I'd like to play a fairly general D&D 4e game. I want to use the builder, my friend STILL pays for, outside of our little group. I want to be able to use themes, which no one ever does, and play the game roughly as printed (with errata).

I don't really want to play forgotten realm or Eberron, but I could be convinced, as long as I don't have to know much of the world.

I'm looking for action-rich combat, with a fair amount of dialogue in between combats. I prefer combats that are quick and deadly than long and tedious. At least on RPoL. I want to fight monsters roughly our level, and get treasure roughly the same as well.

I'm looking for teamwork and lots of buff friendly encounters. Mapping is a must, and I don't mind handling that aspect if the GM so chooses.

I understand if some home-rules are needed to keep the game flow reasonably steady, but I'd like it kept to that sense; not "balancing" or being "unique". I'd like the classic experience with new players and a GM, rather than something completely brand new.

Thanks!

As a veteran of running 4E games here, I feel the need to bear the bad news here. "Quick and deadly combat" and "no house rules" are mutually exclusive. I mean, yeah, the monster revisions in MM3 and the Essentials line did help that a bit, but without some fundamental changes to the mechanics, you can still expect combat to be "long and tedious", and it only gets longer with each level.

Now, some of this was fixed in the later monster books -- specifically, MM3 and Monster Vault. Critters got lower HP, especially solos, and did more damage. So you can get a lot of improvement just by sticking to those two books. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of critters out who never got updated, and they never put out a guide on how to upgrade older monsters to the new math.

If your friend's subscription includes access to some sort of monster builder, then they might be able to recreate some of the MM1/MM2 monsters and let it refigure the numbers.

For whoever might want to run this, some other tips:

• Don't use soldier enemies. Like, really, ever. If you do, limit yourself to one per 3 PCs (rounding down). Their whole job is to be hard to hit, and everyone hates enemies who refuse to be hit.
• When possible, use larger numbers of lower-level enemies -- instead of a few high-level ones. Higher-level enemies have higher defenses, meaning that PCs will miss more often, making fights take longer.
• Most enemies should be brutes (hitting hard) and skirmishers (moving around), but don't neglect adding in a handful of minions and a controller. Minions give the party mooks to mow down, but can still be a threat if underestimated. And if you use lurkers, for God's sake make them LURK. Keep them hidden until they can maximize their damage.
• When it comes to maps, bigger is better. Nothing stifles a fight scene like sticking twelve combatants in a four-by-four square. Give everyone room to move.
• Also with the maps: put stuff on them. Things to hide behind. Stuff to interact with -- possibly for improvised attacks, or temporary buffs, or changing the environment. And if something has some sort of combat effect, make it at least as powerful as the party's encounter powers or they won't bother.
• Make every combat have a goal. Give the PCs something to aim for other than simply "kill everything". Give the monsters conditions in which they'll run or surrender.

Lastly, consider stealing the Escalation Die from 13th Age. The way it works is simple: starting at round 2 in combat, the PCs get +1 to all attacks. This bonus increases by +1 each round, capping out at +6. But combat should speed up enough that it won't get this high. (In real-life games, they recommend plopping down the biggest d6 you can find on the table.)

There are other mechanics possible to tie to this die. Big threats (like dragons) gain the benefit. Maybe there's an altar to a battle god, and the bonus adds to damage rolls as well. Maybe a vampire's undead minions start to show up, 1d6 of them per point on the die. Or maybe the airship crashes the round after the die reaches 6. Stuff like that.

I have two games going at the moment, so I can't commit to anything right now, but I have a couple of concepts I'd like to try that I think would work for you. I'll keep you in mind when I eventually kick them off.


I don't have anything against themes, but I don't like how they're used. They're taken for the benefits without consideration for whether or not they make sense for the character or the scenario. Backgrounds are the same way. If the players were into giving them more actual significance, I'd be into them.


I prefer to set things in Eberron. I don't require any knowledge of the world, and player ideas usually overwrite parts of it anyway.


I don't appreciate dialoge for the sake of having dialog. Outside of combat, I like there to still be problems and challenges that need to be solved so that any conversation at least has the potential to have a real point to it. Heck, I prefer that there be conversation inside of combat too. My aim is not to have there be "roleplaying" and "combat," but just "the game" which is all roleplaying, regardless of what is happening in the game.

I hear you on "action-rich." I think that's more than doable, particularly with 4th Edition, but it takes some rethinking about the nature of combat situations.


What do you mean by "quick and deadly"? Could you give a general example (avoiding mention of specific games in this forum)?


How would you handle it?

