[ChattyDM's game] So I finally played 4e

[Walkerp]

ChattyDM is always pushing envelopes, trying new things and the Blood Bowl scenario I played in was a good example of that. We played a pretty traditional adventuring party, who got conned into signing an infernal contract. The gist of the contract was that we had to participate in a Dungeon Reality Show, where we took on the roles of various cliched high school characters and went against Wandering Monster High in the Blood Bowl championship. There was a lot of excellent roleplaying in the beginning, where we established our characters and get meshed into the situation, talked smack with the rivals, played to the crowd, that sort of thing. Then there was an intense session of Blood Bowl using the 4e rules, then some investigation and chasing around (a hilarious scooby doo chase) in the high school at halftime as the plot got complicated. We had a skill challenge to close it out.

The point of this thread is to critique the scenario and the session and then to talk about my impressions of 4e.

The Critique: I had a blast. The set-up was a clever mash-up of traditional D&D and modern popular culture (the adventuring party as reality show contestants), which made it instantly easy for each of us to get into the role of our characters and run with them. All the players at the table were really funny and enthusiastic. Most were existing 4e players and were quite excited to take the game into a new direction. The roleplaying at the beginning was really strong and the situation, where we came into this big high school, met the other team in the cafeteria to promote sportsmanship, was a lot of fun.

Then we jumped into the Blood Bowl, which was a really clever idea to begin with, but also a great way to present the 4e ruleset to someone like me, who has dungeoned a lot and might not find a fight against a dragon as engaging as trying to play a crazy football game with monsters. It also cleverly underplayed the ridiculous emphasis on tactics in 4e, because we were actually playing a game with rules. So it made sense to be having all these weird rules about positioning and squares. And as a tactical combat system, 4e is pretty engaging, so it's enjoyable to try and run around and smash over monsters and grab living footballs.

The only part where the scenario overall got a bit muddled was at halftime, when we were at a bit of a loss as to how to react to some of the plot stuff going on. So there was a period where we sort of split up and weren't really clear on what we were supposed to be doing. We were having enough fun and had developed enough cohesion as a group that it didn't come off that badly. Chatty pulled it all together with a skill challenge, which involved us chasing a couple of goblins throughout the school hallways which was quite enjoyable. The whole thing ended with the other team getting Zombonied by an ally one of the other players had made.

Chatty was quite clear that the scenario was conceived for a night of Drunken D&D at GenCon and that explains why things got confused near the end. But it's really a strong premise and with some tightening up of the plotlines, it would make a fantastic con one-shot. As it was, it was pretty excellent overall.

My feelings about 4e: They have changed in one way. By playing in it, I was reminded again of the fun of some good crunchy tactical rules. It has all these crazy powers that you can do with a lot of care taken in ensuring that they are spread out evenly through out the adventure. They've simplified the annoying fiddly bits in 3e like what you are allowed to do each turn (though Attacks of Opportunity still seem sort of weird).

But I really can't help but think that 4e is a bizarre rules system that is the result of its own twisted evolution and not really a roleplaying game with either a clear mandate or an open flexibility to allow the group to create their own world. It's like a game that was designed to play the original D&D of so long ago (adventuring party that goes down into a dungeon, kills things and takes their stuff) but with this massive complicated but elegant engine attached to it to account for balance and this (strange to me) desire for its adherents to have tons of complex crunch for their battles.

So in my mind, you have this really cool tactical combat game with lots of rich avenues for development of combat powers for the characters. And then you have skill challenges and open roleplaying. The fantasy stuff, the setting, the immersion, I imagine it all comes from the character classes and whatever the group freeforms.

I'm not doing a good job of explaining what I mean, but it all seems so circular. You would play 4th edition if you really want to play 4th edition. It's its own game. And that's totally cool. But I really can't see how this system is the default game for the vast majority of tabletop roleplayers beyond its history in our hobby and the power of the brand name. It's just so specific and restricted.

