PDA

View Full Version : The Destruction of the 'RP' in 'RPG'



SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-02, 03:16 PM
With the advent of 4th ed., I hear the same argument said over and over again by its detractors: 'It aint D&D, it's a boardgame'. I'm wondering what the new edition does to eliminate a group's ability to RP or interact with the world. I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious, and somewhat concerned.

I've been DMing a group (group A) for a few years now, who treat 3.5 as just that: a Diablo style hack'n'slash'to'hell'with'the'story'gimme'more'xp game. I also have a secondary group (group B), which I usually PC with (though not often enough for me to retain my sanity). That group has a more 'balanced' (BUT BALANCE SUX!) approach, focusing on things like character immersion and controversial things like 'talking' to NPCs, as well as combat. Which group do I more enjoy playing with? The latter one.

Now I'm hearing that 4th ed. removed aspects of the game that allow for me to play a 'Group B' style game, and all I'll be able to do is a 'Group A' game (making it an overblow 'Minis' game). Are the miniatures used outside of combat (like, do you always have to use a battlemap), or does the majority of the non-combat game go on descriptively? And if minis are used all the time, who the HELL do they get to playtest it... Final Fantasy Tactics fans?

KIDS
2008-06-02, 03:21 PM
Quite so; I enjoy the strategy aspects and minitatures a lot, but would not find them satisfying if there wasn't a good story with interesting personalities involved. Ideally, the two aspects support each other, which happens rarely but is awesome.

I can comfortably say that my style will remain the same in any edition, be it 1E, Baldur's Gate, 3.5 or 4E ($E). The only difference that 4E will bring will to me will (hopefully) be wasting less time on irrelevant number-crunching, being able to better support the roleplaying aspects with less material involved and having less walls that impede roleplaying to bump into (say, alignments, color coded dragons, good vs. evil spells etc.).

Lapak
2008-06-02, 03:27 PM
I'd love to hear that argument myself; I just don't see it. If 'what powers my character has' defined 'how I play my character in roleplaying terms,' then there was only one type of personality for fighters in 1E, one for each weapon specialization in 2E, and one for each feat chain in 3E. No one defines themselves by their combat powers, except in the most general of terms. I can be playing a grizzled former roman centurion or a self-taught fifth-century bandit/mercenary or a noble medieval knight or a Greek city-states-era hoplite with the same skills, techniques and power sets. There's no limitation on social rank, background, source of education, personality quirks, appearance, ethnic characteristics, or any of the other thousand-million things that make people unique built into the system.

EDIT: Exactly HOW has it done, that Tippy? Cite a specific example that limits your ability to play the personality you want to play.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 03:27 PM
With the advent of 4th ed., I hear the same argument said over and over again by its detractors: 'It aint D&D, it's a boardgame'. I'm wondering what the new edition does to eliminate a group's ability to RP or interact with the world. I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious, and somewhat concerned.

I've been DMing a group (group A) for a few years now, who treat 3.5 as just that: a Diablo style hack'n'slash'to'hell'with'the'story'gimme'more'xp game. I also have a secondary group (group B), which I usually PC with (though not often enough for me to retain my sanity). That group has a more 'balanced' (BUT BALANCE SUX!) approach, focusing on things like character immersion and controversial things like 'talking' to NPCs, as well as combat. Which group do I more enjoy playing with? The latter one.

Now I'm hearing that 4th ed. removed aspects of the game that allow for me to play a 'Group B' style game, and all I'll be able to do is a 'Group A' game (making it an overblow 'Minis' game). Are the miniatures used outside of combat (like, do you always have to use a battlemap), or does the majority of the non-combat game go on descriptively? And if minis are used all the time, who the HELL do they get to playtest it... Final Fantasy Tactics fans?

You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 03:30 PM
You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

I don't see it. Seems like any RP stuff you could do in 3.5 you can do in 4.0 about equally well or better.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 03:31 PM
You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

I wasn't aware that tactical war games had any non-combat challenges...

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 03:33 PM
Now I'm hearing that 4th ed. removed aspects of the game that allow for me to play a 'Group B' style game, and all I'll be able to do is a 'Group A' game (making it an overblow 'Minis' game).

What sort of aspects are you thinking of? I don't know how a game could prevent you from talking to NPCs and developing your character.


Are the miniatures used outside of combat (like, do you always have to use a battlemap), or does the majority of the non-combat game go on descriptively? And if minis are used all the time, who the HELL do they get to playtest it... Final Fantasy Tactics fans?

They seem to be emphasizing miniature-based combat more, but that just means miniatures are needed in combat and/or that it's harder to get away with just describing a combat encounter. Again, I have a hard time seeing how a game could be structured to require miniatures outside of combat (or dungeon crawls with various traps, or in general situations where the positioning of characters relative to one another and their environment is important to track closely).

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 03:34 PM
AKA_Bait, just stop. You may need a book to tell you how to roleplay, but some of us only need the rules when they are truly needed. 4e is not a tactical war game. It still is an RPG and we were able to do an entire session of nothing but RP without rolling a single die... in fact, we didnt need the books at all... the same way you don't need the books in 3e for an extended roleplay session... or in 2e... or in 1e... or in exalted.

The rules are there for the combat and the combat is much more streamlined. If all you see is the combat, that's because they aren't telling you how to roleplay... the book shouldn't have to hold your hand. :smallfurious:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 03:38 PM
I'll be short on this: {Scrubbed}

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2008-06-02, 03:40 PM
Thanks for the big picture view. Sometimes we need that.

4e will no more be the death of RP than any game out there. RPGs are popular that they're sticking around for the time being.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 03:40 PM
AKA_Bait, just stop. You may need a book to tell you how to roleplay, but some of us only need the rules when they are truly needed.

Please check your 'reading the context of the thing you are replying to' o'meter. It appears to be broken.

I was pointing out that because there are rules for non-combat encounters in 4e that it is not a tactical wargame.

Sheesh.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 03:43 PM
Please check your 'reading the context of the thing you are replying to' o'meter. I was pointing out that because there are rules for non-combat encounters in 4e that it is not a tactical wargame.

Sheesh.

Oh. Well. :smallredface:

Sorry. Having a 16 month old is too distracting to succesfully do anything.

redirect that to whoever said it was a tactical wargame.

Indon
2008-06-02, 03:46 PM
Well, I can honestly say a lot of my disappointment has to do with my expectations.

I thought 4'th edition was going to have a highly modular, level-based racial system which would allow for easy play of exotic races. Instead, they put a few race entries in the back of the Monster Manual and made the actual monster entries harder to reverse-engineer than they were in 3.x.

I thought 4'th edition might have had something like a stunt system - it doesn't have anything more than 3.x in that respect.

Overall, I thought 4'th edition was going to be an improvement in the game's ability to facilitate roleplaying, when at best, it's no change.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 03:50 PM
Well, I can honestly say a lot of my disappointment has to do with my expectations.

I thought 4'th edition was going to have a highly modular, level-based racial system which would allow for easy play of exotic races. Instead, they put a few race entries in the back of the Monster Manual and made the actual monster entries harder to reverse-engineer than they were in 3.x.

I thought 4'th edition might have had something like a stunt system - it doesn't have anything more than 3.x in that respect.

Overall, I thought 4'th edition was going to be an improvement in the game's ability to facilitate roleplaying, when at best, it's no change.

Aaah...so you wanna play Vrocks, Balors, and other overpowered stuff? Because all of the races that could, concievably, be used from level 1 or the like, have been statted.

Oh, and did they promise a stunt system? No. Did they mention it when they talked about big changes in the mechanics? No. Where'd you get the idea that it was coming with 4th?

Did they say 4th was going to be like Spirit of the Century when talking about RP and not like, oh, every D&D edition beforehand? No.

Where did I leave that Facepalm.Jpg again?

Indon
2008-06-02, 03:53 PM
I don't see it. Seems like any RP stuff you could do in 3.5 you can do in 4.0 about equally well or better.

Run a campaign in a universe like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Champion), or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber), perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia) - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?


Aaah...so you wanna play Vrocks, Balors, and other overpowered stuff? Because all of the races that could, concievably, be used from level 1 or the like, have been statted.

Yeah. You know how 3'rd edition had something called level adjustment to give players access to a wider range of possible race choices? Well, I thought 4'th edition was going to take a feature of third edition and make it better, instead of scrapping it entirely. My bad.

And not even necessarily a Balor. Maybe I'd just like my character to be a werewolf or something.


Oh, and did they promise a stunt system? No. Did they mention it when they talked about big changes in the mechanics? No. Where'd you get the idea that it was coming with 4th?
The trap article.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-02, 03:59 PM
Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia) - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

Wait... core 3.x could do that? Where? How?

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 04:00 PM
Just to make this clear:

4e does not make roleplaying more difficult in my opinion. It has just changed the roles that your can roleplay in the system from what you could do in 3.5

If, for example, one wanted to roleplay a caster who would always have others doing his fighting for him, usually through summons or mind affecting magic, in 3.5 core it was down right simple. If you wanted to roleplay the exact same character in 4e it is currently impossible.

Lapak
2008-06-02, 04:00 PM
Run a campaign in a universe like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Champion), or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber), perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia) - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?OK, I'll bite. How specifically does 3.5 handle Amber better than 4e? Or the multiverse of Moorcock? (Off the top of my head, it seems like 4E would model Elric specifically a lot more easily than 3.x would.)

Or (non)anthropomorphic animal characters? What rule structure does the 3.5 core bring to them that the 4 does not have an equal or better structure for?

EDIT to Azerian: It's even more basic than that; I don't buy the argument that 3.5 handles those specific cases better than 4.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:00 PM
Run a campaign in a universe like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Champion), or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber), perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia) - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

Oh, yes, of course. Because those are the most common campaigns ever.

