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

[WayneLigon]

By that logic, D&D books need contain no information advice on creating/writing adventures, desiging settings, and so on - because you, an experienced RPer and DM, know how that all works.

What about the new guy?

Exactly. I think this is where a lot of books fall down on the job. We don't need the 'here's a sample session' so much as a discussion of roleplaying and a set of suggestions. This needs to be in the PHB as much as all that adventure and gming advice needs to be in the DMG.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

It's a rulebook.

There are no real rules for roleplaying, since it's unique to the situation and the people involved. For a roleplaying section in a book to be helpful, it would have to be based on the experience of the writers, and thus would just be subjective essays on the topic. White Wolf has released a few books that are collections of essays by the developers, and they are indeed helpful for newer players (and even some older ones)... however, I don't think that is necessarily the way to go about it, especially when they have D&D Insider for developer commentary and such.

Yep, because I'll not only give a 12-13 years old the PHB for his birthday, but also a subscription to DDI

 

[BryonD]

Exactly. I think this is where a lot of books fall down on the job. We don't need the 'here's a sample session' so much as a discussion of roleplaying and a set of suggestions. This needs to be in the PHB as much as all that adventure and gming advice needs to be in the DMG.

I'm in agreement with your conclusion.
But I don't see how that ties to the statement you quoted which switches out RP with adventure creation. And more importantly, there is a big difference between suggestions and mechanics. You seem to be saying that you agree with one thing and then defending something completely different.

 

[Arkhandus]

They damned well better not take the 'roleplaying' out of the world's first roleplaying game. It just doesn't make sense to keep such material out of the core rulebooks when it's half the game's freakin' definition (the other half being it's wargaming elements).

 

[BryonD]

They damned well better not take the 'roleplaying' out of the world's first roleplaying game. It just doesn't make sense to keep such material out of the core rulebooks when it's half the game's freakin' definition (the other half being it's wargaming elements).

No one has suggested that they take out anything that has been there before.

 

[Jib]

Many of you most often just add it the role-play element of the game without thinking about it. But for others if they are not taught to create a well rounded character they will not do it. If you ever have had the pleasure to play with a munchkin you know of what I speak.

I don't blame the "kick in the door and kill" style of play but I think it gets boring after a few sessions. If you character is rooted in the game and has something at stake it changes the entire feel of D&D. Many of you might do this naturally, others might need a few paragraphs to suggest how do place these elements in the basic D&D game. When your character becomes a vital part of the story the game becomes more than a hack n' slash table top MMO.

If they even just suggested that the opening section on character creation was "Rich has an idea for a new character he'd like to play in Jame's Thursday night game. He'd like to create a Wizard who has spent the most part of his life researching and cataloging magic at the University. He assigns 16 to his Intelligence to show his book smart background and dedication to details. Rich then assigns his two lowest roles of 9 and 9 to the characters Wisdom and Charisma to show his lack of real world application and social skills."

IMHO (and you are free to disagree) stupid play often comes from the lack of the role play part of the D&D expereince. It is also something that once you taste you will forever desire again.

 

[The Little Raven]

Yep, because I'll not only give a 12-13 years old the PHB for his birthday, but also a subscription to DDI

If he's incapable of figuring out how to apply the dynamic of those childhood games like "Cops & Robbers" or "Make Believe" or anything of the sort, then maybe D&D isn't the game for him.

I don't want the books I by to have sections of rule information cut out just to compensate for people that can't figure out improv with rules (since that's all game-based roleplaying really is).

 

[Jib]

But Morun what if you have to play with those people? The ones who 'can't figure it out'? What are you going to do? Walk out of a con? Walk out on a group of friends? Someone has to 'teach' some people another way to play the game than run it like an MMO.

Children today are less likely to engage in direct social interaction and conflict. Shy or introverted people are often drawn to our hobby and may need a little help. You can show a few people how to play the game but not everyone has a friendly Mourn to show them the ropes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No one has suggested that they take out anything that has been there before.

