PDA

View Full Version : Played my first 4E game last Friday



TheYeti1775
04-19-2010, 04:06 PM
So my group decided to play 4E last Friday. While I wasn't too happy at the suprise of it, I took it in stride.

It has some good points going for it. But don't feel it's more to my liking just as yet.

The DM helped me build a character using the Character Builder, since I don't own a single 4E book.
Character creation went fairly smooth. I'm thinking where the heck was this character builder for us 3.5E'ers, I would have probably paid for it than. :eek:

I tend to the Wizards/Magic-Users in our parties so thats what he helped me create.
It was 2nd level.

I liked not having to worry about the "I'm out of spells" or the "All my battle spells are gone" that effects so many of us low level casters in previous editions.
But at the same time, I think it took away some of the "I'm weak, I should run bit".

Overall the play was fine and I had fun (most important thing), and I'm sure we will finish the module out. But I don't think it grabbed me in any sort of way that the other Editions have over the years.
Maybe I'm turning into a grumpy old man, but I'll play through it. Just won't be actively seeking more of it.

Matt James
04-28-2010, 04:46 PM
Well, believe it or not- you have already traveled much further than others who are hesitant about the edition. I'm glad to see you survived unscathed and I hope you get the chance to experience it more.

I think one of the more difficult transitions for older-edition players was the exclusion of the Vancian magic system; which had its own feeling.

Anyways, let us know how the next few sessions go. I would be happy to help if you have any specific questions.

Blydden
04-28-2010, 05:08 PM
Likewise. :)

TheYeti1775
04-29-2010, 01:37 PM
Well we played the second session last Friday, and have the third one tomorrow night.

It's not bad at all in actual play. Role-playing itself never changes system to system, only the mechanics do.

Number of actions/types of actions per turn seems wonky with my 1E mentality. but made it quite interesting as I was able to maintain a Flaming Sphere while performing a Skill Check to remove a cursed item from someone and moving positions myself.

I've been playing with my copy of the builder in my spare time. Found some interesting combos.

The other players keep reassuring me we are going back to 3.5E after the module. :lol: As they know I'm not too into the 4E. While it isn't something I'm going to spend money on, it also isn't something I will refuse to play.

Yes the Vanican magic is a wierd feeling to be missing. But I think it did find a decent happy medium in the At Will/Encounter/Daily powers method. Honestly I would be tempted to have that method in earlier editions. Though I think it would be best used with the Sorceror vice the Wizard. Maybe thats because of the limited spells known bit.

Where are you at in DC Matt? I work over at 19th & E.

templeorder
04-29-2010, 02:40 PM
I have to disagree with role-playing not changing by system. Some systems lend themselves well to particular aspects. I played 4e and i liked it. But, it did not suit me for my campaign needs. The type of system 4e is, encourages a focus on different aspects of gaming than what i want and hence the players expectation and interaction changes... and so the flavor of the game changes. It all depends on what you want, you can adapt any systems.. some are just easier than others. D20 is a very flexible platform but some of its approaches are in conflict with how i see resolution of action on a large scale. At the risk of over-generalizing, those approaches are reflected in the type of gamer it attracts and the role-playing style of those players. I would say that yes, i would like to think my roleplaying does not change.. but that probably not true. With 4e, i really jumped into combat more and the challenge was of a different type.

Lord Soth
05-12-2010, 01:07 PM
i recently introduced a group of young players, never having seen a d20, let alone played any pen and paper, and i must admit, it was a bit taxing. 4e wasn't my first choice of system, but it seemed to be the easiest as it relates to teaching combat, magic, and lining things up for character creation. Tha being said, i think it slows combat down....took two hours to kill six kobolds...plus a few other enemies. While it serves as a good stepping stone, 4e lends itself to power gaming, and headhunting...

i saw in my local game store three tables of gamers, surrounding battlemats, clutching minis, while staring intently into laptop screens, at the same time glancing over their powers cards taking far too long to commit to the simplest of actions. In addition, there was very little 'roleplaying' involved, more or less action sequences with attempts at witty dialogue. (Possible result of alignment changes in 4e, or just bad officiating.)
I realize that the debate is long going, and seemingly never ending, and i'm aware that each game is only as good as the GM/DM Storyteller, but i also cannot dismiss the numbers of people who repeat the same stories of choppy mechanics and difficult character creation...i just miss the days when a 3x5 notecard character sheet and a cheesy DM screen was enough. I'm not against 4e, i always support gaming, in whatever form, but i'll stick to THAC0.

TheYeti1775
05-12-2010, 02:48 PM
Yes combats have tended to be longer in length I have noticed.

Blydden
05-12-2010, 07:34 PM
Combats will always take time. I wish it would only take 30 seconds like it would in the real world. ^_^

To reduce time, you could set a time-limit for each turn...about 1 to 3 minutes. If they go too long, delay/skip their turn.

The estimated amount of time is (Although my players seem to always go double the time, stupid out-of-game chat.) 10 minutes for every monster/player on the initiative order. So, if you have 5 players, and you have 1 group of monsters (all the same type), the combat encounter SHOULD take 60 Minutes, with help of the time-limit.

Hope that helps ;)

Talmek
05-12-2010, 08:00 PM
Combats will always take time. I wish it would only take 30 seconds like it would in the real world. ^_^

To reduce time, you could set a time-limit for each turn...about 1 to 3 minutes. If they go too long, delay/skip their turn.

