Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Beginning of the End]

Such as?

True low-level play where the PCs are fragile. (1st level characters in 4th Edition

True high-level play. (The abilities which defined high-level play were largely removed from 4th Edition.)

Old school fighter-type classes. (All classes now come with powers.)

Old school wizard-type classes; i.e. classes whose abilities are basically completely customizable from one adventuring day to the next. (Some vestiges of this remain in 4th Edition, but only in a significantly muted form.)

(People often talk about how "all the classes play the same". This isn't actually true. But it is true that the variation between the classes, while meaningful, is happening within a very narrow mechanical slice of the range found in previous editions.)

These are the large examples. There are also subtler and more arguable examples, as well: The loss of support for certain styles of play resulting from the heavily dissociated mechanics, for example. Or the WotC design ethos that monsters have a "lifespan of five rounds [and] that means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end" (as stated by David Noonan). Designing monsters to support those five rounds of combat -- and nothing else -- has a huge impact on styles of play focused beyond thoes five rounds of combat.

 

[Celtavian]

Honestly, I think the best trick is to play some very different games, to get a feel for things. Something not at all D&D, so you can see what's good or bad about things, and what you liked or didn't like, and different ways people approach things.

Piratecat's where I'd go next - take it all a bit less seriously and stretch the system out a little bit.

I had an interesting experience with a 4e group I just started running for the other day, for a group I've run lots before - GURPS, White Wolf, Shadowrun, 3e, etc - but first time 4e. The group had been playing 4e for a year or so before that and were pretty 'eh' on it, but I just wanted to give a shot at it for them before they dropped it.

First session, I've got a villain whose dangling a child over shark-infested water via a chain. Sadly, he lacked a moustache to twirl, but stock movie stuff. And the bard who fancies herself a throwing knife specialist goes 'I wish I had a power to throw a knife in between links of the chain to stop her falling' and I go 'Sounds good, make your attack'. And she was baffled. Didn't have that specific power on the sheet, so how could she do it? Well, I said 'What, it's D&D, you can do whatever you think about if it sounds good. But if you really care, there's a chart in the DMG page 42, all for improvised stunts and such'. So she did, and it went well.

After that, it's time for treasure. These guys are thinking 4e items suck, cause it's all "Once per day, you can shift 1 square. And like it". Well one of the items they get are gauntlets with a line:
Power (Limited): Free Action. Use this power when you hit with a melee attack. Add a +5 bonus to the damage roll and push the target 1 square.

Limited? What's that? "Okay, here's the deal. You can use 1 limited item power per tier per encounter. So... now, just one per encounter. One item, can use it every encounter. Five items, only one. When you guys hit 11th, hopefully some day, it'll bump up to two per encounter." "Cool!" It's not hard to give out custom items - you can even type things into the character builder or print out cards with all the details (that's what we do, one of the players prints up cards with the stats on 'em)

After the session, one of the players goes. "Err, sorry earlier when we were trying to gather information, and you were asking what I wanted to know when I made Streetwise checks. Umm, I just got used to doing skill challenges and we'd just roll some stuff and stuff would happen, without really thinking about, y'know, talking to people"

So, yeah, I think a lot of people have got the blinders on for 4e. Some of that is certainly the character builder. I mean, I remember when 3e came out, I was making new classes, making variant d20 systems, right in day 1. But people don't talk about doing that for 4e often. It's interesting.

What I really want is a 4e Unearthed Arcana. Whole book of 'change the whole damn game' to really let people feel a bit more free. The DMG2's everyone get enhancement bonuses was a good start. That even got in the character builder

Anyhow, tangented enough. Go nuts, play games, have fun til you're having more fun. Good luck

A good DM can make almost any game system fun. That's why I've always told people "I may not like or be interested in that game. But if you have a good idea and really want to run it, I'll play."

I never really sought out Mech Warrior games. But I knew a guy that did such a great job running the game, I'd play with him any chance I got. Even for one offs and the like.

I'd even play 4E again if a DM I knew ran a good game wanted to run a 4E campaign. A good story idea and an enthusiastic DM will always trump the game system for me.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Can you compute pi to 2.7 trillion decimal digits?

I didn't say I can do it faster; I said better.

