The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[Neonchameleon]

Erm...

You don't get xp for roleplay in 4e,

Erm... yes you do. As pmerton quoted from the DMG2:

Award the characters experience as if they had defeated one monster of their level for every 15 minutes they spend in signficicant, focused roleplaying that advences the story of your campaign.
​

you don't get more xp for healing someone as a cleric,

Good! Clerics are people and the representatives of their Gods. Not healbots. There should not be an incentive for Clerics to half axe-murder people just so they can get the XP for healing them again. If you give bonus XP for actions to clerics, give it for converting people.

you don't have training costs,

Oh. It's a cost. *crosses a few thousand gold off character sheet* - apparently this is roleplaying?

and the rules don't reward or punish you if you don't roleplay ([4e] Paladins and Alignment - Giant in the Playground Forums).

Given that you can't meaningfully engage with skill challenges without roleplaying if the DM doesn't just give you a list of skills then I'd say it punishes you a bit.

But I agree, WoW involves minimal roleplaying, but there are some people who will roleplay anyway. You CAN roleplay in WoW, it's just that it's mainly "solve quests and kill stuff for treasure and XP."

But, I'm dangerously close to implying that 4e is like WoW and that 4e is not D&D here...so I'll stop.

And I'd call you dangerously close to implying that D&D is like WoW. Especially 1e where treasure was XP. And modules like Tomb of Horrors are about solving the dungeon for treasure and XP (which is what the OSR seems to want). For that matter with the 1e Treasure = XP rules, the very thing the game encouraged you to do was solve quests and take stuff for treasure and XP.

Yes, 4e is like World of Warcraft. But with the single exception of powers to give all classes something cool to do, 4e is like World of Warcraft because World of Warcraft learned most of those things from D&D.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ok.

Well, we did do more. We roleplayed during it. (For what it's worth, I like the idea and some of the implementation of skill challenges in 4e...I think it's a nice design element that was brought to D&D by 4e).

But the point there is that we didn't HAVE to roleplay. Similar to WoW.

Every edition of D&D can be approached and played as a tabletop skirmish game. The opportunity to roleplay is what sets it apart from being just a tactical combat game. Roleplaying opportunity exists for the enjoyment of the players. If the players do not enjoy it, then don't do it.

True, you didn't HAVE to roleplay. Then again, that's always been true. The presumption, however, is that you will roleplay that situation.

Yes. Otherwise why waste time with an rpg. Play a combat game, get more "meat" and do away with unnecessary character stuff.

Yeah... but, strictly speaking, you don't have to roleplay in ANY edition of D&D. D&D has ALWAYS been based on the combat mechanics. D&D was born with combat in mind and so it rewards combat more than anything else. That's EVERY edition of D&D... not just 4e.

Why is it that 4e gets singled out for this?

Not quite. OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D were all about the treasure. Aquire it by any means possible. Avoiding combat was often a faster route to success. Roleplaying, as with any edition, was still purely optional.

I dunno why it gets singled out...maybe because the focus is more strongly on "the encounter" and "not the encounter" the way the mechanics work? (Not that people need to play it this way, I've seen it played without this imposed dichotomy).


I was merely pointing out that all of the examples that Hussar gave that made WoW "not an RPG" also apply to 4e. They do not all apply to any other D&D version, though. So, in this thread, and in this discussion, that's why I'm singling out 4e.

For purposes of being all about the combat, I wouldn't single out 4E more than 3E. 4E actually has more to offer in the way of non-combat XP gain than 3E does. Both systems are fairly heavy on combat focus though.

"The encounter" mode of play is a separate issue from combat as an encounter may be a skill challenge or puzzle as well as combat.
I think the encounter format does more to downplay roleplaying than any amount of combat. The encounter format divides play into "active" and "passive" mode. Much like a video game the encounters are the part of the game where the player can use the controller and have his guy "do stuff". In a tabletop game this means declare actions and roll lots of dice. The non-encounter mode of play is more like a movie interlude. The player watches the story unfold in a "roleplaying" scene. This is the time to yawn, go get a drink, use the bathroom, etc until the next encounter when the player can " do stuff" again. The impression given is that players can only impact the game world during "encounters" so that is the only time deemed worthy of mentally showing up for.

