D&D 4E 4E: The day the game ate the roleplayer?

[Magus Coeruleus]

Have you seen how rituals work? Has anyone?
That reminds me of the Dark & Light (PC game) hype. Most information which was released was negative but the fanboys always talked about a secret version of the game which fixes everything and is supercool. And when the game was released there was no secret version and it tanked.

First, I resent the implication that I am a fanboy and would appreciate if you would either retract that or clarify that you did not intend to insult me. You have no idea what my attitude toward 4e is (I don't think I do either and if you search the boards you will not find anything from me passing judgment).

Second, I did not answer "Rituals." I suggested "Rituals?" *and* I highlighted the portions of the OP that I felt suggested that rituals might be the answer to at least part of his question/concern.

Third, how is it that when we talk about a system about which not everything has been revealed you are free to assume the worst and attack anything not yet explained yet I cannot merely suggest a potential solution given information revealed so far? We are both working with incomplete information yet somehow the onus is on me to prove that the system doesn't suck and not on you to explain how you know that the system is broken/flawed/insufficient without the complete picture?

Fourth, we do not know much about rituals in the game but we have heard that that they are supposed to fulfill a certain niche. The portions of the OP I called out are those which correspond to what we have been told about rituals (out of combat, longer duration, more freeform), so I think my suggestion that rituals may be filling the OP's perceived gap is reasonable. And again, note I suggested it ("Rituals?"). I did not simply dismiss the OP out of hand as you appear to have dismissed me as a fanboy.

You are entitled to read rabid pro-4eism into anything that does not assume the worst about what we don't yet know but since I did not in fact take any position, extreme or otherwise, kindly keep the insults to yourself or (if you did not intend one) please be more careful in your choice of words. I didn't deserve that.

 

[hong]

White Wolf is brilliant. All their games are basically a creamy core of angst wrapped inside a crunchy shell of superpowers.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

White Wolf is brilliant. All their games are basically a creamy core of angst wrapped inside a crunchy shell of superpowers.

It is funny though since in all my PnP experience the most angsty characters are the D&D ones. When it comes to WoD most players I have, have their characters embrace what they are, so for example; vampire, "alright then time to start sacrificing some humans to get some Cruac magic to spy on the rival-vampires so we can rule the city."

 

[boolean]

Just a point here. Gandalf goes toe to toe with a Balrog and comes out in a tie. I'd consider him pretty bad assed.

The other view: Man, Balrog's are lame! They can't even beat an old dude with a stick!

 

[Kaisoku]

On the other hand, a bad system can significantly disrupt roleplaying by grinding against the very ideas and feel of the kind of world you want to play in. What I've seen of 4E makes me think it would jump up and maul immersion around the head and shoulders on a regular basis.

...

It isn't about roleplaying without the rules. That is easy. Roleplaying WITH the rules is the issue.

This is exactly what I see here as well. And it does happen with every edition. You can't play standard D&D rules (at nearly any edition) without it being Vancian-ish style, "per day" magic.

Roleplaying your favorite wizard in a fantasy book that didn't emulate this style was impossible within the rules. Hence, the addition of spellpoint rules and reserve feats, etc.

The rules are telling you what you can do in the game world. This can directly impact your roleplaying experience if you are wanting to do something other than what the rules say. It's not just about power level, it's about what can and can't be done in the game world.
Only so much can be covered by flavour text.


Now, my opinion is that 4e feels like it might be capable of getting closer to giving a more flexible set of rules to accommodate more concepts. Especially if the DMG provides help with rules altering and DM fiat.


There can be fundemental immersion flaws that can get in the way though, depending on how much of a "living, breathing world" you intend to make. Per Encounter abilities are fine when it comes to a game mechanic, as it can more readily balance abilities in terms of combat.
However, if you want more simulation, it can break immersion. Why did a spell last longer in one encounter, but not this time, etc. It's a mechanic that is meant to be glossed over, but for a group of players trying to think as their character would (as opposed to as a player outside the game would), it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.


This is the difference between saying:

- This ability lasts for 5 minutes, and requires X time of non-combat rest to recover and reuse.
vs
- This ability lasts until the end of the encounter and can be reused by the next encounter with a brief rest.

When building a world that "makes sense" with the game mechanics, the first one helps a lot more and breaks immersion less, because it's more clearly defined, and has more than just gamist balance in mind.

