I’d like to provide a brief entrée while I’m preparing my post on the topic of the TPK. I play in an old-school D&D 4th Edition campaign. I’ve now played half a dozen sessions using the 4th edition rules (having previously played using 3.5E, 3E and 2nd ed.) and I’ve got to say that I think that with 4th edition, Wizards have outfoxed themselves. By making the game system heavily focussed around combat, and by making combat much easier to manage through the use of cards, I really haven’t engaged very much with the game system.
In 3.5 just creating a character would have had me flicking backwards and forwards through my D&D tomes, trying to find obscure passages, cross-checking feats and skill synergies. Now most people would argue this is a poor design for information, and they’d be right; but I will say that I felt a strong feeling of accomplishment by simply creating a character, and another for actually running that character through a combat (even though I would almost certainly have missed or miscalculated some bonus of other). With 4E the basic stats, a quick check of the equipment table and the cards seem like more than enough to get me through – so that’s what I’ve been doing.
Now my first two characters are dead, I have to admit that I don’t really care what my next character is – a decision I might have agonised over in 3.5 for some time, weighing options, and consulting yet more tomes. But in 4E I know that my new character will likely have very similar powers to the departed, and I just have to pick which button to press (card to play) each round - and I don’t suspect it will need much in the way of time or attention to create and run, which I suppose is a good thing, right?
I should clarify that it is early days of playing 4E and that I may yet become more attached to this sleek, plastic thing that’s eaten my old mongrel.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
One of the design goals in D&D4e is to reduce the amount of benefit that system knowledge gave to a player compared to 3e. This annoyed a lot of the skilled 3e old hats who can no longer "win" the game from PC creation, but I think it is much less intimidating to newcomers and less system orientated players as a result. As such, it gets the thumbs up from me.
ReplyDeleteAs to similarity between PCs, my experiences differ. I have found that though the base terminology of mechanics is the same for each PC and more consistent in 4e, the PCs play out considerably differently. The question in 4e is not whether or not a PC can contribute, but how the PC can best contribute. As such, all PCs are combat capable but each has a different capability.
This approach also ties into the 4e encounter design system, which is more about presenting a raft of obstacles for the entire party. If everyone can contribute but do so differently, the emphasis becomes on what obstacles the party faces. That Players now coordinate and choose which PCs face which obstacles. This team work matching process is quite different to 3e.
It is also adopted in terms of skills and rituals.
Skill challenges are now more about presenting a multi-avenue challengeusing skills to the whole party. Rather than having situations where a PC may not have any real way to contribute, 4e focusses on PCs working together to best match up their skills to the obstacles they face.
In terms of rituals, these story level effects are now open to all PCs regardless of class. Again, every PC has the opportunity to contribute to any scene, they just contribute in different ways.
Personally, I like the approach and find it healthy and encouraging in play. D&D has always been about the party and I think increased emphasis on the party is a good one. On saying that, the shift of style often garners a strong reaction when first encountered.
Great post, thanks!
ReplyDeleteIf you are correct about the design goal regarding character creation, then I think that the (expected) flood of new books containing new classes has reinforced a divide between the options available to experienced (and welathy) 4e players, and entry players.
To my mind the focus of D&D has always been combat, not party. 4E is considerably more centred around combat, and seems to have removed many of the exploring, world changing options, in favour of bringing everything into some kind of balanced combat setting.
To that end, any kind of individual character exploration and development is unsupported and potentially lethal.
As for skill challenges, I know that you like them, but the GM of my group has flatly rejected the idea as stupid and inaccessible, so I can't comment on whether they're good or not. It seems to me at the moment that less skills seems to dumb down a lot of intricate roleplaying situations.
I appreciate that you like this new balance, and many GM's I've spoken to, do, although I note that players are not always quite as accepting. Personally I'm still up in the air, and don't honestly think I can yet be objective yet. D&D will be my next TPK example.
"If you are correct about the design goal regarding character creation, then I think that the (expected) flood of new books containing new classes has reinforced a divide between the options available to experienced (and welathy) 4e players, and entry players."
ReplyDeleteNot really. 4e assumes that most D&D players will just pay the NZ$13-$14 to get permanent access to the DDI. Not only does this make PC creation leagues easier than using books with various tools for filtering options, but it gives all all players access to all the books released to date. As such, wealth isn't really a dividing factor any more.
Also, new classes aren't really an issue unless you choose to make it so. 4e's extra modularity and use of roles allows each group has a lot more say over which classes are used. For example, one group could declare a game to be Martial Power only and the game remains balanced. Removing classes in this way whilst keeping balance is something that wasn't acheiveable in earlier editions.
Finaly, IMO 4e has maintained incredible discipline in making sure that new classes are slow to be released and balanced for the most part. As such, they don't really allow for the same level of exploitability.
