Game Mecahnics Versus Role Playing Focus

[Ashrum the Black]

In my mind I think part fo the problem is that 4e seems to draw the mind into that type of thinking. It spends so much of the players handbook covering the powers that the players have, and can gain, that it seems to draw the mind into a mode of what can I do, not what am I. I'm as guilty of falling into that traps as the next person. I found myself thinking what kind of cool powers would Ihave if I went this build route versus that one with my character, instead of what is my character about.

Now, this is not to say that 4e cannot be full of character and full of wonderful roleplaying. One needs look no further than Piratecats current 4e campaign to see the truth to that. But, it does seem to focus on the cool powers quite a bit, and leave injecting the flavor into the campaign to the DM.

Perhaps it is my lack of setting purhcases that are making me see this in this light. I've no interest in the Realms, and perhaps the realse of Eberron will spark my creative juices with the characters. But so far I just end up seeing cool powers with a 4e character, and not a living person that it would be cool to play as well.

Piratecat, got room at your table for a somebody looking to love 4e, but just not connecting yet?

-Ashrum

 

[Jack7]

In short modern games need a Soul once again.

Unless you have already (and therefore are entitled to your informed opinion; please don't get me wrong here), I strongly suggest checking out some more of the modern games out there. If what you posted there had read, 'In short modern D&D needs a Soul once again', well then, sadly I'd pretty much have to agree and that would be that. But I feel compelled to offer the suggestion above, because in my opinion (which, hopefully, is in this instance reasonably informed) a fair number of these modern games you referred to en masse are in fact well and truly 'ensouled'.

Not to mention that a good number of older games also are, of course.

Yeah, but I think you missed this Aus.

Now all of that being said I think the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction in a corrective move. I see intense interest in what I would call the Soul of Gaming and away from the mechanics of gaming. It is slow and it is just beginning, but I see signs of it in many ways. (In some ways I would even say 4E illustrates the beginnings of this movement, at least as far as D&D is concerned. In some ways 4E is far too cluttered and complicated and power absorbed, but in other ways it is more flexible and fluid, and even, more human in many respects. When I look at the Player's Handbook I see a plethora of mechanics and mechanistic contracts. But when I read the DMG I see the return of the soul in the background.)

But in my opinion the mechanics of gaming are the methods of gaming, not the intention or purpose of gaming. And I think that for a long time there was a sort of assumed and unconscious view permeating much of RPG design that confused method with meaning.

The simple fact that so many now seem interested in exploring other aspects of gaming, and that conversations like this one occur often (as least among what might be called a core RPG audience) is proof to me that the moon is waxing again and that the tide has turned.

And about time if you ask me.

Or maybe I didn't emphasize it enough, or in the right way. Though you're probably right, I was talking about primarily D&D, and one has to define exactly what one means by the time frames being referred to.

The soul of the game has always been in the hands of the participants.

I agree with that to a large extent EW.
However equally important are the issues and opportunities involved to explore the soul of the game based on design and premise.

And the design premise of the game derives from how the game is initially constructed by the designers, and the milieu premise derives from the DM. Everybody has to do their part to provide opportunities which go beyond just a series of mechanical statistics and probabilities when it comes to role play.

In other words the design must include a soul, the DM must allow that soul to breathe and grow, and the player must bring to life the soul of the character.

But first there must be a design acknowledgment that the character is far more than his bonuses and "build," just as a man is far more than his profession and his body (though I'm not belittling a man's profession and body in any way, I'm just saying those are not the ultimate and final measures of what a man is capable).

 

[ExploderWizard]

As the DM, you get to be anybody you want. As the player, you're this one person for months or years at a time. Of course you're a bit picky about it..

At the beginning of a campaign, how do you know that you will be playing this one person for months or years? Characters can die and new ones can join the party.

And, as far as mechanics go, they're a proxy for anxiety about character death. If you're going to invest in creating a detailed character background, forming relationships with all of these PCs, and playing them for months to years, you want to feel like you've done everything possible to make sure that this guy lives. Because it stinks if your guy dies just when the story gets good because you failed him. And it stinks worse if you are invested in the story, only to realize that your character is weak and unable to affect the story through combat or skills at level 10.

Unless a PC enjoys plot protection from death, the odds are its going to happen sooner or later. Adventuring is dangerous work. Paranoia of this kind is senseless. If the DM is a habitual PC killer then he/she will be without players soon enough. Agonizing over every build element in some kind of attempt to make the character "death proof" is kind of silly. Either the DM has it in for your character and will kill him if he/she wants , or the character enjoys some sort of plot protection and won't die anyway.

From the character's point of view it stinks to die at any time.A character dying in the heat of the action doesn't mean the player "failed" him. Bad things happen to good adventurers. .

Lets look at the example Joe G. gave us. Here we have a player who is so obsessed with optimization that he won't create a character and participate in what might be a great game because the options for building the most mathematically advantageous character are not being used by the DM at this time. That mentality makes me wonder if certain players shouldn't just stick to wargames.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yeah, but I think you missed this Aus.

Or maybe I didn't emphasize it enough, or in the right way.

Heh, either way, it doesn't matter. I guess the point I was making also got lost amongst all that nitpicking and stuff. Basically yeah, there are a lot of alternatives to (for example) D&D 4th edition. Or 3rd edition. And so on. Bit of an understatement, if anything. There are *tons* of alternatives, and many of them emphasise completely different things. Or, in some cases, it might even be the same things, but with a totally different prioritisation at work.

But, as I certainly deemed possible, seems you were aware of that fact already. So it's all good.

/tj

 

[Cadfan]

The more your games emphasize solving problems, the more your players will talk about and care about the tools they have for solving problems.

