D&D 4E Got to play 4E today

[BlindOgre]

I think that what is more important, and furthermore what would make a statement like that valid, is to back up the statement with, if not facts, at least what it is that makes you come to that conclusion. Saying, "I think that 4E is like WoW" is not, in and of itself, valid. It's an empty statement that needs to be explained.

First, I did not exactly say that as quoted. An attempt at explanation: I've had two WoW accounts continuously since it started and have hundreds of hours of play time. My kids (one in HS and one now in college) and my wife play regularly. We all play D&D and I have been a DM since the dark ages. I have read everything I can online about 4e and have played in one demo.

So, I figure I have enough experience to provide an opinion. To say "I know" begs for proof. To say "I think" might invite debate, but not correction or admonishment. Besides, your quote is not correct. I did not say "I think that 4E is like WoW". Read it again.

 

[small pumpkin man]

In a private game, it would not. Where such things become significant is in public games, particularly in tournament play where the design of the adventure has not adequately accounted for the variations produced by creative role-play... I speak from experience specific to this very point.

I was the RPGA judge at GenCon South in Jacksonville, FL in 1984. The adventure was the The Lost Island of Castanamir the Mad (later published as module C3 - The Lost Island of Castanamir). This particular adventure involved almost NO combat. It was all about problem solving and role-playing, with points awarded for particularly clever play and (most importantly) role-playing. This adventure was designed specifically as a fishing expedition to develop consistent and specific rules (or at least guidelines) for rewarding role-play in a fashion that was equitable along side rewards for slaying monsters and gathering treasure. What came out of it was "encounter experience" (long used by many DMs anyway), with guidelines for the calculation and awarding thereof.

In addition, tournament guidelines for "coloring outside the lines" were developed to reward, rather than penalize role-playing even when such took the adventure off the beaten path.

What is most important is that the new rules do not impose upon sanctioned play a mechanism that does not adequately support or reward role-play in favor of rewarding miniatures strategy.

4e has more detailed rules for xp from non-combat than 3.x (Quests). 4e has more rules for non-combat encounters (skill challenges) and nothing stops you from using skills exactly like 3.x. 4e has an entire non-combat magic system, and has put a lot of effort into making it easier for all types of characters to participate in non-combat encounters, the designers have put a lot of effort into making extended non-combat play easier to run for DMs, so it shouldn't be a problem should it?

For private games, role-playing is of course entirely up to the DM and players, and the system used to settle arguments can be as simple as rock-paper-scissors. My main concern is how the official rules affect role-playing aspects when taken quite "by the book".

We know they're putting effort into supporting this kind of play in the DMG, considering all 3.x had was skills, which 4e also has, what could possibly be the problem?

Having not seen the final DMG, I don't know what it provides for RP related tools; thus, as indicated, I reserve judgment on such until I see the final.

The rules might (potentially, not saying it is so) negatively impact RP if a player attempts an RP action (particularly in the middle of combat) and there is no method of objectively resolving the particular action. Many DMs would make up a method for resolving such on the spot, while a less experienced DM might resort to consulting the book on how to handle the situation. Lacking a suitable reference, the DM might simply say "You can't do that right now," which might turn out badly for the characters.

Go read the "aint it cool news" review. There are suggestions in the DMG for how to handle that kind of thing, and the 4e rules are more unified, partly with the intention of making it easier to do something like that than 3.x. This is a strong point of 4e.

I'm not so much concerned with how such will be handled by experienced DMs, but rather by inexperienced DMs - the new customers 4e hopes to attract.

Another way the system can negatively affect RP has to do with time management. 4e certainly seems much easier to manage than 3.x, which should allow more time for RP. DMs would be well advised to take advantage of the time savings and invest in story rather than adding combat-only encounters.

I am eager to see how the DMG addresses such. I am not prejudging, just anticipating a potential issue that I hope has been adequately covered in a manner that will be clear to new DMs and with sufficient objectivity for tournament play.

Much has been said about the combat system, which has some very nice features, but very little (by comparison) has been released concerning role-playing elements. I would like to see more info from WotC regarding such. I remain open to the prospect that a few magic words might dispel my apprehension instantly.

There's been lots DM suggestions and help released, the Zeitgeist article, the Quests article, there have been tidbits about the non-combat encounter system, there has been a large push to give all classes out of combat abilities, there has been efforts made to make world building easier (such as allowing for greater ranges in the amounts of magic items available). The percentage of combat information to non-combat information seems about equal to the percentages of text allocated to such things in previous editions to me.

This is of course, also ignoring all the fluff they've released, of which there is a lot of, as they seem to be putting a lot more effort into than in 3.x, which mostly was just a watered down version of Greyhawk. Not that this is necessarily a bad thng, but if they didn't care, if they weren't interested in the fluff, they'd just leave it the same.

BTW, I'm just posting my observations based on what I've seen so far first-hand about 4e balanced against many years of experience with previous versions. I'm just trying to be informative, not combative, so don't take any of this as bait for an argument.

