4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[Doug McCrae]

All rpgs contain boardgames. The difference between d20 and 2e is that d20 contains a good boardgame and 2e contains a bad one.

 

[sinecure]

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.

Hey, we all roleplayed growing up without a DM. The fact that we can actually change an imaginary world because someone plays one for us is the bonus of RPGs.

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.

Sorry, your DM chooses to play the world dully. Realism isn't necessarily dull. It has greater depth than any other style as we all share knowledge IC from everything we've learned in our own OOC lives too. That's the benefit.

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.

Actually it can happen a bunch of ways. You could say you only want to focus on a particular situation and play that out. Even a very minute one like a practice setup in Chess. Or you could do it the way most people do and decide as a player group what you want to do IC. Or you could let the DM railroad you as he "can't play anything, but the designed encounters" (which is normally false). Or you can chose not to work together at all and all go your own way. Those last two are "unfun" in my book. But I'm not going to design a game where you cannot do them if you wish.

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

The 4E rules specifically require you to stop think like your another person and start playing the game as a push button, highly limited option, no influence to think outside the box, simulation. And if you don't think DDM is a simulation, what on earth do you think wargames were created for?

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.

Yeah. Except when you can't. Like, I grab his skull and gnaw on it! "What power is that?" None. So guess what? The chance of it working is nil. And if it can work, why do you need all those powers to begin with? You're not thinking in character. You're thinking in combat maneuvers akin to any other wargame. Chess.

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."

The rules should give a DM a good idea. The player finds out through play. You can do this in 2nd Edition if you want. We call it improvisation. Your description and desires have more effect on whether you succeed or fail than the rules in this case.

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.

Wow. That does suck. Maybe you could make an interesting world next time? You know? The kind where things actually happen? Like the kind that were in old school modules? I'm just saying. If your world has nothing going on in it. And your group has nothing going on for it. I'm not surprised nothing went on. That's hardly a reason to take freedom and responsibility for fun away from the players.

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

Go back and read my other posts. I've said that a DM doesn't need rules. But they really help in keeping consistency.

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.

Let me put narrow my answer. As a D&D roleplayer achieving ones goals is the definition of a good roleplayer. One who wins. When playing a module this means beating it.

Hamishspence & Steely Dan
Major Fallacy #1 strikes twice more! It's like a plague around here. People really should think for themselves.

 

[Mallus]

tactical combat. And as a minis game, it's combat system is very good. But as a "be your character" combat system, it fails.

What would a 'be your character system' entail, rules-wise?

And that's what really made it shine. (yes, that it sucked so bad)

So rules are only good when they're bad. That's an original position, I'll give you that.

Um, because the 2E provides rules for the other 80% of the game?

Could you cite examples? I DM'ed 2nd edition for close to a decade and I have no idea what you're talking about.

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.

Sin, in your earlier response to me you admitted that you haven't given any though to your own definition of roleplaying, so how can accuse another poster of being ignorant of roleplaying when you haven't defined what it is yourself?

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!?

Where is this cornucopia of world-simming rules found in 2e again?

BTW, I noticed that arrows are gone from the PHB. Ammunition isn't tracked. Neither is food, I bet too.

So bean-counting is crucial to your definition of heroic?

 

[Mallus]

All rpgs contain boardgames. The difference between d20 and 2e is that d20 contains a good boardgame and 2e contains a bad one.

Nicely put!

 

[Mallus]

As a D&D roleplayer achieving ones goals is the definition of a good roleplayer. One who wins. When playing a module this means beating it.

Unless one's goal is, say, something like 'create/play a character that entertains the people you game with', in which case beating the module ceases to be a requirement (but comic timing becomes a must).

"Killing a tarrasque is easy, comedy is hard".

 

[sinecure]

Exactly. Which makes your statement

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

arrant nonsense.

I'll only concede this on two points: where a player doesn't lose their selfhood to the character and to know when they are acting well.

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.

Have any proof for this? In my experience separating character from player knowledge can be an extraordinary trial when things start getting complex. If the game doesn't strive for equivalence between the two, it's already leaving players in the lurch. I doubt I need to tell you about why most of the games coming out of the indie community are less about roleplaying that not. That they consistently pull players out of character to better their games, to their detriment, makes me dubious of your claims. What proof have you got?

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

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.

Now you're just lying to yourself. Have you read previous editions of the D&D? Before 3rd?

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

Damn it your right. 100's of powers for combat. Absolutely no variation in implementation. How's that for baroque design with autistic tendencies? All pegs must fit the round hole. Wonderful design you have there. It's a wonder they thought to add saves to area attacks.

BTW, think for all those 100s of powers and feats they have for combat they might add some for non-combat? You know, just for fun? You mention utility powers. Do you really equate these with the new non-combat play?

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

I see you're still stumped for why TWERPS hasn't taken the roleplaying world by storm.

