For the record, I don't hate modern D&D. Played it right up through 3.5. To my mind all of the editions have had certain faults -- but this upcoming 4th edition ...
... folks, it makes my head hurt. Honest and for true, it does. It takes everything I specifically didn't like about editions 3.0+ of D&D (prestige classes; drowning players in skills and feats; the absolute necessity of playing with miniatures on a map grid) and magnifies them tenfold.
Has anybody else seen the latest "Save My Game" column on the DnD Insider website? In it, columnist Stephen Radney-MacFarland -- a well-meaning, sincere enough fellow -- waxes ecstatic about "table conditions" in D&D 4e.
"Table conditions?", you say? My reaction was the same.
Turns out, table conditions are special states which affect characters and opponents during play that 1) often trigger special abilities and opportunities in combat, and 2) which must (of course) be somehow marked on the now non-optional figurines and map-grid.
Things like:
Bloodied -- indicating who's hurt, and enabling them to call upon new abilities when in this state.
I quote:
Quote:
"You're in the middle of a tense battle. The wicked mind flayer and its grimlock minions have backed your group into a corner, and it is going to take pure grit and the best tactics to get out alive. It's the rogue's turn. Her player, Lisa, scans the battle grid. She knows that some of the grimlocks have been hit, but she can't remember which have been hit most often. "Which one looks the most hurt," she asks, knowing she should strike there to make an opening in anticipation of taking out their formidable leader.
I absolutely love the bloodied condition. Not only does it give designers an interesting trigger to put on truly debilitating and heroic effects, but it's also a fantastic tool of communicating the general state of the battle quickly. (If you haven't heard about the bloodied condition, check it out in the current D&D Miniatures rules. Because a number of interesting powers on both the PC and monster side rely on their players knowing when a foe is bloodied, when you start playing 4th Edition D&D, get into the early habit of calling out when your character or the monsters you control are bloodied. On the PC side, it lets the DM know that he can unleash some interesting monster powers and it lets your clerics and warlords know that you may want some hit point relief and soon. On the DM side, it lets players know how they are doing in the battle and gives them crucial information that will inform power and action point choice later in the encounter.
Depending on the size of your group, it may be pretty easy to have your players call out when their characters are bloodied. I'm one of those DMs who doesn't mind metagame chatter, so my players are free to talk about the particulars of their hit points and conditions, but I know that many DMs frown on this. Whatever your take on metagaming, have your players call out when they are bloodied when they become so. Bloodied should be no secret. If you are dealing with a particularly large gaming group, or, as DM, you're afraid that you're going to miss out on monster powers that trigger when an enemy is bloodied, give each player a little table-tent with the word "bloodied" on it. With a glance you can see the state of the PCs and progress the action quickly.
As far as letting the PCs know when monsters are bloodied, lately I've become a fan of actually marking the miniatures in some way. I've been taking my D&D Miniatures and sticking a pin in the top. I can then drop beads for different conditions. I have some white skull beads (picked up during a Gen Con So Cal) that I've been using for the bloodied condition."
Did that make you tired just reading it? Well, it did me. What used to be a storytelling game now seems to be all about the miniatures and the minutiae.
I had to laugh, though, at the authors use of the phrase "table tent". The only table tents appearing with my original D&D group might've occurred when the one guy's cute sister walked into the room to ask, "Are you guys playing that dumb game again?" But I digress ...
There are more conditions described, like
Marked
Quote:
"Marked is a new condition that defenders and some soldier monsters can apply to their enemies. By itself, it gives a penalty to your target if it attacks anyone but you, which helps defenders and soldiers fulfill their role on the battle grid. Often, though, there are other effects that serve as riders on the marked condition. For instance the paladin's divine challenge -- that class's signature marking ability -- does some amount of radiant damage once a turn when the target of divine challenge attacks someone other than the paladin who marked him. Of course, the fighter (the other Player's Handbook defender) features a different effect, dissuading her mark from taking the battle elsewhere. Oh, and this is really important to remember -- a creature can be marked by only one opponent at a time and new marks supersede old marks.
So like the combat advantage granted by flanking, marked is relational in nature, but unlike flaking, it can't be apprehended purely by looking at the battle grid. In simple battles with one defender or soldier, you won't have any trouble at all -- just have the defender's player keep track of it -- but when you have two defenders in a group (like I do in my Castle Greyhawk paragon-tier game) or a group of mark-using soldiers in the encounter, keeping track of the condition can be a tad tricky, and you'll probably want to use a rigorous method for tracking the condition throughout the rounds."
When did playing D&D become such busy work? No, scratch that -- just plain work. Sure, we all knew a DM or two who went crazy on the tactical detail -- but my point is, that used to be a choice, and now it seems to be a requirement. The only "rigorous method of tracking" I want to see at my gaming table should be courtesy of the party's Ranger ...
Remember the introduction to C&C? The bit about fantasy rpgs being games of imagination?
There's more, but I'll let y'all go look it up for yourselves if you're terribly interested. Something else called "Combat Advantage" is discussed, and then, when the author started talking about the joys of integrating cards into the table play, even I stopped reading.
Mr. E. Gary Gygax has died, and the game he co-created has suddenly become something I can barely recognize. All I know is, it sure doesn't sound like much fun any more, and that makes me genuinely sad, somehow.
So, I'm thankful Castles & Crusades exists, and I'm not sorry I cancelled my Amazon pre-orders of D&D 4e, and ordered the upcoming edtions of the C&C Player's Book and Monsters & Treasure instead.
Even if C&C is not everything I hope, it's still got to be more to my liking -- and more fun -- than 4e promises to be ...
I apologize for this long post, and I thank all of you for giving me a place to vent in relative safety. I was literally so appalled and disappointed by what I'd read tonight on the D&D Insider, I had to go somewhere and purge the bad mojo. Thanks for listening.
My C&C books can't arrive soon enough.
TheNewGuy
