The Impasse

[xechnao]

A game system doesn't force you to roleplay,

A game system forces you to roleplay situations or conditions that the system tries to emulate. If not you would never be inspired by it to use it as a roleplaying medium.

4e has better mechanical support, by far, for roleplay elements than 3e did. Craft/profession was not some awe-inspiring roleplaying mechanic. It was a poorly realized attempt at making everything about a character, PC or NPC, have to have a number or you couldn't do it. It was limiting roleplaying, not supporting it. With that gone, 4e has the same "RP" skills that 3e had in bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy, but they add a system in which to apply those and all skills in a complex, mechanically supported framework that allows noncombat scenes to really be played out and not just come down to a single die roll.

That is your opinion I do not find your examples-arguments convincing enough here. The system you are talking about is the same D20 system. That you make 3 rolls instead of 1 does not change the system. You could do these things in 3e.

Xechnao puts himself in the same boat as you when he ignores all this and goes about 4e being a boardgame or being solely combat focused. These positions are simply not supported by even a cursory examination of the books and certainly don't bear out in actual gameplay, which leads me to question the degree of actual experience either of you have with the game.

That's your opinion. If I would agree I would guess by a cursory examination of the books and gameplay of the core mechanics and rules of 4e that I am far from dungeon delve and nearer to...what?

 

[xechnao]

If this is your definition, then there haven't been "non MMO" characters in any edition of D&D. Are you still talking about D&D here or now are you brainstorming about another non d20 based abstract RPG?

If you aren't talking about D&D, then we've strayed FAAAAAR off topic. The OP brought op "blindly following" WOTC and their decisions around 4e.

The way you put it here I would say we've strayed FAAAAAR off topic.

 

[xechnao]

So if I have a 4e character who has a list of contacts, a personality, the Diplomacy skill, and some long-term enemies, they're no longer an MMO character?

If I add on a new system that tracks these mechanically, is it no longer an MMO character?

-O

But how would you achieve to track its influence in combat without avoiding intermixing problems with the already balanced rule system of your combat prowess you have? I think it would be a serious headache. Better build from the ground up with this in mind.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would accept this the day a character could reach level 30 by mostly these stuff and say that he is having fun with these rules provided to him. Unfortunately Sadrik is right on this one.

Show me any system and set of players that manage that.

I suspect the people that manage that don't use all that much of their rules systems at all. I suppose the closest poster I know to this ideal would be Fenes, but it appears he and his group are still running one combat or so per session, and really enjoy that part, too.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But how would you achieve to track its influence in combat without avoiding intermixing problems with the already balanced rule system of your combat prowess you have? I think it would be a serious headache. Better build from the ground up with this in mind.

Do it. Publish it. Profit.

 

[xechnao]

But if you want to see a more or less "elegant" solution, The Sims already exists, add a combat system, and you're set.

Mustrum, I have been mentioning this many -or at least a couple- times lately. I have explicitly mentioned "the sims" in a forum I started here and on the indie forums as well as a source for research regarding ideas for tabletop rpgs. I am feeling now that people may understand me some times. This is good.

 

[xechnao]

Show me any system and set of players that manage that.

Something like "the sims"??
No really, there is something out there. "Reign" might be an example, although perhaps not very good.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum, I have been mentioning this many -or at least a couple- times lately. I have explicitly mentioned "the sims" in a forum I started here and on the indie forums as well as a source for research regarding ideas for tabletop rpgs. I am feeling now that people may understand me some times. This is good.

You need to learn to get to the point quicker and easier.

"Marry The Sims with World of Warcraft". And than go into the specifics (because this description doesn't go on with the specifics of your "web" idea or how social interaction influences combat.)

 

[Thasmodious]

You confuse the issue, xech, when you are really arguing about what you see as the flaws of D&D in general and couch it as criticism of the current edition. D&D is what it always was. If that is not what you want in a game, you have a lot of choice out there in the hobby. But to criticize 4e for not going off in a totally different direction and abandoning all the D&D things because MMOs have used some of those things is a bit... out there.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Something like "the sims"??
No really, there is something out there. "Reign" might be an example, although perhaps not very good.

I don't play The Sims with multiple players and/or at a game table.

I am not familiar with Reign.