D&D 4E My first 4e experience: Escape from Sembia demo in Austin, TX

[smathis]

Earlier today I participated in a 4e demo at Dragon's Lair in Austin, TX. First off, I'd like to say thanks to Brian (I didn't catch his last name) for going out of his way to run an entire day's worth of 4e demos. If you're reading this, know that it was greatly appreciated and I think you did a great job. Also, many thanks to Angie and Rachel at Dragon's Lair who helped get me on the list for the demo.

Now my background:
I've been excited about 4e since I heard that Mearls was on the team. I was one of those DMs who was disillusioned by the preptime that 3e took and, while I did learn to "wing-it" fairly well, I also felt that cheated the players by offering them two-dimensional and (often) imbalanced encounters. So, I hung up my DMG around 2001 and went on my merry way to M&M, AE and just about every indie game under the sun.

So I guess that puts me in the "target" demographic as someone WotC would like to lure back to D&D. Fair enough. I've liked most of the stuff I've heard thus far but definitely wanted to try my hand at it before making any final decision. Note, I have not pre-ordered 4e.

What I wanted to examine in this demo session was:

• What were the non-combat encounters like?
• Which edition of D&D did it remind me most of? I've played and DM'd all prior editions of D&D dating back to BECMI.
• What were the opportunities for roleplay? Comparable to 3e? Or comparable to 1e where a lack of rules on things like skills often made players work harder to roleplay encounters, in my experience. In other words, you just couldn't roll a Bluff check in BECMI.
• What were the possibilities for players assuming Authorial or Directorial stance?
• How feasible would gridless play be?
• And lastly, did it live up to the hype?

What I arrived to:

• The "Escape from Sembia" module from D&D XP. I was very happy about this because I knew it included a skill challenge and was longer than the Scalegloom Hall delve.
• Probably the least favorite of the demo pregens -- the Halfling Paladin.
• A time crunch. Allan, at Dragon's Lair, had told me it was at 10:30am. When I got there (surprisingly at 10:30am), I was informed that it was supposed to start at 10:00am. That, coupled with back-to-back groups all through the day, really put us in a bit of a bind. It was nice of them to wait up for me, though.

Notes on the time crunch:

• It turned the Sembia mod into sort of a delve with a skill challenge stuck in the middle of it.
• We didn't have any background on why we were where we were (other than we were giving a scroll to a shopkeeper) or why what we were doing was important. Fair enough. It wasn't a campaign so much as a kicking of the tires.
• We did get a bit of roleplaying in at the onset, which was refreshing, because it gave me a sense of where roleplaying fell in the rules and how much or how little it could play a part in a 4e game.

 

[smathis]

So how was it?

So how was it?

Pretty good. Most, if not all, of my questions were answered in the demo and I learned quite a bit more. I also got to sit right next to the DM, so I was able to keep a careful eye on what he was doing and how involved it was.

Here's what I came away with:

How flexible the system was. Could I just slide under a table and kick it out from under a foe? How would that work?

The first thing I did was jump through a window. Pretty pointless really. But I did it. Brian didn't seem 100% comfortable with the ins-and-outs of 4e so we didn't get much of an opportunity to use things like terrain and such.

I came away with the feeling that this was much like it was in 3e. Like I couldn't jump off the wall and kick some dude in the head because it was cool but, rather, I'd need unarmed strike, 5 ranks in Acrobatics and an Action Point.

I think that was because Brian and the rest of the group were falling back on 3e as the default for grey areas that weren't properly explained in the demo rules. I mean, we were actually using 3e rules for some of the things I was trying like tumbling through an occupied square to flank.

So I didn't feel like I got a good answer here. I'll have to just trust the hype on this one (or trust in my abilities to house-rule it in).

What were the non-combat encounters like?

Awesome in theory. Not so awesome in execution. Notes to follow.

Let me just say this. A Forgite could do some serious Narr awesomeness with the NCEs in 4e. Outside of that, it looks like it just depends on how cool your DM is.

Brian was cool, so I got to throw in some Authorial Stance in there -- even though I'm not sure that anyone knew that's what I was doing. Basically, I played through my NCE like an Extended Contest in HeroQuest.

