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

[Imaro]

I'm afraid that, on this point, my argument is going to sound a bit circular, but try to follow me. The division between story elements and mechanical elements is generally the divide between concrete dice rolling and role play elements. That is modified by the game system, though, as not all games have the same mechanics, nor consider the same things to require mechanics. Certainly story elements can be worked into a mechanical process but those things must be made to fit within the existing mechanical framework, when found necessary. They don't require the creation of additional mechanics.

That's interesting... so where would diplomacy (which I would consider one of, if not the biggest role play elements in the game) fall?

I, quite frankly, shudder to think how the people who require a skill for everything would have done in my original 1e campaign. They never would have considered doing what the Paladin did, play the lute in front of the gathered nobility of Greyhawk in Keoland, because it wasn't codified to the Nth degree. Their game experience would have suffered, because they would have spent their time arguing that they needed to have a skills system added to the game.

I wonder how the same people, who claim that the power system of 4e was a great addition... especially for fighters, would have reacted to that campaign as well... Well at least those of us who wanted skills had Runequest.

Our life experience tends to colour how we see things should work, within the universe of the game. We hand-wave the experiences of others, as being unimportant to game play, but our own are so important that they MUST be used. Because I'm a musician or artist, there must be art and musi8c skills to codify how well you can perform. My own experience in science is, however, handwaved off with comments like, "It's magic."

Hmm, I don't think anyones arguing from a hard simulationism of the act of playing music though. They're just saying they want a mechanical ability that states they are a good musician...

Just play the game. If the mechanics don't work as intended or stated, that's one thing; fix it. If something isn't written into the mechanics, just go with it. There will be a way to handle it.

Or even play a different game that does things in a style more conducive to your desires. Though it is still interesting fodder for discussion.

I'm afraid that you're missing my point. You can't use intimidate to make a rote joke funny, but you can use it in crafting a new joke, to help make it funny, and by helping to create the narrative. How good is a Farmer's Daughter joke, without a scary farmer? Bluff can likewise be used in its creation but it can also be used in the telling, as a measure of comic timing.

Check some of the skill challenges, in published modules. There's a reason why you can't spam one skill, all the way through them

I don't think you understood my point... I would have the PC make aid another rolls to enhance his Perform skill... In the end though your examples all seem to skirt around the actual performance of telling the joke.

I have checked out some skill challenges and I also think you're wrong... I have seen skill challenges where there is no maximum number of uses set for a particular skill... in The Slaying Stone, check out the "Keep Hidden" skill challenge in that module, it is totally possible to spam the same skill over and over.

 

[Imaro]

Then you REALLY need to read my follow-up post. 4e handles it how 4e handles it. Can't handle how it works? Then you need to find another game system because it would seem that the system is more important to you, than the play.

Pet Peeve time: If system didn't matter... we wouldn't have different editions of D&D or even different rpgs... so I think it's a little disingenuous, because someone doesn't like how a system does one thing or another, to claim they put priority on system over play (unless you're saying each and every one of us does or that there's only one system in exsistence to facilitate play).... perhaps through certain systems they achieve better play than with others.

 

[Ryujin]

That's interesting... so where would diplomacy (which I would consider one of, if not the biggest role play elements in the game) fall?

It falls into one of the role play elements, that the game designers thought was important to codify as a mechanical element; the ability to negotiate effectively.

I wonder how the same people, who claim that the power system of 4e was a great addition... especially for fighters, would have reacted to that campaign as well... Well at least those of us who wanted skills had Runequest.

The people, who played Fighters, were generally happy to just whack things over the head. It wasn't about role playing, for most of them, though the previously mentioned 'in-combat role play' certainly came into it, with trash talking and battle cries. They didn't need a skill in order to do it or, for example, to taunt a particular enemy into combat.

Hmm, I don't think anyones arguing from a hard simulationism of the act of playing music though. They're just saying they want a mechanical ability that states they are a good musician...

And I'm saying that since the game system isn't written that way they need to work around to it in another manner, rather than trying to bend the game so out of shape.

