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

[Cmarco]

Roleplaying and storytelling are rule system independent activities.

100% agreement here... I've run entire sessions where not one dice had to be rolled, because players were engaged in dialogue. They described their actions, they made plans, they talked with NPCs, they got their adventure hooks, everything... and all by really great storytelling and roleplaying. Those sessions are massive character building sessions, telling backstory around the campfire and really fleshing out the characters. Probably the best campaign I've run.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Gandalf is a level 1 wizard in 4e.

He can use light, magehand... did he cast any other spells than those two?l, i don´t remember... he can also use a staff and can carry a sword around...

Impossible. He's wearing a magic ring.

 

[Finist The Falcon]

Conversation between Leafidor Prince of fallen trees and Mook the Guard:

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

Mook: "What the heck is a round?"

Seriously as has been shown by others posting, anything can be made to sound absurd. The 3.x rules allow for a whirl wind attack with a spear. It really seems realistic that someone could stab 8 opponents (24 with a long spear) in 6 seconds.

 

[BryonD]

Roleplaying and storytelling are rule system independent activities.

That sounds nice and simple, but it fails to capture the entire issue.

I am certain that I can run a great game sitting around the table with my friends. So clearly, there is no need for me to consider a purchase of 4e.

A really really good system can aid roleplaying by mechanically bolstering the feel that is being attempted. But that is a very small thing. As I have said in other threads, you can role play the part of a chess knight, but that doesn't make chess a decent RPG.

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.

Cmarco's comment is well taken, but I don't see it as an endorsement of any game system to talk about the great time that was had NOT using it. And if in the midst of this great session the rules mechanics somehow did come up in a way that was jarringly contrary to the roleplaying action, then I really doubt that independence would be the term used.

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

 

[noretoc]

I agree with the original poster. I could get around and roleplay to any game system, but I use D&D because the rules fit the style of roleplaying that seems to work best with high fantasy. When 3rd Ed came out, I love all except the character reliance on Magic Items. In 4th, we don't need them because we now have DragonBall Z powers that take the place of magic items.
The rules of the system have a direct relation of how things are roleplayed. Look at different games. Vampire 3rd edition was much more friendy to the roleplayer. Combat was a small chapter in the book. Skills and traits, were the big thing. Cyberpunk 2020 was built around skills, and tech, and when you played it, the fast and hard rules made people roleplay a certain style. Mechwarrior was more rules than anything, plotting each step a character made on a map. D&D was a nice in between.

4th edition has changed that. Skill that were there for flavor are gone now. Abilities that were there for flavor are gone. In wizards' own word they got rid of things that "didn't do anything". Well thoes thing did do stuff, for thoes of us that like to use the game as a vessel to tell a story. The changes I see are all about "what can I do", rather than "Who am I". Now this might be your cup of tea, and that is fine. There are people out there who don't want to waste time on silly things like being a blacksmith, but for thoes of us who do, the game has changed in a negative way. Arguing that it hasn't will not change the facts.

I can already see the day where the following conversation happens.
Player 1: Ron's game? nah it sucked. He used a lich with kobold zombie minions! We took him out in 4 rounds. I didn't even have to use my self heal.
Player 2: Wow that sucks, Lets go to Jim's I heard that the group almost got wasted by a mindflayer. The only thing that saved em was <insert cool ritual/move here>

And then you have us:

Ron: man, you guys took out Kildern the Lost, fast. He didn't even have a chance to to use his death gaze.
Tom: Wasn't he like an ancient? I thought they lived magic?
Ron: Yea, I guess I should get Jim to teach me how to make better use of him in combat.
Tom: Rememeber when I had the Ranger that took that class of psychic warrior, cause he thought he could hear people's thoughts. Man, he couldn't hit a barn.
Ron: Yea, The rest of the group bought him glasses, his aim was so bad. You should remake him.
Tom, nah, It wouldn't work, Rangers are strikers, and if I'm not hitting, I wont be any good to the party. Those were the good old days...