And it worked.

Beauty. I can definitively say that Narr play is possible with the NCE mechanics.

But, and here's the execution part, the NCE's were kind of a lull point. No one was really sure what to do with them and most people just pinged the same skill over and over with the aplomb of "I swing at him".

I could see a lot of 3e to 4e groups hitting this wall (barring some really awesome examples in the PHB or DMG).

But the bones are there. It's just recognizing them for what they are. Anyone who's tried playing a game like Donjon with old school D&D alums will know exactly what I'm talking about.

It's not that the 1e crowd won't pick up on it and run with it. It just takes them a bit to grok it for what it is (shared DMing in a limited fashion) because it's a different kind of play.

Which edition of D&D did it remind me most of? I've played and DM'd all prior editions of D&D dating back to BECMI.

It reminded me most of BECMI because it was simpler in play than 1e and 3e. At certain points -- like when the combats dragged on a bit at the end -- I was picking up a bit of a 2e vibe.

But it felt different than 3e. It felt faster and more engaging to me. I did drift off at a couple of points. But it wasn't like in 3e where I sometimes felt compelled to doodle or read the PHB waiting for my chance to hit-or-miss. I was more interested in what other players were doing and what I would be doing to compliment their actions.

It did not feel like a videogame to me. But that could just be me.

What were the opportunities for roleplay? Comparable to 3e? Or comparable to 1e where a lack of rules on things like skills often made players work harder to roleplay encounters, in my experience? In other words, you just couldn't roll a Bluff check in BECMI.

Comparable to 3e. No better, no worse. You could, conceivably, just roleplay through all social encounters or roll Bluff/Diplomacy checks instead.

No different in 4e.

What were the possibilities for players assuming Authorial or Directorial stance?

Unless there are some stunt rules (ala IH) in the PHB, there is very limited potential to play around with Stance in combat. That could've been just the way we were playing it. But every time I tried to switch into a bit of some Narr awesomeness I was met with "roll Acrobatics". Like I said, our fallback in the grey areas was 3e.

So I did not come away with the Action Hero feel everyone's talking about. More resource management? Yes. Simpler resource management? Sorta. But was I a 3'9" Jet Li with a symbol of Tymora on my chest? No. I was an above-average paladin who spent most of the encounters laying on hands and getting up from prone position.

Regarding the Non-Combat Encounters? These things were practically ripped from the pages of the rough-draft of an Indie RPG, still beating and dripping with blood. Assuming a DM or group recognizes what they can do with them, this makes Narr play a reality in 4e with little or no rules hacks needed.

How feasible would gridless play be?

Part of me wasn't buying the hype on this one. Mearls came out with some great suggestions .

But, really, how feasible would it be?

Based on my experience, very. It looks like gridless 4e will be easier than gridless 3e. Although, I still might run combats with lots of environmental possibilities or big boss monsters on a grid.

And lastly, did it live up to the hype?

Mostly yes.

It's not perfect. I didn't like keeping track of conditions. And liked the save mechanics less than I thought I would.

I felt playing on the grid with the new rules is more fun than it was in 3e. The way we were playing it did feel like it had a little bit of a boardgame feel to it. But I thought that was good.

But I still prefer gridless play. If I HAD to run with a grid, this system screams for IH Zones and 3D Terrain, though.

I often had to remind myself THESE WERE FIRST LEVEL PCs. From that perspective, the designers got a lot right with 4e and preserving the "sweet spot".

Also, considering the Shadar-Kai was a Level 6 and didn't wipe the board with us, it was nice knowing that the DM could be a little more flexible with his encounters and not worry about a TPK.

IIRC, 2 PCs officially died -- the Cleric and Ranger. Assuming the Warlock or Wizard could've stabilized me (the Paladin), we could've made it out of the adventure (mostly) intact.


I also learned:

• The new Monster write-ups are a lot easier to deal with. Though the printouts looked to be in, like, 7pt font, Brian was able to manage all the opponents in the combats well with minimal hassle over the resource management. I used to run varied encounters with multiple opponents when I ran 3e. Watching Brian closely, I can say that it looked no more difficult in 4e than 3e. Maybe even a little easier.

