We're back to AD&D1

[The Little Raven]

Let the players do the talking, not the dice.

The character's social skills and limitations are not the same as the player's social skills and limitations. To pretend that they are the same thing is poor roleplaying, in my estimation. All roleplaying should be a reflection of the character's traits, not the player's.

This whole "rules are fine for some representations of character traits and limitations, but not for others" strikes me as silly. It's okay that Johnny can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag, because we have combat rules, and it's okay that Johnny can't actually use spells, because we have magic rules, but if Johnny wants his character to be smooth, then Johnny himself has to be smooth, because character socialization rules are "rollplaying, not roleplaying?" That's just ridiculous.

 

[Fobok]

The character's social skills and limitations are not the same as the player's social skills and limitations. To pretend that they are the same thing is poor roleplaying, in my estimation. All roleplaying should be a reflection of the character's traits, not the player's.

And there's rules there to judge social skills. However, a lot of that comes from creative use of social skills. There's no reason to have half the book dedicated to such situations as to have rules to judge such situations that don't get in the way of creativity have to be simple. There's no need for social powers (though there might be utility powers that boost social skills, thought I saw someone mention that somewhere) or anything like that.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

I think this is a great thread. (Also, not to draw the ire of the moderators, but I thought the Aspergers comment was funny more than rude as well). One thing I find interesting about threads comparing the various editions of D&D is that often one edition is meant to seem inferior to another. I think this is rather silly. I realize that not everyone has played through the various editions (two copper pieces to anyone who can guess where I started) but that’s probably more a case of posters having been too young to have played them than that they were inferior editions. D&D in any incarnation is fun, it’s supposed to be fun or else we wouldn’t have been playing it and this website wouldn’t exist as it is. It’s not like we’ve been eating rotten beets this whole time and suddenly WotC has figured out how to give us pudding and pie.

I don’t think role-playing and combat are mutually exclusive. Part of role-playing is describing actions, giving spiels when your character calls out his enemy or calls upon the favor of his deity. How much this is done in each game, and to what level of detail is purely a group preference as is the amount of time and detail the characters spend gathering information from the Duke’s courtiers or investing in their own backgrounds. IMO 3e and 4e are much more detailed in terms of actions, position, etc that make that type of role-play a little different, but not irrelevant – instead of describing an attack as a series of thrusts and parries that clank against the iron mesh of the Orc’s armor, we have to think about how to describe a cleave or a shield rush (or whatever it’s called now). Personally, I find the opportunity to point my character’s longsword at the throat of the next Hobgoblin War Chief and cry aloud ‘If you want him, you’ll go through me first!” (i.e. marking) pretty neat-o. Ultimately, D&D has always been, kick duff, take stuff add fluff. How much fluff will now as it always has been, be determined by the group playing the adventure.

 

[The Little Raven]

There's no need for social powers (though there might be utility powers that boost social skills, thought I saw someone mention that somewhere) or anything like that.

So, again, it's that Johnny doesn't need to know how to fight (or even know the particulars of fighting styles in order to be creative), nor does he need to actually know anything academic for the mental challenges he may face (since Knowledge skills represent that), but he has to be socially adept or clever in order to be successful in social situations. Thus, in all situations you are testing the character's capabilities, except in the social arena where you are testing the player's capabilities. If we're not going to test a player's ability to throw a punch, swing a sword, cast a spell, or recall an esoteric fact about the local history, then why should we be testing the player's ability to socialize? Some seem to think that ignoring social traits in social situations is "good roleplaying," while I believe that is "poor roleplaying," since in that situation you are not playing the role (your character), you're just being yourself. It seems that the "game" part of the RPG equation is tossed out on it's ear in social situations.

 

[rethgryn]

So, again, it's that Johnny doesn't need to know how to fight (or even know the particulars of fighting styles in order to be creative), nor does he need to actually know anything academic for the mental challenges he may face (since Knowledge skills represent that), but he has to be socially adept or clever in order to be successful in social situations. Thus, in all situations you are testing the character's capabilities, except in the social arena where you are testing the player's capabilities. If we're not going to test a player's ability to throw a punch, swing a sword, cast a spell, or recall an esoteric fact about the local history, then why should we be testing the player's ability to socialize? Some seem to think that ignoring social traits in social situations is "good roleplaying," while I believe that is "poor roleplaying," since in that situation you are not playing the role (your character), you're just being yourself. It seems that the "game" part of the RPG equation is tossed out on it's ear in social situations.

Its no different than 3rd edition in this regard really. I routinely play characters who have values and attitudes that I do not believe in or agree with. I don't need a number to tell me how to do so.

 

[phloog]

What about the two pages on subgenres in the DMG, which address Horror, Intrigue, Mystery, Swashbuckling, Sword & Sorcery, War, and Wuxia campaigns? It's not exactly Fantasy Hero 5th Edition, but it's about two pages more than any other DMG has devoted to the subject.

Actually this would be a great bit of praise for the 4th edition, if it were true.

Well, I guess you could quibble about what is meant by subgenres of 'fantasy', but the FIRST edition DMG, if I recall correctly, had multiple pages (at least two, I believe) on other genres, and specific rules for some amount of conversion between D&D and other games, I think Metamorphosis Alpha, I KNOW Gamma World was in there, and I think even Boot Hill had some space.

