Do the PCs ever die in these playtest reports?

[Lizard]

If the expression wasn't plastered everywhere 4e combat is being talked about, then the descriptor might have meaning, and I wouldn't have been bothered by it. At this point, it has become to be overused rather bland - almost every 4e combat I've read about has been described as a "knock-down, drag-out" fight, or similar.

Since nothing is being released which isn't, to some extent, vetted by marketing, we'll never hear about the two or three quick scuffles which led up to the major conflict.

Also, with all those per-encounter abilities and "I sneeze, so the fighter gets back 10 hit points" type of powers, fights HAVE to be pretty epic, it seems -- even the little ones.

 

[mach1.9pants]

REMOVED: point already made.

 

[Fifth Element]

Basically, what I am getting at is that, while these big, nasty combats were interesting at first, it would also be nice to see some normal combats, some regular fights with some regular critters that don't pose much of a threat. Just some normalcy would be nice. I don't know about you, but sometimes, a fist-fight in an alley is just that, and doesn't need to be spiced up with an erupting volcano in the background, or what-have-you.

I expect the idea is that the more "normal" a fight is, the less interesting it is to read about. So the reason all the fights seem this way may simply be selection bias. They don't report on the normal ones.

That being said, I see what you're saying and I think I might agree with it.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Since nothing is being released which isn't, to some extent, vetted by marketing, we'll never hear about the two or three quick scuffles which led up to the major conflict.

Do you have any rationale whatsoever for believing this?

I'm sure that all the designer-types got a big talking-to about how much info they're allowed to let out, and obviously they're going to be positive about the game they're making, but I seriously doubt that Rodney and Mike need to have all their forum and blog posts "vetted by marketing."

I'm thinking you can explain this one without conspiracy theories: people are only gonna describe in detail the most interesting parts of the session. I'm pretty sure I've seen a few statements like "and we dispatched the goblins with ease"... those would be your "non-epic" scuffles.

 

[Rechan]

Basically, what I am getting at is that, while these big, nasty combats were interesting at first, it would also be nice to see some normal combats, some regular fights with some regular critters that don't pose much of a threat. Just some normalcy would be nice. I don't know about you, but sometimes, a fist-fight in an alley is just that, and doesn't need to be spiced up with an erupting volcano in the background, or what-have-you.

This seems like a pretty normal fight, at least IMHO. Just a bunch of goblin-types.

Also, the fight with Biggie Smalls vs. the elves seemed pretty minor a skirmish.

Oh, and then there's this one, where the PCs just fought two wolves and two goblins.

 

[Lizard]

Do you have any rationale whatsoever for believing this?

I'm sure that all the designer-types got a big talking-to about how much info they're allowed to let out, and obviously they're going to be positive about the game they're making, but I seriously doubt that Rodney and Mike need to have all their forum and blog posts "vetted by marketing."

Given the levels of NDA, nothing is being said which shouldn't be said; that's not a "conspiracy theory", that's the way things operate in the corporate world. If a game session was frustrating, boring, broken, or otherwise unfun, you won't see a developer posting about it. This isn't to imply 4e is dull, broken, etc -- but any game, no matter how well done, will have off-sessions. Even in the best campaigns I've ever been in, using my favorite systems, there's been some sessions where I've thought, "Damn, y'know, I could have been having unanesthatized eye surgery right about now. That would have been more fun."

I doubt that testers/devs have to submit their blogs for pre-approval, but I'd find it VERY hard to believe they don't have pretty strict guidelines as to what they say. Further, they are all committed, for obvious reasons, to making 4e sound like the best thing since 3e (and I do not fault them for this), so they won't write:"Last night's game was, y'know, meh. Nothing much fun happened. It didn't suck, I guess."

They also assume, more or less rightly, that the Great Unwashed don't care about the mundane details of the PCs social lives or the slow unfolding of complex plots and player debates over issues of ethics (this occupies, oh, about 50% of my game time, both as a player and a DM..."What do we do?" is a major theme, and it's usually a lot of in-character arguing preceeding any action of consequence -- fun to play, not so much to read), so the focus is on the combats, and especially on the (forbidden word) combats.

Saying "The devs want to present their baby in the best possible light" isn't conspiracy theory -- it's common sense.

 

[helium3]

A pointless death is a little harder, if by pointless you mean random. It's much harder for a monster to simple one shot a PC, unless it is a lot higher level than the PC. IME, PCs get in trouble or die in 4e when I throw a tough fight at them or when they make really, really bad moves.

I do indeed mean "random" when I say "pointless".

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Given the levels of NDA, nothing is being said which shouldn't be said; that's not a "conspiracy theory", that's the way things operate in the corporate world. If a game session was frustrating, boring, broken, or otherwise unfun, you won't see a developer posting about it. This isn't to imply 4e is dull, broken, etc -- but any game, no matter how well done, will have off-sessions. Even in the best campaigns I've ever been in, using my favorite systems, there's been some sessions where I've thought, "Damn, y'know, I could have been having unanesthatized eye surgery right about now. That would have been more fun."

I doubt that testers/devs have to submit their blogs for pre-approval, but I'd find it VERY hard to believe they don't have pretty strict guidelines as to what they say. Further, they are all committed, for obvious reasons, to making 4e sound like the best thing since 3e (and I do not fault them for this), so they won't write:"Last night's game was, y'know, meh. Nothing much fun happened. It didn't suck, I guess."

They also assume, more or less rightly, that the Great Unwashed don't care about the mundane details of the PCs social lives or the slow unfolding of complex plots and player debates over issues of ethics (this occupies, oh, about 50% of my game time, both as a player and a DM..."What do we do?" is a major theme, and it's usually a lot of in-character arguing preceeding any action of consequence -- fun to play, not so much to read), so the focus is on the combats, and especially on the (forbidden word) combats.

Saying "The devs want to present their baby in the best possible light" isn't conspiracy theory -- it's common sense.

Nah, I'd agree with all of that. I just bristled at your phrase "vetted by marketing," I think, which suggested to me that old paranoid mindset that believes that everything WotC puts out comes from some evil Dilbert-esque corporate boardroom because Hasbro is an Evil Corporation.

 

[baradtgnome]

Given that this community is widely split among their preferences in frequency of character death & availability of resurrections I hope to see some well thought out and tested advice on how to adjust the game to suit. Sure I can figure out how to select monster balance and world flavor changes to get my result, house rules if necessary. (I hope I learned something in 30 years of DMing/playing the game) A jump start by the professionals would be a valuable (read time saving) addition.

The game as published will fall somewhere on that continuum. Those folks whose games are closer to the landing point will be pleased, those farther away will be less so. If 4e can be tweaked to suit the others - then good. If it is awkward or unwieldy to do so.... then WoTC will sell fewer books.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Reminds me of the 2002 US Navy wargame where the quasi-Iranians sunk the US battlefleet, so the high command refloated it so the game could continue. Kinda defeats the point IMO.

My submarine was in a set of games like that, on the 'bad guys' side, and we kept winning over and over, so they kept giving away our position to the other side. So we started giving away false positions, then they started making up stuff, like we got a firing solution on the carrier of the battlegroup and they said something like the 'wounded destroyer' that we had killed an hour ago moved in the way and took the hit.

We ended up shooting a few of our own guys too, after they were dead and weren't even supposed to be in the area.

Despite being a pointless exercise, and a pointless underway, it was fun winning over and over as the bad guys.