Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[Mark]

What the heck does (. . .) have anything to do with an editon war?

Any discussion that requires us to compare editions, favorably or otherwise, is likely to lead to an edition war, so I will discuss 4E on its own merits.


*Edit* Ah, well. You've succeeded in getting someone to take the bait. I'll drop out of this thread now.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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).

Unless your commanders occasionally call truces and have their troops cooperate in order to investigate strange occurrences in the Pacific behind rumors of an alien invasion, I'd say 4E still promotes roleplay a bit more.

What I'm trying to say is that I think it's truly difficult to design a game to promote roleplay (there are exceptions such as Amber and Everway, but they cross into a realm of free-form play to the degree that I'm really not certain they actually constitute a "game").

Pgs 74-75 of the DMG suggests that the DM reward good ideas (and penalize bad ones). It certainly isn't a stretch to go from that to rewarding good roleplay.

Pgs 18-24 of the PHB are all about creating a personality for your character. A player can certainly ignore that, but there is only so much a generic setting can do to engender good RP.

I think it's quite possible that the reason that WoD games are considered so much more RP-heavy is because they have a single, richly detailed setting. Because D&D is a generic adventure game, it lacks that advantage unless the DM is very dedicated (or they choose to run a published campaign setting, but I don't think those really come close to the same level of detail found in the WoD).

I haven't found an RPG rules system yet that encouraged or discouraged RP beyond a minimal degree. Setting plays a significant role, and the DM and players play a major role.

I realize you aren't making a value judgment of 4E when you say it doesn't encourage roleplay, but the reason I'm still going on about this is that my point (which I've admittedly stated in a very roundabout manner) is that I don't think the designers could have done much more to encourage roleplay without ruining the game. I feel the statement that "4E doesn't promote roleplay" is somewhat misleading (akin to saying "Chevy Buicks can't fly").

 

[Scribble]

Any discussion that requires us to compare editions, favorably or otherwise, is likely to lead to an edition war, so I will discuss 4E on its own merits.


*Edit* Ah, well. You've succeeded in getting someone to take the bait. I'll drop out of this thread now.

Sure man, if you want to accuse me of trying to start an edition war have fun, but I'm not. I'm sick of edition wars. I don't give a damn what edition people want to play. All I was saying was that D&D has always been primarily focused on combat. It's almost a signature trait of D&D. You're a dude who fights monsters. You get stuff, and more ability to fight monsters for more stuff. Sometimes you get killed by an elf.

 

[Grimstaff]

I ran into this blog 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons | Felonius.com in my wanderings, and it makes an interesting argument.

As I formulate my own reactions I've become curious about the opinions of those who wander these boards.

So what do you think? Is there any merit to this?

What an odd rant...

I've heard alot of complaints about 4E, but to posit that 4E prohibits roleplay because a character "can't" suddenly switch to another class mid-campaign seems...nitpicky...to put it kindly. I assume the real problem he's experiencing is not being able to just start leveling his sorcerer as a monk and still keep all his sorcerer powers; if roleplay was really the only consideration, he'd have no problem simply starting over as a 1st level monk...

Also kind of missing the point of 4E multiclassing, which would allow him to replace almost all of his sorcerers powers with monk powers, and proceed solely with monk powers after 11th level instead of taking a sorcerer paragon path, but why let unfamiliarity with the rules prevent a lengthy rant?

The argument might have had more impact with me if he hadn't taken the time to brag about his BECMI/RC collection, in which you can't do what he's complaining about, either...

 

[Grimstaff]

4e said: don't try to play without a grid.

How strange that the game's lead designer (Mike Mearls) offers tips for gridless play in his blog...;-)

Necromancer Games is working a bit on making "Classic" 4E a little more "gridless-friendly", you should pop in there and help brainstorm!

 

[Filcher]

Ergo, when Elves, Dwarves and Halflings were classes, none of us role played?

Phhbt.

Argument, I thumb my nose at thee.

 

[ProfessorPain]

How strange that the game's lead designer (Mike Mearls) offer tips for gridless play in his blog...

Well, I think it is fair to say the game, especially after 3.5 was released, but even with 3.0, heavily favored the use of miniatures and a grid. Nothing wrong with minis, but I sometimes get nostalgic for AD&D, because it worked so well without them. Especially if I am playing a horror RPG.

 

[Thasmodious]

There's no need. I'm just discussing 4E and assessing what it seems to engender in gameplay based on its rules focus. It's not a bad thing to say that it appears to primarily be a combat game. My additional experience with wargames speaks to my ability to assess both RPGs, which have varying degrees of combat focus, and games that are geared completely to combat. This isn't an edition war, just an assessment of this particular game by someone with a lot of experience with combat miniatures games as well as RPGs. I happen to like both very much.

First, I understand you are not attacking 4e. You made a statement, I disagree with it. It's as simple as that. Now, though, you are backtracking away from that statement, saying you are just looking objectively at the rules. If you want to compare D&D (any edition) to WoD, yes, WoD supports a much more noncombat approach. So do many games. That's not what I responded to and you are being disingenuous when you imply that it is. This is what you said originally, that prompted my response:

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 or even other RPGs.

I responded to your assertion that 4e goes further away from non-combat than other editions and believe I've made the case for my position quite strongly. Which is why you've moved away from that and are now claiming that the discussion is about an objection evaluation of solely the rules of this edition, in a vacuum, without regard to any other edition. That isn't the discussion I initiated. Please don't try to re-frame the discussion in the middle.

Basic D&D outright tells you the game is about killing monsters and taking stuff. Older editions have very little, if any, mechanical support for roleplaying and often awkward support, via numerous, entirely different, subsystems for aspects of exploration, overcoming non-combat challenges and the like. 4e supports all of that and quite elegantly, with simple, streamlined rules.

If you now want to claim that D&D doesn't support roleplaying or noncombat issues through the game rules as well as some other specific systems - hey, that's absolutely true, you will get no argument from me. D&D definitely has a focus on combat and dungeons. It always has and hopefully always will. That's the game I want. That's the game that has kept D&D on top of the heap since there was a heap.

But claiming that 4e is behind the curve of other editions of D&D in supporting noncombat issues, whether RP, exploration, skill based challenges, social encounters, is just not something that I find objectively supportable at all.

 

[Remathilis]

Ergo, when Elves, Dwarves and Halflings were classes, none of us role played?

Phhbt.

Argument, I thumb my nose at thee.

That what I was saying...

Remathilis, player of "Logan the 12th level dwarf, Chaotic"

 

[Mark]

First, I understand you are not attacking 4e. You made a statement, I disagree with it. It's as simple as that. Now, though, you are backtracking away from that statement, saying you are just looking objectively at the rules.

As the conversation with you and others moved on beyond that original disagreement, which I was fine to leave as a disagreement and move on to discussing 4E in its own right and also in regard to how it stacks up to wargaming rules that I have played. That's not backtracking, that's avoiding getting bogged down in an edition war when it isn't necessary and since we had already clearly stated our positions on that disagreement. If you wish to reassert your position and disagreement, and wallow in an edition war, go right ahead but I have moved on and only popped back into this thread to clear up that point. As an aside, I also disagree that RPing is system independent. That sounds more like a rationalization for poor RPG design. I'll probably start a new thread after the weekend to further discuss my views on the wargaming aspects of RPGs and how they could be better implemented to avoid overshadowing the RPing aspects, and we'll keep that one edition-war-free. Sorry for the confusion.