• Conditions are a bear to keep up with. The onus will fall on either the player or the DM. In our game, it was the player. But someone has to keep on top of them because they can get a little unwieldy. Maybe the "Conditions Tracker" will be 4e's version of 1e's guy mapping with the graph paper?

• The combats lasted longer in rounds but took about as long as I remember 3e combats taking.

• First level is more fun than it's ever been in any edition of D&D. It was quite clear to me that our PCs were buffer than any other edition's 1st level PC.

• But it was also clear that the beasties were buffer too. The city guards downed a member of the party in the first encounter. That pretty well underlined how tough our opponents could be. I mean, they were the city guard.

• Monsters felt a lot different in 4e. Fighting the city guard was very different than fighting Hobgoblins and that was very different than fighting a Shadar-Kai. It was nice that the monsters actually fought with different inherent strategies, making them each feel unique.

• PCs were all pretty useful and interesting. I don't think there was any PC that was just wasting space. I had perhaps the most sub-optimal PC in the bunch. I mean, my size ganked most of my Paladin abilities. My short sword had all my big Paladin smite stuff doing 8-9 points max damage (Short Sword still == 1d6). So I could really feel my race kind of working against my class in a way. Still, I had fun with him -- even though I would neveh, eveh, eveh, EVAH play this character in a real game. I always had something interesting to do (even when it only did 3 pts of damage) and I felt like I contributed a good deal.

• 4e seemed to emphasize teamwork to me more than 3e. Having the classes built towards certain roles in combat, we played off each other more than most D&D groups I've been with. In previous editions, teamwork amounted to the Cleric buffing the Fighter, the Wizard laying back and somebody distracting the monsters while the Rogue sneak attacked. In this game, we had players organizing their attacks -- like the Ranger and the Warlock playing off each other's abilities to lay the smack down on opponents. And everyone had a value in combat. As a result, no one was playing Chaotic Stupid. It felt pretty obvious that if we turned on each other, that we'd get seriously screwed down the road. I don't know if this was a design goal but it's definitely something I picked up on.

• I find playing on a grid really tedious -- more of a reminder than an actual learning. Give me GM fiat anyday.

 

[Harshax]

deleted, posted my question about you experienced just after you completed your second post.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

On condition tracking:

I've made up some little cards for my 4E demos that list the condition (Or a series of conditions, for instance, I have Immobilized and Slowed on one, and Dazed Staggerd Stunned on another) with the effects on 'em... I just shoot 'em across the table to the effected target, who hands 'em back when they meet the condition's end.

It may make the play more "board game" like to some people, but who cares? It works well.

BTW... what the heck is a NARR?

Fitz

 

[smathis]

A tinkerer by nature...

What I would houserule:

• Levels of Success instead of pass/fail . Some see no need. Fair enough. But to me they make all the difference.

• Gridless. For anyone in doubt if Mearls brings the awesome, read his gridless post.

• Johnathan Tweet's Static Damage rules. I did it in 3e. Why not in 4e? And now Tweet's on board so I have BACKUP this time! It makes a lot of sense when you're behind the screen. Moreso now that crits just do max damage.

• I'd also go with Tweet's Kill Shots and Fleeing Rules. Maybe the Story Points too (on same page), if I could incorporate them into something like In a Wicked Age 's Owe List. Kill Shots are just a nice Narr gimme to the player. Fleeing is like one of those non-jerk DM things to allow. (I mean, really, TPK a party because they just want to disengage?)

• I'm not sure the 4e rules as written need much more grit. And I'm as surprised as anyone that I would say that. But I'd probably go with the "each time dropped below zero reduces tomorrow's Healing Surges by one". Easy and you don't need much more, IMO.

• I'd definitely go with Ryan Stoughton's "Players Roll All the Dice " in Epic6. I think it would do even more to keep players involved in 4e than 3e. And with the amount of dice the DM has to roll, 4e could definitely suffer from sitting around while the DM rolls and rolls and rolls and rolls. I might have the players roll the monster's saves to see if their effects stick. Makes sense and moves the bookkeeping on their end. If they don't roll it, then it must've worn off...

