The Return of the Player and the Man Beneath the Mask?

[Incenjucar]

"Role-play" is a remarkably flexible term. 4E is a game where you are expected to role-play, but the game itself does not enforce this in the same way that previous editions did. Previous editions punished you if you did not role-play the specific character you designed when you started, and rewarded you if you played your character correctly. In 4E, it is largely assumed that you role-play because you enjoy role-playing in and of itself, and you need no goad to do so.

4E is a role-playing game where the role-playing is itself not a game, but a performance on top of the game elements. That doesn't make it less of a role-playing game, but it is certainly a different approach. That said, DMs are still free to use RP rewards and punishments in 4E, to return the game to the role-playing.

 

[Naszir]

I most sincerely hope not.

I abhorred 4e because it didn't feel like an RPG to me, but like a board game w/ story elements. I hope that 5e, or at least some portion of the modular, set-your-own-dial construction of it, will return the focus to the character, & the fun (IMO) of stepping into that persona at the game table. I'm not suggesting LARPing - while that might be fun (I've never tried it), I wouldn't consider it D&D - but something with enough of a character focus to enjoy exploring those aspects, while still leaving room for some good meta-humor around the interplay between the character(s) & the player(s).

I don't get this. How does any game prevent someone from roleplaying? You can roleplay with monopoly if you wanted to. There is nothing in any version of the game that made it more difficult to create a personality. Personality isn't determined by game mechanics.

Game mechanics are there for the G of the RPG. Some like to do mainly RP and that is fine. But don't link a RP drawback (like the paladin must be LG) and tell me that makes the paladin more balanced to play in comparison with other classes.

 

[Mattachine]

Roleplaying is dependent on the attitudes of the participants.

I have played in Storyteller games where most of the players wanted combat-oriented vampires that were all action and had almost no persona.

I have played 4e games where the majority of sessions focus on story, character development, and intrigue.


That being said, a game the provides a massive amount of rules for detailing a character really can detract from player involvement. For some, they take these rules as a track to travel on.

On the other hand, a game with too few character rules can cause players to always play a version of themselves, or to always play the same character, but with different stats in each game.

For me, a game has rules that help set a framework for character persona. Rules that say you must make choices about your character, but then leave the specifics of those choices up to you. As you play, you are rewarded for playing your character in relation to those choices. Burning Wheel, Storyteller, and Spycraft each have a way of doing this, all successful to some extent.

I have several artist friends that tell me their best works have come about through laying out restrictions or requirements (either on commission, or self-imposed). Without being some rules, they either wandered aimlessly or stuck to the same paths they always traveled. Given a map, they really explored their art.

 

[CRKrueger]

I think, if anything, it's been the reverse. A laser-like focus on perfect game balance as the primary goal has led to the character as a game-piece being emphasized over the character as a living, breathing person living in an imaginary world.

Reduce the CharOp metagame and the boardgame piece-moving metagame, and you get closer to the character as the role of a person, not the role of a gamepiece. Then you get better roleplaying because the character becomes an agent of the player's imagination, not a construct of the designer's rules.

 

[Umbran]

I don't agree that the focus shifted from player to character in the first place. I think maybe the player's focus shifted from one type of player activity to another, but ultimately it is what the player chooses that it the important bit.

To give an example:

In some styles of gaming, often said to be "old school", the player didn't just say, "I search the room". The player had to come up with far more detail, about exactly what part of the room was searched, and how, so as to avoid the inevitable rot grubs, traps, and so on. In 4e, that player would just say, "I search the room."

One would be tempted to view the older example as being focused on the player, while the latter is focused on the character. After all, the player is far more a part of the old-style action, and that action requires more creativity in the old style than the new. But, I think that's an illusion, viewing a couple of trees as the forest, so to speak.

Because, you see, in combat, that old-style play would have the player say,
"I attack" for seven consecutive rounds. Meanwhile, in 4e, the player is making far more detailed choices, controlling movement each round down to 5' increments, with a variety of powers to choose from, and ingenuity in applying those powers is key.

