Spinachcat
First Post
So I cornered a 4e playtester and offered him a choice of waterboarding or spilling the beans on 4e. After the waterboarding, I asked him again.
Most of his beans was stuff you have already seen via ENworld. Nothing interesting on the mechanics front and I didn't care about the fiddly bits. I quizzed him A LOT on the roleplaying aspects of 4e. I have read too much "4e is a boardgame" so I wanted to get the skinny on the talky-talky part of 4e gameplay.
He knows I like B/X & OD&D because its fast and freeform where player creativity trumps rules. My soggy playtester claims that 4e is extremely roleplay friendly and player creativity is highly rewarded via the use of raw abilities and skill challenges. Overall, he says there is a "that's cool, do it!" mentality to how the rules are presented. His descriptions reminded me a lot of Roll & Keep games like L5R and 7th Sea - not the mechanics, but that combo of cool idea + appropriate modifier + dice roll vs. target number where the cool idea was the key component.
The examples he gave me did not impress...at first. They were anything that I could do in OD&D. However, they were notable when viewed through a RAW 3.x filter. Sure, there are 3.X GMs who hand wave and go off the rules reservation, but he claims 4e creates a rules flexibility that encourages players to "try stuff" outside of their at-will powers, especially in the creative use of skills. I guess some people (especially noobs) need that concrete statement that says you can go beyond the 5 x 5 squares. In essence, 4e makes skill results flexible based on the story more than DC X = defined effect.
He claims the DMG goes into detail to help GMs feel more comfortable using this flexibility in their games. I asked how it compared to the C&C siege engine. He said similiar, but different - slightly more codified because of the PCs had skill numbers instead of just raw ability scores. But most importantly, the playtester says his group is spending significantly more time in actual roleplay than in 3.x. Though this is largely because 4e leans more heavily on its core mechanic with fewer "wonky bits" so there is much less time wasted looking through rulebooks per session.
He made much blather about how 4e felt like OD&D. I told him to lay off the bongwater. 4e is obviously much higher fantasy and much more codified. Unaligned dragonborn warlocks with 40 HP at 1st level isn't OD&D. He agreed, but said that he was having more fun playing D&D than ever. He says his games are consistently enjoyable and challenging. He was smiling like a complete goober throughout the conversation so I believe that he is getting a similiar feeling from 4e compared to his nostalgia about his early gaming.
We also talked about team synergy because I have heard about a surprising number of TPKs at DDXP. His take is that 4e will be one of those "easy to learn, hard to master" games where the learning curve is very easy at the start, but as both the players and the GM learn more about tactics and synergy of abilities through experience, the game will grow in intensity. He says the DMG emphasizes repeatedly that combat is not DM vs. PCs, but it sure looks like a pretty straight up smash up to the death.
The playtester babbled on about multiple TPKs and how it came down to the GM using skirmish tactics and playing his monsters smartly for their roles. Interactive environments are pushed much more than ever before. 4e seems to like the concept that the battlefield environment is a monster in itself. How well a party works as a team and how well they manipulate the battlefield supposedly means much more than your powers or magic trinkets.
Sounds good to me. Except OD&D can be played without a board. My playtester said you can play 4e w/o a grid as well as you could in 3e. For that, I dunked him back underwater because you gotta bastardize 3e to run w/o a grid. I have done it, but I houseruled AOOs and all feats that affected AOOs. Once allowed to breathe air again, the playtester agreed. 4e is very focussed on 3D strategy for combat. No doubt. Tactical movement is deeply emphasized, chopping that out is doable, but WotC isn't joking. They want you to buy minis and their dungeon tiles. Not essential to play like Descent, but core to gameplay in a way at least equal to 3.x.
Most of his beans was stuff you have already seen via ENworld. Nothing interesting on the mechanics front and I didn't care about the fiddly bits. I quizzed him A LOT on the roleplaying aspects of 4e. I have read too much "4e is a boardgame" so I wanted to get the skinny on the talky-talky part of 4e gameplay.
He knows I like B/X & OD&D because its fast and freeform where player creativity trumps rules. My soggy playtester claims that 4e is extremely roleplay friendly and player creativity is highly rewarded via the use of raw abilities and skill challenges. Overall, he says there is a "that's cool, do it!" mentality to how the rules are presented. His descriptions reminded me a lot of Roll & Keep games like L5R and 7th Sea - not the mechanics, but that combo of cool idea + appropriate modifier + dice roll vs. target number where the cool idea was the key component.
The examples he gave me did not impress...at first. They were anything that I could do in OD&D. However, they were notable when viewed through a RAW 3.x filter. Sure, there are 3.X GMs who hand wave and go off the rules reservation, but he claims 4e creates a rules flexibility that encourages players to "try stuff" outside of their at-will powers, especially in the creative use of skills. I guess some people (especially noobs) need that concrete statement that says you can go beyond the 5 x 5 squares. In essence, 4e makes skill results flexible based on the story more than DC X = defined effect.
He claims the DMG goes into detail to help GMs feel more comfortable using this flexibility in their games. I asked how it compared to the C&C siege engine. He said similiar, but different - slightly more codified because of the PCs had skill numbers instead of just raw ability scores. But most importantly, the playtester says his group is spending significantly more time in actual roleplay than in 3.x. Though this is largely because 4e leans more heavily on its core mechanic with fewer "wonky bits" so there is much less time wasted looking through rulebooks per session.
He made much blather about how 4e felt like OD&D. I told him to lay off the bongwater. 4e is obviously much higher fantasy and much more codified. Unaligned dragonborn warlocks with 40 HP at 1st level isn't OD&D. He agreed, but said that he was having more fun playing D&D than ever. He says his games are consistently enjoyable and challenging. He was smiling like a complete goober throughout the conversation so I believe that he is getting a similiar feeling from 4e compared to his nostalgia about his early gaming.
We also talked about team synergy because I have heard about a surprising number of TPKs at DDXP. His take is that 4e will be one of those "easy to learn, hard to master" games where the learning curve is very easy at the start, but as both the players and the GM learn more about tactics and synergy of abilities through experience, the game will grow in intensity. He says the DMG emphasizes repeatedly that combat is not DM vs. PCs, but it sure looks like a pretty straight up smash up to the death.
The playtester babbled on about multiple TPKs and how it came down to the GM using skirmish tactics and playing his monsters smartly for their roles. Interactive environments are pushed much more than ever before. 4e seems to like the concept that the battlefield environment is a monster in itself. How well a party works as a team and how well they manipulate the battlefield supposedly means much more than your powers or magic trinkets.
Sounds good to me. Except OD&D can be played without a board. My playtester said you can play 4e w/o a grid as well as you could in 3e. For that, I dunked him back underwater because you gotta bastardize 3e to run w/o a grid. I have done it, but I houseruled AOOs and all feats that affected AOOs. Once allowed to breathe air again, the playtester agreed. 4e is very focussed on 3D strategy for combat. No doubt. Tactical movement is deeply emphasized, chopping that out is doable, but WotC isn't joking. They want you to buy minis and their dungeon tiles. Not essential to play like Descent, but core to gameplay in a way at least equal to 3.x.
