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

[Keldryn]

These rules don't get out of the way... they get right up in your face and force you to interact with them on a level that isn't immersive, but can make for a great story.

I think the majority of casual players just want to roleplay their character and leave most of the mechanics and creation stuff up to the GM. Often times it seems narrativist games want their fun to come from players getting to sub-GM when they just want to be a player playing their character... while gamist games seem to base their fun on one understanding and learning to manipulate the rules system when most casual players just want to get on with playing their character. Of course I could be way off and it is just my opinion.

(Trimmed a bit from the quoted text)

I think you're right on the mark here. After a few sessions of 4e at the end of last year, I ran a "red box" Basic adventure before we took a break for the holiday. My two "casual" players both felt much more comfortable playing Basic and enjoyed the game a lot more. My wife (one of the two casuals) said that she was feeling like she really needed a break from 4E, and that after playing Basic she finally got why people really get into playing these games! She told me that with the Basic game, she felt like she was actually interacting with the game world, whereas in 4E it felt like she was just interacting with the rules.

Neither my wife nor the other casual player care that fighters in the older rules don't get a variety of special attacks or gain new powers/feats/etc as they advance in levels. They would rather not have to manage any of that. More hit points and a better chance to hit at each level are just fine with them.

Of course two people are not a representative sample, but I've seen this before when introducing new people to the game. In my experience, they do typically just want to play their characters and interact with the game world without worrying about whether their choices are optimal from a game mechanics perspective.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Now that would be an interesting game. 1e combat plus 4e non-combat.

The one I'd like to see is Rules Compendium combat, cleaned up mechanically using 4E ideas, but adhering closely to the RC spirit and model. Then tack 4E non-combat on that.

Come to think of it, that would pretty much be the same process for combat and non-combat. Start with RC. Keep the spirit and scope of rules. But use the lessons learned in 4E to make the rules as consistent and streamlined as possible while keeping that spirit and scope. I'd play that game--whatever you did with gamist/simulationist/narrative concerns.

 

[Imaro]

(Trimmed a bit from the quoted text)

I think you're right on the mark here. After a few sessions of 4e at the end of last year, I ran a "red box" Basic adventure before we took a break for the holiday. My two "casual" players both felt much more comfortable playing Basic and enjoyed the game a lot more. My wife (one of the two casuals) said that she was feeling like she really needed a break from 4E, and that after playing Basic she finally got why people really get into playing these games! She told me that with the Basic game, she felt like she was actually interacting with the game world, whereas in 4E it felt like she was just interacting with the rules.

Neither my wife nor the other casual player care that fighters in the older rules don't get a variety of special attacks or gain new powers/feats/etc as they advance in levels. They would rather not have to manage any of that. More hit points and a better chance to hit at each level are just fine with them.

Of course two people are not a representative sample, but I've seen this before when introducing new people to the game. In my experience, they do typically just want to play their characters and interact with the game world without worrying about whether their choices are optimal from a game mechanics perspective.

Honestly I had the same experience when I first tried 4e, my brother who had played fighters and barbarians in 3.5 tried a fighter in 4e and ended up quitting our group after two sessions (he still hasn't returned.). He was definitely a very casual player and he really didn't want to deal with all the powers, marking, decision points, etc. that came with the Fighters in 4e.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Rules complexity is an impediment to roleplaying--right up until it isn't. Since some "casual" players are never going to internalize certain kinds or degrees of complexity, then by definition their roleplaying is limited in certain systems.

In college, I started a group of mostly raw novices with Fantasy Hero (1st ed, later 4th). At first, they roleplayed because they were new, I knew what I was doing, and that's what you get in any system with an experienced GM and new, enthusiastic players. Then they started absorbing the complexity of FH. This interfered with roleplaying somewhat, but their enthusiasm carried them through this period. Then we reached the point where all of them had internalized the system, and it faded back into the background. (Except for one lady who never internalizes any system we play. She "merely" roleplays, and lets other people handle the mechanics. This works fine for us, as long as not everyone does that.)

I don't think that trajectory is all that atypical of many D&D groups through the years, though the complexity of FH is much more front-loaded, and then elegant once you get it.

I also had a guy try 3E who was so thrust out of character by d20 + precalculated modifier on a sword attack, that he couldn't enjoy it. For him, that was too much complexity. Or rather, the wrong kind of complexity. He would have been fine with complicated logistics.

 

[Keldryn]

Using your example of viscious mockery.. the bard may make a lewd comment to mock an ooze, but the magic of it produces the translation and desired effect. It's not for the bard to know why it works and the ooze doesn't understand common.. but the power works because the bard magically ends up pissing off the ooze.

