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

[Geron Raveneye]

The cynic in me thinks that WotC may be trying to put an end to the role-playing vs. roll-playing argument with its concept of party "roles." They may be trying to redefine roleplaying as a character filling a certain role, rather than a player assuming the role of a character.

Heh, so instead of me playing the role of a guy with the ability to throw magic effects with a few words, gestures and some icky stuff, supported by dice rolls, I play the role of a guy who, supported by his abilities to throw magical effects, plays the role of the guy in combat who controls the enemy? Not sure I got you correctly there. Not sure I'd like that happening either...but on the other hand, I'm not really the target audience anymore anyway.

 

[italianranma]

I thought the topic read "4 Rules for Role-playing"

That's a fun topic anyway, so I'll contribute:

1. Everyone should have fun: it's not the DM's job to say what can and can't happen, only say how difficult it is.

2. Reward creative thinking. If the player's explain why they think something is so, try to lend support to making it so. The DM is so busy looking at the big picture that sometimes the details are left out.

3. The devil is in the details. And the devil is worth a ton of XP. Descriptive text will make even a terrible plot fun to play.

4. Build characters, not character sheets. Villains especially need some real reason to do what it is they do. It doesn't have to be complicated: maybe this guy is evil because he didn't get love as a child, whatever. Each major character should have goals, ideals, pet-peeves, and hobbies. Yes hobbies. There's no such thing as wasting skill points of perform.

Anyone else have their own 4 rules?

 

[Khairn]

Can you give us an example please?

Certainly. I'm at work and don't have my books with me so if I miss an element I hope you'll understand.

In Changeling, the raw power of the characters is measured in part by their ranking in the Wyrd which is their connection to the realm of Arcadia (Faerie). The more you use your magic abilities (Glamour), the more powerful you become, and the stronger your connection with Arcadia grows. But with that increased power comes drawbacks. Loosing your humainity, becoming more fae-like which attracts the attention of the True Fae, and a greater suceptability (vulnerability) to magic are just a few of the examples. Thus for many players the need to create a certain level of balance is necessary. Its not just a question of becoming more and more powerful with the experience points you spend after each session.

In the example above, the rules didn't demand RP, but instead provided a framework that encourages the player to interact with RP elements (loosing humanity, attaracting the attention of eth True Fae etc).

As I said above, this is an apples to oranges comparison, but I think its a good example of how rules can help to promote and support RP.

 

[Drammattex]

Role-playing rules are a delicate flower.

As others have mentioned, books that cram in a lot of fluff are often scorned by their target audience, because we don't want THAT fluff. We want our own fluff.
DMG2 is an interesting example.
All the stuff it had on fantasy medieval society & law: Great. Useful. Loved it.
All the stuff it had on Saltmarsh...: Skipped it. Somewhat interesting, but not that useful.

I don't know enough role-players, but I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the way I reacted to the DMG2 content is the way most others do. I can easily imagine a scenario where I would use Saltmarsh, but if I'm a role-playing guy I'm probably using my own stuff, and if I'm not a role-playing guy, I'm probably not even going to bother pulling that premade scenario off the shelf.

"The mechanics of the system influence the way the game is played."
One of my players convinced me that this is true.
Yes, people who role-play are going to role-play and people who don't won't. BUT for those who DO, the role-play will tend to be richer if the system itself encourages it on some level.

There were all those arguments on 3e killing roleplaying and whatnot. While I don't believe that's true, I do think that the very attractive GAME elements, strategic elements, tactical elements, combined with the wealth of options for tricking out your character mechanically which were available in 3.x did tend to lead to players spending more thought in that direction.

For example, if I come up with a super awesome role-playing concept about my character's dark and secret history, his noble birth, his former lover who is now his arch enemy, his awesome swordsmanship... and then I assign my stats and feats to match what I feel that character's Charisma might be... maybe drop his Constitution to explain his sickly childhood, etc...
And then ANOTHER player in my group approaches his character from the opposite direction, choosing the very best mechanical combos for his character, well-- his character is going to be far more awesome than mine. Because when we're playing the actual game part of D&D, his character is going to be the one kicking butt. Mine is going to be the one falling down and failing his Fort saves. He's only super awesome in my imagination.

