Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

For some value of "role-playing".

Yes, the one consistent with the idea of "playing a role in a fictional space, where some level of identification with the role is to be desired."

The reason I really prefer not to use the term in discussion is that the one thing I can say for sure about its meaning is that different people mean different things when they say it...

Like "game" or "Dungeons & Dragons"? Or "prone"?

Perhaps, but that's not going to stop anyone from using those terms. Moreover any attempt to "decipher what we really mean" is going, by necessity, to face the same limitations. Assuming the use of language.

So, I'm going to file this under "false dilemma".



RC
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, then define it, lol.

Honestly, what a game like 4e has done for us is simply provide a shorthand. If you play say 1e without any kind of map/grid/miniatures (things I might add which were strongly assumed by the rules to exist, really read the rules) then you simply find that the players will spend an inordinate amount of time resolving the same questions again and again, "are both those orcs in range? Will the fireball miss the paladin? Can I jump far enough to cross the chasm?" Or you can simply put some markers on a grid and have the answers at your fingertips. In either case you're engaging in a world of imagination.

In fact what I found to be true of playing 1e in a fairly abstract style was that to a large extent the unclarity of such things simply inhibited people's creativity. It was easier for the fighter to simply hack at the orc than for the player to ask the 10 different questions they need answered before they even know if it makes sense to leap up onto the platform and push the ogre into the chasm (not to mention the rules didn't really cover things like leaping onto something or pushing someone, so is it even possible and what are my chances of success).

I have to agree with the notion that, in combat anyway, good encounter design makes a huge difference as to how much creativity the players can exercise and how much the fiction engages them. In no version of the game is there much potential existing in a featureless room full of orcs. If the scene is interesting and filled with interesting stuff then the players will do interesting things, and this is exactly where a system like 4e really shines.

Beyond that RP isn't figuring out a creative way to defeat the orcs. RP is "acting in character". I don't mean playing funny voices, I mean getting into the mind of your character. What are his motivations? What is his personality like? Is he an overconfident fool that rushes into danger? Is he cautious? Does he want revenge on orcs and will he overcome his caution if he sees a chance to put paid to them? THAT is RP, making choices that come together to depict a personality and tell a story about that character.

So, exactly where is it that this RP is in any way shape or form inhibited by the less abstract representation of combat used in 4e? This isn't about RP at all. This discussion seems to be about people tending to use the shorthand terminology 4e provides to describe their actions (I use power X) vs the 1e equivalent, which is first I ask the DM 6 questions so I know enough to proceed, and THEN I describe my action in enough detail that people can hopefully make sense of it. Either system can produce colorful descriptions and in either system the DM is free to apply whatever mechanical restrictions, modifications, etc that he feels are justified by the situation and might not be spelled out in the rules.

Another thing to remember is that this entire discussion has basically revolved around one small aspect of the game, combat. Granted that there's a lot of fighting in D&D, but it really isn't the venue in which the most elaborate RP takes place, nor has it ever been. I'd venture to say that with the more nitpicky details of combat taken care of by the system and game aids though there's more room for the players to at least think about it than there were in the past.

Once you leave 'combat space' though? Seriously, one game is much different from another? Not really.
 

Well, then define it, lol.

Another false dilemma, and one that is quite common (not only here, but elsewhere on the InterWeb). We have all seen far too many threads that amount to:

Do not use Term X because it is ill-defined.

No, we cannot supply a better-defined term that means the same.

No, we do not acknowledge that Term X is as well-defined as other terms that we agree may be used.

No, we refuse to accept that other people understand the term.

No, we refuse to accept that we should ask for clarity when we are confused.

No, we refuse to say exactly what about the term we find confusing.​

and, by far most importantly,

No, despite the above, we are not trying to shut down conversation which used terminology that might demonstrate that it is reasonable for someone else to not like whatever it is that the discussion is about.​

Honestly, what a game like 4e has done for us is simply provide a shorthand. If you play say 1e without any kind of map/grid/miniatures (things I might add which were strongly assumed by the rules to exist, really read the rules)

They were not strongly assumed. They were not even assumed. Really read the rules. In fact, that the preponderance of time would be spent in combat, or that combats would take a long time to resolve, was not assumed, either.

then you simply find that the players will spend an inordinate amount of time resolving the same questions again and again, "are both those orcs in range? Will the fireball miss the paladin? Can I jump far enough to cross the chasm?"

