4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[Majoru Oakheart]

Nope, the DM needs rules to make a persistently believable world. The players don't need rules at all.

A persistently believable world isn't required to play a character. It has nothing to do with role playing. I can play a character who exists in a world where the laws of physics change every second and still be roleplaying.

The ones I like simply get out of the way and are best thought of as "the way the world works" instead of mechanics. Others are metagamey and tend to be situational setups.

Yeah, one encourages situations like that are no fun at all for the sake of being "just the way the world works", the other can create fun situations that would never happen randomly.

However, both are still roleplaying. One is just called "simulation". The idea being that you want to world to work as it does it real life: No bias towards any one person or situation happening. People are just as likely to wake up and then get hit by a bus while crossing the street as they are to go on a fantastic adventure to save the princess.

The other one steers the game towards more interesting outcomes while still allowing choice and acting opportunities.

The current 4e rules are poorly designed for use as an RPG-combat system because they require one to stop roleplaying to play it. That it also happens to be the majority of the rules of 4E bodes ill for the game as a whole.

They don't require you to stop roleplaying to play the combat rules. They require you to stop simulating. There's a difference.

Roleplaying is: "My character hates Orcs so he will attack the Orc this round. I like axes so I will use one of those. My character has the ability to hit two creatures at once with a power, so I'll use that one because my character would want to take as many of them down as possible." It is decision making based on the character you are playing.

Simulation is: "My arm is capable of moving in a bunch of different directions. I should be able to do a backhanded slash, an overhand slash, a parry and so on. The rules should model this process exactly so that if I do something physically possible, the rules should give me a good answer as to what happens in a 'realistic' fashion."

Only the railroading dungeon designs which have become popular in the last 10 years or so. Most traditional dungeons are intertwining mazes of tricks, traps, monsters, and treasure. And the goals are decided upon by the players to give them more freedom. This isn't an edition problem though. Just lousy adventure design by Wizards. Goodman does fairly well if you're looking to buy.

Frankly, I've ran mods where the goals were decided upon by the players. Nothing happened at all:

DM: "Alright, you are traveling through a town called Hommlet. It is a small town, not too many people. Maybe 300."
Players: "Ok, we find an inn to sleep for the night and drink."
DM: "You go to an inn, there are few people in there. You guys order drink and spend the night chatting. It becomes late, you all go to sleep?"
Players: "Yep, we go to sleep. Nothing happens overnight?"
DM: "Nope. You wake up in the morning refreshed. What do you do?"
Players: "We eat breakfast, then if nothing interesting happens, we'll leave town. It's a pretty boring place."
DM: "Well, you haven't really talked to anyone in town and you've only been here less than a day."
Players: "Yep, but there doesn't appear to be any princesses for us to rescue, demons to fight and so on. We're adventurers. We look for adventure to find us."
DM: "Alright...you leave town and....I'll have to find another adventure to run."

I'll take "railroady" adventures over that any day.

 

[hamishspence]

moral dilemmas

Are always going exist. You could play a party of unaligned chracters and still have them arguing over what is the "Right" thing to do. Or even evil characters will have things they are not prepared to do.

Roleplaying: doesn't need mechanics to roleplay, needs mechanics to determine what is and what isn't out of the question. If your speechs are impressive, DM might impose circumstance bonuses, but should not be huge, otherwise the game becomes Who Is The Best Actor. On the other side of the coin, a player whose character is diplomatic may themselves get a bit tongue tied or inarticulate when speaking in character: using mechanics prevents such a player from being badly penalized.

balance: important, at least in the sence that each player should have equal "say" in the adventure. When one player takes 20 min to play out his turn and another takes 1 min, resentments may appear.

complexity: thats what Ilike least about 4th ed, the simplification of many monsters, still, if the monster is able to do cool things, it matters less that they cannot do a wide range of such things.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For the record: "Killing monsters and taking their stuff" is not a bad concept for a game. Not even for a role-playing game. So, if anyone says that this is the essence of D&D, that doesn't mean it's badmouthing or hating the game.

(But it's - for better or worse - not a concept unique to D&D. Duke Nukem and also uses this concept. WoW does. Shadowrun does.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

Nope, the DM needs rules to make a persistently believable world.

Why's that? Why can't he just use his own knowledge and beliefs about what's plausible?

 

[sinecure]

Now you're just rambling.

I think you just don't like my answer to your questions. Making considerations of what will make a good or a bad game while playing ones character isn't a bad way to play. It still doesn't require rules for the behavioral nuances going into when roleplay is enjoyed and when it isn't. Knowing not to act like a jerk shouldn't take much OOC knowledge when acting IC.

