D&D 4E 4E Rules first Role-Play second?

[WayneLigon]

But that is only my 30 years of experience observing over a hundred gamers talking.

Suffice to say my experience has been 180-degrees from yours over that same time frame.

 

[HeinorNY]

My theory ...
*Snip

So you are saying basically that there are two schools of RPG players:
-those who played "pretend" games
-those who played wargames, and I want to add to that videogames.

The first school plays a game of pretending and roleplaying, and the rules are there to make all the pretending more organized and other motives.
The second school plays a competitive game, a "gamist" game where the rules are part of the fun, and the roleplay is there to make things more "real" and other motives.

Is that correct?

 

[apoptosis]

So you are saying basically that there are two schools of RPG players:
-those who played "pretend" games
-those who played wargames, and I want to add to that videogames.

The first school plays a game of pretending and roleplaying, and the rules are there to make all the pretending more organized and other motives.
The second school plays a competitive game, a "gamist" game where the rules are part of the fun, and the roleplay is there to make things more "real" and other motives.

Is that correct?

You are correct and far far more succint (i should just post a shortcut to your post). I think most people are a mixture with a significant number who are very heavily one or the other. And that game designs that can best make these two aspects symbiotic are advantageous to the game as a whole.

Of course my post got to trace it back to childhood and rambles more (which is what you get when you drink and post)

 

[pemerton]

I hope the rules are great but I also hope that the books speak directly to the issue of how to create a character based on the idea of "Role-Play" not min-max for rules and character advancement.

Actually, I would hope that the rules are designed to encourage roleplaying - for example, there might be rules that allow you to set a goal for your character, and then you could spend Action Points to support PC actions aimed at achieving that goal, and be awarded Action Points for your PC achieving that goal.

In fact, what ever you want to call the "character assumption" part of the game, it's not something taught by a book. It's something that you learn from playing and is passed on that way.

This is true to an extent. But the rules can encourage the development of a character by establishing mechanics that take as an input a player's conception of his or her character (such as the Action Point mechanic sketched above).

EDIT: Having read a bit more of the thread, I'm the millionth person to mention this sort of mechanic. My bad.

 

[frankthedm]

You don't need rules for role-playing, but rules can encourage role-playing. However, the trick is that once you start adding rules specific to role-play, it starts focusing the RP in that direction. That can be good or bad depending on your preferred style.

In my experience the kind of rules that encourage "role-play" are

1. Rules that make combat lethal. Not much reason to negotiate with someone to make progress if you can kill them with little risk to yourself.

2. Settings with consequences. If a PC never has to worry about the consequences of fighting, there is not much incentive to roleplay. Now if they kill everyone that opposes them and they learn a hard lesson when one of those people has powerful relatives, the grief that follows may cause them to reconsider their "swords first" policy.

If PCs are so strong, no one can oppose them, why do you expect them to lower themselves to interact with mere mortals? Unless an angry mob IS a threat, why bother calming it down when a Fireball wastes less time?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

In my experience the kind of rules that encourage "role-play" are

1. Rules that make combat lethal. Not much reason to negotiate with someone to make progress if you can kill them with little risk to yourself.

Mine has been the exact opposite. When combat is lethal (not Dogs in the Vineyard-style "lethal by the player's choice" but Rolemaster-style "lethal all the time, every time"), players disassociate themselves from their characters and play them as disposable playing pieces.

Not much reason to negotiate with someone to make progress if you can keep throwing characters at the problem until someone in the party gets a lucky crit; replacement PCs or cheap resurrection will surely be available imminently. Not much reason to invest in your character if he's just going to die like a chump the next time somebody on the other side rolls high.

2. Settings with consequences. If a PC never has to worry about the consequences of fighting, there is not much incentive to roleplay. Now if they kill everyone that opposes them and they learn a hard lesson when one of those people has powerful relatives, the grief that follows may cause them to reconsider their "swords first" policy.

I'm a bit more torn on this.

I *like* settings with consequences, mostly because they're more fun to play in and usually represent good roleplaying on the part of the GM.

However, the specific example you're giving has very little to do with what I would call roleplaying.

If PCs are so strong, no one can oppose them, why do you expect them to lower themselves to interact with mere mortals? Unless an angry mob IS a threat, why bother calming it down when a Fireball wastes less time?

What does lowering themselves to interact with mere mortals have to do with roleplay? If I'm playing a character like Achilles, roleplaying MEANS I treat 'mere mortals' like trash, deigning to interact with them mostly at spear-point! Lowering myself to talk with them would be BAD roleplaying.

You seem to equate "roleplaying" with "stuff that isn't combat." Which seems like a rather wonky definition, since the vast majority of alleged RPGs are primarily focused on combat.

