So I got my copy of Keep on the Shadowfell. Damn, 4E is hot. I also picked up the two preview books...despite some folks commenting that they didn't want to spend money on promo material, I found it completely worth it. Armed with the philosophy behind the design decisions for 4E I was totally prepared to understand KotS on its own merits. It probably would have been in WotC's best interest to have given the material away...so that more people would be on the same page as them.

A couple of key items from the promo material is that their vision was to ramp up the fantastic. I'm a purist myself...I like elves and dwarves and hobbit-esque halflings on the shire...but knowing the whys and the wherefors behind the decision to ramp up the fantasy (with floating cities and rivers of moving earth and such) makes it easier for me to adjust to having Tieflings and Dragonborn characters.

The new feat/powerz system is gold. Characters are essentially designed like a collectable card deck and the powers are kept short sweet and standardized just like the text on cards. The brief look in KotS left me greatly anticpating the options in the PHB. Having monsters designed in the same card power style with a tactical guide in the book is fabulous. In many ways they read like the scripting in a solo RTS campaign...when you cross this point these enemies will activate and attack...and it could play that way if the DM adhered to the text too slavishly. But what I liked was the text working in conjunction with reading the powerz in the stat block...I really got an immediate feel for how to play the monsters smartly and appropriately...and I could immediately see room for situation appropriate tweaks...like using perception checks with the DC class set by distance to see whether nearby monsters hear the fight next door.

The scenario itself does a great job of being an intro to the game. I've read lots of folks suggesting that the scenario is a poor introduction because it doesn't provide enough "role-playing". To which I've gotta think...duh. 4E didn't revolutionize D&D roleplaying...it revolutionized D&D combat mechanics...so the first scenario should emphasize D&D combat mechanics. In fact, KotS's biggest weakness as a scenario in my mind are the things that make it that much better as an intro/promo scenario. There's an unecessary variety of monsters and fight locations packed into what is essentially a pretty straight forward adventure. There didn't need to be kobolds AND goblins AND hobgoblins AND a few humans thrown in...AND zombies...AND skeletons...AND the really disgusting corrupted corpses...AND...why not...lets throw in some completely gratuitous vampires and a shadow dude too. Similarly in an effort to showcase how easy it is to make really exciting environments to fight in, the scenario went a little overboard. Much like one could watch a court room drama and conclude...there's no way a DA would see that many crazy cases in a lifetime, let alone a season...the shear variety of fight locations does get a little much...but I expect it pales in comparison to what will be coming at Paragon and Epic level.

I could see playing this game with virtually no DM prep needed. Back when I was D&Ding several times a week (AD&D1E), even running a published module required lots of prep. That makes it a game I'm willing to try running...even though I haven't DMed D&D in 15+ years.


1 question for those already running the scenario...the quick start rules seem to have left out the rules for powers that Recharge. From context I'm assuming that these are powers that are Encounter Powers that maybe useable more than once per encounter if some "recharge" parameters are met...but what those parameters are is unclear. Best guess is that as part of the Start of Turn actions you roll a d6 and if the Recharge number comes up the power is active again...but that's just a guess. Anyone know for sure?

I am 95% in agreement with Ralph. My only point of dissent would be that I don't mind the big variety of monsters. WotC is obviously trying to showcase that monsters come in teams now, and the more diverse the team, the more fun the encounter. I'm also not 100% sure that they're assuming you'll hit every single encounter.

KotS was a really enjoyable read for me. I haven't really been able to say that about too many published D&D adventures I've seen. It felt very much like an old-school 1e module, in the good ways. Lots of hack n' slash, but interesting flavor. I also really appreciated that they didn't go apeshit with a big, exciting convoluted backstory; players never get to read that stuff anyway. The setup is fairly cliche, and I think they made use of that to focus on the actual stuff the players *do*.

I'll be running it for my regular crew as soon as I can read through the core books.

Posted By: buzzI am 95% in agreement with Ralph. My only point of dissent would be that I don't mind the big variety of monsters. WotC is obviously trying to showcase that monsters come in teams now, and the more diverse the team, the more fun the encounter. I'm also not 100% sure that they're assuming you'll hit every single encounter.

Yes, yes and yes. I played an encounter, and the multiple roles for different types of kobolds, all within the same monster species, is gold.

I want to see what happens when people have had one encounter with minions and dragonshields, and they're all like, "Kobolds. Cool. We know kobolds now," then they're hit with a skirmisher and a wyrmpriest in the next encounter.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I could definitely see expanding the role of the kobolds ... maybe giving them a decent little "Keep on the Borderlands" series of caves, and a nearby ogre for internal politics, rather than making them controlled part and parcel by the Big Bad, through his lieutenant, the Little Bad.

Like, my take would be that the kobolds are akin to the visigoths: They aren't being controlled by the mongols, they're being driven out. Yeah, they're more bold recently ... because they've got no choice.

