D&D 4E 4E DM's - what have you learned?

[Viking Bastard]

Good point. I didnt think spell lists and power cards were that different, but after 3 years of playing 4e I notice people spending more time deciphering power cards than they did 3e spells. I'm at a loss for * why * that is, I just observe it for our group.

I know what you mean, but I don't think it's the cards, nor the powers themselves, as such. I think 4e's biggest flaw is in it's presentation of things. The rules are so very precise and exact, which makes for a great robust system, but it also makes things so definite and final. "This power does this."

When my 4e group first started playing, we used some power cards I found online (no DDI for us). They weren't good enough, though, so I made my own, but I couldn't possibly be bothered to type in all that precise lawyerly jargon (or try to make it look pretty) so I wrote them down in shorter, more vague terms. This had a noticeable effect on gameplay. It was just easier and quicker to read, and they immediately started being more creative about their use.

I didn't actually change any of the rules. I just reworded them. It did result in the misuse of powers a few times, but who cares?

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Instead of arguing semantics, I've got another example...though YMMV and probably does

Awesome example. And my mileage doesn't vary all that much.

Sounds like a fun encounter, by the way.

I won't go into crazy detail on my own latest experiment -- using poker to give Pcs some control over the difficulty of the encounters they faced (and incentives to take risks). It was a gimmicky idea that worked pretty well, but I'd have to admit that the players were very focused on the poker side of the gimmick. (if you're bored enough to want to read about it, I posted about it a few weeks back.)

It's interesting that I think we're seeing similar issues in our games, but we're looking for solutions in different places. I'm a lot more focused on things that go on outside of combat encounters -- I want more engaging and interesting and innovative skill challenges and RP scenes and more ways to engage the players in the part of the game that isn't governed by initiative. And you're looking at ways to get the players to think outside the hard-coded paths created by their powers and other programmed options within the encounters.

-rg

 

[Quickleaf]

I won't go into crazy detail on my own latest experiment -- using poker to give Pcs some control over the difficulty of the encounters they faced (and incentives to take risks). It was a gimmicky idea that worked pretty well, but I'd have to admit that the players were very focused on the poker side of the gimmick. (if you're bored enough to want to read about it, I posted about it a few weeks back.)

I just read your OP over there but I've gotta say what a great idea! Gimmicky sure, but the essence of the idea is golden.

It's interesting that I think we're seeing similar issues in our games, but we're looking for solutions in different places. I'm a lot more focused on things that go on outside of combat encounters -- I want more engaging and interesting and innovative skill challenges and RP scenes and more ways to engage the players in the part of the game that isn't governed by initiative. And you're looking at ways to get the players to think outside the hard-coded paths created by their powers and other programmed options within the encounters.

Yeah, that's a good observation!

I actually had a conversation with one of my players about how the game was going and in particular about moments of indecision, circular logic, and blank stares (what happens outside of combat). He gave me some great feedback which sum up in 3 points:

* We're still at the beginning of the game and the players are still learning the setting. He suggested I provide hints in the form of "your character would know this."
* Because I'm not handholding it's unclear sometimes if a quest objective has been achieved or not.
* Our sessions are spaced far apart (3-5 weeks seems the norm) so often the players forget what was happening, even with their notes.

I guess this is off topic as it really has to do with lessons I've learned running a sandbox for a busy group, and less about 4e in particular.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

QL: Great insights from your player -- and it's awesome that you can have such a candid conversation with him.

One thing that really has shaped the way I try to think about encounters and communicating with the PCs is a series of blogs on the at-will blog (gamefiend, and others) called "serious skills" -- if you have not seen it, it's worth checking out:

At WillSeries: Serious Skills

My own efforts tend to be more modest, but I'm trying things like preparing information for each PC, either at the start of a session or in encounters, based on the skills they're trained in. I tend to think that skills (rather than powers) can be a good path towards PC improvisation because they're a much more flexible resources.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=150]Radiating Gnome[/MENTION]
Yeah that's a good blog, I think I read about passive knowledge scores over there.

I was very surprised by that suggestion from the player since everyone in the group, him included, was forgetting NPC names - actually forgetting most everything - between sessions. For this game I've been making an effort to avoid "background regurgitation points" and trying to weave background reveals into their adventures, the setting, and treasure. I think this has meant a slower pace of sharing background info.

Just the way our group is, I think an episodic approach might be better. Not my preference, but it's pretty clear that if I want to provide background info (eg. using their trained skills as a guideline), then my window for doing that is toward the start of a session.

