The classes are largely undifferentiated compared to AD&D and 2nd Ed. AD&D. The warlock fires bolts of necrotic energy out of his wand. The Ki master fires bolts of energy out of his orb. The fighter fires bolts of energy out of his sword, and all do about the same damage.
Maybe, sorta, at low levels. After that I just don't see this. Its not really possible to make a cleric that does the same damage as a ranger at 11th level and beyond. Its nearly flat out impossible baring some major cheese I've missed. Even if one goes the melee cleric route you just don't get access to powers that are comparable to some of the really phenomenal ranger powers like Shoot on the Run. Even at the lowest levels there is no way the cleric has access to a damage dealing at-will comparable to Twin Strike.
Its worth pointing out that this is comparing a striker class (Ranger) to a cleric trying to do as much melee damage as possible. If you go with a wisdom based cleric you get a much different picture since wisdom based clerics do pretty pitiful damage most of the time and then get access to some of the most powerful mid level daily's in the game - Dismissal in many ways is more powerful then any other power I have seen of comparable level, it does no damage at all but the target gets banished to an extra dimensional prison (save with penalties ends). Needless to say sending a Dragon to an extra dimensional prison - even for only a few rounds, so that the group can focus on killing its rider and lackeys is powerful in a way that even being able to dish out 110 hps in one round can't compare to.
I'll be completely honest: this disturbs me.
You're clearly more invested in this discussion that I am.
My sincere apologies.
Honestly, I had no intent to disturb you, and I was not trying to degenerate the discussion into a Flame War.
I'm a huge believer that good-hearted, clever people can disagree about something and still walk away being good-hearted, clever people.
Also, I wasn't trying to imply that having a super deadly campaign was a good approach to making a campaign more serious.
My whole post was trying to show that some things are harder (for me) in 4e than they were in earlier editions.
There are many that feel the same way that I do. That does not make me right, but it makes it less likely that I'm insane. :-D
There are some folks that do not feel the same way. You and Jeremy are in the "do not" camp, and I am absolutely fine with that.
My players, who have been enjoying a relatively serious, detailed 4e campaign for over a dozen sessions would generally be in your camp.
For a guy who has been DMing/GMing/REFing/being a Keeper since the mid-70s, I find it harder.
Check out my 4e Campaign at the Bold Beginnings WWW Site. You might be pleasantly surprised.
You can see a difference in tone though from campaigns set in the same world using other RPG systems. Check out Mark Thomas' excellent reference pages from his time in Zhalindor and the Rise of Lichlord as an example of a Zhalindor campaign from 1990-92.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
See, the proper approach is to hand out this useful rules accessory before the game, and make sure everyone is familiar with it!
Sure, especially for a One-Shot or game at a big CON like GENCON or ORIGINS.
In my on-going Campaign, it is easier for me to bring the folks along and ease them into rules changes.
All my players previously played WoW.
I jokingly mentioned at an early session that there was not a graveyard that one resurrected at, and there was genuine disappointment.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
I hear what DrGames is saying as I feel it appears it's harder to die in 4E than in other editions. 3 Failed saving throws seems like a lot, espically when you roll 10+ and your safe for another round. The whole idea that enemies don't hit you after your down is silly, since I feel Undead would keep crunching on you way after you've fallen to the floor and that's the way I do it.
Be that as it may, I've had more characters die in 4E than I have had in 3E, espically at lower levels. Maybe it's because the players feel more "empowered" in 4E with their 20+ HP at 1st level or the illusion that 3 death saving throws is enough time for your allies to heal you but the reality is monsters are designed in such a way to keep your allies away from you, slow allies, reduce their actions, and so forth.
As for classes "undifferentiated compared to AD&D and 2nd Ed. AD&D", I have no idea why you feel that is. Fighters use a weapon, swing, and strike at enemies using a d20 vs. AC. Wizards cast spells from a distance, often dealing less damage, yet adding an effect such as sliding, proning, granting combat advantage etc. What I think it comes down to who's rolling for the effect to take place. In previous editions wizards just cast spells and roll die for damage, putting the responsibility on the target to "Save". 4E puts the responsibility on the caster to "hit" the target to have the effect. The principle is the same just the responsibility falls on the attacker 100% of the time instead of the target.
|
I hear what DrGames is saying as I feel it appears it's harder to die in 4E than in other editions. 3 Failed saving throws seems like a lot, espically when you roll 10+ and your safe for another round. The whole idea that enemies don't hit you after your down is silly, since I feel Undead would keep crunching on you way after you've fallen to the floor and that's the way I do it.
Yep, and if you got to negative Bloodied HP then you're dead, no saving throws there (we almost had a death like that last night). I wonder whether some people missed this mechanism to determine death.
I do agree that it is harder to wear characters down over a few fights, especially if those fights span several days - and this is one of the things I don't like about 4e. Mind you, its also a reason I am not a big fan of PF RPG and clerical channelling, you can pretty much heal to full HP overnight if you're only doing 1 or 2 fights a day.
