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

[eleran]

This is exactly correct. The actual experience that playing a game provides depends on two things. One is the "culture" that's built up around the game and the other is the "rules" that dictate how the game is to be played.

Fer example, WoD plays like an EMO kid's paradise because (a) everyone else that plays WoD "knows" that's how it's "supposed" to be played and because (b) to an extent the rules support that sort of play.

If 3E D&D provides a certain experience and you change the rules in a way that supports a style of play that's different from that, I'm fairly confident that over time the culture that exists around the game will shift to reflect the new rules. Which means that people that don't want to change have to stick with the prior edition for find something else.

So, in effect your saying that if my group plays 4e, despite our stessing of roleplaying, and our many years of roleplaying experience, we won't be able to roleplay using 4e? Cause that is what it sounds like you are saying.

 

[Psion]

Ummm, no it isn't. Not without using optional rules. The DMG only gives out XP for defeating challenges that have a risk to you(i.e. traps and monsters). No risk=No XP.

There is a section that describes how to give out story rewards and the like but it is labeled optional.

And? I use it. It's there; I didn't have to house rule it.

That wizards' recognizes for some major subset of players, D&D is still a hack-and-slash game is no skin off my nose or impact to my playstyle.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Or, if ki ends up as a distinct power source later on, a mojo thing.

2013: PHB VI: Red Bull, Cold Fusion, and Mojo Powered Heroes.

 

[BryonD]

So, in effect your saying that if my group plays 4e, despite our stessing of roleplaying, and our many years of roleplaying experience, we won't be able to roleplay using 4e? Cause that is what it sounds like you are saying.

Um, can you help me see exactly where in that he said anything remotely like "won't be able"?
You seem to have seen it so strongly that it demanded bolding. So I'm not sure how I missed it.

 

[BryonD]

And? I use it. It's there; I didn't have to house rule it.

That wizards' recognizes for some major subset of players, D&D is still a hack-and-slash game is no skin off my nose or impact to my playstyle.

Further, I would not even agree that the rules are optional. They are right there on page 40. Nothing says they are optional. The amount of XP is left up to the DM, but that makes sense.
So I guess the lack of a formula somehow equates to "optional".

 

[jasin]

Personally I have one serious issue with 4E and that is explaining in character the daily restriction on abilities (and to a lesser extend the per encounter) for martial characters. I really have no idea whatsoever on how to handle this.

I see it as a meta-game cinematic issue. It's not that the fighter is inherently unable to perform his Diamond Amaranth Whirling Slice more than once per day, it just so happens that the circumstances are right and the enemies present appropriate openings only once per day (and the fighter's player gets to decide when that happens).

 

[HeinorNY]

I got an image in my mind's eye, a video game first-person shooter with a 4E wizard pew-pewing out Magic Missiles as fast as the player could click, with the number of health surges remaining to him listed in the upper corner of the screen like health packs. Eventually a bar at the bottom of the screen will fill and he can do a fireball.

Good old times.

I'm also pretty sure 4E will make better video-games than 1E, 2E and even 3E ever did. Good catch.

 

[TwoSix]

However, if you want more simulation, it can break immersion. Why did a spell last longer in one encounter, but not this time, etc.

I've seen this argument a few times, and never understood it. Why WOULD spells always last the same amount of time? I mean, aren't they magic? Also, when do things ever last the same amount of time in the real world?

Let's say I bought a Toyota Camry, and my brother bought a Toyota Camry at the same time. We did equal amounts of maintenance on the car, and drove a roughly equivalent amount. But my car breaks down at 150,000 miles, and his is still running at 200,000 miles. Why doesn't that break my real-world immersion?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Further, I would not even agree that the rules are optional. They are right there on page 40. Nothing says they are optional. The amount of XP is left up to the DM, but that makes sense.
So I guess the lack of a formula somehow equates to "optional".

No it doesn't make sense if we assume both are of equal importance. Why does the game rules provide details guidelines for rewarding XP and treasure for monsters, but nothing more then the most bare-bone for anything outside of combats? Is it somehow easier for the DM to figure out XP for non-combat encounters then for combat encounters?
Why can the system provide me only guidelines for fair challenges and fair encounters in regards to combat, but not outside of it?

In essence, the short section on non-combat gained XP tell me that this isn't as important for the game as the combat part. It's nearly as optional as the rules for firearms (far later in the book).

Any DM just starting the game will find the XP system for combat encounters very comforting, since it tells you next to anything you might want to know (well, except how to determine ELs for monsters with varying CR). But non-combat XP? He will feel left alone. And this might him leading to hesitate using that part of the system.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Further, I would not even agree that the rules are optional. They are right there on page 40. Nothing says they are optional. The amount of XP is left up to the DM, but that makes sense.
So I guess the lack of a formula somehow equates to "optional".

It's been ages since I've read that section, I just always remembered them being optional. I just reread them to be sure. What they actually say is, "Should PCs get XP from quests and non combat activities? Some DMs think they should. This should only be done by very experienced DMs. If those DMs want to give out that XP, make sure you aren't ALSO giving XP out for monsters or you'll be giving out too much. Instead artificially lower the XP given by monsters and just give them that much as a story reward."

To me it still reads as: The default assumption is that characters only get XP from monsters and traps but, optionally, you could choose to change the rules to give out story XP instead. It really just spells out that the DM can change the rules and gives some guidelines on how to do it without breaking anything.