Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="smathis" data-source="post: 4161018" data-attributes="member: 56465">So how was it?So how was it?Pretty good. Most, if not all, of my questions were answered in the demo and I learned quite a bit more. I also got to sit right next to the DM, so I was able to keep a careful eye on what he was doing and how involved it was.Here's what I came away with:The first thing I did was jump through a window. Pretty pointless really. But I did it. Brian didn't seem 100% comfortable with the ins-and-outs of 4e so we didn't get much of an opportunity to use things like terrain and such.I came away with the feeling that this was much like it was in 3e. Like I couldn't jump off the wall and kick some dude in the head because it was cool but, rather, I'd need unarmed strike, 5 ranks in Acrobatics and an Action Point.I think that was because Brian and the rest of the group were falling back on 3e as the default for grey areas that weren't properly explained in the demo rules. I mean, we were actually using 3e rules for some of the things I was trying like tumbling through an occupied square to flank.So I didn't feel like I got a good answer here. I'll have to just trust the hype on this one (or trust in my abilities to house-rule it in).Awesome in theory. Not so awesome in execution. Notes to follow.Let me just say this. A Forgite could do some serious Narr awesomeness with the NCEs in 4e. Outside of that, it looks like it just depends on how cool your DM is.Brian was cool, so I got to throw in some Authorial Stance in there -- even though I'm not sure that anyone knew that's what I was doing. Basically, I played through my NCE like an Extended Contest in HeroQuest.And it worked.Beauty. I can definitively say that Narr play is possible with the NCE mechanics.But, and here's the execution part, the NCE's were kind of a lull point. No one was really sure what to do with them and most people just pinged the same skill over and over with the aplomb of "I swing at him".I could see a lot of 3e to 4e groups hitting this wall (barring some really awesome examples in the PHB or DMG).But the bones are there. It's just recognizing them for what they are. Anyone who's tried playing a game like Donjon with old school D&D alums will know exactly what I'm talking about.It's not that the 1e crowd won't pick up on it and run with it. It just takes them a bit to grok it for what it is (shared DMing in a limited fashion) because it's a different kind of play.It reminded me most of BECMI because it was simpler in play than 1e and 3e. At certain points -- like when the combats dragged on a bit at the end -- I was picking up a bit of a 2e vibe.But it felt different than 3e. It felt faster and more engaging to me. I did drift off at a couple of points. But it wasn't like in 3e where I sometimes felt compelled to doodle or read the PHB waiting for my chance to hit-or-miss. I was more interested in what other players were doing and what I would be doing to compliment their actions.It did not feel like a videogame to me. But that could just be me.Comparable to 3e. No better, no worse. You could, conceivably, just roleplay through all social encounters or roll Bluff/Diplomacy checks instead.No different in 4e.Unless there are some stunt rules (ala IH) in the PHB, there is very limited potential to play around with Stance in combat. That could've been just the way we were playing it. But every time I tried to switch into a bit of some Narr awesomeness I was met with "roll Acrobatics". Like I said, our fallback in the grey areas was 3e.So I did not come away with the Action Hero feel everyone's talking about. More resource management? Yes. Simpler resource management? Sorta. But was I a 3'9" Jet Li with a symbol of Tymora on my chest? No. I was an above-average paladin who spent most of the encounters laying on hands and getting up from prone position. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Regarding the Non-Combat Encounters? These things were practically ripped from the pages of the rough-draft of an Indie RPG, still beating and dripping with blood. Assuming a DM or group recognizes what they can do with them, this makes Narr play a reality in 4e with little or no rules hacks needed. Part of me wasn't buying the hype on this one. Mearls came out with some great <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4112306&postcount=25" target="_blank">suggestions</a> .But, really, how feasible would it be?Based on my experience, very. It looks like gridless 4e will be easier than gridless 3e. Although, I still might run combats with lots of environmental possibilities or big boss monsters on a grid.Mostly yes.It's not perfect. I didn't like keeping track of conditions. And liked the save mechanics less than I thought I would.I felt playing on the grid with the new rules is more fun than it was in 3e. The way we were playing it did feel like it had a little bit of a boardgame feel to it. But I thought that was good.But I still prefer gridless play. If I HAD to run with a grid, this system screams for IH Zones and 3D Terrain, though.I often had to remind myself THESE WERE FIRST LEVEL PCs. From that perspective, the designers got a lot right with 4e and preserving the "sweet spot".Also, considering the Shadar-Kai was a Level 6 and didn't wipe the board with us, it was nice knowing that the DM could be a little more flexible with his encounters and not worry about a TPK.IIRC, 2 PCs officially died -- the Cleric and Ranger. Assuming the Warlock or Wizard could've stabilized me (the Paladin), we could've made it out of the adventure (mostly) intact.I also learned:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The new Monster write-ups are a lot easier to deal with. Though the printouts looked to be in, like, 7pt font, Brian was able to manage all the opponents in the combats well with minimal hassle over the resource management. I used to run varied encounters with multiple opponents when I ran 3e. Watching Brian closely, I can say that it looked no more difficult in 4e than 3e. Maybe even a little easier.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Conditions are a bear to keep up with. The onus will fall on either the player or the DM. In our game, it was the player. But someone has to keep on top of them because they can get a little unwieldy. Maybe the "Conditions Tracker" will be 4e's version of 1e's guy mapping with the graph paper?</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The combats lasted longer in rounds but took about as long as I remember 3e combats taking. </li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">First level is more fun than it's ever been in any edition of D&D. It was quite clear to me that our PCs were buffer than any other edition's 1st level PC. </li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">But it was also clear that the beasties were buffer too. The city guards downed a member of the party in the first encounter. That pretty well underlined how tough our opponents could be. I mean, they were the city guard.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Monsters felt a lot different in 4e. Fighting the city guard was very different than fighting Hobgoblins and that was very different than fighting a Shadar-Kai. It was nice that the monsters actually fought with different inherent strategies, making them each feel unique.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PCs were all pretty useful and interesting. I don't think there was any PC that was just wasting space. I had perhaps the most sub-optimal PC in the bunch. I mean, my size ganked most of my Paladin abilities. My short sword had all my big Paladin smite stuff doing 8-9 points max damage (Short Sword still == 1d6). So I could really feel my race kind of working against my class in a way. Still, I had fun with him -- even though I would neveh, eveh, eveh, EVAH play this character in a real game. I always had something interesting to do (even when it only did 3 pts of damage) and I felt like I contributed a good deal.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">4e seemed to emphasize teamwork to me more than 3e. Having the classes built towards certain roles in combat, we played off each other more than most D&D groups I've been with. In previous editions, teamwork amounted to the Cleric buffing the Fighter, the Wizard laying back and somebody distracting the monsters while the Rogue sneak attacked. In this game, we had players organizing their attacks -- like the Ranger and the Warlock playing off each other's abilities to lay the smack down on opponents. And everyone had a value in combat. As a result, no one was playing Chaotic Stupid. It felt pretty obvious that if we turned on each other, that we'd get seriously screwed down the road. I don't know if this was a design goal but it's definitely something I picked up on.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I find playing on a grid really tedious -- more of a reminder than an actual learning. Give me GM fiat anyday. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification