Regarding the (supposed) lack of role-playing in 4E

[Hairfoot]

And the skills challenges section, this is treating it with contempt, is it?

As someone mentioned above, reducing interactions to a series of rolls and numerical mechanics just makes it a form of combat. That's contemptuous because it assumes that the player only wants to stack bonuses and roll through boring story details.

Don't miss my point. I like simple modifiers for ability and skill to reflect that a PC may be more or less persuasive and cunning than its player in a non-combat situation, and I certainly wouldn't want a skills system as extensive as the 4E combat system. But (if I interpret correctly) you're seeing 4E as a roleplaying game with an effective combat system, whereas to me it's clearly a tabletop miniature wargame with roleplaying as an optional extra.

The rules and presentation of a game encourage certain types of play, and 4E's rules encourage combat and little else.

 

[marune]

As someone mentioned above, reducing interactions to a series of rolls and numerical mechanics just makes it a form of combat. That's contemptuous because it assumes that the player only wants to stack bonuses and roll through boring story details.

DMG should say : each roll must be roleplayed, i.e. at least describing the effect in the Shared Imagined Space with narration and/or acting.

That's what you need to transform a tactical board game in a Gamist*, Combat-Focused RPG.


*Gamist = Challenge-based, not necessarily combat challenges.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I think that people just have different takes on how rule systems should operate.

I personally really like that much of play isn't heavily influenced by the rules; the thing that matters when you are involved in game play that doesn't involve combat or challenges is the social dynamics at the table, and no rule system can do that part for you. It's up to every table to figure out how they want to handle the parts of the game that don't interact heavily with the mechanics should be run -- because there is no right answer.

From the perspective of 4e, yes, it doesn't matter on your character sheet if you're a former sailor or farmhand. It's not trying to arbitrate that kind of stuff. That doesn't mean it doesn't respect that kind of play, though. It just means that your character is not described solely by the mechanics (which is honestly true in any RPG).

An argument could be made that skill ranks in 3e kept you from saying "Oh, yeah, I used to work as a..." whenever something relevant to that profession came up. My question is, is that something the system needs to handle? Opinions will vary, my own is that if you are playing with folks who will happily trod all over their character's backstory for a minor mechanical benefit... you guys need to have a conversation, and that has a much better chance of fixing any roleplaying disconnect than the rules would have.

 

[buzz]

See, I don't neccessarily think you need shared expectations, outside of a basic agreement not to get in the way of each others enjoyment. While I realize that some players are legitimately incompatible, I think far too much is made of play styles being so.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. The #1 problem I have seen in the various groups I've been in is a clash in expectations. I find the whole idea (canonized in the 4e and 3.5 DMG, DMG2, Robin's Laws, and other sources) that you can have a, e.g., actor, storyteller, slayer, tactician, and power gamer all in the same group and satisfy them all to be a total fallacy. At best, you end up with players taking turns having fun while everyone else is bored. At worst, you have certain players pretty much never having fun who continue to attend for other reasons ("But I'm in the group," or "Bad gaming is better than no gaming," etc).

But we're drifting...

 

[SweeneyTodd]

As someone mentioned above, reducing interactions to a series of rolls and numerical mechanics just makes it a form of combat. That's contemptuous because it assumes that the player only wants to stack bonuses and roll through boring story details.

Sorry, I disagree. I think that your interpretation is colored by your personal opinion. It's perfectly possible to roleplay with description and dialog while also using the mechanics ... at the same time.

It's cool if you don't want to do that, and would rather "just roleplay" and have the mechanics not be used, but that's just opinion.

It's a roleplaying game. The mechanics are there to be invoked when desired. Simply playing the mechanics "flat", without any imagined context, is not going to be an entertaining game, no matter which game it is.

"I convince him."
"Roll Diplomacy."
"...18."
"He's convinced"

Is not how the game's written to be played. That's ignoring the why and just doing the how. Apart from some bad con/demo games, you're not going to see it, and if you do, hey, good time to walk away from the table. You're welcome to the opinion, but reading the books didn't give me the impression that that is the intended style of play at all. (For one thing, it doesn't match the examples given.)

DMG should say : each roll must be roleplayed, i.e. at least describing the effect in the Shared Imagined Space with narration and/or acting.

I'm pretty confused by this. Are you saying they should have done this, but didn't?