Oddly enough, I play without a grid every week, and yet never spend an inordinate amount of time resolving those questions. Indeed, I have found that putting "some markers on a grid" vastly increases the amount of time spent on those inordinate questions.

Or, to put it another way, 3e, 4e, and 2e Combat & Tactics combats all take far, far longer to resolve than 1e combats or 2e combats without a grid. And much of that extra time is spent focusing on the grid, focusing on those questions, and not "engaging in a world of imagination".

The focus becomes the physical grid, rather than the imagined space. The less abstract the grid, the more that this is true. Likewise, the more the rules focus on the grid, the more that this is true.

So, exactly where is it that this RP is in any way shape or form inhibited by the less abstract representation of combat used in 4e? This isn't about RP at all.

Strongly disagree.

Indeed, I don't think it possible for me to disagree any more strongly!

Some methods of rules/fiction interaction tend to encourage role-playing more than others. I.e., the more the board becomes the fictional space (rather than the less it is a representative, if even used, of a shared fictional space), the more removed the characters become.

Not only does the 4e ruleset seem to focus on the board more than any previous version of the game (unless you count 2e's Combat & Tactics, which I would claim has the same problem), but the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well. "I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?" or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."

Role-playing, IMHO, is not simply about whether or not each system can "produce colorful descriptions". If you define role-playing as producing colourful descriptions then, sure, there is no difference. However, if this is the case, I am "role-playing" when I write a short story. Heck, perhaps I am "role-playing" more when writing than I am at the table!

Sorry, but that is not at all what I mean by the term!

Another thing to remember is that this entire discussion has basically revolved around one small aspect of the game, combat. Granted that there's a lot of fighting in D&D, but it really isn't the venue in which the most elaborate RP takes place, nor has it ever been. I'd venture to say that with the more nitpicky details of combat taken care of by the system and game aids though there's more room for the players to at least think about it than there were in the past.

Once you leave 'combat space' though? Seriously, one game is much different from another? Not really.

Okay, but then one must look at how a game is devised. How long do combats take? What happens between combats? Is the game devised so that combats are sprinkled among other factors, or are those other factors merely intended as a vehicle to go from combat to combat?

If you say, "Outside of combat they are the same", the obvious response is "Then they are not the same, as you spend far, far longer in (far fewer) combats than in previous editions."

(And, no, you don't have to play the game that way. And, yes, you can role-play Monopoly. But if you aren't playing the game that way, you aren't playing it the strengths it is designed for.....and if you can role-play Monopoly as well, then cool! as it is both cheaper and comes with minis!)

And "is tailored to groups of players who enjoy solving tactical puzzles, optimizing characters, and using rules to their advantage" are not my words; I am quoting a WotC press release about their new organized play program.



RC
 

Yes, the one consistent with the idea of "playing a role in a fictional space, where some level of identification with the role is to be desired."
Excellent - thanks! This brief description tells me much more clearly what you actually meant than a term that AbdulAlhazred, in the post following yours, clearly uses to mean something quite different.

Taking this description I can now actually agree or disagree with your original remark. And I disagree, because I don't see that "solving tactical puzzles, optimizing characters, and using rules to best advantage" is necessarily antithetical to imagining a fictional space or identifying with your character's role. Maybe you find it difficult - that would be a good reason for you to dislike all games with a tactical focus - but not everyone does.

Or, to put it another way, 3e, 4e, and 2e Combat & Tactics combats all take far, far longer to resolve than 1e combats or 2e combats without a grid. And much of that extra time is spent focusing on the grid, focusing on those questions, and not "engaging in a world of imagination".

The focus becomes the physical grid, rather than the imagined space. The less abstract the grid, the more that this is true. Likewise, the more the rules focus on the grid, the more that this is true.
Blow me! I have been betrayed by my own brain! I have not really been thinking what I, er, thought I was thinking all this time! Aaaagh - I'm going mad!

Or, um, wait - did you mean "for you"?

