So What is a Roleplaying Game? Forked Thread: Clark Peterson on 4E

I think an argument could be made that 4e isn't a roleplaying game if you also contend that the Burning Wheel, The Shadow Over Yesterday, Primetime Adventures, and their ilk are not roleplaying games. 4e presents a degree of seperation between player decisions and character decisions that has not previously been seen in D&D (with the possible exceptions of Barbarian Rage, Bo9S maneuvers, and Action Points in 3e) and places players into a narrative role. Some might view a 1-to-1 correlation to player and character decisions a necesarry element of an rpg.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think a lot of people who are talking about the "rules for adjudicating social interaction" requirement are forgetting that OD&D/BECMI/1e/2e all had morale rules and reaction rolls based on Cha, both of which I think qualify as "social interaction" rules to one degree or another. Not that I think those rules are a necessary factor in making those games "roleplaying games", but they were present and used (often) at least in the games I was familiar with.

IMO, any reasonable standard for what constitues a "roleplaying game" that results in the inclusion of all previous incarnations of D&D as "roleplaying games" can't possibly exclude 4e; and any standard that manages to exclude any edition of D&D as a "roleplaying game" is a pretty ridiculous standard.
 

Some might view a 1-to-1 correlation to player and character decisions a necesarry element of an rpg.

Some might view two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun, as a necessary element of an rpg.

And they'd be wrong, because that's a freakin' Big Mac.

You can't just say "oh, everyone's entitled to their own definition" because yardley zorp flabnark. (I define those words as meaning "communication would be impossible", but you're entitled to your own definition.)
 

I score you 0/10.

Well, you know what they say about the subjectivity of grading. But if none of the conditions I suggested apply, as you would suggest, then I wish you luck playing whatever RPG it is that doesn't contain any of those elements. ;)

Very good. Now try if you can talk about the topic without calling 4e repetative (sic) gamist crap. See if you can do it. Take it as a test of self-control that improves the atmosphere of the thread.

That would require some desire to do so, and frankly, that is something that I lack. I don't sugarcoat crap and then serve it up to people for desert. I've been part of this community since before 3E was released, before I ever had one word published, and I've always given my opinion straight up. 4E is a hoodwink. It's worse than New Coke because it insults its audience.
 
Last edited:

This seems like a thinly disguised 'People who disagree with me are stupid! Anyone else agree?' thread where no one really wants to have their opinions challenged, so I'm not going to bother arguing with anyone.

Back in the early '90's I spent alot of time playing (and sometimes coding for) some of the earliest sorts of massively multiplayer games. They were text based and many were inspired by various pen and paper games - Battletech and Vampire:The Masquerade for example. Alot of you are probably familiar with the games, which - dispite often being quite elaborate - were text based called by various achronyms beginning with MU*, such as MUSE, MUSH, and MUD. Some of them, or at least their descendents, are I think still around if you want to do some retro gaming. They are to modern MMORPGs sort of what Zork or 'Enormous Cave' is to modern computer RPG gaming.

The games could basically be separated into two broad types: MUDs which had automated combat systems that allowed you to fight and overcome various problems and MUSHs which generally didn't and relied on players (sometimes with the assistance of a judge) to arbitrate various game events.

In theory there was no particular reason why the game play of the two types of games should be any different. Nothing really prevented a MUD from being RP heavy and nothing really prevented MUSHers from doing anything but hack and slash. But in practice, the two environments could not be more different. No one in a MUD actually role played, or at least, no one bothered to try after the first few hours of experiencing one. There wasn't much point. That wasn't were the core gameplay of a MUD was, and you simply weren't particularly rewarded for doing so. Conversely, in a MUSH, combat was extremely rare (and generally frowned on), because it wasn't particularly rewarded. People spent almost all of their time engaged in various melodramas (and alot of them in tinysex, it must be admitted).

There is nothing really that prevents you from spending alot of time role-playing in a game of monopoly. You can add alot of color about how you feel as a shoe, or an old hat, or a dog if you want. It's somewhat amusing even. But the only real reason you might do it is that the gameplay of monopoly is so otherwise unengaging that you are bored. No one really considers monopoly a role-playing game, because that's not the sort of play that is really encouraged by the rules. You can always be 'in character' for any game you chose to play to add some interest to it, but for most games you don't bother and even if you do that's not what you spend most of your time doing.
 


I don't agree with you Darrin but I love that whole bit. If I didn't just change my sig I might have to snag that.

Well, if you were to do that, it would probably end up getting modstomped anyway. Have I insulted you or anyone else here personally? I think the only thing I'm saying is that a game system, in my opinion, sucks. Why all the ire? I don't seem to remember the same rage aimed at Diaglo? It seems to me that all of the defensiveness surrounding 4E might just be because people are afraid that the critics might be right.
 

Well, if you were to do that, it would probably end up getting modstomped anyway. Have I insulted you or anyone else here personally? I think the only thing I'm saying is that a game system, in my opinion, sucks. Why all the ire? I don't seem to remember the same rage aimed at Diaglo? It seems to me that all of the defensiveness surrounding 4E might just be because people are afraid that the critics might be right.

I cna't speak for anyone else but I don't feel insulted. I thought that jab at the new edition, 4e was great. I cannot agree with something and still find humor in the subject. :)

This is the internet. If we were all sitting around having a drink or two we'd probably be like, "Yeah, I can see that but..." and have time to relate some experience/motivation/etc... etc... but it's the net and is still rather imperfect for these things.

And there's no ire on my part. I just found the whole 4e not a RPG weird because I'm playing it and well, there is role playing going on. Heck, there's role playing going on that doesn't involve the game mecahnics at times, especially between the players.
 


Well, if you were to do that, it would probably end up getting modstomped anyway. Have I insulted you or anyone else here personally? I think the only thing I'm saying is that a game system, in my opinion, sucks. Why all the ire? I don't seem to remember the same rage aimed at Diaglo? It seems to me that all of the defensiveness surrounding 4E might just be because people are afraid that the critics might be right.

Perhaps its because some people find it necessary to insinuate badwrongfun?

We all know Dialgo is an OD&D champion, but he does it with a sense of humor and an obvious "Kid's these days, get off my lawn!" element that is reminiscent of a grumpy old man; cranky yet adorable at the same time.

That's not what I get from most anti-4e "critics." I do occasionally get a well thought out response on an element of the game that is not good, or a interesting opinion piece that explains how the game has changed perhaps not for the better. Sadly though, I see mostly Ad-hominum attacks, snarky one-liners, snobbish superiority complexes, and a lot of vitrol leveled at designers, marketing, the web-team, etc.

Calling D&D "New Coke" adds nothing to the discussion. You might as well be calling someone a communist for as much good it does and as much rancor it creates. I'm certain at this point those who have played it and like it will continue to do so with support from WotC, Goodman, Necro, and others. Those unhappy with the current system will move on to Pathfinder, C&C, any number of Retro-clones, or just drift back to whatever previous edition suited there temperament.

To imply to others that this choice is somehow "wrong" adds nothing but liberal use of the "ignore poster" key or the "ban user" key.
 

Remove ads

Top