In both cases, the player is making detailed choices against a rule set. In 4e, the ruleset is explicitly stated in the books, and in the older game it was the implicit ruleset in the GM's head. But let us not kid ourselves that players didn't come to know that unstated ruleset just as well as a latter day gamer knows the 4e combat rules.

They are both tests of player mastery, and thus the focus is on the player - they're just mastering different things.

 

[CRKrueger]

They are both tests of player mastery, and thus the focus is on the player - they're just mastering different things.

True, in 4e, you're mastering the rules of an exceptional and advanced tactical boardgame, thus becoming a better tactical 4e player.

In 1e, you're mastering everything that a person living in your particular setting could possibly do, thus becoming a better roleplayer.

 

[Umbran]

In 1e, you're mastering everything that a person living in your particular setting could possibly do, thus becoming a better roleplayer.

No, no you aren't.

Your GM, like it or not, had/has habits of thought, and a particular take on task resolution - like whether probing ahead with a 10' pole is going to do anything useful, and so on. You're mastering your GM's internal rules, often unwritten and unspoken.

Those internal rules are no more (or less) "everything that a person living in the setting could possible do" than the 4e rules are.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't agree that the focus shifted from player to character in the first place. I think maybe the player's focus shifted from one type of player activity to another, but ultimately it is what the player chooses that it the important bit.

To give an example:

In some styles of gaming, often said to be "old school", the player didn't just say, "I search the room". The player had to come up with far more detail, about exactly what part of the room was searched, and how, so as to avoid the inevitable rot grubs, traps, and so on. In 4e, that player would just say, "I search the room."

One would be tempted to view the older example as being focused on the player, while the latter is focused on the character. After all, the player is far more a part of the old-style action, and that action requires more creativity in the old style than the new. But, I think that's an illusion, viewing a couple of trees as the forest, so to speak.

Because, you see, in combat, that old-style play would have the player say,
"I attack" for seven consecutive rounds. Meanwhile, in 4e, the player is making far more detailed choices, controlling movement each round down to 5' increments, with a variety of powers to choose from, and ingenuity in applying those powers is key.

In both cases, the player is making detailed choices against a rule set. In 4e, the ruleset is explicitly stated in the books, and in the older game it was the implicit ruleset in the GM's head. But let us not kid ourselves that players didn't come to know that unstated ruleset just as well as a latter day gamer knows the 4e combat rules.

They are both tests of player mastery, and thus the focus is on the player - they're just mastering different things.

Its just a matter of where you want your player input focused. Do you want it on the grid or in the collective minds of the others at the table?

Combat in D&D was originally designed to be abstract, in order to leave a lot of room for creativity and input from the player. This is not the same as choosing a pre-defined option from a menu of powers.

The system was flexible and simple to accomodate a whole range of possible actions, including "I attack" if the player only had a peripheral interest in combat.

Later editions began to provide more and more rule support for combat, while at the same time, reducing exploration play into a series of die rolls.
For combat lovers this poses no problem, but exploration and socially focused players get thier favorite parts of play squeezed out.

I hope 5E can take an even approach to the different facets of the game. Let explorers and social butterflies do thier thing yet also provide a strong tactical opportunity for lovers of violence. I'm sure a modular game can deliver this if equal attention is paid to all three silos.

 

[Jack7]

Interesting discussion. Can't join in right now as wife is getting testing tomorrow to prep her for surgery and I've been real busy with that and other stuff lately. But nice debate.

Carry on and goodnight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you think that 5th Edition will herald the return of the player (the emphasis on the game returning to the Player) versus the majority of game emphasis being upon the Character?

You mean using the player as part of the resolution mechanics? Probably. Monte Cook had an L&L article that hinted strongly in that direction.

You want to build a raft? Just describe how you build a raft. OK, your raft sinks, clearly you have no idea how to make a raft. No, it doesn't matter that your characer is a ranger, you're the one deciding what he does, and you decided he'd build a raft that couldn't possibly float...

Of course, it won't aply to a wizard casting spells or (hopefully) to a fighter's swordplay (let's see if your fighter can defeat the dire wolf - take this broom handle and put on some football padding while I get my pit bull...)


Woot! Can hardly wait.