what kind of person would come from such a backstory.
So I continued until I not only found a backstory that justified his existence, but even created a location key to his backstory, and tied in an important character (Karsus pre-ascension) into his backstory which helped explain how he came to be as well as leaving his mark on the key location from his backstory.
Then powergamer and storyteller kind of mix together, where I definitely make a character with a specific purpose in mind, in this case a true enemy of all mages everywhere, but I also cannot reconcile not having a good backstory that explains their existence. A Yuan-ti Ancients Paladin, plain and simple is very difficult to harm through magic. But at the same time, I feel like I can't really present him to my group with any kind of confidence without a decently well thought out backstory.
Finally, Instigator, which is pretty easy to explain. I hate getting bogged down by overthinking an encounter and trying to cover every minute detail in said plan. I like to push onward for the sake of advancing. I tend to get frustrated being forced to wait, if I'm not invested in the planning process or no one is even close to willing to consider what I put forward, I start to shut down and look at my phone while I wait for them to get finished with whatever plan they need to make so I can jump back into the action.
Using they/them would actually fit as you're talking about a nonspecific ambiguous player, unlike how it tends to get used nowadays
This. I am an explorer actor thinker? Something along those lines. I DM for a bunch of actors 😊
4e is great
The his/her stuff has been around in D&D from the start. They used gendered language for all player and class descriptions, and it jumped back and forth regularly.
They didn’t use they/them but I still find it cool that they (with hope for their wives and girlfriends) wrote “her”
With your critical role videos have you considered which type of players the CR cast are? Like of course we want to default to Actors but instigator feels so much more accurate to some of them honestly lol 😂.
Everyone wants to eat Geralt
Nom nom nom
Thanks for the video. As someone who’s been playing RPGS a very long time I remember these sections of the 4e DMG. I do agree that the 5E DMG could give more advice about how to produce content for your players and what kinds of content you can produce. However, I think the reason they reduced this section is that these descriptions can be terribly reductive and potentially harmful to you as a DM. I’ve found it can lead to problems if you try to break up your players and their attitudes this way, rather than taking them as you find them without a DM mandated label. These categories can make it seem like there are only these types of players and that people _have_ to fall into one or another, whereas in reality players can fall into a lot of different categories simultaneously. It's like expecting someone to act in a certain way because of their star sign.
What can be worse is by telling players something like this, that they are an explorer, power gamer or watcher, it can force them to think they need to act in a certain way to fit that label, especially if they are being told this by the DM, who is "in charge". This can mean that if they're more an Explorer, they should only be into exploring content and not the battles, if they're a power gamer they can only min-max and can't get into roleplaying. It's like giving someone a label in day to day society, people will tend to think in terms of the labels as opposed to being open to the wide variety of people that do not fit one label or another, which can be detrimental to both the label-er and the label-ee.
What I personally think works better is rather than assigning these personalities to players (or getting them to pick them for themselves), it is better to label the kind of content you as a DM are going to provide. This means it's more up to your players to decide if they're interested, rather than you as the DM guessing and hoping your players will find your game interesting. For example, you can say you want to run a puzzle/mystery campaign with low combat and lots of RP. That will attract the "actors", "storytellers", "thinkers" and even "watchers" without you ever having to try and label them as types of players. It lets them decide what they want to play and lets you get on with planning without trying to lump your players, some of which you may not know very well yet, into specific groups.
This is only my opinion of course, but I think it is one of the reasons why they’re moving away from detailing these descriptions too much. It's good to bring it up as a video if only to allow newer DMs who never read the 4E DMG to understand what the descriptions are in the 5e DMG and get more detail behind them.
Just to tack another point on; an additional issue this sort of labelling players can have is that players can _change_ from week to week. One week they may be really into their RP, the next they may want to smash some monster skulls, the next they may really want to solve puzzles. Their labels may change, so if you do want to use this method, keep this in mind.
I find that profiling my players is very productive in guiding the mix and frequency of content I produce. Of course it’s not the point to pigeonhole them, but in general I’d suggest DMs give a primary/secondary type after the first session is over. Then revise as needed and as new information comes up.
Also, the goal isn’t to bucket each individual player, it’s to profile the group as a whole to inform your encounter mix and scenario design.
Most players enjoy a mix of all these different modes, so even ones who want to blow off steam still want other elements in their game.
Another way to use this is to try to have each encounter hit multiple types to engage different gaming attitudes.
Hi Mike.
Hello!
"phrasing"
All the editions have ups and downs. I think 4e gets crap because the internet has sort of approved ripping on it. You see this with stuff like the starwars prequels
That’s a big part of it, for sure
In a lot of ways I feel like it's a shame that 4E has such a bad legacy among a lot of the DnD audience, because in a lot of ways it had the potential to be a great introductory RPG to bring players into the fold. I think if 4E had been marketed as something like Modern Basic rather than an entirely new edition/replacement for 3.5, it would have fared better and better emphasized its strong elements, IE the very clear and concise character progression, emphasis on simple and easy-to-understand mechanics, a LOT of design cues reminiscent of MMOs or video games as a whole, etc.
I love 5E. I, too, feel like it's the best iteration to date: it has most of the depth of 3E without being (quite) as easy to utterly break, but in a lot of ways *feels* more like 2E in the way the classes actually function. That said, if I were wanting to start a group of pre-teens out on their first tabletop game... 4E would absolutely be my choice, as a way to engage them with something we could get started in with under an hour prep time and they'd have everything they need to know right at their fingertips.
Thing about 4th Ed., It'd be a great game if it were called anything but D&D. But nowhere near as many people would of played it if it weren't D&D. Is a real catch22.
Exactly!
I still play 4e, and honestly hate 5, though admittedly that's partially the lies and hypocrisy the 4e haters have spouted about it.
4e had some issues but it was also a really strong design, I liked it
@@SupergeekMike They ALL have issues, I just hate the hypocrisy and lies around the hate of 4th.
@@tyrongkojy I understand why people would see something they didn't like in 4e and decline to play it, that's totally fair. But there's also no denying that a really strong narrative formed around 4e, and all the haters believed that narrative and took it as gospel, and that sucks.
@@SupergeekMike Indeed.