Ah, right. IOW, all mechanics are equivalent. I remember someone else tried to make that argument.

Tell me again how this relates to the noncombat interaction system in 4E.

Everything that wasn't combat besides 1. skills, 2. rituals, 3. overland speed, and the new addition 4. quests, has been removed from the game. Skill now cover pretty much everything. There is no "optional group of rules we each can pick from for our own games". There is one choice for everything. If there were one choice only for D&D combat, and that choice was complex d20 checks, would you honestly find yourself accepting? This brave new world is dull.

Pro tip: it's a good idea not to post while drunk.

But the colors are more colory this way.

 

[sinecure]

[off-topic]
I think, in a way, 3E to some extend, and even more so 4E, D&D combat has become more then "hack and slash". Hack and Slash is like "roll attack, deal damage, repeat for each player and monster". But 3E and 4E added a lot more to it - 3E used combat maneuvers (trip, disarm, sunder), 4E uses powers (and some combat maneuvers, like charge and bullrush). All of them keep the pure combat part interesting and varied.

At least for those that like tactical combat and ... "tactical problem-solving" vs. solving puzzles and riddles vs. moral dilemmas and "social" NPC interaction.
[/off-topic]

I very much agree with the above. 4E is all about tactical combat. And as a minis game, it's combat system is very good. But as a "be your character" combat system, it fails.

D&D's previous combat system was boring. It worked very well to force people into thinking of other ways to win fights. And that's what really made it shine. (yes, that it sucked so bad)

Make something that actually allows one to stay in character, think more strategically, AND has the tactical options of 4E and you've got something. As of now, this is system will largely appeal only to those who like DDM. That's kind of been my point.
[/off topic?]

And you use 2e? Wouldn't it be better if you weren't bored for at least 20% of the time? This is the genius of d20. They realised combat can be a fun part of the game too.

Um, because the 2E provides rules for the other 80% of the game? Have you bothered to read the rest of what I posted? And 2E combat is fun, but I'll admit it needs to be houseruled. As is it doesn't work all that well.

The rest of the time when you're coming up with cunning plans, investigating, going shopping, having arguments about morality or whatever floats your boat, the nominal game rules don't really matter. You may as well be playing T&T or Palladium Fantasy or Earthdawn or BD&D. All it affects is the number and shape of dice you roll for perception checks and the like.

4e has an interesting system for integrating those skill-type rolls with more freeform roleplaying but it isn't required. The DM decides if a situation is no roll, single roll or an extended skill challenge.

Well, this answers it. You haven't. This really is why I think most players going smilingly to 4E like Cadfan above are pretty much ignorant about what roleplaying means two steps beyond combat.

In what world can one live where the only interesting details, the 1000's of little extras that will be added to 4E, are only combat-related. I know, I know. More rituals will be added to. Man, listen, there is no such thing as an interesting world played with the TWERPS system. It's frictionless. Pointless. And it feels absolutely pointless during play. That nothing in a game requires complexity outside of combat?

Can anyone hear me that might just for a glimmer understand that a roleplaying game might require more detailed rules for, oh let's say, everything beyond combat!?

I get. I get. I get. No one needs rules for roleplaying. Guess what? No one needs crazy 1000's of options for combat either. But those you want don't you? Can you maybe shake off the glamour of the current new edition to see at least that point? That maybe some of us actually enjoy playing a world with more rules than a coin flip?

BTW, I noticed that arrows are gone from the PHB. Ammunition isn't tracked. Neither is food, I bet too. At least they kept coins, but that's treasure. Somehow I bet many will house rule those away too. And Encumbrance. In the books, but not on the Character Sheets. Important? Drowning or Suffocation? I personally couldn't find those in the books either.

It's not like a want rules for everything. 3E made a real cock up of that. But the idea that I need absolutely no rules but a skill check is just as brash.

Again, the next PHB I hope they release a whole new set of options for play. No non-combat rules w/o a skill list. New combat system. New magic system. All optional and swappable for what they've published so far. That would be nice.

 

[pemerton]

That's odd. What I find bizarre is the fact people are calling DDM 4.0 a roleplaying game just because it's labeled so on the cover.

I'm calling it an RPG because it is a pretty sophisticated set of rules to support roleplaying. I won't repeat my posts upthread about the relationship between theme and powers, but I think it's pretty interesting.

Didn't you get to see Keep on the Shadowfell? It's a collection of 24 DDM scenarios.

