Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

* I'm deliberately ignoring that this exclusive focus does not accurately fit any session of roleplaying I have ever been involved in, here - I understand it as exaggeration to make a point.

Balesir, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying and this comment illustrates that point.

You can't possibly have "roleplayed" if you're saying my post doesn't include any session you've been in because my post is talking specifically about the act of roleplaying as specifically compared to the non-acts of roleplay, like rolling dice, moving miniatures, drawing maps, etc.

The latter can complement actual roleplaying (you know, creating shared imagined events - i.e fiction), or it can obfuscate roleplaying or take it out entirely.

The more the "real world" items, like battlemats, minis, dice, etc. take away from roleplaying, the closer we get to a boardgame.

Now, some people will argue that you can "roleplay" a boardgame. And, to that, I'll say, "No, you can't. Not without serious houseruling."
 

log in or register to remove this ad


@Balesir

I am not sure where you got the impression, that i believein badwrong fun...

i am explicitely including 3e and 4e in my post to make sure noone reads it as a rant against a particular edition.
I am just stating, that in my observations as a DM, mathematically not so fokussed people and people that are not so fit in the rules system more often base their decisions on the world around them, and actually pay more attention.
If I am busy, calculating my chances as DM, i am not so aware of what is happening, and I catch myself making irrational decisions...

I also want to mention, that powers that allow the interaction with allies, flanking, and powers that allow combos, are also a huge fun factor for me.

The best way to design a game is making it simple and efficient. The thing why I chose D&D ove different role playing systems.

But, and now I am ranting a bit, the entry level of some classes is quite high... actually the entry level of all PHB1 classes is quite high. So a new player is distracted by a lot of the rules. The PHB fighter is a beutiful piece of design. Not too hard to get a grasp of for a player that does play a lot of RPGs, but the slayer in its simplicity and for the sake of the topic, the thief of ADnD in my case allows and encourages players to think about the world, and how you can help the party with your very limited means...
Forever Slayer mentioned the saving grace for the Thief (and the bard), that you increase in levels a lot faster than most classes. In my opinion it has always been a feature, that you start simple and get better later on without too many choices at the start of your career.

4e (my edition of choice) would be an even better edition, if you didn´t have to pick a feat at level 1, only a single power and progress to level 2 very soon, where you get most of the other features you get now.

Simplicity and some inability at the starting level teaches your players how to interact with the given surrounding and situation...
 
Last edited:

The obscurity of Page 42

I understood Mike's point in the article and I agree, RPG's are a wonderful thing because they allow us to "create" in a completely imaginary fashion, even when the rules are not fantastic.

When running 4e the most inspiring piece of information was the section called Actions the rules don't cover on page 42 of the 4e DMG. It gave the DM a ready made way of adjudicating in an ad-hoc basis.

The new Dungeon Master's Book, included in the DM Kit, has a similar section on pages 107-108. The entire section starting on page 101 is very good for new DMs.

The problem I found was not the rules but their actual use, or lack of use, by the players. What I started encountering was that the basic rules of 4e were very good and open to creative adjudication, but players were limiting their actions to those things they could see on their "extensive" character sheets. The players were self-restricting to the printed page. Since page 42 and ad-hoc rules are not on those pages they would completely miss the boat. They were focused on their At-will, Encounter, and Daily Powers, almost exclusively.

I created a "fix" to that problem, and I expand on it in this blog entry. I don't want to derail the conversation on this thread with it, but feel free to comment on the blog.

I guess it is always important for the DM to stress to his players that D&D is a game of the imagination. The character sheet is not the end-all of the character but the beginning.
 
Last edited:

Balesir, I think you're not understanding what I'm saying and this comment illustrates that point.

You can't possibly have "roleplayed" if you're saying my post doesn't include any session you've been in because my post is talking specifically about the act of roleplaying as specifically compared to the non-acts of roleplay, like rolling dice, moving miniatures, drawing maps, etc.
I think you are taking what I wrote in a sense in which I didn't mean it. When I made the quoted comment, I was referring, specifically, to where you said:

"If everyone is rooted in the numbers, and the only thing that matters is the battlemat, minis and power cards..."

I don't think I have ever experienced a roleplaying session where this picture applied - almost by definition, as you say. Lots of other elements of your post I recognise very well.

The latter can complement actual roleplaying (you know, creating shared imagined events - i.e fiction), or it can obfuscate roleplaying or take it out entirely.
"Roleplaying" is a notoriously poorly defined term, but the act of creating a shared, imagined fiction seems as good a description as any - let's assume it for this discussion, if you wish.

The more the "real world" items, like battlemats, minis, dice, etc. take away from roleplaying, the closer we get to a boardgame.
Sure. But since, in D&D, the paradigm is that the DM is responsible/empowered to define the imagined physical environment outside of the player characters, and the battlemap represents that environment, the figures represent the positions of "monsters" (i.e. non-player-character creatures) and player-characters in that environment and the dice and systems define the way the player-characters and the environment interact, how can this dissonance arise? It seems to me that it can only arise if the players - individually or collectively - don't like the fiction that is generated using these elements. In that case, they are playing the game, evidently, searching for aesthetic satisfaction that does not gel with what this particular game provides. At that point, the options are to play without those aesthetic "itches" being scratched (either adjusting their aesthetic expectations, or playing without aesthetic investment in the fiction), or change the game. Neither approach is wrong, but they are incompatible.

