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

[apoptosis]

I find BW somewhat difficult to play (you need everyone in the group to really understand and master the rules to some extent to get the magic out of it) but I think for someone interested in RPGs it is a GREAT RPG to read.

While Luke can be a bit heavy handed in his text he really has a great grasp of how mechanics can really drive certain playstyles.

I would say read it when you get a chance. His game is incredibly well designed even if it is not for everyone.

 

[marune]

BW is actually more like D&D than it is different, really. I don't think there's really any reason D&D could not move more in that direction while still being distinctively D&D. Honestly, 4e has kind of been doing this.

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.

I don't agree that 4E has done much of it yet, even if some Simulationism left-overs from earlier editions where cleaned a bit

 

[apoptosis]

But what reason *is* there to play your character as a dumb guy? It's somewhat more feasible from a game perspective, and also IMO somewhat more fitting IRL, to just let the intelligence score bonuses apply to the dice rolling. A character with 8 Int might just have a set of selective learning disabilities with regards to the defined Int-based skills, but otherwise be competent in the areas of tactics and speaking and so forth. This would be in keeping with real life, at least IMO, where I've observed people with exactly these kinds of strengths and weaknesses. IMO the best "incentive" for roleplaying is to let people play the kind of character that they want to - and not to force the "stereotypical moron" role on someone's character with an 8 Int if there are other possible interpretations of what that stat means. This logic goes for the other stats as well.

Some games llike BW have "negative" traits. If you invoke the negative trait in a situation that results in a negative results (you have the trait clumsy and you knock the macguffin off the table and break it) you get bonus action points.

This allows players to determine when the traits come into play and gives them incentive to play them.

I imagine something similar could be done with D&D stats that are below-average.

 

[apoptosis]

BW is actually more like D&D than it is different, really. I don't think there's really any reason D&D could not move more in that direction while still being distinctively D&D. Honestly, 4e has kind of been doing this.

While I tend to agree with most things you say, i generally disagree with this.

I think BW is way more different from D&D than it is similar (using RPGs in general as my spectrum).

Conflict resolution, Forking skills, resources, character creation. For me they seem to really be different (4E is closer than previous versions i believe but is still not very close)

 

[marune]

Some games llike BW have "negative" traits. If you invoke the negative trait in a situation that results in a negative results (you have the trait clumsy and you knock the macguffin off the table and break it) you get bonus action points.

This allows players to determine when the traits come into play and gives them incentive to play them.

I imagine something similar could be done with D&D stats that are below-average.

It's not as easy as positive traits (look above for my suggested house rule), but certainly possible.

Maybe something like : After a success, you can invoke a negative trait that turns the success into a failure. Later, in the same encounter, if you barely fail at a check, you can get a free +2 circumstance modifier (even if the second check is not related to the invoked trait).

 

[apoptosis]

It's not as easy as positive traits (look above for my suggested house rule), but certainly possible.

Maybe something like : After a success, you can invoke a negative trait that turns the success into a failure. Later, in the same encounter, if you barely fail at a check, you can get a free +2 circumstance modifier (even if the second check is not related to the invoked trait).

Something like that would work. I actually LIKE that you didnt try and connect the first and second checks by relating it back to the trait.

I actually think they should have instituted action or drama points. It would have made it easier to integrate some new narrative mechanics to the game.

 

[marune]

I actually LIKE that you didnt try and connect the first and second checks by relating it back to the trait.

Yeah, that was the tricky thing .

I'm just not sure if the "lose now to win later" is often a good tactical choice.

 

[The Little Raven]

It's sort of like this... if I'm a smart guy in real life, what incentive do I have to play my 8 Int character as a "dumb" guy?

I usually see the desire to roleplay well as it's own incentive (as in, abide by the limitations as well as the strengths of the role you are playing). Personally, I find playing a dumb character very rewarding, because it's entirely different from myself, and if I can successfully pull it off, I get that good roleplaying warmth in the cockles of my heart.

Now one of the answers WW gives in WoD is the acquisition of willpower by being true to your nature or true to your vice, this encourages but does not force players to act in character.

As a word of warning, the Vice system in WoD is very easily exploitable. When I was running a monster-hunter WoD game, I nearly banned the Wrath Vice because in almost every single tense situation (be it fight or otherwise) I had people saying "I hit the guy. Or I yell at him. That fulfills my Wrath Vice. Gimme my Willpower." and did nothing to actually encourage them to play up the characteristic.

 

[apoptosis]

Yeah, that was the tricky thing .

I'm just not sure if the "lose now to win later" is often a good tactical choice.

It is probably something that would be used sparingly but for story concept that is not a bad idea (Danger-Prone Daphnee didnt always cause trouble with her clumsiness but once an episode was enough for the viewers to think of her as clumsy)

Importantly it puts the players in control of when to use the traits.

 

[apoptosis]

As a word of warning, the Vice system in WoD is very easily exploitable. When I was running a monster-hunter WoD game, I nearly banned the Wrath Vice because in almost every single tense situation (be it fight or otherwise) I had people saying "I hit the guy. Or I yell at him. That fulfills my Wrath Vice. Gimme my Willpower." and did nothing to actually encourage them to play up the characteristic.

That is kind of one of the reasons why the mechanics of the game didnt necessarily drive the playing style it was trying to create.

It would have been better if the vice actually required something bad to happen to the characters to obtain the willpower.

We had the same issue with the caretaker (i think it was called) nature. The players would just say "oh are you allright" and basically 'fake care' to obtain the willpower.

Flaws in champions tended to have similar issues, though they tended to be front-loaded issues where the traits/flaws didnt end up impacting the characters too much.