Playtest report: Hanging on a fence

[ppaladin123]

I really think part of the reason you lacked spontaneous roleplay, and the whole boardgame feel in general, doesn't come from the rules... it comes from the fact that you're using pregenerated characters. Spontaneous roleplay happens when players are attached to their characters, in the mind of their characters. When you use pregenerated characters, it *is* like a boardgame. It's like saying "Do you want the shoe, the thimble, or the cannon?" in Monopoly, just with a little more effect on the game.

This is a great point. I hope everyone keeps this in mind.

 

[mhensley]

I'm sorry to hear that, mhens. Mainly because most of the stuff you post is stuff I agree with, and therefore I deduce that you're brilliant. Like you, I'm a bit leery of the "gamist" side of things. Unlike you, I'm planning on reading the books, playing the game, and determining if my uneasiness is baseless.

Just my two coppers.

Wis

I don't doubt that 4e will be a fun and very successful game and I very well may buy it at some point, but I will wait for the full reviews first. My group has little interest in changing to it at this point and I was the main proponent for doing so anyways. Right now I see the edition change as a good time to try out something different out.

 

[mhensley]

At least the 'new gamism' allows your characters to do something other than stand there like a rubber Godzilla slugging away and going, "I hit. I miss. I hit. I miss."

That's cool if you want to push, pull, and mark stuff in combat. Me, I want to be able to shoot guys in the nads and have the choice mechanically meaningful and not just being the dm's description of abstract hit point damage which may/may not mean real damage. Yeah, D&D has never done this but 4e has made combat and damage so abstract that I just can't see liking it for very long.

 

[Falkus]

eah, D&D has never done this but 4e has made combat and damage so abstract that I just can't see liking it for very long.

I honestly don't see 4e hitpoints as being any more abstract than any of the previous editions.

 

[Cadfan]

That's cool if you want to push, pull, and mark stuff in combat. Me, I want to be able to shoot guys in the nads and have the choice mechanically meaningful and not just being the dm's description of abstract hit point damage which may/may not mean real damage. Yeah, D&D has never done this but 4e has made combat and damage so abstract that I just can't see liking it for very long.

Ironically, the 4e power system is probably the closest that D&D will ever, ever come to what you want.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You are right. However, if the tactical combat is devoid of sponteneous role-playing, something is amiss. To me that would be akin to complaining that a session of free-form negotiation lacked conflict.

Still, it's just a preview playtest and I'm not going to miss a chance of playing it for real once the rules proper becomes available.

Of course there was no roleplaying! There were only two players, playing two PC each. It's the perfect setup to get no roleplaying whatsoever.

1-The fewer player you have, the fewer interactions you get, the less dramatic conflict* is created, the less roleplaying you get.

2-For 95% of players, When you have to deal with two characters, you don't get to roleplay twice as much. You get to roleplay half as much.

What are you gonna do? Roleplay them both in alternance, changing voice like a poor man's Robin William? Are you going to roleplay your two characters against each other like a bad puppet show? You'd look like an idiot and you know it so you become self conscious. About the only alternative is to treat one like a cohort yes-man and only roleplay the leader.

*I mean conflict in a positive way. The kind that create entertaining roleplaying exchange. You can't have a good story without it.

 

[Professor Phobos]

1-The fewer player you have, the fewer interactions you get, the less dramatic conflict* is created, the less roleplaying you get.

Not necessarily- I've seen a Mulder and Skully style "extensive development of two characters and their relationship" sort of thing before. The trouble is that it kind of lacks variety, and gets a little tiresome. My preference is at least 3-4 characters for a good range of interactions.

2-For 95% of players, When you have to deal with two characters, you don't get to roleplay twice as much. You get to roleplay half as much.

Definitely true. It's very cumbersome, and it feels circular, to roleplay the interaction of two PCs that you control at the same time.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

As I said, 4E turned out to be tireing but still it was fun. When we had finished we all had a sense of weirdness. "This is not D&D. This is not role-playing at all." It was like being a wrestler and a new set of rules turned your sport into boxing. I decided there and then to cancel my pre-order. I had not expected this.

I'm not surprised that people playing combat only rules with multiple characters each didn't feel like they were role-playing. Indeed, that's about all I would expect!

 

[HeinorNY]

I really think part of the reason you lacked spontaneous roleplay, and the whole boardgame feel in general, doesn't come from the rules... it comes from the fact that you're using pregenerated characters. Spontaneous roleplay happens when players are attached to their characters, in the mind of their characters. When you use pregenerated characters, it *is* like a boardgame. It's like saying "Do you want the shoe, the thimble, or the cannon?" in Monopoly, just with a little more effect on the game.

I shared the OP's feelings when I had my 4E playtest, but I think you hit the spot, at least most of it.

The "zoom to arena" effect, the boardgame impression and the all "weirdness" were all enhaced by a strong feeling of "artificiality", and I think the fact we were using pregenerated characters greatly contributed to that feeling.

Add to that a playtest adventure that is just a series of encounters and the fact this is a brand new game and we don't know the full extent of its rules yet.
We should also add all the talking about D&D becoming too video-gamey, too WoW and too "gamist", and all those kinds of terrorism and misinformation, in a way that some people may end up being uncounsciously biased towards that first impression. I personally played my first playtest wanting NOT to see the "videwow-gamist" stuff, but I think the wish had the opposite effect in the end.

Of course, I'm still switching.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Spontaneous role playing requires a bit of comfort with the rules, I think. Maybe you were all just focused on figuring out abilities, combat rules, etc.

I also think that roleplaying is never as much fun with pre-made characters handed to you. With no background, no investment in them etc. this puts a real brake on roleplaying IME.