D&D 4E Highlights from the D&D Convention .... 4E reaction (after over 14 hrs of play)

[Brown Jenkin]

I don't think I've ever met such a player. Even the "casual gamers" are generally only casual because the campaign doesn't fully engage them, not because the rules are too fiddly. No casual gamer I know has ever said no to more ways of blowing up stuff.

Our group has 2 people who are like that. They show up to hang out with people. When it comes to characters they always choose fighters because they don't want to do anything but stand there and hit things. Even when they have feats like cleave they don't use them unless one of the tactical people reminds them.

 

[keterys]

you can't use Combat Challenge on a foe who has shifted unless you have marked them prior to said shift.

The characters used for DDE were a bit out of date, so didn't have that update yet. Like the paladin change where you can't mark someone then run away from them, letting the fighter beat on the mob, they've done some marking fixes since.

 

[hong]

Our group has 2 people who are like that. They show up to hang out with people. When it comes to characters they always choose fighters because they don't want to do anything but stand there and hit things. Even when they have feats like cleave they don't use them unless one of the tactical people reminds them.

For these people, giving them more things to do and interesting choices to make in the course of actual play (as opposed to choosing more crunchy bits at levelling up) might be the way to get them more engaged. In fact, turning the game into something more resembling a boardgame might work as well, because boardgames are generally more mainstream than RPGs. If not, well, no ruleset is going to work for them, so there's no point trying to cater for them unless you simplify the game down to FUDGE levels.

 

[Cyronax]

For these people, giving them more things to do and interesting choices to make in the course of actual play (as opposed to choosing more crunchy bits at levelling up) might be the way to get them more engaged. In fact, turning the game into something more resembling a boardgame might work as well, because boardgames are generally more mainstream than RPGs. If not, well, no ruleset is going to work for them, so there's no point trying to cater for them unless you simplify the game down to FUDGE levels.

Well, alternately why can't these two players still enjoy the game just by hanging out with friends and just doing simple standard/full attacks and applying damage. The Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (etc) feat tree are nothing but simplistic (and frickin effective in many cases).

4E does not allow for that kind of play so far as I've seen so far. I could be totally off, come edition release, but the only class that was really easy to play in 4e was the Ranger. Scarily, that's the class that I gravitated too (and I'm a guy who did crazy multi-classing and feat combos OR complex spellcasters).

Simple can be good.

C.I.D.

 

[hong]

Well, alternately why can't these two players still enjoy the game just by hanging out with friends and just doing simple standard/full attacks and applying damage. The Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (etc) feat tree are nothing but simplistic (and frickin effective in many cases).

Apparently, they're enjoying the game at the moment by having their buddies tell them where to go, what to attack and when to use Cleave. They can still enjoy the game by having their buddies tell them where to go, what to attack, and when to use Cleave. In fact, since Cleave can now be used all the time, it possibly got even simpler.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

For these people, giving them more things to do and interesting choices to make in the course of actual play (as opposed to choosing more crunchy bits at levelling up) might be the way to get them more engaged. In fact, turning the game into something more resembling a boardgame might work as well, because boardgames are generally more mainstream than RPGs. If not, well, no ruleset is going to work for them, so there's no point trying to cater for them unless you simplify the game down to FUDGE levels.

It is not about them being engaged. It is about play style. With them it is not giving them more choices to make them more interested, there are classes now that give those choices and they don't want them. We also play HERO where there are choices out the wazoo, and with that system they also play characters that stand still and hit things and don't make use of the variety offered. With both 3E and HERO there are viable characters that can be made that these people can play, with 4e it seems that there isn't a viable character choice that doesn't require being hyper engaged.

Apparently, they're enjoying the game at the moment by having their buddies tell them where to go, what to attack and when to use Cleave. They can still enjoy the game by having their buddies tell them where to go, what to attack, and when to use Cleave. In fact, since Cleave can now be used all the time, it possibly got even simpler.

Yes we might remind them of certain feats every so often but for the most part everyone makes thier own tactical choices. The rest of us just know how thier characters will behaive in battle and we make our decisions with that in mind. Taking over thier characters would not be fun for either them or us.

As I have said elsewhere I can apreciate the variety and tactical choices in 4e in its boardgame feel in one shots. But that style of play requires a certain type of player. I also like more simulationist play for long term campaigns and 4E is missing that for me. The other problem I saw with 4E I was pointing out here which is that there are certain players that just don't want options but want simplicity. Our group has 2 of these people and 3E allows for them to contribute with viable characters in tthe way they want. Making assumptions that they are just not engaged because there are not enough options or that they would be happy not playing at all and letting others run thier characters just doesn't seem to me to give them enough credit for having fun the way they are.

 

[SaffroN]

I think one potential house rule that might see a lot of use might be as long as the marker keeps attacking the marked, he stays marked. If the marker does not attack the marked in a given round, the mark vanishes.

The concept of the marker going off and doing other things and an opponent stays marked sounds wrong.

Doesn't that make marking obsolete? The idea with marking is to make sure the creature doesn't wander off and attack the squishy members of the party.

if the mark disappears as soon as the creature gets out of the defenders reach, there is no point in having the mark in the first place