I've seen plenty of RPG sessions that made me think "gee, I wish I was playing that". This session does not convey that.buzz said:When isn't watching people play D&D combat like watching paint dry?
This I agree with. It's not the DM's job to be all animated and entertaining while players sit back and watch. It's a cooperative experience, and the players just weren't invested in what was basically just a nondescript, generic combat without context.I'll also grant that Noonan wasn't particularly riveting, but I don't think he was much better or worse than a lot of GMs I've seen.
Which, unfortunately, if following the podcasts and web articles is any indication, seems to be pretty typical of what the staffers consider playtesting D&D.
They exercised zero grasp of tactics at the individual or group level. If zero grasp of tactics is the benchmark that most players hit, then they were doing fine. The defenders didn't mark their foes or take the brunt of attacks--the fighter actually hadn't taken any damage all that time the other characters were getting mauled. The rogue was so overeager to get in an alpha strike that he hung himself out to dry. Just about everybody spent their action points just because they didn't like missing with their first attack.As for the players making poor choices, I don't really agree. That is, I don't think they were necessarily playing below the level of most people out there. That Sara Girard (a marketing person) could basically keep up with a table that included some developers and the extensively-prepped Jennifer Clarke Wilkes says something about the player-friendliness of 4e, IMO.
In general, it didn't seem like the presence of developers counted for much. That's what was so disappointing.
Last edited: