Once again, I've managed to procrastinate long enough for someone else to do my job. Once again, they've done a better job as well. Please see Joel's character blog for an excellent recap of our final adventure session for Keep on the Shadowfell. It is, as always, excellent. I'd love to see blogs for everyone. Don't feel you need to do such an in depth recap, but a little something to feed the starving DM would be greatly appreciated. You might also want to put in a few out of character words about how you think the game went and what we can do to improve it. I'm always open for suggestions to make my game better. Please, don't spare my feelings.
I'd like to say a few words about what I've learned about 4th edition. Firstly, it IS a fun game. I'm having a blast with it and I hope that you are as well. It is different and took some time, but I am growing to like it more and more. That being said, it is not a perfect system. While combat offers far more options for the player and the DM, it is still very long. We were often able to get in only one or two good combat sessions per game night. I've been reading ways to decrease the time necessary, and I've gotten a few good ideas. I'm not sure if I'll implement them right away, but we can discuss them next time we meet.
As for the character classes, I feel that they feel, perhaps, a bit more restrictive than in prior sessions. Like I've said before, the magic system drains some of the mystery out of the game. I also feel like the classes essentially play in a very similar fashion. I'm sure this is the result of the daily/encounter/at-will power system, but each attack almost seems to do the same thing, but with a different name. It drains some of the distinctness out of each class. Perhaps that will be corrected as we go up in level and as more options become available in the form of splat books.
To summarize, I like the system, but feel it is a bit incomplete as yet. A few tweaks here and there and we have a winner. I'll be sticking with it and I hope you all will as well, though if you'd feel like you gave it your all and just aren't digging it, I would have no hard feelings if anyone chose to move on.
Please post your thoughts and opinions either here or on your own blog. Thanks.
One more thing...I am dumping Eberron as the setting for out games. It's just not working for me. Instead, we will use WOTC's point of light setting as described in the DMG and PHB. Your thoughts?
Old Skool Gamers presents The Temple of Elemental Evil, played using the OSRIC rules (a 1st Edition homage).
28 comments:
Lets see, where to start...
First, I don't care which system we use. There are pros and cons to 4e, just like any other system. More on that later.
What I do care about is the make up of the group and the style of the DM. Those are things that make or break any game regardless of rule set, and that chemistry is what makes or breaks the enjoyment value.
We have a great DM and a great group, and that is all I care about.
I do wish we could play more often, and certainly more regularly. I think we are averaging about once every 5 weeks or less, and slipping.
I do wish 4e had not messed with the classes in the way it has, and left us with essentially three classes which are only differentiated by the armor they wear and hit point totals.
But again, it isn't the rule set that makes the game fun, it is the people. And we definitely have fun people :- )
Here are a few thoughts in no particular order.
-Leaving Eberron? Not really a problem. I personally like the setting a lot, but the canned modules don't really fit into it. The PoL setting found in the books really isn't much of a world, but once again I have no issues with it. Will you be expanding the setting (homebrew)?
-The Group is good, but like Shade said, once every 5 weeks is annoying.
-I also find 4E incomplete and the combats too long. My overall satisfaction level with the system is kind of low. It's not that the game itself is bad, only that it might not support the type of game I like to play. There are a lot of house rules available that might help make the game more enjoyable to play.
I like playing Krova, but have to admit that I have no real connection with the character. If he fell in our next session I wouldn't be too heart broken about it. Now whether that's because of the system, the setting, the race or any combination of the above (or other factor's) I don't know.
If I said Pendragon ... what would you say?
I just re-read my last comment and thought I came across kind of negatively. That's not quite right.
System and setting are important, but having a good group of players and GM trumps them both. Which is what we have.
I know you're schedule is really busy, but is there a way to play a little more often? Maybe another game to play when you're not available? Maybe someone could win the lotto and give us each a nice bonus so we could take some time off and game more often?
I'm just trying to think outside the box here.
While I would love to play Pendragon, I'm not ready to give up on this campaign. My intention was to run the entire WOTC adventure path through level 30. I hope you all stay for the ride, but as I said, I would understand if anyone wanted to bail for a system that they like better. From what I've heard, however, I'm happy that you guys want to stick it out.
As for playing more regularly, I think we will be able to after the holidays. Originally, I would not run a session if more than one person was absent. I've amended that to two players now as it is very difficult to get us all together. I hate playing with just three players, but I would rather play than not, especially if it means waiting weeks and weeks to schedule another session.
