Regarding the (supposed) lack of role-playing in 4E

[The Little Raven]

We had the same issue with the caretaker (i think it was called) nature. The players would just say "oh are you allright" and basically 'fake care' to obtain the willpower.

Oh, the absolute worst Nature in my games has always been Survivor.

"I didn't die that scene. I get Willpower."

That's why I kinda like Exalted 2nd's Motivation, since it's not as rigidly defined as Nature, so you can personalize it for your character. It just needs a little bit of a facelift.

 

[apoptosis]

Oh, the absolute worst Nature in my games has always been Survivor.

"I didn't die that scene. I get Willpower."

That's why I kinda like Exalted 2nd's Motivation, since it's not as rigidly defined as Nature, so you can personalize it for your character. It just needs a little bit of a facelift.

WW was trying to initiate a system that really had not been done very well (or at all) up till then, so I do have to give them props for attempting it. I think the issue was that they tried to model the rules using more of a traditional approach to RPGs.

I think WW tried to approach the idea of a storytelling system which was a very laudable goal but at the same time was pretty much wedded overall to traditional RPG mechanics.

 

[sinecure]

Does 4E really lose anything in terms of non-combat role-playing because of the rules emphasis on combat? It seems, in a sense, simply a proper differentiation: Keep the rules and rolling focused on combat and tactics, and keep everything else to role-playing. Or to put it another way, crunch and fluff.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Yeah. Now you're back to saying 4E encourages roleplaying because players don't think in terms of rules if we get rid of skills. Only, if you get rid of skills, then your back to having no game. Roleplaying can be done without rules, but it can hardly be called assistant to or encouraging of roleplaying.

By divorcing combat powers from, and this just sucks as a term, "non-combat play" you pretty much get meaningless combat. And meaningless "non-combat play". Powers last all of 5 minutes tops out of combat. Conditions are all the same and bland. Not to mention they also don't last for longer than 5 minutes out of combat. Heck everything last 5 minutes that's of any worth. I'm healed up in 5 minutes. I'm not poisoned anymore after 5 minutes.

This divorce is completely fictional. When we play everything is potentially a combat implement. My big toe could when us the fight if it's the only thing to jam the door with. Who in 4E is going to think creatively to use a "non-combat play" spell combatively? Or use their equipment in a way no one thought of before to beat down the orcs? Players aren't rewarded for thinking here. They are rewarded for playing power cards are skill cards in the right mixture. Like in Magic the Gathering.

 

[Mallus]

By divorcing combat powers from, and this just sucks as a term, "non-combat play" you pretty much get meaningless combat. And meaningless "non-combat play". Powers last all of 5 minutes tops out of combat. Conditions are all the same and bland. Not to mention they also don't last for longer than 5 minutes out of combat. Heck everything last 5 minutes that's of any worth. I'm healed up in 5 minutes. I'm not poisoned anymore after 5 minutes.

None of this effects the 'meaningfulness' of the campaigns I play in. When my group talks about meaning it's in terms of investment in the given storyline, the dramatic stakes, the characters and motives, etc.. Spell durations and poison recovery rules don't really factor in.

Who in 4E is going to think creatively to use a "non-combat play" spell combatively? Or use their equipment in a way no one thought of before to beat down the orcs?

The people who choose to play that way? That kind of improvisation is fully supported --mechanically, even-- in 4e. I'd cite, but my books are at home.

Players aren't rewarded for thinking here.

That's simply baseless, and too simplistic, seeing as the level of reward for 'innovative play' has always rested in the hands of the DM.

 

[sinecure]

None of this effects the 'meaningfulness' of the campaigns I play in. When my group talks about meaning it's in terms of investment in the given storyline, the dramatic stakes, the characters and motives, etc.. Spell durations and poison recovery rules don't really factor in.

Why limit yourself so forcefully? The only meaning your games have are ones gained by "story"? The bitter and illogical forge terms like stakes and drama actually function in the real world man. Drama comes because you were poisoned. The stakes are you die unless some how it is stopped. You're basically telling yourself that your game is good even though it is so incredibly limited because "your players don't need things like that". Why live in such a bubble?

The people who choose to play that way? That kind of improvisation is fully supported --mechanically, even-- in 4e. I'd cite, but my books are at home.

You've got to be kidding me here. People can play the game in a way it specifically doesn't support or encourage. That doesn't mean the game supports or encourages such play. You're taking my examples as effects without need of cause. That attitude pretty much sums up the design of 4E. Belief that roleplaying will happen when it is virtually more of an impediment to play than a reward.

That's simply baseless, and too simplistic, seeing as the level of reward for 'innovative play' has always rested in the hands of the DM.

