Removing homogenity from 4e

[BryonD]

I disagree for reasons presented in the above post.

shrug

So I can not roleplay an ad hoc rule-less system just as well as I can 3E or 4E?
I would reject any claim that I couldn't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sorry about the name-switch, the ol' "people only look at the first and last letters" thing cropped up!

That aside, I completely disagree with your assessment. See my sig. Are you suggesting my daughter is not roleplaying because she does not have a book?

I didn't say roleplaying comes only from books. I do disagree with the idea that roleplaying is not found in books. To a huge degree, even casual fiction uses a sort of basic roleplay to immerse you in the story. I don't think books are required for roleplaying anymore than I think that they exclude it.

There may be story and implied plot elements, but the roleplay itself is 100% up to the players.

It's the "100%" and "entirely" bits I have trouble with. Which is part of why I didn't say roleplaying comes ONLY from books.

Something about a sith and absolutes comes to mind, but I didn't really like that move.

OH! And so we stop posting past each other, let me roll your next post into this one:

I'll still stand by the claim that any 4 year old can role play. So in the big picture, that is the end of it.

Totally agree. I just think they're still roleplaying if they write it down.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, I think the fact that I took Fifth Element's quote as my own words may be part of this. You have changed the term to "can't help you". That gets pretty fuzzy.

I'll still stand by the claim that any 4 year old can role play. So in the big picture, that is the end of it.

Now, lessons in improv, or simple confidence in speaking out in another character than yourself can enhance the experience. But that has nothing to do with mechanics.

 

[BryonD]

Sorry about the name-switch, the ol' "people only look at the first and last letters" thing cropped up!

They got it wrong on my Master's Diploma. I think I can forgive you. lol

I didn't say roleplaying comes only from books. I do disagree with the idea that roleplaying is not found in books. To a huge degree, even casual fiction uses a sort of basic roleplay to immerse you in the story. I don't think books are required for roleplaying anymore than I think that they exclude it.

Well, ok. Putting Robert Frost at the end of the 4E PH would not make 4E more poetic. The book would be, but the game would be unchanged.


Putting acting lessons at the end of the 3E PH would not make 3E a better acting guide. The book would be, but the game would be unchanged.

It's the "100%" and "entirely" bits I have trouble with. Which is part of why I didn't say roleplaying comes ONLY from books.

Ok, I still stand by my position. If you take away the context of this being an RPG board then I'd probably need to say "Roleplaying is not between the covers of an RPG book"

Something about a sith and absolutes comes to mind, but I didn't really like that move.

What movie?
I've always wondered why they never made any sequels for The Matrix or Highlander. And why do the Star Wars movies start with #4?

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps a better way to say it is while the roleplay that we engage in is not solely found between the covers of a book, it is certainly influenced by what we find between those covers.

The role play that we engage in while playing a rules lite, ad hoc system may (or may not depending) be entirely different from that which we engage in while playing some massive tome game. Certainly the interplay between whoever is adjudicating the game and the person playing a role will be different, which, in turn, will influence role play.

Heck, even the focus of said role play can be driven by the book. If I play, say, Dread or All Flesh Must Be Eaten, the things found between the covers of those respective games will drive my role play to a considerable degree. While it's not the only thing, it certainly has a very large impact.

 

[BryonD]

Thats funny, your edited quote looks precognitive.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I still say it all comes down to the statement "I want my roleplaying to be X". X is intertwined with roleplaying, and X is found more often from books than from the players.

This is what I would call an example of X:

Heck, 4e has alignments (as weird as they decided to make them). 4e has skill challenges (as flawed as I believe they are). 4e has archetypes (as similar as the mechanics behind them can be). They're right there in the book, in the form of races, classes, mechanics, and labels on a character sheet. 4e has roleplaying between the covers of its books.

This isn't what I would call roleplaying, but X. X is what you get books for. X puts a face on the roleplaying. X is also subjective.

 

[BryonD]

I still say it all comes down to the statement "I want my roleplaying to be X". X is intertwined with roleplaying, and X is found more often from books than from the players.

For me that is all backwards. You roleplay what you roleplay.
If what you roleplay fits the alignments and archetypes (and whatever else) that the rules presume, then the rules might be a good roleplaying game for you. If the rules clash with what you are roleplaying, then it is a bad roleplaying game for you. But I certainly don't roleplay Lawful Good because it is in the rules.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

For me that is all backwards. You roleplay what you roleplay.
If what you roleplay fits the alignments and archetypes (and whatever else) that the rules presume, then the rules might be a good roleplaying game for you. If the rules clash with what you are roleplaying, then it is a bad roleplaying game for you. But I certainly don't roleplay Lawful Good because it is in the rules.

How about this.

A book can't roleplay for you, but it can define roleplaying for you. That definition can be very subjective, and some people equate the definition with roleplaying as a whole.

 

[Rechan]

At this point, I'm exceedingly frustrated we can't even agree on terms. If we can't even agree on what is the words we're using, there's nothing productive to be found in this discussion.