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

[pemerton]

As far as 'rituals' tied to particular general learned techniques, there are Martial Practices, which fit that bill fairly well. That system could use some expansion, but it is a rather interesting way to add some 'tricks' to your character, and fits nicely with a PC who wants to demonstrate some specialized knowledge/techniques and avoid the more arcane themed rituals themselves.

OK, here we have a point of disagreement. I find Martial Practices to be basically worthless - all they do, in my view, is remove things from the purview of skill use that otherwise should have been there. At best, I treat them as guidelines for page 42.

I think there is a marked contrast here with Skill Powers, which really do open up abilities that I think go beyond what the skill descriptions plus page 42 would permit.

And in my view rituals don't have the problem either - the Arcana skill is something that I believe benefits from being narrowed somewhat via the implementation of rituals - otherwise, because "magic can do anything", it would riks being too good a skill.

 

[DracoSuave]

Comparing editions of Dungeons and Dragons and trying to state that any edition is roleplay-conducive compared to any other edition is like saying that a handful of black dice contain one that is 'whiter' than the others.

'Roleplay-conducive' systems tend to be freer-form, putting the onus on the players more than the ruleset itself to determine the character's roleplay. They actively reward roleplay in the mechanics, and tend to have systems based on the character's personality rather than simply on their capability.

No edition of D&D has ever done this to any degree. This is precisely the reason behind the post 2nd edition explosion of 'storytelling' games, 'mature' rp, roleplaying games with systems based on the clashes of personalities or of narratives rather than of swords and ocmbat stats.

Let's face it, if 3rd edition is better for roleplay than 4th, then wouldn't Rolemaster be the most roleplay-intensive system ever created?

The difference between the two systems in non-combat is 'granularilty' where skills are less broadly defined in one system than another. 4th edition puts the onus on the player to determine how to best use his skills in non-combat, whereas 3rd edition had a set skill for a specific situation.

Some players prefer granularilty so they have a precise structure to their characters, and that is where they roleplay comfortably. They prefer strict spell lists like D&D's where spells are specific effects that do exactly what they do. Others find low granularity more comfortable, where they are free to express themselves and trust their fellow players to do the same. They are more comfortable in a Mage: The Ascension magic system, where their powers are rough guidelines of effects, and they are free to 'wing it' as they go.

It's not about 'roleplay encouragement' it's about 'granularity' and a player's comfort zone within it.

 

[Ryujin]

I haven't read Three Hearts and Three Lions, and indeed only know of it as the immediate inspiration for D&D paladins and trolls.

But I find it hard to believe that D&D paladins, either directly, or via Poul Anderson's mediation, aren't influenced by classic tales of saintly kings and knights. After all, the classic paladin abilities - laying on hands to heal injury and disease, and an incorruptibility of both body and mind (ie immunity to disease and saving throw bonuses) - are pretty typical attributes of those saintly figures. Similarly, it's not as if Tolkien spun the notion that "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer" out of whole cloth.

As to the Lancelot/Galahad/paladin question, in 4e I would cast Lancelot as a STR paladin and Galahad as a CHA paladin. And give Lancelot the striker-style alternative to Lay on Hands (from Divine Power).

I corrected myself on that, in a later post, after having pulled out my reference.

 

[Doug McCrae]

That idea, which I agree is very important to the conception of Christian knighthood (and the Ordeal more generally) is one that no version of D&D does a particularly good job of implementing- the closest that 4e gets is by way of "true knight" style paragon paths, or the whole idea of the CHA paladin, but these don't give the PC any distinctive benefit for pursuing truth over falsity. Maybe an Insight- or Religion-based skill power would be one way to do it.

I don't know how Pendragon handles it. HeroQuest and The Riddle of Steel both have ways of somewhat giving effect to it, via relationship augments and spiritual attributes respectively.

In Pendragon, a true knight gets bonuses to certain combat stats, but it's quite possible that a false knight could defeat him thru luck or simply by having better stats from more conventional sources.

For example, in 4e Pendragon a chivalrous knight gets +3 armour. The worst knightly armour is chainmail, which protects for 10pts and the best in the main rulebook, partial plate, protects for 14. So an unchivalrous knight in partial plate is better than a chivalrous one in chain.

Knights who uphold religious virtues also get stat benefits, for instance a true Christian has +6 hit points and a follower of Wotan deals +1d6 damage. Again these bonuses can be surpassed simply by rolling well for SIZ, STR and CON, the attributes that determine hit points and damage.

Pendragon is a traditional rpg, I'm pretty sure it's not narrativist, though its main aim is to simulate Arthurian fiction. It's not like HeroQuest, or even Prince Valiant.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, here we have a point of disagreement. I find Martial Practices to be basically worthless - all they do, in my view, is remove things from the purview of skill use that otherwise should have been there. At best, I treat them as guidelines for page 42.

I think there is a marked contrast here with Skill Powers, which really do open up abilities that I think go beyond what the skill descriptions plus page 42 would permit.

And in my view rituals don't have the problem either - the Arcana skill is something that I believe benefits from being narrowed somewhat via the implementation of rituals - otherwise, because "magic can do anything", it would riks being too good a skill.

Yeah, though I brought them up I actually tend to agree with you. The one thing they did seem to do that was kind of nice was allow for some specific mechanics for specific things like forging armor, but WITHOUT costing character resources (aside from treasure, but honestly you can always get more treasure, you can't get more feat slots or power slots).

 

[MrMyth]

I think this kinda defeats the purpose of my question... I was moreso curious as far as people who use them as is...

