D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Kobold Boots]

The way I see it, 4e doesn't inspire certain folks to role-play. Making it a poor choice for them. Somewhere along the line this morphed as: you can't role-play in 4e.

That's part of it, for sure.

It's most of it. The issue is cognitive dissonance.

When the game revolved around a shared imaginary space without a strict visual phys rep, people weren't as distracted and would spend more time in roleplay. This was certainly true in my 3e and 2e campaigns when we didn't use much in the way of game mats or minis.

When the game revolves around a physical rep of imaginary space AND the rules revolving around that space take a significant amount of time to resolve actions AND the average time people sit down to play can easily be filled with that resolution it's easy to see why people say you can't rp with the game.

It's because they're not using their time to RP.

I'll also note that when running 1e, 2e and 3e games with minis, I had much the same experience. Of course the time elapsed varied with each system but once you start pulling people out of their heads, they don't focus on the RP as much.

KB

 

[Neonchameleon]

Are you kidding me?

Not at all.

While it describes a kind of performance, it is most definitely NOT a musical one. You (and any other musicians in the ensemble) either can or cannot play the music they are trying to play. To paraphrase Yoda, there is no bluff, only play or play not.

And that is a fundamentally boring question. It's a binary question. Can they play or can they not play. Yes or no. Pass/Fail. Simply rolling a perform check sucks. What matters is what you perform, how you perform, and how you got into the mess where you needed to. A "roll one dice" resolution simply isn't interesting from a game point of view.

As for bluff, take acting. You think that the ability to make someone believe something implausible isn't the core of acting? You think making them

I don't know what musicians YOU'VE been listening to, but nobody I can think of has ever been threatened into enjoying a show.

If you think that comics don't make use of the intimidate skill while on stage, you've been listening to a lot milder comedy than I have. If you think that making the villain truly scary in a play isn't intimidating, why not?

That's a design issue, easily addressed by systems that draw combat/adventuring and non-combat skills from separate pools, or simply letting players choose how focused they want to be. Even in 3.X, where skills were drawn from the same pool, you could only spend a certain amount of points improving a given skill per level, so if you had "extra" you were forced to look elsewhere (though you could go cross-class instead of non-combat).

The trouble with 3.X this way was that there were 36 skills or skill categories (not separating perform skills, knowledge skills, craft skills, etc.) And even rogues only ever learened a fraction of those skills. Which meant it determined what you couldn't do at least as much as what you could.

Simply excising non-combat skills is, IMHO, suboptimal design at best.

It's IMO better design than doing them badly - as 3.X does. (2e does them terribly with NWPs). And to do them well would take huge changes to the game - something like full scale social combat rules a la Spirit of the Century or Dogs in the Vineyard.

Add to that list the story of the comedian who had to tell a joke to a mobster to save his life

...

So he had 24 hours to make this man laugh or be shot.

That's one on my list, not one on yours. Making someone laugh is not a straight matter of technique and performance. What does this person find funny is the core question for a single person. It's not a simple perform check. At least not unless you want the whole thing to be tedious.

Add to that list the 1980s movie Crossroads

Crossroads scenarios are common in myth. They all have something in common. The challenge at the crossroads is what the challenged person is best at. If the person is primarily a musician they get challenged as such. If they are an adventurer they will be challenged to that.

Add to that list Scheherazade, who had to tell the King stories in order to save her life...

Again, Scheherezade was not an adventurer. If she'd been a rogue, either the king would have wound up dead or she'd have simply escaped. But she wasn't. She used the only skills she had - a huge knowledge of history and the ability to tell stories.

And I really do not think that rolling 1000 perform checks (one for every night) is anything other than a joke if you're trying to do the story of Scheherezade.

She is also not able to take any PC class - all are too combat focussed. In 3e terms she's either an expert or a commoner. (Fortunately 4e allows seeming non-combatants as lazy warlords, implement-bards or even at times feylocks).

The list DOES go on. Its a pretty common trope.

But apparently you miss one important part of the trope. It is the primary area of specialisation that is always challenged. Knights get challenged to a joust. Tricksters to riddles. Musicians to music. And adventurers? Either by a party of adventurers or to a dungeon.

Until this game stops being called Dungeons and Dragons and becomes Choirs and Chamber Orchestras, the expected challenge at a crossroads is not going to be a musical showdown. And a musical showdown will not fit the myth until we get characters who get their experience from music.

