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

[SpydersWebbing]

I find that this problem is solved by one person doing two things. Here's the recipe.

What you need: A live DM, who can read. Page 42 of the DM's Guide.

Directions: Read page 42, and constantly suggest cool stuff to do to your players. Repeat as often as desired, ad nauseum.

The last game I had people almost entirely abandoned their power cards and were improvising actions, like the druid who swept minions off the roof with some newly created vines (Nature, Hard DC), the assassin who used her shadow noose as a shadow rope (Arcana, Medium DC), and the bard who created magnesium for a blinding flash (Arcana, Hard DC+5) so that way they could bomb a building without being accosted.

4th edition is wonderfully flexible, especially when you read the rules and use them.

 

[Ryujin]

I think others have nailed it, but here are the problems I have:

1. 4e largely dropped the idea of simulation. Things are a lot more abstract (from square fireballs to fighter powers that just make no sense to warlords being able to talk people up from unconscious). This can harm immersion.
2. The "completely heal after a night's sleep thing" is difficult on a massive number of levels. First the loss of simulation. Second it makes encounter design very restricted. A "simple" fight in 3e could actually matter. Real resources could be drained and people had to actually think and take the challenge seriously. Now it doesn't matter much (use encounter powers, do what you can to get surgeless healing) and it just drags. Try to adapt a 1e or 2e module to 4e. It's a lot of work as a number of encounters just can't do the same thing they did before. Third it just hoses the trope of "you're down to your last bit behind enemy lines, but it's do or die" over more than just a single day. Down and out just doesn't exist unless you strip items.
3. Also, why in the whole world, can only the PCs get up from dropping? Should the NPCs know to finish off the downed characters? This PC/NPC thing is really tricky to deal with. If you are playing "the PCs are ultra-special cool folks blessed by the gods" then it works just fine in the RP. But otherwise you keep hitting all these points of cognitive dissonance.

Is 4e a good game? Certainly. Is it a good RPG? Yes, but it takes either a very good group or very good DM. Us average folks struggle. It's basically the cognitive dissonance.

1. I find that these things actually HELP immersion. Square fireballs mean not having to fart around with areas of effect and having the Warlord yell, "Get your lazy butt up off the ground and do your job!" just works.

2. 'Simple' fights can still matter, in 4e. Daily resources like heavy-hitters, healing surges, and item powers need to be properly managed. Unloading that big whumpum daily spell might save the party 3 surges, in an encounter, that they need later on. Overnight healing can be hand-waved as a matter of poultices and nostrums. It's a different dynamic which makes module conversion difficult, if not impossible, but it's no better nor worse.

3. In my world, if the opposition has a healer of any sort, then the opponents aren't dead when they drop to zero hp. Without a healer they might as well be, so it's relatively meaningless to track their conditions beyond dropping, but the character who ignores a downed monster, when there's an evil priest handy, does so at his peril.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I absolutely disagree with your conclusion, Raven. I don't have the time or inclination to debate it in detail though.

Cool. I very much doubt that you are alone!

If someone is playing D&D and makes a character disinterested in combat and conflict, thus roleplaying such, they are playing the wrong game.

Lets disentangle combat and conflict for a minute, shall we? We should be willing to agree that one can have conflict without combat, yes? Combat is a subset of the conflicts that can exist.

Now, I will agree that if you are disinterested in conflict, you are playing the wrong game. Indeed, even true cooperative games include some form of conflict, so you should perhaps avoid games altogether.

However, if you are going to say that making a character disinterested in combat is "playing the wrong game", I have to take exception.

In the original game, gaining treasure was the primary reward, and combats were largely avoided when possible. Exploration helped one gain treasure, and discover the means to avoid needless combats. Extra combats -- in the form of wandering monsters -- were used as a cattle prod to keep the characters moving.

The encounter as the unit of game play -- expicitly focusing on combat -- was not part of the game until 3e. At the same time, WotC made the primary reward come from combat, rather than riches that could be gained equally by avoiding combat. Wandering monsters as a cattle prod existed until the late 3.x era, when WotC blogs began suggesting dumping them.