Note, that I had a similar feelings about 3rd edition. I got the feeling that the rules were overtaking the overall game and it became about getting to this level or getting this special ability or that spell. 4e seems to emphasise the tactical rules even more by fixing them.

I played Burning Wheel right after 4e and it was also an excellent session. It was a very interesting juxtaposition. BW is really crunchy as well, but the crunch is about playing some dude in fantasy medieval world (who am I, what do I want, what am I good at, how do I handle opposition, etc.). The crunch in 4e is about playing a game piece in a tactical combat game (what can I do when in a combat round, where and how can I move, how much damage can I do).

4e is kind of a cool, crazy thing. Actually engaging the mechanics made me realize what an impressive piece of design it is. I would definitely play in another 4e game if it was run by a great GM like Chatty or if it was run by someone specifically as a pure combat session with lots of interesting locations and fighting situations. I wouldn't be interested in a campaign. I have a lot of respect for it as a game, but I really can't understand how it is the default game of our hobby.

[The Chatty DM]

This is an awesomely nice review walkerp and I thank you for it. I can't fault you your feeling about what the game is. 4e is about being very good at one particular thing and that's tactical combat.

There are precious few roleplaying mechanics yet, Skill Challenge being, IMHO, a very timid one. However, the current awesome Indie RPGs I've seen have yet to provide the bundle of elements that make D&D4e such a popular game. It's not just combat, which is what you usually see in a Con game... and which I've tried hard to avoid the scenario I used. Leveling up plays a huge part of it... The majority loves 'dinging' as they say, getting neat little packages in one shot. Then there's the brand. I love fighting color coded dragons and dealing against the Drow and fooling Asmodeus.

All this is available in other games, yes, but not all of that together.

Regardless... I'm the first to say that it's not for everyone

Thanks again!

[Walkerp]

Originally Posted by The Chatty DM

There are precious few roleplaying mechanics yet, Skill Challenge being, IMHO, a very timid one. However, the current awesome Indie RPGs I've seen have yet to provide the bundle of elements that make D&D4e such a popular game.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not coming at this from an "indie" perspective. I'm not necessarily convinced that 1) a game must be focused around one theme or that 2) roleplaying must be built into the mechanics as well. I do think those are valid design stances and can (and have) made great games, but I also don't think that is the only way. I love generic systems that I can use to wrap around different settings and if I had to choose I might say that Savage Worlds is my favorite game. If you step way back, 4e and SW are very similar in structure.

When you get closer (and I'll keep this point short because I don't want to get into comparing the two games), for me, 4e is burdened with this enormous amount of mechanical crunch all around combat. It just becomes too much for me and I find the games focus more and more around that.

Originally Posted by The Chatty DM

It's not just combat, which is what you usually see in a Con game... and which I've tried hard to avoid the scenario I used. Leveling up plays a huge part of it... The majority loves 'dinging' as they say, getting neat little packages in one shot. Then there's the brand. I love fighting color coded dragons and dealing against the Drow and fooling Asmodeus.

Great points, the dinging and the enjoyment of the classic D&D elements. Those are clearly strong. I definitely still like the "dinging", though it's not necessary any more for me. As for the classic D&D elements, I think I've pretty much exhausted my fun with that, so it doesn't hold as much appeal for me no matter how it is skinned. I think that's one of the reasons your con game was so fun, because you took the tropes and let us fully play with them.

That being said, I'd play in another one-shot of 4e that was more classic, a straight dungeon crawl with a fight against a dragon. I'd like to see the interaction of the combat mechanics at more depth and get to the know them a little better so I can exploit them more for fun. I would also like to see if there is more freedom of improvised action for players in 4e than in 3e.

I would also like to add that the way the combat was handled by Mutant Future in my game disappointed me. I suddenly realized that it was going to be a very long exchange of traded blows, whittling down hit points, which I really don't find fun. I think I don't like hit point mechanics and consistent initiative. I suspect that 4e has made damage-taking and turn order much more dynamic with the healing surges and re-positioning mechanics.