• feature
  • WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 17 2008 6:00 PM

Wil Wheaton's Geek In Review: Keeping The Borderlands Alive

Last week, I spent an entire day playing Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition with some of my friends. Big whoop, you say. So did I. Ah, but I played in Seattle. With Gabe and Tycho from Penny-Arcade. And Scott Kurtz from PVP. And, to really twist the +3 dagger in your back, our DM was Chris Perkins from Wizards of the Coast, who made an adventure specifically for us to play. For the crushed peanuts and maraschino cherry topping on this sundae of HAWESOME, I got to play a class from the unreleased Player's Handbook 2. We recorded the entire session for a podcast, which will be released early next year.

Did I mention this class is unreleased? Because it was. I played a class that you haven't seen yet. I just want to make sure I get full bragging mileage out of this. I posted a little bit about it on my blog and Twitter (I can't go into specifics, for obvious reasons *cough* awesome unreleased class *cough*). I should not have been surprised (but I was) to find out that a lot of people seem to want to know what I think of D&D Fourth Edition.

If you're not a serious tabletop gamer, you may be surprised to learn that this version of D&D was extremely controversial in the gaming community. Mr. Peabody, fire up the Wayback Machine . . .

In August of 2007, Wizards of the Coast announced that they were updating Dungeons & Dragons to a new, fourth edition. I was mostly happy with the current edition, but I was cautiously optimistic. "Maybe they've absorbed a lot of feedback from gamers who played 3.0 and 3.5, and they're cleaning things up accordingly," I thought. (Yes, there really was a third-and-a-half edition. That's a topic for another column, ideally written by someone else.)

By October of 2007, I had heard a lot of crazy talk. Nothing was sacred, they were saying. Magic Missile was going to require a to-hit roll and there would be some kind of dragon character race. As I absorbed each bit of new, my condition was downgraded, from cautiously optimistic to increasingly wary. "Nothing is sacred? Dragons are for killing, not for playing! What next, are they going to replace the swords with walkie-talkies?" There was a definite "WTF? Han shot second?!?" vibe in the community. Gamers, like hardcore SF geeks, tend to fear change. Especially change which we determine, sight unseen, to be stupid.

I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about Fourth Edition until May, when I got a copy of The Keep on the Shadowfell, a first-level adventure with some pre-made characters and simplified rules, designed to be a teaser before the core rule books went on sale in June. I paged through it with as open a mind as I could muster, and though I saw that the rumors about Magic Missile and Dragonborn were true, I liked pretty much everything else I saw. In fact, it looked like it could be a lot of fun, and it reminded me more of the streamlined Red Box "Basic D&D" system I played when I was a kid than of the math-heavy, table-laden version of AD&D I traded for GURPS when I was a teenager.

I lucked into a set of core rule books a week before they were officially released. My world came to a complete halt while I devoured them. I'll eventually give each one its own review, but the short version is: The Fourth Ed Dungeon Master's Guide is the book I've wanted to read since I was 12. Everything you want to know about running a game Ñ and having fun doing it Ñ is in this book. I have a ton of experience playing D&D, but very little experience running games. I still wear a scarlet letter for several total party kills when I was a kid; this book gave me the confidence and guidance to sit behind the DM screen again. The Player's Handbook has a terrible index, and they made the mistake of telling us early on that something does "1[W] + Wis" damage without telling us what [W] is until the end of the book (SPOILER ALERT: it's weapon damage, like 1d8 or 1d12 or 2d4+6. Also, the monsters are calling from inside the castle!), but other than that, it gives you everything you need to create and outfit a character. The Monster Manual is full of Monsters. 'Nuff said.

I didn't actually get to play a game (stupid real life responsibilities) until last week, but reading the 4E core rule books inspired me to get all of my D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, GURPS, True20, Mutants & Masterminds, and World of Darkness books out and remember exactly why I started playing these games in the first place. I didn't have to look very long; it was printed right inside the cover of the Player's Manual in my very first Basic Rules Set (the red box that served as my introduction to the system). "This is a game that is fun. It helps you imagine." You'll notice that it does not say, "This is a game that helps you feel superior to other people because you can calculate THAC0 in your head before the dice stop rolling," or "This game is deliberately designed to exclude anyone who doesn't have a degree in higher mathematics." When I played Fourth Edition, it was like they'd taken everything I didn't like about D&D, everything that had made it overly complicated and cumbersome, and thrown it all away. All that was left was the best lessons taken from 3.0, and the philosophy that made basic D&D so much fun in the first place.