It'll be a sad day for you when the powers in those books are no longer enough to satisfy. I await the additive system of "non-combat" powers.



Indeed.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Some people think "role-playing is what happens between combat".
If that was true, why did D&D evolve from war-gaming? Why are there basically no RPGs void of combat rules?

My definition goes more like this:
"Role-Playing Games have something happening between combats".

There is a reason why D&D - the first role-playing game ever - did not evolve from book clubs or a writers guild meeting, but from war-gamers. The combat part is important. But the role-playing part makes the combat more then an exercise in number-crunching. It provides us with a theme and a motivation.
We fight the Orcs not because it's fun fighting Orcs (though it is, on the meta-game level), but because we're hoping to rescue the captured children and end their terror regime on the local village. The reason why my character fights Orcs is because they killed his family. And he fights them with a sword instead of magic because a soldier found him in the middle of a pillaged village and adopted him.

But some people still believe that you could do away with the "combat" part and claim that this would make you somehow a "superior" role-player. That's not true. It is a role-playing game. If you take away the role-playing, it's just a game (maybe a board game, a card game, or a dice game). If you take away the game, it's nothing more then telling a story.
Some people accuse D&D or other players that they don't embrace the role-playing in role-playing games. I'll accuse them of not embracing the game in role-playing games.

And I claim that D&D - in all editions - tried to embrace both aspects. And 3E and 4E so far look like the best implementations.

 

[sinecure]

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.

Your sympathy appears false to me and it's not appreciated. Combat in 2e is infinitely more interesting that 4th. You have at best 14 options in combat. We have whatever we care to imagine. Sucks for you huh?

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.

I'm pretty much of the mind that d20 was the end of D&D. It wasn't D&D and neither is what we have now. It's just shamelessness using the brand to get money for what the designers have fooled themselves into believing is better. 2e does not force one into a style of play. Nor does 4th edition support more. Have you been paying attention to their design intentions? They want a MORE focused game by their own terms. They want less ability to play the game multiple ways. Or do you believe they will do as I suggested and release multiple options for the system? Multiple magic systems? Multiple combat systems? Skills and no skills. Feats and no feats? Add back all varieties of ways you could portray the world before they decided to dismiss them out of hand.

All rpgs contain boardgames. The difference between d20 and 2e is that d20 contains a good boardgame and 2e contains a bad one.

You have very strange ideas. Even I don't believe DDM 3rd or 4th or d20 Chainmail (or the original) are boardgames.

 

[WizarDru]

So bean-counting is crucial to your definition of heroic?

My group calls these 'torch issues' after Wulf Ratbane's story hour....items that are generally beneath notice in all but a few situations, because the payback for effort involved is usually nil and generally meaningless to the game/plot/story overall.

I have never, not in 30 years of playing, ever had a player run out of ammunition for their bow/sling/etc. Sure, they might only have 3 of those +3 arrows...but the rest? Rations were the same thing. Everyone knows to buy enough to last, so the only time they might significant is if you take them all away (such as in the Slavers series) and then you still don't really benefit from tracking them other than in a binary fashion.

A large part of the appeal of 4e to me is that it removes many such torch issues and makes the choices that are made more meaningful. Alignment's simplification, for example, is a big win with me. It's still there, but far less invasive. I can see how that might not appeal to some folks, but to me it maximizes the time we spend gaming with interesting choices, not accounting practices.

 

[sinecure]

What would a 'be your character system' entail, rules-wise?

D&D pretty much has it. A few abstract descriptions to understand where one stand demographically. A few things to own. And a description created the player that the GM uses to construct the characters abilities behind the scenes. Classes do this nicely with broad strokes, but custom designs aren't exactly unusual.

Could you cite examples? I DM'ed 2nd edition for close to a decade and I have no idea what you're talking about.

I cut the bean counting comment out, but you seem to think they have nothing to do with heroism. What does? Killing things? If that's it, you've already cut yourself off at the knees.

2nd includes rules for a ton of different things. Just look at all option in the three main books and in the additional books. They don't include feats and powers in the Castles Book. Or repetitiously dull magic items in the magic encyclopaedias. 2E is jam packed full of actual stuff that makes sense. In 4e they decided to allow damage rolls in the game to keep the dice industry. Can you imagine? Damage rolls were too ungainly a mechanic for these people? Surely you have some sympathy for the game? Are we really to believe that every relationship in the D&D world is a 1:1 direct 1-20 roll? I think people have just given up on making a vibrant world. Have trying to heave 3e's great mass up so long they've just given up on anything other than "the one true roll". It's absurd.

Sin, in your earlier response to me you admitted that you haven't given any though to your own definition of roleplaying, so how can accuse another poster of being ignorant of roleplaying when you haven't defined what it is yourself?

I think I got carried away there. It's just hard to understand how folks can see 1000 variations on combat maneuvers as a good thing and "what roleplaying is" and then use this ungainly abstracted mechanic for everything else.