Or even play a different game that does things in a style more conducive to your desires. Though it is still interesting fodder for discussion.

Exactly

I don't think you understood my point... I would have the PC make aid another rolls to enhance his Perform skill... In the end though your examples all seem to skirt around the actual performance of telling the joke.

I understood you. I'm simply saying that the act of telling the joke isn't as simple as resolving a single skill use, in 4e. It's a cumulative effect of multiple abilities.

I have checked out some skill challenges and I also think you're wrong... I have seen skill challenges where there is no maximum number of uses set for a particular skill... in The Slaying Stone, check out the "Keep Hidden" skill challenge in that module, it is totally possible to spam the same skill over and over.

Of course there will be corner cases. You can stay hidden from a bunch of creatures simply by remaining hidden. In an infiltration challenge I would add to it, by creating situations in which staying hidden wouldn't be possible, for the entire task. Is there a point at which you will definitely be exposed to the direct view, of several creatures? You'd better be able to bluff them then, to get them to look another way.

If you can spam a single skill for an entire 'skill challenge' then it didn't need a 'skill challenge.' Make one roll then get on with playing, rather than bogging down the game for no good reason. Take a look at the infiltration challenge at the Hill Giants' stockade, in "Revenge of the Giants."

Pet Peeve time: If system didn't matter... we wouldn't have different editions of D&D or even different rpgs... so I think it's a little disingenuous, because someone doesn't like how a system does one thing or another, to claim they put priority on system over play (unless you're saying each and every one of us does).... perhaps through certain systems they achieve better play than with others.

I'm saying that if specific mechanics are important, to some people, then they chose the wrong game. Certain systems work better for the way that some people think that things should work, than they do for other people.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then you REALLY need to read my follow-up post. 4e handles it how 4e handles it. Can't handle how it works? Then you need to find another game system because it would seem that the system is more important to you, than the play.

Yes, I feel 4ed does a poor job of handling this- nothing I've seen in this thread convinces me otherwise. Non-combat related skills are a weakness in this system.

Find another system- already have: I prefer playing 3.X to 4Ed, and HERO above all. But 1) no system is perfect and 2) I play the games that my group plays, because having fun with my buddies playing RPGs is what is paramount.

So, as long as 4Ed is the game offered, I will play 4Ed. I'll even have fun playing 4Ed because I will avoid PC concepts that run headlong into those areas of the game I find problematic.

This means I won't be playing artistically inclined PCs (or Bards); why Monks (one of my favorite classes from prior editions) is pesona non grata.

...but it also means I'll gravitate to those classes I think they did better (Warlocks) or otherwise find well done (Avengers, Runepriests, Seekers, etc.).

IOW, just because I'm strongly criticizing it, it doesn't follow that I'm beating my head against the wall of 4Ed's system, because I'm not.

 

[Ryujin]

Yes, I feel 4ed does a poor job of handling this- nothing I've seen in this thread convinces me otherwise. Non-combat related skills are a weakness in this system.

Find another system- already have: I prefer playing 3.X to 4Ed, and HERO above all. But 1) no system is perfect and 2) I play the games that my group plays, because having fun with my buddies playing RPGs is what is paramount.

So, as long as 4Ed is the game offered, I will play 4Ed. I'll even have fun playing 4Ed because I will avoid PC concepts that run headlong into those areas of the game I find problematic.

This means I won't be playing artistically inclined PCs (or Bards); why Monks (one of my favorite classes from prior editions) is pesona non grata.

...but it also means I'll gravitate to those classes I think they did better (Warlocks) or otherwise find well done (Avengers, Runepriests, Seekers, etc.).

IOW, just because I'm strongly criticizing it, it doesn't follow that I'm beating my head against the wall of 4Ed's system, because I'm not.

And yet you're actively avoiding playing a character concept, that you clearly enjoy, for purely mechanical reasons. This is patently unnecessary. Play your character more, and the rules less, and you'll likely have a better experience with 4e overall.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just have a very different perspective- being both a gamer and a performer- and depth of feeling about how this SHOULD work vs how 4Ed handles it.

