FRG Goes 4ePosted by daHeadRat on May 22nd, 2008
This week marks my trial run with 4e. Starting Friday, I’ll be running the Keep on the Shadowfell preview adventure from Wizards of the Coast. I don’t look to this adventure to be the be-all and end-all of the 4e trial or to be as story-oriented as I prefer. I do hope, however, that it gives me (and my players) a good enough feel for the rules system to see if we can use the new rules for a good, story-oriented game. I’m cautiously optimistic and comments and reviews like Chatty DM’s recent take on 4e are keeping me optimistic. If 4e is more like earlier editions in “feel” and style while having a better (i.e., less clunky, more consistent, and more logical) underlying system of rules, I’ll probably be happy enough with it to use it. If not, I’ll find something else (I’m looking at you Savage Worlds…you’re next on the list of things to try plus you’re a really cheap date).
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
There is always going back to RuneQuest.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Nope…no plans to ever go back to RuneQuest.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Some impressions from our first Keep on the Shadowfell (KotS) session…
We played for about four hours or so and only got through the first encounter. This was NOT because the encounter took us that long but, instead, because we spent a lot of time playing out interactions and such in Winterhaven…gasp, yes, we were roleplaying just like we would with any other system. For those who haven’t been following the online firestorm about 4e, one of the early and oft-repeated knocks is that 4e is nothing more than D&D Miniatures and not a roleplaying game. Well, I have no problem saying that simply has not been the case with our group. I’d say that 4e is no less conducive to roleplaying than previous editions of D&D.
Oh, I may have embellished some of the NPCs and given them a little more “character” than as presented in KotS but I did NOT really go that far or expand upon the information, thoughts, and concerns of each NPC as written.
The response of the four players was positive. We did have some, I’ll say minor, complaints or comparisons to 3.5 (e.g., No familiars?) but no one expressed outright disappointment or a generally negative response to how 4e played (or seriously compared it to World of Warcraft or Magic the Gathering). The feeling that even starting characters are competent and capable was seen as a plus (especially by the wizard’s player). Players, for the most part, felt that they had a variety of options available to them during the combat (I think the player playing the fighter feels a bit shorted at having only four powers). The person playing the cleric especially enjoyed the wide range of options available to her (in comparison to 3.5) and definitely enjoyed the overall “aid another” type role of the cleric. No one seemed bothered by the reduced number of skills, the idea of Second Wind and Healing Surges, Extended Rests, Marks, Minions or any of the other things that have been most heavily criticized.
A few questions, issues, or oops moments did pop up during the game but nothing that was a deal-breaker or has made us regret starting with KotS prior to the release of the full rules (at least not anything that anyone mentioned to me). The session ran pretty easily and smoothly even though I only had had the time to skim through the first 25 or so pages (about half of which is the DM’s Quick Start rules). We didn’t get too far but, again, it isn’t because the rules were too confusing or the combat played too slowly (it felt like the encounter played quicker than 3.5); it was because we spent a lot of time doing that roleplaying thing to gather information, lay out the story premise, and the like.
The fact that we didn’t get far also means that we didn’t get to see a lot of the system “in action.” So, although everyone found it a fun game and the first impressions are positive, I still have my reservations (and will, of course, continue to do so until such time as I’ve gotten to look at the full rules and have a solid few months of play under our belts).
Those of you that played, please feel free to add any of your impressions/comments.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
So far I enjoy it–I have never sought out the cleric player class for my characters, so I was admittedly a little unsure of how I would like it. As daHeadRat mentioned, I was pretty pleased with it for our first session. I liked the flexibility of the cleric’s powers and being able to attack but help a party member at the same time, without having to choose between attacking or aiding another during my turn.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I had fun, too, even if my dwarf doesn’t have as many powers as the other characters. I’m looking forward to the next session. I just might have to get a littel more creative with Cleave and Reaping Strike.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Anyone else have any impressions to share?
