Hi, all.
With some regular frequency, the DMs are asked these questions about why we do certain things the way we do in the Guild. While these are likely overly technical to go into the normal Basic Rules/FAQ post, we answer them so wearily often that I decided to compile them here.
There are an obscene number of attributes used, from something as trivial (and uniform) as several iterations of armor check penalty to having SIX completely unique attributes for every single power (despite the fact that almost all powers will use the same statistics like attack bonus, damage dice, enhancement, etc.). This format is therefore incredibly wasteful in terms of game resources with TWO powers, let alone the 10-20 that many characters in the Guild have.
Firstly, the power format is only available for games that use the official 4e sheet. If you read above, you'll see why we can't do that. Similar power card formatting is available through the API, which leads us into...
Secondly, in the Guild, we believe in the phrase "functional before optimal." With such a large number of players, many of whom are inexperienced, we find that teaching them only the basics before they can play is much more enjoyable than teaching them the many complexities of coding before they are even allowed to roleplay in a session. While we certainly encourage using more advanced techniques in your macros to make coding them easier, we do not want to push needlessly complex expectations upon new players. This is one of the reasons we do not use API scripts in this campaign for things like power cards: there are simpler, more readily available alternatives that can be used by all players in all campaigns regardless of subscription level.
Thirdly, remember Rule 0 of Macros: "Macros should be clear and concise. They should be long enough that they are easy to understand but short enough that they do not clog the whole chat. They should allow the DM and other players to quickly and easily identify the important parts of your powers."
The key issue here is the "concise" and "do not clog the whole chat" parts. The way that roll templates are formatted squeezes the chat box's sides so that more lines in the chat box are required for the same amount of text in macros. For some very short, basic powers, this isn't really a problem. However, many of the powers in the game are anything but short or basic. Let's look at an example. Here is the roll template for a Level 1 Daily Attack power for a Runepriest:
Notice: there are huge margins on the left and right sides, meaning you can only get about 4 words per line. This one macro takes up almost the entire chat box, and this is a level 1 power with no other modifications (modifying feats, items, other riders from class features, racial features, paragon path features, etc.). It's already too big and it is not the most complex power that most characters will have in their lifetime by a long shot. Additionally, as most players will use more than a single macro during their turn, having one macro that takes up the whole chat box makes it very difficult on the DM running the game to follow what's going on quickly and effectively.
Let's compare the roll template to the same power's macro using our template:
Note that this macro takes up about half the space, despite the fact that it has more words. It also allows players to add in flavor text to describe their character's actions in ways that make them seem like more than stat boxes. As powers get more complex and players gain levels, items, powers, features, and abilities, these differences will only become more pronounced. Paragon-level PCs who use roll templates have numerous macros that take up more than the entire chat window on a reasonably-sized screen.
Again, we do not forbid players from using roll templates. Some of the DMs even prefer using them to keep their own character's powers organized, especially if their powers are relatively straightforward (think Essentials classes or charge builds); however, the vast majority of the DMs in the Guild view them unfavorably as their drawbacks outweigh their benefits in many cases.
Why don't you want players using the Character Builder at first? Why myth-weavers?
Those of you who read carefully through the Basic Rules thread will note that we ask you not to use the character builder to make your first few characters, and regardless of if you use the CB to make your character, we ask you to put the character into a myth-weavers sheet. If the CB is so great and automated and makes life easier, why would we do such a thing?
Some DMs do prefer to use Skype, TeamSpeak, or some other program, and they will announce that as part of their Upcoming Sessions post. Always be sure that your stuff is working before you roll into a session.
Not only does 4e have many fewer games than 5e, Pathfinder, or 3.5, but the player to game ratio for 4e is much higher (about 7:1). In other words, there are not enough traditional 4e games for the number of people who wish to play 4e, compared to 5e, which has one game for every 1.4 players who are interested in it. Thus, the Guild serves an "under-served community" by running 4e.
Additionally, just because 5e is newer does not mean that it is better: many of the issues with it have yet to be satisfactorily ironed out for many players.It also does not mean that it is necessarily worse: many players prefer the "classic" feel of 5e to the more "numeric" feel of 4e. However, those players should go looking for a 5e campaign instead of showing up to a 4e campaign and expecting everyone to change to suit them.
