D&D 4E Is 4E doing it for you?

[Wormwood]

4E objectively has fewer roleplaying props than 3E. Some of us don't need them and never did.

Insert inverse T-Ball analogy here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Insert inverse T-Ball analogy here.

That would certainly be fair. The stand in T-Ball makes it easier to hit the ball.

As I said earlier, "Either the rules do not affect how you can role-play, in which case Monopoly or Chess is as adequate an rpg as 4e, or the rules do affect how you can role-play, in which case it is reasonable to put forward a case that 4e is a better role-playing vehicle than Monopoly....or that 3e is better than 4e in this regard....or that 4e is better than 3e."

Of course, if you follow the inverse T-Ball analogy, T-Ball is easier than softball, and softball is easier than baseball (in terms of hitting the ball, at least). Those who are best at hitting the ball may prefer any game, but those who are worst at hitting the ball are unlikely to favour baseball.

Similarly, a super-duper role-player might role-play his heart out while playing chess, but that doesn't mean that the average gamer is going to be willing (or even necessarily able) to do so.

As T-Ball is a better vehicle for hitting the ball than baseball, I take ByronD's remarks that there are better vehicles for role-playing than 4e not to mean (as some have supposed) that using a better vehicle makes you more sophisticated, but that it is simply easier to use.

The T-Ball analogy ByronD did use was in terms of game mechanics, where the mechanics of 3e were analogous to baseball, and the simpler mechanics of 4e analogous to T-Ball. If you are not particularly good (or willing) to use the more complex mechanics, then you shouldn't have to. But that isn't the fault of the mechanics per se.

Likewise, if you want to role-play in an environment with fewer props, it isn't the level of props that is at fault. You can roleplay with chess or Monopoly. Or, as Gary was fond of pointing out, with no rules at all.

ByronD's points, as I understand them, can be summarized as:

(1) The mechanics of 4e may be easier than the mechanics of 3e, but the mechanics of 3e don't get in the way of some people because they are particularly good at using those mechanics. Moreover, since the simpler mechanics remove some mechanical possibilities, he prefers the more complex mechanics. Essentially, easier mechanics means fewer mechanical props.

(2) Games other than 4e have more role-playing props that 4e, making it easier to role-play using them.

(3) If one is not having problems with the 3e mechanics, he sees no reason to switch to a system with fewer mechanical and fewer role-playing props.

He can correct me if I am wrong.


RC

 

[BryonD]

4E objectively has fewer roleplaying props than 3E. Some of us don't need them and never did. Sprinkling "story hour" with dice rolls doesn't suddenly cross a magical threshold that makes it "good" roleplay. Taking the dice rolls out of "story hour" and keeping them inside combat initiative doesn't suddenly make it "bad" roleplay.

lol
Please, check my sig.

Anyone who is looking for roleplay between the covers of a book is lost to begin with. Your entire point is completely off in space as far as I am concerned because you have it flat backward.

No game I have ever seen is any closer to "good" roleplay than 4 year old superheroes. Some *players* are further away than others. I would presume those looking for the number of props within a book are going to tend to be in that group.

But once you have good roleplay, there are games that keep up with how well they mechanically reflect the world and those that don't.

 

[pemerton]

once you have good roleplay, there are games that keep up with how well they mechanically reflect the world and those that don't.

If by "good roleplay" you mean "BryonD's preferred approach to roleplaying" then I'm sure that it is true that 4e does not keep up as well as some other RPGs (eg 3E, Rolemaster, RQ, Classsic Traveller).

If by "good roleplay" you mean "narrative/conflict-resolution style roleplay of the sort supported by games like HeroWars or TRoS" then while there may be better games for such play than 4e, no previous edition of D&D is among them. But that's probably not what you mean by "good roleplay". Indeed, your use of "good roleplay" appears to imply that the sort of roleplay which 4e supports better than any previous edition of D&D is not, in your opinion, good roleplaying.

As a statement of personal taste, I'm sure that's true. But what is the argument that, in some objective sense, narrativist RPGing is not good roleplay? Or are you not making an objective claim?

 

[Halivar]

PRE-EDIT: I should be in bed right now, so this might sound like a bunch of sophistry (especially the last paragraph). I apologize in advance if I'm being incomprehensible and/or off-topic.

Anyone who is looking for roleplay between the covers of a book is lost to begin with.

There is some kind of miscommunication somewhere, because I believe 100% percent in your statement. Anyone looking for roleplay between the covers of a book is lost to begin with. So why is there such a beef with the 4E RAW lacking "roleplaying depth?"

No game I have ever seen is any closer to "good" roleplay than 4 year old superheroes. Some *players* are further away than others.

Absolutely. I think kids have more fun roleplaying than adults, and therefore I think there is an aspect of roleplaying that they get "more right" than us grown-ups do. They also do it without consistent worlds modelled by random accurance and look-up tables. They just make it up as they go.

But once you have good roleplay, there are games that keep up with how well they mechanically reflect the world and those that don't.

It depends on whether you're a "technical actor" or a "method actor." In drama (sorry to drag this in, but I think there's enough parallels to give merit to the metaphor), a technical actor seeks verisimilitude in action and portrayal to achieve immersion. Players like this (with good "roleplay," as they see it) I could not imagine being satisfied with 4E. The method actor finds his character first, and rules provide merely the conflict resolution mechanism necessary to elevate the roleplay from scripted narrative. For such players, 4E is perfect. It doesn't get in the way. Neither, IMHO, is wrong. They are very, very different, in part because we've got two different standards for the concepts of "roleplay" and "immersion." Not that there's anything wrong with that. The terms are totally subjective, and it's impossible for one system to please everyone.

 

[pemerton]

It depends on whether you're a "technical actor" or a "method actor." In drama (sorry to drag this in, but I think there's enough parallels to give merit to the metaphor), a technical actor seeks verisimilitude in action and portrayal to achieve immersion. Players like this (with good "roleplay," as they see it) I could not imagine being satisfied with 4E. The method actor finds his character first, and rules provide merely the conflict resolution mechanism necessary to elevate the roleplay from scripted narrative. For such players, 4E is perfect. It doesn't get in the way. Neither, IMHO, is wrong. They are very, very different, in part because we've got two different standards for the concepts of "roleplay" and "immersion." Not that there's anything wrong with that. The terms are totally subjective, and it's impossible for one system to please everyone.

Excellent, excellent post!

I've just posted something similar on the Challenge the Player thread and another thread (What is roleplaying?, I think). But I didn't have the method/technical distinction to hand.

Absolutely 4e depends upon the player already having a concept of the character, which puts something at stake for him/her, and then the mechanics are used to resolve that. They don't deliver the character - they presuppose the character.