I dunno. I think the deal with 1e and 2e were that you didn't get as many cool abilities, so a lot of times the role-play was more prevalent but the GAME wasn't nearly as good (don't get me wrong, though: min-maxers were huge even then). In 3e, the mechanics are very strong and the GAME elements are a lot more solid, so it's easy to be attracted to that.

I'm very excited about the social interaction things they're talking about in 4e, though. If role-play is built into the mechanics somehow, that may be enough to encourage it. Right now, it's very subjective so it can't be "ruled." I understand that White Wolf has built role-play into the mechanics of their games, so I'm sure it's possible.

 

[BryonD]

You don't need rules for role-playing. Every group will incorporate as much or as little as deemed necessary.

Exactly.

Please please please don't try to sell me a book on roleplaying. I know how to roleplay. I enjoy it. And, frankly, I've got everything I'll ever need for 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th edition roleplaying right between my ears.

Now better and better mechanical systems for simulating how that roleplaying interacts with a fantasy world. THAT is what I want.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

The thread title seems to imply that rules and role-playing are mutually exclusive. I disagree.

You don't need rules for role-playing. Every group will incorporate as much or as little as deemed necessary.

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.

 

[BryonD]

Kewl powerz always sell, but kewl powerz don't make a roleplaying game.

Absolutely 100% true.
But if we are talking about 4E books, then I think it is a bad idea to look for RP between the covers. So let's focus the books on mechanics, which is a lot more than "kewl powerz".


To speak to the WW example above, yeah there is some RP there. But just barely the slightest tiny hint of it. What I think of regarding RP has vastly more dimensions than that. So that as an added value it is nearly pointless. I'm not saying it is a bad system for what it does. I haven't even played it. But the example is such a tiny aspect that I'd rather just move on to something else and continue to look to myself and other players for RP. And this becomes much more true if you consider multiple characters and multiple campaigns. I don't want rules nudging me down certain paths. Which isn't to say that the WW example is one dimensional. But it sounds like it is either going to be ignored (making it of limited meaning) or you go with it (or directly against it), which is to some degree a constrained option.

But it doesn't sound to me like it enhances RP so much as offers RP crutches.

 

[Drammattex]

Just reading through these posts, it feels like we all want basically the same thing (a game with great mechanics, where some of the mechanics actually encourage role-play) which is very encouraging.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Absolutely 100% true.
But if we are talking about 4E books, then I think it is a bad idea to look for RP between the covers.

Why is it a bad idea?

 

[Khairn]

Absolutely 100% true.
But if we are talking about 4E books, then I think it is a bad idea to look for RP between the covers. So let's focus the books on mechanics, which is a lot more than "kewl powerz".


To speak to the WW example above, yeah there is some RP there. But just barely the slightest tiny hint of it. What I think of regarding RP has vastly more dimensions than that. So that as an added value it is nearly pointless. I'm not saying it is a bad system for what it does. I haven't even played it. But the example is such a tiny aspect that I'd rather just move on to something else and continue to look to myself and other players for RP. And this becomes much more true if you consider multiple characters and multiple campaigns. I don't want rules nudging me down certain paths. Which isn't to say that the WW example is one dimensional. But it sounds like it is either going to be ignored (making it of limited meaning) or you go with it (or directly against it), which is to some degree a constrained option.

But it doesn't sound to me like it enhances RP so much as offers RP crutches.

I understand your point completely and respect your opinion. But personally I do feel that the current direction of focusing almost solely on mechanics while including little that actually promotes RP does have a negative impact on that part of the game.

Unlike Changeling that has a predetermined setting, having a game (like D&D) that can be used for many different genres can make it difficult to incorprate RP elements into the core rules. But maybe they can be included in the setting material?