We're back to AD&D1

[bonethug0108]

I'm confused; what "role playing" rules were you hoping to see in the books? What role-playing rules were in the 3.x core rulebooks but absent from these?

I would like to see these two questions answered, please.

 

[william_nova]

Yesterday I spent two hours with the core books at a friend's place.

The rules are completely different, but the game’s philosophy goes back to AD&D1. The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E, and everything is around combat, combat and more combat (the famous “character roles” are exclusively defined by it). The “noncombat encounters” chapter in the DMG gets only 17 pages and includes puzzles and traps.

Even the artwork is different compared to 3E. Everything is grandiloquent, over-the-top. All depicted characters are fighting or with their weapons (or powers) ready. No one is smiling, relaxed.

Because of the game’s philosophy, I can’t imagine many D&D3 campaign settings being played with D&D4. Again, it’s too combat oriented. For example, it would be very difficult to play Freeport or Midnight with it.

I find moments like this too amusing. Its like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

For me, 3e was a huge step backward in terms of complexity and completely squished role playing under a heavy load of rules, more rules, and yet more rules. People I knew who kinda sorta role played were now so completely focused on mechanics and all the cool crunch that they all began to more and more resemble the rules lawyers we always had to keep on a tight leash in game. People who were more heavy role players were so turned off by this frenzy of power gaming they just up and left for greener pastures.

Now to me 4e seems tighter and more focused on combat, yet does not eschew story at any point. Time and time again in the books there are references to collaborative story telling, getting off the page, trying new things, with DMs being encouraged to adjudicate on the fly based on the core mechanic.

I personally think this is a return to the older method, and its one I welcome. To be perfectly honest if you need a set of rules to role play you are not in my opinion role playing.

 

[Jer]

I'm confused; what "role playing" rules were you hoping to see in the books? What role-playing rules were in the 3.x core rulebooks but absent from these?

I'd like to third Morrus and bonethug on this. What "role playing" rules have been eliminated in the transition from 3e to 4e? And what "role playing" rules were you hoping to see? I'm not be flip about this - what have they eliminated from the system that you were hoping to see.

(Frankly, what I've seen of skill challenges and rituals gives me a lot of hope that a few of the "roll playing" straight-jackets from previous versions have been lifted from the mechanics of the game.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

The rules are completely different, but the game’s philosophy goes back to AD&D1. The “role playing” part of the game is downgraded compared to 3E

That seems like quite an unusual comment, because often in the last eight years I've heard people complain that 3e was more 'roll playing' and less 'role playing' than 1e was (e.g. by having deterministic social skills, strong focus on combat, faster levelling etc).

To be honest, I saw a lot more role playing and a little less tactical play in my 1e days compared to my 3e days (depending upon DM of course).

So when I read "the games philosophy goes back to AD&D1" my first thought is "Oh, he thinks it promotes more roleplaying, more descriptive adventuring etc".

I'm curious about how your observation and your assertion match up.

Cheers

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Is this true? Was the first adventure released for 4E intended primarily (or even solely) as an exploration of the new combat rules? I suppose I can see the rationale, but I didn't get this from any of the descriptions I read advertising the adventure. I was still entertaining the idea of purchasing it, despite the imminent release of the core rulebooks, but I haven't really been able to put the money aside just yet.

Maybe that's for the best....

I would say that it isn't true.

It is a dungeon crawl and it does have an introductory rules set. In either of those genres combat rules are going to take up the majority of the piece, but...

the setting is well put together and the monsters and encounters are interesting. There's plenty in there that isn't that combat focussed and even a really cool (IMO) primarily narrative sub-plot.

It's a good adventure with some really cool setting and adventure hooks, if a little kobold-centric.

 

[william_nova]

meh

From the way WOtC has presented 4e, it seems more like 2e to me; options have been removed and the rules have been "dummied down".

By "non dummied down" I'm guessing you want more complexity, and by "more options" I'm guessing you mean "more rules," which is precisely the thing that inhibits role playing. Anybody who has seen the Forge inspired indie stuff knows exactly what I'm talking about. Those games are always very light on rules, yet heavy on story and role play.

On the other extreme, you could try role playing in Champions or some other variant of Hero, that is, if you could ever get the nerds to stop arguing about the rules and put their damned calculators and spreadsheets and character generator computer programs away long enough to actually play. Or stop arguing with the GM about just what kind of world they want to simulate.

I think like it or not, heavy rules crunch brings out the grognard in all of us, even those of us who swear to God we are not. We all are, I think. We wouldn't be playing RPGs if we didn't all have some of that mentality at the core. I think it's best not to encourage our inner grognard by tempting it with layers of rules that are in the end, just more attempts at lame simulation of "reality" and have nothing to do with having fun; unless having fun is like my old game buddy who rolled up character after character for hours on end, min maxing and trying to find the "win" strategy. He did this under 1e and 2e, and he was the biggest proponent of 3e I personally knew. But if you got him away from his OCD like obsession with rules lawyering he was a good roleplayer. He just needed to have his inner grognard trimmed down a bit.

Personally I think WotC has trimmed down the fat, and the inner grognard in all of us can and should be a bit uneasy, but ready to make the leap.

 

[Holy Bovine]

That seems like quite an unusual comment, because often in the last eight years I've heard people complain that 3e was more 'roll playing' and less 'role playing' than 1e was (e.g. by having deterministic social skills, strong focus on combat, faster levelling etc).

To be honest, I saw a lot more role playing and a little less tactical play in my 1e days compared to my 3e days (depending upon DM of course).

So when I read "the games philosophy goes back to AD&D1" my first thought is "Oh, he thinks it promotes more roleplaying, more descriptive adventuring etc".

I'm curious about how your observation and your assertion match up.

Cheers

This was my exact thought as i read the title of the thread. It is possibly the first time I have heard of 1E being described as a combat only role play light game.

 

[Aeolius]

Mind you, I eventually came to like it, and ran 2E games for several years.

I will admit that 2e had some excellent supplements; Of Ships and the Sea, Sea of Fallen Stars, The Sea Devils, and the Van Richten Guides come to mind.

 

[vagabundo]

What I hope for 4e:

The feel of 1e: the scope of infinite imagined universes without the rules getting in the way.

The character build options of 2e/3e: I liked all the kits, I really did.

Without: 3e mechanical overload, too many similar sub systems or complex mini games.

A simplified core with modular accessories, I'll build my own DND, thanks.

Anyway, I'll soon know how it turns out, from the previews and KotS I'm optimistic.

 

[Aeolius]

By "non dummied down" I'm guessing you want more complexity, and by "more options" I'm guessing you mean "more rules," which is precisely the thing that inhibits role playing.

I disagree. One can role-play in a game of Monopoly, if one so chooses. 2e seemed as if it was designed for and written for a younger audience than 1e. TSR admitted as much, long ago. It's hard to put my finger on it, but for me the core 2e rules lacked that "creative spark" that 1e had.

I was a dedicated 1e old-timer when 3e was announced and yes, I was opposed to the change, back then. But then I got the 3e core rules.

3e brought the spark back.

As for 4e being more combat intensive, I see that as a serious defect. I've run whole sessions without a hint of combat. I prefer the adventure, exploration, interaction of PCs with one another and NPCs, descriptions of vast uncharted realms, and sense of wonder that D&D offers. Maybe I'm DMing the game wrong.