Really, cut the nitpicking. You just look foolish by presenting minor, hypothetical, one-time-ever-in-history cases.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 04:05 PM
Doesn't Amber have it's own system anyway? Seems like a lot of extra trouble to convert it to D&D.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-02, 04:05 PM
Oh, yes, of course. Because those are the most common campaigns ever.

Really, cut the nitpicking. You just look foolish by presenting minor, hypothetical, one-time-ever-in-history cases.
*shrug*

I know that I have homebrew worlds that can not be updated to 4e, they just won't work (that being what happens when the rules of the universe change). Running an interplanetary empire that uses magic items to provide most of its food doesn't transfer so well.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:10 PM
*shrug*

I know that I have homebrew worlds that can not be updated to 4e, they just won't work (that being what happens when the rules of the universe change). Running an interplanetary empire that uses magic items to provide most of its food doesn't transfer so well.

Oh, it does. Healthy doses of handwavium and a basis in the rules (There's a ritual for Create Food and Water, I believe, just make it so someone found a way to condense that into an item) will do the trick. It just requires being able to talk faster/be a better liar/be willing to throw around some homebrews.

Dark Tira
2008-06-02, 04:12 PM
Oh, it does. Healthy doses of handwavium and a basis in the rules (There's a ritual for Create Food and Water, I believe, just make it so someone found a way to condense that into an item) will do the trick. It just requires being able to talk faster/be a better liar/be willing to throw around some homebrews.
Actually it already is an item. Everlasting Provisions, PH 254.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 04:14 PM
Just to make this clear:

4e does not make roleplaying more difficult in my opinion. It has just changed the roles that your can roleplay in the system from what you could do in 3.5

If, for example, one wanted to roleplay a caster who would always have others doing his fighting for him, usually through summons or mind affecting magic, in 3.5 core it was down right simple. If you wanted to roleplay the exact same character in 4e it is currently impossible.

So it is a matter of fluff/character concept?

I can do that with 4th just from the previews.

Player cast Magic Missile: summons as free action Jippy, my minion (not a real minion as he is invincible but takes no actions unless commanded).
He shoots Magic Missile at them. Samithen the Wizard, just stands there looking good while Jippy does all the work.


Now, unless by let others do fighting for him you meant: in addition to you doing he fighting. That won't work as of yet. No true summons.


But there are can be summons for the purposes of this character concept.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:15 PM
Actually it already is an item. Everlasting Provisions, PH 254.

Well, looks like Tippy has his answer.

And he is the inventor of the LSC transport service, so the rest now problem.

Indon
2008-06-02, 04:15 PM
OK, I'll bite. How specifically does 3.5 handle Amber better than 4e? Or the multiverse of Moorcock? (Off the top of my head, it seems like 4E would model Elric specifically a lot more easily than 3.x would.)

Merlin casts Polymorph in book 6. Do you think you'll ever see Polymorph in 4'th edition?

What are the alignments of the lords of chaos and law? Or the Balance and (some of) its' champions?


Or (non)anthropomorphic animal characters? What rule structure does the 3.5 core bring to them that the 4 does not have an equal or better structure for?

Oh, is Awaken not core, then? My bad. I guess they'll make a ritual for it later. It's not overpowered or anything, after all.


Doesn't Amber have it's own system anyway? Seems like a lot of extra trouble to convert it to D&D.

It's diceless, and I'm pretty sure it's not in print anymore.

Though to be honest, I'd use a White Wolf system to run Amber over any edition of D&D - but then I'd use an edition of D&D with a law-chaos axis before one without it.


Really, cut the nitpicking. You just look foolish by presenting minor, hypothetical, one-time-ever-in-history cases.

Okay. How about any universe in which a wizard can petrify (Flesh to Stone), transform (Polymorph - or did the Wizard had transformation spells that I missed?), bend others to his will (Admittedly, Geas might be there, I didn't look, but it definitely seems a bit overpowered for 4'th edition, don't you think?).

But I guess you'll never run into those in fiction, right? It's not like 4'th edition's quest for balance has restricted itself from a laundry list of fantasy tropes.

Lapak
2008-06-02, 04:16 PM
*shrug*

I know that I have homebrew worlds that can not be updated to 4e, they just won't work (that being what happens when the rules of the universe change). Running an interplanetary empire that uses magic items to provide most of its food doesn't transfer so well.Actually, I agree with Tippy here. Some settings won't translate well into the new rules, just as running a gritty-realism 19th-century-mercenaries campaign would not have worked well in 3e. That's part of the cost of changing editions, and one reason why I expect 3E to continue alive and well for quite some time to come. I played in a 1E campaign a couple of years ago, for pete's sake. There will definitely be things that are either lost from the get-go but brought in later (enchanters and summoners, as Tippy also pointed out) and some things that will go for good (some kinds of settings won't work so well.)

But to claim that this means that 4e damages the roleplaying part of the game is silly. It doesn't. You can't play an all-powerful wizard any more, either, which is a limitation on character type. But it's not a limitation on roleplaying. You can't play a cyborg in 3.x core, you can't play a god, you can't play a cyberhacker Shadowrun-style, you can't play a huge number of things. But that doesn't mean you can't roleplay in 3.x, and it doesn't mean you can't roleplay in 4.

EDIT moved to separate post.

kamikasei
2008-06-02, 04:17 PM
Wait... core 3.x could do that? Where? How?

I do believe this is a "3.5 had the law/chaos axis which has now been discarded" complaint.


Merlin casts Polymorph in book 6. Do you think you'll ever see Polymorph in 4'th edition?

Yes. It seems entirely likely to me that the ability to shapeshift into animals will appear in the game in a later book, since it's apparently what the druid will be built around; and it's entirely plausible to me that this will be a power that can be used by a wizard, obtained via multiclassing or human/half-elf/whoever shenanigans, or in the worst case nicked directly as a special case.

edit: \/ Azerian, come on man, lay off that same image will ya?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 04:17 PM
{Scrubbed}

SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-02, 04:24 PM
What sort of aspects are you thinking of? I don't know how a game could prevent you from talking to NPCs and developing your character.

To be honest, I'm not sure. At first it seemed like overexaggeration, but right now the most common 4th ed. complaint I'm hearing is that it's no longer an RPG so much as it's a board game based off of their minis line -> if this is trumping the 'OMG D&D IZ NOW WoW' argument, I'd hope it would have some sort of basis. I guess one way they could turn it into that would be to emphasize in the DMG or whatever that whenever players aren't in combat, the DM railroads them to the next encounter. It sounds like this is the kind game most of the detractors see when they read/play 4th ed. - the developers removed the non-skill/non-encounter 'interacting with the world' aspects of the game.



They seem to be emphasizing miniature-based combat more, but that just means miniatures are needed in combat and/or that it's harder to get away with just describing a combat encounter. Again, I have a hard time seeing how a game could be structured to require miniatures outside of combat (or dungeon crawls with various traps, or in general situations where the positioning of characters relative to one another and their environment is important to track closely).

This I can live with. When 3rd ed. was out (pre-3.5), we used little glass tokens (looked like the life-counters/bears/tokens you go from the old Magic the Gathering starter set) to represent everyone, so none of my gaming groups are going to be put off by that fact. From what I'm reading from the 'cons of 4th' ed. posts that people keep putting out, D&D somehow became structured around using minis all the time. (BTW, the next quote in this reply is sort of the kind of post I'm talking about)


You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

How did it do this, though? What have they done/changed about the game that makes it unable to tackle RPing in the same or similar way as 3.X? I've seen (and played) 3.X played as a wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles, and I've seen (and played) it with no battlemat/minis at all. Barring some VERY absurd changes to the game fundamentals (see my above comments), I'm not sure how they could have gotten rid of 3.X levels of role playing and immersion. In any tabletop RPG I've played, my role-playing experience was more dictated by the DM/GM's style than the actual game rules.

Indon
2008-06-02, 04:27 PM
Yes. It seems entirely likely to me that the ability to shapeshift into animals will appear in the game in a later book, since it's apparently what the druid will be built around; and it's entirely plausible to me that this will be a power that can be used by a wizard, obtained via multiclassing or human/half-elf/whoever shenanigans, or in the worst case nicked directly as a special case.

You know what I think that 'shapeshifting' is going to consist of?

Utility power: Encounter more than likely (possibly Daily) - Standard action.
Gain the power of an <Animal>. Gain <bonus> to <stat>, and maybe <another bonus> to <different stat>.

There's your polymorph. There might be an epic version which actually grants you wings if you take the form of a bird or something - heck, you might see it as early as... level 15, was it?

Lapak
2008-06-02, 04:36 PM
Merlin casts Polymorph in book 6. Do you think you'll ever see Polymorph in 4'th edition?

What are the alignments of the lords of chaos and law? Or the Balance and (some of) its' champions?



Oh, is Awaken not core, then? My bad. I guess they'll make a ritual for it later. It's not overpowered or anything, after all.



It's diceless, and I'm pretty sure it's not in print anymore.

Though to be honest, I'd use a White Wolf system to run Amber over any edition of D&D - but then I'd use an edition of D&D with a law-chaos axis before one without it.



Okay. How about any universe in which a wizard can petrify (Flesh to Stone), transform (Polymorph - or did the Wizard had transformation spells that I missed?), bend others to his will (Admittedly, Geas might be there, I didn't look, but it definitely seems a bit overpowered for 4'th edition, don't you think?).

But I guess you'll never run into those in fiction, right? It's not like 4'th edition's quest for balance has restricted itself from a laundry list of fantasy tropes.(I moved this from a prior post. I had edited to avoid double-posting, but I think it got lost because the thread moved along quickly while I was editing.)

Awaken is a spell that grants human-level intelligence to animals. In a setting like Narnia, no druid wandered around and cast Awaken on every animal in the game. If all you want is 'animals with human-level intelligence', which is the only thing Awaken accomplishes, that's a setting feature and not a spell. So you grab the MM entry for animals and go to town, just as you would in 3e.