Thanks for the PoL link. I think a generic setting will work better for this adventure path as I will have to do less work to run the game and we can watch the setting grow as we play.
I'm still looking for more feedback, so if you've not weighed in, please do.
I guess I'll weigh in with some of my thoughts.
I, for one, enjoy 4e. A lot of it may come from the group dynamic and the good DMing, but I find it a good system with a lot of potential in it.
I'm going to have to agree with Joel, in that I don't feel very attached to my character. I think it's a combination of not yet having very many roleplaying opportunities, still being low level, and the fact that I came out of a 3.5 campaign that I'd been in for 3 years, most of which with the same character that I watched grow and evolve, and am very attached to. That said, I do want to stick with Lodi, because I do see potential growth there (watch out in the next few sessions, I've decided he needs a bit more "country boy" injected into his personality), and I think blogging his experiences helped this.
WE DON'T PLAY ENOUGH! That's really all I have to say.
Lodi's journal will be updated soonish (I'll see if I can get the rest done tonight). I lapsed on updating, so I'm pooling the whole Keep into one post.
Just to clarify, I am attached to my character, but that is due to the personality developing through the blog.
This isn't a complaint about how the sessions are run, I like that we can role play or not as we choose. It is more that 4e doesn't really excite me from a class standpoint, because they are kind of all the same.
This probably sounds odd considering I have just taken the Ranger MC, but that happened from a recent character development so it is a beneficial trade-off. Less class separation for more character immersion.
As for roleplaying, I will say that I've let that slack a bit. My primary objective for this first module was to get a feel for the system. While I injected quite a bit of "home-brewing" to the module, I still did not take as many rp'ing opportunities as I otherwise would. That will change with the second module as I'm more comfortable with the rules and more comfortable with the group dynamic.
If you're sure you want my opinion, here it goes.
The system: I absolutely hate it. I don't know very many people who can do things the way that I can, or vice versa. So, a system where everyone is pretty cookie cutter bothers me on so many levels, I would run out of room before explaining them all. In every other system (even 3.5), the part I love most is creating my character. I used to spend days making NPCs for the Hackmaster game I ran.
My character: I didn't expect much in the way of rp, because we are all so new to the system. I am generally not too attached to my characters. If Zar'za dies before I am done playing her, I can always create her twin sister, or something.
The campaign as a whole: It is really difficult to play a game that you don't like, unless you enjoy the people you are playing with, which is the case with this campaign. I really like your GMing, Dave. I really enjoy playing with all of you. So, I would say that I am still in it. Unfortunately, my schedule is going to be really hard to keep up with starting January (as I will be taking 15+ credits), so I don't know how often I will be able to play.
Alex, I'm not sure I'm following you on the PC creation thing. When you create a PC in any system, especially at first level, they are just a meager collection of stats. It's the background and flavor that makes it come to life. I don't see how 4th edition restricts that aspect of character creation. As for the character's abilities being similar, that I get. It is discouraging knowning that just about every mage/cleric/etc in the world is going to be doing the exact same thing you are. What we need for 4th edition is more options, and for that we'll have to wait. In the meantime, we can make our characters who they are by involving ourselves in their backgrounds, personalitites, and desires, just like in any other system.
To the end of class variation, I did pick up a copy of Martial Power (because amazon wanted be to buy more with my pre-order of Dr Horrible to get free shipping). And while I've only glanced through it, it does present a new option for each of the martial classes, and I was very tempted to switch Lodi over to a beastmaster ranger. Along with that it has some great new feats, and new paragon paths for those classes (fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord). (I also have a digital copy if anyone's interested)
And along that same line, I really don't think we're in the meat of the game yet. Not having gotten there yet, I havn't taken much time to look at the paragon and epic levels, but I feel that those options help differentiate this person and that person with the same class.
Oddly, Ebon, I think you answered your own question. And I can relate to Olplyn's comment.
Take any 10 Rogues and I bet more than half will vary only by name. I even tried to purposely take less popular powers, but found them to be essentially useless.
In 3.5 my Rogue, at level 1, was already unique from a stat perspective. Not only that I would agonize for hours over his skills and stats, making sure he was tweaked exactly the way I would enjoy playing him. It was almost its own mini-game, although I personally hated that part. The end result was more than worth the effort though.
In 4e you could very much have a character-creation wizard with 4 questions:
Name, Race, Class, Equipment.
Presto! Not only would it be the same character we build (mostly) by hand now, but the same one everybody else is playing too.
Now this may sound like a negative post, but it isn't. It is pointing out a major flaw in this system, but I don't really care, because I am having a great time with this group of people.