2e and 3e both have explicit pacifist options for characters....an odd choice if this really is "playing the wrong game"! The Complete series of 2e books supplies far more world-immersion material than combat material, and the DMing advice in both 1e and 2e reflects a different

Moreover, TSR-D&D combat was designed to play fast. And there is a reason for that. "The less time you spend in combat -- especially in the same long combat, or engaged in the rules minutia of combat -- the more the game supports role-playing." D&D, as it was originally envisioned, was an attempt to balance the "role-playing" and the "game" side. In one editorial, Gary Gygax actually expressed concern that the "role-playing" side was receiving too much weight (if memory serves, that was during the 2e heyday.)

2e Combat & Tactics is an exception here....as is Battlesystem. But Battlesystem is explicitly a wargame, and both suffer the same problems with immersion that (IMHO) WotC-D&D does.

For all of the purist roleplayers out there, you wouldn't need rules. For me, that is not fun. I do not derive enjoyment from that. I like combat systems and character options that work within the framework of a ruleset. It stimulates both sides of my brain and I dig it.

That's absolutely cool, and you can be certain that there is a fair amount of combat in games I run, too.

BUT, "Does X support role-playing well?" and "Is X fun?" are two distinct questions.


RC

 

[TrickyUK]

I have to say that my experience is that 4ed had the effect of lessening the immersion in the game world. I think that one of the reasons was the lack of 'fluff' and a clear focus on mechanics. The core world is left to each DM and this gives most groups nothing to start off with.
As has been mentioned above, the rules seem to pay little attention to detailing how they can be explained in-game; they sometimes feel more like a set of instructions that each player simply has to follow.
Most players I've encountered just a see a list of combat abilities on their character sheet. I think that the CB should take some blame, as a player can create a character in a similar way to videogames, with a few clicks. Without CB (and in other RPGs), a player would be sat down reading a book, learning about the world and the roles and how it all fits together. They would be inspired and invent backgrounds and think about goals, and all of this would carry forward into the game world.
I have experienced some good RP in 4ed, but my experience is it now the exception and not the norm (which I find a little saddening in for a RPG).
All of that said, I do enjoy 4ed for its mechanics, but just wanted to add a little more evidence supporting the strange phenomenon of 'can't RP in 4ed'.

 

[wedgeski]

Bravo, RC, in creating a framework whereby roleplaying is done best in a game with no expansions! Hilarious and brilliant.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some of the complainers that 4E doesn't support roleplay think that there is no roleplay without immersion. They are wrong.

That rather depends upon what one means by "role-playing", though, doesn't it? IMHO, role-playing doesn't occur without immersion. That some of the critics believe that there is no roleplay without immersion doesn't make them wrong. It may, however, mean that you don't use "role-playing" to mean the same thing as they do.

Some of the complainers that the sky isn't generally red think that it is usually blue. They are wrong. That the sky isn't red is not an argument, but a conclusion. To see what is wrong with that conclusion, look at the starting premise.

IOW, they are wrong so long as, by "red", we mean what is commonly thought of as blue, and by "blue" we mean something other than what is commonly thought of as blue.

Step beyond that for a minute, and it is easy to see that both the "complainers" and the non-complainers might actually agree. For instance:

That 4E can interfere with immersion (more than prior editions) is, I think, not disputed, and not controversial. The discussion (argument) is on the less sticky question of, "how much?"

At this point, it is clear that Crazy Jerome isn't arguing that 4e doesn't interfere with role-playing (as I define it), he is merely critical of my definition. Well, so be it. But my criticizism is based upon what I mean by "role-playing".

Likewise, the gents arguing about whether the sky is red or blue are in agreement about the colour of the sky....just not what to call that colour.

1. I find that these things actually HELP immersion. Square fireballs mean not having to fart around with areas of effect and having the Warlord yell, "Get your lazy butt up off the ground and do your job!" just works.

This shouldn't be surprising.

IMHO, it is a direct result of the first rule: "The less rules intrude on the fiction, the more the game supports role-playing."

If those rules intrude on the fiction less for you, they should also support role-playing more.

Note also that "not having to fart around with areas of effect" is directly addressed by the third rule: "The less often you have to break from the fiction in order to check a game board/grid, the more the game supports role-playing."