Are they subgenres of 'fantasy'? Could be argued in the each case, but if you're including horror as a subgenre of fantasy, I think a game with mutated bunnies firing laser cannons could count as fantasy. Heck, pretending to be cowboys is a fantasy...for anyone who isn't actually a cowboy.

My point is though that I disagree that 4E has the first DMG to ever talk about other genres/subgenres...I might have to pull out my old books to confirm the details.

 

[Vorhaart]

I'm saying that D&D only addresses one sub-genre of fantasy, and it should include more, specially if it's "the definitive fantasy RPG". As I said, I want to play Conan, A Game of Thrones, Viriconium, Malazan, Perdido Street Station, The Wheel of Time, The Black Company, Dragonlance, Ravenloft and even Discworld.

The problem with that is that very few, if any, of those licenses are owned by WotC, and with the current state of copyright law in the US (where the game was primarily developed), they could find themselves in some very hot water if they reference any of that material. I'm not a lawyer, but methinks that any corporate lawyer worth his salt wouldn't allow a book to be published that would paint a big red bulls-eye on the company's flanks. And remember, the bigger the product, the bigger the bulls-eye; 4th edition is looking pretty big nowadays...

So they have to find a way to describe the archetypal settings that gamers love, without actually naming any of the people, places or major plot points that characterize them. Ever try to describe the Conan setting without mentioning Conan himself, or Cimmeria? You have to use broad strokes, it's not easy, and ultimately most players will just skip it entirely. I really can't blame them for sweeping the mess under the rug.

What about the two pages on subgenres in the DMG, which address Horror, Intrigue, Mystery, Swashbuckling, Sword & Sorcery, War, and Wuxia campaigns? It's not exactly Fantasy Hero 5th Edition, but it's about two pages more than any other DMG has devoted to the subject.

Two pages is not a whole lot, and I'd like to see more than that about such an important topic, but I would think that by the time a player is mature enough (in a player sense, not necessarily in an age sense) to be able to adapt an engine to a different setting, they no longer need much help in working out the intricacies of their game world. More cynically, the less on settings in the core books, the better the opportunity for expansion books later on. Simple economics.

From the sounds of it, 4th provides a framework for what has been traditionally been the meat of most D&D games; exploration and fighting monsters. There's a reason it's called "Dungeons and Dragons". Attempts to mechanize the social aspects of roleplaying often become too unwieldy or fall prey to exploits. Best to stick to providing a solid mechanical foundation for combat and let the gamers adjust things to match their own playstyle. Fewer rules outside combat = more freedom in roleplaying situations.

 

[Korgoth]

I put the following things (there could be more, but I'm looking at these) under player skill:

1. Tactics (how he chooses to fight the monster)
2. Cleverness (how he chooses to overcome traps, hazards, puzzles and "sticky situations" of all kinds)
3. Prudence (his general skill at making good choices)
4. Social skills (his ability to express himself verbally)

Some players don't have the skill to play some characters. For example:

1. A guy who couldn't win a Go match with a 150-stone handicap wants to play a Warlord named "Sun-Tzu Yun-Fat". Nope.

2. A complete dolt wants to play a dashing rogue operative in the vein of Ethan Hunt. Nope.

3. A guy who can't even successfully purchase groceries wants to rule a mighty nation in a Birthright game. Nope.

4. A guy who breathes through his mouth and has spontaneous biological reactions when within 50 feet of the opposite sex wants to play a smooth-talking lothario and bard. Nope.

Decent verbal skills are just part of the skill required to play D&D well. If you don't play it well to begin with... you'll probably get better with some practice. But when you're a total n00b, you stick to the Bunny Slope.

 

[erisred]

Goes back to 1e AD&D? Yay! Huzzah, even.

My homebrew world was created in 1e, with more than a few BECMI elements. I've found it difficult to evoke the same flavor in 3e because of the mechanical expectations on balance and other rules interaction. If 4e is going for the 1e feel, but with refined rules, I'm so sold, it ain't even funny.

Well, I never played AD&D, 1e or 2e. I didn't like the complexity then, even less now. I played/DM'ed BD&D (the BEM of BEMCI, I guess) for years and years, stopped for even longer, and then 3e came out. Too many rules, too many fiddly bits for me, but the simple basic mechanic let me ignore a *lot* of the crunch and run with roleplaying.

If 4e sees a return to more flexibility and less ruleplaying, *much* less rollplaying, and more room for roleplaying I'll like it. OTOH, from the previews I've seen and KotS I am not in love with the very gamey feel (even video gamey) I've seen so far.

Waiting for more pre-order from Amazon to get here. Hopeful, but worried.

IAC, I guess I can fall back on a rules lightened C&C if 4e doesn't work for me.

 

[erisred]

The less rules they have for "role playing" the better. You're not going to get people to agree on what role playing actually is, let alone what the right way to do it is. Let individual gaming groups decide that on their own.

Well, IMO, the less rules they have...period...is probably the right way to go. Yes, yes, I know we have to have some rules, but just a few go a long way. I think, for me anyway, rules mostly get the way of roleplaying.