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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Dude, you've never read that in a WoD book, so claiming you have really weakens your argument, for my money. Surely there's no need to make stuff up? The first time I ever read about describing my attacks in an RPG was quite definately an AD&D product, too. I suspect it was in the 2E PHB.

As for books can't do it the way real people can, I quite agree, yet somehow, I came to be a much better roleplayer, in all styles, by reading books then doing what I'd learned about. The players who introduced me to D&D were terrible, terrible roleplayers by my later standards - both of them thought, for example, you shouldn't be able to play a character less smart than yourself, and that out-of-game knowledge was entirely acceptable, as was making your character as dominatingly powerful as possible, and until I learnt from about it from other sources, I had no real concept of "character background".

I remember what a revelation Shadowrun was to me, with it's 20 Questions, how, after that, I enjoyed ALL RPGs much more, as both a GM and a player, and how I noticed my players were enjoying it more, too.

I'm not asking for detailed RP direction - Do not imply that I am.

What I am specifically asking for is a 20-questions analogue (which fits in to ALL styles of roleplaying, I would argue), and some basic "how to deal with asses" stuff in the DMG. That's not the excessive, restrictive ZIS IS HOW YOU VIL ROLEPLAY SCUMPIG! stuff that you seem to be making it out to be. It's empowering to teach people this, not disempowering, and I speak from experience when I say that.

I learned from books far more than people, when it came to RP. Playing with highly experienced RPs later in life, apparently I'd learnt well, because I've never had any difficults, indeed, quite the contrary. If it wasn't for Shadowrun, and later advice in various other RPGs (not just WW products by any means), then I wouldn't have progressed in the same way.

As for why WotC shouldn't make an RP book - No-one would buy it, particularly not the inexperienced RPers, who would have no idea of it's purpose. I suspect you are cogniscent of this, and suggesting it a tricksy way.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, they have, with F4nboy's post above ("rp-free" etc. - currently the PHB has about one page on it).

Read in the context of the OP, I disagree.
The specific point was RP *mechanics*. I read his post to implicitly include that point. A brief introduction to the basic idea is an assumed.

I was responding to Arkhandus comment, which I read to replace the idea of mechanics with anything RP at all. I think, unless I read him wrong, he was greatly changing the topic. I just wanted to move things back to the mechanics topic.

 

[F4NBOY]

Dude, you've never read that in a WoD book, so claiming you have really weakens your argument, for my money. Surely there's no need to make stuff up? The first time I ever read about describing my attacks in an RPG was quite definately an AD&D product, too. I suspect it was in the 2E PHB.

nWoD Corebook, p.150: "During combat, the Storyteller describes the changing environment
after each turn... These descriptions should be as detailed and creative as possible. This is the Storyteller’s chance to show off her narrative talents and to turn a series of dice rolls into a dramatic, amusing and entertaining story for the benefit* of all."

*:Hallelujah!

I'm not asking for detailed RP direction - Do not imply that I am.

I'm not implying anything, so don't imply that I'm implying.

That's not the excessive, restrictive ZIS IS HOW YOU VIL ROLEPLAY SCUMPIG! stuff that you seem to be making it out to be. It's empowering to teach people this, not disempowering, and I speak from experience when I say that.

I'm sorry, but everything you say really sound to me like that. Things like:
-wouldn't have progressed in the same way.
-I came to be a much better roleplayer
-highly experienced RPs
-I remember what a revelation Shadowrun was to me
-not just "How to win" (which, down the road, often leads to the worst kinds of munchkinism).
-Sure, people like you and me, experienced RPers, will be RPing and loving it, but unless the book explains to the newbs, the information is NOT going to magically appear in their brains.

What's a good or bad roleplayer? Experienced RPs? Because they played for too long or are too "good"? Munchkinism is bad? why? It's for you, but do you think it's for every one. Maybe some people like and think that "How to rolpleay (wich, down the road, often leads to the worst kinds of boredom) Who's wrong and who's right?
You have your opinion about RP, but it's a subjective opinion, you can't really consider that to be a truth to everyone.
All that you said so far would be completelly correct IF RP wasn't a subjective matter. But you keep talking as if it were, If there was an specifically definition of what RP is or isn't. If it was something black and white, but it's not. You keep selling a "truth" that's only a truth to you and people that think like you.
I have a perfect religious analogy for that discussion, but the Rules do not allow me to post it here

As for why WotC shouldn't make an RP book - No-one would buy it, particularly not the inexperienced RPers, who would have no idea of it's purpose. I suspect you are cogniscent of this, and suggesting it a tricksy way.

Please don't ascribe motives to me.
And for the record, nobody would buy it because it would be a useless book.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You keep selling a "truth" that's only a truth to you and people that think like you.

Wow, hypocrisy and a wild misrepresentation of my position, great combination! Particularly lovely when you directly spit on all my experiences I said by saying "roleplaying books are useless". They weren't to me, but apparently that doesn't fit into your "truth", eh? I don't believe you seriously think that because Shadowrun's 20 questions were awesome for me, I'm saying that they need to be facistly enforced - I specifically say otherwise in my post, but apparently you'd rather ignore that, because again, it doesn't fit in to your "truth" about that "roleplaying facist" - Next thing you know I'll be in your basement with a gun FORCING you to roleplay! Me and the Rules Police!

Also, you prove I'm right with your quote - no-one is talking about describing "each bullet" or even each attack, just saying what happens as a result of said attacks between turns. Something I've never seen a D&D DM not do...

The 2E combat example has the DM doing that, I believe, possibly the 3E one too. So what are you even crying about? You don't like people making you RP? No-one can make you. God forbid we give people some ideas they might find fun, though, or help them to think about their characters in a way they might find helpful! THAT'S FASCISM! Apparently... /rolleyes...