Further, this sort of challenge is almost always solo. Your desire to have your musician challenged at the crossroads is a desire to have the non-musical 80% of the party sitting on their backsides, watching you take over the plot. It's a one on one story - further rendering it unsuitable for D&D.

As I said above, if you want to run that sort of duel, D&D (any edition) is fundamentally the wrong system to do it in. A hacked version of Dogs in the Vineyard would probably be great for just about any duel - but the ability to devolve the whole thing to a single die roll just makes things worse.

1) Being an adventurer and a musician (or otherwise artistic) are not mutually exclusive. In some traditions, being able to recite poetry, do calligraphy, sing or play an instrument are as essential to one's place in society as skill with bow, blade and buckler.

I'm sorry. Why is this relevant? Some of my characters are musicians and storytellers. Others aren't. But these are side-skills. Everyone has side-skills. And any attempt to write all of them down is going to lock people who don't have them written down out of their skills.

2) By eliminating the skills, you eliminate even the possibility of a well-rounded artist/adventurer (and all those potential storylines) in your campaign.

Complete and utter nonsense. By eliminating those skills, I am allowing well rounded artist/adventurers. Even as fighters. 2+Int skill points is barely enough to allow a fighter to be an athlete. And if the skills are there and you don't have them, you can't do it. Skills indicate what you can't do as much as you can. If you need flower arranging, tea ceremony, an instrument, and a knowledge of heraldry to be a well rounded member of society you can barely do it in 3.X.

Also you don't eliminate the possibility. Because what's important to the story isn't the sculpture, it's the what/how. Whether you succeed or not at building a sculpture isn't the important part. It's just a lump of rock.

If there is no skill, there is no skill challenge, just a kludge...a workaround.

But the abstract skill isn't important. It's a d20 roll. Fundamentally boring. It's the what and the how that matter. If I actually wanted to run a duel at the crossroads on a skill, I'd put away my D&D for a while - and break out Dogs in the Vineyard. It is perfect for duels of any kind in a way D&D never has been.

As for Iamaro's 'flags', I normally sort that out by talking to the DM. Or talking to my players.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And that is a fundamentally boring question. It's a binary question. Can they play or can they not play. Yes or no. Pass/Fail. Simply rolling a perform check sucks. What matters is what you perform, how you perform, and how you got into the mess where you needed to. A "roll one dice" resolution simply isn't interesting from a game point of view.

And yet every single skill check is done that way- you either succeed or you don't.

It you want gradations of success, there are numerous system in which you roll a single dice and your results depend upon how much you failed or succeeds by.

But multiple rolls of fundamentally irrelevant skills- while rolling NOTHING that directly applies- is not narratively OR simulationally satisfying.

As for bluff, take acting. You think that the ability to make someone believe something implausible isn't the core of acting?

While making something believable is core to acting, no performance in the theater, film or TV has ever convinced me that what was going on was real.. It is related, but it is NOT the same.

AND that all has no bearing on whether you can outplay the Devil's guitarist- the original example.

If you think that comics don't make use of the intimidate skill while on stage, you've been listening to a lot milder comedy than I have.

Comedians use intimidate to handle hecklers- they don't threaten you into thinking they're funny. If they do, you're a far more timid soul than I am.

If you think that making the villain truly scary in a play isn't intimidating, why not?

Because I KNOW there is no threat- it's just a drama. The actor is not trying to convince me that I'm going to be shot, he's a fictional creation trying to convince me that he's capable of shooting another fictional creation.

Take the same dialog and have it just be him and me in a dark alley at 3:30 AM in South Dallas? THEN I might be intimidated.

The trouble with 3.X this way was that there were 36 skills or skill categories (not separating perform skills, knowledge skills, craft skills, etc.) And even rogues only ever learened a fraction of those skills. Which meant it determined what you couldn't do at least as much as what you could.

Like I said before, I reeeally don't see this as a problem at all.

That's one on my list, not one on yours. Making someone laugh is not a straight matter of technique and performance. What does this person find funny is the core question for a single person. It's not a simple perform check. At least not unless you want the whole thing to be tedious.

I disagree.

Again, Scheherezade was not an adventurer. If she'd been a rogue, either the king would have wound up dead or she'd have simply escaped. But she wasn't. She used the only skills she had - a huge knowledge of history and the ability to tell stories.