The estimated amount of time is (Although my players seem to always go double the time, stupid out-of-game chat.) 10 minutes for every monster/player on the initiative order. So, if you have 5 players, and you have 1 group of monsters (all the same type), the combat encounter SHOULD take 60 Minutes, with help of the time-limit.

Hope that helps ;)

1-3 MINUTES!!!

You are much more patient than I am! Players have 30 seconds real-time, measured by a small hourglass on the table...lest they lose their turn!

MuaHaHaHaHa!

Blydden
05-12-2010, 09:03 PM
...And the Evil DM award for "Least Player-Friendly" goes to...

But, seriously. 30 seconds? DA-AMN.

wbrandel
05-13-2010, 11:54 AM
I think it is safe to say we will always disagree on particular editions of D&D. I myself learned to play with the red box, and then moved to AD&D 2st ed, I skipped 2.0 and 3.0 and picked it up again in 3.5. Aspects of the game will always remain-magic in what ever flavor (one DM used spell points to determine spell usage), but the one aspect not every one seems to agree on is the role playing aspect. I played the original and I have played 4.0, I currently run a campaign in 4.0 and no one has ever complained about not haveing enough role playing (and I don't mean combat roll playing). It is may personal belief that thr role playing aspect of any rpg is completely dependent on the GM for the game. You have good GMs, Bad GMs, Lousy GMs, and GMs that should have the books taken away and beaten briskly by them (after 28 years I played with all types).
So why don't we all agree to disagree about which edition is the best and just say that all editions are part of the fantasy rpg genre, much like all the spin offs over the years.

Sascha
05-13-2010, 02:56 PM
It is may personal belief that thr role playing aspect of any rpg is completely dependent on the GM for the game.
I wouldn't limit it only to the GM. The other people at the table are just as responsible for roleplaying as the GM is.

wbrandel
05-14-2010, 11:58 AM
I wouldn't limit it only to the GM. The other people at the table are just as responsible for roleplaying as the GM is.

You are right that the fault does not lie solely with the GM. However I have found that players will try to adapt to what ever style the GM chooses, and if the players do not talk to the GM about the playing style the GM will continue to do what he or she has been doing, because they don't know what the players want.

Sascha
05-14-2010, 03:24 PM
Different experiences, then ;) With my current group, we - as a whole - discuss things before anything else happens. I'll admit we're not the average group; all three of us are GMs, so that tends to change the dynamic from the usual "GM + Players." As a player, though, I'll excuse myself from games when the style isn't going to mesh well, after talking to the GM.

kkriegg
05-16-2010, 12:28 PM
...And the Evil DM award for "Least Player-Friendly" goes to...

But, seriously. 30 seconds? DA-AMN.

I think 30 seconds to 1 minute is really quite reasonable. If you have 5 players, plus 5 monsters, you have 5 full minutes before its your turn agian. Granted, at higher levels its a bit harder to plan a good move. Also, if two players are trying to coordinate their moves I would let them have a bit more time.

Clerical_Errer
06-30-2010, 11:56 AM
As a player I only need 10 seconds to plan my turn. Rage of Primal Beast >Action point > Sack a lv.29 Barg rage > Furious assualt > Rage Strike > 5[w]+9[w]+1[w]+bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of enemys you can see. Jeebs I love barbs. Sorry that wasnt really pertaining to anything this thread has to say I just wanted to promote Barbs to anyone who hasn't played one yet.

templeorder
07-01-2010, 08:55 AM
This demonstrates perfectly why 4e is so appealing for some, and why its goes against my style as a gamer. I tried again recently, just a solo with a DM, and found the endless pursuit of pluses that started in 3.0 a bit flat. Strangely enough combat was longer - well, i guess with fewer players you have to think more and choose wisely... and hence slower... but in my past few experiences i never saw the slow combat other people have mentioned - but that may also be just experienced gamers working with a tightly knit character group.

Q-man
07-01-2010, 02:01 PM
I would think you could reduce any game's character building could be reduced to an endless pursuit of pluses. It depends on the type of game you run I suppose, if you mix in a lot of RP type encounters then having all those combat bonuses would be more of a liability.

The long combat is a bit of an issue though. 4E encounters seem to consistently take over an hour for the groups I've been in. I'm not sure its a bad thing since there's a lot of table talk and no one is getting bored before its over. Its just disconcerting to look back on a 5 hour session and feel like you've gotten no where in the campaign.

templeorder
07-02-2010, 08:44 AM
Well, some games are built for endless pluses, and some plateau. Everyone wants to be competent, but 3+ i felt drove characters towards more of a stat view than personality view... just opinion. I'd like to figure out why everyone else seems to feel combat is so much longer though. I played a convention style game as my first exposure to 4E, then a group, then one solo session... i've never experienced the incredibly long combat scenario yet and i wonder why. That would be a turn off for me that would definitely push me to not recommend it. My style of play is 25% combat/75% story and while i personally choose not to use any D20 derivatives as a GM, i would not tell like-minded people not to use them (yet?). What is it that takes so long!?

Q-man
07-02-2010, 08:56 AM
For us I suspect that its mainly table talk. Hardly a few rounds go by before some side conversation starts up that delays a couple of player's turns. A normal encounter takes us about an hour to get through. It feels long when you check the clock, but like I said we're never bored with it.

Another factor that I suspect is working against my group is that we don't have a lot of big damage dealers in the party. So when we run into enemies that are large sacks of hit points it takes us a while to bring them down since our damage is a little light. Perhaps a different set of classes or changes in the character builds would remedy that, I don't know that the party would be keen on rebuilding for a few encounters just to prove the hypothesis though.