I realize my sentiments aren't completely rational, but if Socrates can do it so can I! (Did you know that Socrates railed against the newest technology of his time -- writing things down -- the way that some modern people rail against computers and electronics? He thought that not having to memorize every little tidbit of information would make people stupid and lazy, which is probably true to a certain degree.)

 

[Celtavian]

4E was out for nearly a year before I finally bought the books and started to run a game of it (so I guess I was never actually on the bandwagon). I loved the ease of prep on the GMing side, but I was surprised how "swingy" combats could be, depending on the mix of characters. (e.g. a handful of regular monsters with many minions - no wizard = LONG combat, 1 wizard = MUCH shorter combat, because the wizard was the only capable of mass damage). Some of my players felt stifled by the lack of RP rules; they felt 4E was only about combats, despite my efforts to try to lead them into RP situations. The lack of non-combat options in their powers tended to make them feel that combat was the ONLY options for their characters (which is more a play-style incompatibility with 4E than a flaw in the system itself, I think).

It's a systemic flaw. You used to be able to memorise and cast spells like Charm Person or detect thoughts to assist in roleplaying encounters without taking 10 minutes plus and performing a ritual. In fact, Charm Person or Detect Thoughts could be very subtle spells, yet they don't exist in 4E in a form useable for non-combat encounters or in a subtle way.

There are alot of spells like that in the new edition. For example, polymorph-based infiltration is not real possible in 4E as far as I could tell from the base rules.

The quick teleport in and knock open the door rescue mission is not going to be the same in 4E. You won't be casting teleport in combat any longer or knock.

So no, it isn't just a play style issue. It's inherent in the system, which is more limited than previous editions of D&D primarily because the magic system is far more limited.

So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.

 

[Dausuul]

There are alot of spells like that in the new edition. For example, polymorph-based infiltration is not real possible in 4E as far as I could tell from the base rules.

Actually, it is, but you need the PHB2. Druids have a utility power that lets them wild shape into a tiny, unobtrusive animal. Polymorph is strictly a druid shtick these days.

 

[Barastrondo]

So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.

I kind of felt the same way about spells being used to overcome social challenges, to be honest; they were pretty dull. The silver-tongued rogue is always the second best option because the wizard has a social gun that kills with one shot (though save negates). I prefer systems where the silver-tongued rogue is the first choice to go to for bluffing your way past the guards, or the cleric can trust an inspirational speech to have as great a chance as anything.

I dunno, maybe we just don't play like the generic "you" who hacks their way in and hacks their way out of just about everything, but I didn't see a reduction in non-combat negotiations because the quick fix of the spell was taken away. Skill checks are still skill checks, as before, skill challenges are what you want to use if a situation has taken on the comparable gravity of a combat encounter (without being about combat).

The main thing is that skill challenges are designed to engage everyone at the table, like a combat: everyone gets a turn. This is a very good idea, but it also suffers terribly if you give poor examples, like social challenges where Intimidate is an auto-fail: you're pretty much punishing the fighter (or other classes who only have Intimidate as a social class skill) for taking part, which goes against the idea that engaging all players is a good thing.

Is it really only "some" DMs who use skill challenges, though? Man, that seems horrid. It's like playing 3.5 and only "some" DMs using the craft items rules.

 

[Barastrondo]

Actually, it is, but you need the PHB2. Druids have a utility power that lets them wild shape into a tiny, unobtrusive animal. Polymorph is strictly a druid shtick these days.

Hee! It was pretty entertaining when the gnoll druid in my brother's campaign took that. It seemed amusing that such a prideful creature could lower herself to being a tiny, inoffensive herbivore for the purposes of stealth, but it was decidedly useful.

 

[JediSoth]

<SNIP>

Is it really only "some" DMs who use skill challenges, though? Man, that seems horrid. It's like playing 3.5 and only "some" DMs using the craft items rules.

I can't speak for ALL DMs of 4E, but I know it took me many sessions to even attempt a skill challenge (and I had to read many different accounts of them first) because of the horrid way they were explained in the DMG.

As a 3.X DM, I never used the craft items rules, though I didn't stop my players from using them if they wanted to...though in the 7 or so years of playing 3.X, I never actually had a player try to craft an item using those rules.