The champions of Law and Chaos would be Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. (If you can tell me that a demonic entity that demands 'blood and souls' is anything but Evil, I'll cede that point.) The Champion of Balance would be Unaligned and would be roleplayed as having rejected both sides rather than simply not joined up to one. Since alignment has minimal mechanical effects, it wouldn't be much of an issue mechanically. And again, in mechanical terms what the Moorcock heroes actually do would seem to be easier to cover in 4 than in 3 given the new multiclassing and ritual rules.

And while Polymorph may have come up once in the entire Amber series it's not what defines the setting. The Pattern and the Labyrinth define the setting, and the worlds-within-worlds that are shadows of Amber.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 04:38 PM
You know what I think that 'shapeshifting' is going to consist of?

Utility power: Encounter more than likely (possibly Daily) - Standard action.
Gain the power of an <Animal>. Gain <bonus> to <stat>, and maybe <another bonus> to <different stat>.

There's your polymorph. There might be an epic version which actually grants you wings if you take the form of a bird or something - heck, you might see it as early as... level 15, was it?


That sounds unlike 4E.
More likely:
Polymorph Utility power: Encounter more than likely - Standard action.
Look like <Animal Group (such as Wolf, Dire Wolf, etc)>. Gain <bonus> emulating <stats> such as +hit/damage/AC/Defenses (there are no Stat increases from spells/item). Maybe give Bite attack as well. Lose ability to make other attacks that are not at will while in that form.

There's your polymorph.

Maybe Wolf Shape: Would let you become Heroic: Wolf and Paragon: Dire Wolf.
These would change the benefits (increasing of course).
Like: +2 power bonus to Hit/Damage/Reflex defense/AC.
Than +4 to those.

I decided Reflex defense was most wolfish.

Blanks
2008-06-02, 04:57 PM
Neither 3.x or 4.0 fanboi but i can't pass on this one:

This 3.x that is so great for roleplaying, is that the same one where I almost screamed when I read this for the first time?

"XP awards for roleplaying are purely ad hoc... The awards should be just large enough for the players to notice them, probably no more than 50 XP per character level per adventure"
(DMG 3.5 p. 41)

nagora
2008-06-02, 04:58 PM
With the advent of 4th ed., I hear the same argument said over and over again by its detractors: 'It aint D&D, it's a boardgame'. I'm wondering what the new edition does to eliminate a group's ability to RP or interact with the world.
No RPG can do that since it is up to the players and the DM to decide how to play. A set of rules can, however, encourage or discourage styles of play, both in the sense of where along the

"Roleplaying------------>Game"

spectrum it is and what genre or subgenres are easy to play with the rules.

So, what does 4ed reflect? It seems to be very heavy on the game-end with rules for conversations, something that I don't think I've ever seen in an RPG before, and genre-wise it's very much more towards the hack and slash than 1ed was, but not much more than 3ed, AFAICT. A good group of players can throw out the heavy gaming stuff and a good DM can redefine the genre if desired.

The big break from earlier editions that 3ed made and 4ed is continuing is the huge reduction in difficulty as regards leveling up, which caused all sorts of issues with balance. 4ed has not addressed many of these directly but has brought in "patches" such as minions and different power use rules. Maybe they solve the problems and maybe they don't but they do appear to add even more rules on top of what had already become a very complex system. Combat itself is currently more streamlined than 3ed (not hard) but expect that to change as splat books come out.

So, if you think of D&D in terms of clearly defined classes, combat rounds that take about 30 seconds per player to resolve, spells which are selected at the start of the day and gradually used up, and a real quasi-mediaeval world with real people in it for the PCs to interact with, this ain't D&D.

But if you think of D&D as basically a superhero game where the characters are in some vague way related a fantasy world instead of the modern world, and there is no need or desire for internal consistancy in the setting, then 4ed as written is just a logical extension of 3ed's trends.

I think 4ed looks marginally better than 3ed overall. It's still far too focused on combat for me, though. And the mind-numbing blandness of 3ed characters seems set to continue.

Morandir Nailo
2008-06-02, 05:12 PM
Honestly, who frickin' cares whether or not rules for playing a Werewolf ever come out? That's something you can just work out with your DM, like a million other tiny little complaints we've been seeing. I'm sorry, but something like:

"Once a month on the night of the full moon, you turn into a humanoid wolf-creature. You gain +4 to Str/Dex/Con, and get bite/claw attacks which do X+Str damage. You can't cast spells and are limited to at-will melee attack powers. The transformation ends at sunrise." (Playing a different kind of werewolf? Just change how often you can take your other form)

does not need its own frackin' rule set. Period. Just work it out with the DM. Any DM worth his salt should be able to come up with something that is balanced and flavorful, and lets you play your furries.

It seems to me that people have gotten the idea from 3rd Edition that they can't do anything unless it's in a rulebook somewhere, that working with the DM to create something that's fun, flavorful, balanced, and fitting for his/her campaign is impossible. That, to me, seems more like a "boardgame" mentality than anything I've seen from 4th Edition.

New editions are just new combat rules. There's no reason for any other aspect of the game to change. Though I will say that I do understand some of the complaints; some tropes that exist in 3e would be hard to do in 4e. But remember that the plethora of options that we're used to comes primarily from the plethora of splatbooks that we've seen over the last 8-ish years. Just be patient, and the Summoners, Illusionists, Mentalists, and Shapeshifters will come. They just couldn't fit it all in one book without screwing over the Fighter again.

Mor

Edit: As far as rules for conversations go, I much prefer 4e's skill challenges to 3e's Diplomacy, which in a lot of games I was in got treated as poor man's Charm Person. Lots of "I got a 31! OK, the guard's your new best friend" crap. Not the way it was meant to be used, but that's what happened. At least now there's the implication that one high check result won't result in the local Baron being Dominated.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-02, 05:29 PM
On the role-playing topic: I'll just quote myself.


And, about the role-playing: I actually see 4e affecting that, too. You see, there aren't many character choices, due to a limited amount of powers to choose from, the simplification of the skill system, the weakness of feats and so on. And WotC seems to plan to release more classes and power sources instead of more options for the core classes, although that's speculation on my part.
Also, you are more or less forced to swap your powers (and, to a lesser extent, feats), making it, together with the limited choices, hard to come up with a real mechanical representation of your character's personality.
Those are (hopefully) minor issues, but I still see them.

So, the fact that you have a very limited choice of options to pick as a character in combination with the fact that your powers are constantly changing doesn't really encourage role-playing.

It also doesn't turn D&D into a wargame, of course. :smallwink:



Honestly, who frickin' cares whether or not rules for playing a Werewolf ever come out? That's something you can just work out with your DM, like a million other tiny little complaints we've been seeing.

Creating new races is however really hard with 4e as it is, as all playable races basically get the same type of bonuses.

There are, as of now, no races that deviate from the norm introduced by the PHB.

You'd have to come up with your own ideas for LA or racial paragon paths or something.

Trizap
2008-06-02, 05:34 PM
new editions do not limit how you roleplay at all.

example: The Wizard chanted ancient, long forgotten words, known only by those who have similarly studied in the art, he reached into the power inside of him and channeled it through his staff, blasting this energy in the form a giant fireball shaped by his own will, where the roaring flames hurtled towards the enemy.

this could basically be roleplaying any fireball from any edition, 3.5, 4E, doesn't matter.

Starbuck_II
2008-06-02, 06:14 PM
new editions do not limit how you roleplay at all.

example: The Wizard chanted ancient, long forgotten words, known only by those who have similarly studied in the art, he reached into the power inside of him and channeled it through his staff, blasting this energy in the form a giant fireball shaped by his own will, where the roaring flames hurtled towards the enemy.

this could basically be roleplaying any fireball from any edition, 3.5, 4E, doesn't matter.

Really, I thought you were chanting the Dragon Slave meself.

Zocelot
2008-06-02, 06:24 PM
As posted in the preview this morning, there are only 5 alignments.

The consensus on this forum seems to be that with attacks, because of the amount of powers, options are more limited.

Would this not work in reverse? With less alignments comes more options for roleplaying.

In 3.5e, I hated those players that would just read the paragraph on their alignment in chapter six, commit it to memory, and use that as their character. 4e seems to have opened up a lot, and alignment is more of a guideline, allowing for better roleplaying

Trizap
2008-06-02, 06:51 PM
I agree with Zocelet, this only opens up more roleplaying opportunities, as the previous alignment system was a bit restricting, this is more open ended, "Good" can mean anything between a jerk with a heart of gold anti-hero to some
sweet friend of nature optimist.

Raum
2008-06-02, 07:15 PM
Few Role Playing Games truly encourage or discourage 'role playing' in any major way via mechanics. Most give you a detailed world to play in and allow the GM to create interesting NPCs to spark role playing. But unless there's a mechanical benefit from role playing (such as Wushu) it's not pushing you that direction. The most you can hope for is that the rules fade into the background and don't interfere with verisimilitude or role playing.

D&D has historically been very good at creating evocatively detailed worlds to role play in. But the mechanics have never really forced role playing. Not in any version. Fourth edition doesn't appear to be any different in that regard.

For those already hitting the quote button to yell about my being wrong, please include an example of mechanics forcing the player to role play. :smallcool:

Jorkens
2008-06-02, 07:41 PM
Few Role Playing Games truly encourage or discourage 'role playing' in any major way via mechanics. Most give you a detailed world to play in and allow the GM to create interesting NPCs to spark role playing. But unless there's a mechanical benefit from role playing (such as Wushu) it's not pushing you that direction. The most you can hope for is that the rules fade into the background and don't interfere with verisimilitude or role playing.

