Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[ExploderWizard]

WoTC puts out rules, and tries to make them balanced. If you don't find them fun, fair enough that's all you. But I question, is it really a "problem" with the game or could it be that you were just comfortable with your old tactics?

To me it's not really much different then when they lessened the effects of haste, or fireball. You can spend all day arguing that haste no longer being as good somehow hinders roleplaying, or you can just accept that you need to find new tactics.

Up to you.

I have never argued that mechanics hinder roleplaying so please don't attribute such an assertion to me. The reduction of spell effects was simply a cure applied to the wrong problem.

The issue at hand is playstyle neutrality or the lack of it from 4E.

 

[Mark]

(snip)

Please don't steer this toward an edition war.

 

[Herschel]

No. I'd argue 4E ENCOURAGES role playing far more than 3E. In 3E there were rules for everything and ways to make a character a "solo". That isn't role playing, that's selfishness in my book. 4E is far more role playing on multiple levels.

1. The player has much more freedom to play a role without being hung up on mechanics. This was also part of 1E and 2E and why I liked them more than 3E. Too many rules for non combat or what should be flavor is just drudgery to me.

2. Now characters actually play a role in a party. They aren't just a group of tweaked solos running around, but truly have a role within the framework of the party. 1E and 2E even were closer to PCs having a role in the party structure, especially at lower levels.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not sure quite what this means to you or what you think it should mean to me. Could you express this more expansively? Do you feel that there are equal parts of RPing and combat/wargaming in 4E or do you mean that you think the amount of RPing and combat/wargaming are in a proper balance for how you feel an RP game should be or somehting else, perhaps?

What I mean is that I feel they did a good job with each. Obviously, this is just my POV, but I believe that combat should have a solid and well-designed ruleset in order to be fun.

Too few rules (free form) and combat is too arbitrary (for example: you describe what actions your characters will take, and then the DM rolls a single die, modified by how effective the DM deems your strategy, to determine whether you win or lose the fight).

Too many (poorly designed) rules and it can become a snooze-fest. (Okay, you hit, roll on table 3; now subsection C; now plug that into your 1099 form; and find the square root of the result... Okay, let's see now...).

I'm of the opinion that the 4E designers created a solid combat system that is a lot of fun to play, and so far my players agree that it's the best combat system we've ever played.

In my opinion, out-of-combat actions are rather different. They need a solid rule set to underlay them while remaining free-form enough to handle anything that a player can come up with (preferably without leaving too much of the work for the DM to "make something up on the fly").

I think they also did an excellent job with out-of-combat situations. Common actions (skills) are quantified adequately (so the DM doesn't have to make something up if a player wants to hide behind a bush) while also providing guidelines for adjudicating actions that aren't covered by skills. I haven't had any troubles running RP-heavy adventures (mysteries, for example).

Obviously, at some point the players are likely to want to test their shiny attack powers, but that does not preclude a balanced game (equal parts combat and out-of-combat time). A WoD vamp with high levels of Celerity and Potence (super-strength and speed) is at some point guaranteed to want to break some faces regardless of how "RP-heavy" the game is.

My point is that good combat does not preclude good roleplay, and in my opinion 4E does both well*.

*Rather, 4E has a well designed system for out-of-combat actions, since no gaming system that I am aware of can actually create "good roleplay". At the very least, I would say it does not discourage good roleplay.

 

[Mark]

My point is that good combat does not preclude good roleplay, and in my opinion 4E does both well.

Thanks for clarifying. This is a decidedly different stance than to say that the game is designed to engender and promote both (in equal parts or otherwise) and I appreciate your detailed opinion. This really might not differ that much from my own. Many historical wargames include introductory text that states that the players are taking on the role of the commanders of their forces and, indeed, some players will enthusiastically bark out orders in character as they mobilize troops or spring a trap or perform some other in-game action, and certainly the rules do nothing to preclude such playfulness. I think the degree to which 4E engenders RPing compared to the degree to which it engenders combat is far less, and I agree that the rules do not preclude RPing in most cases (which might be part of why I found the phrasing of the orginal OP question and use of the word "hinder" to be a bit leading and disengenuous).

 

[TerraDave]

no.

" "

 

[billd91]

2. Now characters actually play a role in a party. They aren't just a group of tweaked solos running around, but truly have a role within the framework of the party. 1E and 2E even were closer to PCs having a role in the party structure, especially at lower levels.

Playing a particular task-oriented role is largely tangential to the discussion we've been having here, I would say. We're looking more at playing out a character's personality, interactions, and character development, not fitting into a particular niche on a team of adventurers.

 

[Scribble]

have never argued that mechanics hinder roleplaying so please don't attribute such an assertion to me.

Exploder: You know what? I went back and looked at what you said and realized I misread your original comment. (Or the one I started commenting on at least.) So I appologize. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I still dissagree with your statement though.

Please don't steer this toward an edition war.

What the heck does saying the game is the same as it's always been have anything to do with an editon war?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Exploder: You know what? I went back and looked at what you said and realized I misread your original comment. (Or the one I started commenting on at least.) So I appologize. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

No worries.

I still dissagree with your statement though.

Thats your right.

 

[Sadrik]

while 4e has a lot of combat focus, this is no different then any other edition of the game

1e and 2e said: if you want, play with a grid.
2.5 said: try playing with a grid.
3e said: play with a grid.
3.5e said: you must play with a grid.
4e said: don't try to play without a grid.

Really though, I don't think the grid is the problem that people cite as being less role-playing oriented. You can RP with a grid. D&D has always been a lesser RP system because it hinges its reward system primarily around combat. 4e does have quest bonuses and other things but it is still primarily a - do combat to level up game. To that end you get a lot of resources to put toward getting XP.

D&D is fun because of character individualization (for me), it is about making an interesting character and individualizing it from the run-of-the-mill fighter or wizard. It has never been an RP-heavy game. It has always been about individualization, even my 1e characters were all about it, back then it was mostly magic items that differentiated characters (besides the name and the background). The fighter Henrik the Wise is a lot different than the fighter Grok Bloodaxe. If I want to RP heavy, simply there are better systems.

So for me what did 4e do- it dropped the individualization quotient down a peg or six. 3e allowed me to individualize my character pretty damn well. Too much imo. I was spending too much time making characters perusing books and rules for that perfect feat or accounting for the requirements of that specific PrC that I needed to take 5 levels down the road. It needed to change. Limitations and requirements suck.

So why does individualization fall off in 4e? 3e edition gave you the option to individualize your character though selecting spells other than simple I hit you for X and do special effect X, feats that were more powerful than the current array (let's face it 3e feats were generally more powerful) and a robust multi-classing system. In 4e these were stripped down to make the game more balanced. Out of combat or strange effects were too difficult to account for the additive power of a class/role so were dropped. Feats were stripped down I assume so that the powers and ability scores played more role rather than feats. Multi-classing was stripped down for balance as well.

Core 3e was a plush sedan with all the bells and whistles, it had a whole lot of dents, dings and scratches but it still remarkably ran.

Core 4e is a stripped down sports car meant to do one thing and that is to race. The only problem is it needs a tune up real bad because it just grinds along.