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

[billd91]

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.

There are Mythos-lite CoC resources out there, if you're interested.

The haunted house scenario in Trails of Tsathogghua downplays Mythos elements. And while designed for older editions, it works OK with 7th (I've tried). DriveThruRPG

And then for a much more ambitious Keeper, there's The Children of Fear currently available from Chaosium. It's a campaign on the level of Masks of Nyarlathotep, but fundamentally non-Mythos in its lore, so it IS a big lift. IF you manage to give a non-Mythos adventure a try and your group likes it and wants more, give it a consideration.

 

[payn]

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.
• 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.


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.

Reading this makes sense of your longtime search for the perfect system; but...

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.

...then I read this and dont think its going to matter what system you use.

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.

You want more than your players are going to give you. Sometimes your best friends make the worst gamers. Sometimes your best friends are only casual players. You can lead them to mt. dew but you cant make them drink. I've been here too many times to count. I've had to except beer and pretzels with the folks I like to hang with, and then search out across the great internet divide to find folks that are as in tune with playstyle as I am. Every game doesnt have to be the perfect game. Good luck.

 

[Retreater]

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

Well, I could argue that it's difficult to feel powerful in the first few levels of 5e. 1st level is especially brutal.
It doesn't have minions, at least in the official books. (Flee Mortals seems to do it okay.)
And there's not a lot of other options besides HP damage. There's no forced movement. No marking. Flanking doesn't really work as a mechanic - just added as an afterthought. Can't add conditions. No lingering damage.

Of the 4 of us remaining, I have one player who is okay with 5e. However, my wife hates it. The player who likes roleplaying and character development doesn't like how it handles character abilities.
And with me - without getting too deep - I just don't want to engage with WotC anymore.

 

[Retreater]

...then I read this and dont think its going to matter what system you use.

You're right. I'm trying to focus these days on being happy with what I'm given, to try to make the best experience with the group I have playing the games that I already have.

There is, I think, a big difference between trying to adjust campaign themes to avoid bad feelings (such as minimizing the Mythos in a Call of Cthulhu campaign) and trying to fight against the system design (avoiding tactical combats and character customization in 4E).

Ultimately, I expect that the cycle will end up being the same as it's been for the 35 years I've been running games. It will come back to D&D - it always does.

 

[payn]

You're right. I'm trying to focus these days on being happy with what I'm given, to try to make the best experience with the group I have playing the games that I already have.

There is, I think, a big difference between trying to adjust campaign themes to avoid bad feelings (such as minimizing the Mythos in a Call of Cthulhu campaign) and trying to fight against the system design (avoiding tactical combats and character customization in 4E).

Ultimately, I expect that the cycle will end up being the same as it's been for the 35 years I've been running games. It will come back to D&D - it always does.

For what its worth, Ive very much enjoyed your games. It might not seem like it, but im betting your players are enjoying themselves even if things are not perfect.

 

[TerraDave]

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.
• 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.


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.

A CoC gm running 4e, maybe not a perfect match. But there were also core flaws with 4es math and assumptions that could make combat too grindy, and those of us that stuck with it had to find ways to deal.

Out of combat, you also needed rituals, and to push for the same stuff that you would have in any game in terms of RP, investigation and so on, but something about the system—maybe those walls of powers, seemed to make this harder.

The (lack of) RP hook for the characters is interesting. Did the roles actually make this worse? Should a wizard be a controller or the ultimate magic user? It did take time for my core group to settle, with turnover in players and characters. Though we got there, and some players could be very creative in the system.

 

[Retreater]

A CoC gm running 4e, maybe not a perfect match. But there were also core flaws with 4es math and assumptions that could make combat too grindy, and those of us that stuck with it had to find ways to deal.

I don't know if I'd refer to myself as a "CoC GM." I had success with running Masks of Nyarlahotep a few years ago (with another group), but it's not my default mode of play.

The (lack of) RP hook for the characters is interesting. Did the roles actually make this worse? Should a wizard be a controller or the ultimate magic user? It did take time for my core group to settle, with turnover in players and characters. Though we got there, and some players could be very creative in the system.