So now you know where I'm coming from, but I need to add one disclaimer before I describe my impressions of 4E: I've only played once. It was for 10 hours, and it was with people I really, really like, but it was just one adventure. Having said that, however, what I experienced fulfilled and even surpassed the expectations I had after reading the core rules, a couple of adventure modules, and talking to people who play 4E in their weekly game. In the briefest of terms, it was hella fun.

How does it play? I think the best way I can describe it is: simply, without being simplistic. Gamers who play an RPG have to decide for themselves why they're setting aside the time and making the effort to get together. Almost every time, whether people have fun comes down to the DM and the players. It took me years of gaming, and no small amount of frustration, to conclude that a system's rules should provide a structure and some basic expectations for the game, but that a campaign or adventure is more fun when it's supported by the rules, instead of being defined by them. (Caveat: No game is suitable for everyone. If you can't stand horror movies, you won't have a good time playing World of Darkness, no matter how much you like the system and your fellow players. Further caveat: There are some badly designed games out there. I'm not talking about games with design decisions you disagree with; I'm talking about games with contradictory rules, broken cross-references, poor or no indexing, and probably little to no playtesting.)

My 4E experience started with character creation, which I did sitting on the floor of my office with pencils and paper, the Player's Handbook, and the Adventurer's Vault. I know there are online tools available to do it all for you, but I couldn't bring myself to use them; I'm an original analog gamer, man, that's just how I roll. (4d6 and drop the lowest FTW.) It took awhile because while I had read the books, I had never tried to use them, and there was some page-flipping while I wrapped my brain around the system. However, and this is crucial, I never got frustrated or felt bored. The process took some time because I had a learning curve and because there are several decisions to make, not because I was confused or because the rules were disorganized.

Now, to address some of the things I worried about before I played 4E. I keep hearing people complain that 4E is just WoW on the tabletop. Quite tellingly, I haven't heard this from anyone who has actually played 4E, but I understand the concern, especially if you're only looking at the combat rules in the store and listening to people complain on the Internets. Many of us have a lot invested in our 3.0 and 3.5 books, and may not want to take a chance on something that's going to be just like a damn video game. Aren't we playing this to get away from video games? I haven't played WoW and don't really care to, but if Blizzard's combat system is this fast and easy to understand, and this much fun, I can see the appeal. Every player got to do something important to help the party, and all of us contributed to each challenge, whether it was solving a puzzle, disarming a trap, or actually fighting lots of monsters.

(Speaking of WoW, I wonder if WoW is, for some gamers, "the other woman," threatening to split the party with a siren's call that's taking potential players out of our world and never giving them back...could that be why so many hobby gamers hate it so much? And if so, wouldn't it make more sense to hate on CCGs, which sucked away RPG players ten years before anyone knew what Warcraft was? Hey, as long as I'm kicking over anthills today, I'm going to make sure I stomp on as many as I can.)

You may have heard that player characters are much stronger at lower levels and that it's harder to die than it used to be. That's true. I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the problem. I like that my character isn't going to die from one encounter at first level. I like that I can use cool powers and feats and feel heroic right out of the gate, instead of slogging through several rooms of kobolds or skeletons, with numerous breaks to rest and heal between each encounter.

Speaking of healing, player characters get to use a certain number of healing "surges" each day, sort of like guzzling down an energy drink when you're pulling an all-nighter and start to flag. This does indeed fundamentally change the game I grew up playing, but I can't believe I ever campaigned without it. I don't want to keep going back to town whenever I have a tough fight. I want to keep exploring the world and meeting new NPCs. I want a trip back to town to really mean something, either that we've made some major progress in the campaign and have something to report, or we barely escaped a Gelatinous Cube and had to follow Sir Robin all the way back to Winterhaven, eating his minstrels on the way. (Yaaaaay.)

