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

[FourthBear]

If using entirely different modeling systems for character powers is what enables good roleplaying, then systems like GURPS, HERO, the World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu, heck pretty much every other RPG in existence must be pretty miserable at enabling roleplaying. Most of them use models of PCs that differ far less between PC types than 1e and 2e. I suppose since Thieves in 1e and 2e used completely different skill systems for their thief abilities than any other PC, that's another point in favor of 1e and 2e in promoting roleplaying. Somehow I don't buy it. I suspect creating separate subsystems to simulate different character types doesn't have much to do with the quality of roleplaying in an RPG.

 

[Insight]

At some point, can we stop using extreme examples and theoretical situation in attempts to prove a point? I understand the skepticism people have towards 4th ed, but none of us has seen the finished product!

Honestly. It's like people complaining about the 2012 olympics because Susie Gymnast might get stiffed during the gold medal competition because someone heard that the Russian judge doesn't like her and he might be on the judges' panel.

"Well if X, Y, and Z all happen (and no one knows how X, Y, and Z work), then I won't play 4th ed. I'm going to stomp my feet and take my dice and go home boo hoo."

C'mon. Grow up.

 

[Derro]

Was that a fat joke? You big meanie.

That's cool. I'm at peace with my gut.

If only I could do something about these thighs though.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

"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."

In third edition Leafildor could do that 3/day, THAT makes sense! as every other thing he did. He couldn't do anything at will!

And again: when you see the ubber-powerful wizard blasting soldiers like flies, it means: Level 20 wizard whacking level 3 fighters. If somehow, fighters make it to level 20, that's another story.

Anyway, they said wizards will get the scarier per day abilities, so there you go.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I kinda thought that might be a reply. So I put a bit more thought to it.

Sure, it's visible in all editions and many games. But it looks to me like it's being encouraged more by this rule set.

Only in the way that you get even an option.

The move+attack/Full Attack routine of a fighter doesn't leave a lot of room for interesting or powerful combinations. (I'd say using your lower attacks for tripping was next to the only powerful combination I can think of - and I abused it heavily. )

3.x had also a lot of standard routines. The buffing in the morning, the wand of cure light wounds after combat. In combat, the routine was a little to simple to notice it that much - at least for non-spellcasters.

 

[Derro]

Only in the way that you get even an option.

The move+attack/Full Attack routine of a fighter doesn't leave a lot of room for interesting or powerful combinations. (I'd say using your lower attacks for tripping was next to the only powerful combination I can think of - and I abused it heavily. )

3.x had also a lot of standard routines. The buffing in the morning, the wand of cure light wounds after combat. In combat, the routine was a little to simple to notice it that much - at least for non-spellcasters.

Yeah, I don't mean to sound like I'm venerating 3.x as being the end of all systems. It had more ridiculous exploits than I care to think about. But at the very least those exploits had to be developed. I get the feeling that 4e just hands you your powers as you progress. No bad builds is a good thing but it also sort of implies that you've got a few fairly stratified paths to walk down and that variation is unlikely because it is sub-optimal.

My concern is that because the characters are given a certain array with any given build that they're always going to be using the same tactics. I get the feeling that the differences in the tiers are just going to be the escalation and combination of existing powers. That is the essence of modern gamist play. And I know that is a bit of a hot button word but nothing has indicated to me that 4e is anything but gamist. Even the designers said it was a game about butt-kicking. Which is not pejorative but definitely says volumes of ultimate design goals.

 

[Barastrondo]

If using entirely different modeling systems for character powers is what enables good roleplaying, then systems like GURPS, HERO, the World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu, heck pretty much every other RPG in existence must be pretty miserable at enabling roleplaying. Most of them use models of PCs that differ far less between PC types than 1e and 2e. I suppose since Thieves in 1e and 2e used completely different skill systems for their thief abilities than any other PC, that's another point in favor of 1e and 2e in promoting roleplaying. Somehow I don't buy it. I suspect creating separate subsystems to simulate different character types doesn't have much to do with the quality of roleplaying in an RPG.

That's pretty much my take on it. My experience has been that when players have to spend less time picking out just the right subsystem and adjusting their expectations from what they'd like to do to what the subsystem allows them to do, they get right into character a lot more quickly. Generally, at any rate. I do know a guy who hates that in HERO, fire powers and lightning powers are only as differentiated as you personally make them — but for the most part, my players enjoy consistency of mechanics as a design principle. Differentiating their characters is partly a matter of tweaking character mechanics, but mostly? It's just plain roleplay, the kind where character sheets are an optional enabler and not a must-have.

