D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[pemerton]

Let's face it, if 3rd edition is better for roleplay than 4th, then wouldn't Rolemaster be the most roleplay-intensive system ever created?

Oddly enough, I actually think that RM provides reasonable support for drifting to vanilla narrativism once the PCs develop the spell capability to handle bad crit results.

Pendragon is a traditional rpg, I'm pretty sure it's not narrativist, though its main aim is to simulate Arthurian fiction. It's not like HeroQuest, or even Prince Valiant.

That's my impression too, from what I know of it, though presumably there are some groups who drift it towards narrativism.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Those would be new people that haven't learned the drill yet.

Meh.

Addressing one argument (I find that 4e gets in the way of role-playing) with another (It is impossible to role-play with 4e) is the definition of a straw man.

"You can role-play in Monopoly" relates specifically to the claim that "system doesn't matter" re: RPing, to demonstrate the falsity of that claim. It does not mean 4e = Monopoly.

You say the message is "I can't do this with 4E because I don't know how, therefore, 4E must not support it". I say the message is "I know you way 4e can do X by process Y, but I do not find process Y satisfying".

Really, one cannot even say "The proposition of spending very long times on individual combats in 4e increases focus on the grid" without some folks taking swipes at you for the observation. This despite the fact that the designers realized long combats were a problem with the 3e design, and initially were intending on resolving that problem.

Again, meh.

Sure, some critics might go a bit overboard. OTOH, until the delve format dies a long-deserved death, there's going to be a lot to criticize....especially if one takes official adventures as evidence about how the design was intended to be used.

OTOH, the pendulum seems to be swinging back. And that is, potentially, very good news.



RC

 

[Ryujin]

Sometimes people just don't want to role play. Sometimes they do, to the detriment of 'mechanics.' For example I offer a recent role playing skill challenge, in my campaign. An ancient, undead warrior stated, to the party, that they had to prove they deserved to be members of the organization that he led, when he was alive, before he would impart to them the knowledge they were seeking. The Ranger sized him up, to see if he could figure out what he wanted to see. The Cleric spoke, at some length, of the history of the group. The Avenger said, "There's only one way, to show that we're truly worthy." and attacked him.

 

[Greg K]

This is what I was interested in hearing; if people who thought 4e skills were too broad also had problems with what I find to be similar systems. Do the broadness of these skills have an impact on your ability or desire to role-play (using any definition of RP you like)?

I won't say it prevents me from role-playing. However, it does affect how I role-play the character and my desire to play the game.

1. When the mechanical representation does not represent the character being played, it can lead to problems with certain groups or players.

Ignoring specific aspects of what is covered under a skill to represent a character is considered a dick move by some players or groups. I have seen players that would not bat an eyelash if a rogue in 3e did not take open locks or sleight of hand, complain that when a character ignored an aspect under a broad skill system. The result is that you can't roleplay the character you imagined despite the character being acceptable under a less broad skill system.

2. In a game like Cinematic Unisystem, when using licensed characters, the broadness
a. does not give a player unfamiliar with the licensed character a good mechanical representation of the character portrayed.

b. Often the character is given a more broad range of competence or different levels of competency issues in multiple areas covered a broad skill are not represented.

c. with certain groups of players, you run into #1 above.

3. If the character is not mechanically represented how I envision, it lessons my desire to play the system, because at some point, it results in a dissonance between the character envisioned and the game-play for myself.

And, this does not cover my desire to run the game.

Thanks for the correction. Makes more sense that way.

No problem

Out of curiosity, in which books? Aside from the core, I have Slipstream, the Fantasy Companion, the Super Power Companion, and Deadlands: Reloaded. Each of them add Edges, and other rules tweaks, but they do not add new skills to the game. I thought that was interesting decision, and took it to be an important part of the system's overall design.

First example that comes to mind? Deadlands:Reloaded Second Printing adds Tribal Medicine (Spirit) as the governing skill for the Shaman's Arcane Background (Shamanism).

I know from PEG's boards, there are a couple of others between PEG's products and third party partners. One of the Tale from the [x] introduced one or two new ones. I just can't recall if it was Space Lanes or Sprawl that did it.

Right, but reskinning/redefining a skill is different. It's cost-neutral in terms of the build economy. It's not at all like adding more skills to the overall list (which makes each build point worth a little less).

It is still a new skill. Unlike say d20 Modern or 3e which gives a set list of areas for knowledge, Savage Worlds has no set list of knowledge specialties. Each knowledge skill in Savage Worlds is a new skill dependent upon the campaign. They are always changing with the GM adding new specialties as needed.

Then, there is the Peform skill as suggested.

Are you saying 4e characters can't suck at certain skills because of the 1/2 level bonus? Remember, target numbers aren't static in 4e, and 4e PC's are meant to face challenges in a level-appropriate range. For example, we paused our 4e campaign at 14th level. At 14th level, the standard DC's are 15/21/29.

My charismatic paladin made his important Diplomacy checks at +26 (using an Encounter power).

His friend, the warden (with a CHA of 8) made all her Diplomacy checks at +8 (which is lower than the +9 my paladin had at 1st level).

He can't fail easy and moderate checks, and makes hard checks %80 of the time. She can fail each level, and can't make hard checks at all. Doesn't she suck at diplomacy compared to him?

What's the difference I'm missing?

The expected range of challenges changing may be the default of assumption, but anything that was a lower level challenge at the lowest levels still remains the same level if the character encounters it again at later levels. The higher level character now had improved chances even if unchanged. In Savage World, the untrained Legendary character still has the d4-2.