She was a storyteller...one could say she was a Bard. And volunteering to we'd a man who was killing a virgin bride per day sounds like a damn brave thing to do. It IS an adventure, albeit one in a very confined space.

It is, at it's core, little different from Bilbo's first encounter with Gollum, telling "Riddles in the Dark."

And I really do not think that rolling 1000 perform checks (one for every night) is anything other than a joke if you're trying to do the story of Scheherezade.

While I wouldn't set a 1000 roll challenge, her story nonetheless is an (extreme) example of the kind of challenge we're talking about: a performance that your life (or other great prize) depends upon.

She is also not able to take any PC class - all are too combat focussed. In 3e terms she's either an expert or a commoner.

I disagree- she'd make a fine 3.X Bard: high Cha, ranks in Perform: Storytelling, the Barsdic Lore ability to supply her with fodder for her stories...some Charm ability. Yep. Bard.

But apparently you miss one important part of the trope.

What are you smoking? The musicians I cited strive against musicians; the storytellers tell stories; the comedian told jokes. The challenge faced is based on their strongest skill.

Further, this sort of challenge is almost always solo. Your desire to have your musician challenged at the crossroads is a desire to have the non-musical 80% of the party sitting on their backsides, watching you take over the plot. It's a one on one story - further rendering it unsuitable for D&D.

Maybe in games YOU run, but I've been in several campaigns in which challenges against skills for this PC or that- especially in systems where there are skills-focused classes- have been enjoyed by the whole group. Otherwise, they wouldn't have lasted the years they did.

(This kind of thing- dismissing a style of game because it's not YOUR preferred style- was one of the things people disliked about the 4Ed rollout.)

I'm sorry. Why is this relevant? Some of my characters are musicians and storytellers. Others aren't. But these are side-skills. Everyone has side-skills.

They aren't skills at all according to 4ed- and have different mechanics from REAL 4Ed skills. And they shouldn't, IMHO.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Back at 'ya.

3.X may have "underfunded" skills by class, but at least you had the option of being a skilled flower arranger, as opposed to one who was just making a check vs stat bonuses.

In 4Ed, there is no skill for flower arrangement. All there is is stat & level. All PCs with the same level and stats are interchangeable.

Also you don't eliminate the possibility. Because what's important to the story isn't the sculpture, it's the what/how. Whether you succeed or not at building a sculpture isn't the important part. It's just a lump of rock.

If the contest is to create a great sculpture that will be selected to the royal collection, and the winner is to be awarded a private audience with the King, then that sculpture had better be damn good. Especially if- as per the story- the sculptor was trying to assassinate said king.

IOW, the quality matters...it's not just a lump of rock.

But the abstract skill isn't important.

To you, perhaps. To others, it makes a big difference.

 

[jbear]

Anecdotal contribution that is neither here nor there, which I realise will be largely ignored, having chimed into this conversation on pg 22.

I have experienced a change in the way I DM with a change from 3.5 to 4e. Fundamentally it involves me previously judging player 'desired actions' with a 'there is probably no way you can pull that off, stop let me check the rules...' which switched to a 'that sounds like fun, okay, in that case, this is what happens...' type attitde. For me, personally, as a DM this change has been massively positive, both for myself, my players and the game I run. And certainly no amount of arguing can challenge the fact that this change (in me) occured when I read the 4e DMG.

Nevertheless, it has not affected my attitude towards RP within my game, and my attitude is that it is a fundamental, wonderful, and necessary part of RPG. Yep, 4e cpmbat system, solid, slick, simple, awesome. but has that changed the way I run my game? Well ... yes ... the combat side of things. Fair enough. But there you go, see how I said 'the combat SIDE'. Because there is another side. A 50/50, just as imprtant as the combat side side. D&D is a RPG where combat is a fundamental part of things. You expect it, you want it, you love it. That doesn't mean it has to becpme the be all and end all of the game. Not at all.