D&D has historically been very good at creating evocatively detailed worlds to role play in. But the mechanics have never really forced role playing. Not in any version. Fourth edition doesn't appear to be any different in that regard.

For those already hitting the quote button to yell about my being wrong, please include an example of mechanics forcing the player to role play. :smallcool:
Weeeellll, I kind of agree with you and think a lot of people are blowing this a bit out of proportion. But a badly designed system can interfere with roleplaying - forcing you to think about rules and mechanics too much when you want to be thinking in character, or making tactics or ideas that seem sensible in character not work out of character, or making metagame knowledge a part of the world in a way that forces the players to think out of character more than they'd otherwise have to. Also, although the fluff isn't the system and creative DMs and players can always retro-fluff things, it can be nice to have the books set you going in the right direction. Some of these things happen to some extent with 4e.

On the other hand, I don't see a reduction in character options as neccessarily a reduction in character - I mean, you could produce a game in a realistic medieval setting with no magic whatsoever and make it amazing for roleplaying and characterization - people would just be playing deep, believable, varied soldiers and brigands and monks rather than half-orc magicians and elvish spellthieves.

Raum
2008-06-02, 08:08 PM
Weeeellll, I kind of agree with you and think a lot of people are blowing this a bit out of proportion. But a badly designed system can interfere with roleplaying - forcing you to think about rules and mechanics too much when you want to be thinking in character, or making tactics or ideas that seem sensible in character not work out of character, or making metagame knowledge a part of the world in a way that forces the players to think out of character more than they'd otherwise have to. Agreed. You'll note I stated "The most you can hope for is that the rules fade into the background and don't interfere with verisimilitude or role playing. "


Also, although the fluff isn't the system and creative DMs and players can always retro-fluff things, it can be nice to have the books set you going in the right direction. Some of these things happen to some extent with 4e. Certainly! The worlds, places, and populations - "fluff" if you prefer - have been one of D&D's strong points for a long time.


On the other hand, I don't see a reduction in character options as neccessarily a reduction in character - I mean, you could produce a game in a realistic medieval setting with no magic whatsoever and make it amazing for roleplaying and characterization - people would just be playing deep, believable, varied soldiers and brigands and monks rather than half-orc magicians and elvish spellthieves.Can you expand on what you're saying? I can see reduced options as either positive or negatively affecting role playing. Reducing mechanics is generally good and may make immersion easier. Reducing choice is generally bad for immersion. Running into an 'invisible wall' forces you to realize the game world has limits.

Jorkens
2008-06-02, 08:23 PM
Can you expand on what you're saying? I can see reduced options as either positive or negatively affecting role playing. Reducing mechanics is generally good and may make immersion easier. Reducing choice is generally bad for immersion. Running into an 'invisible wall' forces you to realize the game world has limits.
I mean the claim that some people have made that one of the reasons 4e is less good for roleplaying because there are character concepts that you can't create in it.

Again, it's not black and white and I can see how it'd be annoying if plausible concepts (such as a character who's good at hitting things with swords but isn't a knuckle-dragging caveman) were impossible to create, but not being able to create a summoner doesn't mean a system isn't designed for or good for roleplaying any more than not being able to create a starfighter pilot or a computer programmer does - it's just a feature of the setting. (Or of what's considered 'core'.)

Tough_Tonka
2008-06-02, 08:53 PM
Run a campaign in a universe like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Champion), or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber), perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia) - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

Yeah. You know how 3'rd edition had something called level adjustment to give players access to a wider range of possible race choices? Well, I thought 4'th edition was going to take a feature of third edition and make it better, instead of scrapping it entirely. My bad.

And not even necessarily a Balor. Maybe I'd just like my character to be a werewolf or something.

The trap article.

Just because 3.5 had rules for playing these races it doesn't mean they were any good or remotely balanced. Believe me I ran a few all monster races campaigns and got nothing but disasters. I'd recommend GURPS for a campaign were party consist of mice and Vrocks or BESM if you still want to role a d20.

Raum
2008-06-02, 08:54 PM
I mean the claim that some people have made that one of the reasons 4e is less good for roleplaying because there are character concepts that you can't create in it.Whether it's a valid claim or not, all that changes is what you can choose to role play. It's a different game and based on different premises. Assuming you can play the same character is making a bad assumption. Mind, disliking a game because you can't play your favorite archetype is perfectly legitimate.


Again, it's not black and white and I can see how it'd be annoying if plausible concepts (such as a character who's good at hitting things with swords but isn't a knuckle-dragging caveman) were impossible to create, but not being able to create a summoner doesn't mean a system isn't designed for or good for roleplaying any more than not being able to create a starfighter pilot or a computer programmer does - it's just a feature of the setting. (Or of what's considered 'core'.)Agreed. Though I've never liked the term 'core'. That's a rant of another color. :smallamused:

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 08:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

Suzuro
2008-06-02, 09:00 PM
I'm sorry, but could someone tell me what QFT is?I'm not up with the hip new lingo.

Anyways, I've seen a lot of people talk about how 4e killed Roleplaying because it's a tactical warfare game, and I just came in to put my two copper pieces in.

Just because a game gives rules for combat, does it prevent someone from roleplaying? Could you not play an entire campaign without getting into combat once? This hasn't changed, you could do the same thing in 3.5. All it's done is provide more choices on what to do in combat, it hasn't limited those outside of combat.


-Suzuro

Jorkens
2008-06-02, 09:02 PM
Whether it's a valid claim or not, all that changes is what you can choose to role play. It's a different game and based on different premises. Assuming you can play the same character is making a bad assumption. Mind, disliking a game because you can't play your favorite archetype is perfectly legitimate.
Yeah, totally.[1] If they'd left out all forms of magic and fabulous creatures it'd be pretty reasonable to say that it's no use as a high fantasy RPG. It just wouldn't neccessarily be fair to say that this meant it was no longer about roleplaying...

[1] I can see where people are coming from when they worry about the reduced possibility for interesting and creative uses of magic in 4e, actually. I haven't read the full rules but it does seem like they've overreacted a bit to the batman wizard thing. But that's not the same as "destroying the RP in RPG."

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 09:02 PM
I thought 4'th edition was going to have a highly modular, level-based racial system which would allow for easy play of exotic races. Instead, they put a few race entries in the back of the Monster Manual and made the actual monster entries harder to reverse-engineer than they were in 3.x.

Reverse engineering playable 4e races is ridiculously simple.

For basic race creation, simply select two stat boosts, two skill boosts, two or so other racial traits, and one Encounter power. Done.

If you feel like getting more creative than that, go right ahead. Make a race with no stat boosts, no skill boosts, 4 racial traits (one of them totally just for cool flavor), and a sweet Daily power.

Seriously, what's stopping you? It's a lot simpler and you get a lot more room for creativity than 3e's system.

If you're looking for an LA system, you won't find it, because it was one of the most commonly lamented aspects of 3e.

AslanCross
2008-06-02, 09:04 PM
As posted in the preview this morning, there are only 5 alignments.

The consensus on this forum seems to be that with attacks, because of the amount of powers, options are more limited.

Would this not work in reverse? With less alignments comes more options for roleplaying.

In 3.5e, I hated those players that would just read the paragraph on their alignment in chapter six, commit it to memory, and use that as their character. 4e seems to have opened up a lot, and alignment is more of a guideline, allowing for better roleplaying

I agree with this. It's less specific and thus more mutable.

I also find it strange that people used to complain so much about alignments in 3.x, and now they're complaining that the alignment system was streamlined to remove overlapping alignments. I do wish they kept the Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good terminology, to be honest, but I really don't mind so much. One can easily slap those names back on anyway.


I'm sorry, but could someone tell me what QFT is?I'm not up with the hip new lingo.

Quote for truth. Means the person agrees wholeheartedly with you and wishes to reiterate what you said for emphasis.

JaxGaret
2008-06-02, 09:13 PM
I agree with Zocelet, this only opens up more roleplaying opportunities, as the previous alignment system was a bit restricting, this is more open ended, "Good" can mean anything between a jerk with a heart of gold anti-hero to some
sweet friend of nature optimist.

Agreed. I can't count the number of times the words "What's your alignment? Your character wouldn't do that" or similar have been uttered over a 3e gaming table.

4e's looser alignment system does alleviate this problem.

Raum
2008-06-02, 09:15 PM
I'm sorry, but could someone tell me what QFT is?
Quoted For Truth


I can see where people are coming from when they worry about the reduced possibility for interesting and creative uses of magic in 4e, actually. I haven't read the full rules but it does seem like they've overreacted a bit to the batman wizard thing. But that's not the same as "destroying the RP in RPG."Overreacted?! On the internet?! :smalleek:


I agree with this. It's less specific and thus more mutable. Definitely! Fewer specifics in 'canon' allow more choice.

Kompera
2008-06-02, 09:23 PM
D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.
I've played in every version of D&D except for 4e. For all of the many and radical changes over time, it still remains an RPG. And 4e is an RPG.

Bottom line: Only the players (which includes the GM and those running PCs) can take the RP out of an RPG. And 4e is an RPG. Choose to play it like a tactical wargame and you have removed the RP element from the game, but don't try to blame your choice on the rules. That's just a cop out, the excuse of someone who doesn't care for the system for whatever reason and feels compelled to attack it on all fronts. If you don't like 4e, fine. Point to rules you don't care for and say "This is why I don't like it." People may disagree with you, but that's your opinion. But don't try to use the argument that it's no longer a RPG, because that is patently false and is an unsupportable position.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-06-02, 11:31 PM
From what I've read about people complaining about 4ed, it seems to me that people are sore that they have to home brew again. I think people where looking for a system to be perfect which isn't possible. I also think that people where looking for the RAW to spell out how to edit abilities if the designers where encouraging home brewing or expecting it. It also seems to me yet again Wizards put out a new version of D&D and didn't have it finished yet. So I will be expecting a 4.5 soon...

fun fun...

