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

[Charwoman Gene]

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

There is a hell of a big difference between telling people that the knight moves up 2 and over 1 and teaching grandmaster strategy. The PH should give enough roleplay advice and hooks to allow that, but not so much that those who are not receptive get turned off. 3e was a tad light on the rp side.

 

[apoptosis]

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?

You bring up a very good point. I think the other games have other different mechanics than D&D. My thought was to bridge the high fantasy tactical D&D game with ways to improve the roleplaying experience.

I was not thinking of completely overhauling the system, but instead enhancing the roleplaying aspects of the game.

OTOH if all people want is a combat simulation game with ad lib roleplaying then my ideas are pretty worthless

 

[Dinkeldog]

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.

I don't have the WoD books out to study, but in Exalted (at least first edition), you give mechanical gameplay benefits to people that describe what they're doing, with, theoretically, better benefits for more detail. As Exalted and WoD are both White Wolf, I don't think it's a stretch.

Personally, I really dislike those mechanical gameplay benefits. Why should one player get additional dice to roll because they're going into gory detail about exactly where the blood is splashing (slight hyperbole, but only slight)? Worse yet, how do you prevent DM favoritism?

Now, my primary Chicago group is pretty good about saying what they're doing, but when they fail miserably, you come back and say, "Well, you just wasted the last 5 minutes going into great detail about what you were doing in the last 6 seconds, down to the lighting and rainbow effect of shooting water across a sunny lawn, but really all you did was get your shoes wet." That has had a demoralizing effect in games I've played.

 

[(contact)]

Unless the book falls from a high shelf and knocks you out, it can't prevent roleplaying. But what was it doing on the shelf during a game anyway?

Lurking and waiting for its opportunity.

 

[(contact)]

I tend to agree that new gamers could use at least a heads-up as to what is possible with role-playing (not that there is really a right or wrong way to RP), but after reading the thread and thinking it through, I'm not sure its proper place is the PHB.

I agree that 3e didn't do enough, but I'm starting to think that the role-playing advice fits more properly with DnDinsider. There's a very playable version of the game with little or no RP in it whatsoever, and it's natural that the RP would enter into the game after the rules were mastered and understood.

That said, I think the fluff that they're working on for the game (elves are like this, the world is like that) will do more to encourage RP out of new players than any essay they might include at the back of the book. RP is a hat that needs a conceptual hook-- if you know that the Scablands are a blasted wasteland, and . . . hey, look at this . . . *you're* from the Scablands . . . all of a sudden it gets easier to envision Bob the Fighter as Lord Humungus.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I just don't want D&D to be a pure hackfest. To me, roleplaying is an important part of the D&D experience. If playing D&D won't get me the roleplaying I want, I might as well go buy White Wolf stuff.

F4NBOY, were you ever in the stituation of being a powergamer in a group of all Drama Queens? It seems like you were.

 

[apoptosis]

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

Doesn't a roleplaying game require roleplaying by definition (totally kidding)

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I don't have the WoD books out to study, but in Exalted (at least first edition), you give mechanical gameplay benefits to people that describe what they're doing, with, theoretically, better benefits for more detail. As Exalted and WoD are both White Wolf, I don't think it's a stretch.

Personally, I really dislike those mechanical gameplay benefits. Why should one player get additional dice to roll because they're going into gory detail about exactly where the blood is splashing (slight hyperbole, but only slight)?

A higher-level stunt is not so much about adding more detail, but about it being cooler in description. The three-die stunts are supposed to leave the table in awe (and so should likely be fairly rare).

The idea is to get the players to support the cinematic feel to the game, as opposed to saying "I hit the orc." You're not supposed to be stunting all the time, either, as that gets just as boring. And the GM is given specific license to disallow stunt dice if players are trying to abuse the option.

Worse yet, how do you prevent DM favoritism?

The same way you do in any other game. Social engineering, possibly followed by a beatdown or leaving the game.

Brad

 

[F4NBOY]

I just don't want D&D to be a pure hackfest. To me, roleplaying is an important part of the D&D experience.

What I want for myself is different from what I want for D&D. I like to roleplay, I have fun roleplaying and so on. But it's personal, I don't think it's fair to extend it to everyone on the table, its unfair to try to make everyone have the same kind of fun I have because people are different, I play and played with different types of people. I don't want the Core Book suggesting that it's funnier to play RPG with lots of roleplaying, or somekind of RP, or with no RP at all, I want it neutral, people play the way they want to.

Inviting the players to a game saying: "Hey, it's RPG so you need roleplaying, it's not a heckfest, it needs roleplaying to be real fun", is just the same as "We're going to have lunch and I'm paying, but you all gonna eat what I like to eat." It's pushing, forcing your personal taste over other people. It's like walking on the street shouting that your religion is the truth for salvation and happiness. It's irritating, keep it to yourself! Let people choose what is good for them. If they ask you what's that about you do your best, of course, but if they don't, don't push it!

If playing D&D won't get me the roleplaying I want, I might as well go buy White Wolf stuff.

I deeply believe the books are about the "G". The "RP" is about the people. No game should prevent you from having some roleplay fun if you wish(but people can). No book should force you to roleplay if you don't think it's fun(but people can).
I said "should" because there ARE games that impose that necessity of roleplaying, selling the idea that's the right way to play it, and I think that's plain intrusive, and IME it intimidated and driven away many potential players.
It IS possible to play on a table with all kinds of players, each one playing and enjoying the game the way they like it. If someone just wanna try something different, he will look for it. No one needs others guys telling us what's wrong or right regarding taste. And roleplaying is taste, and taste is subjective. I want to play with everyone, not the people that thinks and feel like I do. D&D has always let me do it properly. I want it to stay what it is, a game for everyone to play with everyone.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Despite the nay-sayers who seem to be piling on RE, I think that the points he makes are spot on. I think that the 3e rulebooks were too light on the idea of giving your character a background and motivations, and first timers will almost certainly be grateful and benefit from helpful suggestions that will enable them to flesh out a 'character' rather than just an assemblage of stats.

Role Playing in this context isn't talking about thespianism at the table (as someone has mentioned a few posts ago. The 3e DMG is at least good in validating both first-person and third-person narration of PC actions), it is learning what it is like to flesh out characters with motivations, agendas, backgrounds and so forth. I didn't magically 'get' this when I started playing D&D, I picked it up from things I read by others back in those heady days of the 70's.

Similarly, advice to DMs on adventure design are important in terms of supporting role playing, in that adventures which contain no social component and no 'exploring the bizarre environment' components are less likely to engender much of the way of role-playing opportunities.

Regards