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

[Nemesis Destiny]

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 was with you for this part. This is where I think you picked a bad example:

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).

Technically, in AD&D, a wizard could swing a sword all day long, he just couldn't become proficient in it, without multi- or dual-classing. So there you would be, swinging away with a big fat -5 penalty on top of a Wizard's already horrible THAC0.

Armour probably would have been a better angle to get your point across

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I do too, since the rules are written that way, but I would note that they are checks opposing PASSIVE monster skills, so the DCs are normally fixed. Of course if the monster then makes an active check we have a reversal where the 'world' is testing against the PCs. From a pure theoretic perspective it might be better done the other way around, but then again the DM probably wants to keep those check values to himself, etc. So there can be some practical situations where it is just easier for consistency and convenience not to use a fixed DC for something. Another somewhat similar case is a monster attempting a stunt or other skill check in combat. There's conflict, but no easy way to localize to a conflict with a specific character, so it makes more sense to just have the monster follow the PC rules for that.

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.

Yeah, at first a couple years ago I was thinking "oh, yeah, opposed checks, those are cool." but then after thinking about it for a bit it just doesn't turn out to matter. I think it was when the dwarf arm-wrestled the bugbear. I just looked at my dice and said "Oh, roll a DC18 STR check!" (the bugbear won).

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.

Yeah, this is true, there could be a conflict between PCs. Admittedly, players have all sorts of notions too. It is conceivable that two players could decide to pit their characters against each other in a fiddling contest just for the heck of it. I'm not real sure though that would form a worthwhile justification for having a large and extensive set of skills ala 3.x or other skill focused systems. It doesn't seem like a very frequent occurance (honestly in 30 years of DMing I have yet to see it come up).

 

[pemerton]

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 agree that combat won't support that sort of exploration RPing.

This is part of why I tend to see 4e as making a very big break from "classic" D&D, where that sort of exploration tended to be to the fore.

I'm not so sure I follow the logic that "exploration" play is dictatorial or predetermining.

Don't worry - the logic is very controversial (its a type of Forge-ist critique of much High Concept play) and I think I'm about the only regular poster on these boards who subscribes to it!

To put it affirmatively rather than negatively: what I like about a loosely sketched but thamtically rich implied setting is that it gives the players resources with which to build PCs, and the GM resources with which to build situations that will engage those PCs, without tending to stifle the free development of those situations in the course of play by overly predetermining what the answers to the questions raised in the situation might be.

Two quotes to further explain the general train of thought:

Ron Edwards, who begins by quoting Jonathan Tweet from Over the Edge: "The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse."

All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play ... and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play ... then why present the results of the play-experience as the material for another person's experience?

Paul Czege: I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

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.

I agree that the implied setting isn't the most innovative or cutting-edge ever, but I actually kind of like that. Having fairly accessible and familiar stereotypes to draw on can make it easier to introduce nuance and subtlety in play - whereas the more avant-garde the setting is in itself, the more I feel it has the potential to become the focus of play (the "curse" in the quote from Edwards) rather than a springboard to play. (I think this is one respect in which RPGing, which is real-time participant authoring, is probably different from other forms of fiction.)

That said, the implied setting that I draw on includes not just the DMG but the Underdark, the Plane Above, the Plane Below, Demonomicon and Worlds and Monsters. The first two of these have a lot of interesting material that is good for springboarding from (ideas about the gods and their histories and plots, for example) but presented in a completely different fashion from Planescape - as material for a game rather than someone else's already authored fiction. And Worlds and Monsters, in my view, is one of the bestr GM book sever for D&D, and perhaps better, on balance, than the DMG - it is the only D&D text I know of that talks explicilty about how monsters, gods and the like are elements that can be used to run a good fantasy RPG, whereas all the other texts approach these game elements from the perspective of the fictional world. (The exception being the DMG's discussion of languages. Worlds and Monsters is like this, but for the whole gameworld!)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was with you for this part. This is where I think you picked a bad example:Technically, in AD&D, a wizard could swing a sword all day long, he just couldn't become proficient in it, without multi- or dual-classing. So there you would be, swinging away with a big fat -5 penalty on top of a Wizard's already horrible THAC0.

