D&D 4E D&D 4E Post-Mortem

[Voadam]

• I also tend to pick apart the plots in published adventures. The ones I have enjoyed the most (such as Curse of Strahd) is because of the theme, the villain, and the setting - which gives me more wiggle room than I feel in other adventures.
• I prefer conspiracies, mysteries, and more cerebral plots rather than endless combats. Creative, emergent play over a "what's on your sheet" style.

Call of Cthulhu adventures converted to whatever system and setting might be more up your alley. More focus on conspiracies and mysteries and less endless combats for advancement.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

....

That's a conversation for Session 0; however, people are really bad at describing what they want. I saw a video (Food Theory) several years ago where people will describe what they like about coffee (bold, rich, dark roast, etc.) but in actuality they want it weak, diluted with cream and sugar, etc.
This has been my experience with Session 0 as well. Players will describe what they want (deep story, mystery, rich world building, political intrigue, deep character customization, tactical depth, etc.) with the buzzwords they think make them sound like mature players. But they actually want hijinks, dungeon crawling, and fart jokes.

If the players want hijinks, dungeon crawling and joke, then you have to give it to them or find different players.

I think that many people here are very invested in the story/drama elements of D&D but in my experience a lot of players just want some action and fun time at the table and are not too concerned with the quality of the roleplaying or the story.
That is why published adventures are so popular. They do not have to make a lot of sense as long as the path from A to B is clear.

 

[Retreater]

Call of Cthulhu adventures converted to whatever system and setting might be more up your alley. More focus on conspiracies and mysteries and less endless combats for advancement.

I was ready to roll with CoC after the 4E game. Unfortunately, one of the players has a strong dislike of HPL and the Mythos specifically. (Even after I suggested CoC with less Mythos involvement.) And considering she's the player most into roleplaying, story, and character development, I don't want her sitting out a game like CoC.

 

[Retreater]

If the players want hijinks, dungeon crawling and joke, then you have to give it to them or find different players.

I don't mind giving them what they want. I just want them to tell me what they want so I know how to deliver.
But I'm pretty much going to go with "I know you're going to say one thing - but you actually mean this."

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If you're referring to my "Post-Mortem" threads, one of the commonalities is that most of them involve (mostly) the same group. Of course, I'm a constant as the GM in all of them.

Factoring myself as the GM, I'm not usually picking games that play into my strengths.

• I'm not a tactical genius. I don't play wargames like 40K. This might be a reason why I find it difficult to challenge the groups. Encounters are usually too easy or too difficult. If I were more tactically minded, I could deliver a better experience.

Is this what your players want or what you want to deliver. I think your players are fairly happy to walk over most combats but with the occasional nailbiter. 4e is the only system I have played that allows one to have good tactical combat in every fight without killing the party.
There may be others.

• I'm more creative than I usually promote on here. I think I get bored trying to run published adventures - which I rely upon because I'm not strong tactically or great at creating engaging combats. I also tend to pick apart the plots in published adventures. The ones I have enjoyed the most (such as Curse of Strahd) is because of the theme, the villain, and the setting - which gives me more wiggle room than I feel in other adventures.
• I prefer conspiracies, mysteries, and more cerebral plots rather than endless combats. Creative, emergent play over a "what's on your sheet" style.
• I tend to enjoy fun NPCs and humor.

Mainstream games don't seem to capitalize on these strengths. After all, D&D came out of the wargame hobby, and as I pointed out, I'm not much of a wargamer.

You need one or preferably 2 players that like the style you outline above. That would probably enough to drag the casuals along in their wake and provide something closer to what you want.

With some alterations, I'm sure I could've forced the square peg into the round hole.

• Get everyone on the same page - either no character builder or everyone have access to the character builder.
• Use Skill Challenges and roleplaying more - likely requiring going to a completely Milestone levelling system so I could save the battles for more pivotal scenes.
• Assign class roles to players (require a Defender, for example) or else try to figure out how to create encounters that would bypass that need.

But ultimately, it wasn't worth it. For most of the players, it was just something to do on the weekend for 3-4 hours. I was already giving it so much of my headspace.
We played with the same characters for 8 months, but I doubt anyone could've given another character's name. There were no distinctive personality traits any more than playing the thimble or iron in a game of Monopoly.

I think that no character builder and a restricted set of books would have forced the player to lean the system. I think XP from combat encourages XP hunting and alternative levelling schemas are better.
But you are correct, probably not worth it.

Enjoy your break from DMing.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't mind giving them what they want. I just want them to tell me what they want so I know how to deliver.
But I'm pretty much going to go with "I know you're going to say one thing - but you actually mean this."

Well given the evidence as presented your group would be happy playing any given adventure or adventure path as written with minimal additions (only what is needed to bring them on track), easy combats and all. Would you be happy to run it?

I think not and that is the crux of the matter.

 

[Voadam]

It always surprised me there was not more emphasis in 4e on different pacing encounters. The basis of variations on five equal level opponents with variations (solos instead of the five normals, or elites instead of two of the normals, or multiple minions instead of a normal, or some variation of up or down a level) creates a long dynamic in-depth fight which seems great for a big action scene but you don't want that all the time even in your action movie model. Sometimes the heroes plow through the bad guys quickly in a scene.

There should be advice for when to use five equal level minions instead of five equal level foes for a quick encounter to keep the pacing going quickly and make the heroes feel like kick butt heroes. Or have an encountered solo monster be a normal party level monster instead of a mechanical solo one for a quicker fight.

The group I was originally in that was doing 4e did not tweak things and eventually ended up feeling the combat slogged too much and switched over to Pathfinder just as I was really getting into 4e as a player and had signed up for the tools for the first time. One group I was in later on in 4e ended up tweaking monsters to cut their hp by half and doubling their damage so that combats would go roughly twice as fast but roughly the same impacts.

 

[Retreater]

Is this what your players want or what you want to deliver. I think your players are fairly happy to walk over most combats but with the occasional nailbiter. 4e is the only system I have played that allows one to have good tactical combat in every fight without killing the party.
There may be others.

Let's see. What did my players say they wanted?

• To feel like badasses, even from 1st level.
• To have exciting combats more than standing still and swinging a sword. (How they describe 5e.)
• To have powers that did more than just HP damage.
• To be able to carve through minions.
• Specifically, to play 4E.

But they didn't put in the effort to learn the system, to engage with it on its own level.
Again, I need to listen less to what my players claim they want.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Let's see. What did my players say they wanted?

• To feel like badasses, even from 1st level.
• To have exciting combats more than standing still and swinging a sword. (How they describe 5e.)
• To have powers that did more than just HP damage.
• To be able to carve through minions.
• Specifically, to play 4E.

But they didn't put in the effort to learn the system, to engage with it on its own level.
Again, I need to listen less to what my players claim they want.

From that list, I would argue that they have not really learned 5e either.

 

[Retreater]

Well given the evidence as presented your group would be happy playing any given adventure or adventure path as written with minimal additions (only what is needed to bring them on track), easy combats and all. Would you be happy to run it?

I think not and that is the crux of the matter.

Probably not. I mean if I could just engage with the hobby for 3-4 hours a week when we play and put in minimal effort while focusing on other hobbies and interests, maybe that would be okay.
But I love this hobby. And I don't want to think about it only 3-4 hours.