 

[F4NBOY]

I'm not defending any truth dude. I want people to be able to play the game the way the want to. I don't need a book to tell me how to play the game. I don't need a facist DM that has a vision of what a RPG should be and force everyone to follow his idea. I don't need rules, mechanics, texts, examples, etc to "solidify" a vision of roleplaying, that probably half the group won't agree with. It's just wasted paper.

You make jokes about Rules Police but I know many cool guys that stopped playing RPGs because of people like you, that believed in the things you believe (the right way to play the game, munchkinism and powergaming is bad, roleplaying is what RPG are about and all that, etc). They felt they were playing the game "the wrong way" because of this RP preaching. They felt they were "bad" gamers.

And when that new player sees someone saying: "we need to teach people "how" to play RPG, roleplaying is essential to RPG, RPG is not RPG without it" and he just doesn't feel that to be a fun factor for him, he will probably just think: "maybe RPGs are not for me, I only wanna roll some dice, kill monsters and level up". And then the RP preacher will probably say: "yeah, go play play WoW, you munchkin! RPG is not for you!" Great, one less player to play the good game, one less friend to have some fun together.

So I don't need a D&D PHB with a chapter "teaching" players how a RPG session should be. Everyone plays the way they like it. No bonus XP for the guy with better roleplaying, I don't need the shy player to feel he is being left behind (and I saw at least 2 good players stop playing because of that). No mechanical bonus for roleplaying, for the same reason. No mechanics influenced by roleplaying, the rules are and should be blind. Rule are black and white, they are fair, they are the game.

I don't need anything else. If I bring something else to the game, it's because I want to, not because it's needed. D&D doesn't need roleplaying to work or to be D&D, or to be a RPG. I don't want D&D books even slightly suggesting the contrary of that.

D&D is for everyone, the emo-player, the munchkin powergamer, the girlfriend that doesn't care about reading the books, the rules lawyer, the wanna-be actor, the dice roller, the roleplaying aficionado, fair DMs, evil DMs, nice DMs. It's a game for the intelectual elite and for the cheap masses. I don't see half that kinds of people playing WoD for the obvious reason. D&D is for everyone and the only way to keep that the way it is is keeping the book as fair and as black and white as possible. Maybe you are right, yes, I'm defending a "truth", my truth is:

RP-FREE!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

... You mean like my friends and I did, back when we were, like, twelve, playing D&D for the first time? Back before the existence of MMORPGs?

Seriously, think of the children!

 

[apoptosis]

... You mean like my friends and I did, back when we were, like, twelve, playing D&D for the first time? Back before the existence of MMORPGs?

Seriously, think of the children!

I think it would help to define what people mean by roleplaying and tying roleplaying into the mechanics. Frankly after having played indie games where roleplaying is tied intimately into the mechanics has convinced me that this is the best way to design a game.

By roleplaying i do not mean being an amateur thespian but that the characters desires, goals, flaws drive the story and the mechanics reward players and encourage them to do this.

I would basically have the game give NO xp for killing a creature unless the creature was important to one of the characters (and story).

Actions, plans etc. that further a characters goals or desires (or further the story) should be rewarded with bonuses or a bonus pool (or pool of action points etc.). Convincing the duke to let you marry his daughter (if that is important to the character) should give as much XP as killing the BBEG.

I know that i many people will hate this idea, but i feel this is the strongest foundation on which to design a game (of course this is all based on what i enjoy from roleplaying games).

 

[Jer]

By roleplaying i do not mean being an amateur thespian but that the characters desires, goals, flaws drive the story and the mechanics reward players and encourage them to do this.

I would basically have the game give NO xp for killing a creature unless the creature was important to one of the characters (and story).

Actions, plans etc. that further a characters goals or desires (or further the story) should be rewarded with bonuses or a bonus pool (or pool of action points etc.). Convincing the duke to let you marry his daughter (if that is important to the character) should give as much XP as killing the BBEG.

But there are a lot of games that work this way already. If I want to run a game like that, I can break out Sorcerer or Heroquest (both fine games). And I can make my D&D game work that way already without any extra rules if for some reason my players want to play that kind of game, but I can't talk them out of playing D&D.

I guess I wonder - why try to make D&D like other games? D&D works pretty well as a combat simulation you can frame roleplaying around - why try to manhandle it into a narrative structured game that you can perform combat in?

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm not defending any truth dude. I want people to be able to play the game the way the want to. I don't need a book to tell me how to play the game.

A great number of people do, though, if we're to ever realize more people picking the game up off the bookstore shelf and taking it home because it sounds like a good time. Most games don't sufficiently explain themselves to new players. In my experience, most people learned from other people, but that was before D&D was sold through the book trade. Now, the game is out there, but I'm willing to bet that the D&D For Dummies book does a better job of explaining what an RPG is.

I wish there was some way of determining how many people think D&D looks interesting, can't find out just what it is, and place it back on the shelf never to look at it again. I suspect it's a rather high number but there's no way of knowing. I think that a good solid description of what an RPG is and how it works is essencial in drawing more people to the hobby.

D&D doesn't need roleplaying to work or to be D&D, or to be a RPG. I don't want D&D books even slightly suggesting the contrary of that.

Thankfully, I'm certain you will be sorely disappointed in this area.

 

[F4NBOY]

I think that a good solid description of what an RPG is and how it works is essencial in drawing more people to the hobby.

Me too. I still don't see the need for a book "teaching" people how to roleplay "properly".

Thankfully, I'm certain you will be sorely disappointed in this area.

If 4E keeps being what D&D has always been, I'll keep myself satisfied.