D&D 4E In Defense of 4E - a New Campaign Perspective

[TwoSix]

I do not think I'm too far off the mark here, but it is a thing to view combat as predominantly the roll-playing part of the game. So when people ask for examples of role-playing, one usually doesn't shine the spotlight on combat negotiation and tactical conversation, and particularly more so within the context of D&D, any edition.

Well, if you're defining "roleplaying" as "the part of the game that isn't combat", then yes, 4e's extended combat would causes sessions to, by definition, have less roleplaying.

But, I've looked through and played through a few 5e adventures, and I really don't see what aspect of their roleplaying couldn't be replicated if ran them with 4e. The roleplaying and exploration sections of those adventures are entirely mediated by DM-player dialogue and skill checks. And the skill lists between 4e and 5e are pretty darn similar.

4e has plenty of roleplaying...as long as it takes place in and is centered around combat... just doesn't seem to be addressing the actual issue... even moreso if you don't enjoy 4e's combat.

Sure. I mean, if someone's typical D&D experience involves games that are a ton of exploration, puzzle solving, and negotiation with NPCs, with occasional short, brutal combats, than 4e is not for them. No question. (Yes, I know you could run 4e in that manner, but it's really not the right tool for the job.) And I know a lot of people for whom that's definitely their favorite way to play D&D!

I have no problem with people who don't like 4e because they don't like long combats, or they don't like overly tactical combats. Or they don't like detailed character creation. Or they don't like the narrative sheen that 4e uses over more dedicated process sim. But, even after 10 years, I still fail to grok what's missing in 4e that is also present in other editions that prevents one from doing sessions of exploration or NPC interaction.

 

[Voidmoji]

I have no problem with people who don't like 4e because they don't like long combats, or they don't like overly tactical combats. Or they don't like detailed character creation. Or they don't like the narrative sheen that 4e uses over more dedicated process sim. But, even after 10 years, I still fail to grok what's missing in 4e that is also present in other editions that prevents one from doing sessions of exploration or NPC interaction.

I found that there was a near-equal level of roleplaying between my 3e and 4e campaigns. Once everyone was familiar with the rules and their character's capabilities, the amount of time spent in combat was very similar. Now, the number of combats was different; more individual combats in 3e over 4e, of course. But the ratio was about the same.

Something I found interesting is that, ultimately, the people in my 3e game were a bit more focused on roleplaying than my 4e group. There was only one person in common between the two. But, I found the nature of 4e monsters and characters lent combat more of a roleplaying and story connection to everything else. Too often, 3e monsters felt generic, and reworking them to be less generic took a lot of work on my part as a GM. In 4e, customizing monsters to fit the flavor of the world and situation was easy-peasy.

When a major story arc involved gnolls who worship The Obsidian Lord, one of the four Warders of Hell, customizing them to fit that theme was cake, and took only minutes to produce balanced foes. And, combat with these foes really gave the players the flavor I was trying to achieve. It bolstered the roleplaying and immersion for them.

You could do all of this in 3e, and back in the day I did some of that. But the amount of work required didn't pay off nearly as well.

 

[Imaro]

But, even after 10 years, I still fail to grok what's missing in 4e that is also present in other editions that prevents one from doing sessions of exploration or NPC interaction.

Well I don't think anything is missing but instead it's that something was added, a particular playstyle (long intricate grid based combat) was excessively catered too (while not being transparently called out) and there were consequences for many people who didn't enjoy or change their game to accommodate said playstyle.

The fact that combats would now take an hour + for setup and resolution and that we only had 3-4 hours to play had a pretty big impact on the combat to everything else ratio... especially when trying to run a game in the vein of prior editions where one could complete numerous combats in a much smaller timeframe. Now what I've noticed is that those who enjoy 4e's combat as the centerpiece of their gaming tend to dismiss or downplay the effect it had on the rest of the game's pillars for others who either disliked 4e's combat or found it meh. For those people the combat in 4e took up an inordinate amount of time, slowed the progress of their games, and allowed for less time (compared to previous D&D play) for social interaction, exploration, etc.

 

[TwoSix]

The fact that combats would now take an hour + for setup and resolution and that we only had 3-4 hours to play had a pretty big impact on the combat to everything else ratio... especially when trying to run a game in the vein of prior editions where one could complete numerous combats in a much smaller timeframe. Now what I've noticed is that those who enjoy 4e's combat as the centerpiece of their gaming tend to dismiss or downplay the effect it had on the rest of the game's pillars for others who either disliked 4e's combat or found it meh. For those people the combat in 4e took up an inordinate amount of time, slowed the progress of their games, and allowed for less time (compared to previous D&D play) for social interaction, exploration, etc.

Sure. I have no problem believing that there was a wide swath of groups where their usual play style ended up being 20% combat/80% everything else, and running that style in 4e moved the ratio much higher (up to 50/50 or greater in favor of combat) in a way that was irksome.

 

[Voidmoji]

The fact that combats would now take an hour + for setup and resolution and that we only had 3-4 hours to play had a pretty big impact on the combat to everything else ratio... especially when trying to run a game in the vein of prior editions where one could complete numerous combats in a much smaller timeframe. Now what I've noticed is that those who enjoy 4e's combat as the centerpiece of their gaming tend to dismiss or downplay the effect it had on the rest of the game's pillars for others who either disliked 4e's combat or found it meh. For those people the combat in 4e took up an inordinate amount of time, slowed the progress of their games, and allowed for less time (compared to previous D&D play) for social interaction, exploration, etc.

I won't dismiss it or downplay it. Horses for courses.

