Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[Herschel]

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

RC

Ah yes, the "your game is shallow and simple while mine is for the robust thoughts of pure creative genius" meme.

4E basically took a "list" of really cool stuff PCs had done/could do in combat and quantified them, drew them out, cleaned them up and put them in to level tiers. They certainly aren't everything you can do, but they're part of your regular repertoir of moves. Nothing else has changed.

The biggest "change" 4E made to actual role playing was saying "go for it" with a set of general guidelines rather than boxing in players with a bloated set of skill trees and rules minutia. They returned to the "roots" of the RPG and their 1e/2e counterparts with the freedom to develop the story in any way needed rather than relying on pre-planned skill sets that may be missing applicable portions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah yes, the "your game is shallow and simple while mine is for the robust thoughts of pure creative genius" meme.

Erm...No. I said nothing there about the game; only about the idea that the "mythical" fiction could not have primacy over the rules "because it doesn't have an independent existence"....And, yes, that demonstrates a very shallow understanding of fiction.

I also wonder where you get the "shallow and simple" from? Even were you to grant my contention that 4e includes elements that impede (but do not prevent) role-playing, that hardly makes it "shallow and simple". Chess is not shallow or simple, and it has far greater impediments to role-playing that 4e does.

Also, if one is able to X with impediments the same way that another person does without, that doesn't usually imply that the first person is shallow or simple (at least, regarding X). Anyone who is capable of the same depth of immersion with 4e as I am with my game of choice, by my own argument, would have to be better at it that I am.

And that's cool. I am willing to grant that this might be the case for many folks. I'm just not willing to grant that it is the case for folks who believe that the fiction is "mythical", or that immersion in that fiction cannot take precedence over the rules.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

At the risk of cross-posting:

Granted, it is impossible to prevent anyone from role-playing in any game. You can role-play with Monopoly, if you have a mind to. It is also cheaper, and comes with its own minis.

That said, it depends very much what one means by "role-playing". I would consider role-playing to be taking the role of a fictional character within a fictional game milieu, but I would add the caveat that actual "role-playing" isn't based upon colourful descriptions or pithy one-liners, but rather upon identifying with the fiction.

A ruleset for a role-playing game is, therefore, IMHO, an interface to support identification with the fictional persona and setting to occur. And a ruleset can be more -- or less -- successful at doing so.

IMHO, role-playing occurs when the fictional characters/setting are more important that the rules structure that allows interface. I.e., if a rule gives an outcome that jars the fictional setting, the rule should not be applied. Thus the importance -- and primacy -- of Rule 0.

To the degree that a system causes players to focus on the rules structure, that system is going to inhibit role-playing. Not prevent, mind you -- nothing can do that -- but inhibit.

So we add our first rule: "The less rules intrude on the fiction, the more the game supports role-playing."

And, frankly, you can see the same applied to computer games. The more you have to think about what must be done to manipulate your avatar in the computer game, the less enmeshed you are in the computer game's "world". Were this not true, we would still be typing in command codes, and the Wii wouldn't be as popular as it is.

For that matter, many computer games I have played hide your "game stats" (apart from health) for the purpose of fostering identification with the character rather than the stats.

So, we can add: "The less often you have to break from the fiction in order to check your stats/character sheets, the more the game supports role-playing."

I would also add: "The less often you have to break from the fiction in order to check a game board/grid, the more the game supports role-playing."

And herein we see why Monopoly is not ideal as a role-playing game (strong board focus, rules prevent logical actions within the fictional milieu -- such as not trying to stay in a Boardwalk Hotel when you're cash is running out) and where it shines (Minimum of "stats checking" that interferes with your chosen role -- your only "stats" are the properties you own, what you've built on them, and what cash you have).

Obviously, the more familiar you are with any system, the easier it will be to role-play within that system. It is to be expected, with any system, that rules mastery limits the amount of rules checking and character sheet checking, and thus increases the quality of a game vis-a-vis role-playing. The amount of errata (if used) and new material being pumped into a system (again, if used) tends to erode system mastery, however.

Also, one should note that the three rules given above support another, rather obvious conclusion.

1. "The less rules intrude on the fiction, the more the game supports role-playing."

2. "The less often you have to break from the fiction in order to check your stats/character sheets, the more the game supports role-playing."

3. "The less often you have to break from the fiction in order to check a game board/grid, the more the game supports role-playing."

In any edition of the game, when do the rules intrude the most, character sheets need the most checking, and the game board/grid become most relevant? Why, combat, of course!

So,

4. "The less time you spend in combat -- especially in the same long combat, or engaged in the rules minutia of combat -- the more the game supports role-playing."

All IMHO and IME, of course. YMMV.


RC

 

[Matt James]

Repeating your conclussions in multiple posts won't make it any more true. You break several logical fallacies. I wish I had more time to write a detailed response.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You break several logical fallacies.

Thank you.

However, AFAICT, I haven't actually addressed any logical fallacies per se.....hence, no one's fallacy is there for me to "break".

