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

[Crazy Jerome]

Also...I'm sure you meant to say it doesn't accomplish it for you in the type of game you play.

No, I was careful with that construction. I'm not sure you noted the qualifiers, though, and I'll grant that it is a strong assertion.

Crafting "perform" skills onto a 3E or 4E skill system is a mechanical choice that you may then turn around and use to get some kind of result you like, either flagging or more involved (e.g. inspiration for narration by the PC or DM). And don't take my disparagement of the mechanics to be disparaging those results. But I said that I'd like a mechanical choice that had a relevant mechanical result. And rolling a skill check on Perform doesn't do that for anyone. It does fake one, via sleight of hand for "impressing someone" or other results that require fiat and narration to mean anything (and tread on the ground of other skills, but that's another issue). The only exception might be using perform as a profession skill to make money--which while meeting my criteria is not very impressive.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Not semantics, logic. A thing can be simply X. Or it can be something else that is not X. Or it can be X and something else.

And my analogy is right on. I'm criticizing a tool as a poor tool, and you then stated that I had no interest in the activity performed by that tool, and assumed that other people did not as well. That may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.

Actually what you've done is created a false dichotomy, which is a logical error. A false dichotomy is an argument which gives you an either this or that choice when there could be more choices than either this or that.

But I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this idea, that 4e doesn't allow a person to roleplay. It's as bad as the statement of "a too detailed setting doesn't allow me to use my imagination".

See, this is why I don't like paying too much attention to the super extra fine details. It's just too easy to get lost in them. And most of them don't really mean a damned thing anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Actually what you've done is created a false dichotomy, which is a logical error. A false dichotomy is an argument which gives you an either this or that choice when there could be more choices than either this or that.

No, I did not. A thing cannot be simultaneously "X" and "Not X" and "X+somethng else".

The disputed mechanic may be merely flags. Or it may be not flags. Or it may be something else (which might also include flags). It can't be all three of those at once.

Edit: And I suppose next someone will note that I didn't allow for it being X for one group and X+something else for another group. That's where the "at once" part comes in, and is rather relevant to the discussion, since we are talking about what the mechanic produces at a given table, under whichever set of boundaries have been chosen. That is, just for clarify, that the mechanic may very well be mere flags at one table and something else at another. Happily, this is irrelevant to my point, since I say it sucks equally at both jobs.

 

[IanB]

Clearly, you and I differ on this at many levels...I'm cool with that.

Not every system is for every gamer, and I've not minced my words about my opinions on 4Ed. Overall, I don't think it's that good.

But I can- and do- have fun playing it.

Fair enough. I just was struck by one more idea related to our discussion and wanted to throw it out there:

The more granularity you add to the skill system, the more situations you create where a character can't do something.

I'm not sure this is some great insight or anything, but it just occurred to me and I think goes a long way to making me realize why I prefer the 4e skill system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The more granularity you add to the skill system, the more situations you create where a character can't do something.

I can't completely agree with this.

Any rpg's skill system is a compromise. What I object to with 4Ed's is that so many non-combat skills got excised from the skills list...skills I used and have seen used by others.

When you look at TRULY crunchy systems like HERO or GURPS, you find that the "negative space" of a crunchy skill system doesn't really exist. Both have extremely long lists of fairly broad skills. And if you can't find the right skill, they let you create the skill, which follows the exact same structure as the ones already in print.

 

[Imaro]

No, I was careful with that construction. I'm not sure you noted the qualifiers, though, and I'll grant that it is a strong assertion.

Crafting "perform" skills onto a 3E or 4E skill system is a mechanical choice that you may then turn around and use to get some kind of result you like, either flagging or more involved (e.g. inspiration for narration by the PC or DM). And don't take my disparagement of the mechanics to be disparaging those results. But I said that I'd like a mechanical choice that had a relevant mechanical result. And rolling a skill check on Perform doesn't do that for anyone. It does fake one, via sleight of hand for "impressing someone" or other results that require fiat and narration to mean anything (and tread on the ground of other skills, but that's another issue). The only exception might be using perform as a profession skill to make money--which while meeting my criteria is not very impressive.