Armour probably would have been a better angle to get your point across

Maybe in 2e, I would have to check. In 1st Edition AD&D the restriction was simply stated as "you can only use these weapons". It wasn't even defined what happened if your character actually tried to violate that restriction, presumably s/he simply couldn't make an effective attack, and certainly couldn't benefit from any kind of magic in such an item in any defined way. Same with clerics and blunt weapons, the rule was just a straight restriction.

I think that at least in 2e the armor rule was a bit less clear. You definitely couldn't cast spells while wearing armor, unless you were an elf, and then it had to be non-metal armor or elfen chain, which you couldn't normally purchase. Exactly what did happen if your human wizard donned a suite of plate armor was again basically just undefined, beyond he wasn't going to be doing any casting. Oddly the consequences of a ROGUE donning heavier armor were detailed in 2e. Mostly it was just a rather hodge-podge system and they just didn't address things that wouldn't make sense for a character to do by the designer's reckoning. Still, it made for a rather awkward system, unless you played to type.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Agreed 100%. But see below.

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

Hybrids are a definite improvement...and actually makes multiclassing via feats more acceptable to me.

While I still prefer 3.X multiclassing, I can accept hybrid rules as an acceptable- if truncated- version of multiclassing from previous editions. Its more old-schoolish in that you have fewer combo options than in 3.X, but still quite a bit more flexible than pre-3.X.

And that makes multiclassing via feat more acceptable to me for 2 reasons:

1. Feat-based MCing is no longer the ONLY method of combining classes and
2. It does an OK job of modeling mere dabblers, which hybrids do not do.

I won't call those rules perfect- I'd have given players the option of choosing between weighted options for which class features they kept (for increased flexibility)- but they're good enough.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Maybe in 2e, I would have to check. In 1st Edition AD&D the restriction was simply stated as "you can only use these weapons". It wasn't even defined what happened if your character actually tried to violate that restriction, presumably s/he simply couldn't make an effective attack, and certainly couldn't benefit from any kind of magic in such an item in any defined way. Same with clerics and blunt weapons, the rule was just a straight restriction.

I think that at least in 2e the armor rule was a bit less clear. You definitely couldn't cast spells while wearing armor, unless you were an elf, and then it had to be non-metal armor or elfen chain, which you couldn't normally purchase. Exactly what did happen if your human wizard donned a suite of plate armor was again basically just undefined, beyond he wasn't going to be doing any casting. Oddly the consequences of a ROGUE donning heavier armor were detailed in 2e. Mostly it was just a rather hodge-podge system and they just didn't address things that wouldn't make sense for a character to do by the designer's reckoning. Still, it made for a rather awkward system, unless you played to type.

Ah, makes sense now. All my 1e experience was as a player, and back then, I didn't stray too far outside the lines when "colouring in" my character. I didn't start DMing until 2e, so that's why I referenced that. Sometimes it's easy for me to forget that they weren't at all the same!

 

[Neonchameleon]

And yet every single skill check is done that way- you either succeed or you don't.

Which is why we have skill challenges.

But multiple rolls of fundamentally irrelevant skills- while rolling NOTHING that directly applies- is not narratively OR simulationally satisfying.

And here we disagree on how broad skills should be seen as.

AND that all has no bearing on whether you can outplay the Devil's guitarist- the original example.

And as I have said repeatedly, crossroads challenges are all about your primary skill. You'd be trying to outplay the Devil's guitarist in a game of Guitars and Groupies. A game in which there would be at least as much focus on music rules as on combat. In no edition of D&D has this ever been the case. Now a crossroads challenge with a guitar in Dogs in the Vineyard as I keep pointing out would be fun. Just adding in a guitar skill in no way has the rules supporting what should be a pivotal moment for the character.

She was a storyteller...one could say she was a Bard. And volunteering to we'd a man who was killing a virgin bride per day sounds like a damn brave thing to do. It IS an adventure, albeit one in a very confined space.

Oh, she was brave. I don't dispute that. And it's a great story. Just one unsuited for Dungeons and Dragons. Any edition.

I disagree- she'd make a fine 3.X Bard: high Cha, ranks in Perform: Storytelling, the Barsdic Lore ability to supply her with fodder for her stories...some Charm ability. Yep. Bard.

