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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

I'd put it this way, rules that tell you what you CANNOT do impede role play, or at least get in the way of character concept, and also tend to damage my sense of immersion. However, notice that 4e doesn't do that much. AD&D was far more guilty of this with all its arbitrary rules like "clerics must use blunt weapons" and "wizards can only use daggers, darts, and staves" (lul wut). Admittedly there is a matter of degree there, but it is pretty clear that the designers of 4e thought about this deeply from the start of the design phase of the game.

 

[Ryujin]

Ah, yes. The sort of issue that we cleared up quite routinely via things like taking a level of Fighter, first, then multi-classing to Magic User or simply stating that it was patently idiotic that a Cleric of a god, who used a longbow, couldn't use a longbow himself.

The rules are a framework, not a straight jacket, and that was no more obvious than in the days of 1e.

 

[Leif]

Ah, yes. The sort of issue that we cleared up quite routinely via things like taking a level of Fighter, first, then multi-classing to Magic User or simply stating that it was patently idiotic that a Cleric of a god, who used a longbow, couldn't use a longbow himself.

You bring up a very good point: so far, the thing that chaps my hide the most about 4E is multiclassing. The whole "multiclassing by feat" thing is IMHO a horrible idea.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd put it this way, rules that tell you what you CANNOT do impede role play, or at least get in the way of character concept, and also tend to damage my sense of immersion. However, notice that 4e doesn't do that much. AD&D was far more guilty of this with all its arbitrary rules like "clerics must use blunt weapons" and "wizards can only use daggers, darts, and staves" (lul wut). Admittedly there is a matter of degree there, but it is pretty clear that the designers of 4e thought about this deeply from the start of the design phase of the game.

I would argue that character concept and role-playing are entirely different things.

I would assume that you wouldn't argue that 4e was less of a role-playing game when just the PHB was released (because of fewer options than now)? I would assume that you wouldn't argue that Top Secret was less of a role-playing game because it didn't feature elves?

IMHO, a game allows for role-playing based only on two factors:

1. Does the player get to make meaningful choices within the context of the game's fiction (noting that meaningful choices include consequences to the choices made.....talking in a funny voice while playing Silent Hill does nothing in terms of game play) through taking a particular role?

2. How much and how often do the rules break immersion in role?

The first is probably more objective than the second, as one can easily see that neighing while moving the horse in chess isn't a meaningful decision, but it is still subjective to some (and perhaps some not-inconsiderable) degree.

The second is going to depend upon a number of factors, which I did my best to outline earlier, and which also require largely subjective analysis. As noted just above (and in my previous post), as one learns the rules of a game, the game rules become more natural, and break immersion less.

With these points in mind, it is easy to see that there will not be "one true answer" or "one true gauge" of how well a game functions as a role-playing game. But, it is also true that system matters.

As a simple test of the "system matters" principle, if system did not matter, few (if any) would throw their money away on other systems. Once you tried one, you would stick with that one. Why not? If system doesn't matter, then there is no benefit to changing system.

(I also find the idea that system doesn't matter to be a colossal insult to the good folks who spend so long designing and playtesting those systems.)



RC

 

[Ryujin]

You bring up a very good point: so far, the thing that chaps my hide the most about 4E is multiclassing. The whole "multiclassing by feat" thing is IMHO a horrible idea.

I suspect that you're far from the only one, for whom that's the case, hence the creation of Hybrid characters.

 

[Leif]

I suspect that you're far from the only one, for whom that's the case, hence the creation of Hybrid characters.

!!!!
Where can I find rules for Hybird Characters?

 

[Ryujin]

!!!!
Where can I find rules for Hybird Characters?

Hybrids were first released, in essentially beta form, in Dragon Magazine. The ultimate form of them is in Players Handbook 3. It doesn't cover all possible combinations, but there's a pretty good spread available. Want to play a Wizard, who is pretty darned good with sword magic? You can play a Wizard/Swordmage Hybrid.

 

[john112364]

I believe it was the players handbook 3.
Damn! Ninja'd

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would argue that character concept and role-playing are entirely different things.

I would assume that you wouldn't argue that 4e was less of a role-playing game when just the PHB was released (because of fewer options than now)? I would assume that you wouldn't argue that Top Secret was less of a role-playing game because it didn't feature elves?

IMHO, a game allows for role-playing based only on two factors:

1. Does the player get to make meaningful choices within the context of the game's fiction (noting that meaningful choices include consequences to the choices made.....talking in a funny voice while playing Silent Hill does nothing in terms of game play) through taking a particular role?

2. How much and how often do the rules break immersion in role?

The first is probably more objective than the second, as one can easily see that neighing while moving the horse in chess isn't a meaningful decision, but it is still subjective to some (and perhaps some not-inconsiderable) degree.

The second is going to depend upon a number of factors, which I did my best to outline earlier, and which also require largely subjective analysis. As noted just above (and in my previous post), as one learns the rules of a game, the game rules become more natural, and break immersion less.