 

[S'mon]

Both are cold cheese users. One is an Eladrin Essentials Thief, who spends the entire encounter hidden in plain sight via stealth. The other is an Archer Ranger (the race escapes me at the moment, but not Elf), that doesn't invoke OAs at point blank. They're currently 19th.

Well the guy who critted for 90+ IMC was 8th level not 19th, hence my being impressed.

 

[S'mon]

So for you the biggest change happens at the DM's level, not the players?

For me, it's the opposite. For example, I encourage players to improvise, but it almost never happens because when combat comes around players looks to their sheets & cards to decide what they'll do. The biggest changes I've seen happen on the player's side. To be fair, the groups I'm with now I played 3e with but never older editions where I recall improv being strongest.

Good point. I didnt think spell lists and power cards were that different, but after 3 years of playing 4e I notice people spending more time deciphering power cards than they did 3e spells. I'm at a loss for * why * that is, I just observe it for our group. For one player I know it's a language barrier (their native language is Chinese), and it greatly improved when they found translated books and resources online. For two others who played casters in 3e I can only assume it has to do with system mastery, that we're just now getting to the point where they were with 3e years ago.

I'd say it's because the GM is in charge of adjudicating how spells work (0e-3e) but the player is in charge of working out how their powers work (4e).

 

[pemerton]

Oh man, we had that happen in my buddy's 4e Mystara game at Nelwyn's Shrine; the cultists gave out blindness (save ends) in a close burst. At one point literally everyone in the group was blind. It was really funny at the time, but I wouldn't want to do it again.

I ran an encounter at 12th level (maybe 13th?) against a powerful enemy magician (statted as a 13th solo) who had a recharging multi-target blinding power, plus an at will single target blinding power.

In order to win the fight, the PCs ended up using the ring of wishing they had found earlier on in the campaign to wish that no one in the room could become blind until the end of the encounter. (The player who worded the wish played a lot of AD&D, and deliberately worded conservatively based on fears of old-style wish perversion.)

 

[pemerton]

This is a GAME. I have spell cards. I have tokens. I have counters and chits and accessories. They HELP roleplaying, not hurt it. Humans are visual creatures, don't give your players TEXT. More accessories help your fun.

Least what I've observed is players shifting to more gamism and less immersion, more reliance on power cards and less creativity, more skill checks and less description.

I agree - fun stuff is fun, but comes at the cost of immersion, not helping it.

I've never GMed or played an RPG before in which tokens on battlemaps were used to track position. I agree that it can push somewhat towards a third person rather than a 1st person experience of the action - which I'd be happy to gloss as less immersive. On the other hand, the level of information and clarity of the situation at least sometimes seems to me to push the opposite way - a more vivid sense of the situation. I don't have a strong view on what the overall balance is.

I encourage players to improvise, but it almost never happens because when combat comes around players looks to their sheets & cards to decide what they'll do.

Looking at character sheets to see what to do is nothing new to me. I don't find there is more of this in 4e than in RM or in the last AD&D game (late 2nd ed with skills and powers) that I played.

Improvisation tends to be with these things rather than in spite of or outside them.

I tend to think that skills (rather than powers) can be a good path towards PC improvisation because they're a much more flexible resources.

My experience has been the same, but as the players are getting a better handle on their powers, I'm finding more improvisation with powers also, especially from the player of the chaos sorcerer who uses various powers outside combat (especially in mad attempts to try and harness chaotic energy to channel it into magic items).

I can only assume it has to do with system mastery, that we're just now getting to the point where they were with 3e years ago.

I think for many players 3E may have been close enough to AD&D in action resolution (especially in its spell lists) that lessons learned were carried over. Whereas 4e is different enough that I think a new set of lessons has to be learned.

 

[Quickleaf]

Looking at character sheets to see what to do is nothing new to me. I don't find there is more of this in 4e than in RM or in the last AD&D game (late 2nd ed with skills and powers) that I played.

Ah that makes sense, different points of comparison. I stopped playing during 2e (and we never incorporated skills and powers) and mostly skipped over 3e before jumping back into gaming with 4e. During my 2e games the only time someone studied their characte sheet was to read a spell description, and even then spells were used in all kinds of creative ways.

Improvisation tends to be with these things rather than in spite of or outside them.

Hey I agree with you in principle... But my observation of my group tells me the exact opposite.