My take.

[mhensley]

I haven't looked through all the sample characters posted, but for the few I've looked at, I haven't seen a single ability that could be used outside a fight. Whatever the social-interaction sytem is, it's well-hidden so far.

Hmm... I see:

insight, diplomacy, bluff, streetwise, history, religion, arcana, nature
charisma, alignment, languages

It's really not very well hidden. Maybe you have low Perception.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm somewhat confused by this approach as well. I suspect that the disappointment is because of a wish to have the game rules do the simulating rather than the players.

Essentially, the game rules for combat run the results of particular narrative events in the combat, not particular sword swings or even particular wounds. The hit point damage that characters take is not directly related to physical damage, but rather to the ability of the character to pursue different options or paths within the narrative of the game. Thus, the game rules are not simulating a particular sequence of cause and effect and players must, from the given narrative outcomes, create their own simulated world that corresponds to these outcomes.

Games that include combat details essentially become games where combat is the preferred method of conflict resolution. Thus the focus of the game will most often revolve around the behaviour of these rules systems. For this reason, I suspect that because the rules don't simulate cause and effect within combat, it is condemned.

It is worth noting that while 3.5 may bee taken to have a rule that simulates all aspects of combat, this is perhaps going too far. Certainly editions of D&D prior to 3rd edition had no pretense of simulating combat events.

The is some confusion around the meaning of "simulationist," of course. Some take it too mean that the purpose of play is to be true to cause and effect within the game world. Yet since there is almost no cause and effect specified by the rule system for combat, I have a hard time understanding how the rules system could conflict with this meaning of simulation.

I wish I could sig this entire post. I've been trying to frame this argument in my head for the last two days, and you said exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.

 

[Mercule]

Strange. I had a conversation with my group recently about my frustrations GMing 3e. One of the big ones is that 3e is very, very poorly suited to any character-driven storyline or one that doesn't put most of the burden of improvement on combat. I see nothing to indicate that 4e has made this any more true. If anything, it's only just stopped pretending, though, I doubt even that.

Honestly, I'm a bit excited about the possibility for roleplaying in 4e. It's been explicitly stated, more than once, that we'll be getting some sort of resolution mechanics for non-combat challenges that give structure to negotiations, traps, and even library research; taking each of these beyond a single die roll. That's awesome -- in 3e, my options were threefold: 1) meta-game and let the players use their abilities/knowledge rather that that of their characters, 2) use a single roll against a set DC and have the negotiation with the king/attaining access to the ancient library/etc. be anti-climactic, or 3) GM fiat lots and lots of stuff. How does 4e make any of those worse?

I do agree with you, somewhat, about healing and injury. Then again, I can't remember ever having permanent effects from injury in D&D, unless the group was using house/supplemental rules. The only thing that happened is that you marked off some time and checked for wandering monsters. 4e just has fewer rolls and ticky marks.

 

[eleran]

THere's nothing in Monopoly preventing me from role-playing either, but I wouldn't call it a role-playing game.

I haven't looked through all the sample characters posted, but for the few I've looked at, I haven't seen a single ability that could be used outside a fight. Whatever the social-interaction sytem is, it's well-hidden so far.

C-stone

Which abilities from 3e, that are usable outside of combat, would you like to see in 4e?

 

[LostSoul]

I agree, based on all the stuff coming out of DDXP it looks like a very fun game, but so purely gamist it's hard to see where the R in RPG enters the picture. Probably all that if you treated it as a squad level skirmish game but just too out of sink with even a slightly simulationist perspective.

Only for certain values of R.

 

[Celebrim]

"The rules for 4e combat are too abstract. If I take them literally, then it leads to silly conclusions about the rules and physics of the gameworld."

That's mostly it, but the problem isn't that they are too abstract. D&D has always been abstract about things like hit locations and injuries. The problem is that they are not intended to have any level of 'casual realism'.

Take the 'Cohen the Barbarian' problem. To a certain extent, the game has always had this problem, and 'Cohen' I think owes something in his conception to D&D. But with intelligence providing Reflex/AC, charisma providing Will, and presumably something like wisdom providing Fortitude the upshot of these rules is that any NPC that acquires attributes also acquires some unwanted attributes. Feeble accountants, aged octogenerians, and little old ladies suddenly are as strong of combatants in thier infirmity as they were in thier youth. This strongly discourages me from treating non-combatant NPC's as even having attributes. Certainly I can't have them following any sort of consistant rules.

