Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4575851" data-attributes="member: 30678">Here I have to disagree. After reading the rules I was left with the impression that the emphasized tactical nature of the rules requires *MORE* work from the DM, if he's going to write his adventures &quot;by the book&quot;. Just take a look at the Skill Challenges or Traps -- all examples I've seen of them in written form take up a page or two! That's a lot of pre-play work, if you use them extensively. And although the monster stat blocks are easier to come up with, it's monster powers that got me really confused -- how many powers/special qualities should monsters have? Which number should each power &quot;recharge&quot; at on a D6? And so on.&nbsp; Apparently, the only official rule/advice is to &quot;goggle it up in MM&quot;, which actually takes time -- I'm sure that all is very clear to the designers and playtesters, but even to a veteran DM of all the editions, it feels intimidating. Wasn't this the game that was billed as more &quot;DM/Newbie-friendly&quot; than ever before? Yet I'm not saying that 4E is inferior to 3E, or &quot;not D&amp;D&quot;. It's just that I wouldn't DM this edition, because I would have to learn to be much more tactically-inclined and do much more work than ever before. I'm sure that in time it all would become crystal-clear, and I could run encounters without figuring out the synergies behind different roles, abilities, hazards and traps in every encounter. To be frank, PF Beta/RPG suits my style and preferences a lot better.I have a friend who belongs to our WFRP/Ars Magica group (I game in a number of groups, actually) who participates in a 4E campaign. Now, this group consists of long-time D&amp;D veterans, yet apparently they're role-playing a lot less in 4E than ever before. He said that everybody feels that the rules (e.g. quite a lot of the powers) emphasize and encourage suspension of disbelief and combat so much, that it's like playing a boardgame (&quot;I'll use Hammer Shot on the Golem, and shift him here.&quot;). Of course, this is his opinion, and *NOT* a fact, but I think that if you're not into &quot;proto-magical&quot; martial powers and tactical thinking, 4E may not be an ideal game for you.Yet try it to see if it suits you and your group -- at least take a look at the books (maybe someone you know owns them, or you could take a peek at your FLGS).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primal, post: 4575851, member: 30678"] Here I have to disagree. After reading the rules I was left with the impression that the emphasized tactical nature of the rules requires *MORE* work from the DM, if he's going to write his adventures "by the book". Just take a look at the Skill Challenges or Traps -- all examples I've seen of them in written form take up a page or two! That's a lot of pre-play work, if you use them extensively. And although the monster stat blocks are easier to come up with, it's monster powers that got me really confused -- how many powers/special qualities should monsters have? Which number should each power "recharge" at on a D6? And so on. Apparently, the only official rule/advice is to "goggle it up in MM", which actually takes time -- I'm sure that all is very clear to the designers and playtesters, but even to a veteran DM of all the editions, it feels intimidating. Wasn't this the game that was billed as more "DM/Newbie-friendly" than ever before? Yet I'm not saying that 4E is inferior to 3E, or "not D&D". It's just that I wouldn't DM this edition, because I would have to learn to be much more tactically-inclined and do much more work than ever before. I'm sure that in time it all would become crystal-clear, and I could run encounters without figuring out the synergies behind different roles, abilities, hazards and traps in every encounter. To be frank, PF Beta/RPG suits my style and preferences a lot better. I have a friend who belongs to our WFRP/Ars Magica group (I game in a number of groups, actually) who participates in a 4E campaign. Now, this group consists of long-time D&D veterans, yet apparently they're role-playing a lot less in 4E than ever before. He said that everybody feels that the rules (e.g. quite a lot of the powers) emphasize and encourage suspension of disbelief and combat so much, that it's like playing a boardgame ("I'll use Hammer Shot on the Golem, and shift him here."). Of course, this is his opinion, and *NOT* a fact, but I think that if you're not into "proto-magical" martial powers and tactical thinking, 4E may not be an ideal game for you. Yet try it to see if it suits you and your group -- at least take a look at the books (maybe someone you know owns them, or you could take a peek at your FLGS). [/QUOTE]

Verification