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

[Mallus]

For someone who's really into the "shared imagined space" of the campaign world, the tactical boardgame is "distracting." And vice versa.

Didn't the rules always intrude on the "shared imagination space"? No matter what edition of D&D you play, at some point you're left talking about the mechanics during play (3e all but forces you to play the bonus stacking/adjusting game during what are supposed to be thrilling battles).

My experience is that RPG's are all about multitasking; they're a chunky blend of different activities. Part tactical war game (I started with 1e and always used map tiles and minis), part collaborative story-telling exercise, part 3-rd rate dinner theater/improv. Sometimes they're ciphers or riddles to solve. I think it's what I like best about RPG's; they several kinds of game at once.

 

[BryonD]

For example, you could play Chess as a role-playing game. Chess includes many different roles to play, but just because you can "re-skin" what a move means in Chess does not make it a role-playing game. The role-playing is occurring independently of playing Chess. Most players will never role-play along to it as 1) the game doesn't suggest doing so, and 2) it isn't very representative to what is happening in the role-played world. It's simply a bad mechanism for resolving reality in a hypothetical world. This has nothing to do with the quality of Chess as a game. It's actually one of the best around. IMHO.

I think this is a good summary.

The thing to keep in mind is that it is not a boolean issue. The degree of interaction between the roleplaying and the rules is a vast sliding scale. I can not seriously imagine anyone stating that Chess met the standard of being an RPG. But if they did, it would be impossible to objectively prove them wrong.

But the interesting part is on the other end of the scale. It is entirely reasonable for a game to clearly have core role play elements and still not be up to the standard that some people want. It is completely reasonable to agree to disagree. It can be honestly perfect for one person and still be honestly completely inadequate for another.

This is all further complicated because it clearly is not a simple one dimensional <more roleplay> <less roleplay> axis.

 

[Mallus]

Ty ultimate goal is for people to honestly evaluate what it is we're being asked to spend their money on.

Okay.

Is this new edition truly an improvement upon the previous?

It's too early for me to tell, but I like what I see so far.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, no, it's not.

Okay.

You're paying more for less. And it isn't just a little bit less, it's a lot less.

I disagree. We're using the core books and a wee bit of imagination we created a setting/play environment that can carry us for years.

...you're only getting about 40% of the material in the 4E core books that you did in the 3.5.

I disagree. I think you're getting at least as much usable material, if not more.

Just please be honest with yourselves about what you're getting.

I paid $58.00 for the core gift set on Amazon. What I got was a terrific deal. Please don't insinuate that I'm dishonest, a dupe, or, if fact, stupid because I disagree with you. Thanks in advance!

 

[Mallus]

But if they did, it would be impossible to objectively prove them wrong.

No it wouldn't.

 

[howandwhy99]

My experience is that RPG's are all about multitasking; they're a chunky blend of different activities. Part tactical war game (I started with 1e and always used map tiles and minis), part collaborative story-telling exercise, part 3-rd rate dinner theater/improv. Sometimes they're ciphers or riddles to solve. I think it's what I like best about RPG's; they several kinds of game at once.

Except they aren't. All one needs to do to play an RPG is role-play their character. The other stuff is part of the indie confusion.

Er, what's the difference between the combat and non-combat task resolution system in 4E? You roll d20, add modifiers and compare to a DC? What are you referring to?

Think about using the skill system and the Skill Challenge system to resolve combat. Is it still rewarding? You choose your sword skill. The DM determines this is an "easy" skill for this encounter. You say what you do with it, "hurt enemy" and roll the die. After a predetermined number of successes or failures is reached the DM declares the winner.

Flip that around using the combat system for social situations. Do you really think you're role-playing with "non-combat powers" when persuading, gaining insight, or basically interacting with people and places in the world? I'm not talking about magic. I mean this is the program you follow to converse with your fellow players. It would be a farce.

Neither combat nor non-combat systems work in 4E as role-playing systems.

 

[AllisterH]

Think about using the skill system and the Skill Challenge system to resolve combat. Is it still rewarding? You choose your sword skill. The DM determines this is an "easy" skill for this encounter. You say what you do with it, "hurt enemy" and roll the die. After a predetermined number of successes or failures is reached the DM declares the winner.

Flip that around using the combat system for social situations. Do you really think you're role-playing with "non-combat powers" when persuading, gaining insight, or basically interacting with people and places in the world? I'm not talking about magic. I mean this is the program you follow to converse with your fellow players. It would be a farce.

Neither combat nor non-combat systems work in 4E as role-playing systems.

?????

But one doesn't use the skill challenge system for single PC versus single specific task. Why would you use such a mechanic for combat?

If a PC wants to climb a tree, one doesn't use the skill challenge mechanic so why would you use it for a single PC versus enemy.

 

[Mallus]

Except they aren't.

My experiences aren't my experiences? Please, don't make me feel all Philip K. Dick novel on a Sunday afternoon.

All one needs to do to play an RPG is role-play their character.

I suppose you're right, in a theoretical sort of way. But I was talking about my practical experiences of D&D over the years.

The other stuff is part of the indie confusion.

Actually, I formed that opinion of D&D in my formative gamer years, playing in 1e campaigns made from strung-together tournament modules back in the 80's. And that opinion hasn't changed much since then. I don't know what you mean by 'indie confusion' (my post was Forge-free, you'll note).

 

[Irda Ranger]

Didn't the rules always intrude on the "shared imagination space"? No matter what edition of D&D you play, at some point you're left talking about the mechanics during play (3e all but forces you to play the bonus stacking/adjusting game during what are supposed to be thrilling battles).

It's not that rules that intrude on the SIS, it's that the tactical boardgame aspects of 4E shrink and reduce the SIS to what's on the board. It's much harder to imagine the SIS when the battlemat is right in front you insisting that it is the correct and final version of what "is" and "is not."

I'm not saying that the battlemat makes SIS play impossible, just that it makes it harder. Hard enough that some people just won't bother.

My experience is that RPG's are all about multitasking; they're a chunky blend of different activities. Part tactical war game (I started with 1e and always used map tiles and minis), part collaborative story-telling exercise, part 3-rd rate dinner theater/improv. Sometimes they're ciphers or riddles to solve. I think it's what I like best about RPG's; they several kinds of game at once.

The role of maps & minis to control 1E combat (and restrict the SIS) were far, far weaker than in 3E or 4E. Even with a map it's easier to fudge stuff when you don't have formal rules for 5' steps and Opportunity Attacks and shifts and 3 square Teleports, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

As for the rest, I don't do any of that. I roleplay NPCs and the players roleplay their own PCs. I do it for the fun of being someone else for an evening (usually someone violent and maniacal, since I'm the DM, but occasionally truly kind and gentle souls too), not to "tell stories" to someone or out of any wish to "act". Not that that stuff is bad; I'm just not into it. Combat is just something we resort to when we can't achieve our goals otherwise, it's not the center of play.

 

[AllisterH]

I'm not sure how 3e and 4e could've made melee more interesting in-combat without focusing on positioning....

 

[Fifth Element]

But hey, your hostility is appreciated. Gotta love the honesty going on here.

Yeah, yours too.

Do you feel stupid for buying the books?

No. I'll give 4E as a whole a try when I get the chance, and so far I have been able to incorporate a few elements into my 3.5 games and it has improved them.