Hey Nick, if you switch to a beastmaster Ranger, your beast can be a rat! :)
Thanks for the heads-up on that book, Nick!
I took a look at it, but it actually underlines my point even more. At least for Rogues, anyway.
First, there is a blurb challenging the player to make Sneak Attack different than, say, Hunters Quarry (which does not even need CA).
Then there is a shiny new At Will power for Rogues that, get this, is worse than the other choices. It is essentially a 1[W] attack that is Dex -vs- AC, and nothing else. The existing ones of the same category add either extra damage or an effect. There is zero reason to ever choose this new attack.
They need game designers who actually know what AD&D is all about, they can't just make it like all the other WOTC games.
But I have been playing longer than most of their game designers have been alive, so perhaps I am just old fashioned.
Again, while I wish 4e were different I am having fun with it, because of the DM and the group as a whole. In fact, it is due to the group that I am having a ton of fun despite glaring flaws in 4e. Maybe they will fix them some day, maybe they wont, but either way I am having a blast :- )
Ahh, but Ebon, one rat will never do! It has to be the whole swarm >:- )
Ooh, he could teach them tricks! If he had two he could teach them to walk around, one sitting on the others shoulders, and pretend to be another halfling! If they hunch down a bit, I mean >:- )
Screw that, it'd be a boar...that I could ride. (note: they set beastmasters up so you can't ride your pets because they're all medium size or smaller, and a mount must be large size...lame)
Damn Shade, you owe me a new keyboard and monitor. It seems my current ones are now covered in coffee!
Glad I could help, Ebon, glad I could help >:- )
I agree with pretty much everything that Olplyn said. Particularly the part about enjoying the group and GM we have.
The system's focus on balance and combat equality, brought with it a lack of real customization (uniqueness) for characters classes. Sure, future books may be able to provide some additional flexibility in character design, but if the core rules don't grab me ... what's the likelihood that I'll be impressed with future books? And as long as the 4 core "roles" are the benchmarks that class expansions must equal, I don't see this situation changing anytime soon.
So from a players perspective, if we are going to continue with the system I'd like to ask our illustrious GM for more ... "something"... that will help me to become immersed in the character and the story. It might be more RP ... or more detailed setting background (always a personal favorite)... or something else. I don't really know at this point.
But I'm certain you can figure something out.
Hey Joel, take another look at that new at-will power for rogues. It actually has a couple things going for it. One, it synergizes with the new class ability of being able to use maces/clubs/saps in a rougeish way, and two, when it does damage, the enemy takes a -2 to attacks until the beginning of your next turn.
There's also a new property for fighter powers that gives them their con bonus in temp hp when they hit.
Are you looking at Disheartening Strike? That is the only new At-Will at level 1, and I don't see anything like that. It looks like it is just straight 1[W] + Dex mod.
What am I missing?
Disheartening Strike is a "ranged" attack, something you were lacking (and complaining about endlessly).
...Oh, it also has the "rattling" keyword, which allows you to apply the -2 to your target's attack rolls if you are trained in Intimidate. That's what Nick was talking about.
Yeah, Dave pointed it out. Lesson being, always pay attention to a power's key words.
Finally have a moment to post...
This is a fun group period. That does trump everything else as it is fun to be around you all. Be nice to see everyone more often of course...
I like the 4e system as a whole. Combat offers up a lot of options for characters with a set of rules to cover most everything. I like having at-will spells making me feel like more of a competant wizard who can do all kinds of neat tricks, both in and out of combat. Yeah, the combat spells work MUCH better when the dice are hot but what can you do? More spell options would be a welcome thing, especially the at-will spells.
I would also think we can make this our own system that will work for us. We are smart enough and experienced enough to create the tweaks necessary to fill in gaps as we've done already with our house rules.
That being said, I'm not opposed to different systems as long as someone can direct me to the proper books, files, pdfs, etc necessary to get into the game.
And let's play more often.
Ahh, good point, Nick, I missed the significance of Rattling somewhere. That does make it useful then.
The thing about ranged, Ebon, is that I chose all melee. There were good ranged options, I just ended up playing a different style of combat than I thought I would. My fault, not the systems :-)
All I know for sure is, it has been a week and a half since I last played, and counting...
Oh, and the deleted comment is my bad too. Meant to hit Preview and hit Publish, and needed to fix something.
Ahh, the trials and tribulations of posting from work, when my attention is divided ;- )
So when are we playing again?
Post a Comment