It's actually my sister (the bard's player) who is stuck on this one. Using Viscious Mockery on the Iron Circle soldier of course ended up as "your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries." She thought it was weird that insulting him would cause psychic damage, so I explained that the power is actually a magic spell and doesn't represent her character just hurling insults. Using it on a stirge caused her some difficulty as she questioned how insulting a stirge ("You suck!" of course) could make it angry. I reminded her that the power is actually a magic spell. Using it on the ooze brought up the issue as to whether or not an ooze can feel angry.

I dread the day when it gets used against a skeleton, zombie, or golem.

I expect that everyone is going to have different experiences that impact their feelings about 3E and 4E. Mine are that I used to hate running combats in earlier versions of D&D. There wasn't enough to keep players involved during combat and it eventually dragged into the following sequence.

1. Roll initiative.
2. Move
3. Roll to hit or Buff or magic goes off.

Combat in my pre-3E games was never the major focus, and while it didn't offer the wide array of tactical options that 4E does, it was over fairly quickly. Battles were short bursts of excitement in a game that was primarily about exploration.

So with 4e you see a lot of work done to "game" the combat into something that required mental attention and acted a lot like a game within a game. Combats take longer because everyone needs to think ahead, not just the casters, AND characters have synergies, AND the situation can change from round to round.

Yes, and this doesn't appeal to all players. Also, when battles routinely take 45 minutes to an hour or more, it can really make a jarring transition from exploration and role-playing to tactical miniatures battles. Some of my players said that it felt like playing two separate games, and I agree with that.

If you want to use skill challenges, same thing. Make them come up with a plan that fits the skill challenge, before rolling the skill challenge and be flexible with what you have planned.

I'm not a fan of skill challenges... they just feel too rigidly-structured and I don't quite get why they're any better than just playing it out. When I've run skill challenges, my players frequently didn't use their skills but came up with other ideas that fit the situation better. Yes, I can count those as successes, but why bother with the formal structure?

I could go on, but I think I've over-written as is.

Not at all. You make some good suggestions.

 

[Dausuul]

The one I'd like to see is Rules Compendium combat, cleaned up mechanically using 4E ideas, but adhering closely to the RC spirit and model. Then tack 4E non-combat on that.

Come to think of it, that would pretty much be the same process for combat and non-combat. Start with RC. Keep the spirit and scope of rules. But use the lessons learned in 4E to make the rules as consistent and streamlined as possible while keeping that spirit and scope. I'd play that game--whatever you did with gamist/simulationist/narrative concerns.

Ohhh, now you've done it. I've been contemplating something along these lines for a long while... now I might have to actually build it.

So, a question: What do you consider to be the "spirit and scope" of BECMI/Rules Compendium D&D? What would you feel is necessary to keep it recognizably what it is, and what can be set aside in the name of more polished mechanics?

 

[Herschel]

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*.

Wait, what? Vicious Mockery is an arcane spell. Bards are evil, twisted bastages that attack the psyche, not only killing an enemy, but making sure the last thing they feel is complete and utter despair. Bards are the closest thing to old school psionics in the game, at least how I've always viewed them.

 

[Herschel]

That rather depends upon what one means by "role-playing", though, doesn't it? IMHO, role-playing doesn't occur without immersion.
RC

Then your hosed in 3e too because you need to consult that skill tree and itterative attack bonus, etc. all the time. Paying attention to and knowing your character is the key, regardless of edition or game. Most of my 4e characters have a set suite of powers they generally use I don't need to even look at my character sheet for. Granted, that happens easier/more for characters I've played andd built over a period of time, but how's that different from any other edition either?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Ohhh, now you've done it. I've been contemplating something along these lines for a long while... now I might have to actually build it.

So, a question: What do you consider to be the "spirit and scope" of BECMI/Rules Compendium D&D? What would you feel is necessary to keep it recognizably what it is, and what can be set aside in the name of more polished mechanics?

I'd love to answer that, but before I do, shouldn't we split off into another thread?

 

[Herschel]

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...

This is a lack of understanding/imagination, not a problem with the power or game. With a Riposte Strike you strike and your weapon remains in the forward, striking position for a quick stab if you're attacked, unlike fully withdrawing thw weapon to a more versatile or defensive position. You're not so far out of balance/position as to grant combat advantage (rogues are rather nimble fellows naturally) and you're also not going to get a major combat strike as a riposte.