Actually, they have, with F4nboy's post above ("rp-free" etc. - currently the PHB has about one page on it). The point remains, and is being ignored - if no-one teaches genuinely new players, they won't know how to - thus they will inevitably go through a certain period of playing the game without any significant RP, particularly if they are ex-MMORPG players. This is fine for WotC, but not so fine for any of us who have to play with them, and thus "break them in".

It's easy for us experienced RPers to sit around and say "Hahaha it's obvious!", but the fact is, many of us learnt to RP over time, and many of us learnt from games which weren't D&D, and which offered a clearer perspective on what RP was, and why you think about the character, not just "How to win" (which, down the road, often leads to the worst kinds of munchkinism).

I don't think we need any "role-playing rules", per se, so don't be confused. That's nice in some games, and you could work it into alignment, but like you, I'd rather not.

What we should have is a very basic intro to the idea of RP in the PHB - An example game section would be fine for this, so long as the players are clearly role-playing, and the concept of role-playing, if not actually explored, should at least be mentioned. This is an RPG, for now, not a tactical boardgame. We should also have a section like in the current PHB, or Shadowrun, that causes people to think about their characters a bit more - Shadowrun's "20 Questions" was a masterpiece, and a similar, adapted version of it could be used for 4E (as it's D&D, you'd phrase it as an optional thing to do with your character, not a necessary part of character creation).

In the DMG role-playing should be properly explained, in depth, "good" and "bad" role-playing explained, particularly with emphasis on dealing with disruptive players (which can be tricky, especially for kids), and a suggestion of entirely optional XP awards for good RP put in (note the entirely optional part - you just have it there to make the DM feel like it's okay to do so - remebering that young and inexperienced DMs tend to lack the initiative to do that sort of thing by themselves).

 

[F4NBOY]

"

What we should have is a very basic intro to the idea of RP in the PHB - An example game section would be fine for this, so long as the players are clearly role-playing, and the concept of role-playing, if not actually explored, should at least be mentioned. This is an RPG, for now, not a tactical boardgame. We should also have a section like in the current PHB, or Shadowrun, that causes people to think about their characters a bit more - Shadowrun's "20 Questions" was a masterpiece, and a similar, adapted version of it could be used for 4E (as it's D&D, you'd phrase it as an optional thing to do with your character, not a necessary part of character creation).

There are so many styles of RP, so many different ways to do it in the game. If they put some "example of roleplaying" in the game it'll be like: Hey that's what RP is! But it will be wrong. It will be biased and incomplete.

I don't like it. I don't like when I read a WOD book and the rules say: "When you roll your attack you must describe it to the other players because it's a roleplaying game". What If i don't like to describe it, or is it so cool to describe how you shoot every bullet from your gun, that can be kinda boring for some people after sometime.

Yeah for experienced players it may be obvious, but in the pratical world, older players pass their knowledge to new players. My style of RP is pretty much the same from the guys who brought me to the game. Books can't do that the way real people can.

I know people that just started playing RPG by themselves and ended up RPing just like everyonelse. That's not a real issue. The world will not fall down and the game won't suck if the player says: "My character asks for a beer" instead of saying it with a dwarven-like voice: "Gimme an ale lad!".

RP is something that can make the game funnier. You add it as long as it's good for the game. It's not needed.

It is clearly a strong subjective discussion, and I think all subjective matters should be left out of the RULE book. You can have a book to give people tips for roleplaying, noobs and veterans, I wouldn't feel outraged by that.
I still think the best suplement to improve my RP is reading fantasy novels and watching cool fantasy movies. Aren't we really just mimicing cool things we see in many fantasy works, and reviving that in the games because they are so cool and we love to feel we are engaged in the same kind of stories and adventures? Let's go directly to the source.

I need a book to tell what I can and what I can't do in the game. I don't need a book to tell me how to do it.