Wow, that's weird because in my Pathfinder corebook... I can actually create stuff with the craft skill... and there are certainly mechanics for it... imagine that!! Now I can understand you not liking how the mechanics are implemented... but they are there. It also gives me the time it takes, cost in materials, what happens on failures, etc. It is perfectly possible to mechanically run a crafting competition between characters and have a mechanical winner... either through speed of construction, quality of construction (by trying for a masterwork item as opposed to a regular) or a combination/permutation of the two factors. So what exactly is it that mechanically is missing... and please this isn't about if you perfer the way it is handled or not because that wasn't your claim above.

Profession could use some work if you want a more codified approach, but the baseline is still there for a check if you're performing a task that falls under that profession and you want to know whether you succeeded or not... there are DC's for knowledge pertaining to your profession and again the baseline for measuring your skill in said profession versus someone else's is there... so what exactly are you looking for?

Perform gives you DC's to determine the quality of your performance, how much money you could earn from a performance and so on... so again what are you looking for?

 

[IanB]

I can't completely agree with this.

Any rpg's skill system is a compromise. What I object to with 4Ed's is that so many non-combat skills got excised from the skills list...skills I used and have seen used by others.

When you look at TRULY crunchy systems like HERO or GURPS, you find that the "negative space" of a crunchy skill system doesn't really exist. Both have extremely long lists of fairly broad skills. And if you can't find the right skill, they let you create the skill, which follows the exact same structure as the ones already in print.

My point is that by defining all these things as skills in the first place, you create a bunch of characters who can't use them - everyone who didn't take the skill, spend points on it, etc. That is especially bad when there is mechanical pressure to spend your limited points on things that are more broadly useful.

When you turn 'professional' skills and their ilk into RP elements instead of mechanical skills, you alleviate that mechanical pressure and let that fighter get his necessary training in Athletics and Endurance (or whatever), while still allowing him to say "I am a blacksmith" and letting that inform the story. If he has to actually expend a limited resource to get that narrative element you'll see that sort of thing happen much less often.

 

[Imaro]

My point is that by defining all these things as skills in the first place, you create a bunch of characters who can't use them - everyone who didn't take the skill, spend points on it, etc. That is especially bad when there is mechanical pressure to spend your limited points on things that are more broadly useful.

Emphasis mine: I can totally see this as the problem and I agree it should be addressed but I think it is a seperate issue from the number of skills used. I mean personally, even in 4e's broad based sklls, the fighter still sucks skill wise compared to almost every other class.

When you turn 'professional' skills and their ilk into RP elements instead of mechanical skills, you alleviate that mechanical pressure and let that fighter get his necessary training in Athletics and Endurance (or whatever), while still allowing him to say "I am a blacksmith" and letting that inform the story. If he has to actually expend a limited resource to get that narrative element you'll see that sort of thing happen much less often.

Or you could just silo them... sorta like adventuring or exploration skills vs. utility skills... no one says utility powers shouldn't have a mechanical effect even though many are situational and some are only tangentially related to what would be considered by some as "adventuring".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My point is that by defining all these things as skills in the first place, you create a bunch of characters who can't use them - everyone who didn't take the skill, spend points on it, etc. That is especially bad when there is mechanical pressure to spend your limited points on things that are more broadly useful.

I'm really not seeing a problem here...especially since most systems have a way to do "untrained" checks for many such skills.

Consider my background in the arts, mentioned above. I have other skills besides...and there are many skills I don't. I can do CPR and some rescue swimming, but I'm no first responder or lifeguard. I learned some survival stuff in Scouting, but I'm no Bear Grylls. I know a bit about fishing, but I'm no Jeremy Wade.

Not being skilled in things is a fact of life.

 

[Odhanan]

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.