The grid is not the game setting. The grid is a communication mechanism, nothing more. Different communication mechanisms work better for some people than for others. If the grid and minis don't work for you, fine - but claiming that they work poorly for everyone is simply false.

Not only does the 4e ruleset seem to focus on the board more than any previous version of the game (unless you count 2e's Combat & Tactics, which I would claim has the same problem), but the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.
Ah, this mythical "fiction" again. The "fiction" can have no primacy over anything since it has no independent existence. It consists of a mental model of the game setting in each players' mind. These models are coordinated (assuming things are working well) through communications between the players - often using a set of understandings, shorthands and background knowledge that they have communicated previously and that forms the "canon" for their game. Adding to or changing these models is done by the players, each for their own model. Saying "the rules have primacy over the fiction" simply means "this is an alien world where the rules define how the world works, not the players' preconceived ideas or arbitrarily selected parallels to the real world". This is a perfectly valid way to play. It's not the only way - having rules that are essentially "the players may add things to the world models based on their own tastes and views of what the game world should be like" also works, provided that clear rules exist for who has authority to add what and how. But it is a valid way, and it can be quite compatible with roleplaying, both as you explain it and as AbdulAlhazred explains it.

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.
Wheras with "I attack with a Spinning Sweep" or "I attempt to perform a Footwork Lure" it's not!?!?

What is physically happening is that you are rolling dice and consulting tables/comparing values; none of these action descriptions relate directly to that. All of the descriptions relate to the game-world model in the players' heads, not to what is physically happening. But you object to one set and not the others? Colour me baffled.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well.
If the statement of the character's action is decoupled from the world model it fails utterly as a game device, since it cannot, by definition, change the situation in the model if it is decoupled from it. Statements of a character's action do change the model - that is their very raison d'être - ergo they cannot be decoupled from the model.

"I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?"
You trip on the stairs but manage to grab the handrail, spraining your ankle rather than plunging head first down the steps - is that a "success" or a "failure"?

or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."
After it is explained what "I polymorph the XXX" means you readily interpret it whenever it comes up in the game, and yet for some reason the phrase "is rendered prone" cannot be incorporated into the game lexicon in the same way?

Seriously - you have problems with how 4E treats, well, just about everything, as far as I can tell. I get that - it's fine. But it's just not universal - in fact, in my own gaming group of eight people it doesn't seem to be a problem at all. We play D&D 4E and we roleplay - both in and out of combat, and by both your description of "roleplay" and AbdulAlhazred's. It's clearly not that hard, even if it doesn't suit you.

Role-playing, IMHO, is not simply about whether or not each system can "produce colorful descriptions". If you define role-playing as producing colourful descriptions then, sure, there is no difference. However, if this is the case, I am "role-playing" when I write a short story. Heck, perhaps I am "role-playing" more when writing than I am at the table!

Sorry, but that is not at all what I mean by the term!
Quite right - you explained what you mean, and this isn't it. But then it isn't what AbdulAlhazred means by it, either (as I know because he explained what he meant by it, too - and it was different from what you mean, thus explaining why I think these short explanations are far more useful than the term itself). In fact, I don't recall anyone saying that this is what "roleplaying" means to them, so I'm not sure what your point is?
 

Excellent - thanks! This brief description tells me much more clearly what you actually meant than a term that AbdulAlhazred, in the post following yours, clearly uses to mean something quite different.

Out of curiosity, do you think that there is anything odd that I cut & pasted that brief description from the post he was answering? I.e., that the post where he asks for a definition is a response to the post containing the same?

Seriously - you have problems with how 4E treats, well, just about everything, as far as I can tell.

That seems to be an impression which, AFAICT, the remainder of your post (preceding this comment and after this comment) is actually addressed to. Which is odd, because I can cut & paste the answer to this from a prior post, too:

No, despite the above, we are not trying to shut down conversation which used terminology that might demonstrate that it is reasonable for someone else to not like whatever it is that the discussion is about.​

I am sorry that you have decided that criticism = "you have problems with how 4E treats, well, just about everything, as far as I can tell"; and I am sorry that your response to rational criticism is to try to ridicule it into being somehow irrational.

Moreover, I am sorry that you (apparently) cannot grasp the concept of fiction. I mean, watching television, going to the movies, or reading a book, must be difficult if you cannot grasp the concept of what this "mythical" fiction is.

