D&D Fourth Edition
With my schedule as packed as it's recently been, I was somehow still able to find new activities. As some of you may have heard, the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons came out last month, and as a colossal dork the hype caught my interest. I've been gaming since college, but somehow the big granddaddy of RPGs has escaped my attention thus far. Most of that is because I've been playing games that rebel against some of D&D's most common tropes. Games that have a greater emphasis on story and character development, and slightly less so on combat. This is because I've largely gamed with girls.
So I ended up buying the Player's Handbook for 4E, and eventually found myself a group to play with on the Internet. We've played a couple of times, so I can share some thoughts on the game.
First off, D&D is truly the most combat-centric game I've ever played. Characters, after choosing race and class, are defined by their Ability scores, skills, but most of all by their powers. On most levels, characters get to choose a new power. All of these powers are attacks, with the exception of "utility powers", and the vast majority of those are useful mostly in combat. The classes themselves are defined by their role in combat. For example, the two other players in my game are a Tiefling Rogue (Tieflings are descendants of humans who made a pact with devils, and thus have some demonic features), and an Elf Ranger. They are both "strikers" and are based on being highly maneuverable and doing obscene amounts of damage. My character, a Human Paladin, is a "defender", who is based around making myself the most attractive target and taking hits so my less well-armored companions don't have to.
Combat must be run on on a grid with miniatures. So much of the combat system is based on who is standing where or moving past who that you simply can't abstract it enough to make it work without them. Tactics are deep enough to be satisfying on their own, and the number crunching can easily make one forget about the finer points of roleplaying and character. And that's fine! It is fun to play what's essential a funky chess variant with rooks that have names and a backstory deeper than "beat the other guy". But if you're looking to lose yourself in an alternate persona, this isn't the place.
Given the game's focus on violence, it should be noted that they did make it so that all the abilities are useful in combat. Your ability to dodge is based on the higher of your Dexterity or Intelligence. And most of my Paladin's attacks are based on Charisma, not a physical stat. But that'll only work for certain classes. You are forced to make a combat effective character. There's no reason you wouldn't want to, even the non-combat skills are a short list that only has skills directly and obviously related to adventuring. Things like performing and crafting aren't there at all. A good DM and players can still simply roleplay out all the non-combat bits. In fact, that's the assumption. But the rules of the game itself will give them little aid in this.
So if you want to tell an interactive story with a wide variety of characters, look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a well-tuned combat game starring a selection of totally badasses, you can do a lot worse than D&D.
So I ended up buying the Player's Handbook for 4E, and eventually found myself a group to play with on the Internet. We've played a couple of times, so I can share some thoughts on the game.
First off, D&D is truly the most combat-centric game I've ever played. Characters, after choosing race and class, are defined by their Ability scores, skills, but most of all by their powers. On most levels, characters get to choose a new power. All of these powers are attacks, with the exception of "utility powers", and the vast majority of those are useful mostly in combat. The classes themselves are defined by their role in combat. For example, the two other players in my game are a Tiefling Rogue (Tieflings are descendants of humans who made a pact with devils, and thus have some demonic features), and an Elf Ranger. They are both "strikers" and are based on being highly maneuverable and doing obscene amounts of damage. My character, a Human Paladin, is a "defender", who is based around making myself the most attractive target and taking hits so my less well-armored companions don't have to.
Combat must be run on on a grid with miniatures. So much of the combat system is based on who is standing where or moving past who that you simply can't abstract it enough to make it work without them. Tactics are deep enough to be satisfying on their own, and the number crunching can easily make one forget about the finer points of roleplaying and character. And that's fine! It is fun to play what's essential a funky chess variant with rooks that have names and a backstory deeper than "beat the other guy". But if you're looking to lose yourself in an alternate persona, this isn't the place.
Given the game's focus on violence, it should be noted that they did make it so that all the abilities are useful in combat. Your ability to dodge is based on the higher of your Dexterity or Intelligence. And most of my Paladin's attacks are based on Charisma, not a physical stat. But that'll only work for certain classes. You are forced to make a combat effective character. There's no reason you wouldn't want to, even the non-combat skills are a short list that only has skills directly and obviously related to adventuring. Things like performing and crafting aren't there at all. A good DM and players can still simply roleplay out all the non-combat bits. In fact, that's the assumption. But the rules of the game itself will give them little aid in this.
So if you want to tell an interactive story with a wide variety of characters, look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a well-tuned combat game starring a selection of totally badasses, you can do a lot worse than D&D.