No, you're complaining that they haven't been showcasing things that were already in the 3.x books, and the 2e books, and the BD&D books and most every roleplaying game ever. Why would they showcase that? People already say "I can do that in 3.x" and winge when Wizards actually releases new and interesting out of combat stuff, imagine what they'd do if Wizards attempted to showcase a bunch of stuff right out of the 3.x DMG, which is what your asking. While I realize it wasn't intentional, implying that these things aren't going to be in because they haven't been showcased is the same FUD we've seen before.

 

[Nytmare]

First, I did not exactly say that as quoted. An attempt at explanation: I've had two WoW accounts continuously since it started and have hundreds of hours of play time. My kids (one in HS and one now in college) and my wife play regularly. We all play D&D and I have been a DM since the dark ages. I have read everything I can online about 4e and have played in one demo.

So, I figure I have enough experience to provide an opinion. To say "I know" begs for proof. To say "I think" might invite debate, but not correction or admonishment. Besides, your quote is not correct. I did not say "I think that 4E is like WoW". Read it again.

Those bits in quotes were not attributed to you. It was a general statement to Korgoth saying that someone who does say "I think that 4E is like WoW" should give examples as to how and why.

But, since you brought it to my attention:

it's over-powered and too much like WoW

Yes. You didn't say "I know" or "I think", you said "it is". Telling us that you have an impressive resume chock full of WoW and D&D experience does not explain why it is (or even why you think) 4th Edition is over-powered and too much like World of Warcraft.

Personal experience is anecdotal, and that's fine as long as no one is mistaking it for proof. If you have an opinion based off your personal experience, I am interested in hearing about why you have that opinion. But I don't want to be told that "it's over-powered and too much like WoW" because "I've had two WoW accounts."

 

[BlindOgre]

Yes. You didn't say "I know" or "I think", you said "it is".

Actually, I said "From what I've seen so far, it's over-powered and too much like WoW."

This observation is based not only on the demo, but other previews since the announcement of 4e. At first level, characters seem to be much more powerful and effective against opponents of considerably greater strength. This statement is based on the encounters in the demo, which were acknowledged to be unbalanced in favor of the opponents. Even so, the characters had only a little trouble against them. At one point in an encounter, everyone was at or below zero hp except for my ranger, who was sniping from a safe distance. The healing system allowed everyone to survive just long enough to finish the battle. Under previous systems, the party would have been rather justifiably wiped out by such opponents. This appears to me to intentionally improve the survivability of characters at low levels (not necessarily a bad thing). However, in my opinion, such makes it far too easy to succeed when you pick a fight you should not rightly win.

To me, the system seems to borrow too much from WoW in certain areas. Specifically: certain recharge effects, use of very effective spells and special abilities on every round (not necessarily bad on balance), a power curve favoring lower level characters, and some less than concrete style elements.

My initial statement was a summary of the above. I hope this clarifies for you that I did not speak without careful consideration, even though I did not at first provide the details of such.

Quoting my resume is intended to indicate that I've been around for a very long time, that I know the products in question very well and that I actually do know what I'm talking about and have enough experience to form a reasonable opinion and to state such without pages of qualifying explanation.

If you quite finished badgering me about the veracity of my experience and opinion, I would be far more interested in reading other views of other players' experiences in the demos and such in response to Joe's original post.

 

[malraux]

Actually, I said "From what I've seen so far, it's over-powered and too much like WoW."

This observation is based not only on the demo, but other previews since the announcement of 4e. At first level, characters seem to be much more powerful and effective against opponents of considerably greater strength. This statement is based on the encounters in the demo, which were acknowledged to be unbalanced in favor of the opponents. Even so, the characters had only a little trouble against them. At one point in an encounter, everyone was at or below zero hp except for my ranger, who was sniping from a safe distance. The healing system allowed everyone to survive just long enough to finish the battle. Under previous systems, the party would have been rather justifiably wiped out by such opponents. This appears to me to intentionally improve the survivability of characters at low levels (not necessarily a bad thing). However, in my opinion, such makes it far too easy to succeed when you pick a fight you should not rightly win.

I still don't grok what you mean here. Stronger than what?

To me, the system seems to borrow too much from WoW in certain areas. Specifically: certain recharge effects, use of very effective spells and special abilities on every round (not necessarily bad on balance), a power curve favoring lower level characters, and some less than concrete style elements.

Meh, you could just as easily say that 4e was borrowing from german board games, which uses the same principle and predates WoW by a bit.

 

[Green Knight]

This statement is based on the encounters in the demo, which were acknowledged to be unbalanced in favor of the opponents.

Are we talking about the DDXP adventure, here? Because that was only true in the case of the dragon (which ended up TPKing a lot of parties). None of the other encounters (Kobolds) were unbalanced in favor of the monsters.

 

[Elephant]

I still don't grok what you mean here. Stronger than what?


