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

[Agamon]

A couple of quotes of the day on Google today reminded me of this board:

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.
- Dandemis

 

[Doug McCrae]

On the encounter level, D&D should stay Gamist, however at the adventure level (which challenges you'll face), D&D could learn from games like Burning Wheel (BITS) or The Riddle of Steel (Spiritual attributes) of course.

Could you expand on this? I'm not familiar with BW and RoS.

I agree that the battlegrid is very much the place for gamism. Outside of it, it's much harder to tell when to be G. Our games involve a fair bit of 'Gygaxian gamism' where the players are trying to succeed at a GM imposed challenge and success/failure depends mostly on whether the GM likes your idea and/or face, with maybe a few die rolls to help or hinder the PCs.

An example of a conflict between G and not-G (wasn't N or S either though) from our last campaign was the situation regarding an NPC called 'Balls' Borealis, imo the most characterful, entertaining and funniest NPC in the game. The other two players wanted to kill him as it would benefit their characters. I didn't, mostly because I personally liked the NPC. Our actions were perfectly in character for all three PCs btw, so everyone was 'roleplaying'.

 

[apoptosis]

Definite sign of GNS influence.

Hey dont blame GNS...I am a HUGE fan of it and I don't think my posts ever resemble that one.

 

[apoptosis]

Could you expand on this? I'm not familiar with BW and RoS.

An example of a conflict between G and not-G (wasn't N or S either though) from our last campaign was the situation regarding an NPC called 'Balls' Borealis, imo the most characterful, entertaining and funniest NPC in the game. The other two players wanted to kill him as it would benefit their characters. I didn't, mostly because I personally liked the NPC. Our actions were perfectly in character for all three PCs btw, so everyone was 'roleplaying'.

I think what he means (skeptic tell me if I am wrong) but encounters should still use the detailed task resolution that 4E has developed to give players meaningful choices within an encounter. this allows players to enjoy the fiddly bits of combat and lets 4E shine in the area it has chose which is flavorful and dynamic combat.

But when you zoom out of combat, the system should use other mechanics to invest the players with theirs characters goals.

BW..uses beliefs as a way to do this. PLayers get artha (action points basically) for involving themselves in actions that tie into their players beleifs.

For instance...if a player had a character whose belief (an ingame mechanic and stat) was "My brother should be emperor and I will make sure that this comes to pass"

When you character involves himself in activities that would lead to his brother being emperor (even if such result never comes to pass) he gains artha (action points, which can really strongly influence the success of die rolls). This means the player is always trying to involve his character in scenes about his brothers rise to power. Most importatnly the player is rewarded for doing so. Since the player picked his beliefs that means the GM knows that the brother's rise to power is an important story element for the player.

Skeptic probably has better examples (i suck at examples)

 

[apoptosis]

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.
.

I think rules that allow players to both influence the story and give the players a vehicle to tell the GM what interests them are good rules.

It somewhat goes back to the question of "why reward any result or action with XP"

Generally rewards are used to stimulate and enforce certain elements of play. For D&D killing monsters and acquiring treasure was the biggest way to be rewarded.

Rules that reward roleplaying (and by this I absolutely don't mean becomig an amateur thespian) are another way to do this.

You could never reward any actions and just give levels as you feel like (which some games/groups do).

For me, I think rewards are a way for a game to help stimulate the type of play that the game is best suited for.

 

[marune]

I think what he means (skeptic tell me if I am wrong) but encounters should still use the detailed task resolution that 4E has developed to give players meaningful choices within an encounter. this allows players to enjoy the fiddly bits of combat and lets 4E shine in the area it has chose which is flavorful and dynamic combat.

But when you zoom out of combat, the system should use other mechanics to invest the players with theirs characters goals.

BW..uses beliefs as a way to do this. PLayers get artha (action points basically) for involving themselves in actions that tie into their players beleifs.

For instance...if a player had a character whose belief (an ingame mechanic and stat) was "My brother should be emperor and I will make sure that this comes to pass"

When you character involves himself in activities that would lead to his brother being emperor (even if such result never comes to pass) he gains artha (action points, which can really strongly influence the success of die rolls). This means the player is always trying to involve his character in scenes about his brothers rise to power. Most importatnly the player is rewarded for doing so. Since the player picked his beliefs that means the GM knows that the brother's rise to power is an important story element for the player.

Skeptic probably has better examples (i suck at examples)

I can't write an example now, but yeah that's the idea.

BW and RoS are a bit different, because while in both you need to fight for important things for your character to survive (that's where Artha and Spiritual Attributes come into play), the first has a gamist combat system (BW with Fight!) while the other has an hardcore simulationist one* (RoS).

*Recommended by the arma.

 

[apoptosis]

I can't write an example now, but yeah that's the idea.

BW and RoS are a bit different, because while in both you need to fight for important things for your character to survive (that's where Artha and Spiritual Attributes come into play), the first has a gamist combat system (BW with Fight!) while the other has an hardcore simulationist one* (RoS).

*Recommended by the arma.

One thing nice about BW (i have never played TRoS) is that it is a good example that you can have a game with very strong gamist elements and very strong story-driving elements and that they can work really well with each other.

 

[marune]

One thing nice about BW (i have never played TRoS) is that it is a good example that you can have a game with very strong gamist elements and very strong story-driving elements and that they can work really well with each other.

BW is a really nice Hybrid G-N game with a high amount of Exploration.

Hybrid games work then the different agenda are divided in different parts of the game.

It can be dangerous with Sim players who will fail to understand the goal of the game while looking at the HUGE like of skills that get better when used.

 

[SSquirrel]

This thread is needlessly muddied by GNS.

This. The GNS has been a complete waste of time since it was first written. Mostly of gamers arguing about how something fits or doesn't in one of their concepts.

 

[apoptosis]

BW is a really nice Hybrid G-N game with a high amount of Exploration.

Hybrid games work then the different agenda are divided in different parts of the game.

It can be dangerous with Sim players who will fail to understand the goal of the game while looking at the HUGE like of skills that get better when used.

You send those players to Rolemaster (which strangely is one of my all time favorite games )

Players also have to look at the issue that choices are not balanced and are not meant to be and that system masters is really important.

It is a good example of a game that promotes RPing without any thought that RPing equates to thespianism but is about choices that players make in the overall context of the narrative.

I have to admit though...i hate scripting..... I did combat and just removed the scripting (which for some is a real draw..but I found really unwieldy and not much fun)