Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[Thasmodious]

I think most would also have to agree that the ruleset gets further away from prompting non-combat than many other versions of D&D

No, I don't agree with that at all. I think it does more to prompt non-combat than any edition except, probably, 2e. Older editions didn't even have rules to facilitate roleplaying. Exploration rules were a bit more crunchy in 1e maybe, but I like them streamlined. They are still there. Skill challenges do more to structure and support noncombat elements than any mechanic in past D&D.

 

[Mark]

I personally have found the opposite effect in my games.

Regardless of individual experience, its easy enough to use the DDI to create a few random characters at levels 5, 15 and 25 and see what options the character sheets have on them. Also, one could create two characters at each of those levels, making choices during creation for one toward combat and the other toward non-combat, keeping mental notes on approximately the number and types of options that are available.

One person's negative is another person's positive.

Not in this case. I'm a wargamer and an RPGer since the early seventies. I don't consider it either negative or positive for the focus to be one away or another. I'm just noting what the rules seem to engender.

No, I don't agree with that at all. I think it does more to prompt non-combat than any edition except, (. . .)

Well, let's just look as objectively as we can at this edition, and leave others aside for the moment, running an experient as I just suggested to see what results we see.

 

[OchreJelly]

The artificial separation of abilities into strict combat/non-combat use is limiting. Being able to teleport/plane shift/knock/hold a door in time sensitive situations is an important part of gameplay for some (me).
Rituals just don't cut it. This of course has nothing to do with roleplaying and is more about flexibility/utility of options for a given situation.

Ok I'll buy that, and I agree to an extent that rituals would see more play if they could be used spontaneously in combat. The right-scroll-at-the-right-time-for-the-job concept is lost in 4E. But as you say you are presenting a case for a tactical situation and it doesn't apply (as much) to the RP-focused situations.

That being said the powers system still accommodates this, albeit to a lesser degree. You have utility powers that boost skills, or even creative use of powers like cantrips in non-combat situations that still work.

But this is largely a feature rather than a bug, which I feel the designers were wise enough to employ. Too much magic tricks readily available can step on other characters' toes. My argument is that since the skill system no longer is overshadowed by magic and applies for everyone up to level 30, then there opens more RP opportunities for everyone.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Heroic tier multiclassing is, imo, one of the few things that I think the designers got right in 4e for the most part. However, it's not that hard to houserule 3e to do something similar. Still, by RAW this is something I think 4e does handle well.

Huh. Funny you should say that. I was also going to, more or less, in this very thread. Only, it mightn't have done my image much good.

But actually, where I can imagine it really shining is in a system like Castles & Crusades. Not that I've tried that game either, so this should be taken with even more grains of salt than usual, but it just strikes me as potentially working very well for a (kinda) AD&D-ish system. This is most likely heresy, or pistols at dawn over at the Troll Lords, or Dragonsfoot, or wherever. Oh well.

So yeah, in the somewhat unlikely event that I ever run a C&C game, I'll be sure to look at the 4e way of multiclassing as a possible graft/import. Adjusted for level range and so forth, naturally.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Ok I'll buy that, and I agree to an extent that rituals would see more play if they could be used spontaneously in combat. The right-scroll-at-the-right-time-for-the-job concept is lost in 4E. But as you say you are presenting a case for a tactical situation and it doesn't apply (as much) to the RP-focused situations.

That being said the powers system still accommodates this, albeit to a lesser degree. You have utility powers that boost skills, or even creative use of powers like cantrips in non-combat situations that still work.

But this is largely a feature rather than a bug, which I feel the designers were wise enough to employ. Too much magic tricks readily available can step on other characters' toes. My argument is that since the skill system no longer is overshadowed by magic and applies for everyone up to level 30, then there opens more RP opportunities for everyone.

I agree.

Need to hold a door closed in a time-sensitive situation? Barricade it or spike it shut.

Need to open a door in a time-sensitive situation? Pick the lock or kick it open.

Need to get out of a losing fight in a hurry? Run!

Magic in previous editions was too often an auto-win button for situations that would have otherwise been more flavorful/tense without it.

Some of the 4E rituals are admittedly on the weak side, but I'd much rather have them on the weak side than the auto-win side.

 

[Greg K]

Just copy/pasting myself from an earlier thread on the subject.

[/SIZE]


Phaezen

The problem is that
a) as you wrote, if you are really good, you can probably be more successful more times. Superfoot and Cuong Le have certain maneuvers that opponents know (or knew in the case of Superfoot) are coming before stepping into the ring, yet those maneuvers are routinely successful multiple times.

b) just because you used it against one opponent doesn't mean that you should be prohibited against another opponent in the same fight. Going back to the the example of Cuong Le and Superfoot, if opponents that have studied the filmw of these fighters still fall prey to their signature maneuvers, wouldn't they (Le and Superfoot) be more effective against someone that had never seen them and had been too busy being engaged on the battlefield with another opponent?

c) Of course, the problem with both you and I using tournaments is that tournaments have rules the type and amount of which vary between organizations. Some of these rules restrict certain defensive maneuvers thus favoring certain offensive maneuvers and vice versa. However, that doesn't preclude taking into account the following:

d) you can try to feint or otherwise try to set your opponent up which is of course easier to do against someone less skilled.

e) You may still attempt the maneuver, but misjudge the distance, the timing or misrread the opening at one point, but not at a later point and vice versa. And by blind luck, sometimes things just happen to line up perfectly again.

f) that you used a maneuver against one opponent, should not prohibit attempting the same maneuver on another foe whose attention was engaged elswhere in the same battle before you engaged them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But this is largely a feature rather than a bug, which I feel the designers were wise enough to employ. Too much magic tricks readily available can step on other characters' toes. My argument is that since the skill system no longer is overshadowed by magic and applies for everyone up to level 30, then there opens more RP opportunities for everyone.