In my group's level 1-30 campaign, we used them, but not often. We had to hunt down a Cure Affliction when half the party was petrified. We made regular use of the Enchanting rituals. We had some clever use of Leomund's Secret Chest. Rituals became more common at Epic, both because I was pushing them more as the DM, and the party had the money to use lesser ones with ease, and even more expensive ones could be very useful (such as summoning giant eagles, helping a boat sail the Sea of Fire in the Elemental Chaos, powerful divinations, etc.)

So... even in a group with most inclined to ignore them, they definitely got used.

I'm playing in two games right now, and my character in each is a Ritual Caster with a good number of rituals. In the first, this actually became a bit problematic - the DM, in trying to prepare for rituals I could cast, actually had plot events based on the expectation I would cast a certain ritual, and when I didn't... she had to readjust quickly.

In the second game, my Druid hasn't had too much opportunity for rituals, but mainly because we're crawling through a dungeon filled with undead, and nature rituals don't come up that often. I still try and find creative uses, though at least one has backfired spectacularly.

We entered a chamber with a vast underground lake, with numerous bodies floating atop it. Rather than dive into the water (where I was sure something slimy would grab us), I used the Lower Water ritual to drop a portion on the ground so we could inspect the bodies.

And all the bodies hit the ground. And, all being undead, woke up and came after us! Along with the Black Dragon who lived in the lake. The DM originally planned to have the dragon hurl people into the lake, where a few zombies at a time would wake up due to the presence of nearby life. Instead, I managed to start the combat off with over 20 of 'em. It was an intense, dangerous fight and - most importantly - memorable.

 

[Mallus]

I find the skill too broad for my tastes.

This is what I was interested in hearing; if people who thought 4e skills were too broad also had problems with what I find to be similar systems. Do the broadness of these skills have an impact on your ability or desire to role-play (using any definition of RP you like)?

Actually, the general rule of thumb is every other session not twice a session.

Thanks for the correction. Makes more sense that way.

The GM is also encouraged to
a) change the skill list based upon the campaign they are running and
b) provide a bonus if the character narrows down a Knowledge Specialty if you are using broad skills (I believe the example was Knowledge: Science and giving the character a +2 bonus if they decide to narrow it to Biology)

Yeah, it's a +2 for narrowing a skill's focus. But nowhere do I see encouragement to radically increase the number of skills in the game, be it through a profusion of specialized knowledge skills, or otherwise. SW is a game with a relatively compact skill list where most skills are broadly useful. You're encouraged to customize, but under that established framework.

Yet they do add new skills based on the setting.

Out of curiosity, in which books? Aside from the core, I have Slipstream, the Fantasy Companion, the Super Power Companion, and Deadlands: Reloaded. Each of them add Edges, and other rules tweaks, but they do not add new skills to the game. I thought that was interesting decision, and took it to be an important part of the system's overall design.

The GM is encouraged to change the skills based on the setting. The way it is done
A. Rename an existing skill? Example, in the book, in a high tech game , Lockpicking becomes Security Systems with the default stat changed.

Right, but reskinning/redefining a skill is different. It's cost-neutral in terms of the build economy. It's not at all like adding more skills to the overall list (which makes each build point worth a little less).

...a seasoned or Legendary character can still suck in a skill if they don't have a decent skill die or any die in the skill (default d4-2 and that -2 applies to your explodes). You may have bennies and exploding die, but that novice with a d6 or d8 is going to better. So, no, it is not the same as with 4e.

Are you saying 4e characters can't suck at certain skills because of the 1/2 level bonus? Remember, target numbers aren't static in 4e, and 4e PC's are meant to face challenges in a level-appropriate range. For example, we paused our 4e campaign at 14th level. At 14th level, the standard DC's are 15/21/29.

My charismatic paladin made his important Diplomacy checks at +26 (using an Encounter power).

His friend, the warden (with a CHA of 8) made all her Diplomacy checks at +8 (which is lower than the +9 my paladin had at 1st level).

He can't fail easy and moderate checks, and makes hard checks %80 of the time. She can fail each level, and can't make hard checks at all. Doesn't she suck at diplomacy compared to him?

What's the difference I'm missing?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You guys make some great points, and if I ever run into anyone making the claim that it is impossible to role-play in 4e, I'll try to remember them.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath on that.

Until then, Good Gaming!

RC

(If I do ever see it, it will probably come in the form of marketing for 5e, which 4e grognards will be told that they shouldn't be upset about!)

 

[Mallus]

"It isn't that 4e defies roleplaying, it is that it doesn't openly push for it as much as previous editions may have."

I'd say "different things inspire different people", and that's about it. I found role-playing inspiration in 4e's marking mechanic (seriously). I'm guessing most people... didn't. Conversely, many people found AD&D to be inspirational, but me, not so much. I'm more interested in the source materials which inspired it. Though I have come to love it's unique brand of kitchen-sink fantasy.

In honor of your username, I vote that for RPGs the saying be redone:
"Never attribute to Mallus what ignorance alone can explain."

They're often one in the same!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You guys make some great points, and if I ever run into anyone making the claim that it is impossible to role-play in 4e, I'll try to remember them.

Those would be new people that haven't learned the drill yet. The current ones made some of those claims in 2008, and have been backpedaling ever since. The new form is to damn with faint praise: Sure you can roleplay with it, but you can't do X. "4E is nothing but a board game!" "Ok, it's nothing but a glorified board game!" "Sure, you can roleplay monopoly if you want, but ... ".

Which is not to say that for some values of X, 4E is not a good match, and certainly not the best possible match. That is true. But the problem is that too often, the claim is made for an X which is really, "I can't do this with 4E because I don't know how, therefore, 4E must not support it," or "I push X to some extreme, and this extreme defines roleplaying; ergo anything without it isn't really roleplaying."

But I guess this shouldn't be surprising. There have been faux sophisticates mouthing off about their particular brand of roleplaying since the hobby was invented.