OTOH, "I don't have time to post in detail, but I could prove you wrong if I did" will certainly convince those already convinced I am wrong, I suppose. Which is a large enough audience, I imagine.

Hope you get some XP for your post!


RC

 

[Balesir]

Aaaahhh - clarity strikes (I think).

I was thinking through a (long) response to your last post quoting me:

Have you ever gone to a movie, where something simply didn't seem to make sense?

...but now I realise I don't need to. The confusion has become clear from this post:

At the risk of cross-posting:

<snip>

A ruleset for a role-playing game is, therefore, IMHO, an interface to support identification with the fictional persona and setting to occur. And a ruleset can be more -- or less -- successful at doing so.

And, as I thought a couple of posts ago, it has to do with the understanding of "role-playing".

What you mean when you say "role-playing" is "immersion"! Now, many things you have been saying make sense. No, 4E does not support immersion well - perfectly true. In fact, replace the term "role-playing" with "immersion" in every instance and I think I pretty much agree with most of what you have written here.

I don't agree that "Immersion"* is the only way "roleplaying" can be done, though. It's a fairly minor subset - albeit an appealing one in several ways - because it is fairly restrictive unless you have truly exceptional players. But, if it's the only form of roleplaying you like, I understand your position. There are better supports for it than D&D (any edition) out there, frankly, but if some form of D&D works for you, go for it!

*: Basically as close to "Enthralled Audience" mode you can get with an active participant in a roleplaying game - "live in the world/character and direct your character using as naturalistic a set of "controls" as possible", roughly. It's tricky to manage, can be very good fun, but isn't any sort of "ultimate" roleplaying form, IMO, just one among many.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What you mean when you say "role-playing" is "immersion"!

Not exactly, but what I mean when I say "role-playing" requires immersion.

I don't agree that "Immersion"* is the only way "roleplaying" can be done, though.

Sure, but only (I think) because we disagree on terminology....like Red Sky/Blue Sky.

However, if you are at all interested in understanding the viewpoint of someone who feels 4e impedes role-playing (to whatever degree), I think you will have to accept their understanding of "role-playing" (for the purpose of the discussion only). Just as I am happy to agree that no game impedes X, so long as you define X so that the statement is true!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To be clear, I am not claiming that role-playing is immersion, but rather that role-playing is the action within the game that is taken while immersed. Thus, immersion =/= role-playing, but role-playing requires immersion.

As I have said elsewhere, should you state "X is not impeded by game Y", so long as X is defined in such a way that the statement is true, I won't argue with you. BUT, if the discussion is about why some people believe that X is imeded by game Y, then the way those people define X is, IMHO, the critical one, and the one that should be adopted (for purposes of discussion only).

There should be no cognitive dissonance in our agreeing that what I mean by X is impeded by game Y, and also that what you mean by X is not.

I'm wondering if you believe that roleplaying can occur without any immersion? And, if so, what does "role-playing" mean in that context?


RC


EDIT: Having been working on my own system for some years now (playtesting and revising is a long process, and one that will make the dourest heart feel for professional game designers!), I have been involved in debating these sorts of questions repeatedly during the last few months. What is the function of X? How does it affect Y? What if we decide Z? Is the complication of rule A worth the value it adds to the game? Is there an easier way to do it that doesn't damage immersion? How much immersion, vs. how much game rules play, is desireable? Etc., etc., etc.

So, I have some strong opinions on these topics now....but I am also interested in the opinions of others.

 

[Matt James]

Not exactly, but what I mean when I say "role-playing" requires immersion.

I just had a very similar conversation with a LARP guy I know back here at home. He seems to think the same way as you. My argument is that as long as a person takes on a persona and develops traits selected to the character, that is roleplaying.

Here is where I will concede some valid points that some have used against 4e. Up until the past several months, much of the story behind the powers, places, classes, races, and all subsets of the game, were lacking with description and "fluff". With the shift in how they decided to do business (from what I can tell, this time last year), WotC appears to be focusing on these elements and have really started to ramp it up. Some of my favorite books in 4e thus far have been Open Grave and books like the Manual of the Planes. These offer a lot of inspiring content that does not translate to specific game mechanics. if you look at the new Gloomwrought product and others out recently, they follow this trend and path.

Both a game system and the ability to roleplay are topics that are mutually exclusive. That being said, inspiration for affecting each can be important. I really think they have hammered down a solid system, and now more focuses on story will be prevalent.

To summarize: A game system cannot inherently produce roleplaying. It comes from the inspiration of the text and guidance from the community (i.e. your group, or friends, or interactions with the game itself). As an example, Monopoly could easily be a RPG if everyone who played it focused on creating characters that worked to purchase various properties. The rules could include a section on this, but it can't inherently induce it without acceptance from the player.

We (4e consumers, et al.) need to cultivate an environment that rewards character development, and not one that gets kudos for finding the most math-tastic combinations. That being said, I would be a massive jerk to assume I know best how others should derive their enjoyment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Both a game system and the ability to roleplay are topics that are mutually exclusive.

Strongly disagree, but otherwise good post!

RC