More thoughts about 4th edition.
Aug. 21st, 2008 02:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinI've kept playing around with D&D 4th edition since the first session I played in a month ago, and I have to say that the more I look at it, the more my positive first impression has been strengthened and confirmed. I think what I perceived to be balance issues can be explained by the fact that half of our group was somewhat inexperienced with modern D&D (including myself), which led to some sub-optimal tactics in the early battles.
For instance, my character was an elven ranger (archery focus) and the other relative newbie's was an eladrin fey pact warlock. In neither case were we using the characters' enhanced mobility to the fullest extent, and the warlock was using curse on a single character at a time. I think if we'd had a better understanding of our characters' capabilities, the encounters wouldn't have been so rough.
Now I'm waiting for the suite of D&D Insider tools to launch so I can give the system another spin... most of the people I'd game with live a state away or more. (The group I played with in July included a couple from Kansas.) I know there are free "virtual tabletops" out there, but D&D Insider appeals to me because of the ability to build a dungeon map square by square. I'm not an artist... I couldn't pull off a brilliant full-color map with a tile overlay. I'll take the inherent simplicity of a LEGO-style set of dungeon building blocks every day. Anything that's not on the map, I can describe.
While searching the web for news (with Gen Con this past weekend, it seemed likely that somebody might have let slip a release date, or at least an ETA), I read other peoples' thoughts on the D&DI package. I was kind of surprised to see a bunch of posts/comments to the effect of, "This is going to kill imagination.", "This is going to hamstring the DM.", etc... one commentator said something like, "With an actual tabletop, the DM is free to describe things in as much or as little detail as they want. They can embroider the scene of a tavern on the spot with little details like the wooden spoons laid out on the table. With the virtual tabletop, they're limited to whatever they actually put on the map. If they put a fork down, they can't later say it's a spoon."
As they say dans la belle internet... lolwut?
Ignoring the fact that I don't see D&DI going into finer details like tableware, I hardly see how the DM is straitjacketed by using the system. I plan on using it the same way I'd use graph paper and a pencil: room so big, wall here, wall here, statue here, and then describe the room accordingly. If the players pay attention to the statue (or I want to call attention to it), I'll describe the statue. If the floor is supposed to be covered in fault lines and steam vents, I'm not going to care if there's not a tile for that... I'll say so. To me, the seeming sparseness of the D&DI-built maps is a selling point. Those little gray squares could be anything. They're whatever I say they are.
(At the same time, I hope for more variety in furnishing rather than less, just so I always have something that will be recognized as, say, a fountain, if I want there to be a fountain. Also, all the screen shots seem to be of gray dungeon tiles. It would be extremely snazzy if there's also ones suitable for outdoor maps. If not, I'll make do.)
I understand that one of the design goals of 4th edition was to make it playable all the way through. You can see one effect of this by flipping to the back of the Monster Manual where they have a breakdown of monsters by level. It varies a bit, but there are roughly as many monsters suitable for 1st level PCs as there are for 30th level ones. Goal accomplished... but at a bit of a cost in "biodiversity". While crafting an adventure for 1st level player characters, I couldn't help feeling like I didn't have a lot of stock monsters to pick from. In some ways this was helpful as it led me to pick an interesting theme for the adventure, and of course, a little creativity can expand the choices exponentially, but I think WotC would be well-served by making three full-length expansions for the Manual, one for each of their three tiers of levels.
From a design standpoint, I think it would prove more interesting to make monster level more flexible... so that kobolds, goblins, orcs, gnolls, lizard folk, and all the other humanoid monsters are viable antagonists from level 1 up to halfway through the epic tier or so. There's already a bit of that, as each monster type generally has multiple "classes" and some are more powerful than others, and the DM's Guide has various templates that can be applied to make unique individuals with specific attributes, and there are rules for leveling a monster up or down on a small scale... I just think a greater focus on that would open up more possibilities for encounters while maintaining the "playability" goal.
I'm still conflicted about the stripped-down skill system. Yes, it helps keep things fast and snappy. Yes, non-combat stuff is best handled through roleplay and storytelling. Yes, the power choices give quite a bit of character individualization without having skill points. But at the same time... it just feels like something's missing. I never played either of the 3rd editions, but the inclusion of a full skill system was one of the things that excited me about it. I guess I can try to make up for it as DM by encouraging creative skill use to its fullest.
But all in all, I find it to be a decent game and worthy of the D&D label. There are some elements of the power system and the "MMORPGness" that will always rub me the wrong way on one level, but on another level I understand that it's an abstract representation of heroic fantasy.
When I use Hunter's Bear Trap (a ranger power where you temporarily cripple an opponent with an arrow through their leg), part of me is going, "Okay, I just did it to that guy, why can't I turn around and do it to the other guy?" But a wise man (or a GURPS rulebook) once said that if throwing sand in your opponent's eyes worked every time, people would carry bags of sand on their belts instead of swords. The encounter/daily powers are a decent simulation of the confluence of luck, circumstance, and ability that go into pulling off tricks like that.
