My first 4E game...

[Mallus]

XP is as fundamental to D&D as "kill thins and take there stuff" and ultimately, as the game is setup, it is the only reason to attempt something.

I'd say that leveling is fundamental to D&D, which is why a lot of folks just drop XP completely and just inform their players when they level. Also, my experiences are that players like to screw around, often with murderous consequences, inside a fantasy environment, no matter what I-as-DM incentivize. Put less glibly, interaction is frequently as engaging as advancement. Don't underestimate the desire to simply 'do stuff' in-game and watch the world respond accordingly.

The game is designed around risk for reward and thus all actions need to have an incentive.

I'd avoid the temptation to make to much of this point, as often the 'reward' is little more than the enjoyment you get from play.

I'm sorry but as of right now I'm pretty much lost on what the paradigm for sill challenges (as supported by the rules) is for 4e.

I'm sticking with my initial impression of Skill Challenges that I got here on ENWorld. I like those.

This has nothing to do with player cleverness as without a wizard...

I was talking about cleverness outside of combat, which in 3e rapidly became something only casters could dabble in.

I'd actually like a system for this...and there are alot of games on the market that handle it in an elegant and fun manner.

Oh sure. I hear Burning Wheel is a lot of fun. It's just not for me.

Again disagree, I think non-combat abilities would benefit from an attack vs. hit point type system, and it would open the game up for characters who really want to play a skill monkey or social-based character.

The last thing I want is a 'social hit point' system where I roll to wound an NPC's pride with quips. The joy for me is in coming up with those quips myself at the table... but that's my personal preference, not some more objective critique of design.

 

[Treebore]

The game was cancelled last night due to it being the DM's wife's B-day.

 

[Rhenny]

In the first 4e game I DM'd, we ran just 3 PCs (Dwarven fighter, Dragonborn Paladin and Halfling rogue). All of us had over 20 years of experience with previous D&D editions, Warhammer, GURPS, and others.

As a DM, I found it very easy to scale the adventure, and make changes on the fly to make the game really interesting. From the player's perspective, they found that the game was more strategic, which made it very interesting. The players quickly learned how to work together to set up for combat and possible combat situations. They also had chances to roleplay quiet a lot, and the skill challenges made the game more cinematic, not just combat only scenarios.

In 3 1/2 hours, we were able to complete 2 smaller combat enounters, 2 larger combat encounters, and 2 skill challenges and other roleplaying opportunities. I was able to cut out parts of the dungeon to allow the characters to finish the quest. In addition, rounds went quickly, and it did play more like our favorite movies.

The paladin was a creature magnet, drawing all sorts of melee and ranged attacks. He also helped the others by using his healing ability. The figher used cleave to cut down minions, and stand beside the paladin in the thick of battle. The rogue, avoided a trap that really took the paladin down, and he was able to use acrobatics to hop up and down on tables, ledges, etc. His sneak attack was also much appreciated.

I really like the way it played, but more importantly, each player felt really good about the game, and they each felt like they contributed equally to their success.

I hope I get a chance to play again soon.

 

[SSquirrel]

Exactly. With that balance comes the feeling of sameness. Its up the players to decide if thats an acceptable trade off.

Look at RIFTS. The GM could say he's going to be running a Chi Town Burbs campaign and one guy wants to be a City Rat. He envisions getting to mix it up w/the CS a bit, while being sneaky and escaping to live to fight another day. The other 3 players roll a Glitter Boy, a Temporal Wizard and an Atlantean Tattoed Man. The one w/the City Rat may as well not even show up, his contributions wouldn't be noticed.

I'm just fine w/a bit more balance built into the system. Oh and yes, I realize it's important for a RIFTS GM to do things like restrict access to certain books to try and keep the characters more even, but the core book has power levels ranging from Rogue Scientist to Techno-Wizard to Mind Melter and Dragon Hatchling.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

The game was cancelled last night due to it being the DM's wife's B-day.

Couldn't he have had a surprise D&D birthday party for her? I'm sure she would have been surprised!

 

[Frostmarrow]

In the first 4e game I DM'd, we ran just 3 PCs (Dwarven fighter, Dragonborn Paladin and Halfling rogue). All of us had over 20 years of experience with previous D&D editions, Warhammer, GURPS, and others.

As a DM, I found it very easy to scale the adventure, and make changes on the fly to make the game really interesting. From the player's perspective, they found that the game was more strategic, which made it very interesting. The players quickly learned how to work together to set up for combat and possible combat situations. They also had chances to roleplay quiet a lot, and the skill challenges made the game more cinematic, not just combat only scenarios.