As much as 3rd was broken beyond all compare I was a big fan of the modularity of it. I thought it made it easy to homebrew, It reminded me of a line of code almost. I don't know kinda late at night for me.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-02, 11:58 PM
As someone who really doesn't like a lot of what he's heard about 4e, I do have to chime in and say that I don't really see how the system could really kill RP beyond a few situational aspects of the game:

Since change self/alter self do not exist in the new edition, characters cannot use these abilities to disguise themselves as members of a local goblin tribe in order to scout or negotiate. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Nobody's going to be able to have a one-minute-long conversation with a badger. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Since, apparently, invisibility and fly effects now have much shorter durations spying on NPCs, in the privy or otherwise, is now going to be much tougher. This issue may be resolved in smutbooks.

The 4e system supports the use of powers to primarily in-combat effects, with the exception of rituals, but this really shoudn't suck all that much life out of your ability to woo a barmaid or negotiate the terms of a contract with local noblepersons. I'd assume the BBEG can still monologue just as well. PCs can argue in-character just as well about loot distribution.

Of all the things I see as wrong with 4e, I don't really see how the 'destruction of RP' could be one of them. It sounds like the same strawman stuff I heard about 3e when it was first published.

Scintillatus
2008-06-03, 12:16 AM
Since change self/alter self do not exist in the new edition, characters cannot use these abilities to disguise themselves as members of a local goblin tribe in order to scout or negotiate. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Just a note, this is wrong. Wizards get Disguise Self, and Dopplegangers get a significantly better version as a minor action at will.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 12:34 AM
Just a note, this is wrong. Wizards get Disguise Self, and Dopplegangers get a significantly better version as a minor action at will.

Really? What's the duration on Disguise Self, because if it's less than a half-hour to an hour, it's just not going to cut it for the intended purpose I was talking about.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 12:34 AM
Dopplegangers get a significantly better version as a minor action at will.

Yep. Playing a Doppelganger seems like it would be really, really fun.

Scintillatus
2008-06-03, 12:36 AM
An hour. Let it be known that my first house-rule is that it can be sustained indefinitely with the expenditure of minor actions.

And yeah, Dopplegangers ftw. Much like Changelings were ftw in 3.5. I think they'd make extremely classy Rogues and Warlocks.

ghost_warlock
2008-06-03, 12:51 AM
An hour. Let it be known that my first house-rule is that it can be sustained indefinitely with the expenditure of minor actions.

And yeah, Dopplegangers ftw. Much like Changelings were ftw in 3.5. I think they'd make extremely classy Rogues and Warlocks.

I think my first houserule might have to be the implementation of a gestalt system, which I don't really need in 3.x but I think would be neccessary for me to feel at all at home with the power-scale in 4e.

I played a su-doppleganger in a brief 2e campaign once. I think it's a Planescape race. Very cool because I could mimic metals when I changed shape, and could alter different parts of his body independantly - shape my skin into armor and hands into swords. The fluff was that I was pretending to be a fighter who was pretending to be a fallen paladin who was pretending to be a fighter. Also, he was insane. :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 12:52 AM
I think my first houserule might have to be the implementation of a gestalt system, which I don't really need in 3.x but I think would be neccessary for me to feel at all at home with the power-scale in 4e.

You just blew my mind.

Gestalt 4e could be very, very interesting. Combined with the multiclassing feats, the options become almost endless... I'll have to meditate on this.

The only question is how to balance encounters. Off the top of my head, I would ballpark 4e gestalts at about 1.25-1.33x as powerful as non-gestalt characters. Playtesting would nail this down.

Raum
2008-06-03, 07:01 AM
As someone who really doesn't like a lot of what he's heard about 4e, I do have to chime in and say that I don't really see how the system could really kill RP beyond a few situational aspects of the game:

Since change self/alter self do not exist in the new edition, characters cannot use these abilities to disguise themselves as members of a local goblin tribe in order to scout or negotiate. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Nobody's going to be able to have a one-minute-long conversation with a badger. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Since, apparently, invisibility and fly effects now have much shorter durations spying on NPCs, in the privy or otherwise, is now going to be much tougher. This issue may be resolved in smutbooks.See I have the opposite opinion. Not having long term methods of magically spying on NPCs means the PCs will have to come up with another solution. OMG! They might have to talk to the NPCs instead of simply listening to the GM go on... /hyperbole

Having a power / ability / character / widget may affect what you're able to role play. Not having them doesn't affect the ability to role play.


Of all the things I see as wrong with 4e, I don't really see how the 'destruction of RP' could be one of them. It sounds like the same strawman stuff I heard about 3e when it was first published.I agree.

-----
Don't take this as a defense of 4e either, it's not. To me 4e appears to be a hybrid, not the crunchy, detailed system 3.5 was and yet not the streamlined fast system Savage Worlds or Unisystem are...it's somewhere in between. As such they've weakened the advantages available to either of the other system types. Question is, will enough people from both camps like it to make it grow? Guess we'll have to wait a couple years and find out.

nagora
2008-06-03, 07:38 AM
As someone who really doesn't like a lot of what he's heard about 4e, I do have to chime in and say that I don't really see how the system could really kill RP beyond a few situational aspects of the game:

Since change self/alter self do not exist in the new edition, characters cannot use these abilities to disguise themselves as members of a local goblin tribe in order to scout or negotiate. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Nobody's going to be able to have a one-minute-long conversation with a badger. This issue may be resolved with splatbooks.

Since, apparently, invisibility and fly effects now have much shorter durations spying on NPCs, in the privy or otherwise, is now going to be much tougher. This issue may be resolved in smutbooks.

None of those are issues that need resolved, they are in fact solutions to existing issues.

Indon
2008-06-03, 02:21 PM
Just because 3.5 had rules for playing these races it doesn't mean they were any good or remotely balanced. Believe me I ran a few all monster races campaigns and got nothing but disasters. I'd recommend GURPS for a campaign were party consist of mice and Vrocks or BESM if you still want to role a d20.

I've seen good exotic race usage, myself. But you certainly have a point, 3.5 had some troubles with exotic races.

Wizards' response to these problems was to give up and remove the feature from their game, rather than to try to improve the feature. That is an admission of failure, and not remotely a good thing.


Reverse engineering playable 4e races is ridiculously simple.

For basic race creation, simply select two stat boosts, two skill boosts, two or so other racial traits, and one Encounter power. Done.

If you feel like getting more creative than that, go right ahead. Make a race with no stat boosts, no skill boosts, 4 racial traits (one of them totally just for cool flavor), and a sweet Daily power.

Seriously, what's stopping you? It's a lot simpler and you get a lot more room for creativity than 3e's system.

If you're looking for an LA system, you won't find it, because it was one of the most commonly lamented aspects of 3e.

How is that 'reverse-engineering'? That's just making new races in the framework of the 4'th edition system, and with no facilitation or guidance.

Yes, I know I can fix 4'th edition. I'm a creative person, and I can ultimately mold the system however I will.

But if I'm going to have to make the things I want up anyway, I could do it in any system - so why use one which does nothing to help me?


[1] I can see where people are coming from when they worry about the reduced possibility for interesting and creative uses of magic in 4e, actually. I haven't read the full rules but it does seem like they've overreacted a bit to the batman wizard thing. But that's not the same as "destroying the RP in RPG."

Heh, I'm inclined to agree. After all, there are tons of RPG's in which very little roleplaying actually occurs or is even expected to - and they're still called RPG's. 4'th edition isn't nearly there yet.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-03, 03:47 PM
To the OP:

The "problem", as far as I can tell, is that the ruleset focuses nigh-exclusively on resolving mechanics (with an exceptional focus on combat), and lets the DM and players invent and describe everything else possible.

If you're looking to the rules to help you roleplay, 4e seems like it's horribly restrictive. If you feel like the rules prevent you from roleplaying, then 4e is pretty freaking open-ended. Either way, the only way it's hack-and-slash is if you drop all pretense of trying to roleplay, and that's hardly version-specific.

Really, that seems to be most of the discussion here lately, and it's just two sides of the same coin. It's been fascinating to watch (and, admittedly, contribute).

Rutee
2008-06-03, 03:53 PM
I've seen good exotic race usage, myself. But you certainly have a point, 3.5 had some troubles with exotic races.

Wizards' response to these problems was to give up and remove the feature from their game, rather than to try to improve the feature. That is an admission of failure, and not remotely a good thing.

Erm, actually... removing implementation for monstrous races was probably the best thing they could have done. Badly doing an idea is arguably worse then not doing it (A sentiment I'm sure has been echoed by many on here who don't like 4e.. :P) because if you do it /badly/, it's taken as is. A GM won't expend much thought on it at all, at least initially, and assume that the LA+ character is in fact actually on par with the other ECL creatures (How did CR not equal LA, when an even level NPC with equal class levels = CR of his level?). If the solution must be homebrewed, however, the GM will have a hand in it, and probably produce a better product for it. A good implementation is obviously better then either, but if they couldn't figure out how to include it gracefully, it was better to not have it.

Prophaniti
2008-06-03, 04:46 PM
Well, IMO there's always been a fundamental problem with running monstrous characters. If you're a Minotaur or a Troll, there's simply no way to balance you with humans and elves without serious handicaps. A minotaur starts life bigger, stronger, and tougher than any of the player races, and if he has equivalent training, he's going to remain bigger, stronger, and tougher. There's just no way around it. If balance is what you want, monstrous races as PCs just isn't going to work. The LA system, sadly, is probably as close as you can come.

Now, I've done campaigns with monstrous PCs, it's actually quite enjoyable, because Balance != Fun (or a Good Game). But if, like WotC, Balance is the ultimate (or at least a higher) goal of your games, you may as well give up on running more exotic monsters as PCs.