At the end of the day, the only thing an RPG's rules really need to do is provide a consistent system for conflict resolution... notably, when one person's trying to hit somebody who'd rather not be hit. Everything outside the scope of "BANG! I shot you!"-"No, you missed!" is just gravy. 4th edition provides a combat system that's not just playable but genuinely engaging. It encourages tactical thinking, teamwork, and creativity.
For instance, my character was an elven ranger (archery focus) and the other relative newbie's was an eladrin fey pact warlock. In neither case were we using the characters' enhanced mobility to the fullest extent, and the warlock was using curse on a single character at a time. I think if we'd had a better understanding of our characters' capabilities, the encounters wouldn't have been so rough.
Now I'm waiting for the suite of D&D Insider tools to launch so I can give the system another spin... most of the people I'd game with live a state away or more. (The group I played with in July included a couple from Kansas.) I know there are free "virtual tabletops" out there, but D&D Insider appeals to me because of the ability to build a dungeon map square by square. I'm not an artist... I couldn't pull off a brilliant full-color map with a tile overlay. I'll take the inherent simplicity of a LEGO-style set of dungeon building blocks every day. Anything that's not on the map, I can describe.
While searching the web for news (with Gen Con this past weekend, it seemed likely that somebody might have let slip a release date, or at least an ETA), I read other peoples' thoughts on the D&DI package. I was kind of surprised to see a bunch of posts/comments to the effect of, "This is going to kill imagination.", "This is going to hamstring the DM.", etc... one commentator said something like, "With an actual tabletop, the DM is free to describe things in as much or as little detail as they want. They can embroider the scene of a tavern on the spot with little details like the wooden spoons laid out on the table. With the virtual tabletop, they're limited to whatever they actually put on the map. If they put a fork down, they can't later say it's a spoon."
As they say dans la belle internet... lolwut?
Ignoring the fact that I don't see D&DI going into finer details like tableware, I hardly see how the DM is straitjacketed by using the system. I plan on using it the same way I'd use graph paper and a pencil: room so big, wall here, wall here, statue here, and then describe the room accordingly. If the players pay attention to the statue (or I want to call attention to it), I'll describe the statue. If the floor is supposed to be covered in fault lines and steam vents, I'm not going to care if there's not a tile for that... I'll say so. To me, the seeming sparseness of the D&DI-built maps is a selling point. Those little gray squares could be anything. They're whatever I say they are.
(At the same time, I hope for more variety in furnishing rather than less, just so I always have something that will be recognized as, say, a fountain, if I want there to be a fountain. Also, all the screen shots seem to be of gray dungeon tiles. It would be extremely snazzy if there's also ones suitable for outdoor maps. If not, I'll make do.)
I understand that one of the design goals of 4th edition was to make it playable all the way through. You can see one effect of this by flipping to the back of the Monster Manual where they have a breakdown of monsters by level. It varies a bit, but there are roughly as many monsters suitable for 1st level PCs as there are for 30th level ones. Goal accomplished... but at a bit of a cost in "biodiversity". While crafting an adventure for 1st level player characters, I couldn't help feeling like I didn't have a lot of stock monsters to pick from. In some ways this was helpful as it led me to pick an interesting theme for the adventure, and of course, a little creativity can expand the choices exponentially, but I think WotC would be well-served by making three full-length expansions for the Manual, one for each of their three tiers of levels.
From a design standpoint, I think it would prove more interesting to make monster level more flexible... so that kobolds, goblins, orcs, gnolls, lizard folk, and all the other humanoid monsters are viable antagonists from level 1 up to halfway through the epic tier or so. There's already a bit of that, as each monster type generally has multiple "classes" and some are more powerful than others, and the DM's Guide has various templates that can be applied to make unique individuals with specific attributes, and there are rules for leveling a monster up or down on a small scale... I just think a greater focus on that would open up more possibilities for encounters while maintaining the "playability" goal.
I'm still conflicted about the stripped-down skill system. Yes, it helps keep things fast and snappy. Yes, non-combat stuff is best handled through roleplay and storytelling. Yes, the power choices give quite a bit of character individualization without having skill points. But at the same time... it just feels like something's missing. I never played either of the 3rd editions, but the inclusion of a full skill system was one of the things that excited me about it. I guess I can try to make up for it as DM by encouraging creative skill use to its fullest.
But all in all, I find it to be a decent game and worthy of the D&D label. There are some elements of the power system and the "MMORPGness" that will always rub me the wrong way on one level, but on another level I understand that it's an abstract representation of heroic fantasy.
When I use Hunter's Bear Trap (a ranger power where you temporarily cripple an opponent with an arrow through their leg), part of me is going, "Okay, I just did it to that guy, why can't I turn around and do it to the other guy?" But a wise man (or a GURPS rulebook) once said that if throwing sand in your opponent's eyes worked every time, people would carry bags of sand on their belts instead of swords. The encounter/daily powers are a decent simulation of the confluence of luck, circumstance, and ability that go into pulling off tricks like that.
At the end of the day, the only thing an RPG's rules really need to do is provide a consistent system for conflict resolution... notably, when one person's trying to hit somebody who'd rather not be hit. Everything outside the scope of "BANG! I shot you!"-"No, you missed!" is just gravy. 4th edition provides a combat system that's not just playable but genuinely engaging. It encourages tactical thinking, teamwork, and creativity.