I hear what DrGames is saying as I feel it appears it's harder to die in 4E than in other editions. 3 Failed saving throws seems like a lot, espically when you roll 10+ and your safe for another round. The whole idea that enemies don't hit you after your down is silly, since I feel Undead would keep crunching on you way after you've fallen to the floor and that's the way I do it.Yep, and if you got to negative Bloodied HP then you're dead, no saving throws there (we almost had a death like that last night). I wonder whether some people missed this mechanism to determine death.
I do agree that it is harder to wear characters down over a few fights, especially if those fights span several days - and this is one of the things I don't like about 4e. Mind you, its also a reason I am not a big fan of PF RPG and clerical channelling, you can pretty much heal to full HP overnight if you're only doing 1 or 2 fights a day.
Seems like every time this comes up we get a slew of different perspectives on the issue. I suspect that a big part of the issue here is that death in 4E generally is different then in previous editions. If the three strikes to die rule is very much in force and the DM always stays away from downed characters then its pretty hard to die. If the DM makes a point of beating on downed characters (as my DM does) then its pretty easy to die.
There are other variations in there as well. Even something as simple as DMs using heavy hitters that like to beat on characters just after they get a surge can raise the lethality - a player that has just been healed from down is often vulnerable to a big hit that takes them straight past negative bloodied.
Other DMs may use monsters that tend to trap downed characters where the rest of the group can't reach them (and where giving them surges just results in them getting knocked down again) or even catch the party in ambush type encounters that often see the players cut their way out - leaving anyone unfortunate enough to be down behind.
Personally I run with a house rule that rolling very low on any death save automatically results in death but tend to leave downed characters alone. My main impetus for this is that it actually allows me to control lethality in the campaign statistically. Hence I've chosen 1-3 (or a 15% chance of outright dying each death save. It roughly translates into a character death every four levels or so on average.
In the main my point is that it does not really seem possible to say how lethal 4E globally, for every group, because there seem to be to many other factors influencing things however it does seem clear that for most groups once things settle in one can get a pretty good feel for how lethal that particular campaign is.
This has always been true in D&D but I think the fact that how characters now tend to die is causing people to conclude that the new reality they find at their table is something that can be broadly applied to all 4E tables simply because very few of us have experience at different tables with with different levels of lethality.
I removed some name-calling. Just flag it and move on, please.
As for anyone who is going to argue that it is just a combat system with no chance for roleplaying, that is just a corollary to the stormwind fallacy. Roleplaying is not opposed to optimization because roleplaying has nothing to do with the system, and thus a system cannot preclude roleplaying. The system determines the outcomes of most things, and it directs the flavor, but how much RP is involved depends on the DM and players. Frankly one of the best RP sessions I had was that one session of 4e because we had a great DM, and I'd be happy to play 4e again if he were running it.I have run a 4e Campaign now for nine months.
I would not argue that 4e is only a combat system.
What I would say is that pure role-playing and non-combat applications are more of a stretch for 4e than say AD&D or 2nd Ed. AD&D.
There were spells in the first two editions for non-combat applications that lasted potentially for days. So far, there are no equivalent "powers" in 4th Ed. D&D.
There is a single chapter on skills and a few pages that describe "skill challenges" as being a potential non-combat action mechanic while there are hundreds of pages that talk about combat.
It is fair to say that pure role-playing and non-combat encounters are more marginalized under 4e.
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
I'll agree with you on this one. The system is not set up very well for out of combat encounters. That being said, it really depends on how much the rules matter for you. In that one really good 4e game I played in was so good because the GM was not terribly concerned with rules. He followed them for the most part, but cared more about a good story. Now if I'm running I play as close to the rules as I can, but I'm also laid back enough to play in a game like that because the most important thing to him was a fun time. My only point was that you can still roleplay as much as you like in 4e if you want to even if it is not the focus of the system.
I would not argue that 4e is only a combat system.
What I would say is that pure role-playing and non-combat applications are more of a stretch for 4e than say AD&D or 2nd Ed. AD&D.
There were spells in the first two editions for non-combat applications that lasted potentially for days. So far, there are no equivalent "powers" in 4th Ed. D&D.
They were there from day 1, and they're called rituals. I don't know why so many people like to pretend they don't exist. They're there, they're awesome, and you should use them more.
|
|
*shrugs* I'm a grognard, too--or was, I suppose. I started with the original red box playing in the kitchen of a friend in school. (I was a halfling!)
My initial grognard nerd rage was aimed at AD&D which I was taught was evil and horrible and pointless and a money grab and just like those new-fangled video games that my other friend had on his Apple II, only worse!
(how times change!)
Anyhow, I'd say the best way to present it to players is to find out what your players want from a game, and show them how 4e can deliver it, or be honest about the points that it won't deliver on, and see if that's a deal breaker for them.
Which brings me back to: what do you and your players want from a game?
Wow, time traveling nerd rage! Awesome!
(AD&D came a couple of years before the Moldvay/Cook Red Box (81), and several years before the Mentzer Red Box (84 or 85) - and about the same time as the original Apple II - well, the Monster Manual did anyway).
;-)
*shrugs* I'm a grognard, too--or was, I suppose. I started with the original red box playing in the kitchen of a friend in school. (I was a halfling!)