You are so far from anything remotely called roleplaying I don't know if I can actually get through to you. People who think. And then perform a good idea. Get rewarded by means of success. Success is a result of thinking. And then acting. Not "the DM agreed it was a good idea so he let me win". I'm beginning to think people on this board are almost entirely clueless when it comes to roleplaying games.

 

[Mallus]

The only meaning your games have are ones gained by "story"?

Most of them. Not all. It's sort of, you know, a preference.

The bitter and illogical forge terms like stakes and drama actually function in the real world man.

Hint: they aren't just Forge terms... particularly 'drama'.

Drama comes because you were poisoned.

Almost. Drama comes if and when you care that your character was poisoned. The interesting thing to discuss is how you get to that point of investment with your in-game avatar, and how much help a given rule set can be.

You're basically telling yourself that your game is good even though it is so incredibly limited because "your players don't need things like that". Why live in such a bubble?

No, I'm telling myself my game is good because my players tell me it's good, and they keep coming back. Also, I'm terribly, terribly clever. Also, what are you talking about? You seem to be responding to something other than what I'm writing. When did I say my games are good? Mind you, they are. But when did that become a topic?

People can play the game in a way it specifically doesn't support or encourage.

Except that I'm talking about playing with full support from the rules. The fact that you don't recognize that isn't my fault.

People who think. And then perform a good idea. Get rewarded by means of success.

Who decides? What constitutes. A. Good. Idea?

What criteria? Did they. Use?

And stop making me type like I'm William Shatner giving a line reading.

Success is a result of thinking. And then acting. Not "the DM agreed it was a good idea so he let me win".

Who evaluates said action again?

I'm beginning to think people on this board are almost entirely clueless when it comes to roleplaying games.

Sez you.

 

[Scribble]

I like boxes!

 

[The Little Raven]

Why limit yourself so forcefully?

Why limit ourselves to what we find fun? Because that's the point of the game: fun. As you have obviously gathered, people have different ideas than you on what constitutes fun.

You're basically telling yourself that your game is good even though it is so incredibly limited because "your players don't need things like that".

Who the hell are you to judge whether his game is good or not, when it meets his and his players' requirements (aka fun)?

Why live in such a bubble?

Why do you care what he decides to limit himself to? Who made you the roleplaying police?

Belief that roleplaying will happen when it is virtually more of an impediment to play than a reward.

In case you weren't aware, there is a group of people that find roleplaying to be it's own reward, and don't feel limited by any kind of system mechanics. It's hard to conceive that someone might be different from you, but if you step off the "one true path" for a moment, you might see something new.

You are so far from anything remotely called roleplaying I don't know if I can actually get through to you.

And, now you're just being an arrogant jerk.

I'm beginning to think people on this board are almost entirely clueless when it comes to roleplaying games.

Maybe you can't intake any new information or ideas from other people because you're so full of yourself. Therapy can help.

 

[Terwox]

I'm beginning to think people on this board are almost entirely clueless when it comes to roleplaying games.

Definite sign of GNS influence.

Anyway. Including rules for non-combat activities doesn't necessarily make a game any better. (Incidentally, FATAL has a half page of rules for making soap.) How often do you think people roll that stuff?

Incidentally, how often are you rolling for carpentry in ANY rpg?

My favorite method is simply writing up a detailed backstory. Then if something comes up in the game, you can either do it or not. It is rarely pivotal to a game in the sense of rolls regarding the non-combat professions. Even in the game w/ the halfing barbarian who dumped points every level into profession (cook,) the story never hinged on the outcome of those rolls -- merely bragging rights, and occasionally morale in how we rp'd.

Like we can't all simply say, ok, trained in profession (cook,) roll a 20. You got a 19. You found some herbs around the way, and the stew is better than your usual flavorless gruel.

Ah well. I'm sure someone has spent hordes of time detailing skill bonuses in various non-combat proficiencies. What I'm not sure is how often rolling that stuff comes up in play in a pivotal way...

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not a fan of rules that reward roleplaying, whatever one means by that. Acting in character, doing a voice, background story, a setting appropriate and good sounding name, not being a dick at the game table, finding reasons to follow the plot rather than escape it, finding reasons to stick with the other PCs rather than be a lone wolf - all of these are good and valuable things imo. But none of them should earn an in game reward such as extra xp or character points or whatever. A player should be doing them because they are the right thing to do.

It would be a bit like awarding a player $10 for turning up to a session. By one sense of the word participating in a session is roleplaying. And yet we don't think it should be rewarded. It's its own reward, something enjoyable or worthwhile in and of itself.

I guess our group does have a punishment for not doing enough 'roleplaying', which is simply not to invite that player back. We only play with people that will do the good things unbidden, they don't need an award system. Perhaps because a lot of them are intangible, highly subjective and very hard to measure. One could also easily end up with a system that awards some worthwhile activities while not awarding others that are equally worthwhile.