Derren said:
Sorry if that sounds offensive, it is not intended this way (but I seem to attract flamewars whenever I talk about 4e).
I am a bit disappointed about this information because it basically just repeats what the designers said. "Combat is simple, combat is cool". I know that by now.
If anything, it just further increases my fear that 4E will focus only on combat and remove
any non combat information about monsters. And judging from the Pit Fiend discussions I am not alone with this fear.
Sadly this blog entry seems to further confirm that in 4E monsters will only be XP containers with combat stats. If you want them to use to something besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation).
I just hope that Combats in the real game are really exiting, because the 4E Pit Fiend doesn't look exiting at all (one trick pony. Protect yourself against fire and this guy is harmless. And just 3 possible actions? It will get boring very fast as the players will always know what to expect).
Well, this quote got me to chime in here, as I just got
my go ahead to talk a little about playtesting. And since there's no way I can profit from my blurbage, there should be no lingering doubts about whether it's because I'm looking for a future gig. Although anyone who even suspects that of Ari should be ashamed of themselves.
For those of you who don't know me, I'm John Rogers. I write the
Blue Beetle comic book for DC, wrote and produced the pilot for a TV version of Warren Ellis'
Global Frequency, and I occasionally write movies. I'm not a game designer, but primarily a writer in multiple formats. I only mention this because some of you have been looking for feedback from a non-designer, and so you can evaluate my opinions in the context of how I use the game.
4E is the edition that promotes storytelling to primacy in the gameplay.
It does so by streamlining the rules -- by giving you cleaner, more relevant information for the situations when
you actually need information. My first thought when I read the ruels was "Hmm, somebody at WOTC got a hold of
The Paradox of Choice ." There are multiple levels of choice in playing the game and building the characters, but now there only mechanics for those choices for
when they are mechanically relevant.
Don't think "simple." Think "
clean."
I think the reason there's so much buzz around 4E combat is because that's where the most massive fun-change has come in, and so it naturally dominates discussion and perception. By the time my NDA playtest group got through our first session, we'd (unintentionally) fought
three massive combats in one four hour session, many multiple opponents each time. When we finished we all kind of sat back, glassy-eyed, and went "wow." Except for the rogue. He was punching the air and cackling "More stabby! MORE STABBY!"
Because 3E combat had gotten so ... er .. gunky, combat's the first thing you notice when playing 4E. It's hard not to talk about it. A bit like if you bought a new car and got it up to 250 mph. The fact that it has a great interior, amazing safety features and a kick-butt stereo never really comes up in your first conversations about the car.
There are mechanics in place in the rules, separate from the combat rules, to fill in the non-combat tools of a PC/NPC/monster. Stat blocks are there for when they're
needed -- when you need to look at stats. In a block. Fast. Like, during combat. Not only that, as the DM I felt I had all the info I needed for the bits I needed help with (combat) but the freedom not to be bound by unnecessary information
when we were roleplaying. That's what prompted me to post -- the above gentleman's concern that
"If you want [monsters] to use to something besides combat it requires houseruling (=preparation)." What is that "something" besides basic combat? Roleplaying, right? What in that stat block actively contradicts any roleplaying, and more so, what more in the stat block do you need to use it in a story? Each monster (as I understand it) will come with well-nigh a full page of flavor text in the MM. That should be the base for the non-combat-y bits, while the stat block is the wrench you use for the combat-y bits.
That's why, as a writer, the edition tickles me pink. No more rummaging about for the appropriate monster with the appropriate trained skills and appropriate background to fit my plot -- or adjusting the fiddly stats of cool monsters to wedge them into my PC's level and story setting. No more building NPC's for hours so they not only do what I want them to do, they also have every fiddly bit necessary to work but that I'll never, ever access in-game. Enough detail to guide, never so much to cripple.
As far as simple/boring combat -- that Pit Fiend? He's elite, so there's going to be two of them, summoning in multiple other high level monsters with their own funky abilities, all set in a matrix against the multiple combat powers and spells of your five own high-level NPC's. While some people seem disappointed by the lack of options in this situation and somehow see MORE prep here, the prospect of running that combat on its own in 3E would make me, as a DM, throw up in my mouth. With 4E, I'd have no problem running it. And that's why a streamlined mechanic system is important for storytelling, because it's easier to throw a wide variety of stuff at my players, and easier to play out the results of said throwage. Whenever I have more choices in storytelling, for me, that's always a good thing.
In short, my playtest experience for what it's worth:
Less prep time for the DM, with no loss of versatility in combat, and plenty of added value and unexpected strategies. Monster design is superior for what I need, which is
versatility in the service of storytelling. Trap design in particular made me want to kiss Dave Noonan on the mouth. While roleplaying, we had more freedom, because when you actually need a roll in the roleplaying you're working off a cleaner system, rather than page-hunting for one of the independently designed subsystems.
Take it as you will.
