New Playtest Report: Prophecy of the Priestess

[KarinsDad]

Our staff is hard at work playtesting 4th Edition, and each week, we’ll give you a look inside one of our very own D&D games.

...

I’ll forewarn anyone hoping for a rules-crunchy playtest report—this isn’t it. The first session was an introduction to the setting and campaign, both of which are very story-driven. Still, there are undoubtedly some elements of gameplay that are elucidated here.

I was really disappointed with this playtest report.

First off, WotC said they would give a playtest report once a week. They have not. We've gotten two in the last five weeks.

Second, if I wanted to read total fluff from someone else's campaign, I would go read a Storytime.

Personally, I thought this report was a waste of space and totally disappointing. Nothing here was indicative of something that could not happen in a 3.5 game.

I really have a problem with a company writing one thing and then delivering another. For all I know, the improvements of 4E itself will be just so much white noise. If how they handle the Playtest Reports is so lame, why do I think they will handle the 4E crunch well?

Obviously, time will tell. But for Playtest Reports, they are not doing a good job. IMO. <shakes head>

 

[catsclaw227]

Personally, I thought this report was a waste of space and totally disappointing. Nothing here was indicative of something that could not happen in a 3.5 game.

Saying it's a "waste of space" may be a little harsh, considering that: a) it is digital and space is negligable and b) he clearly stated, before describing the playtest, and after the Player/PC intro:

I’ll forewarn anyone hoping for a rules-crunchy playtest report—this isn’t it. The first session was an introduction to the setting and campaign, both of which are very story-driven. Still, there are undoubtedly some elements of gameplay that are elucidated here.

I agree that all of what was described could be modelled using 3.5 rules. Also Hero System, GURPS, True20, etc. It was fluff.

That said, I saw some inferences to crunchy stuff, but admittedly one needs to look hard. There's mention of terrain affecting the encounter, 1st level (assuming, 1st level) critical hits not killing PCs, Dwarf Rogue (with a great axe) using movement and flanking, wizard supporting with precision and accuracy of arcane powers (blasts, similar to ranged touch?)

Most importantly, he describes how much easier it was for him to run a 4e combat:

The mechanics of battle ran smoothly. Having just played through 3.5 battles this weekend, the difference was noticeable. I found myself infrequently referring to the stat blocks, for I was able to remember, even with three creatures, what the monsters were capable of. I was able to keep my head in battle instead of behind a piece of paper or in my computer, and I think this improved the drama of the events. The first encounter was designed as a dramatic introduction to the varying effects of magic and as an opportunity to get the PCs working together, but it also succeeded in acquainting everyone with the pace of gameplay and mechanics of combat.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I want to read playtest reports from ballsier players. Not these guys who wander stunned and anemic through the GM's plot, killing any monsters that pop up and reading NPCs' expressions. I want to know what onus is placed on the system and the GM when the party Paladin marches up, knocks the torch out of the priest's hand, and demands an accounting of what is going on. I.E., enters a totally unplanned social conflict, potentially with some VERY interesting stakes.

Note here that I am referring to the old-school champion of law and good Paladin who I guess isn't necessarily the case. Although any Paladin dedicated to some permutation of law or good could decide to intercede and check for the right balance of justice and law before standing by to roast weenies over the witch-burning.

I don't think you can properly stress-test a system without a group of PCs who are dedicated to getting in there and wrecking shop. Seriously. It's dealing with the unexpected that shows you how on-the-fly friendly a set of rules is.

 

[catsclaw227]

Yea, I would like to see some playtest reports like this too. I wonder if WOTC will print any playtest reports from the RPGA members?

 

[Celebrim]

Most importantly, he describes how much easier it was for him to run a 4e combat:

It's difficult for me to imagine a combat at 1st level that is actually hard to run. In particular, there are few monsters in the game that are less complex than goblins, skeletons, and zombies. The stat blocks for those three monsters are so short, its difficult to imagine what you could take out to make them simplier. All three are almost completely generic. The only complexity of the goblin is that they have several skills and a variaty of weapons, but the skills played no role in this encounter and they appear to have been unarmed (some sort of bite attack?). In 3.X, the only complexity of the zombie is knowing what a partial charge is and remembering thier DR. The only complexity of a skeleton is its DR. Even in 3.X, I could run this combat out of my head without looking at a book and without notes.