"To my mind the focus of D&D has always been combat, not party. 4E is considerably more centred around combat, and seems to have removed many of the exploring, world changing options, in favour of bringing everything into some kind of balanced combat setting."
Combat is pretty central too, of course. However, I don't see that diminishing the party concept. IMO it evolves the concept as discussed.
As for the removal of world changing options, yes some of these have gone especially the ones that are commonly complained about or not fun. I don't think this is just because of 4e's approach to balancing combat though. Its more a part of the overall design goal of making all PCs able to contribute on some level.
"To that end, any kind of individual character exploration and development is unsupported and potentially lethal."
I agree with this. PCs are now much more part of a group and the absence of that group is more noticeable.
For example, when I ran the all Martial Power game, the lack of a controller had an interesting yet beneficial effect. It added to the feeling of absolute chaos in the melee creating a 13th Warrior like vibe that I enjoyed a lot.
"As for skill challenges, I know that you like them, but the GM of my group has flatly rejected the idea as stupid and inaccessible, so I can't comment on whether they're good or not. It seems to me at the moment that less skills seems to dumb down a lot of intricate roleplaying situations."
That's a shame that your GM has taken that approach. I think Skill Challenges are poorly misunderstood and underestimated mechanic.
In the grand scheme of things the number of skills is only a minor factor and more a matter of personal preference than how intricate the roleplaying is. I personally like 4e's approach to skills. That is that they take place in a dynamic and interconnected environment. I have found that that environment has added intricacy to roleplaying.
The real issue IMO is over whether you buy into this new environment that 4e is selling or not.
I did break your blog :)
ReplyDelete"I appreciate that you like this new balance, and many GM's I've spoken to, do, although I note that players are not always quite as accepting. Personally I'm still up in the air, and don't honestly think I can yet be objective yet. D&D will be my next TPK example."
FWIW I am speaking both as a GM and a player. I also know a lot of players that like it too.
One thing I like about 4e though is that it is pretty transparent and upfront about what its goals are. If you don't like them, that's cool. You will likely not like 4e. Previous editions of D&D and most RPGs lack this transparency making coming to this realisation a much longer and torturous process.
Finally, on the matter of balance, I do not that 4e has balanced combat to any great degree. Skills and Rituals are less balanced as they are less defined. 4e has explicitly left greater story considerations unbalanced and untouched by the rules.
In contrast, in 3e there were feats for certain things outside of combat, like followers, influence and wealth. This meant that to acheive certain outlandish story elements, you were often oddly constrained by the rules.
So, though 4e is more balanced in terms of combat, I have found that in 4e it is much easier to deal with much more extreme examples of story elements.
Whoops, my bad typing again. The 5th paragraph should have read:
ReplyDelete"Finally, on the matter of balance, I do note that 4e has only balanced combat to any great degree. Skills and Rituals have less balanced as they are less defined. 4e has explicitly left greater story considerations unbalanced and untouched by the rules."
GrandE: "I did break your blog :)"
ReplyDeleteDamnit Luke, I just got the wrapping off!
GrandE: "Not really. 4e assumes that most D&D players will just pay the NZ$13-$14 to get permanent access to the DDI. Not only does this make PC creation leagues easier than using books with various tools for filtering options, but it gives all all players access to all the books released to date. As such, wealth isn't really a dividing factor any more."
Well, in that case I think there further assumptions which include:
- Access to a PC
- Access to an Internet Connection (presumably requiring Broadband)
- Access to recognized credit or debit facilities
- A willingness to engage with Wizards in the manner they dictate
- A willinnes to interface with material largely through an electronic format
While this may be reasonable assumptions for people living in and around urban centres in the first world I find it pretty far from a model of inclusive.
As for the necessity for new classes, sure you can confine yourself to those in the PHB, but if the game is built for party play, and you need to fill a role within a party, things can get fairly repetitive.
Personally I loved the options to fly for extended periods, or polymorph players into monsters in order to attack bad-guys from unexpected avenues, have unseen servants construct or deconstruct walls, or retreat to my minute fortress in a pocket dimension to rest up. Now that magic is built around the combat round, I feel that some of the soul is missing.
As for 4E being transparent about this; you may be right – I don’t have any choice over the system or game my GM runs. So my experience with 4E is perhaps a lot more forced and uncomfortable than your own to date.
"Well, in that case I think there further assumptions which include:"
ReplyDeleteI agree. WotC is making the first major in-roads in changing D&Ders expectations to fulfil these assumptions. It hasn't captured some people, but its been doing very well on the whole in a short space of time.
The reason for this effort is another matter entirely. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with it, but WotC clearly sees it as necessary for the continued success of RPGs in the future and I think their reasons are relatively obvious.
"While this may be reasonable assumptions for people living in and around urban centres in the first world I find it pretty far from a model of inclusive."