As far as the OP goes... I play in a group that often prefers more of a hack'n'slash emphasis on our campaigns, and it's hard sometimes to get them to roleplay. I try to bring rp'ing out more when it's my turn to DM, but the system you use generally has no direct impact on this, though systems with well-defined socialization rules (ie diplomacy, bluff, ect) are a big help for those players who have trouble stepping outside the rulebooks. Every group has a few. I don't like 4E very much at all so far, but I don't see it being directly responsible for us not rping anymore.

JaxGaret
2008-06-03, 08:40 PM
Erm, actually... removing implementation for monstrous races was probably the best thing they could have done. Badly doing an idea is arguably worse then not doing it (A sentiment I'm sure has been echoed by many on here who don't like 4e.. :P) because if you do it /badly/, it's taken as is. A GM won't expend much thought on it at all, at least initially, and assume that the LA+ character is in fact actually on par with the other ECL creatures (How did CR not equal LA, when an even level NPC with equal class levels = CR of his level?). If the solution must be homebrewed, however, the GM will have a hand in it, and probably produce a better product for it. A good implementation is obviously better then either, but if they couldn't figure out how to include it gracefully, it was better to not have it.

Agreed.

I'm already working on a homebrew system to use "real" Monsters-as-PCs; I'll give you a hint, it revolves around Templates.

I think, given some time to design it right, it'll work really well, and you'll be able to take any monster in any 4e MM - that's right, any monster - and play it at the appropriate level.

nagora
2008-06-04, 03:22 AM
Well, IMO there's always been a fundamental problem with running monstrous characters. If you're a Minotaur or a Troll, there's simply no way to balance you with humans and elves without serious handicaps. A minotaur starts life bigger, stronger, and tougher than any of the player races, and if he has equivalent training, he's going to remain bigger, stronger, and tougher.

Speaking as someone who regularly plays a giant armoured robot that can lift 4 tons and fall an almost unlimited distance, survive in space and underwater etc. in a party of normal humans, balance can be found through other things. Speed of movement is a surprisingly good one. Social attitudes to the character is another (groups of hunters looking for a trophy springs to mind as a problem for minotaurs). Basically, roleplaying can balance out almost any mechanical advantage if the DM is strong enough to not let the players push him/her around.

Moak
2008-06-04, 05:02 AM
And, about the role-playing: I actually see 4e affecting that, too. You see, there aren't many character choices, due to a limited amount of powers to choose from, the simplification of the skill system, the weakness of feats and so on. And WotC seems to plan to release more classes and power sources instead of more options for the core classes, although that's speculation on my part.
Also, you are more or less forced to swap your powers (and, to a lesser extent, feats), making it, together with the limited choices, hard to come up with a real mechanical representation of your character's personality.
Those are (hopefully) minor issues, but I still see them.


Look here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217897200

There will be expansions about powers ecc ecc...simply they aren't in the PHB...like weren't in the PHB in 3.x (complete series,anyone? ;) )



Creating new races is however really hard with 4e as it is, as all playable races basically get the same type of bonuses.

There are, as of now, no races that deviate from the norm introduced by the PHB.

You'd have to come up with your own ideas for LA or racial paragon paths or something.

Uhm...I've heard that there are rules to create new races and new classes in the DMG,so,it seems that 4ed encourage houserule...
So,it encourage create new races.


My tries with the 4th ed simply said:
- Fight go speedier and simplier
- More learn freandly
- Less multiclass pleasure

About RP...is always metter of how you and your DM play.

He can railroad now like he could railroad then.

Blanks
2008-06-04, 06:18 AM
Speaking as someone who regularly plays a giant armoured robot that can lift 4 tons and fall an almost unlimited distance, survive in space and underwater etc. in a party of normal humans, balance can be found through other things. Speed of movement is a surprisingly good one. Social attitudes to the character is another (groups of hunters looking for a trophy springs to mind as a problem for minotaurs). Basically, roleplaying can balance out almost any mechanical advantage if the DM is strong enough to not let the players push him/her around.Size is also good for restricting weird races (no you can't wear the armor, fit in the tunnel, reach the magic thingie etc...)

its_all_ogre
2008-06-04, 06:29 AM
i think 4th ed should pease both rp favouring players and hack n slash favouring players:
combat is quicker and simpler. this means it is over quicker enabling you to
1) get on with the storyline if that is what is more important to you
2) get on with even more fighting if that is what is important to you!

the way it does this is by simplifying the system and it does a good job, wotc have decided on what they want to achieve and i think they've done well from what i've seen.

if it carries on working this way remains to be seen.

Johnny Blade
2008-06-04, 06:43 AM
Look here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217897200

There will be expansions about powers ecc ecc...simply they aren't in the PHB...like weren't in the PHB in 3.x (complete series,anyone? ;) )
Hey, that's pretty cool. Thanks for the link.

I still think they should have made scaling powers, though.
And you still don't get enough of them.



Uhm...I've heard that there are rules to create new races and new classes in the DMG,so,it seems that 4ed encourage houserule...
So,it encourage create new races.
Well, I heard they are there, but haven't seen them.

The main problem, however, is that all races have the same power level and there are no mechanics to bring more powerful ones in line with them, meaning that you can't make playable versions of giants or such races.

Of course, you could always reestablish the LA rules or give more powerful races less powers, but LA is clunky and less powers make the game less fun and are a little hard to balance as they are later replaced by better ones.

Really, I don't think 4e's designers even tried to come up with something here.


My tries with the 4th ed simply said:
- Fight go speedier and simplier
- More learn freandly
- Less multiclass pleasure
Agreed.
By the way, the faster and more intuitive fights actually help with role-playing, at least I noticed that during my second 4e session (the first one was rather light on RP).
It's easier to keep track of everything, although you need to display status conditions and such stuff somehow, so you can spend more time during battles actually in character.

Also, like its_all_ogre said, not only is the pace of combat higher, it also is resolved faster. And, let's face it, if your adventures don't feature fights at some point, D&D is the wrong system. The new rules, however, mean that you can actually go through more than 2 encounters and still have enough time for other stuff.

Shadowdweller
2008-06-04, 10:15 AM
From what I've seen of it so far, 4e seems undeniably worse at favoring RP. Although many of these have been brought up already, I'll reiterate since I'm stating my opinions.

1) Roleplay here is defined as portraying and acting out on a particular personality or character type. Otherwise known as a role. Neither restrictions nor options in a ruleset inherently favor roleplay by themselves. For the sake of comparison, consider "free-form" roleplay. Since there are no rules, it allows the ultimate freedom of choice. However, there is equally no basis for portraying a character type that is believable or consistent with the game world. A system where all choices have either nearly identical or completely undefined effects does not favor RP. It is bland.

Contrast this with the GURPS system, which is generally agreed upon as being very good for RP. One major part of the personality-related mechanics come in the form of restrictions (Flaws, quirks). A person with a phobia cannot act in some circumstances. Another with bloodlust cannot help but injure enemies when the opportunity presents itself. And yet these sorts of restrictions do not reduce potential personalities (in part because they are individually optional, and there are significant alternatives) so much as they help define and distinguish them.

The bottom line: It is not merely having options which favors RP in my opinion, but having the basis and opportunity for creating functionally distinctive character types.

2) Contrary to popular belief, every single edition of D&D has provided some mechanical basis for personality: Alignment. Compared to every single edition save basic, 4e has a reduced alignment scheme.

3) Metagame reactions and Dissociated Mechanics: One of the most classic faults of poor roleplaying is the portrayed awareness or reaction to phenomena that have no perceptual basis within the suppositions of the game world. Otherwise known as metagaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_%28role-playing_games%29). A rulseset that uses highly abstract simulations and provides effects that have no in-character description encourages players to react to these abstractions rather than to what would be perceived by their characters. 4e by all accounts with its healing surges, hit points that are completely refreshed each day, abilities that can be used limited times each day without in-world justifications, and powers that cause damage (or other effects) through undefined means has more of these abstractions or more egregious forms thereof than previous editions.

Indon
2008-06-04, 11:23 AM
Erm, actually... removing implementation for monstrous races was probably the best thing they could have done. Badly doing an idea is arguably worse then not doing it (A sentiment I'm sure has been echoed by many on here who don't like 4e.. :P) because if you do it /badly/, it's taken as is.
Tell me, why was LA/RHD so bad in 3'rd edition? Here's my take on it: Because character power frequently grew exponentially, while LA was linear in nature.

LA would have been a much better system in 4'th edition even if next to nothing was changed about it. Why? Because character and monster power increase linearly in 4'th edition, meaning that unlike in 3'rd edition, the value of any given amount of LA would not change.

That's not hard. In fact it would probably have required more effort to decide to scrap the feature than it would have for someone to just port over the 3'rd edition rules, which would have worked much better in the 4'th edition framework.


A good implementation is obviously better then either, but if they couldn't figure out how to include it gracefully, it was better to not have it.

Am I really _that_ much better at game design than the good people at Wizards of the Coast?


Well, IMO there's always been a fundamental problem with running monstrous characters. If you're a Minotaur or a Troll, there's simply no way to balance you with humans and elves without serious handicaps. A minotaur starts life bigger, stronger, and tougher than any of the player races, and if he has equivalent training, he's going to remain bigger, stronger, and tougher. There's just no way around it.

Yes, there obviously is. Wizards even mentioned how in their article on race. In the 4'th edition system, racial power is frequently manifested as levels: That minotaur is simply higher level than a similar human. Furthermore, racial powers had the ability to increase with level: A minotaur at a proper level was simply a good minotaur. It's a shame the system in the books was not at all what it could have been, but Wizards clearly had an inkling at what they were trying for.


Agreed.

I'm already working on a homebrew system to use "real" Monsters-as-PCs; I'll give you a hint, it revolves around Templates.

I think, given some time to design it right, it'll work really well, and you'll be able to take any monster in any 4e MM - that's right, any monster - and play it at the appropriate level.

