D&D 4E WotC Greg: 4E Campaign Report Part 2

[Irda Ranger]

Nonetheless, the battle started to drag a bit.

A battle with an Angel of Vengeance was dragging? Something doesn't seem right. Seems to me than an Angle of Vengeance, if it was living up to its name, would be laying down so much smack that any battle with it would be a hectic seat-of-the-pants affair. Was it doing enough damage?

Anywho ...

What followed the battle was a surprise to me.

It usually is. Players do the darnedest things.

Because many rules and rituals are not so cut-and-dry as in 3rd edition, it leaves the DM the prerogative to do what’s best for the story.

This is welcome news. I'm glad that some DM prerogative is built into the rules.

I feel that if important personages can just be raised with a simple Raise Dead ritual, then assassination, intrigue, and even war become somewhat obsolete. With a ritualist always standing by to perform Raise Dead, it would eliminate a lot of potential plot material.

This is an old chestnut, but my answer remains the same: it doesn't just eliminate plot material, it creates lots of new plot material too. You tell different stories, but not worse or more boring ones. A little inventiveness here goes a long way.

Though, to avoid confusion, I prefer games with out (or very limited) RD/Res mechanics myself. I'm just sayin'...

sometimes it’s important to make a call for the good of the story and not for the consistency of mechanics.

Greg and me are just going to have to disagree on this one. I'm a very strong believer in "Telling stories within the framework of the rules." If players can't trust the rules to work, they become apathetic and take the attitude of "Whatever man, the DMs just gonna' do whatever he wants anyway." I hate feeling powerless like that, and I don't want my PCs to feel it either. If a DM can't find a way to tell the story he wants within the rules as-is, he needs to change the rules (in a clear manner which then becomes "the rules" going forward) or tell a different story. Breaking the rules isn't an option.

Also, I've started reading (but haven't bothered to finish) too many novels where the plot turns on a clearly false/impossible theory/fact (like London being a two-hour car ride from Edinburgh (and no, the car wasn't rocket-powered)), and felt nothing but disgust for the author, to commit the same sin. How would I live with myself? Artistically speaking, of course.

 

[Bishmon]

As much as I like these reports, I can't help but have mixed feelings about them. I just think that they're talking about their new game much, much more than they're actually showing the game, and it's getting tiresome. But the fault for that, I suppose, would fall as much on my own expectations as it would their actual handling of the promoting.

 

[keterys]

Bishmon... what other information would you expect out of a PR-limited game report? It's just a wotc employee writing about their campaign (much as you or I would, but with 500 times the attention), not an official preview.

 

[Bishmon]

Bishmon... what other information would you expect out of a PR-limited game report? It's just a wotc employee writing about their campaign (much as you or I would, but with 500 times the attention), not an official preview.

That's my point, though. We're getting all these PR-limited game reports instead of official previews of what the game is like past the first level.

That's where my frustration is coming from. I'm just getting tired of being told what the game is like when they could be showing us what the game is like. I don't want to hear about raise dead and speak with dead rituals, I want to see the rituals, any rituals, because that's presumably a key component of the game that we've been shown next-to-nothing about.

But like I said, that's as much a problem regarding my expectations than anything they're doing or not doing.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I'd love to get more official previews, definitely.

But I really like getting the personal campaign stuff _too_

As far as the fight with the angel dragging... I saw the same thing in the black dragon fight. If you have an enemy who is really hard to hit and a combat that lasts _sooo_ long that you run out of viable options, ten rounds in you end up with a lot of

A: *roll* Miss
B: *roll* Miss
C: *roll* Hit, X damage. (where X is 1/20 of its hp say)
D: *roll* Miss
E: I move over there. Then *roll* Miss

On the other hand, it's quite a bit different from how the fight would have worked in 3rd ten (or four...) rounds in

A: Dead.
B: Dead.
C: Still fleeing. Haste lasts 4 more rounds, do I see anywhere I can get to before it catches up?
D: Dead.
E: *rolls* Failed my stabilization. Got 1 more chance.

 

[hong]

A battle with an Angel of Vengeance was dragging? Something doesn't seem right. Seems to me than an Angle of Vengeance, if it was living up to its name, would be laying down so much smack that any battle with it would be a hectic seat-of-the-pants affair. Was it doing enough damage?