I'm not going to attack people who can't stand 4E the same way I've seen some anti-4E people attack others for liking it, because that just reminds me of watching two guys with ponytails argue about which Linux distribution is better while they ignore the stripper grinding on the rail right next to them. (She's working really hard for those singles, guys. Show some respect.) I will say to the 4E haters, though, that Hasbro's idiotic handling of third-party 4E support (also a topic deserving its own column) has effectively alienated a huge portion of the indie publishing world, and there's going to be plenty of 3.5 support out there for a very long time. Paizo's Pathfinder and Green Ronin's True20 seem to make a lot of people very happy, too, and there are a ton of other systems out there, so it shouldn't be too hard to find something that fits your game and your circle of friends.

I've been playing Dungeons & Dragons for 2d12 years. I remember when magic-users couldn't wear armor, when edged weapons didn't hurt skeletons, and even when an elf was a class. I have more polyhedral dice than [SOMETHING NORMAL PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF]. I routinely tell my wife and friends that I have to "save vs. shiny" when I go to my friendly local game shop, and I didn't realize that graph paper existed for a purpose other than making dungeons until I'd been in high school geometry for a semester...and even then, I remained skeptical.

Few things in the world make me as happy as gaming, and I have two shelves of RPG books to prove it. I have a lot invested in those books, not just money, either, but time and memories. Each time I hear that one of the systems I care about is in danger of getting the Jar-Jar business, I have to save vs. kill crush destroy. At substantial minuses. If you'd told me six months ago that I'd be sitting here today writing about how much I love D&D Fourth Edition, I would have laughed in your face and called you a silly person. It is almost certain that I would have taunted you a second time, called your parentage into question, farted in your general direction, and observed that you were best suited for a career in empty animal food trough wiping.

Yet here I am, anxious to go pick up my Fourth Edition Manual of the Planes, and counting down the days until Winter Break so I can take my kids and some of their friends to the Keep on the Shadowfell, where I will get to play Kalarel himself, and try really hard not to kill them all in their first few encounters. Remember, it doesn't matter what edition of what game you're playing ... a system is only as good as its DM and its players.

Wil Wheaton rolled a critical failure vs. make deadline this week. Sorry, Nicole!



 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

DEC 22, 2008 05:04 PM

baudot said:

Ainur said:
In response to baudot and mQx, and again, it's just my opinion, but I do believe that a great DM should be able to encorporate whatever other system, world, character, etc. their players wish to use/inhabit. There should be no boundaries so long as all the people involved are happy with the outcome. I took D&D players to outerspace once because that's where they wanted to go (it works in the context of deities and other planes of existence).



Absolutely. But past a certain point you're not playing D&D anymore - you've built your own game. smile

I'd still take D&D for introducing new players anyday, and it's still the one system everybody knows, more or less. I play it more than anything else.



I don't. I used to, many years ago. I moved on to better systems, and worlds I could believe in.

And the best system for introducing new players I ever found was the West End Games Star Wars RPG. Fantastic. Clean, easy to understand, consistent, easy to expand on... I wrote an entire Middle-Earth campaign in it, which I may yet get to referee.

tadkil

tadkil

Duluth, GA
September 2004

DEC 22, 2008 05:28 PM

Robotpet said:

tadkil said:

SockPuppet said:

tadkil said:
However, Keep on the Shadowfell occupies the same place in my son's hearts that Keep on the Borderlands does for me. It's the first place they learned how to communally express wonder.



Your apostrophes need work. I was beginning to wonder what species your son is... smile



1) Doh!
2) That was funny



Time Lord, apparently.



Dunno about that, but occassionally I do want to shave his head and look for 6s.

burtlo

burtlo

Seattle, WA
May 2004

DEC 23, 2008 08:29 PM

Thanks for the commercial. tongue


So now you know where I'm coming from, but I need to add one disclaimer before I describe my impressions of 4E: I've only played once. It was for 10 hours, and it was with people I really, really like, but it was just one adventure. Having said that, however, what I experienced fulfilled and even surpassed the expectations I had after reading the core rules, a couple of adventure modules, and talking to people who play 4E in their weekly game. In the briefest of terms, it was hella fun.



Systems are there to facilitate a game between people, between friends. No system can save a failed group and even the most mundane and poorest of systems can be a great game. I no longer look for systems. I look for players.

Oninotaki

oninotaki

Ypsilanti, MI
March 2003

DEC 29, 2008 10:03 PM

Great article, although it was beyond weird for me to get to it from enworld lol

Evermansice

Evermansice

Chicago, IL
July 2005

DEC 30, 2008 02:10 AM

Let me say before I continue I'm not arguing that one edition is better than the other. They each have things to recommend them, and I certainly have my preferences, but that's not what this is about. Also, the things I mention of 2nd edition (2E) are largely true of 3rd edition (3E) as well.

