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

[ExploderWizard]

Well, objectively the rules for 4E do not help nor hinder the roleplaying experience. The tone of advice (not rules) in the 4E DMG is to skip the "boring stuff" and move on to the next encounter. The problem here is that the definition of "boring stuff" will vary greatly from one group to the next.

Even though it has nothing to do with rules, I find it more of a challenge to immerse myself in a role when the world lacks internal consistency. The character (and the world) just seem more artificial and less lifelike. Its just a style difference.

 

[marune]

Well, objectively the rules for 4E do not help nor hinder the roleplaying experience. The tone of advice (not rules) in the 4E DMG is to skip the "boring stuff" and move on to the next encounter. The problem here is that the definition of "boring stuff" will vary greatly from one group to the next.

A nod to scene framing in the DMG is fantastic, but it is poorly written.

The key idea is that when you decide (you is the group) that a situation will be a challenge, you rely on the rules to resolve actions; when the situation is not a challenge, you can skip over it or simply do some narration/acting.

Even though it has nothing to do with rules, I find it more of a challenge to immerse myself in a role when the world lacks internal consistency. The character (and the world) just seem more artificial and less lifelike. Its just a style difference.

It's hard at first, but when you recognize that the rules are needed only to resolve conflicts between players/DM, you feel much relief.

 

[National Acrobat]

I see people trot this argument out all the time, but I have yet to see a game actually work like this in practice.

Mechanics are not antithetical to "roleplaying". On the contrary, I find the idea that one can support something via omission to be kinda strange.

4e isn't showing contempt by including the skill challenge rules. It's playing catch-up to games that have established this as basic RPG design.

I personally think (and I still run a 1E game at the moment, but I have tried and run 4E) that 4E does a very decent job of allowing RP because it removes some of the rolls that 3e had.

My group has always used Role playing to define social interactions without rolls, even when we play 3.5 we role play social interactions without rolls, and the couple of times that we had that come up in our few 4e tests, we simply didn't use the skill system to resolve our interactions.

 

[Mallus]

The #1 problem I have seen in the various groups I've been in is a clash in expectations.

Oh, I agree with this. But I see it as a problem inherent in the form, and one best addressed by informal social rules.

I find the whole idea (canonized in the 4e and 3.5 DMG, DMG2, Robin's Laws, and other sources) that you can have a, e.g., actor, storyteller, slayer, tactician, and power gamer all in the same group and satisfy them all to be a total fallacy.

How close are you to Philadelphia, and would you accept 'reasonable satisfied'?

At best, you end up with players taking turns having fun while everyone else is bored.

I'm not sure how you avoid this by aligning play styles. I play in an M&M game where the group is basically on the same --batsh*t insane-- page, but that doesn't alter the fact the each user (player) takes turns tying up the server (GM). This is also true for many multiplayer board games. Again, it's inherent in the architecture. Part of RPG play will always be learning to enjoy the other guys turn, the same way a part of RISK will always be sitting on your hands while two other people slug it out over Indonesia with giant armies.

But we're drifting...

Oops... we are.

 

[Mister Doug]

The rules and presentation of a game encourage certain types of play, and 4E's rules encourage combat and little else.

I'm baffled when this stopped being a generally descriptive trait of any form of D&D. D&D and AD&D were criticized for this when I was but a wee gamer (often by players of more arcane games like C&S, RQ, or eventually GURPS, Ars Magica, Storyteller, etc.), and a criticism of 3.x (by Storyteller system players, indie gamers, etc. as well as Old Timers who pointed out both 3.x's focus on power through feats, prestige classes, feats, etc. and its focus on the 'return to the dungeon' ideal.)

A heavy, nearly exclusive, combat focus has been a central feature of D&D since... well, D&D. This seems a strange complaint for the game itself. The fact that heavy roleplay campaigns happen all the time in D&D seems to occur due to factors other than the rules as written.

Wanting to seem more options is not a strange complaint, but that seems more an issue of being concerned that D&D hasn't changed enough rather than that it changed too much.

 

[buzz]

It may be pretty clear in skill challenges, but in combat ? I'm not sure at all. The DMG could have also suggested that the DM can share the narration role when it comes to describe effects.

It does talk about adding descriptive flavor to combat, but it's pretty much left to the DM. I agree that sharing that kind of responsibility would have been a nice addition.

Lately, I've been taking a nod from InSpectres and having the players describe successes (well, crits at least), while I describe failures. I think it adds to the fun.

 

[AllisterH]

Strange....I must have a different interpretation of "roleplaying rules".

To me, 4E's OPENING chapter in the PHB which actually makes the player think about how his character will ACTUALLY respond does more to encourage roleplaying than everything put TOGETHER pre-4E.

How the PHB actually puts character "fluff" BEFORE actual mechanics again to me makes 4E more roleplayer friendly than anything before it.

Am I truly the only one that looks at the 4E PHB opening chapters and realizes how much this does to encourage roleplaying?

I much rather have players think "well' I answered that motivation question so my character will respond like this" than "ok, how many points did I put into Profession (sailor) again?"


Seriously, do people consider putting skill points into things like Profession (sailor) more of a roleplaying hint/incentive/rule than the opening chapters which actually make players THINK how their character should act?

When the hell did this happen?

 

[marune]

Strange....I must have a different interpretation of "roleplaying rules".

To me, 4E's OPENING chapter in the PHB which actually makes the player think about how his character will ACTUALLY respond does more to encourage roleplaying than everything put TOGETHER pre-4E.

How the PHB actually puts character "fluff" BEFORE actual mechanics again to me makes 4E more roleplayer friendly than anything before it.

Am I truly the only one that looks at the 4E PHB opening chapters and realizes how much this does to encourage roleplaying?

Making every decision by "being in his character's shoes" is one way to play a RPG, but it is certainly not the only one.

 

[buzz]

I'm not sure how you avoid this by aligning play styles. I play in an M&M game where the group is basically on the same --batsh*t insane-- page, but that doesn't alter the fact the each user (player) takes turns tying up the server (GM).

I like the server metaphor.

There's no doubt that there's a basic level of courtesy involved. Only so much can happen at one time. But players who are all grooving on the same thing will enjoy each other's turns more than players who aren't. I.e., they are all playing the same game. Players with totally different expectations are essentially playing different games, and no good can come from that.

Mind you, I'm talking about overall expectations, i.e., the trend in the group. A combat-focused game will involve some story, and a story-focused game will probably involve some combat. My point is that that those two games can't successfully co-exist.

 

[Psion]

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.

Then how is he an acrobat? Was he part of a performing carpentry troupe?

Seriously, I consider that approach to be full of fail. There are much better ways to ensure that you aren't hitting the player where it hurts when it comes to making them use chargen resources to define their characters. I do not consider "handwaved character skills" to be an acceptable substitute.