But, I don't take responsibility for that.

Some methods of rules/fiction interaction tend to encourage role-playing more than others. I.e., the more the board becomes the fictional space (rather than the less it is a representative, if even used, of a shared fictional space), the more removed the characters become.

Not only does the 4e ruleset seem to focus on the board more than any previous version of the game (unless you count 2e's Combat & Tactics, which I would claim has the same problem), but the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well. "I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?" or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."

If you define "role-playing" as "colourful description" or "moving the shoe in Monopoly", yes, you can then say correctly, "and there is no differences based upon the ruleset."

Likewise if you define red as blue, you can easily claim that the sky is most often red.

But that doesn't mean that the sky is most often red, in general, nor does it mean that the problem people are describing vis-a-vis role-playing doesn't exist. All it means is that you fail, willingly or unwillingly, to either understand the problem or to "see" it if you do.

Thankfully, though, as I said upthread, the designers of the game seem to understand and see the problem! Which might lead to a 5e that I would enjoy.

YMMV, though. Indeed, I would be surprised if it did not.

RC
 

That seems to be an impression which, AFAICT, the remainder of your post (preceding this comment and after this comment) is actually addressed to.

No, it seems to just be an observation. An observation that is supported by the content of your posts in this thread. If you believe that this observation is in error, you are free to attempt to explain away the content of your posts.

I am sorry that you have decided that criticism = "you have problems with how 4E treats, well, just about everything, as far as I can tell";

Apologizing on behalf of someone else for something they ought not to feel any remorse over is a very arrogant, very combative approach to a conversation that really doesn't have any place here.

and I am sorry that your response to rational criticism is to try to ridicule it into being somehow irrational.

The same applies here.

Moreover, I am sorry that you (apparently) cannot grasp the concept of fiction.

And here.

I mean, watching television, going to the movies, or reading a book, must be difficult if you cannot grasp the concept of what this "mythical" fiction is.

To boot, you have, in the sentence above, responded to rational criticism with a ridicule that attempts to make it appear irrational. Which is, word for word, what you just tried to take Balesir to task for doing.

But, I don't take responsibility for that.

A sincere apology is a tacit admission of some level of responsibility. You can have it one way or the other.

Some methods of rules/fiction interaction tend to encourage role-playing more than others. I.e., the more the board becomes the fictional space (rather than the less it is a representative, if even used, of a shared fictional space), the more removed the characters become.

This is true of you, apparently. It is not true of others. The five year-old who brings dolls to her make-believe tea party finds that a physical representation of the fictional construct she has created helps to enhance her experience - one that could be considered entirely roleplaying.

Not only does the 4e ruleset seem to focus on the board more than any previous version of the game (unless you count 2e's Combat & Tactics, which I would claim has the same problem), but the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.

This is misrepresentation, and it is misrepresentation that I find difficult to believe is unintentional. Those who play and enjoy 4e do so because the rules provide a framework which facilitates the fiction. Nowhere in the game's rules is it stated or implied that if the fiction and rules are in conflict, the rules should win. In fact, the designers have stated on multiple occasions that the rules ought to take a back seat or be glossed over in favor of the fiction when they don't mesh.

You are confusing an unresolvable conflict between the rules and fiction (something that rarely occurs) with an unwillingness to reconcile the rules and fiction. Fix the latter problem, and you will find that the former magically disappears.

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.

This is not a given, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well.

The statement of a character's action is rarely, if ever, decoupled from what actually takes place. If it is decoupled, it is because the DM and players are allowing that to occur rather than reconciling the two.

"I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?"

What ruins this argument for you, of course, is that D&D damage has been abstract for a long, long time. A character can miss with a literal attack (a swing of the sword) and still deal mechanical damage, because that damage represents things like battle fatigue, will to fight, bruises from rough dodges, and glancing blows, as well as any potential physical injuries.

So it's never "really" been damage. You're playing D&D of some sort, which means you've already bought into the idea that damage is abstract. I can't imagine why you would try to lay this at 4e's feet as if it were a problem that it deserves the blame for, unless this was just willful ignorance on your part.

or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."

Yep, it's definitely prone now.

