I have played or run about 30 games of 4e since the Gamex convention in May when we launched the RPGA preview events.  I have extensively played 1st level and campaigned from 1st to 6th and played a few higher level one shot events.   Even did a paragon level game at 13th level.

When I say "Classic D&D", that means my own homebrew concoction that weaves in OD&D, BX, AD&D, C&C, 3e, knicknacks from Judges Guild, half forgotten thoughts from a thousand games and a dash of Arduin.  But for this thread, let's agree that Classic D&D = TSR D&D.

Here's my 10 thoughts.

1) I am greatly enjoying 4e as a tactical skirmish boardgame.   When the martial powers book comes out, I will absolutely run Mordheim with 4e.  

2) I am having the same (but different) fun in creating adventures with 4e as I do when I create Classic adventures.   From the DM side, both games are great fun to run.  Also, I am not having any difference in game prep time - both games have let me spend more time on story and less time on stats.  

3) Skill challenges kicketh ass!  My Classic games will borg skill challenges for future games.   They have been so wildly creative and fun to run!

4) I am having fun creating monsters in 4e - just like I do with Classic.   Like the DMG 1e rules for demon creation, the 4e monster rules give me a terrific framework with plenty of room for creativity and flexibility.

5) 4e means never having to leave 1st level.   I find chargen to be a pain in the ass for all games, so when I create a bunch of characters for convention one shots, I like to reuse them.   The toughness and power level of 4e first level characters means I can tell pretty much any story I want with the same characters for a 4-6 hour one shot event.

6) I am disheartened by the difficulty of teaching 4e to noobs, especially to kids.  Each time I have run 4e events with kids age 9-12, there is no question whatsoever that everyone would be having much more fun if we were playing Classic.  

7) I have not experienced any less role-play in my 4e events compared to my Classic games.  However, I find no advantage of having skills like Bluff and Sense Motive versus Charisma rolls in Classic.  However, in Classic, there was much more of a reason to avoid fights than in 4e where combat is the showpiece of the game.   In 4e, you are here to mosh and built to mosh, so there is no reason not to mosh!

Opportunity Attacks continue to be stupid.  My stomach churns when I see "heroes" doing these bizarre run around dances to flank someone while avoiding an OA.  This, more than anything else, screams "board game"

9) Only if AD&D = Diablo would 4e = WoW.  Sure, there are similiarities if you want to find them, but nothing to me feels videogamey while playing.   If anything, it feels sorta like Magic, but that may be our group because we use powers on cards...and tap them.  I like Magic so there's no problem there for me.  I hope we get M:tG as a 4e setting!

10) The board game aspect of 4e does intrude on the story.  The story suddenly stops and now we break out minis, boards and powers to tap.   Classic combats were easily done in 30 minutes and 4e fights are going to be 90 minutes on average. Its odd compared to Classic where story flowed into combat without much of a hitch - certainly not with the lengthy "what do I do next" pauses that are so common to miniatures and wargaming.  

My final verdict is . . . while I will continue to enjoy 4e and buy new WotC books, I am writing my own fantasy RPG the boils down what I love from my Classic D&D games.

Wow ... I hope your homebrew game is well documented.

So, Spinachcat, you're telling us that after 100 days that you are still a shill for 4E.

Could #6 be remedied by using the quick-start rules in Keep on the Shadowfell? I know when I started playing, we used the Holmes edition of D&D until the AD&D books began showing up on store shelves. That simpler version of D&D whetted our appetites for more detail in our games. Are the quick-start rules a good 4e counterpart for the Holmes edition, in your opinion?

As an aside to that, I have to say that my group began playing when we were 12-13. In my opinion, I think that happens to be the perfect age to really get into D&D - old enough to begin really grasping more complex abstract concepts. Much younger, and I really think using board games like Dungeon (which should be back in print) would be a better intro to RPGs. Haven't played card games like Magic, so I can't give an opinion on those, but it appears they would also be a good intro. Regardless, WotC should've had the basic set already out. Maybe the reason they've foot-dragged on a basic set so much is a fear of splitting the fan base, but I just don't think that'll happen. Back in 1979-80, those of us who craved a more rules-heavy game went to AD&D, while those who didn't stayed with the simpler version of the game and likely would've dropped the game entirely rather than go to AD&D. At least, that was what I observed at the time. A simpler version of the game would, I believe, actually increase the number of people playing D&D.

