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

[marune]

PCs can choose their own minor quests, and get XP for accomplishing them. This is mentioned in the DMG.

That's pretty much a reward system, that works better than anything in 3e, I'm afraid.

Asking players to come up with minor quests is a good thing.

Asking players to follow/interpret the personality traits of their PC to choose which quests the later should do is usually a bad thing IMHO.

 

[marune]

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I've never really felt the need for a game to reward RP, but I can see how some people would want it to.

A reward system isn't a must, but at the minimum, you need some kind of "fun" mechanics to drive the players toward a given behavior, in this case, using personality traits in play.

For example, the above "invoke a trait to get a +2".

 

[Mouseferatu]

A reward system isn't a must, but at the minimum, you need some kind of "fun" mechanics to drive the players toward a given behavior (that's Mike Holmes words).

For example, the above "invoke a trait to get a +2".

See, I'm honestly not sure I'd like a game like that. For me, and in the campaigns and groups I've most enjoyed, RP is its own reward. It's just part of the play experience, no less important than, but separate from, rolling the dice. But I don't want the rules telling me how to RP, just to help me determine the results.

Not saying systems that "drive the players toward a given behavior" are necessarily bad. I just don't think they're right for me, and I don't believe they're necessary for an RP-focused game.

 

[marune]

See, I'm honestly not sure I'd like a game like that. For me, and in the campaigns and groups I've most enjoyed, RP is its own reward. It's just part of the play experience, no less important than, but separate from, rolling the dice. But I don't want the rules telling me how to RP, just to help me determine the results.

If your group agrees that what you describe is the way the game is played, it's fine, but IME more you put your trust in a implicit system, more you are at risk of having frustrated players playing a different game at the same table.

That's something to avoid if you want to facilitate the exchanges of players between groups, for example on the DDI game table (or if you want to reduce the number of Internet debates on how the game should be played ).

I just don't think they're right for me, and I don't believe they're necessary for an RP-focused game.

Can I ask you to define what is for you a RP-focused game ?

 

[Terwox]

This thread is needlessly muddied by GNS.

I think the OP has a good point. If you want your character to be a carpenter, he's a carpenter. No need for him to be less of an acrobat and less of a pickpocket because he has a backstory. If it comes up during the game, awesome. If you need to roll carpentry during the game, by all means, hit him with a bonus to the roll. More likely, let him succeed. Simple.

Someone should really stat up Ron Edwards as a Lawful Neutral deity of confusion and self-assuredness.

 

[am181d]

I remember during the conversion process from first to second edition, I had a hard time "paying" for all the different skills my character had acquired. He was a hunter, a painter, a shipwright, etc. And before we had proper rules for the skills, we just worked it out in story.

That game was pretty much 95% role-playing. (It was one of those "this week, your adventure is to go to the grocery store and then talk to the baron about the trade negotiation.") And we never felt the need to role dice to figure out how pretty a picture was or how clean the ship deck was.

That said, I'm all for adding on 1 to 2 "background skills" per person, and using the ritual rules to cover crafting. (As I believe that it's already been announced that alchemy will work this way.)

 

[Hairfoot]

By not having extensive rules and skill lists for every possible non-combat situation, isn't role-playing in a sense opened up by not being dictated rules and thus by excessive house-keeping?
...doesn't this offer a greater degree of not only freedom in character creation, but a more open-ended approach to non-combat situations?

I agree entirely with that sentiment, which is why Basic D&D was such a playground for imagination. But what we have in 4E is a highly developed combat system and an entire game structure focussed on combat. The message is "detailed rules are important, but only for combat, because that's the fun part. If you want to create a detailed story, just make up any rules you like. But you shouldn't need to because you'll be having too much fun prepping for another fight".

I don't think that the 4E ruleset makes roleplaying harder. It just treats the whole notion with contempt.

 

[Ambush Bug]

As an example, I suggested this house rule in another thread :

You can choose up to 5 "background feature" that you may call to get a +2 circumstance modifier one time every session. If your 5 slots aren't filled, you can create one on the fly (must be approved by the other players / DM). The DM can call on one of those feature to get you a -2 circumstances modifier, once he has done it, you can choose to drop the feature.

That's one of the best house rules I've ever seen. It provides a small but tangible reward to players who've put some thought into their character, it's not likely to overpower the rest of the game, and it has a built-in drawback to curtail abuse. Plus it's modular, so it's easy to drop into different game systems. Well done.

See, I'm honestly not sure I'd like a game like that. For me, and in the campaigns and groups I've most enjoyed, RP is its own reward. It's just part of the play experience, no less important than, but separate from, rolling the dice. But I don't want the rules telling me how to RP, just to help me determine the results.

Not saying systems that "drive the players toward a given behavior" are necessarily bad. I just don't think they're right for me, and I don't believe they're necessary for an RP-focused game.

Of course they’re not necessary for people who enjoy playing roles. But they’re a way to encourage that kind of play, and to thank players for working on the game’s background. As a GM, I want to give something to players who act out a memorable persona, or who write up five-page character histories that I can plunder for ideas. I know what kind of game I enjoy being involved with. If I can offer something cool to people who play in a similar fashion, and/or if I can get a nifty little reward for playing the way I do, I’m gonna go for it. I don’t see something like skeptic’s system telling you how to roleplay. It just gives you a fulcrum to balance your character choices on, so you can give the game mechanics a nudge from time to time.

 

[Mallus]

The message is "detailed rules are important, but only for combat, because that's the fun part.

Or that combat is the part of the game you need a common, detailed rule set for. It's possible to read 4e like that.

If you want to create a detailed story, just make up any rules you like.

Well, yes. Do you want D&D to become Burning Wheel? D&D has never provided 'rules for story'. Story was we brought to it/made from it.

But you shouldn't need to because you'll be having too much fun prepping for another fight".

This is reading into and not out of.

It just treats the whole notion with contempt.

But doing what, exactly?

 

[Mallus]

If your group agrees that what you describe is the way the game is played, it's fine, but IME more you put your trust in a implicit system, more you are at risk of having frustrated players playing a different game at the same table.

I'm more concerned about the reverse; the more you rely on explicit systems, the less the game can accommodate different/divergent play styles in the same campaign. Since my experience is that everyone's expectations, desires, and play styles are, to varying degrees, different, I don't need is a rule set that assumes the participants are playing the same kind of game.

I prefer "big tent" D&D, inclusive, where social agreements manage differences in player expectations. It's not that hard to do. You don't need everyone on the same page for a successful D&D campaign. All you need is a ability to calmly negotiate through conflicts.