Additionally, limiting game elements to official materials allows the compendium to be used (both by players and DMs) to find game elements quickly and precisely without digging around the internet looking for the precise wording of a homebrewed class feature or feat. This rationale also serves as the reason we do not make a large number of houserules (as some other DMs do) to "fix" some of the imbalances in 4e. Firstly, it would likely only serve to create different imbalances, and secondly, players who are learning the game for the first time would not be able to take what they have learned to other 4e games they want to play. By keeping the rules as close to standard as possible, we make gameplay easier on the players; we make game running easier on the DMs; and we make learning the game and playing it elsewhere easier on everyone.
Remember that our DMs are all volunteers. None of us are paid to run games for players; we do it because we enjoy it. Many of us also take on additional responsibilities of checking sheets, checking macros, making tokens, debating rules, creating reference threads and many other managerial tasks that keep the Guild running semi-smoothly with a huge number of players compared to a traditional campaign. We have worked hard to make the process as simple and streamlined for players as possible by giving them a large number of specific resources for them to get started. Thus, it can be a tad frustrating for DMs or GMs when they are asked the same bad question for the hundredth time, when the answer is readily available through reading.
Remember that DMs are, in most cases, human. They may have stress from life, work, or putting together a session for you to enjoy (including maps, monsters, macros, stories, etc.). Feel free to call them out if they're being a gaping dickwad, but also remember to cut them a bit of slack if they pointedly tell you to read (again) or ask you to mute your microphone when you're eating so that other players can actually hear what they are saying.
The above example is, in my opinion (and what I've heard whispers of from roll20 devs) the exact reason why they will NOT implement if/then/else statements into macro coding. If this feature were to be implemented, roll20 would lose a lot of its "classic tabletop" feel, with such hallmarks as checking the scores yourself, deducting things from your own sheet, paying attention, etc. and would gain even more of an "automated MMORPG" feel. Macros allow you to roll and add quickly, but you still need to consult DMs and sheets and interact and communicate with other players to move forward in the game, especially when dealing with some of the more complex aspects of a role-playing game. From various people in the Roll20 community (again, hearsay), I have heard that adding this "feature" would "rip the tabletop soul" out of the roll20 system and make it a cheap knockoff of other, superior, MMORPGs. Since Roll20 has done well being a "virtual tabletop for pen-and-paper RPGs and board games," we can likely expect it to stick to its roots in this regard. Don't hold your breath for this "feature" to be added.
The short answer is that the corrections we make to the Compendium are objective mistakes: information from the original publication the game elements appeared in was omitted, not copied correctly, or reformatted in a way that no longer made sense. These changes to compendium are just to adjust it to match exactly how Wizards of the Coast said 4e material should work.
On the other hand, in the minor rulings, while our clarifications, rulings, and houserules are ones that a majority (or all) of our GMs agree on as reasonable interpretations, they often are not explicitly what the rules say, and other DMs in other campaigns may have different ways of reading than the GMs in the Guild do. Because we want resources that we give players to be as widely usable in other 4e games they might join, we don't include things that could even broadly be considered interpretations rather than material verbatim from 4e publications.
There are campaigns that do this, and in the past, the Guild did this as well; however, we changed this policy for several reasons:
Remember: making life easier for the DMs' varied styles by avoiding targeting means more games get run in a larger variety of ways so more people can play the type of sessions they like.
I hope these explanations have helped to clarify some of the Guild's policies and preferences!
Cheers!
With some regular frequency, the DMs are asked these questions about why we do certain things the way we do in the Guild. While these are likely overly technical to go into the normal Basic Rules/FAQ post, we answer them so wearily often that I decided to compile them here.
Why don't you use the Roll20 built-in 4e sheets?
Yes, we are aware that roll20 has built-in sheets for D&D 4e. However, these sheets have numerous problems:- Problems with displaying correct defenses for NADs based on ability scores. This is a setting that has to be changed manually and is, for some reason, not done automatically. Even myth-weavers can get very basic sheet math automation done, but roll20 (a massive calculator) can't...
- Formatting: For some sheets, "Damage" is listed instead of "Hit" (remember that there are many hit effects beside damage). "Effect" is also then listed, so many people would likely put Hit effects under "Effect," which is not correct for 4e.
