D&D 4E JamesonCourage Is Starting A 4e Game; Looking For Pointers

[Quickleaf]

Ahhhh, I forgot all about this, but I do want it! Thanks for the link, this should come in super handy

(Someone send some XP to Quickleaf for me? I can't yet!)

You're welcome, it's definitely a helpful resource for DMs.

On the player side there's a stylistic issue that may come up that seems endemic especially to 4e. Players in 4e seem to look to their character sheets and powers for what they can do first, rather than their imaginations. Personally, that kills a lot of the joy of D&D, like back when I played 1e/2e and you usually came at problems from imagination first, then possible codified character abilities. In 4e this is particularly pronounced in combat, and is a trend I wish I had avoided earlier on.

So I suggest:

• using the resources on my cheat sheet from Mark Monack's "Tutorial: Terrain Powers" and the updated DMG page 42 tables (also on the cheat sheet) to interpret player ideas.
• reminding players from the get-go to think of what they want their character to do first, and then look to their powers or the DM to resolve it.
• in every encounter include some unique terrain/situation note that characters can exploit to gain an advantage.
• consider custom made simplified character sheets, possibly starting off without any powers at all or just at-will powers, introducing powers only once the players were into improvising.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You're welcome, it's definitely a helpful resource for DMs.

I've looked it over, and it has more than I thought it would. Very helpful, I'd say.

On the player side there's a stylistic issue that may come up that seems endemic especially to 4e. Players in 4e seem to look to their character sheets and powers for what they can do first, rather than their imaginations. Personally, that kills a lot of the joy of D&D, like back when I played 1e/2e and you usually came at problems from imagination first, then possible codified character abilities. In 4e this is particularly pronounced in combat, and is a trend I wish I had avoided earlier on.

I can see how this might be the case.

So I suggest:

• using the resources on my cheat sheet from Mark Monack's "Tutorial: Terrain Powers" and the updated DMG page 42 tables (also on the cheat sheet) to interpret player ideas.
• reminding players from the get-go to think of what they want their character to do first, and then look to their powers or the DM to resolve it.
• in every encounter include some unique terrain/situation note that characters can exploit to gain an advantage.
• consider custom made simplified character sheets, possibly starting off without any powers at all or just at-will powers, introducing powers only once the players were into improvising.

I probably won't stop them from starting with powers from their class, but the rest looks good to me. I do want to see some involvement in the game and with the terrain/scene, but even if that's only through their powers, I think I'll be mostly okay. I'll likely try to point out some ways for them to interact with the terrain at first, and see if it sticks, or if they want to go for it. Your cheat sheet will certainly make that a lot easier

 

[Jhaelen]

No need to bring up the metagame. If the equipment is different, sure ("one of the orcs is clad in black plate armor covered in nicks and dents, and the others seem to shy away from him"), but otherwise let them sort out who's a minion and who's not. If they blow a daily to take care of three or four minions, it's okay (4e is forgiving enough when it comes to recovering resources). Let them roll damage, and then annouce the targets are dead (as if they died from the damage dealt, not from their 1 hp).

This is a matter of preference, but I'm with Klaus here.
Recognizing minions for what they are is usually rather easy. If anything we sometimes mistake regular enemies for minions; it's very rarely the other way around. I can recall about one or two times where I 'wasted' a daily on minions and it's never been a problem. In any case, you will know for sure as early as round two.

Likewise, announcing whether a group is in a skill challenge or not seems to be a matter of preference. I also tend to think it's better not to tell the players. Chances are, they'll realize it eventually, anyway, but until then they simply behave more 'naturally', which I consider preferable. If you're playing them loosely, e.g. by granting automatic successes for good ideas or roleplay, they are much more fun.

 

[Klaus]

Another thing that helps players see beyond their character sheet:

Give every player the following "power" (either as a card or written down on the sheet).

"Improvise
At-will or Encounter • Martial, or varies
Standard Action
Requirement: You must describe the action you are taking to the DM.
Roll: DM-determined ability or skill vs. Easy, Average or Hard DC
Success: You pull off your stunt, and deal damage (if appropriate).
Failure: You lose your action, and may suffer a negative effect.
Special: Your DM may grant you a bonus on your check for clever ideas, good roleplaying or sheer awesomeness."