A vast majority of D&Ders live in urban centres in the first world. For that selection of the market outside that, 4e is similar to most other RPGs in terms of reliance on physical books. I don't see the scandal with this aspect of it.
To be honest, they have encountered more issues from grognards who don't like being asked to change any expectation they have for any reason :)
"As for the necessity for new classes, sure you can confine yourself to those in the PHB, but if the game is built for party play, and you need to fill a role within a party, things can get fairly repetitive."
This argument applies ot most RPGs. I don't think the 4e approach increases the issue by a great extent. Yes it has a more restrictive class design than 3e, but no more so than 1e or 2e.
"Personally I loved the options to fly for extended periods, or polymorph players into monsters in order to attack bad-guys from unexpected avenues, have unseen servants construct or deconstruct walls, or retreat to my minute fortress in a pocket dimension to rest up. Now that magic is built around the combat round, I feel that some of the soul is missing."
Some of these options are gone. Some options are new. Some have been altered but are essentially the same. However, many remain as Rituals.
Most non-combat D&D spells reside there. Plus any PC can access them by just spending 1 feat. These story changing abilities are no longer the monopoly of 1 or 2 classes.
"As for 4E being transparent about this; you may be right – I don’t have any choice over the system or game my GM runs. So my experience with 4E is perhaps a lot more forced and uncomfortable than your own to date."
Transparent in that it makes it clear what the game is all about and what all the bits are designed to do.
FWIW the further you move away from the game 4e is selling, the more forced and uncomfortable it will feel. Using the example you previously gave, removing skill challenges might actually be having the impact of adding more focus on combat in your game. It might also be skewing skills such that skill selection seems to be homogenous and have less impact.
GrandE: “For that selection of the market outside that, 4e is similar to most other RPGs in terms of reliance on physical books. I don't see the scandal with this aspect of it”
ReplyDeleteD&D has always had a much higher dependence on physical books than other RPG’s. I believe most RPG groups usually the only person who owns a copy of the core rules is the GM, certainly that’s been my experience, whereas D&D pretty much requires multiple copies of the PHB if the game is to run as intended.
I take you point about what Wizards is trying to do, and as a game in its own right I can see why folks like it. I can also see why groups move to Pathfinder, or keep playing 3.5 (not least because of their vast collections).
Do I dislike the Wizrds Pay-Per-View? - Yes, but everyone else in my group seems to think it's the shizzle.
All I can say is that it's still ealry days for me on 4E, and I'm sure I had some serious reservations about 3E when it came out. Thus far my only real remark is that there's just something about the powers that feels like a console game rather than a RTS game (left button punch, left button+right button fireball, both buttons together, signature move), and I'm not sure Im conmfortable with that. But then I'm probably not their target market.
Totally. 4e is pretty brutal on people who don't like the game its selling. That's a part of its transparency and honesty. If 3e is your thing, then I can totally see why people stay with it.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest advantage of the DDI is that it allows for a growing electronic database of the rules they produce. It has essentially got around the issue of incorporating errata or the physical impediment of supplement bloat.
It has been so successful that a recent survey had a majority of 4e groups using the DDI update date as the official date that a rules item could be used in their game, rather than the physical release date of the book :)
As for your "pay for view" comment, that's unfair and inaccurate. DDI isn't pay for view. You pay pay $13 and get permament access to all the PC rules information released to date (as well as all issues of Dungeon and Dragon, and all monsters to date). When your subscription ends, you can still use it all.
To be honest, all grognardia aside, its the best $13 you can spend on RPGs today IMO.
"All I can say is that it's still ealry days for me on 4E, and I'm sure I had some serious reservations about 3E when it came out. Thus far my only real remark is that there's just something about the powers that feels like a console game rather than a RTS game (left button punch, left button+right button fireball, both buttons together, signature move), and I'm not sure Im conmfortable with that. But then I'm probably not their target market."
I understand where you are coing from. However, its really a tolerance thing. Powers in 4e are a direct extension of existing 3e D&D mechanics and the direction 3e was heading. The interface with the mechanics in 4e is reminiscent of other games and I think that's entirely intentional to make it user friendly. However, IMO this interface is just part of the D&D spectrum and doesn't fundamental change the type of game it has always been.
Ah, don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of D&D under 2e, 3e or 3.5. I wouldn't play or run them by choice. It's just what these folks play; and I like to game with them and so am willing to abide D&D's tactical nonsense. Over time though these games had become like an old mongrels; Not the sort of dog you'd want in the house, but I had become accustomed to their stink. So I'm sure I'll get used to the new mutt too.
ReplyDeleteYour unswerving committment to the Wizards party line has made me curious about the susbscription service though, so perhaps I'll check it out...
I am not naiive about Wizards' end game. Its both scary in an way and fun. For example, I am not sure I could even make a PC for 4e from the books alone. The DDI is just too easy :)
ReplyDelete