Then again, I take the attitude that the rules simply provide me the base I springboard my games from. If, as ocurred in last night's session, the paladin uses a Push encounter power to by pass a haunted door, and I decide on the spur of the moment that I don't think the challenge can be by passed so easily, then I will make my own ruling. Once that ruling is made i will be consistent, which I think is the most important factor. In this case i had the Push effect rebound and hurl the paladin the same distance. When he protested, underlining how athletic his character was I allowed him to make an acrobatics check and remove the damage from the fall (10 ft) equal to half his acro check. He was cool with it as he nimbly landed back on his feet with no damage (orignally having rolled a 10 on a 1d10), having learnt the door was invulnerable to Push and the game moved on. I allow heaps of stuff. And i constantly make judgement calls that don't favour the PCs. I try and remain constant and fair as possible. Some nights I'm better than others. But what I always have to rely on that the system I have to rely my judgement calls on is solid as a rock... and I hve the fundamentals of it grasped well enough that i never ever crack open a book to check if I'm exactly right or not. And the game moves on.

RP ... never the less ... same as it ever was. Maybe this also stems from the fact that I explicitly don't allow my players to EVER get away with I roll diplomacy to covince ... Whao!!!! Hold up right there! I will tell you what you have to roll if I consider it necessary. If you are a player with a PC with 8 charisma why are you making a speech as if you were a shalespearean actor? And anyway ... what is it your PC says to convice the person in question ...?

I think DM's have a big part in setting expectations and norms within a game. I can see how the system influences that, but I think it's pretty slight. Or in other words I don't really buy it either. I play 4e online. I RP my PC ... I play Pathfinder in 2 different PbP games. I RP both characters ...

I can see certain small detail ... like character generation in PF being slightly more involved, especially as mundane equipment seems like a far more important factor, and being a bit useless at the start part and parcel of developing your character (well, the characters I play at least, both multiclassed casters, which I'm sure is a factor). Again this may be largely due to my now fairly in depth knowledge and comfort level with the CBuilder.

All that aside, I don't have trouble Rping my PC when playing 4e (my DM runs things so this is what happens naturally), and neither do my players playing at my table. I do engineer the way I run things so that this is not only explicit but rewarded.

So there you guy ... that's me and my experience, for what little it counts for. Carry on!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Aw, you can totally roleplay in 4e! Nothing stops you but yourself!

"4th edition has a great balanced combat system and is fun to play, but it doesn't give you opportunities to roleplay like Pathfinder does."

Hmm...y'know, while I might dismiss a more extreme position, I can kind of see where they might be coming from in certain respects.

How can this be the fault of a gaming system? Sure, it may be the fault of the DM (me), the module design (intended as a dungeon crawl), or even the group. Why blame 4E as a killer of roleplaying, interaction, and problem solving?

A game system absolutely has an effect on what you tend to do with it. Nothing in 4e prohibits or dismisses roleplaying, and if that's what you want to do for a session, nothing will stop you.

But there are subtler effects.

Take, for instance, combats that last an hour. These are not out of the norm in 4e (IMXP). They are much rarer in Pathfinder (if only because of a SCRY-BUFF-TELEPORT trifecta, or a "Whoever Gains Initiative Wins" issue, or a "5 dudes vs. 1 monster" tendancy). If you fill the same 3 hour void with Pathfinder and with 4e, and run the same amount of combats, you'll get different amounts of RP time in depending on what you play. Pathfinder combat might not be the best balanced thing in the world, but it doesn't stick around for nearly as long as 4e's adroitly balanced combats can.

Or take the "implied setting" issue. Pathfinder's setting is explicitly Golarion, and it has a wealth of interesting, unique hooks to draw a given player in and make them a part of the world. 4e's implied setting is much weaker, and even when it's there, there's still so much for the DM to fill in, and PCs are such anomalies that they sort of struggle to fit in, even when they have a place. That can be a strength of 4e if you're looking to fill in your own world, but it can also be a weakness if you're looking for some meaty flavor that comes with the territory.

Speaking of, take the "encounter-centric design" issue. Away from combat, 4e doesn't give you many tools to interact with the game world (skills...and the list is pretty slim, and favors certain ability scores depending on the situation, and Skill Challenges are weak). Pathfinder gives you more "RP Abilities" (such as several spells that are useless in direct combat). 4e's position that the DM/Group can take care of these without rules isn't always borne out, or is done in a way that isn't satisfying to play through. Pathfinder has a lot of flaws in this area itself (there's plenty of games that do a noncombat challenge much better than either 4e OR Pathfinder), but it's slightly stronger than 4e.

This doesn't mean you can't roleplay in 4e. This means that 4e, in comparison to Pathfinder, might not give you as many opportunities to role play. You'll have to take them, design them in, use your DM's power to bring them to bear.

