D&D 4E Things I Learned From 4e

[NewJeffCT]

This, 1000 times this.

I largely agree with everything KM has stated.

What I would like to see, as others have mentioned, is a system for handling out of combat encounters that is as robust as the combat system. I do agree that the combat system can be pared WAY down. We don't need that many status effects. Cut that down significantly and then give me a system for handling the other aspects of the game - exploration and the talky bits.

It's pretty sad that the rules surrounding initiative in D&D have always been longer than the rules for determining whether or not you can change somone's opinion of you.

While I agree with you on a more robust system for exploration, I'm not really sure how you can put the "talky bits" into firm rules, as I've started threads on Diplomacy and other social skills in the past, and it's not something where people have a lot of agreement on how to resolve it.

What I think would help would be a more robust, yet easier to implement, skill challenge system. I like the concept of skill challenges, but unless they're fleshed out in the module/adventure, I really have trouble with coming up with a skill challenge that doesn't seem forced.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

While I agree with you on a more robust system for exploration, I'm not really sure how you can put the "talky bits" into firm rules, as I've started threads on Diplomacy and other social skills in the past, and it's not something where people have a lot of agreement on how to resolve it.

What I think would help would be a more robust, yet easier to implement, skill challenge system. I like the concept of skill challenges, but unless they're fleshed out in the module/adventure, I really have trouble with coming up with a skill challenge that doesn't seem forced.

I htink that the problem is that generally the PCs get to talks to the Duke. In the fiction and reality nobody got to talk to the Duke with out talking to pretty much all his flunkeys and getting them onboard first.
Now nobody really has the time to roleplay 50 encounters at parties, court sessions and what not with every flunkey. So some way of meausring the sucesses of the trivial encounters, with the option to play out all or some in full combined with a way that is more engaging than a skill challange.
In a movie or video game it might be done as a bunch of short cut scenes.
In a ttrpg there need to be someway spend and accumulate the necessary social resources to overcome the obstacles. In the final audience with the Duke the deal is pretty much done only the degree of cooperation is to be decided.
At least that is what I would imagine as rules for the "talky bits".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I lke most of 4e,
I have no issues with the encounter, I like a reliable measure of what is balanced but it should be clear that is it ok to throw unbalance encounters in hte way also. Some discussion of playstyles that involve that should be in the DM advice.
I do think that 4e combat could be a little more swingy. I have no problem with combat as swingy as 3e sans save or suck effects.
DM advice either in the DM books or preferably in the adventure notes should indicate how the natives in a location react to interlopers. Will they get reinforcements, or run. Encourage DM's to cause loosing monsters to flee to their buddies down the corridor.

I really like the self contained monster statblock and the general ease of prep in 4e.

I have no real problem with powers but I would prefer if all powers scaled by tier or level

I would prefer if there were no dependancies on magic items but the items having wierd wacky and frackly unbalancing powers. However, the default would be that a character would get no more than a couple of magic items in the course of their career.

Liked artifacts and really liked rituals though I would advocate the existance of holding the ritual in a near complete state to be completed later. Either by creation of consumables for minor effects or by sacrificing other powers or options.

From KM's list;
I htink that the encounter adventrure issues could be addresses by better DM advice in the module about how the inhabitants of a location
react ot the actions of the PC's

I do not share his concern on doing more than fight things and I really like 4e combat. I find it very cinematic.

I see his point on the powers and like the idea of powersfrom a source being pooled in common. I would go further that powers would be pooled by source and role and that role be independant from class.

By that I mean, a rogue someone that has a specialisation in breaking into places. A stricker is a character that specialises in high damage output. So the class would be fighting man, but one could be a defender and another a striker and a third be a controller and all have the skills in breaking in to secure places. the magic User could be combat controller with a sideline in wilderness survival.

I agree on treasure, less of it but more dramatic effects.

Not sure what the issue is with monsters.

 

[Hussar]

This highlights a lesson I learned from 4e and 3e: I don't want to play any RPG that makes me feel like I ought to be using a computer at the game table (or even for chargen).

OTOH, I have no real interest in NOT using the tools at hand.