Again, the thoughts above are my own opinion, but that it exactly what the new rules are making me feel like. I mean some of the things in 3rd ED were crazy too, half-dragon, gestalt, binder... But, it was easy to not use them, and while the rules allowed it, they didn't promote it. You could do just as well being a straight fighter. With 4th it is like you have to learn the cool abilities, and what weapons do what, etc, instead of just focusing on who your character is.

 

[Ipissimus]

I think part of the reason for the gamist feel at the moment is the way the DnD Experience Demo was designed. The Demo seems to have been pretty much set up just to show off the combat mechanics, which is cool. But we can't really extrapolate much from it in the way of the roleplaying experience.

At-will cantrips and rituals promise much for roleplaying possibilities in magic, though we haven't seen much of the latter. It does seem that rituals will require a feat (from the Cleric's character sheet) to access, though. 'Social Combat' mechanics might also give those of us who like interation and intregue a more solid base to work from (solving the 'how do I know if my witty retort stings my opponant?' problem) where Diplomacy and Bluff skills summed up every encounter with a simple win/lose check.

We haven't seen alot of the system yet, so there is still hope.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think 4e is actually doing alot more to add to class diversity than any previous edition. Back in 2nd edition, the only thing that separated a fighter, ranger and paladin were a few minor things. Even in 3rd edition, all classes chose from the same basic selection of feats, and whether you were a barbarian, fighter, etc, you would usually take the same feats. There was very little to differentiate them. At least in this edition every class has its own, unique list of powers, even the fighter! So what if they all use the same basic at-will, per encounter and per day structure for their powers. Every class can do different things now, and has unique pros and cons.

 

[Hussar]

I think this is where your argument breaks down. What wizards do very much depends on your view of fantasy. I'll use the LOTR movies as an example (I would use the books, but its been a very very long time since I read any of them).

Gandalf is a powerful wizard, but he doesn't do a lot of raw damage. Often times he's just beating orcs down with his staff.

Further think of Conan vs those evil mages. They are powerful, but Conan still takes them down.
/snip

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.

Now, as far as balance hindering roleplay, that's a very strange argument to me. Classless systems like GURPS, for example, attempt to acheive balance between characters through point based mechanics. Yet, I would never try to claim that I cannot roleplay in Gurps. Hero goes even farther really. You no longer have any difference between powers, everything is effects based. Two characters can choose identical effects - say power blast - and yet they will play out entirely differently. Again, I would not try to claim that I can't roleplay in Hero.

I think that the OP has not been exposed to other systems enough to make the claims that he is making. That parity between class mechanics makes it more difficult to roleplay just isn't supported once you move beyond D&D. Far too many systems have chargen mechanics where every character uses identical mechanics to make that claim.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think that the OP has not been exposed to other systems enough to make the claims that he is making. That parity between class mechanics makes it more difficult to roleplay just isn't supported once you move beyond D&D. Far too many systems have chargen mechanics where every character uses identical mechanics to make that claim.

Well, isn't it just edition wars with a moustache and glasses? Something like, 1st edition had serious balance problems, but is obviously a superior roleplaying experience. Therefore, balance problems are a prerequisite for roleplaying. Q.E.D., etc. Insert your favourite edition, and your favourite edition's flaws, and run with it. It's seems to me that these sorts of arguments are just taking a reputable concept like "roleplaying" (in fact, almost always "roleplaying") and using it as a proxy for "whatever the heck it is the speaker happens to like in a game", then trying to get as far as possible on the borrowed repute. It's like a statue of liberty play in which you get faked out by "roleplaying" and fail to notice "idiosyncratic tastes" trying to make a run up the field. Only, like the SoL play, it's hard to pull off convincingly.

 

[Ourph]

It's like a statue of liberty play in which you get faked out by "roleplaying" and fail to notice "idiosyncratic tastes" trying to make a run up the field. Only, like the SoL play, it's hard to pull off convincingly.

Best analogy EVAR!