We had some interesting setups for roleplaying potential.
One of the teenaged players made it a goal to make his case for the absent throne and to take the rulership from the pompous noble posing as the Lord Protector. Which would've been fascinating - but no one would engage with the story threads I'd dangle in front of them. And the player's answer for any roleplaying situation was "... and anyway, I kill 'em." So that wasn't going to work.
The other player who brought the most backstory basically used a plot oracle to come up with "getting involved in a theft involving Cubans."
So I decided to do a play on words and had the cube'ns be Modrons, and her character was involved in the theft of the Book of Law that they were trying to recover. Yet, this was so personal to her quest that no one else felt involved.

 

[Mannahnin]

It is a hurdle. Even though I did get it mostly working on my computer, just the fact that the system itself leans strongly into the tools as a requirement became frustrating.

• You have to print a lot.
  
  
• You need the powers either printed on the cards or constant access to several rulebooks to look at your powers. And everything you do is a power.

I mostly used paper sheets during my years of 4e. I rarely printed out characters from the character builder with power cards; maybe a couple of times for short games. I got used to hand-filling out all my own power entries on printed sheets, and summarizing the descriptions accurately. It helped me commit a lot of the details to memory to write them myself (in addition to using them over and over).

• There are a lot of computations required every level - so there's lots of opportunity to make errors.

Some truth to this. Although most of the calculations are adding HP and recalculating Surge value at every level, and adding +1 to nearly everything at even levels. Adding a new power means filling in a new entry on your power sheets, and the math on that will closely match your other powers. Your attack and damage bonuses with a weapon power will generally be the same for all of them, for example.

• It requires a deeper buy-in than just about any TTRPG. You need a computer, you need to find the program through questionable, you need to install it and learn to use it, you need to have access to a printer. Getting the OOP rulebooks would also be nice.

I always found the character builder a convenience but not a necessity. I definitely needed my rulebooks, though, and the CB helped me find options.

• From a DM perspective, you're going to be using OOP dungeon tiles or drawing very large, complex terrain maps on dry erase. You're going to be using tokens or minis for every monster - but they probably need to be distinguishable because you'll have in a single combat an "Orc Netter," an "Orc Trident Poker," and an "Orc Battle Yeller."

I did a lot of drawing with wet erase markers on battle mats, that's for sure. And using poster battlemaps from 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder. I have a lot of dungeon tiles but I always found them slower and more annoying to use.

My 4E groups did have large miniature collections, both the D&D Miniatures pre-paints several of us had collected during 3rd ed, and wargaming miniatures since I was a wargamer and one of my groups was comprised of people I met at a WH and 40k club.

In trying to design an approachable edition to bring in new players, in 4E WotC created probably the least accessible edition of D&D. My experience has certainly soured me on ever wanting to run a similar tactical or power-based RPG, from 13th Age to Pathfinder 2.

The last 4E game I played in, a year or two before the pandemic, had two brand new players. One of them took to it easily, working with PDFs of rulebooks and no digital tools at all. The other, a guy who never finished high school and has a lot of substance use in his history, continually had to be reminded of how basic powers and options and math worked.

My experience with 4E and new players was that it was a bit more accessible and understandable than 3.x or 1E AD&D, trickier to learn and less accessible than B/X and well-designed/cleaned up OSR systems, and more or less equal to something like 2e AD&D.

 

[Retreater]

I mostly used paper sheets during my years of 4e. I rarely printed out characters from the character builder with power cards; maybe a couple of times for short games. I got used to hand-filling out all my own power entries on printed sheets, and summarizing the descriptions accurately. It helped me commit a lot of the details to memory to write them myself (in addition to using them over and over).

I could understand doing that. And perhaps if I hadn't given them another option besides "write it all down," it would've worked.
On the few occasions I didn't print out a character sheet immediately and had them work off notes, their lack of understanding how the game operated guaranteed we would get incomplete information.

Player: "Ok, I got a 23 to hit!"
DM: "Alright, against which defense?"
Player: "Uh ... their defense score?"
DM: "AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will?"
Player: "I uh ... got a 23 to hit?"

Player: "I hit and get to move them 3 spaces."
DM: "Alright, how do you move them?"
Player: "Because I hit them with my axe."
DM: "No. Do you slide, push, pull, teleport, etc.?"
Player: "But I ... hit them with my axe?"

Some truth to this. Although most of the calculations are adding HP and recalculating Surge value at every level, and adding +1 to nearly everything at even levels. Adding a new power means filling in a new entry on your power sheets, and the math on that will closely match your other powers. Your attack and damage bonuses with a weapon power will generally be the same for all of them, for example.