I had a similar experience with the black dragon in the Raiders of Oakhurst adventure. It took a surprisingly long time to do the fight, because 1) the dragon missed as much as the PCs did, 2) the damage per hit wasn't as great as might be imagined. The "shock" in 4E combat seems to be dialed down significantly compared to 3E.

Greg and me are just going to have to disagree on this one. I'm a very strong believer in "Telling stories within the framework of the rules." If players can't trust the rules to work, they become apathetic and take the attitude of "Whatever man, the DMs just gonna' do whatever he wants anyway." I hate feeling powerless like that, and I don't want my PCs to feel it either. If a DM can't find a way to tell the story he wants within the rules as-is, he needs to change the rules (in a clear manner which then becomes "the rules" going forward) or tell a different story. Breaking the rules isn't an option.

That's basically what Greg is saying. DM prerogative is now a bigger part of the framework, and hence more stories (specifically, stories that assume resurrect isn't commonly available) become possible without going outside that framework.

 

[Kishin]

Greg and me are just going to have to disagree on this one. I'm a very strong believer in "Telling stories within the framework of the rules." If players can't trust the rules to work, they become apathetic and take the attitude of "Whatever man, the DMs just gonna' do whatever he wants anyway." I hate feeling powerless like that, and I don't want my PCs to feel it either. If a DM can't find a way to tell the story he wants within the rules as-is, he needs to change the rules (in a clear manner which then becomes "the rules" going forward) or tell a different story. Breaking the rules isn't an option.

Also, I've started reading (but haven't bothered to finish) too many novels where the plot turns on a clearly false/impossible theory/fact (like London being a two-hour car ride from Edinburgh (and no, the car wasn't rocket-powered)), and felt nothing but disgust for the author, to commit the same sin. How would I live with myself? Artistically speaking, of course.

The trick is in bending rather than breaking the rules, IMO, and in not doing it so overtly that the players start to think the DM is going to just do what he wants anyway. Personally, I think twisting things a little to tell a better story is part of the job; so long as its done in moderation and doesn't invalidate the deeds of the party and/or significantly diminish their role and accomplishments.

Of course, this is all my perspective on things. I just happen to not like slavish adheration to anything. I'm in 110% agreement when it comes for things turning on impossibilities (that aforementioned London and Edinburgh grates on me tremendously as well). I don;t think its anywhere near comitting the same sin though, to make exceptions.

 

[DonAdam]

I had the same experience at DDXP with the Dragon. We beat it, but it felt like a hit point grind.

 

[Dausuul]

I had the same experience at DDXP with the Dragon. We beat it, but it felt like a hit point grind.

Damn. You actually ground down its hit points all the way to zero? Your dice must have been smoking...

 

[Voss]

Yeah, I'd love to get more official previews, definitely.

But I really like getting the personal campaign stuff _too_

As far as the fight with the angel dragging... I saw the same thing in the black dragon fight. If you have an enemy who is really hard to hit and a combat that lasts _sooo_ long that you run out of viable options, ten rounds in you end up with a lot of

A: *roll* Miss
B: *roll* Miss
C: *roll* Hit, X damage. (where X is 1/20 of its hp say)
D: *roll* Miss
E: I move over there. Then *roll* Miss

On the other hand, it's quite a bit different from how the fight would have worked in 3rd ten (or four...) rounds in

A: Dead.
B: Dead.
C: Still fleeing. Haste lasts 4 more rounds, do I see anywhere I can get to before it catches up?
D: Dead.
E: *rolls* Failed my stabilization. Got 1 more chance.

That doesn't sound like 3e to me at all. It typically went more like-
Absurdly high level monster rampages through meatshields
Wizard: SoD!
DM: saves
Cleric: SoD!
DM: saves
rampages some more
SoD #3!
saves
SoD #4!
Fails! Encounter ends...


But I'm not sure I like what 4e is producing either. We've seen glimpses of it several times now- high defenses, high hit points, absurdly mediocre offense. A grind seems to be the most likely outcome of most encounters, because we haven't been presented with any other options beyond 'carve straight through the monster's HP'. Even coup d'grace is just max damage.