Incidentally, aesthetic satisfaction with the fiction created was not originally part of the definition of 'roleplaying' you seemed to assume earlier, but I get the impression that you think it an important element - is that so? Should it be a part of the definition?

Now, some people will argue that you can "roleplay" a boardgame. And, to that, I'll say, "No, you can't. Not without serious houseruling."
I would say that depends on the boardgame, but in general the chance that a boardgame will generate a fiction that is aesthetically pleasing to most of the players is reduced, I agree. That is, perhaps, what you identify, exclusively as "roleplaying"?

A game like Squad Leader or several other wargames I can see being 'roleplayed' (per my suggested definition for this discussion) almost out of the box, however.

The problem I found was not the rules but their actual use, or lack of use, by the players. What I started encountering was that the basic rules of 4e were very good and open to creative adjudication, but players were limiting their actions to those things they could see on their "extensive" character sheets. The players were self-restricting to the printed page. Since page 42 and ad-hoc rules are not on those pages they would completely miss the boat. They were focused on their At-will, Encounter, and Daily Powers, almost exclusively.
It seems you see this as a flaw, but for the style of play I enjoy with D&D I don't. That the majority of actions the PCs perform are covered by the standard rule elements rather than the guidelines for adding new rules I see as good rules design for this type of game, not bad.

[MENTION=59057]UngeheuerLich[/MENTION]: Aplologies if I took you wrongly, but it seemed to me that your saying "if you do this, you are Metagaming" was an indication that Metagaming was in all cases undesirable. I never thought you were making any sort of edition attack - sorry if it came across that I was accusing you of such. I simply used my play of 4E as a reference since I find it a very good example of non-simulationist, gamist play (which is what seems to be being deprecated, here).
 

Now, some people will argue that you can "roleplay" a boardgame. And, to that, I'll say, "No, you can't. Not without serious houseruling."

This part is, shall I say, pure BS. If you'd been party to some of our Arkham Horror/Battlestar Galactica games you'd find it's pretty easy.
 

I think you are taking what I wrote in a sense in which I didn't mean it.

Right on. That's exactly what I don't want to do to you, and you to do to me. So, I'm glad we're clarifying. Good stuff.

When I made the quoted comment, I was referring, specifically, to where you said:

"If everyone is rooted in the numbers, and the only thing that matters is the battlemat, minis and power cards..."

I don't think I have ever experienced a roleplaying session where this picture applied - almost by definition, as you say. Lots of other elements of your post I recognise very well.

You're saying you haven't experienced a session where only the numbers matter. I get it.

Of course you haven't, because at that point it's not roleplaying right?

My point is: 4E comes as close to this as D&D ever has. We're moving further away from roleplaying and toward a miniatures game. That's FINE for those who love miniatures games! Sweet! And, it's FUN too. I love miniature combat.

But, it's not roleplaying. Yah dig?

"Roleplaying" is a notoriously poorly defined term, but the act of creating a shared, imagined fiction seems as good a description as any - let's assume it for this discussion, if you wish.

Shared imagined events is not enough. That's just the term I'm using for fiction. What we agree that is actually happening, right?

"I charge with my lance and stab your rook!"

We can both imagine that happening during chess right? But, is that roleplaying? I don't think so.

Roleplaying occurs when the things you do in the fiction (our shared described and imagined events) has an impact on what's happening at the table - and vice versa.

If we're playing chess, and I say, "Now, that I've charged your rook, my Knight draws his sword and attacks the Pawn adjacent to him!"

Well, I can't really do that right? Because the Knight piece has to move 2 up and 1 to the side and land on a space to take a piece.

What happens is, there's a disconnect between what's occurring in the fiction, and what is happening in the rules. If I can't describe something that's totally plausible (a knight drawing his sword and swinging it at the pawn next to him), because the rules are so disconnected with the shared imagined events, well, then we're not roleplaying.

Do you agree?

The hallmark of a roleplaying game is: what we imagine, describe and agree to can impact the rules and what is actually happening in the fiction.

Impact. My description actually makes an impact on the game. Not just me moving my piece.

Sure. But since, in D&D, the paradigm is that the DM is responsible/empowered to define the imagined physical environment outside of the player characters, and the battlemap represents that environment, the figures represent the positions of "monsters" (i.e. non-player-character creatures) and player-characters in that environment and the dice and systems define the way the player-characters and the environment interact, how can this dissonance arise? It seems to me that it can only arise if the players - individually or collectively - don't like the fiction that is generated using these elements. In that case, they are playing the game, evidently, searching for aesthetic satisfaction that does not gel with what this particular game provides. At that point, the options are to play without those aesthetic "itches" being scratched (either adjusting their aesthetic expectations, or playing without aesthetic investment in the fiction), or change the game. Neither approach is wrong, but they are incompatible.