I'm done with maps. They generally just slow the game down, mostly due to people searching them for hidden advantages of position and ask the DM clarifying questions like "Can I cut this corner?" or "Does X have cover from Y." To be useful, a map has to answer all such questions itself. In an effort to save time, I'd just let the players answer such questions for themselves. But at that point, I'm starting to make the map redundant, so I prefer to take that all the way, since it's easier not to bother with a map.

But if it were extremely easy and I didn't have to put any effort into it, I couldn't really say no.


By and large, I think that's doable, though I don't know what the "classic experience" is. By all accounts, it varied widely from group to goup. But I'm one who prefers to play the game by the rules as intended as much as possible, mainly to see how they work. Fortunately, a lot of what bogs down 4th Edition has nothing to do with the actual rules, just how and when they're applied. If the players and I don't think a particular bit of play would benefit from being run according to the rules, then it's not. Not every fight needs to be played out, not every action requires a skill roll.


Nah. Most of what makes combat "long and tedious" has to do with player and GM interaction and choices, which have a lot to do with the stakes of combat, and the preferences of the individuals.

Great tips, LonePaladin. I'd like to speak to them a bit.

This was your last one, but I'll address it first because it's key.

"Kill everything" really, really makes things drag, especially when the monsters have the same goal, and have no viable reason for or excuse to just give up and do something else. I get downright depressed when there's a single pathetic goblin left and it's surrounded and weighed down with tons of penalties. A DM really needs to say (well before that point) "You've won" and move on. But any monsters could also look around and do the same thing. Heck, given the fact that PCs are generally "supposed" to win it wouldn't really be amiss for at least some enemies to bail out any time they don't get really lucky in the first two rounds or so.

While "deadly" would take some extra consideration, depending on what one means, when there's an alternate goal, for PCs or monsters or both, "quick" is entirely possible, because it doesn't hinge on seeing a handful of counters run to zero in random up and down steps at random intervals. I won't belabor the point here, except to say that "run or surrender" aren't even the monsters' only choices. Once the range of failure modes is expanded, there are many more options for quick, action-packed scenes.


I can hear this. Enemies with lots of resistances, are a pain too, especially when they're insubstantial. Anyway the purpose of soldier monsters is to help keep other monsters in the fight a little longer, so there's little point to having them be a large portion of the opposing force.

But enemies that are hard to hit are of of the specialties of controllers and leaders who provide bonuses. Or defenders for that matter. So while they should be used carefully, they can definitely be a good way to make some character choices worth it. I'd think it would just be a matter of observing whether the group uses lots of attack bonuses or attacks that don't need attack rolls, such as zones.

And hard-to-hit enemies can be used differently. As with enemies that have a lot of hit points, hard-to-hit enemies can move and act with a lot of impunity. They can brave the defender's retribution or an opportunity attack or two (tip: in play-by-post make sure that the DM has the info on hand for rolling such attacks on the monster's turn, so there's no extra waiting) or stand in a flank with the striker so that it can get the most from its actions, whether that's harming the non-defenders, or accomplishing some alternate goal. If the monster takes a lot of damage for such risks, so much the better for a quicker game, and if it survives to cause trouble so much the better for an action-packed game.


Good advice but your advice on alternate goals take care of a lot of this. A monster with higher defenses and alternate goals has a reason to provoke attacks and take risks, as mentioned above, which means additional damage from the players and more tension. Anyway, the original post was hoping for at-level opposition, it sounded like.


Brutes do damage and are easier to hit, but also have more HP, so I'm surprised to see them played up in a discussion of "quick" games. Of course, alternate-goal-plus-attack-provoking works with them too, and their damage is even more impressive when applied to the party's controller.

Yes, to minions. They are ideal for alternate goal situations. Imagine a ravine crossed by a rope bridge with a single minion on the far side ready to cut the lines. Unless the PCs are desperate enough to risk running across it probably won't be a deadly fight for them, but it will definitely be quick. Can they roll high enough initiative and make enough attacks in the one round they have to kill that minion or are they going to be trapped on their side of the ravine?


I wish I could say I've ever seen this make a difference on its own. Again, I think alternate goals really make the difference here. If each side is just trying to kill the other, then they're probably just going to come together in a scrum anyway. But if one side is trying to accomplish something in all four corners of the room, then the other is going to have to be somewhat mobile to prevent them from accomplishing that.


All good stuff, though it seems like it might slow things down in a "kill 'em all." The enemies can use cover too, which will just make them harder to hit. Instead of giving something a "combat effect," give it a "goal effect." Sure, a magical crane can be used to slam into people, but it's also the only thing that can lower something to cover the fissure that's leaking poisonous gas into the countryside.