Ah ... now the folks at Judges Guild knew how to put together a campaign ... completely full of illogical silliness, but much of their material was a lot of fun.
You could buy a whole campaign for ten bucks that might last for years. Of course, the products were full of typos and printed on newspaper.
So, the campaign could last for five years or just three sessions until a dire incident with a rogue soda destroyed everything.
:-D
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
I always used adventures to supplement my own ideas, or stir the creative juices. So in that sense, I can use any of the previous modules, adventures, or similar items from any game system, as long as I know the rules of the current one I am playing. That is why I prefer adventures or modules written in 36 pages or less (old school format), versus investing in an adventure path with all the extra story I will rarely use.
I still have Judges Guild adventures as well ;)
Well, I have to admit to being very unhappy with the style of play and MMO feel of 4E. Yes, having played the game in when it was first released, it felt like an MMO adapted for the table-top gamer. Quite frankly, it did not sit well with me at all. Strike 1 for 4E.
Well, I gave the encounters stuff a try. Same feel. Worse, at least for me, scenarios designed lacking anything that resembled an enjoyable challenge. Strike 2 for 4E.
On a whim, at Six Feet Under Games in New Holland, PA, I joined a group that was running Lair Assault. I was presented with a pregenerate Barbarian and played. HOMERUN!!! I absolutely loved the idea of Lair Assault. Finally, a 4E scenario that was challenging and extremely enjoyable. So much so, I was able to see past the MMO-ish of the system. Lair Assault is where it's at. Screw the you're entitled to success crap mentality. You gain success if you earn it - Lair Assault, not handed to you because of some bizarre desire to fulfill an 'entitlement' to succeed.
Gendo, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from on this one.
As far as I understand Lair Assault for Encounters, it is built specifically to be DM vs Players. In an MMO instance style, whereas they play the same dungeon over and over each week, building the best possible build to beat the session.
Yet up until this point the edition felt like an MMO to you, but is the opposite when they build a scenario following the general premise of MMO Instances?
I play 4E, PF, and MMO's and of the three 4E is my favorite, and MMO's my least. Because of the way I either run the game, or play the game, it has never felt like an MMO to me. It feels like the D&D I've played for the last 20+ years, just better balanced, clearer rules, and more dynamic combats.
Gendo, if you've found a way to enjoy 4E then that's great. I don't fully understand why, but that's not really the issue. You've tried it and it works really well for you and thats what matters.
Myself, I enjoy E6 style of play with v3.5 as it provides me with the best balance the system has to offer. In addition to the lack of power-creep is the way in which monsters affect the world. Because of E6, Orcs in multitudes are a scary sight, Dragons are truely terrifying, and Trolls are always a challenging monster. Many don't really agree with a 6th-level cap and enjoy 20th-level+ adventures, but I don't.
There are multiple ways to play the game and finding the best way for you and your goup is key.
I want to try out 4th edition, myself. What's a good introductory adventure for a session or two of play just to get a feel for the rules? I got one of the boxed sets and Keep on the Shadowfell but both fell a little flat for me (Keep seems a bit long and the blue box "adventure" was just three combat encounters strung together and instructions to the green DM to write the rest themselves). So I'm looking for something in between the two.
Gendo, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from on this one.
As far as I understand Lair Assault for Encounters, it is built specifically to be DM vs Players. In an MMO instance style, whereas they play the same dungeon over and over each week, building the best possible build to beat the session.
Yet up until this point the edition felt like an MMO to you, but is the opposite when they build a scenario following the general premise of MMO Instances?
I play 4E, PF, and MMO's and of the three 4E is my favorite, and MMO's my least. Because of the way I either run the game, or play the game, it has never felt like an MMO to me. It feels like the D&D I've played for the last 20+ years, just better balanced, clearer rules, and more dynamic combats.
Sorry if what I said was confusing. 4E to me, will always be an MMO adapted to table-top play. The characters don't feel different. It's designed to be purely success driven, in that even if you fail, you succeed or have the chance to keep trying until you do. As for Lair Assault being built with optimal builds in mind...I'm not going to sit through the current lair assault again. My group got TPKed in the end. Bad guy wins. Time to play in the aftermath. If other Lair Assaults are crafted, same thing. I'll play it once, and that will be that.
I'm on the other end of the spectrum in regards to D&D. 2E will always be where it's at for me in regard to D&D. Combats were fluid and cinematic, not having to worry about the crunchy tactical 5 feet step nature of 3E/d20 combats. 2E was great, because if there wasn't a rule to cover it, you made something up on the spot. The onyl time I've felt D&D as being unbalanced is every incarnation since 3E/d20,, it can't be helped with that much crunch in the rules. 4E streamlined that a great deal, but it's still their. I was introduced and continue to runs games from the perspective that it's the story being written between the GM and Players being more important than the rules.
|
|
I want to try out 4th edition, myself. What's a good introductory adventure for a session or two of play just to get a feel for the rules? I got one of the boxed sets and Keep on the Shadowfell but both fell a little flat for me (Keep seems a bit long and the blue box "adventure" was just three combat encounters strung together and instructions to the green DM to write the rest themselves). So I'm looking for something in between the two.