If the battlemat, dice, minis and other real world cues are empowering roleplaying, then we have a good system. Right now, I don't think we're there with 4E.

It's not about aesthetic. It's about what I was describing above. How we define roleplaying.

Aesthetic, as pointed out in our chess example, is irrelevant to what it actually means to roleplay.

Incidentally, aesthetic satisfaction with the fiction created was not originally part of the definition of 'roleplaying' you seemed to assume earlier, but I get the impression that you think it an important element - is that so? Should it be a part of the definition?

No. It shouldn't. As I just described. It's a part of roleplaying - what people might call "Color" or "Fluff" or whatever. And, I don't know if you could roleplay without it, but it's not what I mean by roleplaying.

If I could draw a Vinn Diagram, it'd have Aesthetic as a big circle, and roleplaying inside of that circle as a smaller circle. You can imagine that, yes?

I would say that depends on the boardgame, but in general the chance that a boardgame will generate a fiction that is aesthetically pleasing to most of the players is reduced, I agree. That is, perhaps, what you identify, exclusively as "roleplaying"?

I think so... ;)

A game like Squad Leader or several other wargames I can see being 'roleplayed' (per my suggested definition for this discussion) almost out of the box, however.

I never played squad leader. But, yeah, from what I've read about it, it could probably be roleplayed, but you'd likely need house-rules.

You could roleplay Monopoly too, right? But, you'd need houserules. That's why I said, "as-is". If we're playing Monopoly, I can't say, "Well, my banker dude wants to chill out on Park Place for a couple weeks holed up in his penthouse with some hookers and blow."

I can't do that right? I gotta roll the dice, move that many spaces, pay rent, etc. That's how the turns work. The fiction is not tied to the mechanics. What I can do without houserules is apply a completely disassociated "aesthetic" to what the rules tell me happens... So, I take my turn, roll my dice, land on Park Place, pay my rent, etc... And after the fact, say, "Oh, yeah... I was in there with hookers and blow the whole time, and now I'm moving on since it's my turn again."

It's completely irrelevant. It's not roleplaying. It's story telling... Ok. But, not roleplaying.

At least the way we've agreed to define it.

It seems you see this as a flaw, but for the style of play I enjoy with D&D I don't. That the majority of actions the PCs perform are covered by the standard rule elements rather than the guidelines for adding new rules I see as good rules design for this type of game, not bad.

Except, imagine the 1000s of actions you could possibly do. Are your rules covering them all? Probably not. That's why they added DMG Page 42, which is unfortunately often overlooked...

I'm not saying 4E is not a roleplaying game. I am NOT saying that. I am saying, 4E moves closer to a board-game than any other RPG I've played.

Maybe that's appealing for you? I don't know.

But, if creative and imaginative roleplaying (as in, making an impact on the shared imagined events) is what RPGs excel at, then why not focus on making rules that inspire and promote that?

As an side: I don't think there's a "perfect copy" of the shared imagined space. There's a piece in each of our heads, and through roleplaying, discussion, questions, maps, etc... we build a "best version" that we can all agree on. The DM may have control over the environment and the player our character, but unless we agree on the fictional events, well, it's not really happening is it? If I say, "I leap 100 feet into the air..." and everyone else is looking at me like I'm an idiot... Well, it's not really happening in our shared imagined space is it?
 

You're saying you haven't experienced a session where only the numbers matter. I get it.

Of course you haven't, because at that point it's not roleplaying right?

My point is: 4E comes as close to this as D&D ever has. We're moving further away from roleplaying and toward a miniatures game. That's FINE for those who love miniatures games! Sweet! And, it's FUN too. I love miniature combat.

But, it's not roleplaying. Yah dig?

3E was all about number manipulation and skill trees. Oh, and it used templates, grids and miniatures extensively.

1E and 2E had FACING. Yeah, not only did you have to know where your character was in regards to everything else, you also had to describe which way the character was turned. That generally used miniatures to make it easier to remember in larger combats.

You can roleplay however much or little you want, regardless of the system
 

3E was all about number manipulation and skill trees. Oh, and it used templates, grids and miniatures extensively.

1E and 2E had FACING. Yeah, not only did you have to know where your character was in regards to everything else, you also had to describe which way the character was turned. That generally used miniatures to make it easier to remember in larger combats.

You can roleplay however much or little you want, regardless of the system

Your entire post takes me out of context, twists my words into something I never meant, and completely sidesteps the point I was making.

Either, you don't understand what I'm saying, or you're just ignoring it. It's cool, but you can't expect a real response to this if it's so haphazardly written without regard for the actual substance of what I was saying.

To clarify: I never said "rules = not roleplaying".

Quite the contrary actually.
 

This part is, shall I say, pure BS. If you'd been party to some of our Arkham Horror/Battlestar Galactica games you'd find it's pretty easy.

Then our definition of roleplaying is dramatically different... See my post earlier. If we can't agree on what roleplaying is, then why call my stance on roleplaying BS?

That's just dismissive and not very productive.

Like I said, you can "tell a story" over the Monopoly game, but it's not roleplaying (by my definition).
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top