To get even more game speed out of this idea, give the bonus not to the players but to the opposition. I can almost guarantee that the players will figure out ways to keep every fight from going into a third round. A potential downside would be that they might refuse to fight unless they see a way to get out in two rounds, but again alternate goals could help with this.


I heartily agree with all of this, though one doesn't need a mechanic for it. If one wants a three round fight it's often enough just to state that something major will change in three rounds.

There's much more that can be brought to bear within the rules to keep fights snappy and fun, depending on what one is after. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone, though we should probably take it elsewhere.

V_V, I'll be in touch when I'm ready to start a new game.

I intended to use Masked Lord or Halaster's Clone, but...


I have no idea what Eberron themes are out there. Beast Tamer, or the Fatedancer maybe.


I like to learn about the PCs' history, likes and dislikes. I like meeting NPCs at balls, or parties, and using RL music as background to game scenes. As far as combat dialogue, I'm all for that too!



Quick and deadly when you fight foes that "win" by damage or KO. Rather than by just stalling a combat and winning by the sum of tiny victories. Ten rounds can go quickly when it's just attack/damage boosting, healing, and manuevering. While two rounds can drag when everyone on the table has to contend with a zone, multiple saves, an aura, and UEoE, and UEoNT all going on. At higher levels the foes can "win" by killing the PCs too. It's easy to paint a thousand deadly combats. They look relatively the same generally, and are each memorable by the scenery and forced movement, the nuance of the combat; in the end it's just damage trading and mitigating that.

Tedious combats are much more difficult to make specific. Just listing one would be tedious, in and of itself. Generally though? "Make five saves on your turn for deleterious action penalties" while "I deal (pitiful) damage while you're dazed and weakened, and slowed" The downfall of 4e was the save mechanic. It would be great for a video game! Not so much for realtime play. On RPoL, it is easier though, as you are encouraged to take your time. Still, stalling tactics from enemies is not satisfying; not for PCs nor foes. A rare stalling combat is fine, either way, our stall or the foe's stall, but they should really be poignant, lest they become tedious.


Simple, I'd ask for coordinates and if necessary use a real time mapping aid. ditzie used to be a thing, but if it's not still I could find something else. Exploiting maneuvering is something creature do IRL all the time. It's satisfying to me to see the chess game mechanic as well. It's less board game than RPG, but I enjoy the former even still.



I can appreciate that. By classic I mean not adding new stuff, only removing excess. For instance, I GMed a (failed!) game where in I made wound penalties, as the request of one player (that was it!) and it ruined an otherwise good game. In another, I played, we didn't have any equipment; ever. We fought multiple battles without it, and finally got the nerve to say "cut it out!" and the GM revealed "Oh...I thought this would make it more challenging". and so he quit. Fighters were using lumber and having abysmal defenses. While the implement users basically worked seamlessly. I played shaman, and even I thought it was tedious. When changing rules, make them less, not more. So I've found. Every GM is different, as is the composite group.



PCs bailing out, means they run...quick enough to hide. Enemies bailing out means the same. Bailing out does not equate to loss immunity, it's just prevention, and by no means certain. Killing a goblin may be the sanest choice in game, but I agree, when the battle is not only decided but no significant resources stand to be lost, then it should be called. Rescuing prisoners is a great goal! So is destroying a solo taking skill rolls in tandem with fighting the group.



I would not want to play in a game that had the politics of not killing the goblins, because they had secret information, or knew of prisoners being held elsewhere. That gives me anxiety, and this goes back to the "classic" feel. Fighting monsters, not all intelligent, surviving traps, and being heroes is what I'm after. Not deep intrigue or grit.



I wouldn't want this, it would be tide turning, and not in an enjoyable way.



Sound fine. :) I'm open for other GMs' offer too.
This message was last edited by the user at 02:52, Tue 08 Jan 2019.

I would not want to play in a game that had the politics of not killing the goblins, because they had secret information, or knew of prisoners being held elsewhere. That gives me anxiety, and this goes back to the "classic" feel. Fighting monsters, not all intelligent, surviving traps, and being heroes is what I'm after. Not deep intrigue or grit.[/quote]
To be clear, I don't mean capturing monsters to interrogate them or anything. 4th Edition makes it trivial to take monsters alive while still offering little or no advice to DMs on how to handle prisoner situations. They're as awful as they ever were.

I just mean that a monster that wants something that the players don't want to it to have can fight to get it, but would probably run or give up as soon as they saw they couldn't have it. Even if the goal is (yawn) to kill the characters, at some point they'd see that it wasn't likely to be possible and run away.

This message was deleted by the user at 04:25, Fri 05 Apr 2019.