• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Playtest report: Hanging on a fence

Frostmarrow

First Post
Being a 4on

For months my custom title has been "I'm a 4on". So far I've like most of what I've heard and I look forward to a new edition. There is stuff in 3E that I'm not enjoying at all. My dream game consists of a tight, no nonsese, tactical game (with or without minis) framed by a free form role-playing experience.

Saturday brunch

Me and my gaming buddies have brunch on saturdays. Usually we discuss car models, sports, global politics, and we always make room for a rather one-sided Linus vs Windows debate. As Larry finished up I took the opportunity to whip out a couple of 4E character sheets (from D&D Experience). My buddies seemed to like what they saw. We discussed basic game changes and everybody was happy. I managed to lure two of them, John and George, to our gaming den for a brief playtest.

Gamers being gamers

By now it's noon and we have five hours to spare before our regularly scheduled game of WFRP: Barony of The Damned-game. Since I have two players we decide John and George will play two characters each. John chose the dwarven fighter and the tiefling warlock. George picked the halfling paladin and the human cleric. I browse the Raiders of Oakhurst Reloaded in search of the first encounter at the stone table, this being the first room in D&D Experience (from my understanding). It's a basic welcome-adventurers kind of encounter.

DMing being an absolute breeze

Without any preparation and being equipped with the excellent preview material from Verys Arkon's thread I managed to present a paced and exciting game (with accurate rule details). I've got to hand this to the designers: 4E is an amazingly good tactical game. Easy to govern and action packed.

In to the fray

Through a narrow winding passage the characters reached a large chamber full of kobold minions hellbent for destruction. Even though the entrance was rather crowded all characters had options an no one had to wait. The fight was rather easy. George mentioned that his characters seemed invinsible, what with the second wind and stuff. He did agree that his paladin was down on his knees but he still had the feeling that the characters were better than in previews editions. We attributed this to the new math. John had great fun mowing through minions with the dwarven fighter. Even though more monsters (with unique stats) arrived as reinforcements I found the whole thing very easy to DM. I didn't find challenge-marks cluttering the game at all. (Something I've feared it would do). However, by the end of this encounter I began feeling exhausted, almost fed up with the game. I don't know why and the players agreed that they were feeling weary too.

Invinsibles getting squashed

I decided to soldier on. Somehow I imagine 4E will be a short-session game. Say 3-4 hours long. Compare this to our WFRP-game were we typically go on for 6 hours or more. The initial encounter lasted two hours and I wanted to try what happens when the game turn against the players. Enter Nightscale. Young Black Dragon Solo Lurker. The alarm was raised and the party entered her lair (feauring an underground lake). Nightscale got the drop on the characters.

At this time John had traded the tiefling warlock for the eladrin ranger and George traded the halfling paladin for the half-elf wizard. They fought bravely but were no match for Nightscale. Her defenses were simply to high. I think they managed to chip away some 40 hp worth of damage (of 280). Nightscale on the other hand had no trouble recharging her acid breath and use her action points to reach out and bite attacks. She tail-slashed fervently and brought down darkness on everybody. She was unstoppable. Within rounds the entire party was wiped out. But the players didn't mind at all. They liked the new saving throw mechanic and they enjoyed being humbled by a superior adversary. I found it intuitive and fun to run Nightscale as all her abilities were laid out before me in a neat, easy to read stat block. I had the means (action points) to utilise every trick she had in her repertoir.

Summing up

As I said, 4E turned out to be tireing but still it was fun. When we had finished we all had a sense of weirdness. "This is not D&D. This is not role-playing at all." It was like being a wrestler and a new set of rules turned your sport into boxing. I decided there and then to cancel my pre-order. I had not expected this. We went on to play WFRP and had a blast. Still, now one day later I find myself typing the longest post I've done in ages. Why? Because I'm intrigued. There is something with 4E that makes me curious. I'm not cancelling my preorder. In fact I plan on writing an adventure for it just to explore the game further. Will D&D replace our WFRP? No. Will we still be playing D&D for the next ten years? Perhaps.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Lurks-no-More said:
Interesting!

Can you elaborate on the weirdness part?