Some of the adventures in KQ seem decent (don't know enough about 4e - haven't played since right after it came out - to really judge), but from what I've heard, the WotC adventures are a little "meh".
I want to try out 4th edition, myself. What's a good introductory adventure for a session or two of play just to get a feel for the rules? I got one of the boxed sets and Keep on the Shadowfell but both fell a little flat for me (Keep seems a bit long and the blue box "adventure" was just three combat encounters strung together and instructions to the green DM to write the rest themselves). So I'm looking for something in between the two.
If you or any of your players have access to the DDI then I'd take a look at City Race.
I want to try out 4th edition, myself. What's a good introductory adventure for a session or two of play just to get a feel for the rules? I got one of the boxed sets and Keep on the Shadowfell but both fell a little flat for me (Keep seems a bit long and the blue box "adventure" was just three combat encounters strung together and instructions to the green DM to write the rest themselves). So I'm looking for something in between the two.
The boxed set I'd recommend would be The DM's Kit I think they were just starting to break out of the really linear, combat focussed adventure design they'd tried earlier with those adventures. Plus you get a few sheets of monster tokens which people seem to like. However, it's probably a little pricey for a 'just have a try' session or two.
My favorite stand-alone WoTC 4E module is The Slaying Stone although I'd change the macguffin fairly substantially, it's not really relevant to a one-shot.
The best value-for-money option (if you dont mind working from PDFs) is definitely a trial subscription to DDI. That would also give you access to the character builder - printing out character sheets and power cards is an enormous boost to playability, in our experience.
|
James, if you're keen to try it, have a look at the first war of the burning sky scenario. Just run the first session of that and the game would be great. It has a skill challenge, a number of combats and some great plot elements that make it very exciting as a first game.
The DM guide and player guide are also free to download, though the module itself will cost you. I really liked the whole thing as a DM (To read through) and I'm looking forward to running it eventually.
The other benefit to this scenario is that the writers really went to lengths to explain certain mechanics and what they were after in the game, which makes DMing a scene much easier.
This one is from EN publishing, and you can get it there or buy it here.
Cheers
I still don't get why people make MMO comparisons in a negative fashion towards 4e, considering the actual D&D MMO was made with the previous edition's ruleset. MMO comparisons are what helped make 4e make more sense to me, I don't see why it's always used in such a negative fashion.
I still don't get why people make MMO comparisons in a negative fashion towards 4e, considering the actual D&D MMO was made with the previous edition's ruleset. MMO comparisons are what helped make 4e make more sense to me, I don't see why it's always used in such a negative fashion.
Negative connotations or not I think Aardvark Barbarian is pointing at something with a certain amount of truth behind it. Fundamentally Lair Assault is the most 'board game/MMO' way of playing 4E. Lair Assault would seem to be directly derived from 4Core which in turn was an attempt to recreate the kind of lethal and competitive style of gaming one might find in a one shot or tournament of 1Es Tomb of Horrors.
In effect there is nothing wrong with likeing Lair Assault any more then there is something wrong with enjoying trying to survive the Tomb of Horrors. What does not follow however was the argument that some how Lair Assault was cool but a 4E campaign was some how an MMO. Though I suppose I can somewhat follow the idea if one contends that actually playing with miniatures turns the game into an MMO/Boardgame/Wargame or some such. Don't exactly agree but I can at least see the line of reasoning.
All that said I'm in the same camp as Aardvark Barbarian in that if you happen to like Lair Assault well that is cool and all but personally I think I'd rather just play descent. I mean the idea is interesting and has some merit but I'd personally much prefer to be playing in an actual 4E campaign - hopefully one with a compelling story and using a character that I have some investment in.
Some of the adventures in KQ seem decent (don't know enough about 4e - haven't played since right after it came out - to really judge), but from what I've heard, the WotC adventures are a little "meh".
The Open Design 4e adventures are really cool, too. Courts of the Shadow Fey is simply amazing, better than even what Paizo is doing (IMO), and Lost City is on-par with some of the better Paizo APs.
|
|
I still don't get why people make MMO comparisons in a negative fashion towards 4e, considering the actual D&D MMO was made with the previous edition's ruleset. MMO comparisons are what helped make 4e make more sense to me, I don't see why it's always used in such a negative fashion.Negative connotations or not I think Aardvark Barbarian is pointing at something with a certain amount of truth behind it.I think Josh M.'s post was aimed more at Gendo's comments (about 4E as a whole being "an MMO adapted for tabletop play"), rather than at Aardvark Barbarian.
As always, when these sort of comments come up with, my response is generally... I feel bad that this person had a bad experience with the game. I'm not quite sure how it felt like an MMO (I've never seen that description ever adequately justified), but I'll take it to mean he felt like there was little room for story or character, that it was too easy and/or death was trivial, or that encounters felt like 'grinding' cardboard enemies rather than battling fearsome monsters.
And if was any or all of those things - again, I think it unfortunate he had that experience! I've seen that sort of thing happen on several occasions. But, inevitably, it was the result of the DM and/or the players (or, potentially, the adventure) - and not the result of the game system itself.