4th edition (4E) would not have caused so much a stir if they had made it a whole new game system instead of the next edition, which is honestly what it feels like. I suppose it's a bit stark to me because at about the same time I started running a 4E campaign to see how it played, I joined a 2E, Return to the Tomb of Horrors campaign. In the 2E campaign I'm playing a cleric. This cleric, in addition to having an expansive spell sheet full of spells to detect lies, see through illusions, sanctify ground and purify food, fold space, divine the future, cure diseases and mend wounds spends most of his combat rounds casting spells to protect his allies or leaving his enemies stunned for rounds.

That sort of character doesn't exist in 4E. A cleric has non-combat rituals, sure, but they're separated from the spells, must be found or purchased, and are far sparser and more limited. In combat a cleric has only a few powers to support the party outright. The rest of a cleric's support comes from not doing as much damage as damage as the other party members and causing statuses that last a round or so instead. I should note, not once in the 4E campaign I run have we has to pause to discuss the precise workings of a power. At the same time, though, I could have built a cleric similar to the 4E ones for the trip to The Tomb, I just chose not to. Instead, I build a character whose play style was dropped.

I know a lot of people say the earlier editions were too mathy or complex. If they were, they were hardly impenetrable, and there was depth in that complexity that was lost in the attempt to make it more accessible. The first example people always cite against this is how ridiculously difficult using THACO to calculate hits was, but you know what? Here's how THACO works: Subtract the target's Armor Class (AC) from your THACO. You need to roll that or higher on a D20 to hit. That's not perfect, but it's hardly difficult. It's worst sin was being poorly named. (You. I see you. Yes, you. The one who's about to start complaining about negative AC values. When that happens, you subtract a negative. That's something they taught you how to do in grade school.)

As for it's similarities to WoW, yes, relative to previous editions it is pretty WoW-esque. You'd never mistake the two, but having played both, I can see the similarities that crept in in mechanics and settings both. I'm not much a fan of them. I remember a world and a game system where elementals didn't serve the elemental lords of the elemental chaos; where only a quarter or so of a mage's spells actually did damage; where evil could be lawful and good could be chaotic; where you could be a good climber but only a fair runner, and you could decide just how much better a climber than a runner you were; where you could start at a heroic level with a good set of abilities, significant amount of health, and a reasonable amount of power, or you could start out as a farmer's child picking up a sword for the first time in your life to defend your town against a pack of goblins, any one of whom could kill you as easily as you could kill it, and who survives against all odds, marking the start of your character's heroic legend. I remember this world, and while I won't claim 4E is terrible, when I look at it, there are parts of this world I wish had survived intact.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JAN 03, 2009 12:43 AM

Gah! A magic user in armor? Next thing you'll be telling me is that clerics can use edged weapons and carry swords along with the wizards...

Alas, it has been many moons since my half-elf ranger-mage saw the light of day. I think I got into Palladium games around the time TMNT was added to their collection (the After the Bomb addition was awesome, imagine Mad-Max with Mutants, Car Wars with Paranoia). It was pretty much the precursor to RIFTS which pretty much dominated the last days of RPGing for me...

MeAtyPunK

MeAtyPunK

Leesburg, VA
June 2003

JAN 03, 2009 07:33 PM

1. I am way too poor to buy all new books every several years. 3.5 was prolly the last time. I much preferred the old way, which was assuredly not nearly as profitable. You have one edition and release hundreds of optional support books. 2nd Edition lasted me 12 years. Now wizards of the coast wants me to buy a 3rd version of the game in half that time?

2. I cannot endorse a D&D system that has no bards.


Tritone

Tritone

Saint Paul, MN
May 2004

JAN 03, 2009 08:42 PM

motorfirebox said:

Robotpet said:
Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.

I just want to know one thing:

Does a housecat still do 1d4 scratch damage? Because those things are deadly to 1st level characters. Why a non-adventuring NPC would ever keep one in the house is beyond me. I think that perhaps the name "house"-cat is an oxymoron.



cats do 1d2-4 dmg. they actually end up starving to death, unable to do enough damage to their prey to kill it.