Early games didn't incorporate computers because they simply weren't available. But, you certainly saw calculators at the table (depending on the system, it might have been pretty necessary - try calculating the volume of a 1e fireball in your head. )

Like it or not, it's pretty rare for a group not to have access to a computer and, going forward, a smart phone or tablet. They're just that ubiquitous. So, why not design to that?

Heck, I'd love to see an RPG where you can buy sections in micro-payments where I buy Options A, B, and C, and they are sent to my Iphone in epub format so I can read them at my leisure and have them link to my D&D App so I can create characters based on those options.

 

[WuM1nG]

Ultimately, DnD is about rolling a d20, adding or subtracting some numbers, and hoping to hit some set number to achieve something. In essence, its simple: rolling one die to determine the outcome of your action. I vastly like the beauty of this versus other roll-many-dice to achieve something systems.

The rules serve to help the DM determine what numbers are best to give as modifiers. The more rules there are, the more factors there are to consider. Some people like the system to tell them what numbers to use, others prefer to make it up on the fly. Even in this thread you can see everyone wants something slightly different from each other.

I myself am abit skeptical of people that want things to be simpler. Crys of "dumbing down" the game would appear, probably louder than those that support simplicity. The simplest would be just rolling d20s and the DM announcing whether you hit or not based on his arbitary judgement. That's simple, but would it be fun? Status effects are also what makes the combat interesting. If all you did was damage, would it be fun? If there was only slide, prone and combat advantage, would it be fun? I think not.

The crux is logistics, and how people track things. Some boardgames have good bits for tracking various status effects, which can be co-opted but then people would complain its becoming to boardgamey. Cards are a good way of condensing information, yet people see it and cry oh noes my RPG is now a card game. These are merely ways of tracking information, and really good ways too. It could be interesting if wixards sold packs of status effects, monsters with art, items with art, powers etc in fixed format packs together with the books.. But I digress

In short, I don't believe a simpler game would be all that fun, and complexity has to be managed not just by the publishers of the rules, but on the part of the players (and the willingness to adapt!) as well

 

[I'm A Banana]

Another one popped into my head today:

• I like playing "Zero to Hero" more than I like playing "Hero to Superhero." Levels 1-10 should be the "shoe-shiner"/"rat-catcher"/"beet-farmer" levels...the "mundane" tier. Then you have a "heroic" tier kick in at level 11-20, and an "epic" tier kick in at 21+. I want to struggle for my reward and grow into a hero, not be an assumed badass from day one. Those who want to start the game as heroes can start at level 10 (or whatever).

I endorse these opinions, and want to sign up to your newsletter. But I think you know that already, eh?

Dude, you and me gotta have beers or something sometime.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I learned:
I really like complex tactical combats.
They can take time if they provide a challenge. I enjoy the minitua. Choosing the right power, against the right enemy, in the right time.

I want combats to be meaningful integrated into the story.
Complex tactical combats are more awesome if they are fully integrated in the story. They sholud not just be "kill these 5 Goblins, than kill these 9 Goblins, than kill these 2 Orcs and 4 Goblins, than a little story development, than 5 Hobgoblins, then 3 Hobgoblins and 4 Goblins".
Even if every of these encounters comes with a cool environment with interesting tactical options, I need each of them to be linked with a meaningful story advancements.

Sometimes, I wouldn't mind short combats:
If you really need to have those 5 goblin encounters in a row - well, maybe it's okay to make them short. But don't make them pointless. I still want to make a meaningful decision that has some impact.

I like (abstract)resource managenent
I really don't care about counting ammunition or how many nails or daily rations I have.
But I like resources like action points, spells, encounter powers, hit points, healing surges and what ever else game systems had to offer. I like this type of resource management.

I want treasure that's not just +x.
Get really really rid of it. It sucks. If you have these in your games, they become mandatory. You must make them part of your "math". And that sucks. Get rid of it. Give us interesting powers, special abilities, properties, whatever. Design the game that if you don't have the items, you can still have useful powers, special abilities and properties from another source. But then create items that give you interesting abilities that actually give the character flavor. That makes a Fighter with a Flaming Longsword feel different from a Fighter that uses a regular one.
(This goes beyond inherent enhancement bonuses. THis is about having a non-item alternative to a Flaming Longswords daily ability to deal 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends), in 4E terms.)

