D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Dannyalcatraz]

And yet you're actively avoiding playing a character concept, that you clearly enjoy, for purely mechanical reasons. This is patently unnecessary. Play your character more, and the rules less, and you'll likely have a better experience with 4e overall.

You might as well be telling me to use year-old dehydrated then rehydrated pork in my pork dishes because I like pork and that's the only pork available. I won't do that- instead, I'll just avoid pork dishes until I can get reasonably fresh or fresh frozen rather than compromise my tastes.

Because, dude, I would find the experience of playing a talented musician in 4Ed downright repugnant. Better that I avoid playing a PC concept that I love in a system I feel handles it poorly and stick to PC concepts I think the game handles well. That way, my love for that concept does not become tarnished by my dislike of the way the system handles it, AND the system does not become my hated nemesis for "ruining" that concept, but instead gets enjoyed for what I feel it does quite well.

Because, like I said upthread, this is NOT the only area of the game I dislike. Monks are another sore spot for me. Surely you wouldn't advise me to play the 4Ed Monk- a favored class of mine in prior editions- when I hate what they did with it so much, would you?

 

[Ryujin]

You might as well be telling me to use year-old dehydrated then rehydrated pork in my pork dishes because I like pork and that's the only pork available. I won't do that- instead, I'll just avoid pork dishes until I can get reasonably fresh or fresh frozen rather than compromise my tastes.

Because, dude, I would find the experience of playing a talented musician in 4Ed downright repugnant. Better that I avoid playing a PC concept that I love in a system I feel handles it poorly and stick to PC concepts I think the game handles well. That way, my love for that concept does not become tarnished by my dislike of the way the system handles it, AND the system does not become my hated nemesis for "ruining" that concept, but instead gets enjoyed for what I feel it does quite well.

Because, like I said upthread, this is NOT the only area of the game I dislike. Monks are another sore spot for me. Surely you wouldn't advise me to play the 4Ed Monk- a favored class of mine in prior editions- when I hate what they did with it so much, would you?

No, I wouldn't. I might, however, suggest that you consider your character concept and see if it couldn't better be built using another class, or via multi-classing. My 'talented musician' concept was expressed by multi-classing as Bard. Perhaps a Slayer/Battlemind multi would work for your Monk concept? Something else? If you draw the blinds on the idea, you'll never know.

 

[Alan Shutko]

You might as well be telling me to use year-old dehydrated then rehydrated pork in my pork dishes because I like pork and that's the only pork available.

My wife swears by pork fu.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My 'talented musician' concept was expressed by multi-classing as Bard

I guess I haven't made myself clear yet: I don't think 4Ed handles the artistic hero well at all, regardless of class.

As for the Monk- yes, I have designed monk-ish PCs using other classes (usually Avengers MCed or Hybridized with Monk for the unarmed combat), but I'd rather I didn't have to do workarounds like that. Its profoundly disappointing.

So, again, I avoid those kinds of PCs so I don't have to worry about the system throwing (what I consider to be) it's flaws in my face, and instead I play PCs I'll enjoy without having to worry about that stuff.

Like I said WAAAAY upthread, there are a lot of potential PC concepts that work just fine in 4Ed- like any RPG, probably far more than I'll ever have a chance to play- so going with what works is far easier (and saner) than trying to play PCs I feel the system handles unsatisfactorily.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess I haven't made myself clear yet: I don't think 4Ed handles the artistic hero well at all, regardless of class.

I'd modify this.

I'd say 4e doesn't handle "artistic adventure" well at all.

If you want to be an "artistic hero," that's fine, as long as your "artistic hero" goes around and kills goblins like everyone else.

4e can do noncombat stuff, a bit, but it better be in service of killin' more gobilns.

You could be singing to move the gods to tears, and 4e doesn't, itself, give a fig. Your DM could be awesome and do something about it, but 4e itself doesn't do anything about it.

I'd hardly look to Pathfinder as exemplary in that regard, though. It's a little better, but the existence of Perform doesn't instantly make an awesome artistic adventure.

I'm currently playing a bard in 4e, and he feels pretty musical, but he feels the most musical when he's killin' goblins (or rats or dwarves or whatever) and can insult them and move around allies and the like. Which is cool, but the moment I try and put on a show, I feel like the system gives up and says "I dunno, dude, how awesome do you WANT to be?", and that can be kind of unsatisfying.

 

[pemerton]

Take, for instance, combats that last an hour. These are not out of the norm in 4e (IMXP). They are much rarer in Pathfinder (if only because of a SCRY-BUFF-TELEPORT trifecta, or a "Whoever Gains Initiative Wins" issue, or a "5 dudes vs. 1 monster" tendancy). If you fill the same 3 hour void with Pathfinder and with 4e, and run the same amount of combats, you'll get different amounts of RP time in depending on what you play.

For me, the solution to this is to locate RPing - development of plot, expression of character, etc - in combat. One weakness in the 4e DMG is that it doesn't sufficiently stress the damage to good RPGing done by "filler" combats.

Or take the "implied setting" issue.

<snip>

That can be a strength of 4e if you're looking to fill in your own world, but it can also be a weakness if you're looking for some meaty flavor that comes with the territory.

I personally find that the implied setting supports RP, because it is highly thematic without being dictatorial or predetermining in the way that exploration-heavy play sometimes can be. But that probably turns heavily on my own play preferences.

As I think about it, the biggest problem is that it's hard to run a "gritty" game in 4e.[/quote I agree.

Try to adapt an old 1e or 2e module to 4e. It's really hard.

So far I've done this only with Night's Dark Terror. It wasn't hard. I'm also planning to do it with G2 - the Glacial Caverns of the Frost Giant Jarl. I think that should be fine too.

