Ok. A friend of mine was short on DMs for WWGD event at the game store he works at and asked if I would volunteer to help out. First let me tell you that I have not been a fan of 4th ED. I just have not cared for what I have read about here and elsewere. Call it personal taste. I'm a big believer in play what you like. If you like 4th, great for you, if not, that fine too.
So...I showed up at 10am to get ready for a 1pm event that would last about 3 hours. I believe in being prepared and did not want to show up a half-hour before the event and barely know what the adventure was about. I wanted to make sure the gamers had a good time and hopefully help the store sell a few copies of the books. I spent this time reading the adventure and getting to know the raw basics of the 4th edition rules.
The adventure was fine, a simple dungeon crawl. Now that I've read the adventure, I started meshing the rules with what was expected in the adventure.
After 3 (or so) hours of prep, the adventure started. Right off, it was easy to see that the new rules are heavily streamlined and lightened for quicker play, i.e. watered down skills (which for the most part I liked), lighter monster stats (which were fine, but not really all that different for 3.X to be honest) and a cut and dry list of abilities on each pre-made character sheet.
As the adventure progressed and the players began to get use to the new rules and class abilities you could see that there was an ease with the game play. It seemed to me, that every one could really do well in combat using any number of the new special abilities (at will, per encounter and/or daily). I never saw a character not use one of these abilities, there was never really a point not to. For a fighter to just attack without using any special abilities is really pointless. I really did not care for this take on the game. It just seemed like every character was, for lack of a better word, super heroes using their special abilities. I know many of you disagree with this statement, but there was no "normality" to the characters, everyone seemed a little over the top in there speciality. If that's what you like fine, but I, and most the players (of whom I never met before) really did not seem to enjoy this.
One aspect that really threw everyone for a loop was the wizard. The lady playing the wizard did a great job with using her abilities to their full potential and really was the main key factor in the end battle. She pretty much won the whole thing for the "team" on her own. On the first round she did 30 points of damage to the bad guy!!!!! WOW. That's a lot of damage for a 1st level player. It made many at the table more than a little surprised at how powerful her spell abilities were.
Another aspect of the game that I liked and did not like (yes, I said both), was the difference ACs (armor, reflex, will, etc). I think it's a neat concept, but was only half-way implemented into the rules. They kind of "half worked". I really do not know how else to explain it. Maybe more play is needed, but I'm still scratching my head over these new rule aspects. One example may be with spells and special effects. You attack a specific AC, lets say "Fort AC" and affect it with a spell, then each round the target of the spell get a raw save. If they get above a 10 (of a D20) the effect is over. I really did not get the feel of this rule and thought it did not work well. I get for the simplification of the game it works, but again I thought it was lack luster and boring. I really like the different ACs (a neat idea), but there needs to be a better way to use them????
Over all, as far as "I'm" concerned 4th ED is really a miniatures/video game. Would I play the game at a convention? Sure. It would be fine for a one shot 4 hour adventure. But I have no interest in running or playing in a long campaign using the new rules. I think the game would get boring rather quickly.
I hope those of you that like 4th ed, enjoy it for years to come. I really could go on and on, but for lack of time (and being at work) I can say (now that I actually ran a game)for me.. its really not my cup of tea.
If you have any constructive questions on my running the game, just post and I'll be happy to answer.
So...I showed up at 10am to get ready for a 1pm event that would last about 3 hours. I believe in being prepared and did not want to show up a half-hour before the event and barely know what the adventure was about. I wanted to make sure the gamers had a good time and hopefully help the store sell a few copies of the books. I spent this time reading the adventure and getting to know the raw basics of the 4th edition rules.
The adventure was fine, a simple dungeon crawl. Now that I've read the adventure, I started meshing the rules with what was expected in the adventure.
After 3 (or so) hours of prep, the adventure started. Right off, it was easy to see that the new rules are heavily streamlined and lightened for quicker play, i.e. watered down skills (which for the most part I liked), lighter monster stats (which were fine, but not really all that different for 3.X to be honest) and a cut and dry list of abilities on each pre-made character sheet.
As the adventure progressed and the players began to get use to the new rules and class abilities you could see that there was an ease with the game play. It seemed to me, that every one could really do well in combat using any number of the new special abilities (at will, per encounter and/or daily). I never saw a character not use one of these abilities, there was never really a point not to. For a fighter to just attack without using any special abilities is really pointless. I really did not care for this take on the game. It just seemed like every character was, for lack of a better word, super heroes using their special abilities. I know many of you disagree with this statement, but there was no "normality" to the characters, everyone seemed a little over the top in there speciality. If that's what you like fine, but I, and most the players (of whom I never met before) really did not seem to enjoy this.
One aspect that really threw everyone for a loop was the wizard. The lady playing the wizard did a great job with using her abilities to their full potential and really was the main key factor in the end battle. She pretty much won the whole thing for the "team" on her own. On the first round she did 30 points of damage to the bad guy!!!!! WOW. That's a lot of damage for a 1st level player. It made many at the table more than a little surprised at how powerful her spell abilities were.
Another aspect of the game that I liked and did not like (yes, I said both), was the difference ACs (armor, reflex, will, etc). I think it's a neat concept, but was only half-way implemented into the rules. They kind of "half worked". I really do not know how else to explain it. Maybe more play is needed, but I'm still scratching my head over these new rule aspects. One example may be with spells and special effects. You attack a specific AC, lets say "Fort AC" and affect it with a spell, then each round the target of the spell get a raw save. If they get above a 10 (of a D20) the effect is over. I really did not get the feel of this rule and thought it did not work well. I get for the simplification of the game it works, but again I thought it was lack luster and boring. I really like the different ACs (a neat idea), but there needs to be a better way to use them????
Over all, as far as "I'm" concerned 4th ED is really a miniatures/video game. Would I play the game at a convention? Sure. It would be fine for a one shot 4 hour adventure. But I have no interest in running or playing in a long campaign using the new rules. I think the game would get boring rather quickly.
I hope those of you that like 4th ed, enjoy it for years to come. I really could go on and on, but for lack of time (and being at work) I can say (now that I actually ran a game)for me.. its really not my cup of tea.
If you have any constructive questions on my running the game, just post and I'll be happy to answer.