I’ve got one…
Combat in 4e strikes me as definitely being tactical and cooperative. Characters and monsters look to be much more effective if they are tactical (i.e., utilize movement and the “battlefield” to maximize their strengths and minimize weaknesses) and cooperate (i.e., work with allies to also maximize their strengths and minimize weaknesses). Many of the “powers” look to be designed for exactly this type of play. I have a feeling that players who “buy” into this quickly will find 4e combats to be much more enjoyable and dynamic than those who do not (duh!). Similarly, those that utilize what has been presented as the “classic 3.5ism” of just moving up to the opposition, standing their ground, and attacking (and repeat), will probably find combats in 4e to be less fulfilling and downright difficult. I have a sneaking suspicion that players who want their characters to be combat loners and have their characters try to go off and handle a monster(s) single-handedly or be combat mavericks blazing their own bloody path of destruction may not care for some of the changes as they are not conducive for this kind of individualized play. Group-focused tactics definitely appear to be the design of the game…I’ve seen this mentioned by a number of other folks on the web as well.
I think we saw a good example of this with the first (and only) encounter so far. Not only did the players have to adjust to the whole tactical element, they also had to do so cooperatively to deal with a certain shifty bad guy. I got the feeling that the players were really starting to realize this by the end of the combat. Of course, we only got through one fight in our first session (damn that roleplaying stuff…always getting in the way of more fights—that’s sarcasm in case you didn’t know) so we’ll have to see how well this lesson will stick with the players. I’m all for encouraging group tactics and cooperative play.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Another session down…two more combat encounters and primarily intra-party roleplaying and interactions. My experience so far with my group has me convinced that groups that prefer roleplaying will continue to do so and those that prefer combat will continue to do so. I don’t think anything in 4e is going to change this. However, my second session did leave me with some new impressions on how “combat” plays out and the impact it may have on storytelling.
The first encounter of the second session was definitely, by design of the module, the most difficult encounter so far. As I understand 4e encounter design, since this had a higher XP value, it was supposed to be a more challenging encounter. However, it was not out of the range of what would be considered a normal encounter the party at their current level. The encounter ended with two of the characters unconscious and some of the others having taken a good amount of damage. Some had also used their Actions Points and Daily Powers…others hadn’t. I think some of the difficulty of the encounter is the players still adjusting to a different tactical situation with 4e but also because it was simply a bit more difficult than the previous one.
The encounter actually posed a threat to the characters and it made the players feel (at least this is my impression) that the fight was actually dangerous. This wasn’t a fight against a big, bad villain type or the climax of a long string of prior fights. It was, quite simply, a normal encounter…slightly more challenging…for characters of this level. I’m getting the impression that this sense of a regular old encounter being a threat is by design in 4e.
If I recall correctly, in 3.5 D&D, encounter design is largely governed by the notion of quarters…each encounter is expected to deplete about one-quarter of the player characters’ daily resources. Encounters that occurred “earlier” would not necessarily threaten the characters because the design was such that they simply wouldn’t. It would only be after a few encounters that the characters would be threatened because, by that point, they would have depleted their resources such that the same encounter that wasn’t really threatening earlier in the day had now become threatening. In other words, as I understand it, the 3.5 design is essentially one of attrition with an individual encounter being more challenging or more of a threat because of the previous attrition.
That seems to have been significantly changed with 4e. The manner in which things like “Hit Points,” “Healing,” and “Powers” have been re-conceptualized such that characters will often begin an encounter with a near full arsenal of resources. I’m guessing that characters will generally have the majority of their Hit Points and, of course, have their At-Will and Encounter Powers available for most every combat encounter. This frees the GM (or I suppose I should say DM) to make more encounters actually threatening to the player characters. Each individual fight can be difficult because the characters that survive will still have numerous resources available for the next one (until, of course, they deplete all those Healing Surges and the like and can’t throw off the fatigue and beating from that last fight without actually resting). Combat encounters seem to have been redefined from being largely a war of attrition to being a challenge in and of themselves.
