Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5655718" data-attributes="member: 42582">This came up in the "Is D&D about combat?" thread.I think that 4e has hints of useful ideas on roleplaying (by which I mean something like - playing a character whose "position" in a fictional world matters), but they're poorly organised, and buried rather than placed front and centre. I'm not sure that someone who didn't already know what to look for could find them.It reminds me a bit of when I was a kid. The first RPG that I had was a copy of the classic Traveller black box. I read through the booklets, but could not make head or tail of how this game was meant to be played. When, about three years later, I got the Moldvay Basic set, it was a completely different experience. Those rules told me how I was expected to play the game!If I wanted to more-or-less keep the 4e approach, but make the aim of the game comprehensible, at a minimum these ideas should be put front and centre:*That PCs have backstories and goals; *That the players have ultimate authority over those matters (although they have to be prepared to work within the framework the GM is prepared or able to run); *That these priorities can be expressed via PC building (including race, class, paragon path and epic destiny selection); *That Quests, which are motivated by these priorities, are the focus of play, and that the resolution of conflict via "encounters" is what will take place in the course of undertaking a Quest.The role of the GM would then be introduced as, at a minimum:*A source of Quests parallel to player authority over Quests (and something might be said about different approaches, like greater GM authority perhaps producing a smoother and more coherent game but running the risk of the players feeling like they're not in control, and greater player authority requiring players who will cooperate together rather than compete for spotlight time, and requiring a GM who is responsive and ready to think on his/her feet); *A designer of the encounters that will occur in the course of pursuing a Quest; *An arbiter of the action resolution mechanics, which come into play when the pursuit of some Quest leads to an encounter (this is where issues like "to fudge or not to fudge" might be discussed).Part of the idea would be to make it clear that the game is not just about fantasy colour, and not just about exploring a fantasy world that the GM has created, but about playing a character who is engaged in quests that matter - both to the PC and to the player!Anyway, when I was 10 Moldvay did a pretty good job. Now that I'm nearly 40 I think the BW books - especially the Adventure Builder - do a pretty good job. It shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of WotC to at least do a passable job!I think it's a mistake to see mechanics and roleplaying as at odds. What might be called "free narration" or "free roleplaying" is one way of handling action resolution in an RPG, but not the only one. And in my view it doesn't have any special or magical tendency to produce serious engagement with the PC or the situation. For example, surfing the doors over the tetanus pits in White Plume Mountain requires free narration for resolution (AD&D doesn't have any door-surfing mechanics), but I don't think playing out that sort of scene in that sort of way is some pinnacle of the roleplaying moment.What is needed are the right sorts of mechanics, namely, mechanics that tend to reinforce the participants' engagement with what matters in the fiction, rather than drive a wedge between participants and fiction. This can be done with bells and whistles of various sorts (like relationships in HeroWars/Quest, spiritual attributes in The Riddle of Steel, beliefs in Burning Wheel) but it doesn't have to be, provided the GM is given the right sorts of advice on encounter design and resolution, and the players are given the right sorts of advice for PC building, and the game has the right mechanical tools that will complement that advice rather than undermine it.I think it's unlikely that D&D is going to go for the bells-and-whistles mechanics. For all sorts of reasons I don't want it to go back to free narration, which in my view is fine when nothing is at stake, but easily breaks down when there is disagreement at the table as to how the fiction should proceed. Which leaves the following option: I think WotC needs to write much better advice. Which goes back to Mark CMG's point.At a minimum, the game might include the following bits of advice for GMs (which I believe are not to be found anywhere in the 4e DMG):*When designing the encounters that will occur in the course of the PCs undertakig a Quest, make sure that resolving them will reinforce rather than undermine the motivation for the Quest; When deciding how monsters or NPCs act in the course of an encounter, make choices that remind the players of what is at stake in the encounter and the Quest, so that these concerns remain front and centre in the course of resolving the encounter; If you notice that your players are losing interest in the fiction and the stakes, and are treating an encounter purely as a mechanical or tactical event, look at the story elements you have in play in the encounter and work out what you can do with them ("On its turn a monster moves here and does this attack", "An NPC makes this outrageous remark in response to a skill check in a skill challenge") that will draw the players' attention back to the fiction.This advice isn't foolproof. Sometimes everyone has a bad night and the fiction is a bit boring. And the mechanical component of 4e, especially its combat, is chunky enough that if you're not careful it can start to loom larger than the fiction does. And not everyone wants to play this sort of Quest-driven game anyway.Still, it would be better for WotC to start somewhere than to remain almost silent on the roleplaying issue, which is where they are at the moment.</blockquote>

Verification