In 3 1/2 hours, we were able to complete 2 smaller combat enounters, 2 larger combat encounters, and 2 skill challenges and other roleplaying opportunities. I was able to cut out parts of the dungeon to allow the characters to finish the quest. In addition, rounds went quickly, and it did play more like our favorite movies.

I just returned from DMing my first game tonight. I had tried the prerelease stuff but this was my first real game. We started on Scourge of The Rat-Men from Adamant Entertainment and there were three players. Valan a human fighter, Lili a half-elven warlord, and Mordach a dwarven cleric. We had a lot of fun with role-playing, skill challenges and combats. The trick lies in combining the three and not get stuck thinking a skill challenge must be a skill challenge. Sometimes it's better to just go with the role-playing flow and save combat and challenges for getting things moving.

As a DM I enjoyed 4e immensely. Easy to use and scale back and forth. More energy to spend on crazy NPC impersonations.

The fighter player is a rules cruncher and he knew the rules by heart already without having tried the game. I think he enjoyed himself.

The half-elf player was ambiguous. There were things that he like and things that bothered him. He wasn't able to pinpoint exactly what bothered him but he is a traditionalist so he might have been bothered just because it's new. -He is starting to warm up on 3E which he hated eight years ago.

The dwarf player said he was positive and that he had enjoyed himself. Despite having spent the first combat unconcious due to a rather misfortunate ambush.

The first combat turned out to be a TPK but the opposition consisted of bandits and in 4E finishing blows doesn't have to be lethal. They ended up robbed instead. An NPC helped them out and they were soon to return the favor by embarking on the mission at hand.

All in all a satisfying game. I hope I will get to play soon.

 

[NilesB]

@Celtavian: Treebore has asked that this thread not devolve into an argument about 3e and 4e, so in order to respect his wishes in this thread I have forked my reply to the above in another thread.

He could have encouraged that better by not beginning an argument about 3E vs 4E himself in the first post.

 

[Filcher]

In honor of Treebore trying 4E, I've decided to buy the C&C book to see what all the hubub is about.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Look at RIFTS. The GM could say he's going to be running a Chi Town Burbs campaign and one guy wants to be a City Rat. He envisions getting to mix it up w/the CS a bit, while being sneaky and escaping to live to fight another day. The other 3 players roll a Glitter Boy, a Temporal Wizard and an Atlantean Tattoed Man. The one w/the City Rat may as well not even show up, his contributions wouldn't be noticed.

I'm just fine w/a bit more balance built into the system. Oh and yes, I realize it's important for a RIFTS GM to do things like restrict access to certain books to try and keep the characters more even, but the core book has power levels ranging from Rogue Scientist to Techno-Wizard to Mind Melter and Dragon Hatchling.

I don't have any experience with RIFTS at all but whatever the game system, its up to the GM to make sure that every character type is relevant to the game in some way. If the GM wants to lean heavily on one type of activity such as combat, or mystery solving, then the players should be made aware of that decision before deciding on a character. Promising a campaign filled with puzzles and mysteries and then running nothing but a series of combats will likely frustrate players.

So yeah I think its ok to have a PC group with varying degrees of combat effectiveness. Just be sure that the campaign activities are as varied as the characters.

 

[Treebore]

He could have encouraged that better by not beginning an argument about 3E vs 4E himself in the first post.

I always find it funny people claim I try to start a 4e/3e war when I don't like or play either of them.

My OP is my opinion, how I am looking at and weighing the options. If you think its to start edition wars then this thread is not for you.

Now I do admit, I played and DMed 3E a lot, for several years. I likely own more books for 3E then most posters on this board. However I crashed and burned with 3E. To the point where I almost gave up RPG's altogether, I burned out so bad.

So I could care less bout 3E, or 4E for that matter. I don't like either one enough to fight about them.

I love C&C. My house ruled version of C&C. Even so I won't "argue" about it, other then to point our people claiming to know and understand the rules when they don't, but bad mouth the game anyways.

So if you want to have some kind of "Game War" with me start up another thread knocking C&C, I might decide its worth arguing with you about it.

As for 3E and 4E, I have my opinions. I do not require, or even expect you to agree with or like them. However, I have actually played both games for at least 6 hours (4E) or 1,000's of hours (3E), and have arrived at my opinions in a much more through fashion then most people seem to.

So if you don't like my opinion, thats fine. Just don't accuse me of caring enough about 3E or 4E to start an edition war. I don't care enough.