I think that I’m going to like this switch. So often, combat encounters in 3.5 felt like they were just a grind and, in a sense, they were…they were meant to ground down resources. With 4e’s apparent design, I think I’ll be free to use combat encounters to advance a story and, in some cases, to be a story themselves. I won’t have to be concerned with grinding down the characters so the combat with the real villain is challenging (or making it so that one fight is all they can do before having to take an “extended” rest because it is too challenging).
Additionally, I think the 4e encounter design is more conducive to less linear adventures. Obviously, you can do “sandbox,” open, site-based, whatever you want to call it type gaming with 3.5 but the design of the game seems to be with a more linear approach in mind (note the great popularity of “Adventure Paths” in 3.5). If you want that fight with the main bad guy to be challenging or threatening, you should have roughed up the player characters before that encounter. To do that, they should have gone through other encounters already. How do you make sure they go through those encounters first? Make the adventure structure more linear.
Overall, I have the feeling that 4e encounter design is more open and might be more conducive to using combat encounters in a more story-oriented fashion. I hope that this will be the case but, of course, won’t be able to definitively say so until after I’ve gotten deep into a campaign designed with exactly this approach in mind.
Anyone else have any additional comments or impressions after the second session?
June 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I think the idea behind D&D that first drew me towards it was the concept of fantasy role-playing more so the the strategic and tactical aspects of the battles. While I enjoy a great strategic gameplay, I also like to see the concept remain intact throughout its evolution.
I agree with all you say above. I think orienting each battle based more on certain skills available per encounter is brilliant and allows each battle to be a challenge and not just the final ones. Also, with the inclusion of minions, they have created enemies that cannot be ignored yet are easily dispatchable (unlike in 3.5 the 14 bowmen/miners that you ignore because they can’t even hit the wizard with mage armor.)
However, 4e has changed some of the traditional concept behind classes and races that I am interested to read about in the PHB. Wizards traditionally had expendable powers that required years of study as well as daily concentration to prepare. At level 1 having powers that are not expendable seems a little beyond the idea of a traditional concept of the wizard. I am very interested to see how each class scales as it levels, a huge problem with 3.5.
Another concept that I am interested to read about is the concept of alignment. I remember growing up reading some fantasy novels and understanding alignment as a hinge point in some classes and races and to remove that, or reconfigure, seem arrogant. I joke that my opinions are totally against it but truthfully I am very interested to read what they have done with it.
On a more specific note concerning the battles last session, I think I now see the limitations to the wizard much more clearly. Finding space to fire spells that won’t incur Opportunity Attacks can be quite difficult especially when fighting shifty kobolds. With a low AC and low hp/healing surges, it is very important not to catch those any more than I have to. Really, its one of the same issues as in 3.5, but much more pronounced as the 4e battle movement is much greater.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I felt like we learned a few things from our battles last session, and that we will continue to learn from them. First, fighting against a number of non-minions was definitely more challenging and threatening than our battle in the first session, and I think encounters like that will encourage us to be more tactical (I hope!). I think we’re getting to understand our powers better, and each others’, which is what will help us be more strategic. For example, we learned that if our fighter is positioned relative to certain baddies and they move past her, she gets certain attacks against them that the rest of us do not. I don’t remember all the details of it, but learning the strengths of each others’ powers and how they work should definitely help us position ourselves in combat situations. We saw that the rogue can force the bad guys to move, which we should definitely be able to take advantage of as a party.
The shifty kobolds were a bit of a nuisance when trying to use ranged powers–but we need to do a better job of shielding our wizard too. Maybe it will work better if we keep the wizard around our front line fighters, who can put marks on some of the kobolds/other baddies, so that the baddies suffer a penalty if they try to attack the wizard?? Just trying to think ahead for our upcoming battles. . . I do think I like combat better with the “powers” we have in 4e–the powers seem to flesh out the combat encounters and make them a bit more interesting, as well as giving us more options.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
@Thomas on Roleplaying: I’m not really worried about the roleplaying element. Although that means different things to different people, I just don’t see 4e making D&D any less of a roleplaying game than it already is (yes, that is a veiled comment that D&D has always been more on the combat/tactical side of the spectrum). For me (and maybe this is because I’ve played earlier versions of D&D and other game systems more than 3.0/3.5), most of the roleplaying elements aren’t really dictated by rules or game mechanics (I’m really not a fan of the whole “I roll Sense Motive and get a 25 what do I know”). Of course (and I think I mentioned this to everyone already), KotS probably won’t ever be considered one of the more roleplaying/plot intensive adventures ever written but I think we’ve done okay so far. KotS is pretty heavy on the combat side of things but so are most published D&D modules. If, after a few good months of playing, our 4e sessions turn into little more than a miniatures game (not that I think it will), I’ll be dumping it but I sure won’t be going back to 3.5.
@Thomas on Wizards: Yep, they’ve definitely reworked ‘em. The Vancian spell system certainly is one of D&D’s sacred cows but is it a bad thing to lose? It is clearly a gamey thing and has just never really made sense from a “fluff” perspective (at least to me). It certainly is traditional for D&D but not so much for other game systems (I’m a huge fan of Ars Magica) or for fantasy literature. I’m probably biased on this point because my original gaming group way back in the late 70s dumped the Vancian approach really fast. Do you find the non-expendable powers for a 1st level Wizard too problematic? Is it too much of a departure from earlier editions for you to consider this D&D and, if so, is that enough to keep you from wanting to play 4e?
@Thomas on Scaling: That is supposed to be one of the things that has been “fixed” in 4e. I can’t say that I’ve ever really experienced too much of a problem with this but I’ve never run a 3.5 game that has gone over level 8 or 9. I’ve never really had a huge problem with character imbalance in other games either (note: Ars Magica fan). In 4e, every character pretty much advances with the same “Character Advancement” table (e.g., every character gets a utility power and a feat at 2nd level)…they all have the same basic skeleton in mechanic terms so they should be more balanced, right? Right? We’ll just have to see…
@Rachel on Combat: Cooperation, cooperation, cooperation…as those playing in the game know, I’m all for that. I’m much more interested in player cooperation in all aspects of the game so I see this as a good thing. In some ways, the 4e combat may also be more conducive to “roleplaying” out the combats…like Ash the Dragonborn Paladin’s roar being his Divine Challenge…we can incorporate more of that element if folks would like, especially as we get more comfortable with these rules.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 am
@Combat and Roleplaying: To some extent, I think the design of 3.5 suffered from a split personality syndrome between combat and roleplaying. Because the system quantified much of the roleplaying aspects into the rules and then used the same pool of “points” (i.e., Skills, Feats, etc) for both, players were often forced to choose between the two. It made some choices, in the language of the 4e designers, “sub-optimal” with the sub-optimal choice usually being the non-combat option (remember, at its heart, D&D has always been more about the combat element). I know, for example, that Rachel would often struggle with choosing between the two…make a character that mechanically represents the concept/role and you are likely sacrificing combat capability. This hadn’t really existed in prior editions and, from what I’ve seen, I think that 4e may be “harkening” back to those earlier editions in this sense. Largely removing the mechanical side of the roleplaying or, again in the language of the designers, putting combat and other abilities in different “silos” and the issue of sub-optimal choices is reduced. Players can focus more on the roleplaying aspects without feeling like they’ve given up something when the fighting starts. For a combat/tactically oriented game like D&D, this seems like a good thing for giving it more of a roleplaying side in its actual design.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Ok, after the last session, I’m not sure how I feel about the “save ends” thing. Who would have thought a person would roll under 10 as many times as I did? Sisqi still lives, so the game goes on.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Remember that the save ends thing is not a Saving Throw…it is duration. Instead of rolling a duration and then tracking it throughout combat, 4e uses this as the duration mechanic for powers/effects that last for a variable length of time. Failing the “save” that many times in a row isn’t much different, at least thematically, than if I had rolled maximum duration.