Since a great deal of roleplaying takes place outside of the encounter it is often glossed over because it has no perceived impact upon the game. After all, the way the rules are written if you are not rolling dice then nothing of consequence is taking place.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'll concede the XP for roleplaying point (sorry, I thought I already had). Pemerton put that really well.

Mainly I was just responding to Hussar who was very quick to point out that the Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game was not a Roleplaying Game.

He then listed a number of points as to how it wasn't, I don't agree with all of those points (training costs do not roleplaying make), but I thought it was really funny that he (probably unintentionally) ruled out 4e as a roleplaying game as well. I'm not making broad claims with any of this, I wanted to address a very specific point that he was making. I don't think that 4e isn't a roleplaying game...I was using the basis that it IS as a Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can't claim WoW is not a roleplaying game for specific reasons if those same reasons make something that is clearly a roleplaying game suddenly fail to fit the criteria.

But, like I said, I'll concede that 4e does have some of those elements (notably roleplaying xp built in...though not directly, but still built in).


Thing is, and I thought I made my point clearly, but I'll rephrase: Hussar claims WoW isn't even an RPG, but claims "The thing that blows my mind about 'It just doesn't feel like D&D to me' is that it's so hard to defend."

Really? I can't have an emotion (or emotionally driven criteria), but he can tell Blizzard their game is incorrectly labeled?


But I don't want to unfairly "pick on" Hussar. He was just the first person who brought up this topic. I'm interested in this specific line of the discussion.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

(Separate post because I didn't want it to get lost in my Mea Culpa or specifying of my intent.)

Here's another part of the reason, and a potential clarification/deliniation that might (maybe) help clarify the OP. I already mentioned this in brief.

The OP mentions Rome, describing it basically as "what gives us that D&D feeling"...claiming the feeling is the same (or very similar) across all players of D&D. (Let's assume, for now, that it does.)

If rolemaster, WoW, or even watching Lord of the Rings give me that feeling, then it "Is D&D". Assuming this is true, there's an interesting phenomenon that follows. Someone who has never played D&D is still engaging in "D&D" by watching Lord of the Rings if it gives them that same emotion, i.e. scratches the same itch. If they later play D&D for the first time and the feeling provided is the same, their Rome might be labled "LotR" to them and D&D to us.

For some that boundary may be too broad, for others, maybe not?


Here's another division of terms as well:
x doesn't give me the feeling of D&D - or more clearly, it doesn't scratch my D&D itch.

x doesn't feel like D&D - it doesn't give me the impression that it meets my own personal emotional criteria of D&D.

EDIT: a third non-term, but another useful distinction in all of this. I may or may not enjoy the edition/media/experience. This can be separate from whether the experience is or is not D&D to me (hence, sort of a non-term).


For me, WoW scratches my D&D itch. I feel as engaged in "D&D/Rome" as when prepping for games (but not as engaged as when actually playing D&D). WoW doesn't feel like D&D to me, though. It's not similar enough in the experience of it to meet my criteria of what D&D is. But I say it doesn't feel like D&D to me, because it might to others.

Before anyone addresses WoW again, please note I'm using this as an example. You can substitute Rolemaster, Neverwinter Nights, watching Lord of the Rings, 3e, 4e etc for WoW in all of those statements.


So, for instance, I might enjoy 4e (I do), might scratch that D&D itch (it does), and still not meet my emotional criteria of D&D to me (it doesn't).

I'll also state I don't really like AD&D much anymore (got kinda burned out on it). So, I don't enjoy AD&D, it probably would still scratch that D&D itch, and it does meet my emotional criteria of D&D to me.

 

[Umbran]

Many of us have...and out of that have sprung many an Edition Wars thread.

Edition wars don't spring out of discussing frankly what you want out of a game.