But isn't the magic of DnD that each hit does a minimum of one damage? I remember reading or hearing that a group had a free action pimp slap for 1 damage to keep everyone in line.

More cat funny: I think it was under 3.5 that someone polymorphed into a cat - being denied the racial Jump ability - was too weak to hop onto a table.

FellOnEarth

FellOnEarth

Temecula, CA
April 2006

JAN 04, 2009 12:27 AM

Tritone said:

motorfirebox said:

Robotpet said:
Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.

I just want to know one thing:

Does a housecat still do 1d4 scratch damage? Because those things are deadly to 1st level characters. Why a non-adventuring NPC would ever keep one in the house is beyond me. I think that perhaps the name "house"-cat is an oxymoron.



cats do 1d2-4 dmg. they actually end up starving to death, unable to do enough damage to their prey to kill it.



But isn't the magic of DnD that each hit does a minimum of one damage? I remember reading or hearing that a group had a free action pimp slap for 1 damage to keep everyone in line.

More cat funny: I think it was under 3.5 that someone polymorphed into a cat - being denied the racial Jump ability - was too weak to hop onto a table.


I seem to recall at least one occasion where in the event of rolling dice, the DM would suddenly declare the party was randomly ambushed by a ferociously cute and furry beast as the offending die was chased down and swatted by his cat. Funny how the little interruptions in life were manifested into real crises and events in the realm of fantasy...

I can remember killing off a particularly annoying lawful good, dwarf, paladin in our party with my chaotic neutral, half-elf, ranger after he kept misleading the group into folly after ridiculous folly. Though I was the most experienced player among the younger AD&D group, leadership really wasn't my style. I tended to be more democratic, he more demanding and bombastic. In the end though, I guess I preferred to do my own thing and his character's demise left the party leaderless but much happier (especially after I left the spoils to the younger players). Needless to say, and much to my chagrin, my real life association with the other player soured after that game. It was quite the blessing though since he'd been hanging on to me once he knew about game night at the pizza parlor. He just kept showing up like a particularly pestilential and recurrent sore. Kind of funny how one game easily resolved that issue. I do feel a bit sorry for doing it now, but at the time everyone thought it was a wonderful coupe de gras.

Weso

Weso

Santa Cruz, CA
July 2002

JAN 05, 2009 03:04 AM

Thanks for writing another awesome article. You give us geeks something else to look forward to.

jonzes

jonzes

Madison, WI
July 2003

JAN 05, 2009 09:01 AM

Can't agree more. I read a lot of BS on the internets from neck-beardy types about what a supreme injustice against humanity 4e was going to be. Then I bought it. Now I play it. It is fun AND it managed to get my fellow 20-30somethings back together to play and enjoy ourselves which 3x never did despite owning the books. now if only were were not all so busy!

It is too bad that the financial needs sometimes seem to trump the fun-game needs at wotc but I guess that's the price you pay for being part of a relatively well-off minority.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

JAN 05, 2009 02:14 PM

Evermansice said:
In the 2E campaign I'm playing a cleric. This cleric, in addition to having an expansive spell sheet full of spells to detect lies, see through illusions, sanctify ground and purify food, fold space, divine the future, cure diseases and mend wounds spends most of his combat rounds casting spells to protect his allies or leaving his enemies stunned for rounds.

That sort of character doesn't exist in 4E. A cleric has non-combat rituals, sure, but they're separated from the spells, must be found or purchased, and are far sparser and more limited. In combat a cleric has only a few powers to support the party outright. The rest of a cleric's support comes from not doing as much damage as damage as the other party members and causing statuses that last a round or so instead. I should note, not once in the 4E campaign I run have we has to pause to discuss the precise workings of a power. At the same time, though, I could have built a cleric similar to the 4E ones for the trip to The Tomb, I just chose not to. Instead, I build a character whose play style was dropped.



By the same token, had you run a fighter in 2E, your options would typically boil down to attacking several times. In 4E, the fighter is nearly as option-rich as the spellcasters. Personally, I prefer a system that makes every character type interesting to play, and it looks to me like 4E accomplishes that. 2E certainly doesn't. (3E made some steps in that direction, but I'd still beeline for the casters.)