Quote from: Spinachcat;2466793) Skill challenges kicketh ass!  My Classic games will borg skill challenges for future games.   They have been so wildly creative and fun to run!

This subsystem still feel near useless to me. Perhaps it is because I am already used to GURPS a skill heavy system and just use resolution setup I been using for the past decade. Basically challenge the players until to the some point where chance comes into play.

Quote from: Spinachcat;2466796) I am disheartened by the difficulty of teaching 4e to noobs, especially to kids.  Each time I have run 4e events with kids age 9-12, there is no question whatsoever that everyone would be having much more fun if we were playing Classic.  

4th edition has the same ban as other crunch heavy system like GURPS. I found my technique of running through a sample combat combined with me being teacher mode and allow take backs for the first couple of sessions does wonder for people learning the system.

Quote from: Spinachcat;2466797) I have not experienced any less role-play in my 4e events compared to my Classic games.  However, I find no advantage of having skills like Bluff and Sense Motive versus Charisma rolls in Classic.  However, in Classic, there was much more of a reason to avoid fights than in 4e where combat is the showpiece of the game.   In 4e, you are here to mosh and built to mosh, so there is no reason not to mosh!

The critical element appears to be number of healing surges remaining. Once they are gone the players really want to find a safe harbor like right now.

Quote from: Spinachcat;246679 Opportunity Attacks continue to be stupid.  My stomach churns when I see "heroes" doing these bizarre run around dances to flank someone while avoiding an OA.  This, more than anything else, screams "board game"

With six second combat rounds it is not unrealistic to have a fluid situation. In my experience terrain influences the fight a fair amount.

Quote from: Spinachcat;2466799) Only if AD&D = Diablo would 4e = WoW.  Sure, there are similiarities if you want to find them, but nothing to me feels videogamey while playing.   If anything, it feels sorta like Magic, but that may be our group because we use powers on cards...and tap them.  I like Magic so there's no problem there for me.  I hope we get M:tG as a 4e setting!

Feel over the top to me in the high fantasy department. I am glad to be an experienced GURPS GM before running D&D 4th as that given me a lot of experience in incorporating a crunchy combat system into a game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;24667910) The board game aspect of 4e does intrude on the story.  The story suddenly stops and now we break out minis, boards and powers to tap.  

It is a learning curve. I been using miniatures and props since 1981 along with GURPS since 87. The trick is that you don't need to go the dwarven forge route of ultra realism. What is important that you have a well organized box of miniatures and props. Use dungeon tiles or dry erase to quickly setup the terrain and populate it with props.

It helps that I setup often even during roleplaying encounters. I don't STOP, setup, and describe. I start describing while drawing in the walls and throwing out props. I have things setup so that within minutes I have the full scene laid out in front of the players.

If I have something elaborate I prepare a special box that I can just pull the parts out for that encounter.

Quote from: jeff37923;246727So, Spinachcat, you're telling us that after 100 days that you are still a shill for 4E.

You're kidding right? A shill? He says 4e is a "tactical skirmish boardgame," but admits "I have not experienced any less role-play in my 4e events compared to my Classic games." I wouldn't call someone who continues to deny that 4e is a roleplaying game a shill.

Seanchai

You would if you were posting drunk.

Quote from: jeff37923;246727So, Spinachcat, you're telling us that after 100 days that you are still a shill for 4E.

I...umm...sorry, jeff - I have to disagree. It actually looks to me like Spinachat is going to, well, not abandon, but only take some bits and pieces from 4e to use in his home brew.

Which, IMHO, I could certainly see - similar to just about anyone who uses a ton of different sources and attempts to meld them.

For example, point 6 interests me greatly, as I assumed it would be easier to learn 4e (from my read-through of the PHB - almost done!).

It's also interesting that the Skill challenges are, in Spinachat's opinion, great; however some skills seem to be better handled by the old standby of a stat check. My assumption would be that in a meld, the skill challenge structure could be knicked but replaced with stat checks?

I hardly got a shill feeling from the post. Maybe my subtlety sensors are failing today...I blame it on the collider.

I'm too sexy for this thread.
Too sexy for this thread.
Too sexy...

*shrug*

I was at my FLAGS last Saturday and some guys were playing D&D 4e. There was nothing but roleplaying going on, including roleplaying combat, so that argument seemed to fall flat on its face. While they used a battlement for combat, the narrated everything, including weaving the power they were using into the narrated sentence. So instead of saying "I'm using my daily power of [let's just say] Whirlwind strike" the dudes were like, "I draw my swords and begin twirling them about me like a whirlwind of blades, striking my foes with precision amidst the flurry of blows." I thought that was rather clever. Not original, but still. It helped keep the immersion factor up.