If you define "role-playing" as "colourful description" or "moving the shoe in Monopoly", yes, you can then say correctly, "and there is no differences based upon the ruleset."

Likewise if you define red as blue, you can easily claim that the sky is most often red.

So you agree that having a common, accepted definition is important to a discussion! Good to hear!

But that doesn't mean that the sky is most often red,

It does if you've decided to define "red" as meaning "blue".

in general, nor does it mean that the problem people are describing vis-a-vis role-playing doesn't exist.

You're right! But it does indicate that they probably need to do a better job at communicating their problem.

All it means is that you fail, willingly or unwillingly, to either understand the problem or to "see" it if you do.

Yes, the appropriate response to someone highlighting valid criticisms of your position is to say "You just don't get it!" Making an effort to communicate better is just more effort than it's worth, really.

Thankfully, though, as I said upthread, the designers of the game seem to understand and see the problem! Which might lead to a 5e that I would enjoy.

This is, I believe, wildly wishful thinking on your part. If you do not enjoy 4e, chances are you will not enjoy 5e. The design direction they took in developing 4e was an intelligent one, and they will likely continue to move in that general direction with the development of any subsequent iteration of the game.

But if I'm proven wrong, here, I'll still play 5e.
 

Out of curiosity, do you think that there is anything odd that I cut & pasted that brief description from the post he was answering? I.e., that the post where he asks for a definition is a response to the post containing the same?
Ou tof curiosity, did you notice what post I was responding to with this comment? Because it was the one you originally gave the explanation in. I am using a forum facility to "multi-quote".

That seems to be an impression which, AFAICT, the remainder of your post (preceding this comment and after this comment) is actually addressed to. Which is odd, because I can cut & paste the answer to this from a prior post, too:

No, despite the above, we are not trying to shut down conversation which used terminology that might demonstrate that it is reasonable for someone else to not like whatever it is that the discussion is about.​
Except that, in that post, you were listing "far too many threads that amount to:...", not describing your own position. Am I to take it that you are adding one more post on that topic to the "far too many" we have already?

I am sorry that you have decided that criticism = "you have problems with how 4E treats, well, just about everything, as far as I can tell"; and I am sorry that your response to rational criticism is to try to ridicule it into being somehow irrational.
I'm sorry that you see it as me trying to make your argument seem irrational - I wasn't trying to do that and I certainly don't think I did so (nor that it would be possible - your argument was as rational as mine, as far as I could tell).

Moreover, I am sorry that you (apparently) cannot grasp the concept of fiction. I mean, watching television, going to the movies, or reading a book, must be difficult if you cannot grasp the concept of what this "mythical" fiction is.
I can grasp the concept of fiction; I even described what it is (a model in each player's head of the game setting and situation). What I disagree with is that "the fiction" can "have primacy" over anything - because it doesn't have an independent existence. The fiction is merely a set of models that are manipulated by the players, in much the same way as they might also be manipulating miniatures and terrain, to play the game. The model in the players' heads will have much more detail, and be far more vivid, normally, than miniatures and a mat, because the effects budget of an imagination is much less constrained! ;) But the content of the fiction can come only from the players aesthetic and presuppositions or the communications from the game publications and between the players about the game. In other words, either the game rules, the players' preconceptions about what the game world looks like, the players' tastes as to what game worlds "should" look like or the communications between the players must provide every element of the fiction. What "giving the fiction primacy over the rules" means, therefore, is that the players' preconceptions and tastes about what the world looks like should override what the game publications say. This is a perfectly valid approach to roleplaying games, but so is agreeing that the publications define the game world and all other sources of content for the fiction must comply with that. You seem to be saying that this latter technique makes roleplaying (as you describe it) impossible - my personal experience is that it does not.

Some methods of rules/fiction interaction tend to encourage role-playing more than others. I.e., the more the board becomes the fictional space (rather than the less it is a representative, if even used, of a shared fictional space), the more removed the characters become.
The board must always be representative of a mental model that each player holds - that is just how our brains work. You may find it hard to get a model that you find aesthetically pleasing without the freedom to apply certain preconceived ideas about how a roleplaying world "must" work; you may simply not like the game world described by the 4E rules. Either of these positions is entirely reasonable. But neither constitutes "proof" thet the 4E "world vision" is dysfunctional for roleplaying (by your description) or that it somehow, for all people, prevents happy visualisation of a functional game world.

