We're back to AD&D1

[CrimsonNeko]

To say that a player can't play a lower cha than there own is an insult to their roleplaying skills. And a player who couldn't talk there way out of a wet paper bag (I am aware that doesn't quite make sense) shouldn't play a character based on smooth talking. It really breaks the mood when you go to the noble, and the guy who never talks and always wants to fight things says "I talk to him" rolls a dice, and that's it. There needs to be some roleplaying. I'm fine if the dice reflect the roleplaying, but in 3e they replaced it.

 

[AtomicPope]

Yesterday I spent two hours with the core books at a friend's place..

Sweet! All indepth analysis of any complex system is best accomplished by skimming and making assumptions based on preconceived notions.

The rules are completely different, but the game’s philosophy goes back to AD&D1. The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E, and everything is around combat, combat and more combat (the famous “character roles” are exclusively defined by it). The “noncombat encounters” chapter in the DMG gets only 17 pages and includes puzzles and traps.

You must have missed all of those other sections:
Chapter 1 - How to be a DM: says nothing about combat mechanics, just defines the roles of a DM and the Players.
Chapter 2 - Running the Game: says nothing about combat mechanics, give helpful information about Planning, Pacing, and Running a game.


Only Chapters 3&4 are strictly associated with combat. That's two chapters out of 11. Chapter 11 is a sample town that provides DM's with a venue for noncombat roleplaying and how to execute the Plot Hook for adventure. The Chapter Noncombat Encounters is LONGER than the Combat Encounters Chapter. Most of the DMG is about running the game, keeping the players motivated and happy, and creating an interesting story. It's easily the best DMG ever published. You clearly don't DM so you can't see the value in a structured approach to campaign design.

Even the artwork is different compared to 3E. Everything is grandiloquent, over-the-top. All depicted characters are fighting or with their weapons (or powers) ready. No one is smiling, relaxed.

Because of the game’s philosophy, I can’t imagine many D&D3 campaign settings being played with D&D4. Again, it’s too combat oriented. For example, it would be very difficult to play Freeport or Midnight with it.

Artwork cannot be grandiloquent unless it's literary, but then it's not lumped with art. Stop inflating your diction. Fourth edition uses very clear, plain English as is required in technical writing.

But you're wrong about no one smiling or relaxed:
DMG pg 33 Female rogue with hand crossbow
DMG pg 117 Female rogue with whimsical smile
DMG pg 119 Elf warlock performs ritual
DMG pg 123 smiling guardienne points the characters away from the temple
DMG pg 149 Characters staring in awe at the fantastic landscape
DMG pg 196-197 Characters haggling in the Bizaar

Clearly you're seeing only what you want to see. D&D is a game of adventure. This is not an adventure at disneyland. It's a dangerous place where characters need to fight and kill to get the job done. If there were no harrowing scenes then D&D would be misrepresented.

 

[The Little Raven]

Its no different than 3rd edition in this regard really. I routinely play characters who have values and attitudes that I do not believe in or agree with. I don't need a number to tell me how to do so.

We're not talking about values and attitudes. We're talking about social skills.

 

[PeterWeller]

The 4E PHB also happens to be the first to have exploration and travel rules precede combat rules.

 

[Lanefan]

All I can say here, after lots and lots of reading, is that if 4e ends up playing the least bit like 1e I'll jump for joy...and then eat my hat, because it just ain't gonna happen.

4e looks quite playable...very playable, in fact...for one-shots or tournaments. Not sure if it'll stand up to the rigors of a 10-year campaign even if the level advancement is slowed down; this is one thing that 1e could do, and has done. (see my sig)

From all I can see (discolsure: I don't have the books yet, but do have KotS and W+M) 4e is going to be really really good and really bad at the same time. The good comes from the open-ended role-play aspects mentioned previously here; the bad comes from some deal-breaking twists on in-game reality and believability (best example here is the huge unfilled gap in abilities between a commoner/minion and a 1st-level character/skirmisher). So, time to plunder.