Still, similarly, each edition can offer a vast array of styles of play - again, depending on DM, adventure, etc. The Lair Assault is clearly in the same vein as classic D&D 'dungeoncrawl tournaments', Living Greyhawk Battles Interactives, and the like, and I'm glad that Gendo found it an enjoyable approach.
Of course, the other thing is that I (doubtless with many others) play and enjoy 4e very much and Lair Assualt interests me not at all. I've played MMOs and have no real desire to play a table-top version of them, and I certainly don't feel that 4e is that sort of experience at all in general. But if Gendo's happy.... <shrug>
I want to try out 4th edition, myself. What's a good introductory adventure for a session or two of play just to get a feel for the rules? I got one of the boxed sets and Keep on the Shadowfell but both fell a little flat for me (Keep seems a bit long and the blue box "adventure" was just three combat encounters strung together and instructions to the green DM to write the rest themselves). So I'm looking for something in between the two.
Open Design's stuff is gorgeous, but Courts of the Shadow Fey and Lost City are both paragon level.
While 4e does much to make the move from heroic to paragon fairly seamless, it is a big ask for players to take on a paragon character from cold. So much depends on group synergy that you can find yourself floundering in mechanics when you want to be enjoying the flavour and the game. I'd stress that this isn't an issue when the players have worked up from heroic.
There are a lot of low level adventures on DDI and your best bet is to pick around through those and find something that takes your fancy. I reckon you can run something up to about level 3-4 as a taster and have a lot of fun with it. Stuck in the Mud was a fun one-off I ran for my non-gaming cousins - although I admit I have a high bullywug tolerance level.
I still don't get why people make MMO comparisons in a negative fashion towards 4e, considering the actual D&D MMO was made with the previous edition's ruleset. MMO comparisons are what helped make 4e make more sense to me, I don't see why it's always used in such a negative fashion.
I will readily admit to making such comparisons myself, and would like to assure you that, at least in my case, it is not intended to be a negative comparison. I feel that the MMO comparison captures 4e's impression well, because of the mechanics. Everything has an established 'cooldown', which the players are encouraged to keep track of. I feel that it lends a sense of hovering your pointer finger over the 'lightning bolt' hotkey, in a way. Not a bad thing, just an apparently generalised feeling.
I will say, as well, that I am not particularly enamoured of the 4e system. It's not that there's anything wrong with it, My players and I just don't find the game's mechanics or presentation appealing to us or our style of play. We prefer to game in a high-immersion roleplaying style, and 4e simply has nothing to offer us in that department. The edition is more focused on catering to the function of combat, an issue which, again, doesn't have much bearing for us.
While I agree that the game is not combat-exclusive, the majority of the 'edition overhaul' has been an apparent effort to revolutionize the game mechanics in regard to combat. This has been an overall success; the party now finds it quite necessary to behave as a cohesive unit, and it fosters a sense of unity on the battlefield.
Story-wise, the books offer next to nothing, which isn't necessarily a bad thing; as pointed out above, the story has always come from the DM and the players, not from the books. 4th does, however, lack a bit of the class fluff which was present in previous editions. I've known many players over the years who needed a bit of prompting to get into the roleplaying groove. That's not to say that they weren't good roleplayers, but they needed a starting point for their character's story. This could be seen as a bonus in some ways; Wizards is not known for their fantastic storytelling. The concepts presented as a base, however, were interesting enough to spawn characters.
Balance-wise, 4e has done wonders, but I do feel that the balancing has omitted a lot of character. Sure, the powers are different, as mentioned above, but the classes are all mechanically the same. In essence, every character is hovering over the hotkeys. Their powers come at a similar rate, and provide similar enough benefits. I never felt that previous editions' class discrepancies were such an issue, particularly in the case of 'role dependency', as the DMs I played with were conscientious enough to consider the party's limits when building adventures.
Skill-wise, 4e has nothing that I found worth noting it for. The skill list was consolidated some, which was nice. But, I found no use whatsoever for skill challenges. I have seen skill challenges fill one of two functions;
First, Replacing Roleplaying encounters with more die-rolling. Why talk to the guard in character if you can win him over regardless with three successes before four failures? It's not as though we want to explore character depth in person, right? Maybe this has simply been used incorrectly in every campaign I've been in, but this system does not at all appeal to me when implemented thus.
Secondly, To add variety to an adventure by forcing the player characters to use skill checks to accomplish something, as opposed to resorting to combat. This was mentioned above, and I still don't see the attraction. This means the group has a primary interest in combat, meaning the system is being used to force the PCs to act in a way they'd rather not. Sounds Fun.
All in all, I found that while it's insisted by many that the book focus on combat and mechanics was a means of encouraging roleplaying, it simply didn't come across. I have watched 4e groups minimise the story in order to properly appreciate the combat, and I have watched groups minimise the mechanics in favor of creating a fun story. I've also watched the two halves be combined into a very good mix of story and mechanics; usually by people who enjoyed such games in previous editions. But the rules simply don't make this easy.
