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

[Hairfoot]

I'm happy to discuss it, Mallus, but I won't respond to line-by-line rebuttals. Can you put it into some paragraphs?

 

[buzz]

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.

The DMG has this info. Also, you can now earn as much XP for a purely social encounter as you can for a combat, something which has never been true of any prior edition, AFAIK. There's your reward system.

I find all this talk kind of silly. Looking at the full spectrum of RPGs out there, 4e and 3.x look pretty identical to me. Neither game would be my choice for deep, non-combat character exploration. Ditto for every other edition of D&D.

Nonetheless, in terms of supporting non-combat play, 4e does more than any other edition, period.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

Sorry about the late reply--I went to bed

Anyways, I like your house rule and may use it myself! In some ways I wish D&D had an ever simpler core with more guidelines for house rules--sort of like a very basic rule set, with tons of optional rules that can be used. Of course this makes it difficult for tournaments, but maybe even if there were three basic rules sets: Core/Basic, Advanced, and Optional/House rules.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

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.

And the skills challenges section, this is treating it with contempt, is it?

What sort of rules are you looking for, to 'create a detailed story'? What rules could they have offered that you would have liked?

 

[Scribble]

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."

Technically they do... I mean you can still make a stat check for the "unknown skills" and just reduce the DC... But I know what you mean.

I think I might houserule the following:

Characters get a number of "background" skills = to their INT bonus that they are considered trained in. These are additional to their class skills.

Background skills are anything you can come up with but they won't give you what I call a "jerk bonus..." ie I have 12 levels in cheesemaking, clearly I should geta bonus to hit oozes and slimes because I know all about gooey things!

You might be able to use them in skill challenges though.

 

[buzz]

You don't need everyone on the same page for a successful D&D campaign.

Famous last words.

To skeptic's point, you don't necessarily need rules to achieve shared expectations among your group, but it certainly helps. It is a unique failing among RPGs that people can come to the table with no idea what to expect out of play.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

LOL. I'm not opposed to GNS theory, but I think it should be used as a heuristic device, and then only lightly, rather than as Absolute Law.

But yeah, I of course agree with you in the above example. My guess is that, as someone pointed out, the main reason WotC took out background skills is so that people didn't have to "waste" skill points on non-adventuring skills, so that 3.x characters had a tendency to be LESS realistic because no one wanted to spend valuable skill points on Farming.

 

[marune]

The DMG has this info. Also, you can now earn as much XP for a purely social encounter as you can for a combat, something which has never been true of any prior edition, AFAIK. There's your reward system.

I'm not sure that "personality traits" and "background features" are more related to skill challenges than to combat, but my point was that I would have prefered more specific guidelines as how to put these traits/features in play.

I find all this talk kind of silly. Looking at the full spectrum of RPGs out there, 4e and 3.x look pretty identical to me. Neither game would be my choice for deep, non-combat character exploration. Ditto for every other edition of D&D.

I agree with that of course.

Nonetheless, in terms of supporting non-combat play, 4e does more than any other edition, period.

In terms of challenges different of combat, yeah, but in terms of exploration of mundane situations with detailled rules (rolling a dice to know if you can start a fire or a climb a tree) maybe less than 2E/3E.

 

[Mallus]

Famous last words.

Hey, I'm in Year Four of DM'ing for a group that pretty much covers the D&D spectrum --excluding rules lawyers and the socially maladjusted but including an actual lawyer and two bona fide rules masters. Maybe I'm just lucky... or damn good!

To skeptic's point, you don't necessarily need rules to achieve shared expectations among your group, but it certainly helps.

See, I don't neccessarily think you need shared expectations, outside of a basic agreement not to get in the way of each others enjoyment. While I realize that some players are legitimately incompatible, I think far too much is made of play styles being so.

D&D is often a lot of games at once, or at least in rapid succession; with the basic action that comprises play and/or the loci of interest changing multiple times in the space of a single session. This is why I love RPG's, and it's also why I'm skeptical for the call for greater uniformity in play.

It is a unique failing among RPGs that people can come to the table with no idea what to expect out of play.

That's often part of their charm.

 

[marune]

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.

Well thanks, it comes of a mix of different techniques used in indie RPGs.

The important idea hidden behind it, is that these traits won't become a strait-jacket; the characters won't be static because the players are encouraged to change the traits on a ongoing basis.