Sean, I suppose I shouldn't be but that actually amuses me. Just my perverse sense of humor, I guess. I look forward to hearing more.

Ours still hasn't arrived, but every review makes it look more and more like a tactical fighting game. It could be a FUN tactical fighting game, but I don't think it's for me.

I mean, our gaming table is famous for exceeding any "time to play" estimate by at least two times because of role-playing.

In boardgaming news, our regular Saturday game was suspended due to a bad case of salmonella (mine), so we played a couple boardgames instead.

"Ra" is an Egyptian-themed bidding game. My DH always wins. I can't figure the game out, but at least I didn't come in last this time. It moves fast and has nice pieces. House rule: When you invoke Ra, you have to chant "Who is the fun god? Who is the sun god? Ra! Ra! Ra!" and do a dance.

"Winds of Plunder" is a pirate-themed game. Go on, act surprised. It's about wind, and plunder. You cruise around the Caribbean doing piratical things: establishing your reputation; gaining crew, provisions, and weapons; collecting booty; plundering other pirates. It's a victory point game, and quite unfortunately may have lead to a house rule requiring one ship to be named The Burning Stream and another to be named The Monkeyfucker.

House rule: When you invoke Ra, you have to chant "Who is the fun god? Who is the sun god? Ra! Ra! Ra!" and do a dance.

Ohh, iced tea everywhere.

"Ra" is an Egyptian-themed bidding game.

It's a different Egyptian-themed game, but this is a hilarious session report of a game of Amun-Re: [link]

Oh, that's hysterical.

For your reading pleasure:

D&D 4th Edition: Scourge of the Insufferable Prick

Hrm, just saw in a distributor's catalogue, coming out in a month or so, Storming the Castle: The Princess Bride boardgame...

And apparently the video game of The Princess Bride was supposed to come out today: [link]

Ok, I've now had a look through the 4E rule books, and tried putting together some sample characters and things. I haven't yet played it, so that's a big caveat. I'm still waiting for Amazon to deliver the first published mod, Keep on the Shadowfell, and when it arrives I'll see if my group wants to try running through it. But I'm now ready to give my impressions. This is largely in the context of a comparison to 3E. So: behold my imposing Wall of Text!

Summary
It's a sweet little RPG. Quite different from 3E in some underlying philosophies, though the basic mechanisms are still the same. I'm running a 3.5 Eberron campaign, and I'll be shamelessly stealing some of the ideas from the 4E DMG to bolster the roleplaying side of things. I already have the campaign storyline, and I have no trouble putting combats together, but I struggle with getting the balance right in role-playing sitches. (This is the first time I've seen a D&D rule set offer not just advice, but mechanical support for the GM to put together role-playing situations.)

Development Goals
I have this quote from Mike Mearls regarding the issues with 3E that they wanted to address in 4E:

1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.

I don't think AoOs are really that confusing, but aside from that I have no factual beef with this list. I don't care much about some of the points, even if I do agree that they'll bother some people, and from a game design perspective, should be addressed. (Which never stopped me from enjoying 3E overall.) The key issues for me boil down to:

A. The GM has to do a lot of annoying paperwork that doesn't really have much payoff, taking time away from the interesting stuff. (1 and 9, sometimes 5)

B. Low and high levels don't work as well as the middle levels. (2, 3, 4)

C. "System mastery" matters too much. 3E can be a cheese weasel's dream; conversely, novices can easily wind up with options that unexpectedly hamper their character. This is another way of saying the basic system works against balance . (6, 7, 12)

4E looks very effective at addressing these issues. There's a cost; even allowing that only three books are out so far, I think the game structure will make customisation less flexible even after new books add options. Plus, while nonmagical classes now have more class options, casters have fewer options (i.e. spells).

Conclusion: I think 4E is better from a game perspective. It's better balanced, easier to pick up, and a GM's dream. It doesn't match 3E's supreme flexibility. Being a better balanced game means curtailing options that could be unbalancing, and that's a shame. It partially compensates by (IMO) handling things outside the rules a bit better.

So how does it play?
Here I'm at a disadvantage, I haven't played yet. My impressions here are thus incomplete. With that strong caveat, here's how it looks to me:

It's still D&D, so combat still takes up the bulk of the rules. In 3E, your combat effectiveness depended heavily on how you crafted your character. In 4E, it seems that your tactics on the battlefield matter more. Fights are more fluid, you have fewer one-hit victories, you're unlikely to be rendered useless (continued...)

( continues...) because of character creation choices. I think this is the origin of the notion that 4E is now just a tactical minis wargame. 4E combat sounds like it plays like a tactical minis wargame. (My only hobby that rivals D&D for money spent is board games, so this shift roxors my boxors, so to speak. FTR, rest assured that I never so speak.) But combat occupies exactly the same place within the game as it always did (i.e. pretty much wherever the GM puts it), and other factors of the game are still well supported, so 4E is not simply a tactical minis wargame.

The role-playing experience, to me, looks like it's undergone a similar shift, or if you like a return to 1st Ed sensibilities. There's less accounting and bookkeeping to be done to represent your character's background, personality, all the things that make them more than just numbers on a page. Instead, just as combat now revolves less around your character mechanics choices than what you do, so too role-playing your character revolves less around your character mechanics choices than how you play them.

This is a mixed bag. There are plusses in this approach, but plusses in 3E's approach too. Many people focus better on their PC's personality when there are numerical reminders. For others, that gets in the way. You have limited resources in feats and skill points and such like. Making personality-driven choices compete with PC effectiveness may discourage some people, and make their character feel more like just numbers on a page.

Another drawback: with just three books out so far, character options are still quite limited compared to 3E. That'll improve as more books come out.

However, for me the clinching plus here is the GM support. Let me be clear; I think the single greatest determinant of a game's role-playing fun is the GM. (Second place is the players, third is the game system.) They run a dungeon crawl, you get a dungeon crawl. They run a character-heavy palace intrigue adventure, that's what you get. 4E still has the advice on building worlds, campaigns, adventures and encounters (combat and non-). No real change there.

But for pretty much the first time, it also provides a decent, balanced structure for treating non-combat PC achievements as real accomplishments, i.e. skill challenges. Here's what I like about them:

• They provide a sensible, balanced structure, so it's easier for me to create good situations.
• The structure is very flexible, so I'm actually eager to use them. (I'll be inserting them into my 3.5 campaign.)
• They get all the players involved, so social encounters are less likely to devolve into the 'face' PC waxing lyrical while the other players wait for their turn.
• They encourage players to look for novel ways to use their PC's strengths. To me, that's a strong incentive to role-play.
• They encourage GMs to get justification out of their players, i.e. to role-play their character's approach.
• They define fair rewards, i.e. relate the challenge to the parts of the game that have always been rewarded, i.e. combat challenges. For the first time, it would be theoretically possible to run an entire campaign from 1st to 30th level without a single combat, without house-ruling. (Not that it's hard to house-rule earlier editions to do this, but still.)

Of course, there's a lot more to non-combat play than skill challenges. Lots of role-playing will happen in other situations. I just really like them.

Oh! Maybe the biggest difference that supports a GM running a role-play strong campaign: you don't have to spend ridiculous amounts of time statting out NPCs and customised monsters. More free time for the interesting stuff!

Conclusion: combat has improved greatly. It should be more engaging and exciting. Support for meaningful non-combat play has improved significantly. Direct support for role-playing a PC is a mixed bag, will suit some people but not others. I have a foot in each camp here, so I'm planning a house-rule that PCs in my game will all get a single extra trained skill in one Craft, Profession (continued...)