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

[cdrcjsn]

I actually think 4E will outshine 3E in teachability too; it seems that was one of the primary design goals (and a really smart one, at that). Despite that, I haven't had so much difficulty teaching 3.5 that I'd switch purely for that reason.

I wouldn't either.

However the promised ease of DMing certainly would. Given that characters seem to have a linear rather than an exponential growth in power level and complexity, I suspect high level play will feel similar to low level play.

All too often I have too many players and not enough DMs and one of the major reasons given is "I'm not comfortable DMing high level games."

And having edited and written a few scenarios for use by others, the math in statting out monsters is a huge pain for the short amount of "screen time" the monsters see.

I was well prepared to hate 4e because of the sudden way it ended a campaign I loved and dedicated a lot of time to (Living Greyhawk). However, looking at the new rules released in DDXP and other places has gotten me excited again and looking forward to the new campaign.

 

[johan_seraphim]

What's third edition got to do with it?

The poster you quoted didn't comment at all about v3.5 or its armor types. He was commenting on the new 4e armor, I believe.

I was just commenting on the 4e "godarmor"...3e had nothing to do with it.


Plus if you look at an earlier post of mine, I'm going to purchase 4e anyway...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Anyway, it's no biggie. The tactic of bringing up 3rd edition to defend criticism of 4e is already entrenched, so it's futile for me to worry about it.

I know the topic's already been beaten to death, but it *is* relevant, when someone is talking about something that WotC is introducing, or a direction that WotC is taking, with 4e, to note that said "new introduction" or "new direction" is in fact not new.

"It already works like this in 3e" is actually a perfectly valid rebuttal to statements like "I won't be switching because WotC decided to include x new thing in 4e." Those statements are pretty common around here, hence the use of that rebuttal.

Incidentally, I'm aware that you weren't "talking about 3e," johan_seraphim, but the counterpoint raised (not by me) earlier was that this stuff already exists in 3e, so seeing it as evidence of 4e's "WoW-ization/anime-ization" of D&D doesn't really hold water (except for the cheesy name, on which I agree with you 100%).

 

[pemerton]

You can engage in roleplaying with any system at all

But the system used surely affects the nature of the roleplaying undertaken, doesn't it? A game of Call of Cthulhu would feel pretty different from a game of The Dying Earth, given the completely different play experiences each is designed to deliver.

Could you imagine the immense commercial failure and general market disgust if WoW required its players to engage in role-playing, if RP servers were the standard and not the anomaly of game-play. Immense blocks of florid text taking the place of PvP and huge multi-player raiding parties.

I don't really know what "florid text" has to do with roleplaying - in my experience first person descriptions of character action and conversation are certainly not necessary for roleplaying to take place, and not always sufficient either.

Surely roleplaying is about taking on a role within the game, and having the game (via its mechanics, including in particular those mechanics that determine who can narrate what) permit the exploration of that role. Monopoly and chess don't become roleplaying games just because I speak in a funny first person voice when I move a piece. A railroaded 2nd ed AD&D module does not become roleplaying just because I speak in a funny first person voice when I describe my PC's (mandated) action.

Look at D&D (1972) and D&D (2008). Which one is closer in concept and execution to a computer game?

Neither that I can see.

The first is about supporting operational play in which the players directly engage the GM to have their PC's actions resolved successfully. The unit of play, and of success or failure, is either the expedition or the campaign.

The second (as far as I can tell from the evidence) is about supporting a very high degree of player control via ultra-tight mechanics. The GM's role will be to provide antagonists as an obstacle to PC protagonism, but the rules seem intended to run themselves.

Given that videogames do not support player control at all - the stakes, the themes, the relationship between mechanics and gameworld are all determined by the programmer, not the players - I don't see any deep similarity between 4e and computer games.

PnP loses out as its distinct qualities slowly blend with the qualities that have a larger mass appeal.

The principal thing that distinguishes table-top roleplaying from the computer variety is the capacity for players to control the action, the themes, the stakes, the interpretation of the game experience. Everything about 4e seems intended to enhance all this.

 

[Jhulae]

But the system used surely affects the nature of the roleplaying undertaken, doesn't it? A game of Call of Cthulhu would feel pretty different from a game of The Dying Earth, given the completely different play experiences each is designed to deliver.

Actually, part of what you're describing is the Setting, not the System. If I used Gurps for instance, a fantasy setting would have a different feel than a horror setting, even though it's the same system.

RP is really system independent. Some systems that supposedly 'promote' RP fall flat with a group that doesn't want to roleplay but just engage in combat, while other systems that have great 'combat' rules also have great RP.

It's all hinges on the group.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I know the topic's already been beaten to death, but it *is* relevant, when someone is talking about something that WotC is introducing, or a direction that WotC is taking, with 4e, to note that said "new introduction" or "new direction" is in fact not new.

"It already works like this in 3e" is actually a perfectly valid rebuttal to statements like "I won't be switching because WotC decided to include x new thing in 4e." Those statements are pretty common around here, hence the use of that rebuttal.

Incidentally, I'm aware that you weren't "talking about 3e," johan_seraphim, but the counterpoint raised (not by me) earlier was that this stuff already exists in 3e, so seeing it as evidence of 4e's "WoW-ization/anime-ization" of D&D doesn't really hold water (except for the cheesy name, on which I agree with you 100%).

On the other hand I have seen the opposite as well. People saying "Look at how great 4e is because it does this or that" and have 3E supporters chiime in to say that that isn't that new and that 3e does or can do just the same thing. To compare versions it is neccesary to compare the things that are actually different.

 

[Wolfspider]

I know the topic's already been beaten to death, but it *is* relevant, when someone is talking about something that WotC is introducing, or a direction that WotC is taking, with 4e, to note that said "new introduction" or "new direction" is in fact not new.

Yes, you're right. It's appropriate to bring up D&D 3e in that case. That's not always the case, though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, you're right. It's appropriate to bring up D&D 3e in that case. That's not always the case, though.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem clear to everyone when it is actually appropriate and when it's inappropriate to compare to 3E. Given time and fair criticism, most will have gotten it, I think.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Yes, you're right. It's appropriate to bring up D&D 3e in that case. That's not always the case, though.

Yeah, I agree. To do so in cases other than that tends to smack of epistemological relativism. The fact that 3.x "got something wrong" really should have nothing to do with whether 4e is "getting something wrong."

 

[pemerton]

Actually, part of what you're describing is the Setting, not the System. If I used Gurps for instance, a fantasy setting would have a different feel than a horror setting, even though it's the same system.

But it's not all about Setting. Call of Cthulhu is about the player bringing his or her response into line with a mechanically-dictated state of affairs (ie going insane from fear and exposure to things one was not meant to know). The Dying Earth is about the player using the mechanics to establish a state of affairs in which s/he can produce a certain response among her fellow players by uttering a tagline. These are important differences dictated by the System.

RP is really system independent.

Well obviously I disagree - with examples like the above in mind, I think it's pretty plain that the content and character and purpose of roleplaying will vary from system to system.

Some systems that supposedly 'promote' RP fall flat with a group that doesn't want to roleplay but just engage in combat, while other systems that have great 'combat' rules also have great RP.

I don't really follow the contrast between combat and roleplaying. In a lot of RPGs (eg D&D, Rolemaster, RQ, TRoS) combat is pretty central to the roleplaying.