What happens if you try mixing 1e character-design with 2e setting and 4e role-play? Throw in 4e monster design except for hit points, which can use 3e or 1e or whatever the DM needs at the time; and plunder the adventures from anywhere that'll give 'em.

I swear that if we took the 4 editions apart, looked at all the component parts, and started kit-bashing we could come up with a damn fine game!

Lanefan

p.s. who says the Fighter has nothing to do outside of combat? All you gotta do is give him some character and then keep talking even when the "diplomats" tell you to shut up. Worked for me for 10 levels and 20 years...

 

[dungeon blaster]

After DMing 4 or so encounters from KoTS, I've decided that 4ed is not for me. Granted, it does a lot of things right. The monsters are interesting and feel unique. A goblin and a kobold play differently (mechanics-wise), which is something you can't say about 3e. The kobolds, with their constant shifting, were a royal pain in the *** for the players and a lot of fun for me Yet something didn't feel right, and only now do I know what is wrong with this game for me. So here it is.

4e feels like a wargame with role-playing interludes loosely connecting the all-important tactical battles. It's the absolute need for a grid and minis. It's the cool exploits/powers/prayers/spells that eradicate my suspension of disbelief. When in combat, it doesn't feel like I'm participating in a story, it feels like I'm playing a board game, albeit a fun board game. With 3e, I didn't need a battlemat. Sure, it helped with a lot of things, but it wasn't necessary. I can't imagine playing 4e without a grid; I doubt it's possible. But it seems like half the powers shift/push/pull/prod yourself, an ally, or the enemy.

I really wish I wasn't disappointed in 4e. Before 3e came out, I initially had a negative perception of it, but tried it out and really liked it. With 4e the exact opposite has occurred. I hope others enjoy the game more than I do.

 

[silentounce]

I put the following things (there could be more, but I'm looking at these) under player skill:

1. Tactics (how he chooses to fight the monster)
2. Cleverness (how he chooses to overcome traps, hazards, puzzles and "sticky situations" of all kinds)
3. Prudence (his general skill at making good choices)
4. Social skills (his ability to express himself verbally)

Some players don't have the skill to play some characters. For example:

1. A guy who couldn't win a Go match with a 150-stone handicap wants to play a Warlord named "Sun-Tzu Yun-Fat". Nope.

2. A complete dolt wants to play a dashing rogue operative in the vein of Ethan Hunt. Nope.

3. A guy who can't even successfully purchase groceries wants to rule a mighty nation in a Birthright game. Nope.

4. A guy who breathes through his mouth and has spontaneous biological reactions when within 50 feet of the opposite sex wants to play a smooth-talking lothario and bard. Nope.

Decent verbal skills are just part of the skill required to play D&D well. If you don't play it well to begin with... you'll probably get better with some practice. But when you're a total n00b, you stick to the Bunny Slope.

Just because they don't have "skills" doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to play them. It's supposed to be a fantasy roleplaying game, let the players play what they want, within reason. And the reason should never be, that character is too much different than you, that character is too much smarter than you, etc. This is supposed to be about fun, right?

Anybody you've kicked out, okay, well you probably didn't kick anybody out. But anybody that wanted to play those characters in situations above that you said "no" to is allowed in my game. If you can make it to Cleveland once a week.

 

[billd91]

Just because they don't have "skills" doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to play them. It's supposed to be a fantasy roleplaying game, let the players play what they want, within reason. And the reason should never be, that character is too much different than you, that character is too much smarter than you, etc. This is supposed to be about fun, right?

Agreed.

I might steer players away from characters they won't like because they have a tough time playing them, but that's in an effort to make sure people have a good time. To think of barring someone from playing a character just because they're nothing like that character? I'd think that's partly what RPGs are for! Playing a role that, specifically, isn't yourself.

 

[jeffh]

Lots of people in this thread seem to be confusing roleplaying with acting. In fact, everyone who's discussed the subject here seems to be suffering from this to one extent or another, save Mourn. I've had a fair bit to say about this elsewhere, which I repeat below.