I'll be much more impressed when the combat complexity involves say: 6 Ogre barbarians, a Troll Druid, a Dire Bear animal companion, a Half-Fiend Troll Cleric, and Troll with a Ghast template. And I'll only believe it when I see a round by round example of play for a fight of that complexity. Until then, this sort of 'Gee, I ran one of the most trivial combats in the game and it went really smoothly', not only grates as talking points but turns me off because it makes the designers sound like idiots. Surely they didn't actual think the problem with 3.X is that fights with zombies, skeletons, goblins and low level PC's were too complicated?

 

[KarinsDad]

Saying it's a "waste of space" may be a little harsh, considering that: a) it is digital and space is negligable and b) he clearly stated, before describing the playtest, and after the Player/PC intro:

Them telling me that they are not going to tell me anything worthwhile is a waste of space.

By waste of space, I mean waste of my time reading it. It's nothing new. It's nothing exciting. It's not crunch. It's time wasting fluff. Again, IMO.

That said, I saw some inferences to crunchy stuff, but admittedly one needs to look hard. There's mention of terrain affecting the encounter, 1st level (assuming, 1st level) critical hits not killing PCs, Dwarf Rogue (with a great axe) using movement and flanking, wizard supporting with precision and accuracy of arcane powers (blasts, similar to ranged touch?)

Most importantly, he describes how much easier it was for him to run a 4e combat:

Nearly all of these are inferences that we already have in other playtest reports and other sources or even common sense.

There's no meat and potatoes here, just the plate.

 

[KarinsDad]

Until then, this sort of 'Gee, I ran one of the most trivial combats in the game and it went really smoothly', not only grates as talking points but turns me off because it makes the designers sound like idiots. Surely they didn't actual think the problem with 3.X is that fights with zombies, skeletons, goblins and low level PC's were too complicated?

Precisely.

It's interesting that Greg Bilsland gave us the WotC job titles of the players, but not his job title. Regardless, they shouldn't just let anyone post a Playtest Report who ran a single session.

Greg started working at WotC in August. It's pretty obvious to me that he shouldn't be doing this level of work yet.

Usually, I try not to diss people, but this was just awful from what I as a customer want to read from a Playtest Report IMO and did not belong on their web page. I hate wasting my time.

He mentioned in his blog that he wrote two playtest reports (session one and session two), but I hope he reads this and rewrites the second one if he doesn't have some real crunch in it. I for one do not read the Playtests for fluff. I create the fluff for my game, I want WotC to create most of the crunch.

He also mentioned in his blog that WotC wants to control what is mentioned in the blogs. I suspect that Greg is just the new guy on the team and he is being overly cautious with crunch because he is afraid he will give too much away. I suggest that he write more crunch in his next playtest and then have a senior guy at WotC review it before it gets posted.

 

[fuindordm]

You know what I really like about this playtest report?

As a DM, I like to think about how to encourage coherent parties. I've played in games where everyone came from the same village, where most were of the same race, where people were members of a guild... but all too often, the characters feel like their association is forced.

Greg just described a method I hadn't thought of before: by chance, the PCs are all witnesses to (and affected) by an extremely traumatic event. That is the kind of thing that forges bonds between people even when they have nothing in common, and quite often the influence of the tragedy survives long enough to create real friendships.

What a great way of instilling mutual loyalty in a bunch of randomly created 1st level PCs!

 

[Celebrim]

Greg just described a method I hadn't thought of before: by chance, the PCs are all witnesses to (and affected) by an extremely traumatic event. That is the kind of thing that forges bonds between people even when they have nothing in common, and quite often the influence of the tragedy survives long enough to create real friendships.

What a great way of instilling mutual loyalty in a bunch of randomly created 1st level PCs!

Doesn't work. If the players don't agree to accept the metagame implication that there characters are fated to work together, then nothing the DM can do can force the party to work together.

In this case, alot of metagaming was going on. The PC's picked each other out of a large crowd, as if they knew which members of the crowd were important. And the PC's agreed to go along with the plot.

As others have pointed out, things could have gotten 'humorous' in a hurry if the players interpreted events differently or even if interpreting them correctly felt that their character would react to the situation differently. Without some metagaming or some railroading by the DM, this party could have fairly easily come to blows in this situation with some members of the party siding with the woman about to be executed and others siding with the apparantly legitimate authorities.

 

[WyzardWhately]

In this case, alot of metagaming was going on. The PC's picked each other out of a large crowd, as if they knew which members of the crowd were important.

Well, I think the crowd was mostly peasants. So, they probably could have picked each other out by being A) Armed and B) Not covered in livestock byproduct.