- Attributes (the big reason): the 4e sheet creates an unreasonably large number of attributes. For many campaigns, this is not an issue: you only have 5-6 characters in a campaign anyway. In this campaign, we have hundreds of player characters and thousands of monsters. When the tabletop loads, it must load ALL the attributes of all the journals. This causes a huge amount of lag even with the bare-bones sheets we use now. With the built-in sheets, this campaign would be unplayable. Seriously, take a look:
There are an obscene number of attributes used, from something as trivial (and uniform) as several iterations of armor check penalty to having SIX completely unique attributes for every single power (despite the fact that almost all powers will use the same statistics like attack bonus, damage dice, enhancement, etc.). This format is therefore incredibly wasteful in terms of game resources with TWO powers, let alone the 10-20 that many characters in the Guild have.
Why don't the DMs like the Power Cards/Roll Templates? They seem so well-organized!
Concerning Power Cards/Roll Templates, we generally do not like them, but if you honestly think they are the best way to do your macros, we do allow them to be used. We do not encourage their use, though, for the following reasons:Firstly, the power format is only available for games that use the official 4e sheet. If you read above, you'll see why we can't do that. Similar power card formatting is available through the API, which leads us into...
Secondly, in the Guild, we believe in the phrase "functional before optimal." With such a large number of players, many of whom are inexperienced, we find that teaching them only the basics before they can play is much more enjoyable than teaching them the many complexities of coding before they are even allowed to roleplay in a session. While we certainly encourage using more advanced techniques in your macros to make coding them easier, we do not want to push needlessly complex expectations upon new players. This is one of the reasons we do not use API scripts in this campaign for things like power cards: there are simpler, more readily available alternatives that can be used by all players in all campaigns regardless of subscription level.
Thirdly, remember Rule 0 of Macros: "Macros should be clear and concise. They should be long enough that they are easy to understand but short enough that they do not clog the whole chat. They should allow the DM and other players to quickly and easily identify the important parts of your powers."
The key issue here is the "concise" and "do not clog the whole chat" parts. The way that roll templates are formatted squeezes the chat box's sides so that more lines in the chat box are required for the same amount of text in macros. For some very short, basic powers, this isn't really a problem. However, many of the powers in the game are anything but short or basic. Let's look at an example. Here is the roll template for a Level 1 Daily Attack power for a Runepriest:
Notice: there are huge margins on the left and right sides, meaning you can only get about 4 words per line. This one macro takes up almost the entire chat box, and this is a level 1 power with no other modifications (modifying feats, items, other riders from class features, racial features, paragon path features, etc.). It's already too big and it is not the most complex power that most characters will have in their lifetime by a long shot. Additionally, as most players will use more than a single macro during their turn, having one macro that takes up the whole chat box makes it very difficult on the DM running the game to follow what's going on quickly and effectively.
Let's compare the roll template to the same power's macro using our template:
Note that this macro takes up about half the space, despite the fact that it has more words. It also allows players to add in flavor text to describe their character's actions in ways that make them seem like more than stat boxes. As powers get more complex and players gain levels, items, powers, features, and abilities, these differences will only become more pronounced. Paragon-level PCs who use roll templates have numerous macros that take up more than the entire chat window on a reasonably-sized screen.
Again, we do not forbid players from using roll templates. Some of the DMs even prefer using them to keep their own character's powers organized, especially if their powers are relatively straightforward (think Essentials classes or charge builds); however, the vast majority of the DMs in the Guild view them unfavorably as their drawbacks outweigh their benefits in many cases.
Why don't you want players using the Character Builder at first? Why myth-weavers?
Those of you who read carefully through the Basic Rules thread will note that we ask you not to use the character builder to make your first few characters, and regardless of if you use the CB to make your character, we ask you to put the character into a myth-weavers sheet. If the CB is so great and automated and makes life easier, why would we do such a thing?- The character builders (both the official D&Di CB from WoTC and the offline CB) have errors. This should come as no surprise to people who have been following our tracking of compendium errors. The CBs do not allow some things that are perfectly legal and do allow some things that are not. Additionally, parts of the CB may not have been updated with all the errata (See: Symbol of Hope).
- The Guild has a large number of minor rulings and a few houserules that may change how a power, item, feat, or other game element would be interpreted by the builder. One simple example: in order to get the Guild-mandated free expertise feat (or free paragon defense feat), players will have to add in houseruled feats through the builder manually. This issue could cause further inaccuracies in a CB-generated sheet for the Guild.
- Using myth-weavers is free to everyone and is reliable (with some minor exceptions). It also provides a uniform format for DMs to check over sheets and make sure they are following 4e rules (and Guild rules) correctly. This makes life much easier on the DMs.
