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

[Allister]

Wow, I'm still honestly surprised that so many still consider 4E NOT a role-playing game.

I mean, when I open the core books in 4E, not only does it OPEN with what I consider the best "primer" on roleplaying and teaching what it means (the questions such as "How does your character react?") than any other edition.

I mean, if I open a pre 4E PHB, the "roleplaying" came AFTER the crunch which to me said a lot of what the emphasis was on, but also the fact that pretty much none of the earlier editions even gave any advice on how to roleplay a character.

Similarly, the DMG provides for more help and DM advice on building non-combat encounters than arguably all other editions combined. Furthermore, the skill system actually encourages the use of the social roleplaying skills by everyone whereas before the rules actually impeded the use of skills by everyone.....

IF 4E is NOT a roleplaying game, frankly, no other edition of D&D could be considered a roleplaying game

 

[ProfessorCirno]

RPGs are pornography; I can't define them, but I know them when I see 'em ;p

4e is still an RPG, but I think it's REALLY teetering in board game territory.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Wow.

4e is not a roleplaying game?

. . .

According to the definitions found in the AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e and D&D 4e Player's Handbooks, yes, it in fact is.

Also, according to every other definition of RPGs I could find within the pages of other RPGs, yes, it in fact is.

I suppose the creators of so many RPGs could be wrong about this. . .

But I doubt it.


Oh, and I couldn't resist. . . This random quote brought to you by Gary Gygax (R.I.P.), courtesy of the AD&D 1st edition Player's Handbook: "Each of you will become an artful thespian as time goes by (. . .)"

Aaaand, my silliness here is done.

 

[jensun]

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.

Because Diaglo presents his criticisms with some style and panache rather than as rather blatant "your doing it wrong" crap.

 

[Darrin Drader]

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.

Ah, OK. You know, we often take comments on the internet in the worst possible way since the person isn't present and their body language doesn't give away their cheesy grin when they say something. I took your comment as outright mockery when I can see now how that isn't how you meant it. On the other hand, my original comment was clearly diverging into hyperbole, which is something I occasionally like to have fun with. Mia culpa.

Really? I play D&D and, despite my reservations on the handling of some elements, do not feel insulted by the game nor do I feel the game insults my intelligence.

Care to explain how it insults yours?

I've stated that I don't like the powers mechanic at all, but that isn't the insult. In fact, some streamlining from 3.5 is a good thing. The part that I think is an insult is how you're paying more for less with 4th edition. It isn't just the font size, it's the way that information is placed on the page, the amount of white space, the amount of room taken up by powers when they could have been greatly condensed. If I had some way to compare the wordcount between 3.5 and 4, I'd be able to demonstrate just how much less you get. What we know is that entire classes and races are gone, spells are gone, most magic items are gone. Oh, but they'll be able to sell you these options later on! That's where I personally feel insulted as a customer and as a long-time D&D enthusiast. That's just my personal opinion, but in my mind its valid. If you want to hit the reset button, do it, but find a way to make the purchase of the core rules at least as useful as it was from the previous edition. Or to put it another way, an edition change should be an upgrade, not a downgrade.

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

I can understand why someone might think that I'm saying that they're having badwrongfun. That's not where I'm coming from. I occasionally like to vent because of my own frustration with the direction they took the game. Honestly, I'm cool with players personal preference. Play 4E, play True20, or play OSRIC. It's cool. I just can't bring myself to spend any more money on the current edition of the game, which I find frustrating. After 24 years, D&D has finally become something that I find unpalatable. I stuck with it through the questionable days of second edition, but 4E is several steps too far in a direction that I don't like. I get a headache when I look at all the colored notecard-like blocks of powers in the books. I refuse to design for it.

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.

In my case, the vitriol is aimed primarily at marketing, which have gone to some lengths to try and kill the OGL, and to the designers who I know should have delivered something better. I know many of the people involved, I know what the thought processes were behind the direction4E took, and I know that the best interest of the game was not what 4E was all about. It's about transferring as much green as possible from you to Hasbro's shareholders. Given what they put out there, I'd rather take the money I was spending on WotC and give it to the little guys, like Paizo and Green Ronin, because I know that at the core of those businesses are people with an honest and legitimate love for the game, which is something that Hasbro never had and WotC is rapidly losing. I apologize if my comments come across as offensive, but I am offended by what we've been handed.

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.

The fact that the OGL can't be revoked means that there is a choice, and for that I'm grateful. I just find it sad that certain business decisions have led to a fracturing of a very large and formerly very supportive community, and that so much anger and intolerance is leveled at people on both sides of the argument.

I should mention that someone, who will remain nameless (for now) but has a community supporter account, shot me a private message tonight here at ENWorld that consisted of one word: "Ass." So I'm an ass for saying that I don't like 4E? Diverging opinions now incur hostility here at ENWorld and this is OK? Of course the fact that this was done through a private message and not out here on the boards suggests both immaturity and cowardice. If 4E is such a wonderful game, why the hostility? Why the defensiveness? To me, that just suggests doubt in the minds of the people who can't tolerate their favorite thing being called into question. If a thing is truly good then it can stand up to criticism.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Ah, OK. You know, we often take comments on the internet in the worst possible way since the person isn't present and their body language doesn't give away their cheesy grin when they say something. I took your comment as outright mockery when I can see now how that isn't how you meant it. On the other hand, my original comment was clearly diverging into hyperbole, which is something I occasionally like to have fun with. Mia culpa.

