I have been a vocal, and at times irritating, doubter of 4E since last August. But those doubts, concerns and complaints were solely based on what I had read, not what I had played.
Well, after close to a year worth of waiting, I finally got a chance to playtest a 4E scenario. I played the tiefling wizard in the “Escape from Sembia” module that debuted at D&D Experience 2008. For anyone interested in checking out yet another review and collection of opinions, I hope this makes sense.
First off, thanks and kudo’s to Dave B. for running the game, and letting a bona fide 4E doubter in on the action. Modules such as this one, rarely allow a GM to really strut his stuff, and are more designed as an exercise in how to roll dice. But despite that limitation, Dave was patient with the newbies (and grognards) when he needed to be, made decisions on the fly to keep the action going and made certain that everyone had their time in the spotlight. Dave ... ya done good!
Our group of 6 was made up of 3 very experienced 3E players, and 3 players with only limited 3E experience. We meshed pretty well together with only a few limited detours. Whatever you do, don't ask about the sheep. Its best not brought out to the light of day.
So with only a single playtest under my belt and 10+ months of reading excerpts, opinions and prognostications, here is my take on how things stand regarding 4E.
Game System and Mechanics
At first glance the game really appeared similar to 3E. Dice, stats, spells, base attacks, hit points, skills etc etc. But once play started, everything that I considered familiar became new again and I had to continually shift my internal paradigm to accommodate the new D&D. I had already anticipated the need for a change in perception, but it happened more often than I thought it would. Even with the similar terms, this is a new D&D and I can clearly understand why WotC has declined to provide any real guidelines for converting 3E to 4E. The 2 games really aren’t similar.
Compared to 3E, combat in our playtest had more of everything. More mobs, more hits, more powers, more teamwork, more misses, more rounds, more choices, more dice rolls, more tactics, more modifiers, more actions, more heals and more things to keep track of. From what I saw, it was not more streamlined, or intuitive. But its clear that the system provides more for the players to do during combat.
The actual escape from town allowed us to try out the "skill challenge" used for non-combat encounters. This mechanic is both my favorite and most worrisome part of the entire system. As a mechanic it encourages interaction, storytelling, roleplaying and can be just plain fun. But without a “good” (trademarked) GM who enjoys gaming on the fly, is great at understanding & describing the myriad objects, people and opportunities in a given scene, and can guide his players towards their goal no matter what skill, and which direction they head towards, I can see where this mechanic could be minimized (ignored) by many groups or even worse it can be used as a cudgel to beat and railroad the players. Thanks to our GM, we had fun with the encounter. But if I ever play 4E at a Con, I will want some kind of rating system to see the type of GM I’m going to get stuck with. This mechanic, if abused or not properly understood and utilized, will become the death of many games … at least according to my crystal ball.
I don’t think that a review of magic and spells requires any kind of separation from melee abilities. They all have the same kind of feel, mechanics and functionality. I can see how this has allowed for more balanced game mechanics. But I can also see how its taken away some of the more flavorful and “magical” aspects of the game. That being said, everyone was involved in the game at each point of the adventure. The ranger was a bloody food processor, slicing through bad guys like a hot knife through butter, while as the wizard I found casting from a prone position to be most effective. I know it doesn’t make sense. But for me it worked.
Gut Check
So from a purely subjective point of view, here are a few random thoughts in no particular order. If you don’t like personal opinions based on perceptions, then you might as well look elsewhere.
-I enjoyed my time at the table. But then again, with the GM I had, that really wasn't in doubt.
-the module didn’t provide me with enough information to determine if 4E is for me. It was fun in parts and seemed counter-intuitive and clunky in others.
-I think that eventually the skill system (not the non-combat skill challenges) will be the part of 4E that I dislike the most
-4E combat has more action built into it, but requires more attention and record keeping from everyone
-yes, I can clearly see the strong influence of MMORPG’s on the game mechanics. I’m not saying whether that’s good or bad, only that its easily visible. To me at least.
-I don’t like diagonal movement, but it didn’t cause too much of a problem
-hit points not equaling health is a bigger hurdle to overcome than I had thought it would be.
-If you play with just the “core” books (PHB1, DMG1, MM1), I can easily see how optimal power combinations will become very obvious which will eventually make the game boring and result in cookie cutter characters. Adding spice to your game through new abilities, classes, powers and spells (ie the DDI and new supplements) will help keep it fresh. (What a clever game design and marketing plan you say? I completely agree with you!
)
-given the balance (and complexity?) of the various abilities, spells and powers I can see where seemingly innocuous house rules may have a dramatic impact on gameplay.
-The mechanics and game play felt far enough removed from the D&D I currently enjoy, that I don’t see (at this time) 4E being a replacement for my D&D games.
-everyone (the GM and each player in a group) really need some customized counter / marker / tile etc to keep track of the various combat conditions (marked, bloodied etc)
-I really can’t see how 4E can be easily used for Play-By-Post games. Its even more tactically and combat focused than 3E is.
-the jury is still out on healing surges and second wind. (yes we called it "passing wind")
-4E will not be easily used by all fantasy genres / settings. Its high heroic fantasy design is definitely not generic.
-yes I did get the feeling I was playing an exotic board game at times, and not a table top RPG
-yes I did have fun. Enough fun that I will be joining the GM’s “Keep on the Shadowfell” campaign to get a better understanding of the game.
Well that’s it for me.