And there are dozens and dozens of problems like that. I just don't feel inclined to work out how the implied game world actually works. It is a silly world. I don't feel inclined to make house rules in it. I don't feel inclined to think about how the different parts of the world interact. Why do I not feel inclined to do any of these things? Because quite obviously the designers didn't feel so inclined either. What I saw as the hinderances to role play in D&D weren't even on the list of designer's concerns. I'm not going to dig back through that list, because I made it several times back when 4E was first announced. I'm not going to try to talk anyone out of liking 4E. Just take my word for it that 4E feels fundamentally different to me than previous editions, and to the extent that it does feel like previous editions it is highlighting the system integrity problems that drove me from D&D initially back in the mid-90's.

Perhaps it would explain something to say that I think the use of minatures at all detracts from the role-playing experience. I didn't use minatures at all until 3rd edition. The problem with minatures is that they tend to provide an external reference for the imagination, so that you are continually distracted from imagining the described events happen to you, and instead spend your time imagining the described events happening to the minature on the table. I consider this a less satisfying role-playing experience than experiencing events in 'first person'.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I tend to agree with the OP. I'm just not feeling this whole "All your abilities are directly relevant to combat and nothing else" deal which 4E seems to be putting out.

I can actually handle the healing surges etc., and I can even go with NPCs not getting them, it seems kind of Feng Shui-ish. It's just the apparent hyper-focus on combat, combat, combat, combined with the really "illogical", completely gamist nature of some of the abilities (shielding smite, for example) turns me off.

Don't get me wrong, it's unlikely I won't get 4E, unlikely in the extreme, and probably have good fun playing it too, but if the new GSL lets a company make a game that incorporates some of the more attractive aspects of 4E whilst focusing a little less on combat, and making the magic a bit more "magical" and less "Woot awesome ability that only makes sense from an out-of-character perspective", I'd be pretty happy, and probably play that in preference to "vanilla" 4E.

 

[vagabundo]

I really don't see how, if you have been able to role play in 3e, you would not be able to roleplay in 4e. 4e has more in common with 3e than it has differences.

If you could role play with hps, cleave and manyshot, why not with hps, cleave and split the tree?

The story of the same encounter in 3e or 4e would pretty much sound very similar.

I get the vibe of an implied: "if you like 4e you dont roleplay" from the OP. But since most of it relates to directly how you feel and only one sentence is about other groups maybe that wasnt your intention.

EDIT: I'd just like to point out that there is a lot we have not seen yet. Obviously the DND XP stuff is the lite version of 4e.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Celebrim, it seems like the root of your issues are the battlemat focus (lots of positional abilities) and the healing system.

Battlemat, well, yes it's inherently boardgame-like. You move in squares, you push figures around, you flank when the target is between you and an ally, etc. A lay person looking at a battlemap, dice, & figures will think "oh I'm familiar with this; it's a boardgame".

I think that's a *good* thing. It makes the game more accessible, more familiar, and reduces uncertainty/silly arguments about position. Plus, even though the figures are on the board the actual gameplay is the same as ever. Put a tape recorder on the table for an OD&D game, and one on the table for 4E, and you'll hear the same thing: players describing their characters' actions, reacting to events, and so on.

The healing thing is terrific system in that it lets the players get on with things. If everyone gathers 'round the table each Sunday to play a game of heroic fantasy, it just makes sense to keep the game moving. I think few people want to play a game where combatants take weeks or months to recover from a single fight. No, they want to fight to within an inch of their lives, win, recover overnight, and then do it all over again the next day. Spending time rolling dice to pick locks, cleave heads, flimflam barkeeps, or find secret doors is much more fun than rolling dice to reduce fever, stave off infection, or change bedpans.

Plus, we don't have the full rules on recovery. I'm sure mummy rot, certain poisons, vile curses, and other flavorful maladies are still in the game. Sometimes extraordinary injury *is* fun to roleplay (see the Man In Black's recovery in The Princess Bride) and I have faith the designers have included them in the game.

 

[Jayouzts]

Better games

Honestly folks, what is it about the 4e rules that doesn't allow roleplaying?

4E may allow role-playing, but there are other systems out there better suited for it. The same could be said about 3E.

I play 3E not because it is my favorite system but because it is the one I am most likely to find games for. Now that 3E is being replaced, the question is do I see anything that makes me want to invest the time (forget money for a moment) to learn the new system. For me, the answer is a resounding no.