No, but the rather lukewarm review on RPG.net sounded fairly plausible to me. WoTC seems to have trouble with modules.

On the other hand, I've just been reading The Ghost Tower of Inverness, and that module, IMO, is hardly a thing of roleplaying beauty. The scenario is nonsense, there is virtually no thematic content, and the puzzles are (to me) fairly uninteresting. White Plume Mountain suffers from similar problems, although not to the same extent.

Have you read Tomb of Horrors? There are what? 2, 3 combats in it? And each of those vastly overpowering the PCs. If you fight something in that module, not only are you doing it wrong, you're going to die.

That's actually not true. The mummy and the 4-armed gargoyle are pretty tame. Furthermore, the only way to win the module is to fight the demilich at the end.

Tomb of Horrors is also widely regarded as one of the shining examples of adventure design for high level play.

<nip>

Only the best players will be able to beat it.

By whom? I personally regard it as a pretty pointless trudge. My players and I have had a lot more fun with various variants of the D-series modules.

I should add: I also don't immediately see the connection between being a good roleplayer and "beating" the module. You need to tell me more about what winning consists in before I can see the difference between this and a wargame or a boardgame.

Nope, the DM needs rules to make a persistently believable world. The players don't need rules at all.

That's one approach to RPGing. The only game I know that really tried to implement it was 1st ed AD&D. 4e adopts an opposite approach (that resembles such games as HeroWars and The Dying Earth). Do you also classify them as non-RPGs?

The current 4e rules are poorly designed for use as an RPG-combat system because they require one to stop roleplaying to play it.

Again, I find this odd, because to me the rules look like they promise to integrate combat and RPing (with respect both to tactical choices and thematic choices) to an extent that hitherto I have only seen Rolemaster do (perhaps TRoS is another example, but I am less familiar with it).

The rules are there to adjudicate the "Hit You Nah Huh Yah Huh".

While I'm in the process of disagreeing with people, can I register my disagreement with this as well? What I think is great about 4e compared to earlier editions of D&D is precisely its integration of mechanics with roleplaying.

 

[Steely Dan]

4E is all about tactical combat. But as a "be your character" combat system, it fails.


Make something that actually allows one to stay in character

Everyone knows that actual role-playing transcends any game system.

As I've said, I witnessed a guy role-playing in Monopoly…

 

[hong]

I think you just don't like my answer to your questions.

No, no. You're just rambling.

Making considerations of what will make a good or a bad game while playing ones character isn't a bad way to play.

Exactly. Which makes your statement

think out of character. (the opposite of roleplaying fyi)​

arrant nonsense.

It still doesn't require rules for the behavioral nuances going into when roleplay is enjoyed and when it isn't. Knowing not to act like a jerk shouldn't take much OOC knowledge when acting IC.

The point is, a system that takes advantage of the divide between player and character knowledge can facilitate roleplaying to a much greater degree than one that refuses to make that distinction. Of course, this does require giving up the notion that there is no distinction to be made, which might be difficult.

Everything that wasn't combat besides 1. skills, 2. rituals, 3. overland speed, and the new addition 4. quests, has been removed from the game.

So... everything that isn't combat has been removed from the game, except for the stuff that isn't combat. My, that was enlightening.

Skill now cover pretty much everything.

Not to mention rituals. And utility powers. And overland speed, just to complete the set. This is a great deal more than any other version of D&D ever managed.

There is no "optional group of rules we each can pick from for our own games". There is one choice for everything. If there were one choice only for D&D combat,

Hello in there. There is precisely one choice for D&D combat, and that is the attack roll.

and that choice was complex d20 checks, would you honestly find yourself accepting? This brave new world is dull.

I see that you have managed to conflate baroque design with depth in play. Fascinating.

But the colors are more colory this way.

Indeed.

 

[Doug McCrae]

sinecure, I can see why you describe frequent combat in 2e as 'beginner play'. You're right it's a broken play style, because combat is so tactically uninteresting for non-casters, but it takes players a while to realise this. It's the lesson rpgers learned from 1974->2000, hack n'slash = bad.

d20 changed all that. By making combat interesting for everyone it made a new style of play possible. One is no longer forced into 20% combat, one can have 50%, or 80%. Or 20%, because d20 doesn't prevent it. It's now a matter of taste because the system supports more styles of play.

This is why d20 > 2e.

The only argument I can see in its favour is if a high combat % is not to your taste but your fellow players don't share that taste, so you want a system that forces them into a certain style of play.