Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Halivar" data-source="post: 4501010" data-attributes="member: 9327">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.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?"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.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.</blockquote>

Verification