With these points in mind, it is easy to see that there will not be "one true answer" or "one true gauge" of how well a game functions as a role-playing game. But, it is also true that system matters.

As a simple test of the "system matters" principle, if system did not matter, few (if any) would throw their money away on other systems. Once you tried one, you would stick with that one. Why not? If system doesn't matter, then there is no benefit to changing system.

(I also find the idea that system doesn't matter to be a colossal insult to the good folks who spend so long designing and playtesting those systems.)



RC

I don't recall ever suggesting personally that systems don't matter. I'm not sure I think they matter in the way that you do perhaps. At the simplest level D&D provides rules for doing things like casting spells, swinging swords, etc. I may not be interested in that genre and thus I might use a set of rules that for instance includes elements that cover space ships and robots because I feel like playing a sci-fi game. I may also want a game which provides PCs with a different level of capabilities, has more or less abstract resolution systems etc in order to capture the ambiance I'm after, etc. There are a ton of reasons to choose different systems.

I would argue that character concept is quite central to RP. In fact my DEFINITION of RP is quite closely tied to character concept in practice. Depicting the actions of the character, taking into account all the various things that make up that character's capabilities, personality, resources, etc IS in my definition RP. When I choose to have my suicidally bold half-orc fighter rush through a door, that's RP. I don't have to be talking in first person or imagining my character from a 1st person perspective at all times (or even ever at all) to be role playing the character. The dialog at our table would resemble much more a kind of third person perspective narrative from multiple character's viewpoints, with now and then some dialog quoted.

So, I will accept your point 1. In fact to me point 1 IS RP. Nothing else is required. Point 2 I don't honestly think I understand since I have not yet heard a coherent description of what does and doesn't constitute immersion. I comprehend suspension of disbelief, but I don't find that there is anything inherently about a comprehensive rule system like 4e that necessarily breaks that. I would tend to agree with a statement that overly extensive and restrictive systems get in the way of that, but again I say that restriction is when the rules say "No".

And again we come back to AD&D. AD&D is restrictive because it ACTIVELY says "no". A game that simply doesn't have rules for playing an 'elf' isn't saying no, that isn't a restriction, that is simply an unaddressed possibility, which may not even be relevant to the genre of a particular game. No, AD&D goes beyond that. It actually says "you, wizard, you are forbidden to take this action which isn't justified in any way within the fiction and exists for purely mechanical reasons." That's inhibiting RP. I CANNOT in AD&D make a wizard that will pick up a sword and hit someone with it if he's got no other option, or if the logic of his personality and circumstance would dictate that as an action which would be most in line with his character (unless of course I restrict myself to certain other choices which are related to swinging swords purely by arbitrary fiat of the rules). We could suppose that the physics of every fantasy world that AD&D depicts includes some kind of law of nature that prevents swords from being held in the hands of wizards, but honestly that's rather silly. So yes, I find 4e to be a very substantially better RPG than AD&D was. In a quite concrete way. Obviously people ignored a lot of the rules of AD&D, but that wouldn't be relevant to the discussion of AD&D's qualities as an RPG any more than pointing out that you could remove powers from 4e and replace them with something else would be relevant to this thread's topic.

It is quite possible that my definition of RP and how I go about it, and how the people I usually play with go about it, is unusual in some way. Honestly though I doubt it. I actually suspect that the people I play with are fairly typical RPGers. So my personal conclusion is that 4e does a pretty decent job of facilitating RP. It may not facilitate what you call immersion, but I just don't know.

 

[pemerton]

there is NEVER A REASON to have any sort of 'opposed check' in 4e. Consider, the PC vs an NPC is simply a DC set by the DM. It could be set via a fixed DC the DM invents or it could hypothetically be set via some arbitrary 'skill level' the DM sets for the NPC vs some 'skill' bonus possessed by the PC, which is exactly the same thing. Either way the player has to roll in excess of some number on the dice. Opposed checks are just pointless.

I think this is an interesting point. I do tend to use opposed checks for Bluff and Stealth in combat, as per the rules - it introduces some variability in respect of the ability of the non-elf ranger PCs to occasinally notice a hiding NPC.

But in the context of a skill challenge or exploration, when activity is expected to be distributed over the whole group rather than resolved on such a tightly individualistic basis, I agree with you and just use level appropriate DCs.

In the case of PC vs PC there's no conflict to be resolved. They are on the same side. The players decide which of the two characters they prefer to have 'win' the contest and that's the winner. They can fluff this as the better character won, or as the better character threw the contest, or whatever makes sense based on the choice they made. The outcome is in any case entirely under their control.

I haven't thought of it quite like this before. Sometimes there is a conflict in the party - for example, when the sorcerer in my group wanted to stealthily pocket some gems while distracting the other PCs with his inane banter. But in a context in which the PCs are acting cooperatively and/or the players are not in conflict as to how a scene should resolve, then I think that you are right.