Also, it sounds like you were playing fairly high level (as I would expect for the Tomb of Horrors). In 2E and 3E, spellcasters' spell options widen and improve dramatically over the course of their career...but at the cost of having little to cast and very few options in the early levels. A 1st level 2E wizard is a pathetic waste of space, capable of one (count 'em, one) spell per day and none of those especially prepossessing, while being fragile as hell and barely any use once that spell is expended. Clerics, being sturdier and capable of fighting effectively in melee, are a bit better off, but still weak on the whole casting thing. Meanwhile, in 4E they start out wielding multiple at will abilities that make them effective in combat throughout, *plus* the encounter and daily abilities. Admittedly, that doesn't expand dramatically over the levels (tending more towards replacing earlier abilities with more powerful later level ones), but I think it goes a long ways toward making low levels fun in a way they have never been for me before.

TheVehementStar

TheVehementStar

Cape Coral, FL
August 2006

JAN 06, 2009 03:28 PM

I do like 4E, but at times it feels a bit too much like an MMO. The Power system is something that really does that. The speed and ease of play is quite astounding though. I have to give them credit on this one, they really did take the game back to basics and return it to a fun game that anyone can learn to play. Great article Wil.

formerviking

formerviking

Denver, PA
May 2006

JAN 06, 2009 06:10 PM

First of all Evermancise , if I was in the area I'd look you up , cause I'd love to be in a 2E campaign right now . I think I've figured out the problem I have with 4E . The fact that it's so different from earlier editions ( yeah , I know , he's griping about the killing of sacred cows ) makes me ill . If I wanted to play a game that had a ton of options for any class , I'd play GURPS or one of it's ilk . If I'm playing something called D&D , then I expect certain things . Just like if I'm playing checkers , I don't expect to be able to move pieces like a chess piece .
If I could divorce myself form the name , I probably could enjoy the game . But the fact that they changed core races for no good reason , knocked some out just to replace them with things I have no interest in playing ( & again , yeah I know they'll be in later books . way to make me spend money I shouldn't have to spend ) , changed classes in a bid for balance that just makes everyone boringly alike ( IMO ) , and last but not least canceled the magazines while at it ... needless to say , I don't see myself playing anytime soon .

Evermansice

Evermansice

Chicago, IL
July 2005

JAN 09, 2009 06:23 AM

malkav11 said:
[By the same token, had you run a fighter in 2E, your options would typically boil down to attacking several times. In 4E, the fighter is nearly as option-rich as the spellcasters. Personally, I prefer a system that makes every character type interesting to play, and it looks to me like 4E accomplishes that. 2E certainly doesn't. (3E made some steps in that direction, but I'd still beeline for the casters.)

Also, it sounds like you were playing fairly high level (as I would expect for the Tomb of Horrors). In 2E and 3E, spellcasters' spell options widen and improve dramatically over the course of their career...but at the cost of having little to cast and very few options in the early levels. A 1st level 2E wizard is a pathetic waste of space, capable of one (count 'em, one) spell per day and none of those especially prepossessing, while being fragile as hell and barely any use once that spell is expended. Clerics, being sturdier and capable of fighting effectively in melee, are a bit better off, but still weak on the whole casting thing. Meanwhile, in 4E they start out wielding multiple at will abilities that make them effective in combat throughout, *plus* the encounter and daily abilities. Admittedly, that doesn't expand dramatically over the levels (tending more towards replacing earlier abilities with more powerful later level ones), but I think it goes a long ways toward making low levels fun in a way they have never been for me before.



I never meant to imply 4E didn't do anything good. Instead I meant to point out what, in my opinion, it lacks. In 2E there was a seldom referenced clarification that explains a good deal of this in my mind. You may or may not remember, if you were playing as a mage, you weren't considered a mage in-game until 9th level. Until then, you were a mage-in-training. The same held true with the other classes. Most games I played in 2E or 3E weren't meant to go from first level to twentieth. Because of that, the DM decided what sort of campaign he wanted to run at the beginning and told the players to create characters of a level that would fit. Half of the campaigns I played in did not start at first level. In 4e, in addition to everything else they did (good or bad), it seems they decided to start advancement off at that level where you're already well-trained in your class and have all the abilities that go with such experience. Also, in any campaign I've ever played, if you went straight for the mage, the front line would flatten you.

I'm not trying to 4E bash. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and while everyone is having a good deal of fun, there are things about the edition that still bother me. Again, though, we're still having fun. All the same, I have no plans to run another 4E campaign in the future.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next