I'd simply use feat-consuming (possibly power-consuming as well) racial progressions, with perhaps some old-fashioned LA for extreme cases. (Really, that's similar to what Savage Species tried to do, but failed because they still had the linear-LA problem and all they could do was streamline it into a level structure)


combat is quicker and simpler. this means it is over quicker enabling you to
1) get on with the storyline if that is what is more important to you
2) get on with even more fighting if that is what is important to you!

While simplifcation is nice, reports are that combat isn't much shorter overall. It's better-paced, because individual rounds are faster, but combat is composed of much more rounds.

So while yeah, that's a good thing, it's not a good thing for that reason. It makes 4'th edition a much better wargame, at least.

SpikeFightwicky
2008-06-04, 12:44 PM
Sorry for the late reply, my Internet access was unavailable yesterday.

From what I'm reading, it seems like it'll be just as RP/not-RP intensive as 3.X. My main concern was that some kind of rule or mechanic somehow hindered the game's RP side. Here's a question: other than spells and crafting, what options did 3.5 have for non-combat that 4th ed. doesn't?

My 2 cents on lack of PC options hindering RP: In 3.5 I could rarely find a build that satisfied my character concept, so I generally worked it the other way around -> I found the closest analogue to my concept and created something out of that. AFAIC, lack of PC options would mainly hinder those that can't get 'immersed' in a game if their concept doesn't work mechanically (the mechanics HAVE to fit their ideas).

ghost_warlock
2008-06-04, 01:07 PM
Look here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217897200

There will be expansions about powers ecc ecc...simply they aren't in the PHB...like weren't in the PHB in 3.x (complete series,anyone? ;) )

This will be the first such supplement to be released, right? Yeah, it will. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndlist&year=2008&brand=All&tablesort=5b)

If so, I ROFLMAO at WotC. They're making the exact same mistake with 4e that they did with 3e - releasing the martial splatbook first.

Slowly, in steps Power Creep.

The Arcane Heroes book is released in 2009 and players previously championing balance in 4e will be crying as wizards, once again, become Batman. Later that year, the Divine Heroes book is released and re-awakens the Clericzilla. The Primal Heroes book is released still later in 2009 and players learn that the Barbarian can do everything the Fighter can, but better, while Druidzilla comes out of hibernation.

Then, in a move that pisses off everyone, WotC scrambles to meet deadlines and introduce nerfs and smooshes the Ki & Psionic Heroes splatbook into one underpowered, un-usable product. Rocks fall, everyone dies.

KIDS
2008-06-04, 01:10 PM
While I don't believe it will go that way, that scenario was full of win :P

ghost_warlock
2008-06-04, 01:16 PM
While I don't believe it will go that way, that scenario was full of win :P

Yes, I think it will be in everyone's best interest if time proves me wrong.

I'd like to love 4e as much/more than I loved 3e but I just don't see it happening. It just doesn't seem to jive with the style of games I enjoy and want to play in/run.

elliott20
2008-06-04, 01:58 PM
from the looks of it, other than the combat portions of the game, 4E really won't be dictating much of the style beyond "heroic high fantasy"

Indon
2008-06-04, 02:22 PM
Slowly, in steps Power Creep.

Personally, I don't think it can go down that way.

Pretty much any noticable degree of power creep introduced in the system will destroy 4'th edition's primary feature - its' mechanical balance. I should hope Wizards won't make books without realizing that.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-04, 02:26 PM
{Scrubbed}

Raum
2008-06-04, 03:44 PM
1) Roleplay here is defined as portraying and acting out on a particular personality or character type. Otherwise known as a role. Yep, a pretty good definition. Here's the dictionary definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=roleplay&x=0&y=0), not much difference.


Neither restrictions nor options in a ruleset inherently favor roleplay by themselves. Not absolutely true. There are systems with rules which encourage or even push roleplaying with mechanics. Wushu is a good example. Essentially it gives you bonuses to an action based on details in your description.


For the sake of comparison, consider "free-form" roleplay. Since there are no rules, it allows the ultimate freedom of choice. However, there is equally no basis for portraying a character type that is believable or consistent with the game world. Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure how that follows - if you have "ultimate choice" can't you choose to portray a believable character?


A system where all choices have either nearly identical or completely undefined effects does not favor RP. It is bland.What systems are you referring to? You appear to be referring to freeform, but freeform doesn't mean undefined effects, it means you define the effects. Choices certainly wouldn't be identical! :)


Contrast this with the GURPS system, which is generally agreed upon as being very good for RP.Do you have a source for this? Most opinions I've seen rate GURPS as neither better nor worse for roleplay than any other 'crunchy' system.


One major part of the personality-related mechanics come in the form of restrictions (Flaws, quirks). A person with a phobia cannot act in some circumstances. Another with bloodlust cannot help but injure enemies when the opportunity presents itself. And yet these sorts of restrictions do not reduce potential personalities (in part because they are individually optional, and there are significant alternatives) so much as they help define and distinguish them.Can't you do this in freeform or light games as well? Some form of hindrances are common across many different styles and systems.


The bottom line: It is not merely having options which favors RP in my opinion, but having the basis and opportunity for creating functionally distinctive character types.Are we talking about roleplaying a personality or constructing a character's abilities? You've already stated most mechanics don't make a difference to roleplaying, are you saying character mechanics do make a difference?


2) Contrary to popular belief, every single edition of D&D has provided some mechanical basis for personality: Alignment. Compared to every single edition save basic, 4e has a reduced alignment scheme.I'm not sure I'd class alignment as personality, but I agree. Almost all of the editions had at least a page on creating character backgrounds and personalities.


3) Metagame reactions and Dissociated Mechanics: One of the most classic faults of poor roleplaying is the portrayed awareness or reaction to phenomena that have no perceptual basis within the suppositions of the game world. Otherwise known as metagaming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_%28role-playing_games%29). A rulseset that uses highly abstract simulations and provides effects that have no in-character description encourages players to react to these abstractions rather than to what would be perceived by their characters.Do you have any supporting data? In my experience, simple unified mechanics fade into the background sooner than highly detailed and complex systems.


4e by all accounts with its healing surges, hit points that are completely refreshed each day, abilities that can be used limited times each day without in-world justifications, and powers that cause damage (or other effects) through undefined means has more of these abstractions or more egregious forms thereof than previous editions.Possibly, I haven't read 4e yet - not sure how well they justify the mechanics.

-----
I have yet to see any game where I couldn't roleplay outside of conflict. Essentially freeform. It's when mechanics intrude that roleplay may get dropped. After all, why leap over the banister, swing across on the chandelier, and slice my initials in the bad guy's chest when it's always just a movement and attack / defense check? Now if I have a bonus for doing so, that's another story altogether!

Granted, GMs may add bonuses when they please - but we're talking about systems not individual games. When systems add a bonus based on your roleplaying, they encourage it. Wushu is one example, Savage World's Tricks are another. If the system doesn't encourage roleplay, the best you can hope for is it being roleplay neutral - smooth mechanics that fade into the background and allow you to concentrate on the action rather than the mechanic.

FYI Azerian - It was funny once and amusing the second time. It's boring now. At least find an new pic! Please! :)

Corolinth
2008-06-04, 04:32 PM
Oh, yes, of course. Because those are the most common campaigns ever.Actually, the entire concept of the law-chaos axis (which was the only alignment axis in the original D&D rules set) was derived from the works of Michael Moorcock.

Xyk
2008-06-04, 05:12 PM
4e only improves role-playing from what I've seen. The combat is smoother, making for better adventures that aren't weighed down by more rolls and bookkeeping. It is for that reason that I will probably obtain the books and play it.

Trizap
2008-06-04, 05:51 PM
I agree with Xyk, thing is the reason 4E feels so restricting, is because it only has core stuff out now, and 3.5 has like all those splatbooks, which is an unreasonable comparison as WoTC will probably release more 4E splatbooks, and it will eventually not feel so restricting.

Doomsy
2008-06-04, 07:17 PM
I thought this was about RPGs in general, not the 4E/3.5 furball again. The alignment characteristics alone tend to turn me off as a 'serious' roleplaying mechanic, and it is pretty combat based. Take that however you want and make whatever arguments against or for it, but I'll just say this.

Compare, say, CoC to D&D. Opposite spectrum ends. In CoC, combat is horrifyingly lethal, as well as the environment. It is role playing intensive because you have to put yourself into the proper mindset to really have much hope of staying alive for long. Quite a few of the creatures in the compendium are not just unkillable, but will destroy the characters very minds if they are even seen. You avoid the combat as much as possible. Most modules are built around painstaking investigations with very little combat - most combat is the end of the campaign/story, in one way or another. It is also exceedingly lethal and something anyone who wants a long term character will have to think about at length.

In D&D, combat is arguably the core. A high level can and will take a shot at major iconic figures and can have a fairly good chance of succeeding. Most produced modules are built around escalating combat engagements. XP seems mostly based on combat engagements more than social uses. Again, all of this is from the as-written modules and company-made releases. The combat system does not have crippling wounds, any type of lingering damage at all, and has very little penalties for dying and being rezzed. A fighter who is *set on fire* by a dragon is just down hit points. A cleric smacks him with healing and the man is just flatout fine. No horrible disfiguring scars, no nothing. He's just back up to full HPs and bouncing around ready for the next fight. Yes. You can role play things, but it's not in the material as presented by the maker.

At the end of a campaign in CoC, most characters are pretty much permanently changed for 'life'. They've had actual permanent change both upward and downward from their choices (or bad luck), many may actually be weaker due to damage taken in doing what they thought was necessary, and a good number might well be dead along the way. Or permanently, violently insane. They're still very human (well, most of them), and for the most part no one will ever know what they did.