Which means if you're a combat-centric DM, and the module you're running is a combat-heavy slog, you've got everything working against you.

You can roleplay easily in 4e, 4e just doesn't give you much incentive to do it, and it gives you a few reasons not to, in comparison to Pathfinder. Of course, a lot of games do better than Pathfinder, too, but if what we're comparing is a black pot and a grey kettle, well, one of them is clearly "more white" than the other.

 

[Aenghus]

Me, I got tired of massive skill lists in the days of Rolemaster, and had this dislike confirmed with GURPS.

The problems with massive skill lists are manyfold, including sometimes making specific concepts impossible, and the tendency to constantly have new skills added, moving the goalposts and making PCs less and less competent with time.

I prefer 4e's stance on skills. It does require being willing to adjudicate what skill or skills apply to a particular task at the time, but this should be anticipated and prepared for in advance for anything particularly important. Ah hoc rulings for unanticipated skill use have always been with us in every system.

4e skills are very broad and inclusive rather than proscriptive.

IMO having the specific skill for a very particular problem and rolling it isn't roleplaying, it's using mechanics and distincly the "game" part of RPG. The roleplaying comes in the depiction and elaboration of that skill use by the player, but this should be attempted in practically every system, not just D&D.

I also think it is impossible to come up with a skill system that will satisfy everyone out of the box. IMO most players will accept referee rulings, but a few players have very strong opinions and preconceptions that would need special treatment to support. I expect to compromise with my players over treatment of skills to suit their tastes when they really care about the treatment of particular areas, more than the core system does (or agree to disagree).

Also there is an inherent subjective element here, where different people instintively think the world works in different ways, and want the rules to reflect their own preferences. These preferences can be out of whack or totally contradictory, so compromises are again needed if the players are to coexist in the same game.

 

[Greg K]

Danny,
I agree with everything you wrote below. I just wish I could give you XP, but this is the second time today that I have been told that I need to spread XP around (I am, really, starting to get annoyed with that restriction!)

And yet every single skill check is done that way- you either succeed or you don't.

It you want gradations of success, there are numerous system in which you roll a single dice and your results depend upon how much you failed or succeeds by.

But multiple rolls of fundamentally irrelevant skills- while rolling NOTHING that directly applies- is not narratively OR simulationally satisfying.

While making something believable is core to acting, no performance in the theater, film or TV has ever convinced me that what was going on was real.. It is related, but it is NOT the same.

AND that all has no bearing on whether you can outplay the Devil's guitarist- the original example.

Comedians use intimidate to handle hecklers- they don't threaten you into thinking they're funny. If they do, you're a far more timid soul than I am.

Because I KNOW there is no threat- it's just a drama. The actor is not trying to convince me that I'm going to be shot, he's a fictional creation trying to convince me that he's capable of shooting another fictional creation.

Take the same dialog and have it just be him and me in a dark alley at 3:30 AM in South Dallas? THEN I might be intimidated.

Like I said before, I reeeally don't see this as a problem at all.

I disagree.

She was a storyteller...one could say she was a Bard. And volunteering to we'd a man who was killing a virgin bride per day sounds like a damn brave thing to do. It IS an adventure, albeit one in a very confined space.

It is, at it's core, little different from Bilbo's first encounter with Gollum, telling "Riddles in the Dark."



While I wouldn't set a 1000 roll challenge, her story nonetheless is an (extreme) example of the kind of challenge we're talking about: a performance that your life (or other great prize) depends upon.



I disagree- she'd make a fine 3.X Bard: high Cha, ranks in Perform: Storytelling, the Barsdic Lore ability to supply her with fodder for her stories...some Charm ability. Yep. Bard.



What are you smoking? The musicians I cited strive against musicians; the storytellers tell stories; the comedian told jokes. The challenge faced is based on their strongest skill.


Maybe in games YOU run, but I've been in several campaigns in which challenges against skills for this PC or that- especially in systems where there are skills-focused classes- have been enjoyed by the whole group. Otherwise, they wouldn't have lasted the years they did.

(This kind of thing- dismissing a style of game because it's not YOUR preferred style- was one of the things people disliked about the 4Ed rollout.)


They aren't skills at all according to 4ed- and have different mechanics from REAL 4Ed skills. And they shouldn't, IMHO.



Back at 'ya.