And doctors have trouble with abstract HP.

And cartographers have difficulty with five-foot squares.

And people who know martial arts have trouble with attack rolls.

As an actor, I don't expect D&D in any edition to be able to capture with a die roll the subtle mental gymnastics involved in becoming another person and speaking with their lips. As a writer, I don't expect D&D in any edition to be able to lock in how it feels to playfully manipulate language in the service of sharing an important message with the reader.

I don't think the existence or nonexistence of a Perform skill is going to solve it. The d20 curve doesn't even function like actual practice and competence functions. Reality, at some level, is going to break down.

I was hoping you would see how for some poeple this isn't more advantageous than having an actual poetry skill... for some it could be tedious, too abstract and based soleley on what any one person (or the group) thinks is "justifiable"... my knowledge of trees helps me create haikus!!!... that was a joke... I think.

This is pretty accurate, and is one of the reasons I think 4e's noncombat stuff does need an overhaul. I'd stop short of needing a poetry skill, though. A person could have, say, an Interaction skill, say it's the performance of poetry themselves (another person could say it's something else), and have mechanics to handle a given performance, rather than specifically, a skill for Poetry, and a skill for Haiku, and a skill for Freestyling, and a skill for Composition, and a Rhyming Dictionary that gives you a +2 bonus on your skill check.....that's all a little TOO specific for me.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

....
I don't think the existence or nonexistence of a Perform skill is going to solve it. The d20 curve doesn't even function like actual practice and competence functions. Reality, at some level, is going to break down.

I am quoting this because I think it baers repeating. I was going to make a similar point. I also do not like the d20 skill mechanic for thing where either one is competent or not.

This is pretty accurate, and is one of the reasons I think 4e's noncombat stuff does need an overhaul. I'd stop short of needing a poetry skill, though. A person could have, say, an Interaction skill, say it's the performance of poetry themselves (another person could say it's something else), and have mechanics to handle a given performance, rather than specifically, a skill for Poetry, and a skill for Haiku, and a skill for Freestyling, and a skill for Composition, and a Rhyming Dictionary that gives you a +2 bonus on your skill check.....that's all a little TOO specific for me.

I agree with this also.

However, with regard to music related challanges posited in this thread:
On the one hand there is the Orpheus challange. Can Orpheus move Hades to compassion to release Eurydice. I would view this as much more about insiight and diplomacy than perforamce. If Hades like ragtime then Orpheus will not gain much by playing death metal at him no matter what the techmical virtuosity of the performnce.

On the other hand there is the crossroads challange. Here it is all about the performance.

I agree that 4e does not do the latter well but I would have no problem with houseruling it.

As to how it should be done, I would be in favour of not having background skills share the same niche as adventuring skills and to be more binary. You are competent or not kind of thing. Unless one is reqorking the whole skill mechanics.

 

[Ryujin]

It occurs to me that, with the international nature of the forum, there may be people who don't know what a "crossroads challenge" is. One of the most famous examples is a song, by the Charlie Daniels Band, called "The Devil Went Down to Georgia."

Given the nature of this forum, though, you'll all likely prefer the version by Primus than you would the original

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9tEdbwXxXw[/ame]

To me, that one is as much a challenge of faith as it is skill.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I like Tenacious D's take on this story myself
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4an3rpucSos"]YouTube - ‪tenacious d - Tribute (official music video)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Phototoxin]

For me in 4E the streamlined combat as well as 're-fluff encouraged' style of play actually allows greater freedom. The rules are clear and not as clunky as 3rd Ed (feats aside!) so allow for more freedom I find.

A bit like 2nd E - the rules were that mad and abstract that it was a 'get you by' so that you could roleplay, 3rd ed mangled it by having everything defined and tried to be all encompassing. Skills for everything. 4e has taken abstracted things a little allowing more room for improv and RP