We're back to AD&D1

[drjones]

Hey, I'm the one who started the thread a while ago

When I talked about "roleplaying", I wasn't thinking in social skills. In fact I tend to avoid using them and I make my players talk.

My opinion is that D&D4 is heavily combat oriented: kill the monster, take the stuff, increase your level. I know this has been the game's main philosophy, but maybe I expected a bit more. For example:

I have been hearing 'D&D is not a real roleplaying game, you just kill stuff and level up, X system is so much more supportive of roleplaying and telling interesting stories' Since I was playing AD&D back in 1990.

People just need to face reality, 4e d&d is not a 'hardcore' roleplaying game, it is a 'fun' roleplaying game. You can make it more than that if you and your players want to.

My players are all older lapsed dnders with lots of disposable income and little desire to spend their limited free time pretending to be anything but guys having a good time. We have played several 4e preview games and so far they all love it.

Now if I could just get them all in a room at the same time more than once a month..

 

[phloog]

....4e d&d is not a 'hardcore' roleplaying game, it is a 'fun' roleplaying game. You can make it more than that if you and your players want to...

Yep...and I have tried not to imply that what is fun or a 'good' game for me is fun or good for others - I'm just discussing those things about 4e that are keeping me from diving in and tossing $100 toward books. I firmly believe that people will have fun with 4e, and I think that my group COULD have fun with 4e...I just don't see us having MORE fun with 4e than we're having with other systems. I've successfully played my woodcarving counterfeiter/bluffmeister for months now, using 3rd edition rules, and even though I'm essentially USELESS in most combats (no sneak attack!), my character is who he is, and I have a great time. While 4E claims to have 'fixed' a lot of things, it sure doesn't look like it makes it any easier to play this character, so the extra $$$ for 4E doesn't seem to (at this point) get me anything other than slicker more minifiggy combat rules.

 

[Mallus]

...interacting with well-defined NPCs...

Hey Joe... there's nothing contradictory about desiring/creating well-defined NPC's and this: "Memorable nonplayer characters are best built on stereotype".

As general writing advice goes, it's terrific. A DM (or screenwriter or playwright) typically has a limited amount of time to capture their audience's attention. Starting with broad characterization places audiences on familiar ground. Once the audience is engaged, then you can deepen the characterization as needed. Trying to portray a complex and multilayered individual from the get go is tremendously difficult (or undesirable --for example, consider opera-- or impossible). It's far more effort than it's usually worth. It's more economical and effective to take advantage of the viewers (err, players) already-established response to and understanding of well-known stereotypes "Hey, I get this character" and move on from there.

 

[Blackeagle]

I thought everyone hated railroaded adventures, but I see I'm wrong.

Encounter based adventure design does not necessarily mean railroaded. There can be a huge number of alternate paths to the goal through different sets of encounters (though once you get beyond one or two paths it's best to flowchart it out). I think the 3e Expidition to Castle Ravenloft was a good example of this. It's heavily encounter based, but the players always have a large number of options when it comes to what to do next.

 

[morgul97]

It would seem to me that how easy a game is to role-play has as much to do (if not more to do) with the setting than the rules themselves. If a game has a setting that is well developed, interesting and easy to build upon, this would seem to go a long way toward creating an environment condusive to role-playing, regardless of the rules. If the setting is bad or underdeveloped, why would anyone want to create a story in that setting. In terms of 4e then, a lot will depend on a) how good the WOTC and third-party settings are, and b) do the rules that are there (ie DMG) provide enough good info to create a quality setting.

 

[Mallus]

Come on, we are not 12 years old!

I'd argue that in several important --though non-chronological-- ways most gamers are still 12 years old. This is meant as a compliment. Also as a reminder that there's the inescapable hint (note: I'm understating here) of adolescent power fantasy in D&D, no matter how you play it.

Unless, of course, you're actually playing Mansfield Park: d20...

 

[TerraDave]

While I have no problem calling 4E retro, I am also left wondering what 3E, or 1E, you are refering to.

If anything, you could argue that it was the 1E DMG that offered better support for roleplaying...it just had all that stuff in there, and you were bound to get some ideas from it.

But back to 4E...we know there are non-combat challenges, rituals, all the social skills of 3E (plus most of the knowledge skills actuallly used), more ways to use more skills to get around obstacles...

...but I would emphasise something else. Faster moving combat: with less resource managment and practically no buffing for the PCs, and super simplified (but still interesting) opponents for the DM, this can move much faster. And this leaves you more time for role-playing.

Case closed.

 

[AllisterH]

Um, not to be rude but I think I need to say this...

What ARE you guys talking about? The first 25 pages of the PHB are the most role-playing specific set of guides I've ever seen in a PHB (coming from 1E to 3.5 PHB)

Seriously, how is it that 4E is "LESS role-playing" centred when the first 25 pages talk about things like PC-NPC interaction, ask players to consider Background questions like "Do you stay in contact with your family" and has things to make players think about their character's response in specific situations like Dire and Decision points?

You don't even actually start "roll-playing" assigning stats until AFTER these pages

Yet, previous editions that had NONE of these or had it so that you had ONE page at the end of a chapter are editions that actually ENCOURAGE roleplaying?

What am I missing here people?

 

[phloog]

Um, not to be rude but I think I need to say this...

What ARE you guys talking about? The first 25 pages of the PHB are the most role-playing specific set of guides I've ever seen in a PHB (coming from 1E to 3.5 PHB)
(SNIP)

What am I missing here people?

Having not read the books myself, I can't say that you ARE missing anything...but what I will suggest is that even if the first HUNDRED pages were about motivation, background, desires, etc...this would all likely be meaningless if the mechanics of the game are oriented around making all characters battle-focused, or if we're so busy (not specifically a 4e complaint here) figuring out how many squares I shift the kobold, those initial pages might have little impact.

The argument for some would seem to be not that there needs to be an introductory set of guidelines for good roleplaying, but that all the other elements of play must support that philosophy, and not undermine it...again, I have no idea if 4e is doing this any more/less than 3.x, it's just my belief that these sort of detailed mechanics and such can lead to this when you're oriented around the grid.

 

[SuperGnome]

Let's see if this helps Joe, but it probably won't.

I keep trying to tackle a similar issue, and it gets pulled into the roll vs roleplaying bit. What I can't stand is that everything we've seen (and continues to be shown true by folks who've seen the books) is 4e is pretty much all about combat. Case in point is the Rogue.

4e says the Rogue is a striker. Why are they defined by their combat role? Why don't they describe a rogue in an archetypal fashion, about the stealth, cunning, traps, locks, backstab kind of way? Why not set the scene instead of boiling the class down to a combat role? Yes, they still do the theivery skill stuff, but why is the language so combat oriented?

I agree that everyone should have a place in combat, but the color/flavor is just not there. I don't care how many arguments are made that the core rulebooks are for crunch, I disagree that's their exclusive purpose. I think inspiring players to play the game is as important as the cruncy rules (not page for page, but in general). Every ability/power I recall (save rituals) is for combat. Look at the example Rogue for KotS and check his abilities. None of them enhace any thiefly ability (locks, pick pockets(slight of hand), stealth).

This is one example, but it's repeated over and over. I don't see any examples to put my mind at ease, where some non-combat ability shows up in the at will\encounter\daily list for those guys. I can't imagine they're hiding that part of the game until the full core is released. I don't think it's in there.