It´s Mea Culpa.

I've stated that I don't like the powers mechanic at all, but that isn't the insult. In fact, some streamlining from 3.5 is a good thing. The part that I think is an insult is how you're paying more for less with 4th edition. It isn't just the font size, it's the way that information is placed on the page, the amount of white space, the amount of room taken up by powers when they could have been greatly condensed. If I had some way to compare the wordcount between 3.5 and 4, I'd be able to demonstrate just how much less you get. What we know is that entire classes and races are gone, spells are gone, most magic items are gone. Oh, but they'll be able to sell you these options later on! That's where I personally feel insulted as a customer and as a long-time D&D enthusiast. That's just my personal opinion, but in my mind its valid. If you want to hit the reset button, do it, but find a way to make the purchase of the core rules at least as useful as it was from the previous edition. Or to put it another way, an edition change should be an upgrade, not a downgrade.

Because growing the Corebooks with every edition is the way to bring in new customers. Because creating a more readable layout means depriving the customer of content. Come on!
It´s the "let´s try to fit everything into the corebooks that was there in previous editions" mentality that has turned lots of people away from D&D.
Smaller package. Better layout. That´s what i want. That´s what i prayed for. God, i got headache from reading Red Hand of Doom - and i´m currently rereading it again to review it for X-zine. Small font, crunched together.. what is this, the Dark Age of typography?

Mr. Drader, i get that you are upset. But calling a game thousands of people like "crap" isn´t the way to fight the rift in the D&D community that has disturbed you so much.

 

[xechnao]

But calling a game thousands of people like "crap" isn´t the way to fight the rift in the D&D community that has disturbed you so much.

Where are these thousands? I just see the same dozen or so of nick names on various forums cry havoc on each side of the fence.
4e launch was a hit. This does not mean that we know thousands of people take it so seriously to take serious offense on Clark Peterson's or Darrin's opinions or their embracement of certain investments. Ok, these forums are a market target but I do not believe the hysteria of a bunch of people makes any real difference except than create noise. Admitedly there was noise too in 4e pre launch marketing but it was about much more than this. IMO it was about the perceived big time change of the game and ironically even the noise around helped it play louder. Information dynamics.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Provides rules for improving that character

Provides rules for task resolution, including combat

Provides rules to help the GM adjudicate social interaction

I think it should be simpler than that: An RPG is a game where you take on a unique personae and you interact with other players who are doing the same. A GM is the facilitator of the game who drives the story forward and takes on the role of the non-player characters.

I just don't think rules need to really factor into it as much.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I'm baffled that any edition would make such a scenario of players role playing their characters difficult.

I don't think any edition can make roleplaying difficult. What I think an edition can do, is make the lack of roleplaying easier and I think that is what bugs people about 4e.

Here is something I've noticed in the game we have going on at Inner Circle:

We've been playing KotS with a new DM since it was released. He is fairly new to roleplaying and hasn't played a lot of D&D before. Because of his background, he doesn't focus a lot on roleplaying. He's more concerned with getting the rules right and making sure that we have adequate challenges and that the adventure is more exciting than a basic dungeon crawl.

Initially when he first started wasn't focusing as much on the roleplaying aspect of the game and he was just shuffling us from encounter to encounter. As a group of players, we were roleplaying, but with the DM not so much. It was getting late the one session and my kids needed to get to bed, but we did want to finish two more encounters so we could level. We were all tired and we went through those encounters basically by pushing the figures around the mat and rolling the dice.

When I talked to someone else about the game the next day he said we need to roleplay more and just quit if we're zonked. At the time, it didn't feel like a boardgame, but thinking back it did remind me of playing Hero Quest.

IMO does 4e make roleplaying more difficult? Not a tad. If you want to play a tactical boardgame though, D&D could sure fill that role pretty easily. Hell, they have a miniatures game that basically does it already. All D&D minis is is D&D with the roleplaying filed off. That's why I always hated it. I'd rather play D&D than push minis around a mat.

 

[xechnao]

I think it should be simpler than that: An RPG is a game where you take on a unique personae and you interact with other players who are doing the same.

Agreed

I just don't think rules need to really factor into it as much.

I think rules should be nothing more than what factors into it regarding the specific setting you want to place your personae, if not they are not rules for a roleplaying game.

If the setting is about exploration that can resort to combat with swords and fireballs then we need rules about it. The question now becomes if these rules succesfully achieve to guide the gaming group through such a setting.

Here, 4e to some people may be a failure. Its combat rules may seem that reflect anime flick combat or one so alien to their idea of how combat should work out that they see the rules as an artificial game because it is strange enough to roleplaying that loses its connection. Hence statements like 4e is anime, board gamey, gamey or not even a roleplaying game.

IMO, regarding 4e they are right. Its combat, regarding martial powers is strange and alien to me. 3e was strange too but 4e expands to this strangeness even more because it expands on 3e's strange parts of the system regarding combat. It is better balanced as a game but it is an alien thing regarding roleplaying more clearly than 3e.