And then it changes as you get new weapons and other equipment, which change almost on a session-by-session basis. And of course, since they're not picking out their magical gear from wishlists (because who's going to create those in between sessions), they're stuck with whatever I award them and they have to remember that the axe they used last session did +2d12 necrotic damage on a critical hit but the one they have this session gives +2 to all defenses when they take a second wind while bloodied.

It's just a lot to keep up with. Especially for people who don't live, eat, and breathe the game.

My 4E groups did have large miniature collections, both the D&D Miniatures pre-paints several of us had collected during 3rd ed, and wargaming miniatures since I was a wargamer and one of my groups was comprised of people I met at a WH and 40k club.

I have a pretty large mini collection as well. (Painting miniatures is a secondary hobby of mine.)
The problem is distinguishing the miniatures in significant ways.
For example, in a given fight I might have 8 different orcs.
4 Orc Warrior minions (brutes)
2 Orcs with Cream Pies (artillery)
2 Orc Battle Yodelers (controllers)
Do you use matching models to represent the Cream Pie Orcs, or unique ones? If you use matching models, how do you distinguish which ones are bloodied, taking ongoing acid damage, etc.? If you use different models, how do you indicate which are Cream Pie and not Battle Yodelers?
In other editions of the game, you wouldn't really have as many different varieties of orcs in a single combat. Or need to track as many conditions. Or they'd usually die after a few hits and you wouldn't have to track them for an hour long combat.

My experience with 4E and new players was that it was a bit more accessible and understandable than 3.x or 1E AD&D, trickier to learn and less accessible than B/X and well-designed/cleaned up OSR systems, and more or less equal to something like 2e AD&D.

That might be. I haven't tried to teach 3.x in decades and wouldn't DM it myself even if I were paid.
Never played 1E or B/X. I came in with 2e AD&D. I'd take my odds trying to teach 2E over 4E.

 

[MoutonRustique(Real)]

I could understand doing that. And perhaps if I hadn't given them another option besides "write it all down," it would've worked.
On the few occasions I didn't print out a character sheet immediately and had them work off notes, their lack of understanding how the game operated guaranteed we would get incomplete information.

Player: "Ok, I got a 23 to hit!"
DM: "Alright, against which defense?"
Player: "Uh ... their defense score?"
DM: "AC, Fortitude, Reflex, or Will?"
Player: "I uh ... got a 23 to hit?"

Player: "I hit and get to move them 3 spaces."
DM: "Alright, how do you move them?"
Player: "Because I hit them with my axe."
DM: "No. Do you slide, push, pull, teleport, etc.?"
Player: "But I ... hit them with my axe?"



And then it changes as you get new weapons and other equipment, which change almost on a session-by-session basis. And of course, since they're not picking out their magical gear from wishlists (because who's going to create those in between sessions), they're stuck with whatever I award them and they have to remember that the axe they used last session did +2d12 necrotic damage on a critical hit but the one they have this session gives +2 to all defenses when they take a second wind while bloodied.

It's just a lot to keep up with. Especially for people who don't live, eat, and breathe the game.



I have a pretty large mini collection as well. (Painting miniatures is a secondary hobby of mine.)
The problem is distinguishing the miniatures in significant ways.
For example, in a given fight I might have 8 different orcs.
4 Orc Warrior minions (brutes)
2 Orcs with Cream Pies (artillery)
2 Orc Battle Yodelers (controllers)
Do you use matching models to represent the Cream Pie Orcs, or unique ones? If you use matching models, how do you distinguish which ones are bloodied, taking ongoing acid damage, etc.? If you use different models, how do you indicate which are Cream Pie and not Battle Yodelers?
In other editions of the game, you wouldn't really have as many different varieties of orcs in a single combat. Or need to track as many conditions. Or they'd usually die after a few hits and you wouldn't have to track them for an hour long combat.


That might be. I haven't tried to teach 3.x in decades and wouldn't DM it myself even if I were paid.
Never played 1E or B/X. I came in with 2e AD&D. I'd take my odds trying to teach 2E over 4E.

Yeah. This all reads to me as if they'd need a very curated and guided 4e experience.
Something very few DMs are up for - it requires pretty deep system mastery AND (and this is certainly the hardest) an ability to limit and guide players in the choices without them being feeling to constrained... This last part can often require a ton of work. Culling and sculpting the vast amount of player character building options is a herculean task.

Here's to your continued engagement (after a rest if you feel like it), and finding the path that works for most (you included!).