Not only does the 4e ruleset seem to focus on the board more than any previous version of the game (unless you count 2e's Combat & Tactics, which I would claim has the same problem), but the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well. "I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?" or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."
Repeating these comments verbatim while ignoring the comments I made on them will not make them inviolate, no matter how many times you copy-paste them. I can do it, too - look:

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.
Wheras with "I attack with a Spinning Sweep" or "I attempt to perform a Footwork Lure" it's not!?!?

What is physically happening is that you are rolling dice and consulting tables/comparing values; none of these action descriptions relate directly to that. All of the descriptions relate to the game-world model in the players' heads, not to what is physically happening. But you object to one set and not the others? Colour me baffled.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well.
If the statement of the character's action is decoupled from the world model it fails utterly as a game device, since it cannot, by definition, change the situation in the model if it is decoupled from it. Statements of a character's action do change the model - that is their very raison d'être - ergo they cannot be decoupled from the model.

"I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?"
You trip on the stairs but manage to grab the handrail, spraining your ankle rather than plunging head first down the steps - is that a "success" or a "failure"?

or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."
After it is explained what "I polymorph the XXX" means you readily interpret it whenever it comes up in the game, and yet for some reason the phrase "is rendered prone" cannot be incorporated into the game lexicon in the same way?

If you define "role-playing" as "colourful description" or "moving the shoe in Monopoly", yes, you can then say correctly, "and there is no differences based upon the ruleset."
Well, so you can. Good job neither I nor anyone else defined "roleplaying" that way. Any more straw men to demolish?

Likewise if you define red as blue, you can easily claim that the sky is most often red.
Oh, yes, here's one.

But that doesn't mean that the sky is most often red, in general, nor does it mean that the problem people are describing vis-a-vis role-playing doesn't exist. All it means is that you fail, willingly or unwillingly, to either understand the problem or to "see" it if you do.
I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist - I'm saying it's in the minds of those who have the problem. I'm not trying to be dismissive, here - the whole activity of roleplaying goes on in our minds, so a problem in your mind is a real problem, where roleplaying is concerned. But the problem does not exist for all people, and appears to be fixable, if someone wishes to make the effort.

Thankfully, though, as I said upthread, the designers of the game seem to understand and see the problem! Which might lead to a 5e that I would enjoy.
Hopefully they also see that the solution is not to make an inconsistent and dysfunctional published system, such that the players' preconceptions and preferences have to substitute for the game publications, since the game publications present an inconsistent and dysfunctional world.

YMMV, though. Indeed, I would be surprised if it did not.
Possibly less than you might think. I enjoy collaborative world-building and "real-world-with-twists" worlds, too - I just don't like only such worlds.
 
Last edited:

I guess my position is subtly different from Balesir's. I seem to recall this coming up once before too. I don't consider the game mechanics/rules to be DEFINING anything. They facilitate play. To the extent that they match the world you want to play in they are useful. When they fail to do that you can change them. If you really seriously just want snakes that never go prone, well that's the way it works at your table.

There is never in 4e any statement that says "rules are inflexible and the fiction must conform." Quite the contrary, the SC rules state the opposite directly. In a number of other places it is made clear that the rules are both extensible and malleable.

My personal preference is to play with the rules as they are as much as it makes sense. I am using 4e because 4e's rules fairly well support the world I'm describing and presenting to the players. In the few cases where that fails to happen to the extent that it demands some adjustment then that's what will happen. Remember too, monsters can use page 42, or the DM can just give them extra powers (same difference really, what dragon wouldn't have a couple of terrain powers set up to work in its lair?). Things will work out, the fiction will be honored.

Anyway, I certainly agree with Balesir that I can can't understand how Reaping Strike is 'decoupled from the fiction' but "I swing my sword (MBA)" isn't. If MBA is decoupled then so is any similar feature in any game that isn't so abstract that I can't isolate a specific point where I'm attacking at all.