I don't think the use of skills, powers, abilities in and of itself has any effect on roleplaying. These are all mechanical considerations that the blogger was confusing for roleplaying. Having more or less chances to make a skill check isn't an indicatior of roleplaying opportunity.

Roleplaying opportunities arise from the chance to react to a given situation no matter if game mechanics are involved or not. Choosing not use a skill/power because of personal beliefs or personality traits can be a roleplaying experience depending on the character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree.

Need to hold a door closed in a time-sensitive situation? Barricade it or spike it shut.

Need to open a door in a time-sensitive situation? Pick the lock or kick it open.

Need to get out of a losing fight in a hurry? Run!

Magic in previous editions was too often an auto-win button for situations that would have otherwise been more flavorful/tense without it.

Some of the 4E rituals are admittedly on the weak side, but I'd much rather have them on the weak side than the auto-win side.

While your opinion is perfectly valid, the separation of resources into combat/non-combat pools makes assumptions about playstyles that not everyone agrees with. As an example the old hold portal spell was effective but hardly auto-win. The party had the option of expending a resource to avoid a situation that might work, or might not. No matter if it was effective or not the resource was expended. The 4E assumption is to deny the expenditure of such resources in this fashion.

I thought that the concept of 4E was to promote more meaningful choices. If the most important resources (powers and abilities) can only be used in combat and the only other options for tactical non-combat resource expenditure are your basic, mundane things like running or skill use, then what are 4E rules saying about the importance of meaningful choices for combat as opposed to non-combat.

 

[Greg K]

What the person wrote was

The core rule set does not allow me to play a true character of my choice. The 4th Edition rule set simply doesn't account for the fact that a character in the game may have an entirely valid, real set of reasons and motivations for no longer wishing to be a sorcerer, and instead wanting to focus completely on a 2nd class . . . and a 3rd class on top of that.

It appears to me that he is clearly discussing the mechanical representation not the personality.

My issue is the following:

Let's say in a campaign, Billy the Sorcerer discovers some things he's not comfortable with in terms of who he's receiving his Sorcerer-ite training from. In fact, his character meets a monk that he respects highly, and Billy (being played true to character by a good role-player) decides he'd rather commit his time to the path of monk-like enlightenment. But along the way he also discovers that he is very much interested in studying battle tactics, and so takes up with a warlord for a while to study battle strategies.

Again, for the types of campaigns I usually play, these are not at all unusual types of choices for characters to make--who do we associate with? Who do we train with? What are the motivations of Organization X? What if, as a sorcerer, for philosophical and moral reasons I decide I want to discontinue studying sorcerer, but don't want to give up the lessons I've already learned? These are valid, character-driven decisions that will also directly affect the TYPE of character that they ultimately become

This is not unlike my own "real life"--I have backgrounds in several academic and vocational subjects, and enjoy pursuing knowledge in all of them.

The problem with using his "real life" as an example is that he assumes that characters in the fantasy setting are going to have the opportunities to learn as they have in the our world where you can take a course at the local community college or annex, go to the local corner McDojo, etc and that transportation is available to get him to all of these places in between adventuring and that training time is minimal to non-existant (unless you have large portions of downtime between adventures). It also assumes that all trainers wouldn't require a time commitment and would allow people to come and go as they want before their training is complete or would not have other requirements

Before the 1960's, learning Kung Fu in America required you to at least be Chinese unless the sifu was a close family friend. Also, qualtiy masters were often selective about who they woulld teach- from the selection process where students waited outside the Shaolin Temple to the switching between masters, often requiring a letter from one sifu to another stating the quality of your character and level of commitment).

Imo, it also doesn't help his case that, after using his "real life"as an example, he proceeds to dismisses anyone arguing that multiple classes is not "life like" with "Bullcrap. Since when did a "roleplaying game" hamstring a player to actually play a true-to-life character concept? Well, in D&D's case, since about June 2008, because it's simply not allowed in the CORE 4TH EDITION RULEBOOKS."

Um, how about the training rules in 3e? What about the 3.0 skill sidebar saying that DMs may restrict taking ranks in appropriate skills (e.g, swim in the desert).

I may not particulary care for 4e , but one of the things that I think they got right (for the most part) was heroic tier multiclassing. Not that it is t hard to get rid of some of the 3e multiclass front loading to reflect a more piece meal training with a couple of simple house rules

 

[Scribble]

While your opinion is perfectly valid, the separation of resources into combat/non-combat pools makes assumptions about playstyles that not everyone agrees with. As an example the old hold portal spell was effective but hardly auto-win. The party had the option of expending a resource to avoid a situation that might work, or might not. No matter if it was effective or not the resource was expended. The 4E assumption is to deny the expenditure of such resources in this fashion.

I thought that the concept of 4E was to promote more meaningful choices. If the most important resources (powers and abilities) can only be used in combat and the only other options for tactical non-combat resource expenditure are your basic, mundane things like running or skill use, then what are 4E rules saying about the importance of meaningful choices for combat as opposed to non-combat.

It means your tactics just need to be updated.