Playtest report: Hanging on a fence

[Carnivorous_Bean]

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

Another attitude I just don't get. D&D has always been "gamist" -- at least this edition, and 3e, have rules that encourage a bit of role-playing. Do you realize that in the Ultimate Sacred Cow, the 1st edition DMG, there's an assassination table that gives a matrix between the level of the target and the amount of gold you spend, and a flat percent chance that the target is killed?

A vast amount of role-playing and adventure potential, reduced to a single, dull roll that gives an "unavoidable insta-kill" result, to boot.

At least the 'new gamism' allows your characters to do something other than stand there like a rubber Godzilla slugging away and going, "I hit. I miss. I hit. I miss."

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

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 negotioation 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.

I don't think you're ever going to get a system that causes you to spontaneously role-play. The keyword here is spontaneous -- that is, it's up to you, not the system, which by its very nature is a non-sentient, purely reactive entity, if you will.

 

[ppaladin123]

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.

Spontaneous role playing requires a bit of comfort with the rules, I think. Maybe you were all just focused on figuring out abilities, combat rules, etc.

 

[Dave Turner]

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 ....

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Novem5er]

Last night I played my first full battle of the new D&D Miniatures game, and if the RPG combat system plays anything like the minis game, I think us fans of tactical combat will be in for a treat.

For those not in the know, the miniatures rules and the RPG combat rules are very similar. There aren't any Second Winds, there's no Skill challenges, and each mini only has 1 or 2 options, however there are many similarities:

- movement (diagonals count as 1)
- static defenses (as opposed to Saving Throws)
- powers and attacks are clearly defined
- monsters and "players" each felt "special" due to powers
- much synergy between different minis

My friend and I had a great time at it and were VERY impressed at the breadth of options and tactics for a cheap, pre-painted minis game.

HOWEVER (and the reason I'm posting this here)....

Being a miniatures battle game.... it DID feel like a board game. No duh, right?

Well, if you ran a 4e preview game that focused solely on combat, then you would basically be playing DDM with expanded rules (second wind, /encounter powers, etc). Now, the combat rules so far are great, but if they were the basis of a 4e experience, then I could understand the "weirdness" and maybe even feeling a little hollow. Playing the DDM has definitely left me intrigued... but I'll have to see how a full RP session works out. I hope that Keep on the Shadowfell has some RP and skill challenges included.

Somebody mentioned that their experience with 4e so far felt a lot like those Japanese video game RPGs, where they walk around on a world map and then zoom-in to a battle scene for combat. I'd never thought about that, but it's true.

When you RP without miniatures, it's an easy transition from RP to combat. Roll Initiative! That's it.

With a mini-heavy combat system, the game interface changes. It will be interesting to feel this transition in action... completely cerebral roleplaying (with a few dice thrown in) and then suddenly "zooming in" to a tactical combat map with visual minis and "game" mechanics like spaces and squares. It might take my group some getting used to.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I don't think you're ever going to get a system that causes you to spontaneously role-play. The keyword here is spontaneous -- that is, it's up to you, not the system, which by its very nature is a non-sentient, purely reactive entity, if you will.

Yes I concede. I was being unfair.

 

[Stoat]

For the folks experiencing a "zoom to arena" effect, did you use minis in previous editions? If so, how often and for what purpose did you use them? If you used minis, did you experience a similar "zoom" effect in previous editions?

 

[Grogtard]

I too volunteered to do a little demo using the fan created material available. Over all most of our group is in the wait and see camp as far as 4th Edition goes. Personally, I also wanted to test it out because the next campaign I run will probably be fantasy and I’m still deciding what game system to use but more on that later.

The players chose the Dwarf fighter, the Teifling wizard, the Halfling paladin and the Half-Elf warlock. First, the kobolds. The PC’s blew right through them no problem at all. Then they faced some orcs. These were much tougher. The orcs even managed to kill the Dwarf fighter. Then there was the dragon. It killed the Halfling paladin and the rest of the PC’s just ran away.

Some have said that 4th Edition doesn’t “feel” like D&D but an MMO or a board game. In general folks, thought, it was similar enough to 3.5 that the changes really didn’t change the feel of the game too much to us. Some have complained that diagonal movement counting one dumbs down the game. It just makes it a little quicker to move. The real quickness, we thought came from the no confirmation needed crits with max damage. The players liked the at-will, per encounter and per day powers and that they really gave the fighter types more options in combat. The Healing Surges and Second Wind mechanics were given a luke warm reception. Folks just thought the concepts were alien to the old ways and just didn’t quite make sense as to how they worked. Not so much the game mechanics of them but what it reflects in the concept of the world. The most positive comments came from the player who chose the wizard. He’s one of our regular DM’s and by far the member of the group who know the 3.5 rules better than anyone else. He really liked the at-will powers of the wizard. No more, “I cast my couple of spells and now I’m done for the day.” He also mentioned that it is refreshing and was getting a little bored with 3.5

Our group discussed 4th Edition a little more. We talked about how we’ve all spent a butt load of money on all our old 3.5 books and hated to have them just become relics on a book shelf. Folks liked the new way that the monsters were designed especially that some monsters were specifically designed to be solo monsters. We really had to get used to the new use of Action Points. We liked the simplified Minor-Move-Standard Action rounds. It made things simpler and we really didn’t have to think about what kind of action does doing X take. It was very intuitive. Unfortunately, there weren’t any magic items to preview, the players really wanted a quick preview on how they will work now.

The general consensus was that 4th Edition will be a decent game but it’s nothing really ground breaking.

 

[Frostmarrow]

For the folks experiencing a "zoom to arena" effect, did you use minis in previous editions? If so, how often and for what purpose did you use them? If you used minis, did you experience a similar "zoom" effect in previous editions?

We had the zoom to arena effect in 3E too. It was sort of introduced with the new encounter format. I don't remember feeling it before that. I don't know if this is going to be a big deal. As I said, 4E is what I have been wishing for and I really really want to like it.

I'm going to try another playtest, this time without minis and see if still runs. I think it will.

 

[Fobok]

I really think part of the reason you lacked spontaneous roleplay, and the whole boardgame feel in general, doesn't come from the rules... it comes from the fact that you're using pregenerated characters. Spontaneous roleplay happens when players are attached to their characters, in the mind of their characters. When you use pregenerated characters, it *is* like a boardgame. It's like saying "Do you want the shoe, the thimble, or the cannon?" in Monopoly, just with a little more effect on the game.