When WotC decided to go 1-1-1 for diagonals with 4e, they did so explicitly because of these two rules. Although they did not formulate them in exactly those terms in the design blogs, they came close. It should hardly come as a suprise that folks vary as to what rules intrude on the fiction, for them, as there is no objective "this will intrude, that will not" to judge by.


RC

 

[Kinneus]

It was watching a bard kill three minions in a row with Vicious Mockery that led me to ban bards from every 4E game I ever run*. It's not because I think the class is broken or overpowered or even excessively fiddly... but every time a bard uses a power called "Vicious Mockery" or "Satire of Fortune" or "Disorienting Ditty" to kill something, I start grinding my teeth. Just. Freaking. NO.

I actually agree with this, to an extent. "Psychic damage" for any class other than possibly a wizard or psion is sort of my personal immersion-breaking bugbear. While Vicious Mockery gets a pass for sheer novelty ("You say something so vile about that orc's mother that his HEAD EXPLODES!"), the whole "mind-rending songs" shtick feels rather stale after a while. Psychic damage feels like the designer saying, "Well, I see no way in reality while this power would actually damage somebody, but it needs to do some damage for balance reasons, so... yeah. Psychic damage!" I remember when first flipping through PHB1 and coming to the Confusion power, and thinking to myself, "Does this power really need damage? Can't they just make it like the classic Confusion effect, somehow?" Thankfully, they seemed to have learned their lesson with Essentials. Enchantment Mages have lots of fun, effective powers that deal no psychic damage at all.

This becomes an even bigger issue with monster powers, I think, especially higher-level monsters. Some of the MM3 monsters, while really well-designed, have really, really abstract powers. I'm thinking of the Pact Hag, Star Spawn, and those various vice-themed devils and its minions, in particular. Corrupted, I think they're called? All these minions have awesome pictures showing them looking all scary and wielding giant axes and swords, but when you actually get to their powers (with the notable exception of the glutton) they just have a bunch of highly abstract "Touch of Blank" powers. I mean, Corrupted Lecher has "Touch of Lust" that makes the target marked by one of the lecher's allies. What the crap does that have to do with lust? "The lecher diddles you with his middle finger, and you're filled with inconsolate rage against the archer over there! Weird, lusty rage! Also you feel kind of horny, I guess."

While this sort of weirdness is okay on a micro level, it's very easy to create an entire encounter made up of nothing more than corruption devils and corrupted, and that's when things get weird from a narrative perspective. You get a bunch of horny, angry, fearful heroes acting like schizophrenics, while the big scary monsters bristling with teeth and claws and horns and swords just walk up to you and "bad-touch" you to death.

 

[Imaro]

4E, because it happily uses some narrative metagaming conceits, can interfere with immersion. Some of the complainers that 4E doesn't support roleplay think that there is no roleplay without immersion. They are wrong.

That 4E doesn't support roleplay is not an argument, but a conclusion. To see what is wrong with that conclusion, look at the starting premise.

That 4E can interfere with immersion (more than prior editions) is, I think, not disputed, and not controversial. The discussion (argument) is on the less sticky question of, "how much?"

I think you have hit it on the head here (though with the caveat that IMO, 4e is more gamist then narrativist in it's metagame mechanics and decisions.). That said I don't think anyone is saying you absolutely can not roleplay in 4e but instead that it has become much harder in this edition for many players... as opposed to previous editions and even other games.

4e, as a gamist system, forces you at times to step out of the immersion of thinking and acting as your character would, with the information he would reasonably have, and instead gives you knowledge of a game mechanics nature that is often used on a metagame level to make decisions. This in turn does force one to stop roleplaying their character and instead look at the situation in a mechanical (some would also claim "narrative") way.

A prime example of this with 4e is the "everyone knows what effects and conditions powers put on them" thing. As a more specific example to illustrate my point... let's take the Rogue power Riposte Strike. Now when a Rogue uses this, regardless of whether he's attacking a skilled martial warrior, a savage beast, a fungoid plant monster, an ooze or whatever... that creature automatically knows that if they attack him again they will be attacked in return, and thus the decision to attack or not attack isn't based on what that creature should reasonably know but instead on the in-game creature actually having metagame knowledge of the mechanics of the power.