As always, input, questions or comments are appreciated.
Well, after close to a year worth of waiting, I finally got a chance to playtest a 4E scenario. I played the tiefling wizard in the “Escape from Sembia” module that debuted at D&D Experience 2008. For anyone interested in checking out yet another review and collection of opinions, I hope this makes sense.
First off, thanks and kudo’s to Dave B. for running the game, and letting a bona fide 4E doubter in on the action. Modules such as this one, rarely allow a GM to really strut his stuff, and are more designed as an exercise in how to roll dice. But despite that limitation, Dave was patient with the newbies (and grognards) when he needed to be, made decisions on the fly to keep the action going and made certain that everyone had their time in the spotlight. Dave ... ya done good!
Our group of 6 was made up of 3 very experienced 3E players, and 3 players with only limited 3E experience. We meshed pretty well together with only a few limited detours. Whatever you do, don't ask about the sheep. Its best not brought out to the light of day.
So with only a single playtest under my belt and 10+ months of reading excerpts, opinions and prognostications, here is my take on how things stand regarding 4E.
Game System and Mechanics
At first glance the game really appeared similar to 3E. Dice, stats, spells, base attacks, hit points, skills etc etc. But once play started, everything that I considered familiar became new again and I had to continually shift my internal paradigm to accommodate the new D&D. I had already anticipated the need for a change in perception, but it happened more often than I thought it would. Even with the similar terms, this is a new D&D and I can clearly understand why WotC has declined to provide any real guidelines for converting 3E to 4E. The 2 games really aren’t similar.
Compared to 3E, combat in our playtest had more of everything. More mobs, more hits, more powers, more teamwork, more misses, more rounds, more choices, more dice rolls, more tactics, more modifiers, more actions, more heals and more things to keep track of. From what I saw, it was not more streamlined, or intuitive. But its clear that the system provides more for the players to do during combat.
The actual escape from town allowed us to try out the "skill challenge" used for non-combat encounters. This mechanic is both my favorite and most worrisome part of the entire system. As a mechanic it encourages interaction, storytelling, roleplaying and can be just plain fun. But without a “good” (trademarked) GM who enjoys gaming on the fly, is great at understanding & describing the myriad objects, people and opportunities in a given scene, and can guide his players towards their goal no matter what skill, and which direction they head towards, I can see where this mechanic could be minimized (ignored) by many groups or even worse it can be used as a cudgel to beat and railroad the players. Thanks to our GM, we had fun with the encounter. But if I ever play 4E at a Con, I will want some kind of rating system to see the type of GM I’m going to get stuck with. This mechanic, if abused or not properly understood and utilized, will become the death of many games … at least according to my crystal ball.
I don’t think that a review of magic and spells requires any kind of separation from melee abilities. They all have the same kind of feel, mechanics and functionality. I can see how this has allowed for more balanced game mechanics. But I can also see how its taken away some of the more flavorful and “magical” aspects of the game. That being said, everyone was involved in the game at each point of the adventure. The ranger was a bloody food processor, slicing through bad guys like a hot knife through butter, while as the wizard I found casting from a prone position to be most effective. I know it doesn’t make sense. But for me it worked.
Gut Check
So from a purely subjective point of view, here are a few random thoughts in no particular order. If you don’t like personal opinions based on perceptions, then you might as well look elsewhere.
-I enjoyed my time at the table. But then again, with the GM I had, that really wasn't in doubt.
-the module didn’t provide me with enough information to determine if 4E is for me. It was fun in parts and seemed counter-intuitive and clunky in others.
-I think that eventually the skill system (not the non-combat skill challenges) will be the part of 4E that I dislike the most
-4E combat has more action built into it, but requires more attention and record keeping from everyone
-yes, I can clearly see the strong influence of MMORPG’s on the game mechanics. I’m not saying whether that’s good or bad, only that its easily visible. To me at least.
-I don’t like diagonal movement, but it didn’t cause too much of a problem
-hit points not equaling health is a bigger hurdle to overcome than I had thought it would be.
-If you play with just the “core” books (PHB1, DMG1, MM1), I can easily see how optimal power combinations will become very obvious which will eventually make the game boring and result in cookie cutter characters. Adding spice to your game through new abilities, classes, powers and spells (ie the DDI and new supplements) will help keep it fresh. (What a clever game design and marketing plan you say? I completely agree with you!
)-given the balance (and complexity?) of the various abilities, spells and powers I can see where seemingly innocuous house rules may have a dramatic impact on gameplay.
-The mechanics and game play felt far enough removed from the D&D I currently enjoy, that I don’t see (at this time) 4E being a replacement for my D&D games.
-everyone (the GM and each player in a group) really need some customized counter / marker / tile etc to keep track of the various combat conditions (marked, bloodied etc)
-I really can’t see how 4E can be easily used for Play-By-Post games. Its even more tactically and combat focused than 3E is.
-the jury is still out on healing surges and second wind. (yes we called it "passing wind")
-4E will not be easily used by all fantasy genres / settings. Its high heroic fantasy design is definitely not generic.
-yes I did get the feeling I was playing an exotic board game at times, and not a table top RPG
-yes I did have fun. Enough fun that I will be joining the GM’s “Keep on the Shadowfell” campaign to get a better understanding of the game.
Well that’s it for me.
As always, input, questions or comments are appreciated.
), some will definitely prefer 3e over 4e. 