Edition (and other dichotomy) wars spring from folks failing to remember that:

1) There's no objective reason for others to like what you do, and/or

2) Other people liking something else is not an insult, statement that you're wrong, or a threat to your way of life such that you need to defend your preferences and stomp out opposition.

 

[Lalato]

Not quite. OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D were all about the treasure. Aquire it by any means possible. Avoiding combat was often a faster route to success. Roleplaying, as with any edition, was still purely optional.

That's true, but what I was getting at was that D&D was birthed from war gaming. Combat is in D&D's blood. Every edition spent a ton of rulebook space on this part of the game. But yeah, treasure as XP... I'm glad it's gone. LOL

 

[Hussar]

I'm curious, because I don't actually know, does Blizzard describe their own game as a roleplaying game? I know that you see MMORPG floated around on chat boards loads of time, but, is that simply shorthand? After all, CRPG is a term used to describe a particular genre of computer game that borrows heavily from role playing games, but, it's a pretty long stretch to call a lot of them role playing games.

I'm currently replaying Baldur's Gate actually. That's about as close to D&D as you can get on a computer. But, it still, in no way, actually rewards you for role assumption. My paladin can, and does, rob the town blind and is not punished in any way. I can make choices that have little to nothing to do with the persona of the character, and the game chugs right along fine and in fact actually rewards me for doing so.

Tabletop RPG's do not. The training rules in 1e actively punish players for not playing their characters "in character". A fighter that refuses to fight or a wizard that doesn't act wizardly is forced to pay significantly higher costs for gaining levels. In other words, you play your role (which 1e tied strongly with class) or you get whacked with a stick.

Pemerton has outlined how role play ties directly to the mechanics in 4e, so I won't belabor that again.

In MMO's, there is no presumption that you will play a persona at all. You are not rewarded for doing so, nor are you punished for failing to do so. If I want my Troll (I played EQ for a while) to walk around spouting Shakespeare, I can. There is no punishment or reward for roleplay.

It's technically a role playing game I suppose since you do take a specific role as defined by your class/race combination. As Shadzar pointed out, you do have the four combat roles in MMO's. So, in that sense, an MMO is a role playing game.

But, it's not an RPG in the sense that you roleplay a particular persona. It's no different than playing Axis and Allies. Just because you play Germany or Russia doesn't impact your decision making processes - you base your decisions on the mechanics of the game and what you think would get you ahead the best. Your decisions are not influenced by trying to roleplay the persona of Stalin. The game certainly doesn't presume that you would even try.

So, I don't count MMO's as RPG's for exactly the same reason that I don't count board games as RPG's. Neither presume that the players will attempt to play within the confines of a pre-defined persona.

-------------

Oh, and as far as having my mind blown, it's not about your personal emotional reaction Az. It's mind-blowing to me because if there are so many things that ARE considered D&D, I find it truly strange to discount something that really isn't all that different. 3e to 4e isn't a massive leap mechanically. 3e using something like Bo9S and Tome of Magic looks a lot like 4e mechanically.

Like I said, I find it really strange to exclude 4e from a tent that includes spacefaring hippo's, dimensionally hopping centaurs and human rogues.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I'm curious, because I don't actually know, does Blizzard describe their own game as a roleplaying game? I know that you see MMORPG floated around on chat boards loads of time, but, is that simply shorthand?

<SNIP>

-------------

Oh, and as far as having my mind blown, it's not about your personal emotional reaction Az. It's mind-blowing to me because if there are so many things that ARE considered D&D, I find it truly strange to discount something that really isn't all that different. 3e to 4e isn't a massive leap mechanically. 3e using something like Bo9S and Tome of Magic looks a lot like 4e mechanically.

Like I said, I find it really strange to exclude 4e from a tent that includes spacefaring hippo's, dimensionally hopping centaurs and human rogues.

Excellent post. I get it now, and I agree with you.

