A Doubters Review

Khairn

First Post
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. :rolleyes:

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! :D )
-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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Glad you had fun! That is the key for me. I'm not expecting 4e to be like any other edition. Nor am I expecting "streamlined" (i.e. dumbed-down to some people). I do want more options and it does look easier to manage the monsters, which will be great for me when I GM.
 


When you deny it's more streamlined, could you be a little more specific about what you mean? The general consensus is that your turn goes by a lot faster, and that's what most people who say the reverse have in mind, but on the other hand you get so many more of them that combats don't really take any less time unless they're trivial. On the other hand you're not the first to raise the bookkeeping concerns you've mentioned, and maybe that's all you meant. Could you clarify your thoughts on this aspect of things a little?
 

Thank you for your thoughts, Devyn. Even though there are things you didn't like, it seems like you approached it with an open mind.

I hope that you have a good time in your Keep on the Shadowfell game! :)
 

As a person looking forward to 4E, I thought that this review was very well done. It's nice to see a doubter willing to try out a game and try to be subjective. You even said that you had fun and are willing to play again!

I still have some comments:

-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! )

These are not exclusively a 4E thing. The exact same thing can be said about 3E.

-4E will not be easily used by all fantasy genres / settings. Its high heroic fantasy design is definitely not generic.

Again, a 3ed thing too. How many threads on here revolve around toning-down the high-level of power in 3ed games and the need to rely on a plethora of magical items at mid to high levels (a very video-gamey thing, IMO. Just like WoW)

-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 GMed a 4E game and this is too true. I have no problem with some status effects provided they are basic enough and I prefer the lingering effects that you have a chance to end each round (rather than a "Make a save. You fail? Sorry fighter, you're out for this fight. Go sit in a corner for 30 minutes. Isn't D&D fun?"). but the status effects were stacking so much that it became a big headache during long fights.
 

Glad to hear people are at least giving the game a fair shake before passing judgement.

A couple questions:

1. I too have my doubts about the "streamlined" nature of 4e. IMO it seems that you'll just be tracking small incremental bonuses and penalties instead of the stack of buff spells like you currently do in 3.5. That being said, it seems to me that the complexity level of 4e does not rise as sharply as 3e-3.5 as you go up in level. Did you feel that playing the low-level game you did was more or less complex than playing a 3.5 game around level 8-10?

2. When you're talking about GM issues you seem to say that if you didn't have a good one, you wouldn't have enjoyed your experience. It has been my experience that this is the case for any roleplaying system. Bad GM = Bad Game. Are you just echoing this philosophy, or do you believe that a DM has to be "better" to run an enjoyable 4e game than an enjoyable 3e-3.5 one?

Thanks for an honest review, and good gaming in whatever edition you decide is best for you.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Darien said:
2. When you're talking about GM issues you seem to say that if you didn't have a good one, you wouldn't have enjoyed your experience. It has been my experience that this is the case for any roleplaying system. Bad GM = Bad Game. Are you just echoing this philosophy, or do you believe that a DM has to be "better" to run an enjoyable 4e game than an enjoyable 3e-3.5 one?

Emphasis mine.
It needs repeating because I'm amazed at how often people miss this fact.
 

To the OP:

There is no accounting for taste. Just as some still prefer to play 1e and 2e (/boggle ;) ), some will definitely prefer 3e over 4e.

So therefore, I think most of your observations are good, as they relate to your personal preferences. Hard to argue about those.

However, you do make a few absolutes that I wish to point out:

Devyn said:
-4E combat has more action built into it, but requires more attention and record keeping from everyone
This is not a preference, but an observation. I will however have to disagree. Compared to 3.5, there are far less things to remember for my players. Between buffs and debuffs, they often had to use Excell sheets to figure out their to-hit and AC. Now all they got to keep track off, is the short-term bonuses they receive from round to round, and if they are bloodied.
Devyn said:
-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.
Again, an observation that I will have to disagree with. We have been over this a huge amount of times, but since you think it was easily visible in the mechanics, perhaps you could elaborate on that point, maybe you have something new to show those of us that really don't see it.

Devyn said:
-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! )
How did you manage to see all this, without the actual PHB and its 500 powers and 400 feats?

Devyn said:
-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.
A bit like above. Considering you have yet to see the books, how can you say that house rules will have a dramatic impact on gameplay?
Devyn said:
-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 have been playing 4e-lite for weeks, and my players need nothing of the sort. Maybe you need to practice some more, or get a better DM.

Devyn said:
-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.
I agree with you here! I don't see this as a problem. TTRPGs should not be built around being able to support PnP.

Devyn said:
-4E will not be easily used by all fantasy genres / settings. Its high heroic fantasy design is definitely not generic.
Again, that is quite a statement coming from someone who has seen very little of the rules.

Either way, thanks for your candid review, it is always interesting to read how others perceive what we know of 4e.

Cheers
 

Remove ads

Top