D&D is in the mostly unique situation of being the granddaddy of RPGs, one that is the primary game for more gamers than almost all other games combined*. And, for a chunk of gamers, the only game they play. So, when this hobby behemoth upends the dynamics, it is going to impact a lot of people. For some, it was positive. For a lot of folks, it was negative.

Myself, I played and ran 4e on weekends, getting in around 7 hours of game time per session, depending on late starts, getting food, and so one. I can see where for folks running weekday sessions after work, for example, 4e would be a harder sell.

I did find that after time, and occasional tweaks to monsters, 4e combat didn't take nearly as long as when we first started playing, with the older 4e monster math. A "typical" combat encounter for us wouldn't take an hour. A few major encounters took a couple of hours, but they were glorious.






*I have no stats for this, but it sounds good. And, I will go ahead and lump in a few offshoots that hew very close to D&D, such as Pathfinder.

 

[Sadras]

Well, if you're defining "roleplaying" as "the part of the game that isn't combat", then yes, 4e's extended combat would causes sessions to, by definition, have less roleplaying.

To be fair, Imaro, Pemerton and probably some others (admittedly I have only skimmed this thread) were making the distinction between the two and Pemerton had provided two examples where, from his perspective, intertwined the two.
I just do not believe his example, the excerpt provided, clearly reflects that for me.

But, I've looked through and played through a few 5e adventures, and I really don't see what aspect of their roleplaying couldn't be replicated if ran them with 4e. The roleplaying and exploration sections of those adventures are entirely mediated by DM-player dialogue and skill checks. And the skill lists between 4e and 5e are pretty darn similar.

Sure, agree. I have no qualms about this or the rest of the thread in general.

In fact in hindsight, and I can say this now, and rather selfishly, I'm happy 4e came about - because it led us to 5e. I was dying as a DM under the weight that was 3.x. I'm not so sure a different 4e would have given us the current 5e, which is the best of the previous editions, in my humble opinion. And even if it is not the best, it allows for much twisting and turning and pulling and pushing. You can even port a modified 4e's page 42 (or even a 4e class-related power) using a type SIEGE mechanic from Castles and Crusades. It is all doable.

 

[pemerton]

when people ask for examples of role-playing, one usually doesn't shine the spotlight on combat negotiation and tactical conversation

most people would not consider his "combat roleplaying" an atypical example of what most people mean when speaking to roleplaying in D&D.

Well, if you're defining "roleplaying" as "the part of the game that isn't combat", then yes, 4e's extended combat would causes sessions to, by definition, have less roleplaying.

One meaning of roleplaying is playing a role in a RPG. I don't think that's the primary sense that is being used in this thread.

Another meaning is acting out a PC's motivations, expressing them via dialogue and action declaration in interaction with other characters. That's more-or-less the sense that I take it is being used in this thread.

In my view, if the players at the table are debating with one another, as their PCs, who should ally with whom, who needs to be defeated, and why, drawing upon and expressing character goals, character allegiances, conceptions of what is good or bad for the world, etc, then that is roleplaying.

And in my experience, it can be rather visceral roleplaying, because the stakes for everyone (in terms of character investment and possible consequences) are rather high.

 

[bert1000]

Sure. I mean, if someone's typical D&D experience involves games that are a ton of exploration, puzzle solving, and negotiation with NPCs, with occasional short, brutal combats, than 4e is not for them. No question.

Yep. If someone's typical D&D experience involves games that are a ton of exploration, puzzle solving, and negotiation with NPCs, with occasional long, cinematic, tactical combats than 4e is for them!

As many have pointed out, there was a lot of bad 4e adventure design that was little more than combat encounter after combat encounter. IMO, that playstyle is not a good fit for 4e. 4e is actually much better suited to a lot of freeform traditional non-combat roleplaying punctuated with big set piece battles.

4e actually works better with more roleplaying than less!

 

[Lanefan]

I worked through 10 pages of thread just to express here my deepest satisfaction with the reverence with which 4E can be treated nowadays.

Reverence? Nah.

It's just another edition, with good points and bad just like all the others.

 

[MwaO]

I have no problem with people who don't like 4e because they don't like long combats, or they don't like overly tactical combats. Or they don't like detailed character creation. Or they don't like the narrative sheen that 4e uses over more dedicated process sim. But, even after 10 years, I still fail to grok what's missing in 4e that is also present in other editions that prevents one from doing sessions of exploration or NPC interaction.

I think there are three major legitimate things going on:
A skill challenge is a DM-structure tool to make non-combat meant to have consequences have appropriate values and be well-thought out in advance. It can also be used to bypass exploration or break the 4th wall. As an example from LFR NETH4-1(which I co-wrote), I had multiple tables at a convention winkingly ask me if we were in a skill challenge in the 1st main encounter. As if the answer was of course it was. But it wasn't. When the structure of a skill challenge is obvious to some players, they'll concentrate on solving the structure rather than the roleplaying parts. Have 2 of those at a table, everyone else will go there too. Some of the best roleplaying I saw at LFR tables was after saying to those players, "If you're in a skill challenge, I'll let you know." They then relaxed and immersed.

Initial adventures made it really clear that's the way to focus on skill challenges. Because otherwise stupidity would result. Good skill challenges have interesting consequences for failure — either way, you got to talk to the duke, but now the stronger noble is your enemy instead of the currently weaker one. And if you plan that twist out in advance, you'll get a lot of great ideas for where the campaign can go.

Tactical combat is fun in 4e. Meaning it isn't hard to spend more time on it, because the outcome is fun. But that time by necessity has to come from somewhere else.

----

Basically, it is more of a social problem than anything else. You have to make your players understand that failing a skill challenge can be a really good thing and make them excited to see what happens if they win or fail it. And figure out if your players want more roleplaying or more combat and get honest answers from them.