Meh, you could just as easily say that 4e was borrowing from german board games, which uses the same principle and predates WoW by a bit.

OMG 4e is a German board game!

 

[malraux]

OMG 4e is a German board game!

Well, WotC does own Avalon Hill. But really, the idea of having something good/special to do every turn comes from something more than just WoW.

 

[Xorn]

Actually, I said "From what I've seen so far, it's over-powered and too much like WoW."

This observation is based not only on the demo, but other previews since the announcement of 4e. At first level, characters seem to be much more powerful and effective against opponents of considerably greater strength. This statement is based on the encounters in the demo, which were acknowledged to be unbalanced in favor of the opponents. Even so, the characters had only a little trouble against them. At one point in an encounter, everyone was at or below zero hp except for my ranger, who was sniping from a safe distance. The healing system allowed everyone to survive just long enough to finish the battle. Under previous systems, the party would have been rather justifiably wiped out by such opponents. This appears to me to intentionally improve the survivability of characters at low levels (not necessarily a bad thing). However, in my opinion, such makes it far too easy to succeed when you pick a fight you should not rightly win.

The level 4 solo dragon? Is that the admittedly unbalanced encounter you are referring to? In the times I've run this fight, the dragon has been defeated twice. Once the dragon went down to 18 hit points and escaped; this was with a group that had played before, and were really learning how their characters worked. They still rolled really well, I didn't, there were six of them, and four were standing at the end. And the dragon got away. If they have 5 characters, it goes much worse. Four characters and it's almost a guaranteed TPK if they don't run. But six 1st level means a 600 xp encounter budget and 875 is the dragon, so it should be a very difficult encounter, with a chance for a TPK. Mike & Dave stated on the podcast that you can go higher and lower on the level bar without wiping your party or putting them to sleep. I see this as a good thing.

To me, the system seems to borrow too much from WoW in certain areas. Specifically: certain recharge effects, use of very effective spells and special abilities on every round (not necessarily bad on balance), a power curve favoring lower level characters, and some less than concrete style elements.

I saw the mechanics of recharging start with 2E breath weapons. Power Attack is a prime example of an At-Will special attack, only I can combine Power Attack with Spring Attack with Great Cleave with Insert Splat Book Feat and get a daily power every attack. The power curve doesn't favor lower level characters; it stretches the sweet spot of play from 3-13 to 1-30, at least that's what the designers told us their goal is.

As my own personal observation--it's fitting to me that you see this power scale affecting low level play, but don't mention the scaling of high level play--which is currently approaching unplayable. On the podcast they mentioned that they did a survey and found out that a considerable number of the DMs surveyed either start their campaign at level 3, or fast-track the game to 3.

My initial statement was a summary of the above. I hope this clarifies for you that I did not speak without careful consideration, even though I did not at first provide the details of such.

Quoting my resume is intended to indicate that I've been around for a very long time, that I know the products in question very well and that I actually do know what I'm talking about and have enough experience to form a reasonable opinion and to state such without pages of qualifying explanation.

If you quite finished badgering me about the veracity of my experience and opinion, I would be far more interested in reading other views of other players' experiences in the demos and such in response to Joe's original post.

I'll throw in my WoW resume though, before I comment on the 4E-WoWish blend:

I started playing WoW during the friends and family only alpha. City of Heroes was HOT at the time, breaking single-day sales records and destroying EQ's userbase. I've played WoW since then, and I am eager to get WotLK. So I've played a long time--and playing WoW feels similar to D&D for me.

I play with the same group of people, all friends I know in the real world, we all use Ventrilo, and we all talk about things that have nothing to do with WoW. We adventure together on the same team, play iconic characters that fill roles (if your 1E cleric isn't filling a role then I don't know what a role is), and we all want to slay the dragon and cheer.

If I can play 4E with my friends, and fight the dragon and cheer, from the perspective of an iconic hero filling a role in a game where we play cooperatively on the same team--then I guess you can say D&D (4E and previous) is a lot like WoW.

But I'm going to jump on the "There's no chicken and egg question at stake here." and continue hoping that folks will eventually recognize that if you're playing WoW, it's because Gary & Dave came up with a cooperative fantasy role-playing game more than 3 decades ago.

 

[BlindOgre]

The level 4 solo dragon? Is that the admittedly unbalanced encounter you are referring to?

Not that one, but the optional encounter with the ogres. We did not have time for the dragon.

Good observations on all points, in particular about the power-curve. Even in 1E we would rush through 1-3 and then take our time until about 14th before starting over. Only a few campaigns carried all the way to 20th. If 4e truly has a more balanced curve from start to finish, that would be very welcome, even if the start seems a bit generous by contrast to previous versions.

But I'm going to jump on the "There's no chicken and egg question at stake here." and continue hoping that folks will eventually recognize that if you're playing WoW, it's because Gary & Dave came up with a cooperative fantasy role-playing game more than 3 decades ago.

Agreed.