D&D 4E Short pre-4e review with a question...

[That One Guy]

We continued on from the game we started last week Wednesday night. It was quite fun. The Rogue/Ranger and Paladin/Wizard bonded in character, while the cleric is winning friends with his sweet uses of Healing Words, well-placed attacks, and nuking zombie minions with Turn Undead. There was a lot of RP this last session, and a lot of fighting, and a lot of fun. Next Wednesday looks like another good session will be coming (Unless something awesome or thought-provoking happens, I probably won't post about it).

Something important I've noticed that I think 4e helps with. As a player, I always want moments when my character 'feels' like the biggest BAMF at the table (and even if it's not true, I want to always think that he is). So, on the way back from the session I polled the Rogueger and Paladinzard about how they felt. They both felt like all the time their character was the most cool and interesting one at the table. While this final effect is not absolutely limited to 4th edition, it is interesting that even when other PCs have the spotlight and are being amazing and impressive, no one is bored or saying, "My character is lame." I think third edition (and sometimes other table top games in the past) oftentimes made a player say, "Will I develop my character for RP or for In-game use?" I think 4e has allowed my players to develop their characters for both. I'm not sure if this style of play will be lost once the whole rules come out, but I don't think so. It is my opinion that 4e helps give a structure of rules for a truly fun game.

Now for my question... for those of you who have run mostly successful 4e games, does it feel like players have to choose between RP-oriented decisions or In-game-oriented decisions?

 

[Kordeth]

Now for my question... for those of you who have run mostly successful 4e games, does it feel like players have to choose between RP-oriented decisions or In-game-oriented decisions?

One of my absolute, hands-down favorite things about 4E is that I can assign whatever traits I want to my character outside of his adventuring traits, and not have to suck it up the resources I need to play the game.

As an example, in an Eberron game I played a paladin who, during his campaigning in the Last War, was known among his comrades for being a talented singer and a great lover of bawdy campfire songs. In 3E, in order to actually be a talented singer, I would have been expected to put at least a few skill points into Perform--which, given the paladin's MAD and limited skill points, basically meant sucking at Diplomacy or Religion or one of the other key paladin skills. In 4E, I can just note "good singing voice" in his background, and if that ever comes up in play and needs a roll, the fact that I get +1/2 my level to my Charisma check means that I probably am a pretty decent singer. And I don't have to choose between spending my points on RP-related background stuff or being an effective character in combat.

When I run 4E, I'll probably encourage my players to come up with a few things their characters are good at and a few things they're really bad at that aren't covered by skills or powers--and if a roll related to one of those comes up, I'll apply the DM's best friend (+2 bonus/-2 penalty).

 

[That One Guy]

Agreed. That's a pretty great paladin BG. I dig it, by the way.

I'm glad that it really seems like 4e is going towards a pretty open RP/background playability... that one's class and combat role are not who they are. Anyone else agree/disagree?