• I'd go with either an IH stunts hack or Ryan Stoughton's "Raising the Stakes"

• Yeah. This too. Oh, and this. Mearls needs to seriously stop posting on his blog so I can, you know, actually nail down a campaign.

Now I don't have the full rules in front of me. But if I had to run a campaign tomorrow based on what I know and what I have. That's what I'd do with it.

Certainly not to everyone's taste. But it's good enough that I'll be pre-ordering sometime this week.

 

[smathis]

deleted, posted my question about you experienced just after you completed your second post.

Yeah. Sorry about that. I kept proofreading and making edits.

I got a bit OCD with it.

 

[Cadfan]

Interesting read.

One thing I've noticed is that conceptualizing first level is a lot different than it was before. On one hand, the PCs have snazzy abilities, know how to use all their weapons, can apparently afford real gear (unlike 3e where the fighter can't afford armor until level 2 or so), and have per day powers that absolutely rock. On the other hand, they're still only sufficiently powerful to confidently take on adventures based around kobolds and things, and they get sent to the hospital by a fight against an equal number of generic city guards.

So on one hand, they have a lot of stuff you associate with experience, but on the other, they're below the power level of a generic human combatant. They may have neat tricks that generic npc hasn't got, but that npc has hit points, ac, attack roll, and damage. And that goes a long way.

 

[smathis]

On condition tracking:

I've made up some little cards for my 4E demos that list the condition (Or a series of conditions, for instance, I have Immobilized and Slowed on one, and Dazed Staggerd Stunned on another) with the effects on 'em... I just shoot 'em across the table to the effected target, who hands 'em back when they meet the condition's end.

It may make the play more "board game" like to some people, but who cares? It works well.

BTW... what the heck is a NARR?

Fitz

Those cards sound like a great idea. Anything to help with that bookkeeping is a win in my eyes.

That said, I think it's better than the fixed durations in 3e. But still, with more combatants per combat, the end result was zero sum for me.

And Narr is an abbreviation of Narrativism. That whole GNS thing. Pretty much just a style of play that allows players to shape the plot, setting, scene, surroundings, etc. by having the DM share Narrative control with them.

By allowing the players to frame the scenes of their Skill Challenges (our DM even let them set the difficulty -- which I probably wouldn't do), they get to be sort of a Director (like in a movie) as well as an Actor in the game (for that scene).

While other people have done this in their individual D&D games, there's never really been any rule in D&D giving players this sort of officially open-ended means to shape the story.

Except, maybe, the Wish spell. And, I think, that was WAY over the top in previous editions.

My take on it, based on the session I was in, was that the NCEs are probably the one set of rules that D&D groups will just gloss over if it's not made explicitly clear what they can do with them.

It's just not apparent to players who are used to getting all the story, setting, frame and such from a DM. It's like when we first tried getting my daughter to feed herself. At first, it was so alien she just didn't get it. Then she didn't really understand the need. Then she got it, liked it and now only lets us feed her when she's feeling really ill.

It's what people are used to and the expectations they have. The NCEs can be a real seismic shift, unless of course a group just doesn't want them to be.

Which is cool, as long as they don't mind my PC narrating the bejeebus out of it.

 

[smathis]

I
One thing I've noticed is that conceptualizing first level is a lot different than it was before.

Oh TOTALLY. This really blew my mind because we all felt like we were more effective than in previous editions but (at the same time) those city-guards just kept coming at us.

I would say that first combat was a humbling experience.

Hence the "Action Hero" thing?

Not so much.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm really glad that the Dragon's Lair demo went well. They'd asked me (through a mutual friend) if I could run one of them, but I had family plans for the day already.

I think that was because Brian and the rest of the group were falling back on 3e as the default for grey areas that weren't properly explained in the demo rules. I mean, we were actually using 3e rules for some of the things I was trying like tumbling through an occupied square to flank.

Urf. I'm sorry to hear the demo rules were that incomplete. I can assure you, the situations you're describing should not have been handled via 3E's rules.