Since you asked, here is what blizzard says about WoW:
Beginner?s Guide - Game - World of Warcraft

The intro:

What is World of Warcraft? World of Warcraft is an online game where players from around the world assume the roles of heroic fantasy characters and explore a virtual world full of mystery, magic, and endless adventure.

The roleplaying section:

Role-Playing
In World of Warcraft, each player character has a specific set of skills and abilities that define that character’s role. For example, mages are powerful spellcasters who use magic to inflict damage on their enemies from afar but are very vulnerable to attacks. These traits define the role of the mage: hang back, do a ton of damage, and hope to kill the monsters before they reach you.
In a group context, there are three main roles: tank, damage dealer, and healer. A warrior can choose to serve as a formidable “tank,” or protector. Tanks are resilient, and it’s their job to draw the enemy’s attention away from the more vulnerable members of the group. The aforementioned mages make excellent damage dealers. A priest specialized in healing powers may not do as much damage as other classes, but they can play a vital role, keeping the party alive with healing magic. It’s important to note that all classes, regardless of which role they perform, are able to play solo. Some classes are limited in the kind of role they can play: warlocks and rogues, for instance, are strictly damage dealers. Some character classes, like the druid, can capably fulfill all three roles.
Role-play also means that you play the role of a character living in the game’s fantasy world. How much or how little you role-play is up to you; some players construct entire background histories for their characters and adopt unique mannerisms when they’re “in character.” Immersing yourself completely in the fantasy can be a lot of fun, but tastes vary, and it’s perfectly alright if full immersion simply isn’t your style. This kind of role-play is purely optional, and we provide separate Role-Play realms for those who prefer to play in an immersive world.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I play on a roleplaying server rather than a "general" server. My own opinions are likely colored by what I've observed.


As far as the second part of your post, I never took it personally, though I am in the camp of "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" as I've tried to explain over the years since its release. Again, I like it, but it doesn't to me...and 2e does, and I don't really like it anymore.

I'd say that things like Star Wars SAGA and Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic ARE sort of like 4e in many ways. I'd also say they're only sort of like 3e in many ways (despite the latter two being officially part of 3e).

I'm sure that if you ran a campaign where the only classes were Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic, that some people would say that it doesn't feel like D&D to them (I might be among them...I'd have to play it once or twice to be sure).

I have a post somewhere on these boards (there was a poll) asking about a combined "bridge edition" between 4e and 3e, perhaps taking the best of both. People hated HATED the idea because 4e and 3e are so different to much of our community.
EDIT: Found it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...edition-d-d-4th-edition-hybrid-evolution.html


On 4e being substantially different (even with your Giff qualifier) we may just have to agree to disagree.

I might also make the claim that D20 modern uses the same system (moslty) as 3e..at least the skeleton, but is not Dungeons and Dragons (and here I'm saying it is not, not only that it doesn't feel like it. I don't think it was even released under the brand name.) It not so much that it is the system of 4e that creates this feel to me...it's also a lot of the underlyings assumptions about goals, play, roles, etc.

 

[The Shaman]

There's a number of key posters here in ENWorld that I've come to realize just plain "get it", for lack of a better term; even though collectively we often disagree and sometimes fight like cats. And by "get it" I mean they both understand and care what the game's about on a much greater scale beyond the mechanics and the minutiae, and that comes through in what they post. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is one such, which is why I mention it here.

What I'd really love to do is get together over a beer or three with those people and just talk shop all night.

pemerton and Barastrondo have taken hammer and tongs to my gaming style, and I to theirs, and I know my thinking about gaming was improved by the experience.

pemerton is the one of the very few FoREplayers I'm genuinely interested in listening to, largely because of his application of theory to actual play.

 

[The Shaman]

Tough crowd.

Speaking as a mostly-outside observer, someone who plays any version of D&D very rarely and who missed two complete editions of the game (2e and 4e), I wonder why the original post is in any way controversial. My impression is that D&D is a collection of elements which produce some fundamentally comparable experiences, and that some other games may or may not produce those same experiences depending on how they are played.