And again, really, isn't combat just one part of the game? Just because the non-combat rules are more abstract and take up less mass of verbiage and resources doesn't mean they are meant to be an unimportant part of the game. The combat scenes should all be firmly set in the context of the rest of the adventure, so when players are fighting, which they admittedly very often do, the players can be thinking about their character's motivations and proclivities from an in-game perspective, while also enjoying the ability to think tactically (as much as they want, many groups don't do a lot of it).
 

The grid is not the game setting. The grid is a communication mechanism, nothing more.

<snip>

Ah, this mythical "fiction" again. The "fiction" can have no primacy over anything since it has no independent existence.
The five year-old who brings dolls to her make-believe tea party finds that a physical representation of the fictional construct she has created helps to enhance her experience - one that could be considered entirely roleplaying.
I agree with Balesir and Dannager here. I would add one caveat, which is really an acknowledgement of what P1NBACK and LostSoul have said upthread - under some circumstances, I can conceive that a grid and minis "become the game", and that their relevance to a shared imaginary space drops away. This would be not unlike playing 1st ed "My 20th level Lord vs Deities and Demigods" - ie not a RPG but a skirmish game or something similar.

But I know of no general evidence that 4e is typically played like that. And, as I posted upthread, if you follow the encounter building guidelines you will have established situations in which the shared imaginary space is made relevant to action resolution.

Some methods of rules/fiction interaction tend to encourage role-playing more than others.

<snip>

the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.

When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.

When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well.
Wheras with "I attack with a Spinning Sweep" or "I attempt to perform a Footwork Lure" it's not!?!?
I agree with Balesir here. The assertion that a statement of action in 4e is typically decoupled from the fiction (and hence is analogous to playing a card in Magic: The Gathering) is one that, as far as I'm aware, has no basis in fact.

As AbdulAlhazred and I have posted upthread, 4e is indifferent to certain details of action resolution. In this respect it resembles many other RPGs such as AD&D, Runequest, Rolemaster etc. This doesn't mean that it can't support RPing, that it doesn't, or that it is not generally played as an RPG.

I posted some actual play upthread. Is this not roleplaying (and if not, why not)? Or is this not typical of 4e play (and if not, why not)?
 

I can grasp the concept of fiction; I even described what it is (a model in each player's head of the game setting and situation). What I disagree with is that "the fiction" can "have primacy" over anything - because it doesn't have an independent existence.

Have you ever gone to a movie, where something simply didn't seem to make sense? Have you ever evaluated the performances of actors? Have you ever read a book and decided that you didn't believe a character would actually do something? Have you ever noticed that something in a movie was actually an ad, rather than arising from the fiction? Have you ever noticed the manipulative hand of the author in a novel, making the characters dance to the author's plots in ways that seem unlikely at best?

You can say, "The fiction is merely a set of models that are manipulated by the players, in much the same way as they might also be manipulating miniatures and terrain, to play the game", and in your case this may be true.

Likewise, one can say that "The fiction in a movie is merely a set of models that are manipulated by the actors, screenwriters, and director, in much the same way as they might also be manipulating props and sets, to resolve the plot (or to insert product placements)". Or one can say that "The fiction in a book is merely a set of models that are manipulated by the writer to resolve the plot".

But these would reveal a rather shallow understanding of what film, books, and rpgs are capable of.

Indeed, for some people -- perhaps not for you, but for some people -- a film that doesn't seem like it follows the logical outcome of its fictional space (including setting and characters) isn't a good film.....and seeing the hand of the author isn't a good thing in a novel.

There are techniques of film-making, or writing, that disrupt the primacy of the fiction in what is being watched/read. Just as there are rules techniques that disrupt what is occurring at the table.

Actors can present good performances and bad performances. It is nonsensical to say that this is not so of the performance "because it doesn't have an independent existence" -- it is likewise nonsensical in this context.

So, again, this is a false dilemma. Any argument that begins with the premise that the fiction cannot have primacy over the rules is an automatic fail. Some of us -- I dare say, among older gamers at least, many of us -- have experienced it. Or do experience it on a regular basis.

If your argument is based on "I don't see it, so it doesn't exist", I wish you luck with that. But you will only convince those who haven't experienced otherwise!

I enjoy collaborative world-building and "real-world-with-twists" worlds, too - I just don't like only such worlds.

How is this relevant?



RC
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top