- Most importantly, using myth-weavers to build a sheet from scratch helps new players learn the rules of the game. Players must look up for themselves how many of each type of power they are supposed to take; they must list all their class and racial features and learn what each of them does; they must figure out how their trained skills and skill bonuses work; they must determine how many feats they are supposed to take; they must follow Guild rules for getting items; etc. etc. Having players make a myth-weavers sheet allows them to do the mechanical thinking (and reading!) ahead of time so they can come to games prepared to roleplay.
Why don't you use Ventrilo, Skype, TeamSpeak, or some other voice program?
After over three years and after having some minor issues with Skype's limited capabilities, we switched over to Discord in March of 2018. Discord had previously had a bug that caused it to be non-functional for about 10-20% of players, but that appears to have been fixed. We are continuing to evaluate its functionality but so far it looks like it is working well and performing the way we need it to perform. Discord allows us to create multiple roles for different-level players, to have multiple chats on diverse topics in an organized format, and to switch to voice chat easily and quickly when games start. Functionalities that it does not have include having Build, RP, and Bot channels muted by default, handling permissions 100% correctly, and having Matt know what he is doing all the time; while it's not the best thing ever, it works and it works well. (Remember, "functional before optimal"!)Some DMs do prefer to use Skype, TeamSpeak, or some other program, and they will announce that as part of their Upcoming Sessions post. Always be sure that your stuff is working before you roll into a session.
Why don't you switch to 5e or Pathfinder?
This question always baffles me, as it's a bit like asking a professional tennis player why he/she doesn't switch to football. They are different games. People come here to play 4e because they like 4e. There are plenty of 5e or Pathfinder games out there for people who want to play those games; there are a lot fewer 4e games. Let's look at the numbers:
Not only does 4e have many fewer games than 5e, Pathfinder, or 3.5, but the player to game ratio for 4e is much higher (about 7:1). In other words, there are not enough traditional 4e games for the number of people who wish to play 4e, compared to 5e, which has one game for every 1.4 players who are interested in it. Thus, the Guild serves an "under-served community" by running 4e.
Additionally, just because 5e is newer does not mean that it is better: many of the issues with it have yet to be satisfactorily ironed out for many players.It also does not mean that it is necessarily worse: many players prefer the "classic" feel of 5e to the more "numeric" feel of 4e. However, those players should go looking for a 5e campaign instead of showing up to a 4e campaign and expecting everyone to change to suit them.
Why can't I use homebrew game elements? Why don't you make more houserules?
While there are many game elements (powers, items, classes, races, etc.) in 4e that are viewed as stronger than others, all of the officially published material has been playtested and occasionally subject to errata, where gross imbalances are revised. Homebrewed game elements, such as many of the things found on DandDwiki for 4e, have undergone no such trial process, or perhaps very minimal playtesting, and as such may be far too weak or too strong compared to officially published game elements, especially at higher levels, where they may interact unexpectedly with high-level feats, items, or features. The official 4e material has more control over these issues.Additionally, limiting game elements to official materials allows the compendium to be used (both by players and DMs) to find game elements quickly and precisely without digging around the internet looking for the precise wording of a homebrewed class feature or feat. This rationale also serves as the reason we do not make a large number of houserules (as some other DMs do) to "fix" some of the imbalances in 4e. Firstly, it would likely only serve to create different imbalances, and secondly, players who are learning the game for the first time would not be able to take what they have learned to other 4e games they want to play. By keeping the rules as close to standard as possible, we make gameplay easier on the players; we make game running easier on the DMs; and we make learning the game and playing it elsewhere easier on everyone.
Why are the DMs so salty? Why do they care if I slurp noodles into my microphone?
Remember that our DMs are all volunteers. None of us are paid to run games for players; we do it because we enjoy it. Many of us also take on additional responsibilities of checking sheets, checking macros, making tokens, debating rules, creating reference threads and many other managerial tasks that keep the Guild running semi-smoothly with a huge number of players compared to a traditional campaign. We have worked hard to make the process as simple and streamlined for players as possible by giving them a large number of specific resources for them to get started. Thus, it can be a tad frustrating for DMs or GMs when they are asked the same bad question for the hundredth time, when the answer is readily available through reading.