The reward in having that Flaming Longsword is not that you're a better fighter that deals more damage and hits better. The reward is that you're a Fighter that uses fire and flames as part of his combat techniques, that the sword keeps you actually warm at night, that the sword gives you control over flames, that people start associating you with that sword and your power over fire.

 

[Iosue]

Somethings I learned from 4e -

- Feats are like Communism. Good on paper, oppressive in reality.

- I love free form play. I don't want or need lots of skills, nor do I necessarily want to use dice outside of combat. I like the d20 mechanic, I like pg. 42, I like to make it up as I go along, as a player and a DM. This aspect of 4e renewed my interest in Basic D&D, which led me to reread some of the old editions, which led me to this conclusion:

- I don't need nor want three think hard cover books. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone really needs them. I read the 2e's books after reading BECM, and over and over in my head I was thinking, "Get on with it!" So many of the same basic rules, but so needlessly complicated in 2e, and with so much extra blah, blah, blah. And it's a trend that's continued from 2e to 3e to 4e. Everything I needed to know about the rules of 4e was in the Starter Set. DM advice, optional rules for combat and non-combat situations, let that all come in separate books.

 

[jbear]

I learned from 4e:

I never want to have to go back and look at a book to make a ruleing during play: Clean clear logical rules/numbers that I can easily remember off the top of my head or guess at but remain fair. Great stuff. Having to figure out the DC for scaling a wet rock face with a strong northerly blowing ... no thanks. Easy, Medium, Hard ... that's all I need to go on.

I don't like Wizards with crossbows: At will spells are great, and make sense. A wizard with a crossbow does not. Characters should be able to do what they do. I love the idea of at will powers. I don't wnat to see this feature go.

I don't like Wizards with 1 hp: I remember 'selling' the awesomeness of playing a wizard to a new player. "Once you hit lvl5 you'll be awesome ... until then ... blush*" I remember zero to hero with a certain degree of nostalgia. Build the option. Don't force it on all of us please. I like my heroes heroic. I don't like someone sitting in the back accumulatin xp til the are reborn as a god.

I like fighters/bards/monks that aren't a crap option: I like balanced classes. Sure make them different, flavorsome. That's fine. But they should remain equally as good as the other. Every option should be a good option.

I hate the rat but I love a swarm of them: Swarms are cool. I remember playing an adventure with a group of players new to rpg. I acutely remember the disgust of the barbarian who failed a number of rolls against a diseased rat and his absolute exasperation as he failed to accept that his mighty warrior couldn't just stamp on the rat with his foot and be done with it. Now a swarmof a hundred or so rats. Much easier to imagine the difficulty to deal with such a threat.

I love my PCs opening a door to find 30 bad guys in the room, and they all draw their weapons ...!!!: Yep, I loves me some minions.

I love tactical combat where terrain is exciting, dynamic and meaningful: Sure, make combat fast and slick. But don't lose what has been won. Meaningful interaction with terrain is awesome. 20 ft by 20 ft stone rooms and fights in 5ft wide passages are not.

Saying YES is awesome!!!: My players can have an input!!! What!!?? That was my first reaction. I have since learned, saying yes (usually yes, but... but sometimes just yes) makes the game experience so much better for everyone at the table. Thank you 4e for teaching me that. It's the most important thing I have learnt during my years of DMing

I can name heaps more stuff, positive stuff, but I must be away. So, a few negatives.

I want interesting equipment and magical items. I'm not so much interested in the + on the sword, i want it to be awesome, memorable, special. I don't want it to break the game. If this means less stuff, no problem.

I want interesting features related to my charcter to do outside of combat: Self explanatory, but I don't want combat to be the be all and end all of the game.

More later!

 

[buzz]

Like it or not, it's pretty rare for a group not to have access to a computer and, going forward, a smart phone or tablet. They're just that ubiquitous. So, why not design to that?

I spend enough of my day staring at a monitor or interacting with pictures under glass. I don't want playing D&D to be become yet another activity where I have to do this. IMO, RPGs as a whole will be far more appealing by differentiating themselves from this narrow scope of interactions. (If I wanted a computerized D&D-like experience, I'd be playing WoW.)

Not that tools to enhance the experience shouldn't exist, of course. But the game itself should focus on being one played with paper, pencils, dice, and one's imagination.