 

[gothmaugCC]

With all our hopes and dreams invested on 4th Edition my greatest fear is that the books will avoid the "Role-Play" interaction that is so vital to many campaigns. If you think about it they call MMO's "Role-Playing Games" but there is little interaction. The games just involve killing things, grabbing loot, creating items, and performing quests that have already been done 1000 times before. With table top RPGs the game caters to the players. You as the player in D&D get to be in the spot light. You are the star!

I hope the rules are great but I also hope that the books speak directly to the issue of how to create a character based on the idea of "Role-Play" not min-max for rules and character advancement.

What is your take on this topic? So far from what I have read and heard the designers seem to be engaged it this type of game but then again they might naturally bring this kind of play to the game table.

You DO realize this game was created by a bunch of guys as a beer and pretzels type game? Ie, sit around at college, hang with your friends, drink and kill stuff. You ever read an old gary gygax dungeoncrawl? They are a hoot!

Aye nowadays, DnD has become something more, but esentially it is just a hack and slash. The RP element comes from the players at the table, and not the rules themselves. Its up to you and your pals to make the game into what you percieve it to be, because deep down its still kick open the door, kill the monster, and take his stuff.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Mine has been the exact opposite. When combat is lethal (not Dogs in the Vineyard-style "lethal by the player's choice" but Rolemaster-style "lethal all the time, every time"), players disassociate themselves from their characters and play them as disposable playing pieces.

Seconded.

High lethality games are more likely to engender cautious planning and rank cowardice than deep and immersive roleplay; if nothing else, you don't get into your character if he dies the first session. At least, that's what we wound up doing in Shadowrun; our GM posted a request on rec.games.frp.dnd looking for suggestions on how to get us into combat and use some of our fun toys.

In contrast, in our old 3/3.5 Birthright game, we did often talk our way out of fights.

Brad

 

[KarinsDad]

Mine has been the exact opposite. When combat is lethal (not Dogs in the Vineyard-style "lethal by the player's choice" but Rolemaster-style "lethal all the time, every time"), players disassociate themselves from their characters and play them as disposable playing pieces.

Not much reason to negotiate with someone to make progress if you can keep throwing characters at the problem until someone in the party gets a lucky crit; replacement PCs or cheap resurrection will surely be available imminently. Not much reason to invest in your character if he's just going to die like a chump the next time somebody on the other side rolls high.

I don't think Frank meant lethal as in "a single attack roll can kill the PC" like in Rolemaster.

I think he meant lethal as "a single combat can more easily result in the death of a PC".

In 3.5, the former does not often occur (except save or die, or massive damage) and there are a lot of ways to avoid the latter. Even if one gets knocked unconscious in 3.5, typically one does not die.

If the latter case occurred, I could see players negotiating instead of fighting. However, it is the 3E/3.5 XP system that encourages players to have their PCs fight, not the lethality or lack thereof of the combat system.

An XP system that rewarded solving problems and accomplishing goals instead of killing opponents would at least help in this regard.

You seem to equate "roleplaying" with "stuff that isn't combat." Which seems like a rather wonky definition, since the vast majority of alleged RPGs are primarily focused on combat.

Historically, that is a lot of what DND roleplaying is since the rules do not discuss it a lot. Character decisions out of combat (for the most part). These decisions include what is done as well as what is said. Character decisions in combat could in some cases be considered roleplaying, but those typically are more tactical decisions.

If you check the 1E Forward, the word roleplaying is mentioned exactly once and there is one slight reference of playing the character on an entire page describing what DND is.

DND is first and foremost a combat game with a lot of non-combat support rules and with roleplaying tacked on. Many people deny this, but more than half of the 3.5 PHB rules are combat rules (especially when you take into account combat spells and unrelated rules like movement or equipment that still reference combat) and there really are no significant RPing rules. If DND were truly a first and foremost roleplaying game, it would have roleplaying rules.

Look at how many people here in this thread do not even want RPing suggestions added to the PHB.

 

[Jib]

Combat is going to happen in each and every D&D game. But not every session. Yeah we all get excited about crushing the bad guys but sometimes the non-violent theft of an item, the seduction of a noble, or the recruitment of an army to defeat the dark lord can be just as fun (or more so if you ask some of the guys I game with).

Sure the books should help you with the number crunching and details. But that doesn't make a character! The best part of D&D is YOU the PLAYER make a character that is an active part of the STORY told by you DM. You have the hero role of Aragon. You solve the mystery like Brother Cadfael. You learn the secrets behind your origins like Harry Potter. You out wit your rivals like Captain Jack Sparrow. The game is a lot more than kill the Orc for its 7 silver pieces and move on. If you just kill things and move on boredom will set in (might take awhile but it will).