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

[Leif]

I admit to my shame that I also subscribed at first to the belief that 4E stifled roleplay as compared to 3.5E. However, once I became more familiar with the 4E system, I found that I had plenty of spare brain-power to devote to good roleplay.

This led me to the following hypothesis: Any new and unfamiliar ruleset may suppress roleplay for a time while players become accustomed to the mechanics of the ruleset. But when the players reach a certain level of comfort with those mechanics, roleplay should flourish once again.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

That is fine as a stopgap ("My character is gritty, so he attacks in a gritty manner!"), but engaging in a heavy Exploration scenario in the 10 x 10 zone in which you're also fighting goblins, or interrogating the prisoners in an Interaction scenario when you're also still fighting the guards, or discovering rumors about the local treasure in an Investigation scenario while you're killing rats in the sewers...

There comes a time when combat does more harm than good.

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.

I'm not so sure I follow the logic that "exploration" play is dictatorial or predetermining. You can do an entirely randomly generated "exploration" game pretty easily.

But the implied 4e setting is, IMO, kind of weak. It's Generic Kitchen Sink Fantasy, but "Darker and Edgier!". Generic Empire of Good (who are dragons) vs. Generic Empire of Evil (who are devils), Fallen Empires of Benevolence (who are humans), a world riddled with convenient-for-adventuring planar holes....it doesn't seem to hold together very well. It's fine for a baseline (a talented DM can take those elements and make them boffo!), but if you're looking for something evocative in and of itself, you're better off picking up one of 4e's campaign settings than you are playing the basic game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This led me to the following hypothesis: Any new and unfamiliar ruleset may suppress roleplay for a time while players become accustomed to the mechanics of the ruleset. But when the players reach a certain level of comfort with those mechanics, roleplay should flourish once again.

I think that's a pretty solid hypothesis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think that's a pretty obvious double post.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Feature, not a bug.



I agree- I much prefer that systems that have skills have long skill lists.

Obviously we have highly divergent views on pretty much every aspect of RPG design. I thoroughly dislike systems which say 'No'.

Long lists of broad skills usually takes care of this problem. Especially if- in systems like HERO- you can add skills at any time to model something that was missed...as a GM OR player. If the skill in question is more specialized version of another skill- say astrophysics as opposed to physics; microbiology as opposed to biology- you can have the general one be a prereq or give the person with the specialized skill bonuses for specialized knowledge and penalties for the broader areas of knowledge ("Its been a while since I looked at that stuff, but...").

Then what is wrong with the 4e approach? If players want to incorporate an unusual degree of knowledge on a very specific subject or some very specific technique they have mastered you just specify that in the character background. As soon as it starts eating into character building resources though things become problematic, so leaving it to the player and DM to work out seems IMHO the ideal solution, which oddly is the one we've got essentially. I admit that the rules only very briefly mention this kind of possibility in PHB2's discussion of background elements (and IIRC DMG2 might mention it as well, not sure) but it is certainly well within the reach of any player and DM that desire to do it.

Personally I'd skip the "penalty to broader knowledge" part and just leave it being a background bonus in a specific speciality, but the DM can easily rule it to grant a +5 in that one unique situation, which also covers things like the guy that climbs well but doesn't swim.

Which is just an argument for either a system that has a uniform structure for trained vs untrained use of skills and a broad list OR relegating all skills to a nearly pure RP realm and just having them be stat checks of some kind, so that ALL PCs with a given Int are equally good at physics, chemstry, etc.

You mean like the 4e system, which does both of these things in essence, leaving all otherwise uncategorized checks to ability checks and has a really broad list of skills... lol.

 

[Leif]

I think that's a pretty solid hypothesis.

Thanks!

 

[Raven Crowking]

This led me to the following hypothesis: Any new and unfamiliar ruleset may suppress roleplay for a time while players become accustomed to the mechanics of the ruleset. But when the players reach a certain level of comfort with those mechanics, roleplay should flourish once again.

Good hypothesis.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5570959-post163.html

I put it "The less rules intrude on the fiction, the more the game supports role-playing."


RC

 

[Shadeydm]

IDK about can't but I can say we don't since switching

Just finished reading this thread whew long one!

I can't say with 100% conviction that 4E killed role playing for my group. I can however state as a matter of fact that a group which RP fairly heavily in 3.5 fell off to near zero RPing and ended up losing one of its best role players after switching to 4E.

I love playing my 4E Human Coronal Guard Swordmage, he has many cool powers and is overall a great defender. Furthermore I can say he plays unlike any character I have ever played in any prior edition which is in itself pretty cool. 1-15 has been a blast without a doubt.

I would say its the furthest from being a ROLE playing game from any prior edition I have personally played (1-4E). You can blame the players or the DM if you like but the bottom line is we went from role playing alot to next none since switching editions.

 

[Leif]

To anyone who thinks that roleplay is not possible in 4E I say this: check out this thread, DMed by [MENTION=11520]Scotley[/MENTION]:

Scotley's 4E Swashbuckler Game

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am not sure that anyone says "impossible"; but some do say "not as naturally" or "rules structure impedes role-playing."

I agree that "impossible to role-play" is a relatively worthless discussion as (1) it is manifestly wrong, and (2) AFAICT, no one holds that position.......or, if someone does, they are in an extreme minority. The whole "can't" is a strawman.


RC