3.X may have "underfunded" skills by class, but at least you had the option of being a skilled flower arranger, as opposed to one who was just making a check vs stat bonuses.

In 4Ed, there is no skill for flower arrangement. All there is is stat & level. All PCs with the same level and stats are interchangeable.


If the contest is to create a great sculpture that will be selected to the royal collection, and the winner is to be awarded a private audience with the King, then that sculpture had better be damn good. Especially if- as per the story- the sculptor was trying to assassinate said king.

IOW, the quality matters...it's not just a lump of rock.



To you, perhaps. To others, it makes a big difference.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Hmm...y'know, while I might Or take the "implied setting" issue. Pathfinder's setting is explicitly Golarion, and it has a wealth of interesting, unique hooks to draw a given player in and make them a part of the world.

Pathfinder has added at least one thing that has added great hooks for my gaming group. Character traits are a brilliant addition for helping roleplaying. The way that they are presented, our players were falling over themselves creating background and motivations. There are some general traits, but also both region/country specific traits and campaign-path specific traits are gold.

4e can do this... It isn't rules-system specific. The key thing is to ground the campaign system in specifics. If a character can take specific feats or abilities from a Winterhaven set with specific flavor, it will ground the players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think it's a "quantity of skills" problem, either. That certainly doesn't help, but I think 4e made a good choice to consolidate.

The thing is, every skill use falls into one of about 3 broad categories:

Interaction: Diplomacy or Bluff or Insight, or otherwise interacting with an NPC.
Exploration: Stealth, most Nature uses, Endurance, most Athletics uses, or otherwise getting from Point A to Point B. Interacting with the environment.
Investigation: Knowledge skills, Perception, Insight to a certain degree, or otherwise revealing the unknown to the party.

D&D is a game about all those, and Combat.

4e has extensive, detailed rules for Combat. Powers and AC and defenses and weapons and implements and teleports and shifts and areas and closes and melee and ranged and exploits and prayers and defenders and controllers and hit points and and and and and and and and and and and and....

For everything else -- all three other major lures of gameplay -- skill checks and challenges are 4e's lone device. And then the skills themselves are narrow and limited.

Pathfinder also has some spells, some skills, some magical effects, some magic items -- a sprinkling of things.

What would be great is if 4e followed through on Mearls's statement that things other than combat have roles. Things other than combat should have powers, should have complexity, should be require diverse input, should be dynamic, should raise tension. Lumping everything together into an "everything else" bag and then saying, essentially, everyone is pretty much the same at "everything else," does a great disservice to those who are attracted to D&D because of some other element than combat.

I mean, play LA Noire. Interaction and Investigation are much more key to that game than combat and action, clearly, and the mechanics and technology reinforce that choice. Figuring out truth from lies is the core mechanic in that game. Saying D&D can't or refuses to have a compelling investigation mechanic is artificially limiting, when it clearly CAN, if it wants to. It should want to. Lots of people like that mode of playing, and they shouldn't be told to get lost since D&D is all about the swords and mighty thews and raw adolescent power fantasies. I mean, sure, D&D IS about that, but it's a big box, and it can be about Sherlock Holmes with a Vorpal Sword, too. It just has to recognize that there are things that are just as important as combat out there, and no less deserving of attention (and, while we're at it, we can ratchet down the attention lavished on combat so that we don't need to invest another $100 in game boards and minis and tokens just to kill some frickin' goblins).

 

[Hussar]

Wow, so to be a good poet one has to be good at Diplomacy, Intimidate and Insight and be charismatic as well... Hope those are on your trained list... and you have more than 3 skills...oh yeah and make sure you pick a class that actually uses charisma. So in this system I need 3 skills in order to be a decent poet... what is the advantage to this again if I just want to be good at poetry?

Arrrggh. NO. This is where the breakdown comes every single time this conversation comes up. Mallus' paladin uses those three skills plus charisma. Why? Because Mallus says so.

My rogue, OTOH, uses Insight and Bluff only do make good poetry. Why? Because my poems are not so threatening, but, are moulded lovingly to fit with what the audience wants to hear.

The problem here is that people want there to be one and only one solution to every situation. That's not how 4e works. That's the simulationist talking. 4e says, "Pick what you want to happen, justify it in a manner acceptable to the table, and move on."

Every poet uses a different skill set, so long as it can be justified to the table.