One lingering concern I have, based on not much information, is how flexible the system is. For example, could you just remove entire races and classes and spells because they aren't your thing, or is there a careful balance of powers and abilities that causes problems if they are not available? In a more extreme case, could you run a humans-only campaign? No monsters, no elves and stuff? I get the feeling that it is rigidly organized to operate as a unit, and that this sort of tinkering will break things. Anyone who has read the rules want to weigh in on this?

Jason, if you didn't want to play with monsters, it would be dirt simple to take all the humanoid monsters (the ones that wield weapons, cast spells, and wear armor) and just rename them. Its not a hobgoblin is a Mandorian Heavy Infantry Soldier...that sort of thing.

You'd have to do that because "monsters" (i.e. opponents for players) aren't created using the same system as PCs (unlike 3E) so you couldn't just do an all human campaign by making a bunch of human PCs. There are some human "monsters" already (there's a couple of crazed demon cult berzerkers in KotS) but not nearly enough variety I suspect. But simply filing the serial numbers off the humanoids should do the trick easily.

I plan to play in a Wilderlands campaign that a friend of mine will be starting up soon with PCs restricted to humans only and Classes limited to Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, and Warlords, so I'll be able to report in on how well this seems to be working. Without Wizards, there will be no "Contoller" role available to a party, but I imagine our opposition will be tuned with that in mind as a GM would running Iron Heroes or some other low-magic 3E home brew.

Oh, and Wilderlands would have NPC Monsters, not humans only, strictly, but I like Valamir's idea above. Wilderlands has different human "races" and these could be flavored for 4E per Mark's suggestion.

I've only browsed the books, but I don't anticipate big problems with this.

Yeah, that's an old issue any previous edition DM had to be aware of in a party without a Wizard or Sorcerer: "These guys don't have Fireball." So, no massive swarms of enemies.

I ran one of the 4e games at GPNW. It was hot, hot, hot. I had not run any version of D&D before, and did about an hour of prep (not counting making the PC and monster tokens). I created my own encounters, but used the pregen PCs from Shadowfell (which are actually really cool).

We learned the system and had two big fights in about 3.5 hours, with 7 PCs -- including a fight with a Dragon who was pretty serious business. It was more of a demo than a real session, but even so, everyone had a blast. I was amazed at how easy it was to run on the fly with just eye-balled challenges ("4 minions is worth one guy... so I'll throw down 12 plus the Dragon and see how it goes").

The helping system, stunt table (DMG p.42!), cool powerz, and way easy combat system added up to a really nice mix. Everyone had their cool thing, and the cool things fit together in ways that highlighted the teamwork of the players. And since the system wasn't stressing anyone out, the roleplaying sprinkled on top really popped. In a "real" session, with, like, NPCs to talk to, Quests, skill challenges, and the like, I can see a very fun RPG in there.

I can't wait to start a campaign.

I just wanted to say that I'm incredibly impressed by what I've seen of 4th Ed as well. I'm excited about playing D&D again--that hasn't happened in a while. I especially like how the monsters come in smaller and capital units--and how the rules are streamlined and categorized. It appears to be a very slick very efficient engine with a fair amount of color.

I'm looking forward to it.

-Marco

I was also lucky enough to play in John Harper's game at GPNW on Sunday, and I was amazed at how far the game had progressed since I last played first edition like 20 years ago. It really felt like I was playing a tabletop MMO. The designers of the current edition have obviously been paying attention to game design in the past five years, and it shows.

It was loads of fun, but in a totally different way than emotionally complex games like Montsegur 1244 and Heart of Darkness.

It's kind of like deciding, do I read Tolstoy? Or do I watch the college football game with my buddies? Both are fun for different reasons and bring a different level of emotional involvement to the table.

Is it ever not fun to play a fighter????

Posted By: jenskotThe game is definitely rigid in some ways (I wouldn't mix characters of different levels)

Does this mean that everyone levels up at the same time? Do you just split the XPs evenly, or all get the same amount, or is there something a little more involved?

Hah! In one my most fondly remembered AD&D1e campaigns I played in, I didn't want to play any class, so I played a fighter. He never wore armor, and only ever fought with a quarterstaff. Still, he managed to kill a giant chicken in the darkness when all other hope was lost.

Posted By: Paul T.

Posted By: jenskotThe game is definitely rigid in some ways (I wouldn't mix characters of different levels)

Does this mean that everyone levels up at the same time? Do you just split the XPs evenly, or all get the same amount, or is there something a little more involved?

Yeah, experience is split up between those who helped talke out the encounter. So if everybody is there all the time (and actually do something instead of standing around somewhere) you all level up at the same time. (ie. roughly every ten encounters.)

Now, I'd imagine lack of participation could make a difference here, but that would depend on how the group handles it.