I can't personally recommend 4e except on principle; I like to maintain a 'Try it and find out' attitude toward gaming systems as a whole. I tried it, and didn't like it. I think OP has long since finished with this thread, but I like participating in places where 'Opinion' is not synonymous with 'Flame'.
I still don't get why people make MMO comparisons in a negative fashion towards 4e, considering the actual D&D MMO was made with the previous edition's ruleset. MMO comparisons are what helped make 4e make more sense to me, I don't see why it's always used in such a negative fashion.I will readily admit to making such comparisons myself, and would like to assure you that, at least in my case, it is not intended to be a negative comparison. I feel that the MMO comparison captures 4e's impression well, because of the mechanics. Everything has an established 'cooldown', which the players are encouraged to keep track of. I feel that it lends a sense of hovering your pointer finger over the 'lightning bolt' hotkey, in a way. Not a bad thing, just an apparently generalised feeling.
I will say, as well, that I am not particularly enamoured of the 4e system. It's not that there's anything wrong with it, My players and I just don't find the game's mechanics or presentation appealing to us or our style of play. We prefer to game in a high-immersion roleplaying style, and 4e simply has nothing to offer us in that department. The edition is more focused on catering to the function of combat, an issue which, again, doesn't have much bearing for us.
While I agree that the game is not combat-exclusive, the majority of the 'edition overhaul' has been an apparent effort to revolutionize the game mechanics in regard to combat. This has been an overall success; the party now finds it quite necessary to behave as a cohesive unit, and it fosters a sense of unity on the battlefield.
Story-wise, the books offer next to nothing, which isn't necessarily a bad thing; as pointed out above, the story has always come from the DM and the players, not from the books. 4th does, however, lack a bit of the class fluff which was present in previous editions. I've known many players over the years who needed a bit of prompting to get into the roleplaying groove. That's not to say that they weren't good...
I like 4th edition, but I dont really disagree with what you wrote here (with perhaps noting one omission - the reduced time required to prep for a session is another enormous benefit of 4E, from my middle-aged perspective).
The only other comment I'd make was with regard to skill challenges. I think part of the problem was that WoTC themselves didnt know how to do them properly early on and the models they provided were pretty poor. (The ones in place of roleplaying dont do it for me either). What they are good for is providing some structure around an important story event without having to play it out round by round but also without having to just narrate it (or talk for a while then have one or two players make a skill check).
|
|
Everything has an established 'cooldown', which the players are encouraged to keep track of. I feel that it lends a sense of hovering your pointer finger over the 'lightning bolt' hotkey, in a way.
Could you elaborate on this please? From my admittedly limited MMO experience (City of Heroes really) I assume by "cooldown" you mean the duration before a power recharges and can be used again - is that correct? If so isn't cooldown really something related to a discrete encounter, i.e. how long before I can use this power again in the same combat? If so, none of the 4e player character powers work that way as I understand it.
Now, if you're referring to monster powers that recharge by rolling a specific number on a d6, then yes, I can get what you mean, but for PCs, you either have At Wills (useable each round without having to wait) or Encounter & Daily powers that are with the odd exception usable once a combat / day, in which case teh recharge is out of combat and no different than the way PF wizard spells refresh (i.e. after a given period of rest).
Re Skill Challenges - I find they work best if used in co-ordination with roleplaying, just like in PF how a player may act out what they do and make a skill roll to determine success or failure (perhaps with a GM given modifier for the content of the roleplaying). The only real difference is that in a Skill Challenge success or failure doesn't come down to a single skill test - that's it.
If Skill Challenges are replacing roleplaying in a group's game, then I can image making skill checks in PF could also replace roleplaying.
Everything has an established 'cooldown', which the players are encouraged to keep track of. I feel that it lends a sense of hovering your pointer finger over the 'lightning bolt' hotkey, in a way.Could you elaborate on this please? From my admittedly limited MMO experience (City of Heroes really) I assume by "cooldown" you mean the duration before a power recharges and can be used again - is that correct? If so isn't cooldown really something related to a discrete encounter, i.e. how long before I can use this power again in the same combat? If so, none of the 4e player character powers work that way as I understand it.
Now, if you're referring to monster powers that recharge by rolling a specific number on a d6, then yes, I can get what you mean, but for PCs, you either have At Wills (useable each round without having to wait) or Encounter & Daily powers that are with the odd exception usable once a combat / day, in which case teh recharge is out of combat and no different than the way PF wizard spells refresh (i.e. after a given period of rest).
Yeah, 3/3.5 had "cooldowns" as well, depending on the class feature, spell, etc. Biggest difference being 4e has a unified system of abilities with fixed "recharge" rates (Powers) while 3.5 was sort of all over the place; sometimes it was a class ability, sometimes it was a certain spell, etc. Same mechanic principle, but much more case-by-case and not a unified system.
Part of my original point about the MMO thing though, is even when I discuss gaming with friends who play 4e, and they have never actually played a MMO in their lives, the first mention of MMO sends them into a fury and the conversation turns hostile. It wasn't until I explained to my friend that since I actually play MMO's(and he doesn't) that my comparison are valid, and I was not in any way using said comparisons in a negative fashion. I was using MMO comparisons to help the system "click" and make sense in my head. Not that 4e is all that complicated, but whenever I approach a new system, I try and relate it to something I've played before to help me learn it faster.