Reading the entire PHB and DMG (yes, even the introduction) made it really clear to me that it's a game where you play a fictional character, and that the rules are there to help you do that, not to replace doing that.

The idea that "Any roll you're making has to do with some action your character is taking; you should actually describe that action" is totally consistent with the rules as published, and the examples of play given. Obviously you're not supposed to say "I roll athletics to cross the rickety bridge", you're supposed to say "I cross the rickety bridge" (with whatever additional detail you the player would like to add), and then roll to determine the outcome of that action.

A naked roll, with no context in the shared imagined space, isn't an action. It isn't anything. It's not play!

(Realistically I know you can totally have a "naked roll", in that situation your action is implied and the folks at the table know what you meant to do, or else the DM just asks you to clarify. The level of description that's "good enough" is gonna differ for each gaming group. And I think that's a good thing -- the rules could say "You must stand and announce your action in an Olde English accent and say Verily a lot", but what would that accomplish? )

 

[demadog]

I agree with many of the previous posters that 4e does as much and perhaps a little more to promote role-playing, especially with the addition of skill challenges for social interactions. It does have its weaknesses though with the at least initial elimination of several background and out-of-combat skill choices. Still, in my DnD experience the overwhelming support for role-playing comes from the group and the DM. Each group seems to find the level of role-playing they are comfortable at with or without support from the rules.

However, with that being said, I imagine that some of the reaction towards new edition's role-playing comes from a player ability to conceptualize their character. With 4e being a fairly large departure from previous editions, some players don't yet know how to translate their ideas into a character. In fact, some are skeptical that their ideas will translate and they may indeed be right.

Early editions of the game supported just about anthing you could think of because their were very few rules to hinder those ideas. In my opinion 3e took that to the next level by doing its best to add rules to support a vast number of character concepts with quite a bit of help from the OGL. My early impression of 4e leads me to believe that it can hinder many of those character concepts. Moreover, my main point would be that players just dont yet know how to translate those concepts into a whole host of unfamiliar powers, races, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies. I guess that the unfamiliarity will pass and my hope is that I'm wrong about the new editions tendancy to hinder some concepts.

 

[buzz]

As someone mentioned above, reducing interactions to a series of rolls and numerical mechanics just makes it a form of combat.

I see people trot this argument out all the time, but I have yet to see a game actually work like this in practice.

Mechanics are not antithetical to "roleplaying". On the contrary, I find the idea that one can support something via omission to be kinda strange.

4e isn't showing contempt by including the skill challenge rules. It's playing catch-up to games that have established this as basic RPG design.

 

[marune]

Sorry, I disagree. I think that your interpretation is colored by your personal opinion. It's perfectly possible to roleplay with description and dialog while also using the mechanics ... at the same time.

It's cool if you don't want to do that, and would rather "just roleplay" and have the mechanics not be used, but that's just opinion.

It's a roleplaying game. The mechanics are there to be invoked when desired. Simply playing the mechanics "flat", without any imagined context, is not going to be an entertaining game, no matter which game it is.

"I convince him."
"Roll Diplomacy."
"...18."
"He's convinced"

Is not how the game's written to be played. That's ignoring the why and just doing the how. Apart from some bad con/demo games, you're not going to see it, and if you do, hey, good time to walk away from the table.

Yeah, that's the same I was saying without RPG theory buzz words

You're welcome to the opinion, but reading the books didn't give me the impression that that is the intended style of play at all. (For one thing, it doesn't match the examples given.)

The books are not clear enough on those issues IMHO, I won't discuss it in details again however

 

[buzz]

DMG should say : each roll must be roleplayed, i.e. at least describing the effect in the Shared Imagined Space with narration and/or acting.

The skill challenge example in the DMG of PCs convincing a duke says this pretty explicitly. Each player in the example is using dialogue and creative ideas in order to justify their rolls.

Honestly, the whole "I convince the duke. :roll:" argument is a total strawman.

 

[marune]

The skill challenge example in the DMG of PCs convincing a duke says this pretty explicitly. Each player in the example is using dialogue and creative ideas in order to justify their rolls.

Honestly, the whole "I convince the duke. :roll:" argument is a total strawman.

It may be pretty clear in skill challenges, but in combat ? I'm not sure at all. The DMG could have also suggested that the DM can share the narration role when it comes to describe effects.