Does 4th edition hinder roleplaying?

[ExploderWizard]

No, it means your list of possible options is not limited to a spell/power list, so think outside the box.

This is a great thing and should apply to all options and resources both in and out of combat.

 

[avin]

Right- the player chose it. The character, meanwhile, had to wait for an opening.

And the opening happening just once for combat or per day doesn't help for immersion, mine, at least...

Look, I love 4E, but we are looking for teories to explain how certain mechanics work in game and even so are you guys saying that this doesn't hinder roleplaying a little bit? Come on dudes...

Pushing imagination to explain things that don't look plausible in the real world does not help immersion and immersion helps roleplaying a lot.

And I agree with somebody else who said World of Darkness benefits roleplaying and attract roleplayers more than any D&D edition.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

And the opening happening just once for combat or per day doesn't help for immersion.

Look, I love 4E, but we are looking for teories to explain how certain mechanics work in game and even so are you guys saying that this doesn't hinder roleplaying a little bit? Come on dudes...

Pushing imagination to explain things that don't look possible in the real world does not help immersion and immersion helps roleplaying a lot..

I think it depends on how you become immersed and roleplay. For someone like me who takes a very narrative, storytelling view of it. The idea of special events, occurrences happening in combat such as Daily Powers makes perfect sense since it fits the story and helps amp up the narrative flow. Thus keeping up the roleplaying and immersion.

Your mention too of World of Darkness. I think it should be brought up then that there are abilities in WoD that somewhat fit into the Encounter and Daily idea. Though referred using Storytelling terms like Scene and Chapter.

 

[Thasmodious]

As someone who plays both RPGs and wargames for over thirty-five years, I have to say that since looking at the options presented on a character sheet I'm inclined to believe that the rules are meant to expect mostly combat as gameplay. The higher percentage of rules in the PH and other books geared more toward combat than otherwise would seem to confirm this assessment. It's not an indictment, as I happen to like that type of game as much as others, it's just my personal observation which I feel is supported by the evidence available to me.

What's with the resume? I've played RPGs for over 30 years myself (never really into wargames). So what?

Higher percentage? Evidence? You keeping that evidence close to the vest? What higher percentage? Compare the presentation of 4e, which begins in the PHB with a section about roleplaying to the introduction to the D&D basic game:

Each player creates a character or characters who may be dwarves, elves, halflings or human fighting men, magic-users, pious clerics or wily thieves. The characters are then plunged into an adventure in a series of dungeons, tunnels, secret rooms and caverns run by another player: the referee, often called the Dungeon Master. The dungeons are filled with fearsome monsters, fabulous treasure, and frightful perils. As the players engage in game after game their characters grow in power and ability: the magic users learn more magic spells, the thieves increase in cunning and ability, the fighting men, halflings, elves and dwarves, fight with more deadly accuracy and are harder to kill. Soon the adventurers are daring to go deeper and deeper into the dungeons on each game, battling more terrible monsters, and, of course, recovering bigger and more fabulous treasure! The game is limited only by the inventiveness and imagination of the players, and, if a group is playing together, the characters can move from dungeon to dungeon within the same magical universe if game referees are approximately the same in their handling of play.

Nothing but fighting monsters and moving from dungeon to dungeon. Where do you put this "evidence" in the scheme of things? I think what he have here is selective perception. D&D rules have always been combat centric but the games of D&D players haven't always been. The way the game is played is determined by the group and the DM, and I think you are using some rosy glasses to attribute such play to the rules system rather than the group. You will find less support for other types of play in older editions of the game than you do in the modern game. But we did it anyway. Your evidence is specious at best.

 

[Mark]

Compare (. . .)

There's no need. I'm just discussing 4E and assessing what it seems to engender in gameplay based on its rules focus. It's not a bad thing to say that it appears to primarily be a combat game. My additional experience with wargames speaks to my ability to assess both RPGs, which have varying degrees of combat focus, and games that are geared completely to combat. This isn't an edition war, just an assessment of this particular game by someone with a lot of experience with combat miniatures games as well as RPGs. I happen to like both very much.

 

[Greg K]

Nothing but fighting monsters and moving from dungeon to dungeon. Where do you put this "evidence" in the scheme of things? t.

Taking 3e's "Back to the Dungeon" further into the wrong direction

 

[Fanaelialae]

As someone who plays both RPGs and wargames for over thirty-five years, I have to say that since looking at the options presented on a character sheet I'm inclined to believe that the rules are meant to expect mostly combat as gameplay. The higher percentage of rules in the PH and other books geared more toward combat than otherwise would seem to confirm this assessment. It's not an indictment, as I happen to like that type of game as much as others, it's just my personal observation which I feel is supported by the evidence available to me.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I would say that 4E seems that way because good combat is a lot harder to model than good out-of-combat.

Even systems that are considered RP-heavy when compared to D&D (WoD) usually have considerable combat rules. Combat systems that are too free-form are unsatisfying to some people, whereas those that are rules-heavy but poorly designed tend to be boring.

I wouldn't say that 4E is a combat-lite system (I would be surprised if any edition of D&D ever is), but I do think that the game plays well to the strengths of each, and therefore consider it a balanced approach between combat and out-of-combat design.

 

[Mark]

(. . .) and therefore consider it a balanced approach between combat and out-of-combat design.

I'm not sure quite what this means to you or what you think it should mean to me. Could you express this more expansively? Do you feel that there are equal parts of RPing and combat/wargaming in 4E or do you mean that you think the amount of RPing and combat/wargaming are in a proper balance for how you feel an RP game should be or somehting else, perhaps?

 

[Scribble]

There's no need. I'm just discussing 4E and assessing what it seems to engender in gameplay based on its rules focus. It's not a bad thing to say that it appears to primarily be a combat game. My additional experience with wargames speaks to my ability to assess both RPGs, which have varying degrees of combat focus, and games that are geared completely to combat. This isn't an edition war, just an assessment of this particular game by someone with a lot of experience with combat miniatures games as well as RPGs. I happen to like both very much.

I think what Thas is saying, is that while 4e has a lot of combat focus, this is no different then any other edition of the game, even though people seem to want to point it out as some type of change.

The rules of 4e focus a lot on combat... Wel duh! D&D has always been combat uber alles as far as the rules are concerned. Outside of combat activities have been primarily handled by individual groups playing the game since it was created.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D is combat oriented? When did that happen?

Are we talking about the same D&D that took 12 years to introduce a skill system (Dungeoneer's Guide, 1986)? The same AD&D that limited all scouting and mechanical skills to a single "thief" class? The one that had 12 different types of polearms and one way to influence NPC attitudes?

Surely you jest.

Sarcasm aside, D&D will always be about killing things and taking their stuff. I need rules for that. I don't need rules for deciding my elf is a haughty, my halfling is a kleptomaniac, my fighter is the son of a blacksmith, or my dwarf is stubbornly devoted to Moradin.