(Formatting is from the original post (on a different board) except the passage I've coloured, which represents newly added emphasis.)

=================

Roleplaying, for me, is taking on the viewpoint of a fictional character in the world in which your game takes place. That character may or may not resemble you personality-wise and certainly a lot of the situations in which he or she finds him- or herself will bear little resemblance to any you have encountered. You are playing that role if you make decisions on the basis of what that character would do in that situation, as opposed to the many other reasons you might make such decisions.

(Some examples of the latter: what is tactically optimal [though any character without a death-wish will have some concern for this], what seems "cool", what will make for the best story, what you think the DM wants you to do, what you think the DM doesn't want you to do, what will most entertain the group, what will make the quieter players feel included, what will get the current scene over with the soonest. There is a legitimate place for all of these things, but when you do them you're not roleplaying, and all else being equal that is a point against them. It's not always a decisive point against them, though.)

Notice what I haven't mentioned, and that's acting out in-character dialogue and so on. That's nice when it's done well, but it's not the same thing as roleplaying. By the above definition, you can roleplay without acting and you can act without roleplaying. The player who has a charisma 8 character but uses his own forceful personality to constantly dominate every scene with dialogue will usually claim he is the main roleplayer in the group. He is wrong. He is doing lots of acting, but virtually no roleplaying. He is making no serious attempt to play the character that's written on his character sheet, or is doing so only when it is convenient for serving some other agenda.

Similarly, pressure is often put on more introverted gamers to "roleplay more" when they may, by this definition, already be doing more roleplaying than the more extroverted players doing the admonishing. Having said that, the more overt voice-actor types can be more entertaining to have around. But this is by no means a universal law. Watching someone with no talent for it constantly try their hand at such voice-acting is more painful than stepping on a d4. And being constantly pushed around by the one guy who is good at it is worse still.

Roleplaying, so defined, is not the be-all and end-all of gaming. But it's what seperates D&D from DDM, and RPGs from wargames and boardgames more generally. It does not require talking in a funny accent, but it does involve getting into a slightly different mentality than most other sorts of games call for. I think it's a big part of what makes the hobby so rewarding, though there are places (I've listed several in the third paragraph) where doing an end-run around it is jusfified. There is nothing wrong with killing things and taking their stuff, but it's more fun to kill things and take their stuff in a context, and while roleplaying as most people define it may or may not serve that end, roleplaying as defined above is the very thing that makes it possible.

 

[Zalgarde]

Jeffh's stuff about roleplaying really hit home, I hadn't thought about it too much, but I almost feel like I suddenly feel less comfy with 3e than I did a few minutes ago, and still uncomfy with 4e.

3rd ed saw us doing all SORTS of tactical actions waaay smarter than our characters just because our characters GOT all those feats (or well maybe some of us worked our way to having them). "If my fighter has power attack, combat reflexes and knockdown, wouldn't he know when to use them?" was actually said at some point. And none of EVER thought to say "uhh no, just be cause he spent all day knocking over combat dummies on pullies doesn't mean he's an expert tactician when the goblins rush" and maybe its because we each had our respective "knockdowns" and "power attacks" that we liked using. Obviously we all had fun, but I think maybe we (my group that is to say) DID get further away from the role playing than in earlier editions. I remember making the dm stop the game while I figured out cool ways to use burning hand s, but thats because characters int was 17 (17!) he's supposed to have all the answers and tricks, so I'd even ask my friends how they would do it. And we definitely used to say "wait not what I just said, that sounds retarded, can I make a wisdom check? I know my characters better than that" a LOT more.

I don't know if 4e fixes this stuff, but on the other hand, by not covering it, I think they leave it more open to fixing. Its a lot harder to convince newcomers to your group, or even your long time friends to "ignore chapter 7, they did it horribly, even though none of us have played this system yet", than it is to say "here's this packet of rules and noncombat stuff you get in addition to the stuff in the book, since they didn't cover it".

Again its all just my group and I, though, and since I've never managed to juggle more groups or hit events, I'm living in a tiny little self contained RPG vaccuum for the most part.