 

[Derro]

This is the difference between saying:

- This ability lasts for 5 minutes, and requires X time of non-combat rest to recover and reuse.
vs
- This ability lasts until the end of the encounter and can be reused by the next encounter with a brief rest.

When building a world that "makes sense" with the game mechanics, the first one helps a lot more and breaks immersion less, because it's more clearly defined, and has more than just gamist balance in mind.

Dude, totally.

That's all I got.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just a point here. Gandalf goes toe to toe with a Balrog and comes out in a tie. I'd consider him pretty bad assed.

And, Conan had a suit of Narrativium that protected him.

Yes, system can hamper roleplay. That's true. A good system will promote roleplay to some degree by rewarding certain behavior. Previously systems thought they could promote roleplay with the stick approach and punish behavior, but, that never really works.

D&D has never really promoted roleplay. Not really. There are no mechanical benefits to roleplaying in D&D. In any iteration. Any benefits you derive will come from the DM, not the mechanics. Now, that being said, 3e did go a few steps towards trying to promote roleplay by giving a system based approach to interaction outside of combat - the social skills.

Now, we know for an absolute fact that we have not seen any of the social encounter mechanics yet. Not a one. So, we cannot judge in any way, good or bad, how they will stack up in 4e. It's not that 4e promotes combat, it's that that's all we've been shown.

Well, at least we still know that most of these skills still seem to exist. Considering the bare-bone nature of the 3E "social encounter mechanics", 4E can't make things worse, I believe. That wouldn't be enough, off course.

There can be fundemental immersion flaws that can get in the way though, depending on how much of a "living, breathing world" you intend to make. Per Encounter abilities are fine when it comes to a game mechanic, as it can more readily balance abilities in terms of combat.
However, if you want more simulation, it can break immersion. Why did a spell last longer in one encounter, but not this time, etc. It's a mechanic that is meant to be glossed over, but for a group of players trying to think as their character would (as opposed to as a player outside the game would), it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb.


This is the difference between saying:

- This ability lasts for 5 minutes, and requires X time of non-combat rest to recover and reuse.
vs
- This ability lasts until the end of the encounter and can be reused by the next encounter with a brief rest.

When building a world that "makes sense" with the game mechanics, the first one helps a lot more and breaks immersion less, because it's more clearly defined, and has more than just gamist balance in mind.

Well, by the introduction pages to the DDXP, it seems as if the first is actually what the rules say, but the "philosophy" behind is the second one.
It also appears as if several effects that last a significant duration now also require an action to sustain, so it's easy to see why the durations change from encounter to encounter. But I am not sure it applies to everything with a duration.

 

[hong]

- This ability lasts for 5 minutes, and requires X time of non-combat rest to recover and reuse.
vs
- This ability lasts until the end of the encounter and can be reused by the next encounter with a brief rest.

When building a world that "makes sense" with the game mechanics, the first one helps a lot more and breaks immersion less, because it's more clearly defined, and has more than just gamist balance in mind.

Conversely, when running a game that works well with the game mechanics, the second one runs faster, is less susceptible to players gaming the system, and produces results which mirror actual play most of the time anyway.

 

[mach1.9pants]

This is the difference between saying:

- This ability lasts for 5 minutes, and requires X time of non-combat rest to recover and reuse.
vs
- This ability lasts until the end of the encounter and can be reused by the next encounter with a brief rest.

4E is both. A per encounter power (which can be used once per encounter or every 5 minutes outside of combat). A power with one encounter duration lasts for one encounter (which is assumed to be 5 minutes in length no matter how many rounds it is) or 5 minutes outside combat.

 

[Victim]

Fine for a game, bad for a roleplaying game. Why? Shouldn't a real roleplayer be able to roleplay no matter what the game mechanics are? Yes, but if you go around telling people that you're the exiled son of a prince who had to live on the harsh back streets of a city of druids and assassinates people with secrets you learned from the trees themselves, you'll look a bit stupid in the first fight when your abilities are distinctly un-treeish.

"Leafildor, quickly, use your connection to the trees to make that oak there attack!"
"Um, I can't. That's a once per day thing."
"But you said you were the fallen prince of trees!"
"Well, I am! Once a day until the start of my next round."

Yeah, and how is that any different from the character running out of entangles or whatever? What exactly are you advocating, no mechanical limits on abilities? Be careful making RP claims that the character can't back up mechanically - unless the point is that the character is more show than go.