-=Grim=-

I like 4e and I hope more people who like tactical skirmish fantasy games buy 4e products so WotC is rewarded for making a very good game.   If that makes me a shill, so be it.   I like to promote games I enjoy so those authors prosper.  If that bothers you, tough shit.

Extra Shilling: Go buy a Palladium game just for the kewl setting.  Add your favorite system and viola, you have oodles of fun.

Bonus Shilling: Go buy "The Random Esoteric Creature Generator" by James Raggi if you like creating your own monsters, regardless of what system you play.  The PDF is short, sweet and packed with great ideas.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;246749Are the quick-start rules a good 4e counterpart for the Holmes edition, in your opinion?

Sadly no.  

In order for 4e to be the excellent tactical skirmish boardgame that it is requires rigid assumptions in the core rules which negate a kid's ability to take actions simply based on his imagination.   Having to constantly return to the character sheet for actions and having to constantly check the board for appropriate ranges and movement are a major block to the teen or pre-teen who just wants to throw himself (not just his character) into the scene that is much more in his head than on the board.  

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;246749A simpler version of the game would, I believe, actually increase the number of people playing D&D.

Absolutely. I have no doubt that a B/X style Harry Potter RPG with a $1M marketing campaign would become a national phenomenon in today's "dead" RPG market.

Quote from: estar;246831This subsystem still feel near useless to me. Perhaps it is because I am already used to GURPS a skill heavy system and just use resolution setup I been using for the past decade. Basically challenge the players until to the some point where chance comes into play.

For me, the skill challenge provides a bookend to scenes and helps me define what the scene is about to the players in a concrete, focussed manner.   My GM style is very cinematic so my "in between bits" are done as cut-scenes and then I dump them into the next chapter of the story.   The skill challenge system takes the best idea from the Indie/Swine games (setting stakes) and takes 4e away from the board to put the game into a fluid, creative mode.

Quote from: James J Skach;246873It's also interesting that the Skill challenges are, in Spinachat's opinion, great; however some skills seem to be better handled by the old standby of a stat check. My assumption would be that in a meld, the skill challenge structure could be knicked but replaced with stat checks?

Skill challenges are for scenes that are not primarily combat.  You can blend combat into the skill challenge or alongside one, but the general concept is best used when you present a difficulty to the players that you have decided will not be solved in a single roll.   There is no reason to use a skill challenge if a single skill roll or single stat roll would solve the problem as defined by the GM.

Let's say the PCs need to find out the bandit's HQ.  You could easily make that a single Streetwise roll or even a single INT roll and continue with the game.   But let's say you wanted to engage every player at the table and make finding the HQ into a scene of its own where there were many cuts in a montage as each hero took some action (which may succeed or fail) that results in a final solution to the scene.    That's where I enjoy skill challenges.  

Yes, they do "codify roleplaying" to some extent, but the upside is they provide defined bookends which help move the story along to the next combat...and combat glorious combat is the reason I play 4e.

Quote from: James J Skach;246873For example, point 6 interests me greatly, as I assumed it would be easier to learn 4e (from my read-through of the PHB - almost done!).

Remember, he's comparing teaching 4e to Basic D&D. 4e should definitely be easier to teach then D&D 3. To borrow another M:tG reference, building a starting character in D&D 4 is like building a 4 card deck with 7 card choices.


Spinachat: How do you plan on doing the D&D Mordheim game? Are you going to try to recreate all the tables to makke the game GMless? If so...I'd be interested in seeing how you do that

Quote from: Spinachcat;247215For me, the skill challenge provides a bookend to scenes and helps me define what the scene is about to the players in a concrete, focussed manner.   My GM style is very cinematic so my "in between bits" are done as cut-scenes and then I dump them into the next chapter of the story.   The skill challenge system takes the best idea from the Indie/Swine games (setting stakes) and takes 4e away from the board to put the game into a fluid, creative mode.

I see your point. However I am a old school sandbox DM so there very little that is cinematic about my game except for ending most sessions on a cliffhangar.

