Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4119720" data-attributes="member: 957">A lot of people keep turning this issue backward and it doesn't work that way.You don't need rules FOR roleplaying, but it can be much better to keep the rules out of the way.If the rules have &quot;NOTHING&quot; to do with roleplaying then chess or monopoly would be every bit as good an RPG as D&amp;D.&nbsp; That said, nothing can stop me from roleplaying hard when I play chess or monopoly.&nbsp; I can remember times when I really did roleplay through games of MTG. But those games all suck as RPGs because the rules prevent the roleplaying from fitting with the game itself.&nbsp; You can haggle the rent of Park Place and threaten to stay elsewhere, but the abstract rules of Monopoly make that fail because in the end you must stay a Park Place and pay the rent.&nbsp; The rules get in the way.Is 4e like Monopoly?&nbsp; Hell no.&nbsp; But the point is, you can roleplay anything hard, but how frequently the rules work with you is important to the final experience.&nbsp; And that gets back to the gamist/simulation thing.&nbsp; If someone wants more simulation, then more abstract systems are going to be less appealing. It isn't a question of 4e won't work for roleplaying.&nbsp; Let's just say that for what I want 3E is only 1% better than 4e.&nbsp; Then I've got stacks of books for a game that is 1% better.&nbsp; Why in the world would I switch?&nbsp; I'm good where I'm at.&nbsp; 4E must make me want to switch.&nbsp; It has failed at that.&nbsp; And a big reason (not all, but significant) is that while I can roleplay just as much in any system, I'm convinced by what I have seen so far that 4e would resonate much less with the roleplaying I want.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4119720, member: 957"] A lot of people keep turning this issue backward and it doesn't work that way. You don't need rules FOR roleplaying, but it can be much better to keep the rules out of the way. If the rules have "NOTHING" to do with roleplaying then chess or monopoly would be every bit as good an RPG as D&D. That said, nothing can stop me from roleplaying hard when I play chess or monopoly. I can remember times when I really did roleplay through games of MTG. But those games all suck as RPGs because the rules prevent the roleplaying from fitting with the game itself. You can haggle the rent of Park Place and threaten to stay elsewhere, but the abstract rules of Monopoly make that fail because in the end you must stay a Park Place and pay the rent. The rules get in the way. Is 4e like Monopoly? Hell no. But the point is, you can roleplay anything hard, but how frequently the rules work with you is important to the final experience. And that gets back to the gamist/simulation thing. If someone wants more simulation, then more abstract systems are going to be less appealing. It isn't a question of 4e won't work for roleplaying. Let's just say that for what I want 3E is only 1% better than 4e. Then I've got stacks of books for a game that is 1% better. Why in the world would I switch? I'm good where I'm at. 4E must make me want to switch. It has failed at that. And a big reason (not all, but significant) is that while I can roleplay just as much in any system, I'm convinced by what I have seen so far that 4e would resonate much less with the roleplaying I want. [/QUOTE]

Verification