First it stretches immersion because it is unrealistic that every creature (from the most alien or dumb to super genuises) in exsistence should know how to read the rogue's fighting style (even if this is the first time they've ever fought a rogue) well enough to know every single time that he is drawing them in for a follow up attack. More importantly, with this information firmly in mind the decision process is much different than it would be if the metagame knowledge was not explicitly stated to be known by the creature in-game. So now when the DM makes the decision to attack or not he is not basing it on the knowledge the creature would reasonably have in game... but instead on the metagame knowledge granted to the creature by the rules of the game.

As a final note, even though this is an example based on the DM's immersion... it works the same way for players as well.

 

[Riastlin]

I can accept that 4E's presentation, and the menu-style of options available in a round of combat, distracts (as opposed to discourages) players from roleplaying in a way that previous editions don't. That's fine. But, saying that d20's vast, cold, negative gulf of null-space where tactical options for martial PC's should have been is somehow a *feature* of the system that has now been *lost* really gets my goat.

I can accept 4E distracts the player from RP, but I think what you get in return is more than worth it.

Personally, I agree with all of this. I was merely trying to point out what I believe have been some of the problems that people have had with the system. I certainly don't see this as having "lost" a feature of previous editions, etc.

As for the Viscious Mockery complaint, I must confess that I am bit confused by this. Frankly, it seems as though the distaste of the bard come from the labels on the powers, and little else. If VM were instead called "Psychic Assault" and had the same mechanics, I think that the argument of "Words can't hurt" goes out the window. The thing is, the bard's words are magical just as the wizard's words and gestures are magical, thus enabling fireballs to roast their enemies, etc. If you don't like the name, just relabel it. Banning the class seems a bit silly to me, but that is just my personal opinion. At the end of the day, if everyone is having fun then you are playing it right.

And yes, minor battles do matter now in 4ed as they do take from the party's resources. Its just harder to simulate the multi-day dungeon crawl or excursion in enemy territory. Though even those can be done well from time to time. Simply make getting an extended rest difficult and now every little fracas matters. My last session nearly ended in a tpk because the party pressed on in their assault on the occupied city despite being almost completely out of surges and not having access to surgeless healing. Suddenly those earlier encounters that were cake walks for the party showed their true colors as their effect was to drain the party of resources.

Finally, there is nothing preventing NPCs and monsters from getting back up after falling below 0 unless they are a) coup-de-graced, b) taken to negative bloodied or c) fail three death saves. As previously stated though, unless there is an enemy healer, as a practical matter most monsters that fall below 0 are essentially dead anyway (admittedly though I rarely have the monsters make the death saves even though a 20 could allow them to spend a surge). If the PCs don't decide to deal subdual, I just assume they go around the battlefield afterward finishing off their enemies. It would seem silly to me to make them state they are doing such after each encounter though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Bravo, RC, in creating a framework whereby roleplaying is done best in a game with no expansions! Hilarious and brilliant.

Yes, I was aware that this was a logical conclusion of what I was outlining.

I think that this might actually be the reason why early AD&D 1e focused on the idea that the DM learn the rules, the players not do so, and early expansions focused on the DM's side of the screen. It might also explain the proliferation of monsters in all editions, which add material to the game without necessarily adding rules complexity.

I am not at all sure how sustainable that would be as a long-term business model, however!

That the business of producing a role-playing game might actually include inhibiting role-playing within the system itself, might be an unfortunate conclusion, but is not necessarily an illogical one.

Certainly, by the end, 2e violated my Rules 1 and 2 (for me) due to sheer bloat, and 3e violated all four. Not that I would have been able to put my dissatisfaction in those terms, at that time.

It is also of interest to note that the WotC videos leading up to 4e's release targetted many of the same areas. I can well remember when speeding up combat was one of the design goals, and I wish that the developers hadn't reversed their opinion on that score.

At the same time, while I can understand the business reasons for "everything's core", I think that those groups who choose to limit their materials often have the better experience. Certainly that seemed true for 1e groups who limited the OA and UA books, for 2e groups (who would otherwise drown in the bloat), and for many 3e groups.

IME, and IMHO. YMMV.


RC