My take.

[Doug McCrae]

But at its heart, it seems to me to be a board game.

Twas ever thus.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

Glad to help! Thanks for the post.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The role-playing stuff cannot be replaced by mechanics. It is something "between" the rules.

Actually, it's not. 3e had some very sketchy, but very key role-playing rules built into it. Part of that was the skill system (which 4e seems to be keeping but developing a little bit further). Part of that was the NPC system (which 4e is totally scrapping). Part of that was the monster system (which 4e is totally scrapping). Part of that was the system of spells and powers (which 4e is reimagining). Part of that was the system of treasures and rewards (which 4e is reimagining).

The Storyteller system has rules for morality.

To me, having rules for playing the role is the very essence of a roleplaying game.

Now, I know, especially with D&D, that part of the role I'm playing is a combat part. That's awesome and I'd embrace that fully for what it is.

But the reason I actually enjoy D&D is not because of the combat. It's because I get to be Achilles or King Arthur or Indiana Jones or Harry Potter or whatever. That's the essence, for me, of a heroic role-playing game.

D&D4e has shown that it's definatley going to let me play the role of a Striker or a Defender or a Controller or a Leader. Heck yeah it will!

But it hasn't shown me that it will let me play as these character archetypes.

Because these archetypes involve combat, oh yes, they definately do, and it's important to have that.

But they're not JUST combat, that's not the focus, that's not the reason.

There can and should be mechanics for these archetypes outside of combat.

The 3e skill system let me be an amazing diplomat or an intimidating warrior or a master crafter or a lore-filled sage or a master of exotic dance, and it let me do that mechanically. The 3e NPC system let me be uniquely powerful, above and beyond what the other people of the world could do, and it let me do that mechanically. The Storyteller system lets me fall from grace or struggle with sin, and it lets me do it mechanically.

It might just be that we haven't seen it all yet, but there's going to have to be a LOT more that they're not showing us to smooth this perception over.

 

[Just Another User]

Hey smile now you're not alone here..

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.

^this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well I think the point is just that there is no way to say that there is LESS roleplaying in 4e then 3e when you have at least the same tools you had before. If your saying that D&D in general has less of a roleplaying focus then some other games, then I can't really deny that. But I wouldn't expect a new edition to dramaticaly change that. And many might debate if having "one per social encounter" abilities would necesarily be a good thing from a roleplaying perspective.

But it's also worth noting that we don't know what types of utility powers and feats there are. Assuming the demo is mostly about killing kobolds I wouldn't expect to see the demo characters with social feats or anything, while it appears that most utility powers don't come until later levels.

Let me be clear - At no point have I said anything about, nor do I care about whether 4E is "better for roleplaying", so like, okay, whateverrrrrr in regards to that, you're arguing with yourself there mate.

What I'm concerned with is OUT-OF-COMBAT abilities. I like abilities which can be used in situations that DO NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL COMBAT. I like these games with their "social combat" and so on. Maybe they're worse for role-playing, maybe they're better. I don't give a hoot. I just think it's really maximally retardo to make a game chock-full of "kewl powerz" and then make ALL the damn kewl powerz be combat abilities.

Of course, I'm being a bit misleading. The Wizard has Ghost Sound, Light, and Mage Hand, all of which are not particularly combat oriented. I just think it's a bit wierd that he, of all people, is the ONLY one who has ANY abilities which aren't combat-oriented. It's not even clear if an ability like the Pally's LoH would even be usable out of combat, given it's limit on usage is "per encounter" (so can you freely hand out your "healing surges" if you're out of combat? Or do three and then sit for five mins then do another three or what?).

And you may be right, maybe we see some more GENUINE utility abilities and so on at later levels. That'd be fine with me, but for now, it just seems a little lame to confine kewl powerz to combat, and combat alone.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Celebrim, while I largely feel you're onto something, I also feel that you might be being a bit narrow in your application.

My guess is that rather than not think about these things, we'll just have to think about them in 'different ways.'

For me, what breaks it in a lot of ways is monster/pc divisions. I just can't grok using special rules only for the characters you're controlling that no other entity in the world gets. It breaks my world wide open if my villains don't get healing surges, for instance.

This isn't NECESSARILY a 4e dealbreaker, but it's going to take some persuasive words to get me to embrace it as-is instead of heavily retconning it into my own 3.75e. They'll have to convince me that thinking about it in a different way is worth it, and that I gain more than I loose.

Which is kind of too bad, because there's a LOT of 4e that's REALLY quite good.

