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

[marune]

Are there official definitions of storytelling and narrativism that I'm not aware of? I assume you are going off GNS theory?

Both the storyteller system (WoD) and the storyteller type of player in 4E DMG correspond to a form of Simulationism in the Big Model(GNS).

I'm saying open-ended because I think not having rules for every kind of interaction allows for the DM (and players, to a degree) to decide how to approach it.

GURPS has rules for every kind of interaction.

Shadows of Yesterday has basicaly 2 rules to cover all the interaction (Simple check or Complex check).

Powerful, abstract rules can replace technical, specifc rules.

 

[Wik]

Ari: I think because 4e lacks "Character building" skills that really serve no purpose in the game. In 3e, for example, if I wanted my fighter to be a carpenter... I was spending half his starting skill points on a skill I'd be lucky to use once every five levels, instead of, say, Climb or Ride.

I really find no difference between the editions, concerning RP. We played it, and characters still came out, no problem. My NPCs felt the same, and I was still able to make up random details on the setting. And I could still call for the important checks (history, arcana, and whatnot... and now PCs actually HAVE them!) when I wanted to hint at relevant info.

Mind you, I've always leaned away from 3e's extensive skill system, far preferring Earthdawn's "background skills" and "artisan skills" system. It's a much better system for games, in my opinion.

 

[marune]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why is this question being discussed as though 4E doesn't have rules and rolls for interaction? It most certainly does, to an equal or greater extent as any prior edition core rules. (Okay, it lacks a Perform skill, and that can be a hiccup, but that's about the only "missing" aspect I can find, as compared to prior editions.)

Because 4E has less rules than the other editions for "background" stuff.

IMHO, it was not a bad idea (to remove that stuff), but I can see some ways to add background elements into the game in a coherent way.

 

[Mercurius]

Without rules, you are doing some collaborative story building, that can be fun, but that's not a game.

The most important difference is that in a role-playing game, there is some established rules to handle the circumstances where some peoples at the table may not agree about what is happening in the Shared Imagined Space. Usually, those rules are geared to make the experience entertaining.

Sure, but I'm saying that the rules of "fluff" situations don't have to be as sharp as the "crunch," that from what I understand so far of 4E it doesn't lack for not having, as Mouseferatu mentioned, a Perform skill (I DO find the lack of non-combat spells a bit irking, though).

This is where background description in chargen is important: With the DM's guidance a player can put together a compelling and "verisimilitudinous" background that might include performance of some kind. Now if rule are needed in a specific situation--say the character enters a lute playing contest--the DM can opt for using an ability check. But a lot of the time it just wouldn't be necessary, for example:

PC: "I pick up the lute and strum the strings."
DM: "Roll a Perform (Lute) skill check vs. DC 15 to see if you break a string."

If the DM really must ask for this sort of thing, does the PC need a Lute skill? Or will a Dex check suffice? Why over-complicate things with relatively unnecessary stats?

I suppose it is largely a matter of taste.

 

[marune]

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.

 

[marune]

Sure, but I'm saying that the rules of "fluff" situations don't have to be as sharp as the "crunch," that from what I understand so far of 4E it doesn't lack for not having, as Mouseferatu mentioned, a Perform skill (I DO find the lack of non-combat spells a bit irking, though).

This is where background description in chargen is important: With the DM's guidance a player can put together a compelling and "verisimilitudinous" background that might include performance of some kind. Now if rule are needed in a specific situation--say the character enters a lute playing contest--the DM can opt for using an ability check. But a lot of the time it just wouldn't be necessary, for example

If a "Lute contest" is a rewardable challenge, it is the same as combat (crunch).

D&D 4E simply chose to not include these kind of challenge, because it's not the focus of the game.

If your doing a "Lute contest" as fluff, i.e. to add "color", you shouldn't need rules (players+DM may simply choose togeter if the PC won or loose).

 

[Mouseferatu]

(I DO find the lack of non-combat spells a bit irking, though).

Read the ritual chapter yet?

Okay, back on topic...

Yes, 4E has fewer options for mechanically representing pre-adventuring background than 3E did. Fair enough.

But it has more rules for determining social interaction during the course of the game, and the 4E PHB devotes more word count than the 3E PHB did to establishing non-mechanical character aspects like personality and behavioral quirks.

I do wish they'd included an optional "background skills" system, something totally separate from the "adventuring skills," so players weren't sacrificing one for the other. (Heck, maybe they still will, in Dragon or a future PHB.) So I'm not arguing at all that 4E has everything D&D has ever had, in any incarnation, in terms of "role-playing rules."

But I still maintain that, while it has different strengths and weaknesses, its overall attention to RP is at least as great, if not greater, than prior editions, without necessarily straightjacketing those who prefer a more freeform, rules-lite (or even rules-absent) form of RP interaction.

That's why, of all the 4E comments I see online, "It's not an RPG" just baffles me more than anything. I can understand quite a few reasons for not liking the game, even though I (obviously) don't share them. But that one's just like people are speaking in Greek; I can't even parse it.

 

[marune]

Read the ritual chapter yet?
But it has more rules for determining social interaction during the course of the game, and the 4E PHB devotes more word count than the 3E PHB did to establishing non-mechanical character aspects like personality and behavioral quirks.

But the PHB doesn't explain how they should really be used during game (only that they shouldn't go agains't your Combat Role) and there is no reward system linked to their usage.

That's why, of all the 4E comments I see online, "It's not an RPG" just baffles me more than anything. I can understand quite a few reasons for not liking the game, even though I (obviously) don't share them. But that one's just like people are speaking in Greek; I can't even parse it.

D&D 4E is certainly a RPG* and even if it's certainly not my prefered kind, it is IMHO the best D&D edition.

*Any game where there is a Shared Imagined Space is by definition a RPG.

 

[Wik]

But the PHB doesn't explain how they should really be used during game and there is no reward system linked to their usage.



D&D 4E is certainly a RPG and even if it's certainly not my prefered kind, it is IMHO the best D&D edition.

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.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But the PHB doesn't explain how they should really be used during game and there is no reward system linked to their usage.

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.

4E's skill challenge system does a good job of rewarding XP for social encounters, which is sort of "two degrees of separation" away from RP rewards. But it's not quite there.