Their own brain isn't worth discussing or planning out in advance. Their character's abilities, on the other hand, are.

There are two possible solutions to this type of play. First, limit or take away tools. Second, run a game where problem solving isn't as big of a deal.

And of course third, just play the game and let the roleplaying come as it may. That's what I tend to favor. I find that a character's personality is mutable for at least the first three or four sessions, so there's no point in planning it ahead more than a tiny bit.

 

[Mallus]

In my mind I think part fo the problem is that 4e seems to draw the mind into that type of thinking.

For me it was 3e. I'm an inveterate, funny accent using role-player and even I got sucked into the character-building mini-game in 3e (PrC's, mulitclassing, feat chains, oh my!).

It really brought out my inner gearhead.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I just don't get the appeal of all the planning and working and min-maxing without the character to back it up.

Me neither. Intellectually I understand that some people like it, but I don't "get it." I don't get a fix from tweaking a rule-set. Too meta.

But it's not your age or anything, just your play style. Older versions of D&D were useless for gear heads. There was nothing to tweak, so they didn't bother to play and found a hobby that suited them better, like tweaking car engines or building model airplanes. Now that D&D permits them to find some enjoyment in the game they stick around, but that doesn't mean they're playing the game for the same reasons you are.

I think your player did the right thing by dropping out - it's not that you wouldn't have allowed Martial Power eventually, but rather that your game style simply would never have matched his.

By the way, if you want to encourage roleplaying in this new-fangled edition I've found that the amount of RP you get is directly proportional to the amount of choice allowed to PCs in adventure and campaign direction. After all, the rules are "how" you do things; the roleplaying is "why" you do things. If you don't allow players to say "No" to a quest or goal, then you're really not allowing them to roleplay. If you don't allow them to say "Let's go West and save those elves" (and improvise a quest out of that) then you're not allowing them to roleplay. If you say "But guys, I have this recent copy of Dungeon magazine so that's what we're gonna play" you're not allowing them to roleplay. Etc.

Pro-tip for encouraging roleplaying: Grant Quest XP bonuses to players that match up their PC's motivations with a quest. A Cleric of Erathis might place emphasis on some civilization building aspect of the quest, and he only gets his XP award if he accomplishes that goal. This way each player has a clear (and unique) agenda.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If you build from flavor to mechanics, then you might have a character who sounded cool and you enjoy being but who makes combat a drag for you.

Whereas if you build from mechanics to flavor, you have a character you enjoy fighting with and chances are pretty darn good you'll have a charcater you enjoy roleplaying with.

This is ridiculously good advice. I had to learn it the hard way, and I can assure everyone that it's 113% correct.

 

[Irda Ranger]

But when you have design paradigms that specifically focus on powers and other concrete mechanical elements of play to the exclusion of role play elements in, of all things, a role play game, then you have a machine without a soul.

And personally I think that a lot of more recent game versions have done this to the detriment of the game itself.

Yeah, like that recent Rules Cyclopedia. Other than the fact that he's apparently "Lawful" my elf doesn't have a single rule representing his personality. It's all spells, longsword, AC, etc., etc. A machine without a soul, as you say.

But he gets a little XP for killing things, and lots of XP for taking their stuff. So I guess his motivation is "Get the money by whatever means necessary." I think I can roleplay that ...

</sarcasm>

All talk of "Soul" aside, I think the main problem is that 3E and 4E have had really engrossing rules. Because certain people were able to spend all day tweaking a character concept in 3.x, they did. That's less of a problem in 4E, but it's still there. In the old school games you simply didn't have that option; once you were 3 minutes into character creation you were done with the rule parts.

Further, the rules in the older editions (prior to kits and Skills & Powers) were so sparse that they simply couldn't encompass anything other than a rough sketch of a PC. You were forced to roleplay your character because the rules provided no guidance at all. It was sink or swim. Now the rules provide a little bit of "fleshing out", and so the natural expectation is that all of the roleplaying aspects will be reduced to rules.

The modern style of play simply allows the player to contribute less to the overall effectiveness of the character once the options have been selected.

I disagree. I think the player contributes more in the modern style. What I think you're getting at though is that combat is more systematized. This is a Good Thing (TM). In the old days the only way to learn what your combat options were was asking the DM what he'd allow (or reading his 78 page house rules doc) - and no telling if he'd given any thought as to whether his charge mechanic was balanced or not, or whether he'd allow you to swing from chandeliers. Now the PHB provides that information, which makes it more accessible to the new player and better play-tested for all players.

So at the tactical level the player either contributes more or about the same. It was only at the meta-game "What will my DM permit?" level where the old-school player needed to contribute more. Both BECMI and 4E allow players to power attack, swing from chandeliers and try to convince the Orcs to throw down their weapons - and in both editions it's up to the player to decide which tactic to use.

 

[Jack7]

All talk of "Soul" aside, I think the main problem is that 3E and 4E have had really engrossing rules. Because certain people were able to spend all day tweaking a character concept in 3.x, they did. That's less of a problem in 4E, but it's still there. In the old school games you simply didn't have that option; once you were 3 minutes into character creation you were done with the rule parts.

Further, the rules in the older editions (prior to kits and Skills & Powers) were so sparse that they simply couldn't encompass anything other than a rough sketch of a PC. You were forced to roleplay your character because the rules provided no guidance at all. It was sink or swim. Now the rules provide a little bit of "fleshing out", and so the natural expectation is that all of the roleplaying aspects will be reduced to rules.

Those are interesting points IR.
Especially the parts about engrossment and reducing the ineffable aspects of game and character to rigid rules.

I think there is a sort of subconscious modern trend among designers, or has been, to think everything has to be reduced to mechanical rules.

RP game design is still in many respects in the "Newtonian era."