I've toyed with the idea of White Plume Mountain and Castle Amber, but think my players might arc up at them. I don't think that the Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan or S3(?) - the whatever of the Barrier Peaks - would adapt so well, but then I haven't tried.

 

[pemerton]

I know I said I was finished, but... then why not just say the DM determines whether a creature is or is not aware of the effects of a power? I mean isn't this what is ultimately (in a roundabout way) being given as the "proper" way to do it by most?

Because that would be a different thing.

I'm with many others in not seeing why you regard "aware that XYZ" as equating to "acting rationally in light of the awareness that XYZ". This equation isn't true even for most human beings - why would it be true for an ooze?

I don't think anyones arguing from a hard simulationism of the act of playing music though. They're just saying they want a mechanical ability that states they are a good musician...

This goes back to the "flag" issue. If it is just a flag, then why not just write it on the sheet? Unless you have some sort of resolution system for being a good musician, why is it important to spend PC-build resource points on it?

Or are you envisaging that the resolution system would be d20+skill and whoever gets the highest score gives the best performance? But this then gives rise to the question that Crazy Jerome in particular has talked about, namely, how are we going to cost that skill in a fantasy adventure game?

To come at the issue from a slightly different angle - the game has no "I'm a noble" skill. Yet presumably being a noble makes a difference in some challenges - everything else being equal, commoners may be more likely to listen to someone who instructs them to address him as Your Grace, for example. How would you handle this in a skill challenge? Perhaps grant a circumstance modifier to the Diplomacy check in question - +2 for an obsequious audience, -2 for rebels. Anyway, however you would take into account this non-mechanically represented element of the fiction in resolving the action, take a PC's background "skilled musician" into account in the same way.

if a skill doesn't exist in the game, a challenge to that game cannot be performed within the game's mechanics, end of story.

I don't think this is true - see below.

Your Bard and Bob's Warlock and Suzy's Warden are all musically inclined by background, while Marco's Paladin is not.

<snip>

Marco's Paladin is out. That's cool.

But the other PCs have no meaningful distinction between the others. By rule, there is no skill to reference, thus there is no distinction between trained or untrained. All it is is a battle of stat bonuses. Literally, no skill is involved.

No PC-build element called a skill is involved in resolving the challenge mechanically. That doesn't mean that no fictional skill possessed by one or more of the PCs is involved.

The easiest way to resolve your contest would be for each player to roll a d20 and add CHA - hey, now we'ver found out that Suzy's Warden is a better piper than Bob's Warlock!

There are other, more sophisticated ways it could be done, too.

No.

In lieu of a Poetry skill, I used raw Charisma, Diplomacy, Intimidation, and Insight to represent my PC's poetic ability.

That's all. I said nothing of requirements

<snip>

Use a character's adventuring skills to represent various kinds of non-adventuring abilities.

Arrrggh. NO. This is where the breakdown comes every single time this conversation comes up. Mallus' paladin uses those three skills plus charisma. Why? Because Mallus says so.

It's going to come down to what is believable to the group at that time. If the player can pitch a good justification, whatever that justification is, then groovy.

If you can justify using your best skills for a given task, where's the problem? OTOH, I play with mature players who aren't going to accept "cos I said so" from anyone at the table. It works both ways. The players are invested in finding ways to not break immersion, every bit as much as the DM is. So, the player isn't just going to pick his best skill (Thievery) and then try to justify it, because, well, that's lame.

Unforunately I can't XP these excellent posts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No PC-build element called a skill is involved in resolving the challenge mechanically. That doesn't mean that no fictional skill possessed by one or more of the PCs is involved.

Actually, it pretty much does.

A skill with no mechanical support in a game that has a mechanically supported skill system is not a skill in any meaningful sense. A fictional skill is just that- a fiction. It is not dependable. It is not something you can make solid plans on. All it is is a little slice of "DM, may I?"

The easiest way to resolve your contest would be for each player to roll a d20 and add CHA - hey, now we'ver found out that Suzy's Warden is a better piper than Bob's Warlock!

Easy? Yes. Satisfactory? Not to me: You've described a challenge of stat mods, not actual skill.

All we found out that Suzy's Warden did better that one time than did Bob's Warlock, not that she is better in general.

In 4Ed, if you want to see who is a better climber, diplomat or thief in general, you can look at a hard number next to their skills: the higher number indicates a better overall level of proficiency in that area. While that PC may still be beaten by a less skilled PC by virtue of a higher roll, he will be the victor more often than not.

With no skill, there is no similar generalization to be made.

 

[Matt James]

I let my players pencil in skills. How hard is that? >_>

You are now trained in: fishing

Actually, it pretty much does.

A skill with no mechanical support in a game that has a mechanically supported skill system is not a skill in any meaningful sense. A fictional skill is just that- a fiction. It is not dependable. It is not something you can make solid plans on. All it is is a little slice of "DM, may I?"



Easy? Yes. Satisfactory? Not to me: You've described a challenge of stat mods, not actual skill.

All we found out that Suzy's Warden did better that one time than did Bob's Warlock, not that she is better in general.

In 4Ed, if you want to see who is a better climber, diplomat or thief in general, you can look at a hard number next to their skills: the higher number indicates a better overall level of proficiency in that area. While that PC may still be beaten by a less skilled PC by virtue of a higher roll, he will be the victor more often than not.

With no skill, there is no similar generalization to be made.

 

[pemerton]

All we found out that Suzy's Warden did better that one time than did Bob's Warlock, not that she is better in general.

I was assuming that, after the first roll, the matter would be settled, and that no more rerolls would be permitted until some significant relevant event intervened (perhaps Bob's Warlock spends time in training or spends money on a better set of pipes).