Remember that DMs are, in most cases, human. They may have stress from life, work, or putting together a session for you to enjoy (including maps, monsters, macros, stories, etc.). Feel free to call them out if they're being a gaping dickwad, but also remember to cut them a bit of slack if they pointedly tell you to read (again) or ask you to mute your microphone when you're eating so that other players can actually hear what they are saying.
Why doesn't roll20 have if/then statements? Macros would be so much easier!
This question doesn't concern Guild policy per se, but it comes up frequently enough that posting the answer here is worthwhile. If/then/else statements are a fundamental building block of virtually any coding language, so it seems rather strange that Roll20 would have so many oddball functions but be missing this one; it's even stranger that it has some macro functions that clearly use if/then/else language in their fundamental coding ([[2d6r<2]] for instance will say if the roll is less than or equal to 2, it is cancelled and redone, otherwise it is kept). There have been requests for this feature for quite some time (Side note: this functionality is achievable with the API, but not on normal campaigns). Think of all the cool stuff you could do with it! You could make a macro that compares defenses and automatically says if it hits and calculates how much damage it does based on your token-marked conditions (power bonus to damage? weakened?) and/or the monsters' conditions (granting CA? Vulnerable 5 cold?). Heck, you could use it to deduct hit points from players or monsters automatically and add token markers from conditions you apply! You could just click, click click away and roll20 would play the game for you!The above example is, in my opinion (and what I've heard whispers of from roll20 devs) the exact reason why they will NOT implement if/then/else statements into macro coding. If this feature were to be implemented, roll20 would lose a lot of its "classic tabletop" feel, with such hallmarks as checking the scores yourself, deducting things from your own sheet, paying attention, etc. and would gain even more of an "automated MMORPG" feel. Macros allow you to roll and add quickly, but you still need to consult DMs and sheets and interact and communicate with other players to move forward in the game, especially when dealing with some of the more complex aspects of a role-playing game. From various people in the Roll20 community (again, hearsay), I have heard that adding this "feature" would "rip the tabletop soul" out of the roll20 system and make it a cheap knockoff of other, superior, MMORPGs. Since Roll20 has done well being a "virtual tabletop for pen-and-paper RPGs and board games," we can likely expect it to stick to its roots in this regard. Don't hold your breath for this "feature" to be added.
Why don't you add all the minor rulings to the Portable Compendium?
Several people have asked why if we are making Patches for the Portable Compendium anyway, why don't we add in all the Guild's minor rulings and clarifications into the Compendium? Surely that would make everyone's lives way easier!The short answer is that the corrections we make to the Compendium are objective mistakes: information from the original publication the game elements appeared in was omitted, not copied correctly, or reformatted in a way that no longer made sense. These changes to compendium are just to adjust it to match exactly how Wizards of the Coast said 4e material should work.
On the other hand, in the minor rulings, while our clarifications, rulings, and houserules are ones that a majority (or all) of our GMs agree on as reasonable interpretations, they often are not explicitly what the rules say, and other DMs in other campaigns may have different ways of reading than the GMs in the Guild do. Because we want resources that we give players to be as widely usable in other 4e games they might join, we don't include things that could even broadly be considered interpretations rather than material verbatim from 4e publications.
Why don't you use targeting to pull up Monster defenses in macros?
Those of you who read Part 9 of my Guide to Great Macros may wonder, "Hey, if I can pull up surge values for my allies in a macro, I can pull up monsters' defenses! My macro could just say /me rolls a [[d20+10]] vs the monster's AC @{target|AC} and it will automatically list it for me as part of the macro and I can compare it to my roll right away!"There are campaigns that do this, and in the past, the Guild did this as well; however, we changed this policy for several reasons:
- It's over-complicated. Having completely new people do all their macros is enough work. Having them add messy targeting to every one of their macros is unnecessarily complex.
- DM Monster Design: Some DMs have non-standard sheets for their monsters. Monsters could be made to have adjustable levels for the adventure being run at different ALs, and thus their defense attributes may not be correct for the AL of the session currently being run. Additionally, some DMs make or modify monsters on the fly (especially for impromptu games), meaning that they may not have a specific attribute for each of their defenses or that that defense attribute's value may be incorrect. Some DMs also don't want to break the immersive experience and have PCs instantly know the "magic number" that they need to hit for every monster without some sort of knowledge check.
Remember: making life easier for the DMs' varied styles by avoiding targeting means more games get run in a larger variety of ways so more people can play the type of sessions they like.
I hope these explanations have helped to clarify some of the Guild's policies and preferences!
Cheers!