 

[Halivar]

But at the very least those exploits had to be developed.

In my gaming group, this became the substitute for roleplaying. That is to say, they believed that having unique abilities and being able to do stuff made their characters "interesting" and "three-dimensional."

I get the feeling that 4e just hands you your powers as you progress.

I have great hopes that this means my fellow players will spend the time they used in 3.x crunching numbers and picking feats/spells/prestige classes out of the splat books on developing a personality for their character, instead.

This is just my gaming group, and YMMV.

 

[Hathorym]

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.

Your analogy scares me - not simply because I sat there and watched what was, initially an interesting MMO turn into crap stew deluxe, but because the notion that it could be applied to 4e simply makes me shiver. I think the difference, however, is that unlike the designers of D&L, the designers of WotC have a few things going for them.

1. They have revealed their names and locations.
2. They have released hard information, with proof.
3. They are forthcoming with their own concerns

Now, this is not to say that 4e won't make babies cry, but from what we've seen so far, it doesn't look like a hankie is necessary just yet. I'm still going to hold my decision until release - just like I do with MMOs. Because getting worked into a froth over a game, whether digital or analog, is dorky.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

From the perspective of game balancing and ease of play through combat situations, that's fantastic. From the perspective of roleplaying through the game mechanics, it's ruinous. Putting each class's abilities 'on rails' like that immediately excludes the possibility of any character ideas that don't fit within the confines of the paradigm.

Say you want to be a Shifter. You want to be a druid who's never in his natural form, but always flying as a bird, sneaking as a goblin, fighting as a griffin. How's he going to fit into 4E? Well, let's see what he can do.

At-Will Abilities:

Bear Claw: Attack vs. AC, 1d8+1 slashing damage as you grow bear claws and attack. Rar!

Per-Encounter Abilities:

Cheetah Speed: You move an extra 3 squares until the beginning of your next round. Zoom!

Per-Day Abilities:

Lion's Might: You turn into a lion for 2 rounds. This gives you +4 strength. Roar!

Um. Kay. But where's the flying as a bird, sneaking as a goblin, or fighting as a griffin? Those things don't really fit into a per-encounter setup, they're nebulous things that last for hours (traveling as a bird), take place outside of fights (sneaking as a goblin), or just aren't included in the designer's list of what the class should have in its abilities (griffins). If you don't feel that your Shifter wants to have bear claws, or run faster, or boost its strength, tough. In order to fit into the 'game first, roleplaying last' model, each class needs to have clearly-defined abilities that are carefully balanced so as not to make the other players unhappy, so you can't have anything so freeform as a blank check to turn into random monsters. Now your character concept sucks, shut up and reroll a wizard and cast Magic Missile every round for your 2d4 damage.

This partially represents a classic argument from ignorance fallacy: I can't think of a way for this to work, so it can't work.

However, the passage represents a paradigm problem with the poster, not the system. I don't agree that rules systems are completely separate from role-playing, but in the case of 4E, the rules appear to assist role-playing rather than hinder them.

The at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities should be viewed as the dramatic outcomes of character powers. Only in the case of those who use magic is there some kind of direct, in game world correlation between the limitation and the character's abilities. For other classes, this connection is merely dramatic. We can assume that a fighter tries to get crushing blows on his opponents all day, but for the dramatic purposes of the game, a fighter can only succeed at dealing a spectacular crushing blow once per day.

The same can be true of the shape-shifting druid. One can construct a well-balanced class that eventually allows the character to remain in some different shape for hours at a time. The dramatic usefulness of these abilities will be limited to at-will, per-encounter, and per-day abilities just like the limitations on the fighter.

For these reasons, I encourage players to use all kinds of wild descriptions for even their at-will attacks. It is important for the players to create the fighting style for their characters in the form of descriptions for other players rather than in terms of the game mechanics. This frees up a lot of potential for role-playing even in the arena of combat, something that is too easily dominated only by the exploration of the interaction of the rules.

It is also important to recognize that we are seeing very little of the 4E game outside of combat. And as one poster has already pointed out, rituals address much of this game for magic wielding characters. There is a lot of potential for standard fantasy powers like shape-changing outside of the realm of combat.