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

[AllisterH]

I've asked the same question in the past, and had the same non-response as you seem to be getting.

Yeah...I've noticed that.

For some reason, the fact that the PHB actually makes a player THINK about how their character will react and act in situations is not coducive to roleplaying.

It basically gets ignored as "oh, that's just the usual spiel all gamers should know" yet when I ask, "um, where in the older editions did this even give half as much focus", I get nothing.

However, what I find troubling is that having a CRAFT and PROFESSION skill _IS_ considered roleplaying.....

*Blinks in disbelief*.

To me, the 4e PHB is the first ever D&D book that would make a person think about roleplaying than any other book.

I don't consider it roleplaying when you have a person rolling a profession check and saying "oh, I made 200 gp a week". It certainly scares me that so many people consider this "more roleplaying oriented" than having a book teach players so that when faced with different situations, they react "in-character".

Absolutely weird as hell when people say 4E is not a roleplaying game.

 

[GlaziusF]

I like your take. But it still seems artificial to me in game. I would like to see a system that calculates circumstancial conditions from luck and choice of options that both clearly are based on the respective combat styles of the partecipants-by styles I mostly mean here stuff like equipment and body structure (ie fast guy, heavy-big guy);not esoteric disciplines.

And how many table lookups does that take? How much time? Per attack? Per encounter?

And is it really likely to produce better results than "here are four options for a little flair on basic attacks, pick two, you can swap later"?

My initial bets: "Too many", and "no".

 

[Halivar]

I don't consider it roleplaying when you have a person rolling a profession check and saying "oh, I made 200 gp a week". It certainly scares me that so many people consider this "more roleplaying oriented" than having a book teach players so that when faced with different situations, they react "in-character".

Disclaimer: I'm on your side here. But I think you are wrong to conflate method acting with roleplaying. What you're describing is "simulation," and is also roleplaying: i.e., you are mechanically recreating the actions of another, imaginary person. That said, I prefer the method acting approach (see my sig), and find that excessive simulation interferes with my preferred style of roleplay. I can't, however, force my roleplay style on other people. At my table, however, we play 4E straight. "Mechanical simulationists" have a harder time roleplaying at my table than method actors (because they don't have the usual props that 3.5E provides in spades). But, hey, I'm the DM, and I can have bias.

 

[pemerton]

Halivar, I think you're right that 4e doesn't provide a certain sort of mechanical support for characterisation that 3E does (though for that sort of support I think you can't go past Rolemaster - each of the PCs in my current RM campaign has over 100 skill entries on his/her character sheet - the character sheet really is a total portrait of the character).

But I agree with Allister H that 4e goes further than any other edition of 3E, both in amount of text and the prominence given to that text, in inviting a player to think about what is involved in realising a PC at the table. And I think the mechanics, while not providing simulationist support, do provide many pegs on which dynamic and thematically engaging roleplaying can be hung.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

And it isn't just a little bit less, it's a lot less. Again, I don't have the wordcounts, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd imagine that because of the horribly ineffeicient use of space, you're only getting about 40% of the material in the 4E core books that you did in the 3.5.

Wow. Whats the word count on FATAL? It was pretty dense, must have been a superior game.

 

[Halivar]

though for that sort of support I think you can't go past Rolemaster - each of the PCs in my current RM campaign has over 100 skill entries on his/her character sheet - the character sheet really is a total portrait of the character

Boom. This. People who require mechanical support for roleplay are better served by other games than 3.5E, whose mechanical support for roleplay is only craft and profession skills better than 4E.

 

[xechnao]

And how many table lookups does that take? How much time? Per attack? Per encounter?

And is it really likely to produce better results than "here are four options for a little flair on basic attacks, pick two, you can swap later"?

My initial bets: "Too many", and "no".

IMO, the most important qualities one needs to acknowledge he must develop for game design is imagination (from a mechanical point of view) and patience. If one has the needed imagination and knows what he wants to design he can deliver. I hope you lose your bet here.

 

[xechnao]

For some reason, the fact that the PHB actually makes a player THINK about how their character will react and act in situations is not coducive to roleplaying.

It depends what you mean by "think". In roleplaying games you should not think how your character will react in means of solving an equation system where one variable is the situation and the other your PC. You should only take into consideration the situation. The personae is no one else but your own mind or in other words yourself. Since yourself is not a variable to yourself, the gamer.
When your PC has more str and dex (taking an example from d&d) than what you think of yourself, means that you roleplay yourself with higher str and dex. When your PC is chaotic evil then you roleplay yourself living through a situation where you are convinced that the world is so screwed up that the best you can do is to show your effort to destroy it.
You cant roleplay another organism that takes decisions unless you know how that organism takes decisions. But is there anything you know better than yourself?
Now do this along with friends doing the same thing in a situation you can or better, have to interact with each other and it is like living with your friends through the adventure.
So the most important thing are rules defining the situation we can easily connect with for a good while. Situation means PC abilities, PC traits, elements of setting and the list goes on.
Of course these things are interdependent: for example setting and PC abilities. Here is where and why personal preference comes as the most important factor that can define for you something as a roleplaying game or not a roleplaying game. For some people any game involving turns of more players can be accepted as a roleplaying game -for some, such as myself not.

 

[Kishin]

Wow. Whats the word count on FATAL? It was pretty dense, must have been a superior game.

Clearly it was a paragon of modern RPGs, yes.

I always laugh at this recent trend of gamers making a big deal over page counts. I've never seen so many people get so thoroughly enraptured by the idea that quantity > quality.

Size of book/wordcount has no direct correlation with its usefulness.

 

[Halivar]

In roleplaying games you should not think how your character will react in means of solving an equation system where one variable is the situation and the other your PC. You should only take into consideration the situation.

I disagree 100%. Your "you should not" scenario is my preferred method of roleplay. And it ain't wrong.