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

[Umbran]

Okay, taking some excerpts here for demonstration'''

On the other hand, my original comment was clearly diverging into hyperbole, which is something I occasionally like to have fun with. Mia culpa....

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....

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? ...

Sir, do the words "lead by example" mean anything to you?

If, in the same note, you say that you can understand why folks think you are saying they are having badwrongfun, how can you then say they call you an ass for not liking 4e - you admit that they may well not read you as saying that! If you intentionally engage in hyperbole, you somehow expect folks to read your mind or something? They are going to take you at your word.

The fracturing and anger you are talking about is, ultimately, not WotC's fault. We do it to ourselves, with our collective lack of self control. If you walk into a public forum and spew out your frustration without much control over it, what else could you expect? You are helping to create and sustain the very anger and division that you find sad.

This is something we could all learn from - we have an effect on our fellow posters, and we should consider what that effect will be before hitting the "submit" button.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

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.

Read my post. I didn´t say that thousands of people feel offended. I said that it does not help to heal any kind of rifts if you call 4e crap. You don´t bash a game that loads of people are playing and expect the community to get better by that.

 

[AllisterH]

Again I'll ask.

How is the first two chapters of the 4e PHB not more conducive to roleplaying than the first two chapters of ANY other edition of D&D?

If I gave someone the 4E PHB and ask them to "roleplay", I'm honestly thinking the 4E PHB provides much more help on how to roleplay than any other edition.

So why is this simply discounted?

 

[xechnao]

Read my post. I didn´t say that thousands of people feel offended. I said that it does not help to heal any kind of rifts if you call 4e crap. You don´t bash a game that loads of people are playing and expect the community to get better by that.

I read your post above and I read your post here. To me when you go on to say that something does not do any good or heals means that you say that it may do more harm than good, if not you would not consider commenting worthwile to bother with. To this harm I attributed the word "offense" since I think it suits the general and specific situation we are talking about.

 

[xechnao]

Again I'll ask.

How is the first two chapters of the 4e PHB not more conducive to roleplaying than the first two chapters of ANY other edition of D&D?

If I gave someone the 4E PHB and ask them to "roleplay", I'm honestly thinking the 4E PHB provides much more help on how to roleplay than any other edition.

So why is this simply discounted?

The problem is not about an introductive theoretic thesis on roleplaying. The problem is about the systematic elements of 4e, aka the game itself that does not connect and thus guide to the roleplaying experience many people expect and bought the game for.

 

[AllisterH]

The problem is not about an introductive theoretic thesis on roleplaying. The problem is about the systematic elements of 4e, aka the game itself that does not connect and thus guide to the roleplaying experience many people expect and bought the game for.

This is where I find myself in disagreement. My evidence?

4E via the DMG actually provides guidelines for non-combat encounters. More so than all editions before it combined. It actually is possible for a DM to run non-combat encounters for all levels and not just leave it to magic.

The skill system and the reworked magic system actually encourage the use of skills through the levels whereas before the interaction between the skill system and magic system fell apart from level 7 in previous editions. The ritual system by itself means we actually have interaction among entire party members instead of non-combat encounters simply devolving to wizard player A announcing "oh, I got a spell to take care of it"

As well, there is about the same number of pages devoted to combat in the 4E PHB as in any edition so they didn't focus on combat alone.

 

[xechnao]

This is where I find myself in disagreement. My evidence?

4E via the DMG actually provides guidelines for non-combat encounters. More so than all editions before it combined. It actually is possible for a DM to run non-combat encounters for all levels and not just leave it to magic.

The skill system and the reworked magic system actually encourage the use of skills through the levels whereas before the interaction between the skill system and magic system fell apart from level 7 in previous editions. The ritual system by itself means we actually have interaction among entire party members instead of non-combat encounters simply devolving to wizard player A announcing "oh, I got a spell to take care of it"

As well, there is about the same number of pages devoted to combat in the 4E PHB as in any edition so they didn't focus on combat alone.

First of all I do not get the distinction in roleplaying regarding combat and non-combat encounters. If it is a roleplaying game then combat rules should fall into the same aspect regarding roleplaying. You are roleplaying a persona of a given setting or world in which world combat happens -it is not something apart.

Regarding specifically the skill system, to me it does not make any sense. I fail to see how it represents actual realworld group standard behaviour dynamics when facing a challenge. In fact I believe it is impossible to come with something like that if the game does not systematically consider other parametres such as relations. Furthermore the skill challenge system -even for whom may have more insight than myself and see how to connect it with roleplaying is broken.

But I would be happy with 4e even if it only managed to provide good roleplaying rules for combat. In fact the major problem I see in 4e is this one since combat is mostly what is about.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

I think 4E's success as a tactical boardgame does make roleplaying more difficult. The human brain is a bad multitasker. For someone who's really into the "shared imagined space" of the campaign world, the tactical boardgame is "distracting." And vice versa.

 

[xechnao]

I think 4E's success as a tactical boardgame does make roleplaying more difficult. The human brain is a bad multitasker. For someone who's really into the "shared imagined space" of the campaign world, the tactical boardgame is "distracting." And vice versa.

I would love 4e if it succeeded in me as a roleplaying tactical skirmish game. Unfortunaly to me it does not manage this. The use of minis does not seem to be the problem. The specific 4e mini rules are that do not connect to roleplaying in me. What I want to say is that I think I can see a game that uses miniatures-board and achieving with them roleplaying a skirmish with a group.

 

[AllisterH]

First of all I do not get the distinction in roleplaying regarding combat and non-combat encounters. If it is a roleplaying game then combat rules should fall into the same aspect regarding roleplaying. You are roleplaying a persona of a given setting or world in which world combat happens -it is not something apart..

In a world with dragons and giants, I don't see ANY problem with the combat system of 4E. Personally, given that the combat system is supposed to resemble actual combat, as weird as the artifical "encounter/daily" system feels on paper, it better matches reality IMO. I don't see in combat be it fictional or real life, people spamming the same move a la the Improved Trip monkey since against an opponent, it works once and the fight is either over or it works once and the opponent doesn't fall for it again.

This is what I mean in other posts about the difference in what a mechanic reads like and how a mechanic plays.

Regarding specifically the skill system, to me it does not make any sense. I fail to see how it represents actual realworld group standard behaviour dynamics when facing a challenge. In fact I believe it is impossible to come with something like that if the game does not systematically consider other parametres such as relations. Furthermore the skill challenge system -even for whom may have more insight than myself and see how to connect it with roleplaying is broken..

You're referring specifically to the skill challenge mechanic. That needs work but it STILL is more than what we have had before and more importantly, that's NOT what I was talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that by eliminating skill points and reducing the power of magic, it means that in non-combat encounters, you get a MUCH larger base of character who can contribute.

By eliminating skill points, a DM can actually design a social encounter where EVERYONE in the party can contribute even if they don't use the skill challenge mechanic whereas before, it only allowed specific characters to shine and actually discouraged group activities.

But I would be happy with 4e even if it only managed to provide good roleplaying rules for combat. In fact the major problem I see in 4e is this one since combat is mostly what is about.

I'm curious as to what you consider good roleplaying rules. Pg 42 allows for an inventive player to attempt more in combat and have it rewarded (by a DM who actually has advice on adjucating it) than anything before it.

The encounter system prevents players from spamming special moves which as I pointed out, doesn't happen in fiction or real life while the daily system allows for the "how the hell did he do that move" that you see in narratives (admittedly is more common in one branch of fiction such as Wuxia).