 

[Manbearcat]

I can't recall if anyone mentioned it here (I suspect they did), but one of the greatest narrative tools that players have to co-author the fiction is Quests. D&D has always had quests front and center. However, 4e explicitly made them into narrative authority tools and part of the xp gain/leveling paradigm. Page 102/3 in the DMG speak to Quests and advise to bring your players in on what their quests are as it focuses thematic play towards a coherent end; you know what their goals are and you are specifically providing (i) content through which they can actualize them and (ii) mechanical incentive to pursue them. I like to go a bit further in this technique and let my players write major quests and minor quests and present them to me, basically as reverse hooks. Further, I like to get the players involved with each other and have them each write a minor quest for the person to the left of them that relates expressly to their own PC's interests (either furthering them or competing against them in some minor way). Its similar to the way Aspects are created in Fate's system. Its narrative authority which declares a coherent and explicit (between GM and player) content wish-list and a binding tie between the players.

 

[Quickleaf]

Another thing that helps players see beyond their character sheet:

Give every player the following "power" (either as a card or written down on the sheet).

"Improvise
At-will or Encounter • Martial, or varies
Standard Action
Requirement: You must describe the action you are taking to the DM.
Roll: DM-determined ability or skill vs. Easy, Average or Hard DC
Success: You pull off your stunt, and deal damage (if appropriate).
Failure: You lose your action, and may suffer a negative effect.
Special: Your DM may grant you a bonus on your check for clever ideas, good roleplaying or sheer awesomeness."

Haha, I love this. You illustrate my point about 4e's "power-think" really well. Power-think is my short-hand for describing the tendency of players in 4e to forget to improvise and to become hyper-focused on their PC's powers. It's one of the things I really dislike about 4e.

I've seen it happen in my group, groups I've dropped in with, at D&D Encounters, and heard others' anecdotes enough to conclude that it's not just my group. A lot of gaming groups running 4e experience trouble with "power-think". I think moreso than other editions, a 4e DM needs to invest energy into countering this trend, whether by reminding players, setting up scenarios early on that require outside-of-the-box thinking, using page 42 in lieu of powers for the first adventure, or doing as [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] suggests and making "Improvise" power cards.

I think [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] you mentioned that you have some new players and one old school player? Maybe your old school player can lead by example on the improvisation?

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is a matter of preference, but I'm with Klaus here.
Recognizing minions for what they are is usually rather easy. If anything we sometimes mistake regular enemies for minions; it's very rarely the other way around. I can recall about one or two times where I 'wasted' a daily on minions and it's never been a problem. In any case, you will know for sure as early as round two.

Okay, I lean towards not telling the players, then. However, I think I'll use minions in such a way that it should imply that some might be non-minions (such as by having non-minions physically stand out from the more normal multitude of minions).

Likewise, announcing whether a group is in a skill challenge or not seems to be a matter of preference. I also tend to think it's better not to tell the players. Chances are, they'll realize it eventually, anyway, but until then they simply behave more 'naturally', which I consider preferable. If you're playing them loosely, e.g. by granting automatic successes for good ideas or roleplay, they are much more fun.

I always told my players when I used my skill challenge rules from my RPG, but I tend to run skill challenges at a pretty quick pace, urging the players to act or asking them to roll for something specific (depending on the skill challenge). The quick pace tends to keep the focus on the action and fiction, so I think I'll stick to that approach with this new group and we'll see how it goes. If it doesn't go over well, I'll try hiding it and letting it unfold "naturally". Thanks for the good post again

Another thing that helps players see beyond their character sheet:

Give every player the following "power" (either as a card or written down on the sheet). [SNIP]

Having test-played out a combat a couple of times (to make sure that I have a grip on the system as best as I can get without actual players), I think this is a really good idea. It's easy to fall into the "just glance over powers and pick one" thing (though that could've been because I was running 4 different PCs and 3 different types of monsters). Either way, I've seen this, the "Do Something Awesome" cards, and the like from experienced 4e fans, so I'll accept this bit of wisdom. It may not help certain players, but it'll probably help a lot, and almost certainly the 1-3 new players I'll be running the game for. Thanks

 

[JamesonCourage]