It was like being invited to a family with a different culture from yours. "You guys acutally eat this?!"
We found random splashes of leadership very strange. "So the cleric attacks I get better AC?!"

Also, the tactical game plays like a board game. Most of the time when we play RPGs we enter combat and fight for a few rounds before we bother to place minis on the table. In 4E it seems you need to set the table before initiative is rolled. It's like those weird Japanese computer games where you walk around on a map with your avatar and everytime combat is joined an arena loads up. It's like discussing with friends in the hall and then suddenly a janitor shows up and shoves you into a conference room.

Another thing that I'm trying to wrap my brain around is the the balanced classes. They all do the same thing. They have different names for what they do but basically it's like Ludo where you get to go
"My dudes are blue slaadi and they travel the board by bounding. See I bound 1d6 squares."
"Oh, I have yellow hobgoblins and they travel the board by running swiftly. See they run swiftly 1d6 squares."
 

I played my first fourth edition demo yesterday, and we managed to get through about three encounters in a basic dungeon crawl in two and a half hours (not counting the time spent explaining and discussing the rules at the start). In ended in a near TPK against Nightscale (it killed half the party and the rest of us fled).

We all had fun. I didn't really get the sense that this wasn't DnD, but I suppose that's a matter of personal taste.

In 4E it seems you need to set the table before initiative is rolled

I've pretty much always run combat that, even back in second edition (though there it was just simply sketching a map).
 

Frostmarrow said:
Also, the tactical game plays like a board game.

The more I've seen of 4e, the more it reminds me of Heroquest and Warhammer Quest. I've always had a love/hate relationship with the gamist aspects of D&D and 4e seems to be pushing it all the way to 11 on the gamist side. No thanks, I did cancel my preorder.
 

Frostmarrow said:
Also, the tactical game plays like a board game. Most of the time when we play RPGs we enter combat and fight for a few rounds before we bother to place minis on the table. In 4E it seems you need to set the table before initiative is rolled. It's like those weird Japanese computer games where you walk around on a map with your avatar and everytime combat is joined an arena loads up.

Hey! I was doing that in Ultima 3 in 1985!
 

Frostmarrow said:
As I said, 4E turned out to be tireing but still it was fun. When we had finished we all had a sense of weirdness. "This is not D&D. This is not role-playing at all."

Where I find a sense of weirdness is that people run scenarios that are purely combat, with no role-playing, and then condemn the entire game, sight unseen, as not containing role-playing. It's like running a scenario that's entirely free-form negotiation, where combat is impossible, and then ditching the game because it doesn't allow tactical combat.

Just because you exclude something doesn't mean it's not there .... :confused:
 

hong said:
Hey! I was doing that in Ultima 3 in 1985!

Ahhh, yes. Wasn't the the Ultima version where you could hit an arrow key during the combat to cast a spell and a little white ball would "fly" toward your enemy in a straight line? Amazing!

Wis
 

mhensley said:
The more I've seen of 4e, the more it reminds me of Heroquest and Warhammer Quest. I've always had a love/hate relationship with the gamist aspects of D&D and 4e seems to be pushing it all the way to 11 on the gamist side. No thanks, I did cancel my preorder.

I'm sorry to hear that, mhens. Mainly because most of the stuff you post is stuff I agree with, and therefore I deduce that you're brilliant. Like you, I'm a bit leery of the "gamist" side of things. Unlike you, I'm planning on reading the books, playing the game, and determining if my uneasiness is baseless.

Just my two coppers.

Wis
 

Carnivorous_Bean said:
Where I find a sense of weirdness is that people run scenarios that are purely combat, with no role-playing, and then condemn the entire game, sight unseen, as not containing role-playing. It's like running a scenario that's entirely free-form negotiation, where combat is impossible, and then ditching the game because it doesn't allow tactical combat.

Just because you exclude something doesn't mean it's not there .... :confused:

You are right. However, if the tactical combat is devoid of sponteneous role-playing, something is amiss. To me that would be akin to complaining that a session of free-form negotiation lacked conflict.

Still, it's just a preview playtest and I'm not going to miss a chance of playing it for real once the rules proper becomes available.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top