 

[Obryn]

True low-level play where the PCs are fragile. (1st level characters in 4th Edition

I'll agree with this. If you want to play an ordinary-people game or a farmboy-to-hero game, 4e isn't the right system for it. I make WFRP2 my first choice, when I'm looking for this. (And it's a heck of a system for it, too.)

True high-level play. (The abilities which defined high-level play were largely removed from 4th Edition.)

That kinda depends. If by "abilities" you mean "hugely-powerful spells which can be cast in the midst of battle", then yeah. Those are gone. But if you're talking about martial abilities, 4e does a much better job, IMO, for high-level play - your fighters, rogues, rangers, and the like have a lot more options in this case.

Also, if I wanted true high-powered gaming, I might give Exalted a spin rather than work with any of the various D&D's. Playing demigods is, IMO, kind of a niche that requires a lot of mechanical tweaks. I don't think using the same system I've been using up to godhood cuts it at that point. YMMV, of course.

Old school fighter-type classes. (All classes now come with powers.)

Yep, those are definitely missing. I love returning to 1e - or even Call of Cthulhu d20 - for simplified characters.

Old school wizard-type classes; i.e. classes whose abilities are basically completely customizable from one adventuring day to the next. (Some vestiges of this remain in 4th Edition, but only in a significantly muted form.)

No, if you're looking for a truly Vancian wizard, they're not in 4e. This would be the biggest category I'd choose 3.5e (or maybe Arcana Evolved) for.

These are the large examples. There are also subtler and more arguable examples, as well: The loss of support for certain styles of play resulting from the heavily dissociated mechanics, for example. Or the WotC design ethos that monsters have a "lifespan of five rounds [and] that means it basically does five things, ever, period, the end" (as stated by David Noonan). Designing monsters to support those five rounds of combat -- and nothing else -- has a huge impact on styles of play focused beyond thoes five rounds of combat.

These are a lot more arguable. Specifically, I think you're undervaluing what 4e can bring to the table. There are some aspects of D&D playing that, IMO, 4e does better than any previous edition. There are some aspects that 3e does better. There are plenty that 1e/2e do better, too.

It's a systemic flaw. You used to be able to memorise and cast spells like Charm Person or detect thoughts to assist in roleplaying encounters without taking 10 minutes plus and performing a ritual. In fact, Charm Person or Detect Thoughts could be very subtle spells, yet they don't exist in 4E in a form useable for non-combat encounters or in a subtle way
....
So no, it isn't just a play style issue. It's inherent in the system, which is more limited than previous editions of D&D primarily because the magic system is far more limited.

So now you hack your way in and hack your way out of just about everything. Though some DMs do creatively use skill challenges to resolve encounters. Skills challenges were a nice addition to the game, though at times all that rolling is pretty boring and lessens immersion.

If the kind of game you want to play is one where a wizard has a swiss pocket knife of spells which can be inventively used to bypass or defeat any social or infiltration challenge, then 4e is not that game.

My argument - and it's been made before, so I won't belabor the point - is that by removing this element of 1e-3e play, the skill system has been placed at the front and center for exploration and interaction. This can be through skill challenges or good, old-fashioned narrative resolution (like in 0e-1e). Also, with adequate prep time, some timely 4e rituals can help a ton.

What moves this away from a friendly discussion about what systems do what well is, IMO, your last assertion that the only way through social and exploration-style play in 4e is to hack your way through it. That's a little uncalled-for.

-O

 

[LostSoul]

For me it covers about 70%, but still doesn't touch powers and a couple other minor things.

The easiest thing to do would be to assign a penalty to the attack roll if the player doesn't describe the PC's action. -4 for no description, -2 for a boring one.

Once the players start describing their attacks, listen to the details and make them have an effect on resolution.

"Tide of Iron." -4 to hit.
"I attack him and follow up with a push from my shield." -2 to hit.
"I come in low, almost crouching; then I push up, my shield slamming into his, forcing it to the side. Once I'm right in his guard I stab up with my longsword at his face." +2 to hit for the move, and if it does his shield will be out of place, potentially giving him a -2 AC/Ref. If the PC was using a short thrusting weapon he could have got himself another +2 to hit.


I don't think that's a great fix but it's along the right lines.