I can't recall if anyone mentioned it here (I suspect they did), but one of the greatest narrative tools that players have to co-author the fiction is Quests. D&D has always had quests front and center. However, 4e explicitly made them into narrative authority tools and part of the xp gain/leveling paradigm. Page 102/3 in the DMG speak to Quests and advise to bring your players in on what their quests are as it focuses thematic play towards a coherent end; you know what their goals are and you are specifically providing (i) content through which they can actualize them and (ii) mechanical incentive to pursue them. I like to go a bit further in this technique and let my players write major quests and minor quests and present them to me, basically as reverse hooks. Further, I like to get the players involved with each other and have them each write a minor quest for the person to the left of them that relates expressly to their own PC's interests (either furthering them or competing against them in some minor way). Its similar to the way Aspects are created in Fate's system. Its narrative authority which declares a coherent and explicit (between GM and player) content wish-list and a binding tie between the players.

I kind of like the idea of quests, so I'll look into them. I've seen them mentioned before, and they've sounded like a distinctly 4e thing (when it comes to D&D editions), so I think it'd be cool to give it a try. I'm not nearly as into laying out the narrative path we'll take as you seem to be (going over broad story arcs for PCs before the game goes underway, if I remember correctly), but that doesn't mean I can't use 4e quests in a more "traditional" way with the players. Getting an idea for what they want to do will help me, and probably them (since 1 player has limited experience, and the other 2 potential players would have none). Thanks for the idea

Haha, I love this. You illustrate my point about 4e's "power-think" really well. Power-think is my short-hand for describing the tendency of players in 4e to forget to improvise and to become hyper-focused on their PC's powers. It's one of the things I really dislike about 4e.

As long as the players use their powers to engage with the fiction, I think I'll be broadly okay. But, I don't want them to get too focused on them, so yes, I think the added power will be useful, and I'm glad he mentioned it.

I've seen it happen in my group, groups I've dropped in with, at D&D Encounters, and heard others' anecdotes enough to conclude that it's not just my group. A lot of gaming groups running 4e experience trouble with "power-think". I think moreso than other editions, a 4e DM needs to invest energy into countering this trend, whether by reminding players, setting up scenarios early on that require outside-of-the-box thinking, using page 42 in lieu of powers for the first adventure, or doing as @Klaus suggests and making "Improvise" power cards.

If this many people are like that, I'll try to add the power for sure. Again, I'm not too worried about it, but it won't hurt, and might help a lot.

I think @JamesonCourage you mentioned that you have some new players and one old school player? Maybe your old school player can lead by example on the improvisation?

Yes. I have one for sure player who has played 3.X extensively, but I'm not sure about systems prior to that (he's 26 years old), though I'm pretty sure he's at least dabbled in previous editions. He also played 4e for a few months with the other for sure player, but the game fell apart. The other player has only played D&D once, and it was 4e for a few months, though she loved it, and is the one providing the books for me (she bought some when I finally caved and said I'd run a game for them). The other two players have never played D&D before (or RP'd, to my knowledge), but have some related experience (video games) or tactical experience (Magic: The Gathering).

So, I'll probably talk to the guy who played 3.X for years (at least 9), and see if he can try to help them out by example, yes. He's fairly new to 4e, too, though. Even though he says he likes 3.X more, overall, he says that he wouldn't want to play it again after playing 4e. He likes the nuances of 3.X, but he apparently greatly enjoys the simplified areas of 4e, and thinks it had a lot of room to grow (he was upset when I mentioned that 5e was in the works for a long while now).

At any rate, thanks for the feedback on this stuff! I'm very glad the thread is alive, and hopefully it'll pick up more once I digest some of the books and ask for feedback. I'll probably start a new thread after my first session (with a link to this one), unless there's any reason to keep it in this thread. Thanks Quickleaf (and everyone)! Keep the useful posts coming to this new 4e DM

 

[JamesonCourage]

Whoa, so the battle map they ordered just came in today, and I have to say, this is the most intimidating bit so far. It's huge! How big are these battles "supposed to" be?

 

[Quickleaf]

Whoa, so the battle map they ordered just came in today, and I have to say, this is the most intimidating bit so far. It's huge! How big are these battles "supposed to" be?

4e battles generally take up more space than combats of past editions. 10 x 16 squares/inches is about as small as I'd go. This is due to forced movement, ranges, and the increased importance of terrain in 4e.