Quote from: Spinachcat;247215Let's say the PCs need to find out the bandit's HQ.  You could easily make that a single Streetwise roll or even a single INT roll and continue with the game.   But let's say you wanted to engage every player at the table and make finding the HQ into a scene of its own where there were many cuts in a montage as each hero took some action (which may succeed or fail) that results in a final solution to the scene.    That's where I enjoy skill challenges.  

Here where I differ in style. I use skill rolls to simulate random chance. Not every part of a game world can be or is detailed. So in the case of Finding the Bandit's HQ it work would like this for me.

P: "I need to find the Bandit HQ"
DM: "Yes so you are at the Knight Mater, what are you going to do?"
P: "Do I know anybody that could tell me where it?"
DM: "Roll streetwise"

DM: "You know by Dobbins Landing, there is a fisherman that was busted and fined last year for smuggling and fencing."
P: "Great! I head to Dobbins Landing"

Now let's try the alternate

DM: "You don't know anybody specific you do know there has been a problem with smuggling and fencing in the past.

P: Hey I use my Area Knowledge to see if there is any likely location.
DM: "Roll AK then"
P: I succeed
DM: Pull out your player map.

DM: Ok you heard that here and here have been used by smugglers. That these woods always been a bit dangerous. But there were Skandian raiders killed by the knight and his posse here three years ago in the ravines of these hills.
P: I go back in ask the Knight about that.
DM: "You enter the manor and see Sir Albert look over at you."

As such the Skill Challenge does nothing for me. I rarely just hand my players whole chunks resolved by a single roll. Instead they have to look at where they are and decide where to go from there at each and every step. The skill rolls are there to resolve specific or to "remember" details.

The player is expected to come up with the "plan" and change it when circumstances change.

Quote from: Spinachcat;247215Yes, they do "codify roleplaying" to some extent, but the upside is they provide defined bookends which help move the story along to the next combat...and combat glorious combat is the reason I play 4e.

This grognard just like crunchy combat provided it is a good system. Which is why I wound with GURPS.

Quote from: KrakaJak;247217How do you plan on doing the D&D Mordheim game? Are you going to try to recreate all the tables to makke the game GMless? If so...I'd be interested in seeing how you do that

I am thinking of Mordheim as the setting for a short D&D campaign where the players would only have the choices of Martial classes - Fighter, Warlord, Rogue, Ranger (and all human) - and magic items would be very rare (and corrupted) so there would additional bonuses to attacks and defenses at certain levels.   Magic using classes would only be NPCs to enchance that "All magic comes from Chaos!" ethos in Warhammer.

The goal of the campaign would be to collect 10,000 gold crowns and return home safely...which will be quite difficult living in the shantytown of scumbags and opportunists that surround Mordheim plus all the insane stuff going on inside those poisoned walls.   The setup works nicely for 4e because you get strict grid combat inside the ruined town and lots of political / cutthroat roleplay outside of town.

Using the core book alone would tough so I am awaiting the Martial powers sourcebook which supposedly will add lots of options to these classes.  It means the party has low healing and no controller, but that fits Warhammer.

I have not done Team vs. Team PVP with 4e so I do not know how well the game does under those circumstances.

I think skill challenges work best for certain situations.  Particularly, those in which you want multiple checks to be made so you can keep track of incremental success and failure.  Its just a way to give the DM some structure, because some DMs are horrible about stretching out long, boring, routine activities with arbitrary, random die rolls.

The biggest one I can think of is taking a long trip.  Long travels in gaming can be frightfully dull.  Even the best DM can only come up with so many colorful non-combat encounters, and reducing a trip to a series of checks for wandering monsters gets really old.

For example, in the AD&D game I'm currently playing in, we were following a trail of some bandits.  Essentially, the DM (who is not very good to begin with) already reduced it down to having us roll a tracking roll once every so often to keep finding the trail.

That was incredibly dull.  Only the party ranger had anything to do, and the rest of us pretty much sat around while arbitrary die rolls were made.  If it had been planned out as a skill challenge, with multiple skills available to use and actual consequences for failure (other than just waiting around and trying again) it would have been much more exciting.

Quote from: Spinachcat;247215In order for 4e to be the excellent tactical skirmish boardgame that it is requires rigid assumptions in the core rules which negate a kid's ability to take actions simply based on his imagination.   Having to constantly return to the character sheet for actions and having to constantly check the board for appropriate ranges and movement are a major block to the teen or pre-teen who just wants to throw himself (not just his character) into the scene that is much more in his head than on the board.  

It's not just kids who have this problem with it.