I think the hostility comes from the archaic notion that "tabletop RPG's are deeper and more detailed that simple video games, so any comparison to a video game MUST be an insult." I think this is rubbish. I've played video games my entire life, starting with the Atari 2600 back in '82. Video games led me to table-top gaming, and to this day I play a heck of a lot more video games on a regular basis than I do TTRPG's. For me to make a comparison to a video game is a compliment, not an insult.
Hobby-elitism will be the death of our industry if we don't just chill out and let people enjoy playing whatever it is they find their fun in.
Part of my original point about the MMO thing though, is even when I discuss gaming with friends who play 4e, and they have never actually played a MMO in their lives, the first mention of MMO sends them into a fury and the conversation turns hostile. It wasn't until I explained to my friend that since I actually play MMO's(and he doesn't) that my comparison are valid, and I was not in any way using said comparisons in a negative fashion. I was using MMO comparisons to help the system "click" and make sense in my head. Not that...
The idea of the negativity, I think for some, is they use MMO as an example beacus they don't consider it Role-playing instead of button mashing combats. This has been the side-by-side comparisons I have seen, stuff allong the following lines: (disclaimer, not actual quotes)
"It's like an MMO, you just spam the same power over and over again.""It's like an MMO, There's no RP involved, you just run around fighting things and collecting phat lewts."
"It's like an MMO, it's all just combat mechanics and the numbers decide everything."
"It's like an MMO, all your abilities have a cooldown when they can be used again."
What I don't get, is the elitism involved. I play MMO's, and they are just that, video games. I don't expect my video games to play like tabletop games, because the social dynamic and capabilties of a programmed world vs. a free thinking DM are different. Are they any less, no, they just fill a different niche for my entertainment.
To each of the above types of complaints, I say the following:
1. So, a Fighter's iterative attacks are NOT just spamming the same thing?
2. So, the rule-book stole your ability to speak from your character's perspective, and destroyed your ability to do it with a different voice?
3. So, the die rolls you do for Diplomacy in the other versions had no effect, it was all bsed of what you said?
4. So, a Wizard's spells didn't have a Daily cooldown? What about a power (like some domain abilities) that lasts for 1 minute (10 rounds), you would use it more than once/encounter? Iterative attacks and cantrips can't be used over and over at-will?
All, the comparisons of MMO were made hand-in-hand with digs on the system for its similarities, yet all the comparisons made were the exact same as things that already existed in their favored system, they just had fanboy blinders on.
The few claims of what 4e is and isn't capable of that I give credit to, as I have debunked all others in my home games, are the factual things that people just dislike that ARE different.
No Vancian casting - This is true, no dispute, and to that I say good because I, and many others didn't like it.
Balance is unnecessary, it all balances out in the end - True the game is very focused on balance across the board. I say good, the same reason people use Pt buy because it is fair to everyone, is the same reason it should be balanced at every level, not Fighters for the first half, and Casters for the second.
Taking the Fluff out - True, a lot of flowery text was removed. I say good, I only need rules for my mechanics. All the flavor of the game and the world should come from the DM and the players.
The company treat customers badly - So, they may have made some statements that you disagree with. Me, I don't care. It's not like they support genocide or sell small arms to terrorist groups. They make a product I like, at prices I'm willing to pay, what they say or do beyond that I could care less. It's a business, they are trying to make money.
They destroyed all I loved about the Realms - They did change a lot of stuff. I agree that their vision was off. Me, I don't care, the Realms is Ed's homebrew campaign, and no matter what I do it will never be my world. As long as there are game worlds with clear fluff, there will be at least one player out there that tries to tell a DM they are wrong if they don't run it that way. Even more so, nothing stops you from running the realms before the Spellplague, using the new rules. One of the DM's I played with did just that and only ever runs the realms.
Overall, like always I rambled, The rules changed some stuff. To me, though, claiming it is just like an MMO, by the above reasons only means that the beloved 3x/PF is as well. Therefore moot. Saying it didn't FEEL like D&D, well "feeling" isn't written in the rules, it's HOW you play that generates the feel. For me, I play it the same way I have from the beginning, using the rules to adjudicate the action, and all flavor and RP coming from the players, and it feels EXACTLY like D&D to me.
I think the "spam combats and get loot" playstyle is more a fault of the DM than the system, any system. I can role-play in a football video game if I were so inclined.
Maybe people are just projecting their gaming group's issues onto the system out of convenience. On that same token, a lot of problems people had with 3e, my group just house-ruled and kept playing. I don't think enough can be said for a group hashing out their problems with each other instead of blaming it on the game systems.
Skill-wise, 4e has nothing that I found worth noting it for. The skill list was consolidated some, which was nice. But, I found no use whatsoever for skill challenges. I have seen skill challenges fill one of two functions;
First, Replacing Roleplaying encounters with more die-rolling. Why talk to the guard in character if you can win him over regardless with three successes before four failures? It's not as though we want to explore character depth in person, right? Maybe this has simply been used incorrectly in every campaign I've been in, but this system does not at all appeal to me when implemented thus.Secondly, To add variety to an adventure by forcing the player characters to use skill checks to accomplish something, as opposed to resorting to combat. This was mentioned above, and I still don't see the attraction. This means the group has a primary interest in combat, meaning the system is being used to force the PCs to act in a way they'd rather not. Sounds Fun.