I just think you can fix a lot of the problems with 3e without embracing a lot of the design philosophies that I kind of baseline disagree with. :\

I don't know if it helps you in any way, but, for the scientifically inclined:

The rules of the game are an abstraction of the "real" rules of the fictional game world. It is a model. In fact, they are two models. One model is representing the NPCs, one the PCs. They are both incomplete. There is actually an underlying set of laws that explains both. But it's too complicated, or we haven't yet figured out a good way to describe it.

Such things exist in the real world, too.
The Relativity Theory and the Quantum Theory both give a model of our world. The Relativity Theory on the larger scale (big masses, spacetime), the Quantum Theory on the smaller scale (atoms, quarks). Both are part of the scientific model of our reality, and unfortunately, are are at odds if you try to to apply the rules of the one to the stuff described by the other. Scientists are working on unifying these aspects. (String Theory). That's one example of two different models trying to describe the same world.

Another example of such "dualistic" explainations might be the particle/wave duality of small parts. You can use the model of particles or the model of wave to describe them both, depending on when you want to describe them.
There are elemental particles/wave for the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Quantum Theories tell us that, that at a certain (high) energy level, these three "thingies" turn out to be the same particle. (Super Symmetry)

And there are countless of other examples where we use simpler models for certain aspects, totally ignoring the fact that we know that the stuff is a lot more complex. For practical reasons, we might forever be forced to use simpler models (and get good reslts with it, too), but some say that these models might actually be fundamentally correct and we don't need to go in further details. They are describing "emergent" laws, laws that can hardly be determined from looking at quarks and gluons, but are nevertheless "true".

Well, after this short excursion to the wonderful world of science:
The differences in NPC and PC rules are just part of the limited world of the real world model we use. It's not bad to do it, as long as we get the results we want from the rules. There might be corner cases where the model feels inadequate, but that's the nature of any model.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The rules of the game are an abstraction of the "real" rules of the fictional game world. It is a model. In fact, they are two models. One model is representing the NPCs, one the PCs. They are both incomplete. There is actually an underlying set of laws that explains both. But it's too complicated, or we haven't yet figured out a good way to describe it.

This would be an example of how they could make it palatable for me. I don't mind simplifications and abstractions, what I've got a problem with are contradictions and exceptions.

The differences in NPC and PC rules are just part of the limited world of the real world model we use. It's not bad to do it, as long as we get the results we want from the rules. There might be corner cases where the model feels inadequate, but that's the nature of any model.

Part of where the game has an edge on the Real World is that there don't need to be models that fall apart at the corners.

Especially if those "corners" actually come up fairly regularly, depending upon the user of the model.

 

[ferratus]

(On Simulationism) Yes, 3E was not perfect, but it seems that 4E will be worse.

See, I still don't see how wire-fu wasn't around in prior editions. How else to explain a fight between a human and a giant? A human and a wyrm dragon? I mean dig out your old TSR novels from 10-20 years ago, long before D&D 3e, and look at the novel characters. The fighters and rogues totally were super strong, super skilled, or super ninja. Here is a list of people who had supernaturally good skills, and it would be longer if I read more pulp fiction.

Forgotten Realms makes the easiest case:

Drizzt & Zaknafein Do'Urden
Thibbledorf Pwent
Wulfgar
Alias & Dragonbait - watch the two combats between the great wyrm Mist
Arilyn Moonblade, Elaith Craulnober
The Knights of Myth Drannor

Dragonlance:

Ariakas the Dragon Emperor - Could throw a spear clean through a horse and strangle a minotaur with his bare hands
Caramon Majere - probably stronger than Ariakas
Porthios of Qualinesti - Took down three dragons and their riders
Dhamon Grimwulf
Linsha Majere

Greyhawk
Everyone in the Scarlet Brotherhood
Lord Robilar
Gord the Rogue

Dark Sun - Everybody

Planescape - Everybody

I would not think a conversion to 4e would exagerate any of these character's abilities.

 

[Andor]

I really don't like the underlying antisemitism of this example. I'm sure it's not intended; but this thought experiment identifies the weak, clerk-type person with a Jewish name and also identifies this person as a problem. Not good.

Err... Cohen the Barbarian is a character from Terry Prachett's Discworld books. And he's scrawny and skinny 'cause he's about 100 years old. But in his youth he made Conan look like Don Knotts if it makes you feel any better.

Incidently being ancient and scrawny hasn't made him any less dangerous, in one of the Discworld books Cohen and his sliver hoarde (All 4 of them) conquer the equivilent of China.