In D&D the characters are simply more powerful, from a purely rules as written stand point. While some might have died gloriously there is probably a good chance you can have them resurrected unless they died in a handful of ways that stop it. They're also practically demi-gods compared to the world around them in a very real way, given just how influential 'levels' are in D&D. A party of level 20s is very literally an unstoppable force in many settings, capable of destroying entire armies.

Maybe it's the price of the fantasy setting for D&D, maybe it's just the rules. But it's easier to roleplay in a game where the rules are a bit more like the real world in my own opinion. As for the D&D 3.5/4E fight?

It's the same deal. You put the RP into it, not the mechanics. Same as it ever was.

Prophaniti
2008-06-04, 07:25 PM
True, Doomsy, very true on most counts. The jarring flaws in the 'realism' of D&D's combat is one of the reasons I loved Dark Heresy so much when I picked it up. Wonderfully lethal in comparison, which makes people a lot more careful about their in-game choices. I find this helps RP a lot. Why, Dark Heresy saw our first game session EVER where they resolved the situation with no combat (though they did ambush one guy and knock him out). We'd never see that in our D&D games. If I presented the party with an exact copy of the situation in D&D, they'd have gone in weapons drawn and fought it to the bloody end.

I'm seriously considering adapting the system to a fantasy setting so we can do fantasy without defaulting to hack'n'slash. Not that there's anything wrong with hack'n'slash, but after years of the same approach, I'm ready for a change.

Doomsy
2008-06-04, 09:34 PM
I've generally found that the easier it is to do hack 'n slash in a game, the more likely people are to play it that way. If you make it less deadly, it becomes less involved and more of an abstract power game.

Now, if you screw up a hit and your fighter loses an arm for real? And there is no real way to negate that risk? That's when you start putting more effort into things than just plotting skill trees and figuring out breaking combos.

Helgraf
2008-06-04, 09:41 PM
True, Doomsy, very true on most counts. The jarring flaws in the 'realism' of D&D's combat is one of the reasons I loved Dark Heresy so much when I picked it up. Wonderfully lethal in comparison, which makes people a lot more careful about their in-game choices. I find this helps RP a lot. Why, Dark Heresy saw our first game session EVER where they resolved the situation with no combat (though they did ambush one guy and knock him out). We'd never see that in our D&D games. If I presented the party with an exact copy of the situation in D&D, they'd have gone in weapons drawn and fought it to the bloody end.

I'm seriously considering adapting the system to a fantasy setting so we can do fantasy without defaulting to hack'n'slash. Not that there's anything wrong with hack'n'slash, but after years of the same approach, I'm ready for a change.

You do realize there's already a fantasy setting with those rules? Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, it's called. And yes, Combat is still deliciously dangerously lethal in it.

Brasswatchman
2008-06-04, 11:16 PM
If, for example, one wanted to roleplay a caster who would always have others doing his fighting for him, usually through summons or mind affecting magic, in 3.5 core it was down right simple. If you wanted to roleplay the exact same character in 4e it is currently impossible.

How so? Can't you just choose the powers/feats/options that let you play that character?

JaxGaret
2008-06-04, 11:47 PM
How so? Can't you just choose the powers/feats/options that let you play that character?

There's very little in 4e core that allows one to Summon or Mind-Control.

Best guess is the Psionic supplement will bring mind-control to the table, and the Primal or Shadow supplement will bring summon types to the table.

I suppose you could do a Cleric/Wizard in 4e that used a lot of Summon-type spells, but it wouldn't be viable until later levels, probably Paragon tier.

Mewtarthio
2008-06-05, 01:34 AM
Creating new races is however really hard with 4e as it is, as all playable races basically get the same type of bonuses.

There are, as of now, no races that deviate from the norm introduced by the PHB.

You'd have to come up with your own ideas for LA or racial paragon paths or something.

To be honest, I think the best way may be just to strip the race down to something on par with the core races, then build it back up via homebrewed racial feats. You could then either let people play from level 1 and take whatever feats they'd like to make themselves more like the race or give the race a "feat cost" that forces players to start the game with X fewer feats (and, obviously, makes the race unplayable at levels in which the players have fewer than X feats).

Raum
2008-06-05, 05:58 AM
How so? Can't you just choose the powers/feats/options that let you play that character?Choosing abilities is not role play.

PnP Fan
2008-06-05, 09:07 AM
Okay, normally I hate invoking the numerous named fallacies out there, but isn't the idea that game mechanics dictate a person's ability to RP awfully close to that stormwind fallacy? It's not exactly the same, but, as I understand it, the stormwind fallacy states something to the effect of "Roleplaying and Rollplaying are, at best, inversely proportional, if not mutually exclusive." Which has come to be commonly accepted as nonsense on this board.

So here, the argument is that we have a new rules set, which means we can't roleplay (or not as well)?
Balderdash! I'll have conversations (IC or OC) with whome I please, when I please, and how I please, about what I please, and where I please, thank you very much.
Completely understand the frustration that some character concepts are not realizable (sp?) any more (batman wizard, etc.. .), but, as others have said, you could argue that of any system.

elliott20
2008-06-05, 09:35 AM
actually, Doomsy brings up a very valid point. The 4E system, because of it being so focused on the increasing power scale, inherently favors running combat. It doesn't mean that roleplaying and rollplaying are inversely proportional, but excellence in one doesn't aid the other either. And if you consider a player's energy and attention an actual resource, from an economic standpoint, a strong combat system with no RP support will eat up those precious resources by default, since the RPing will actually take more effort than just running a combat based game.

keep in mind, you still CAN run an RP game. It's just that you and your players will have to spend a real active effort to do so.

I do disagree with his belief that more power means less roleplaying though. Take Spirits of the Century. most of your characters start off as the creme de la creme, the elite of the elite, and that system STILL encourages roleplaying more than D&D. (Partially because of the use of Aspects in the rules)

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 09:50 AM
And if you consider a player's energy and attention an actual resource, from an economic standpoint, a strong combat system with no RP support will eat up those precious resources by default, since the RPing will actually take more effort than just running a combat based game.

I'm not so sure that this is the case. There are rules for RP situations that seem to work similarly to combat (skill challenges). What's more, having a strong and fluid combat system could just as easily be said to help RP because by having the system be stronger in that area it actually takes less of a players energy than otherwise, leaving more for RP.

elliott20
2008-06-05, 09:58 AM
I'm not so sure that this is the case. There are rules for RP situations that seem to work similarly to combat (skill challenges). What's more, having a strong and fluid combat system could just as easily be said to help RP because by having the system be stronger in that area it actually takes less of a players energy than otherwise, leaving more for RP.
well, if we're talking about streamlined system vs. a robust but complex system, then what you say is definitely true. a strong combat system, if it's streamlined and easy enough to do, does make it easier and thus take less energy for players to use.

that is, a good, simple, and intuitive combat system is always better than a very rule intensive and complex one. there is no denying that.

what I'm trying to say is that an system that supposedly is about RPing, it helps to have some good mechanics (again, the operative word being good) to help encourage and smooth things along.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 10:04 AM
what I'm trying to say is that an system that supposedly is about RPing, it helps to have some good mechanics (again, the operative word being good) to help encourage and smooth things along.

Well sure, I don't think anyone is really arguing with the premise that 'It is benificial for an RPG to have helpful RP mechanics' are they?

The real issue that seems to be at play is 'what if any affect do non-rp Mechanics have on rp'? I'd say very little if any.

elliott20
2008-06-05, 10:12 AM
Well sure, I don't think anyone is really arguing with the premise that 'It is benificial for an RPG to have helpful RP mechanics' are they?

The real issue that seems to be at play is 'what if any affect do non-rp Mechanics have on rp'? I'd say very little if any.

except when they become too encumbersome to let the game run effectively, I guess.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-05, 12:28 PM
except when they become too encumbersome to let the game run effectively, I guess.

Yeah, I took that as assumed. I probably could have phrased it better as something like "What if any effect do medoicre to good combat mechanics have on rp?"

Johnny Blade
2008-06-05, 12:36 PM
To be honest, I think the best way may be just to strip the race down to something on par with the core races, then build it back up via homebrewed racial feats. You could then either let people play from level 1 and take whatever feats they'd like to make themselves more like the race or give the race a "feat cost" that forces players to start the game with X fewer feats (and, obviously, makes the race unplayable at levels in which the players have fewer than X feats).
Good idea, but the problem with both methods is that feats aren't all that great.
On the other hand, something like a +4 to Strength isn't that impressive any more, too.
So, yeah, maybe that would work.

(I'm still a little disappointed, though.)

Diamondeye
2008-06-05, 01:21 PM
I wasn't aware that tactical war games had any non-combat challenges...


They don't, in the sense that RPGs do, but it can be a challange in some of them to build an army that fits the spirit of the background but is still powerful and effective.

I was a big WH40K player in college; around the time 2nd Ed of that game was the primary ruleset. At the time, the rules allowed a lot of flexibility in "buying" your army. In particular, the earlier army list codexes tended to have a lot of loopholes which allowed for armies that barely resembled anything in the flavor text. This gave rise to various levels of "cheese". There were armies that were "cheesy" which meant they didn't even try to reflect flavor, and "non-cheesy" which meant they paid lip service to flavor, in terms of the Virginia Tech RPG/wargame scene at the time.

I had an Eldar army, widely considered one of the most exploitable. However, I (and another guy, who actually did a better job than me) actually roleplayed our armies, designing them around a fluff-based theme at the expense of "cheesy" combos.

Now, I'm not tooting my own horn of wrgame ethics here. I did it because I liked many of the models for noncheesy units too much to not play them, and I liked the fluff enough that I wanted to play a faithful army, and of course, being in ROTC, I wanted to prove that an army designed based on how a real one (or, more accuratley, a platoon-plus) is set up, with different complimentary elements could be just as powerful as piling all your points into an Inquisitor Lord in Terminator Armor.