All in all, I found that while it's insisted by many that the book focus on combat and mechanics was a means of encouraging roleplaying, it simply didn't come across. I have watched 4e groups minimise the story in order to properly appreciate the combat, and I have watched groups minimise the mechanics in favor of creating a fun story. I've also watched the two halves be combined into a very good mix of story and mechanics; usually by people who enjoyed such games in previous editions. But the rules simply don't make this easy.
I'll say that one of the major elements that keeps me happy with the 4E system is in fact the skill system and the amount of space that 4E has opened up in terms of combat light adventures. I'll address your points specific to skill challenges later and start with the general reasons I like 4E for dealing with combat light adventures.
In general this comes down to 4Es emphasis on the group as a whole for actually interacting with such adventures and a movement away from individual 'spotlight' moments. Essentially all 4E characters are, by design, meant to operate equally well inside or outside of combat. It is not the case that interacting with NPCs is where the Bard shines and the Fighter should just hang back while his player grabs a soda while waiting for something to kill. Nor are higher level mysteries or political intrigues about the mage carefully choosing his spells to answer the questions posed by the adventure or resolve its dilemma's. In these cases the system has been designed to de-emphasize the idea that such adventures are really the bullywhack of only one of the character classes and instead moved things much more toward group efforts.
This is very important if you plan to have long stretches of the game not be about combat because, if dealing with such elements of the adventure, is what the whole group does instead of some individuals in the group then its far easier to devote whole sessions and even multiple sessions to such elements. The DM does not feel as much need to have combat breaking out just so that the player of the fighter can actually participate in the game.
In general this is accomplished through three elements of 4E.
1. The system has much tighter skill spreads so everyone can get in on that jail break scene even if it does not involve killing every thing that moves.
2. The system emphasizes team work at the encounter level so characters are designed to be on par with each other inside and outside of combat instead of there being classes that are specialized in combat and classes whose job it is to do the roleplaying.
3. The system has specifically de-emphasized 'plot breaking' magic. Wizards cannot easily take over the minds of NPCs, Nor can they utilize magic to easily circumvent distance or barriers, Clerics cannot (until very high level) ask their Gods what they think the answers to the mystery are. The result is that most of these elements now fall to the group as a whole to solve or navigate.
OK on to answering a couple of your specific points regarding skill challenges. Its worth noting that a skill challenge is really a complex series of skill checks and it only ever gets invoked by starting off with that first skill check. In effect if a diplomacy check is needed to handle the guard then there may be more too it then just that diplomacy check (i.e. a skill challenge) but your not in a skill challenge unless your already at the point where your trying to make a skill check. In other words skill challenges are a way of adding more elements and complexity to the skill system but do not replace elements of the game unless they would already been handled with skill checks. There may be some exceptions here in terms of using the system narratively to replace pure exposition or combat, for example the battle scene I mention below but it is not really a method for replacing roleplaying unless the DM really wants it to be since skill challenges are designed by the DM and they come into play when the DM decides they do.
I'm not sure what you mean by using skill checks to force players to avoid combat. I mean I've used skill checks and skill challenges to avoid combat for sure, the quintessential example is using stealth or some combination of stealth and other skills to sneak past guards, a situation that often results in a combat if the players fail and are noticed but I'm not sure how this is forcing the PCs to use skills when they would rather just fight. I'd need more elaboration on that.
One example I can think of in this regards that might come up is using skill challenges narratively. A very common example of this is in the midst of battle. An army of 10,000 Orcs has arrived at the Gates of Zar-Maldur and the armies of humans and dwarves have gathered to oppose them. The PCs, are there and they are 12th level. We don't really want to play through them battling hundreds and hundreds of Orcs so we instead we move this up a level in the meta game and play through this part of the adventure narratively using a skill challenge. Here its likely that the players and DM are weaving something of the story assuming that the players are cutting down scores of Orcs but what we are really interested in may well be something else. Maybe their goal is actually to get into a battle - specifically the battle with the Orc Warlord and his retinue. Depending on the DMs adventure failure in this skill challenge may mean they don't get into this battle at all (likely with problematic consequences for the armies of good) in which case we know that the players where at the battle of Zar-Maldur and they even killed hundreds of Orcs there but they where not at the right place to significantly effect the outcome. Alternatively maybe the skill challenge is used to tell us under what circumstances they get to the key battle with the Orc Warlord, many failures and the circumstances of this battle will be weighed in the Orc Warlords favour many successes and the PCs have more advantages.
To sum everything up I gravitate to 4E in large part because it is such an excellent system in terms of group roleplaying. Its mechanics help to facilitate my designing and successfully running things like higher level fantasy murder mysteries or political intrigues while insuring that everyone in the group can have fun and participate as an important and equal member of the party even when the swords stay sheathed.