Removing homogenity from 4e

[Fifth Element]

I don't think it is "only" a tactical mini-game". I think (again for my personal tastes) it is only a really good tactical mini game and a fair to middling role playing game.

Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.

That's a common misconception.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That's a common misconception.

Is it? There isn't much I would call roleplaying within the core 2E books, and yet I find that to be the system that enabled the best pure roleplaying during my RPG career. Vampire/WoD books are chock full of roleplaying in the books, and yet I didn't find that the roleplaying was significantly increased by this at the table.

Your statement is only true if you want your roleplaying to be X. If you want your roleplaying to be X, and X isn't in the book, you won't find satisfying roleplaying in either the book or at the table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is it?

Absolutely.

2e has little to do with that misconception, as does the rather absurd notion that only by redefining what "roleplaying" is can I say that it is in a book.

The idea that roleplaying is somehow an alien beast to the text of the game's manuals is, indeed, a common misconception. Though since that's essentially how D&D began, it is an understandably common one.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Absolutely.

2e has little to do with that misconception, as does the rather absurd notion that only by redefining what "roleplaying" is can I say that it is in a book.

The idea that roleplaying is somehow an alien beast to the text of the game's manuals is, indeed, a common misconception. Though since that's essentially how D&D began, it is an understandably common one.

I'm still not understanding this. Are you talking about roleplaying advice? The system itself? Setting/world information?

What are examples of good/bad books?

 

[BryonD]

Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.

Exactly true. But Roleplaying *Games* are.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm still not understanding this. Are you talking about roleplaying advice? The system itself? Setting/world information?

What are examples of good/bad books

I'm saying that the idea that roleplaying is not in books is a common misconception.

It's not that hard to follow.

If you need proof, I can show you this. Indeed, if you'd like to find a whole two-year course on roleplaying that is generally found between the covers of books (but also in practice), you can go here. If you need it to be specifically table-top RPG-related (though the same principles generally apply), I can show you this. Also of use might be these, which are something of a middle ground, but are different than the other two in that between the covers of books is the ONLY place you'll find roleplaying there. Similarly (but more complexly), you'll find roleplaying between the 1's and 0's of this, this, and this. Not exactly the same, but kind of a natural evolution of the genre, anyway.

Heck, 4e has alignments (as weird as they decided to make them). 4e has skill challenges (as flawed as I believe they are). 4e has archetypes (as similar as the mechanics behind them can be). They're right there in the book, in the form of races, classes, mechanics, and labels on a character sheet. 4e has roleplaying between the covers of its books.

Unless you'd like to turn this into another semantic argument a la "Roleplaying vs. Storytelling," I think that makes a pretty convincing case for role playing being found between the covers of books (along with similar places).

Now, you can use that notion to find a hole in Fifth Element's reasoning. ByronD said he thought 4e was a "fair to middling roleplaying game," Fifth Element countered with the idea that a game's books can't help you play a role, and I argued that they certainly can, and have, and arguably should. 4e does have roleplaying between the covers. It's not a lot (especially compared to the previous edition), and it's kind of flawed, but it's certainly there.

And now that I've said "roleplaying between the covers," I need to go have a long talk with the lady-friend about what I learned on the internet today.

 

[BryonD]

The idea that roleplaying is somehow an alien beast to the text of the game's manuals is, indeed, a common misconception. Though since that's essentially how D&D began, it is an understandably common one.

It isn't an "alien beast". The game mechanics and the roleplay MUST engage. But the roleplay itself comes solely from the players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It isn't an "alien beast". The game mechanics and the roleplay MUST engage. But the roleplay itself comes solely from the players.

I disagree for reasons presented in the above post.

 

[BryonD]

Now, you can use that notion to find a hole in Fifth Element's reasoning. ByronD said he thought 4e was a "fair to middling roleplaying game," Fifth Element countered with the idea that a game's books can't help you play a role, and I argued that they certainly can, and have, and arguably should. 4e does have roleplaying between the covers. It's not a lot (especially compared to the previous edition), and it's kind of flawed, but it's certainly there.

Its Bryon.


But you may have missed the key point that Fifth Element (god I hated that movie) was jibbing me with my own catch phrase.


That aside, I completely disagree with your assessment. See my sig. Are you suggesting my daughter is not roleplaying because she does not have a book?

There may be story and implied plot elements, but the roleplay itself is 100% up to the players.