Proficiency with magic, whip, and rapier. Ability to wear chain mail. Medium BAB. Yup, that all fits... The bard is the best character concept patch in 3.X. Even my wizards normally ended up as bards (loremasters, illusionists, and non-vancian). I'd have called her an expert myself with Knowledge (History), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Knowledge (Other), Perform (Storytelling), Diplomacy, Sense motive. A NPC class.

What are you smoking? The musicians I cited strive against musicians; the storytellers tell stories; the comedian told jokes. The challenge faced is based on their strongest skill.

Exactly! And in 3.X, the rogue's strongest ability is being Stabbity Mc Stabbity. The fighter's strongest ability is being ... a fighter. The wizard's strongest ability is magic. (As is the cleric's). You're talking a group of adventurers, not a rock band here. Which is the point. The only class that can reasonably claim to not have the adventuring or combat as their specialty in 3.X is the bard. It's a game about what it's about and system matters. D&D is not GURPS.

They aren't skills at all according to 4ed- and have different mechanics from REAL 4Ed skills. And they shouldn't, IMHO.

And they aren't adventuring skills. 4e is a game about adventurers. 3e is a game about adventurers that nods towards being GURPS - and ends up with IMO a tangled mix of systems treading on each others toes.

In 4Ed, there is no skill for flower arrangement. All there is is stat & level. All PCs with the same level and stats are interchangeable.

You mean all PCs are in the hands of the DM. Oh noes! And there are explicit rules in 4e for using lower target numbers because someone's experienced and practiced at something even if you don't use free training in things unlikely to be that relevant. A good flower arrangement is easy for someone who practices it and average for someone who doesn't. Both terms of art.

 

[Argyle King]

I think for some people, the being able to roleplay is not the issue. You can roleplay with pretty much any game if you really want to - even Monopoly. Instead, I think, for some people, the issue is not feeling as though the system has a very meaningful way of rewarding some of the actions and non directly combat related endeavours a person may want to pursue.

As a player, I've on occasion found there are things I would like to do with my character which would require using character resources, but which give me virtually no feedback from the system. I say virtually only because I might (as a quick default example) get a situation +2 bonus to diplomacy or something like at as lord of a keep when dealing with my subjects; a very kind DM might give me some sort of situational Utility power.

As a DM, I would say I am the kind of DM who fairly regularly goes outside of the RAW bounds of the system to reward my players for things, but, even then, it's sometimes tough to reward them in the manner which I feel should be consistent with their actions without moving too far away from assumptions which are caked into the game mechanics. While I am capable of tearing apart the game and making it work different, I own other rpgs which are (IMO) better suited for getting deeper into the nuts and bolts of things. I also feel some of those other games are better for when I want to run certain types of games, and tell certain types of stories.

I wouldn't even really consider this a bug of 4E though. I just think there's a certain type of play which was in mind when 4E was design. On the first page of this discussion it was mentioned that the early days of 4E involved articles/interviews by the designers which seemed to disparage certain types of play. I actually remember those days, reading those articles, and thinking "I must play a very different kind of game at home than the designers do."

 

[Ryujin]

And as I have said repeatedly, crossroads challenges are all about your primary skill. You'd be trying to outplay the Devil's guitarist in a game of Guitars and Groupies. A game in which there would be at least as much focus on music rules as on combat. In no edition of D&D has this ever been the case. Now a crossroads challenge with a guitar in Dogs in the Vineyard as I keep pointing out would be fun. Just adding in a guitar skill in no way has the rules supporting what should be a pivotal moment for the character.

Or it's a challenge of faith, expressed via Religion skill, as you already have the skill but it IS the Devil. He wouldn't be challenging you, if you weren't a prize.

 

[Kobold Boots]

So after reading all 28 pages of this thread again we have a few threads.

1. People say you can't RP with 4e and can with 3e.
2. The first conversational point was about combat. We beat that to death and I think most involved are satisfied that it's an attention thing.

3. Once that died down we moved to skills not being as deep, or not being adventure-y enough. My take on that is that I've not run into a single instance in 2+ years of play where we couldn't simulate something we used to do.

So um... honest and fair question. How much of this argument is just people being either or both stubborn about their choice of game due to emotions or lazy either creatively or reading wise with the new edition?