Yet another look at KotSF/4th Ed.

[drjones]

First, the examples you give that involve combat are just more minis tactics and not roleplaying..

To paraphrase: I role play, you suck do not.

Edit: a little harsh, I apologize. The module is a straightforward dungeon romp, intentionally, it si an introduction to a new combat system and an introduction for new DMs. There is, however, nothing I have seen in the rules that prevents you from making your own encounters that consist of nothing but chatting with the dukes servants for 4 hours.

 

[Cadfan]

Elaborate, please. If you're going to attack my opinions on the subject at least give me the opportunity to defend myself.

What's there to say? Your claim, that 4e doesn't effectively support out of the box thinking, reactive environments, intelligent monsters, or "the stuff that happens between combat," is so absurd that I do not believe an intelligent person could make it with sincerity.

So far, you haven't even made an argument. You've cast vague aspersions, and a few times you've utilized a zero sum fallacy that assumes that because combat became more interesting, roleplaying became less interesting. I can't intelligently critique your point because there's nothing there to dissect.

I could try to point out things like "The DM, not the game rules, crafts the plotline." Or, "The players are responsible for roleplaying, and don't need game rules to tell them how to do it." But you already know these things, of course. You're not a fool. What's the point of telling you what you already know?

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Pretty close agreement with my thoughts as well.

It's amazing how many of us have formed the same impression despite the fact that this opinion is apparantly badwrongthinking.

Count me in on the badwrongthinking as well.

I am interested in playing 4E, although mostly as ADDM. For that it looks like fun.

 

[Vaeron]

#1 - Per day powers are so ultimately awesome that we rested as much as we could. Utterly undermining the design logic.

Hehe... Officially, you can only rest once per day, and not in the Keep itself without being attacked by a large wandering party of hobgoblins. Even, potentially, if you're in the secret "safe" room. You're supposed to have to return to Winterhaven to rest, and have a couple other encounters on the road in the process. So yeah, a bit of twisting of design there!

 

[Felon]

Sleep: Start with the fact that pre-4th ed Sleep was overpowered.

What makes that a fact? 3e sleep had a small area and due to the 4HD restriction, it typically only put one or two creatures to sleep, if any.

Now, Sleep averages hitting about half the monsters (?), slowing all of them at least temporarily, and putting half to sleep after that? One action slowing most everybody and likely putting at least one out for longer, and maybe more (depending on defenses and how packed they are) is a good use of an action, but not a complete encounter killer.

If you want to slow creatures, then call the spell slow. Sleep should actually induce sleep.

As bad as 3e sleep was, it actually did the job of knocking one creature out so you could drag it off somewhere and take it prisoner.

BookKeeping: previous system, keep track of all effects AND keep track of separate durations for each. 4th ed, keep track of all effects, no need to keep track of any durations.

Having to keep track of which creatures has made its save and which still hasn't, with that number randomly changing every round, is at least as much of a hassle as sitting a die off to the side and turning it over to indicate the remaining duration.

As I said, it should at the very least knock out minions.

 

[Endroren]

What's there to say? Your claim, that 4e doesn't effectively support out of the box thinking, reactive environments, intelligent monsters, or "the stuff that happens between combat," is so absurd that I do not believe an intelligent person could make it with sincerity.

So far, you haven't even made an argument. You've cast vague aspersions, and a few times you've utilized a zero sum fallacy that assumes that because combat became more interesting, roleplaying became less interesting. I can't intelligently critique your point because there's nothing there to dissect.

I could try to point out things like "The DM, not the game rules, crafts the plotline." Or, "The players are responsible for roleplaying, and don't need game rules to tell them how to do it." But you already know these things, of course. You're not a fool. What's the point of telling you what you already know?

Not civil, but at least something to work with.

Thumb through the rules included with the module. Tell me how many lines of RULES are focused on role play vs combat.

Next look at the encounters...the adventure. How many non-combat encounters are provided? Do they spend much time explaining what rules are used during these rare character interactions? Do they set up social encounters as carefully as combat encounters? As far as I can tell, the only roleplay provided is through the effort of the writers who wrote the color text but there is very little concrete system information to back up their creativity. Give me a non-combat encounter crafted with as much detail and effort as the combat encounters and maybe I'll start to believe.

I'm sorry but unless this introductory module is horribly misleading, the rules and the game are firmly focused on playing out tactical combat scenarios. In between they offer suggestions for "you might want to roleplay this" but that's it.

And please don't suggest that it's all up to the DM and players to handle the role play. I can role play go fish if I have to ("Your trawler heads north into the icy waters of the sound. You throw out your nets and pray that you'll net enough to pay for the mortgage on your boat." "Do you have any hearts?") A roleplaying game places strong emphasis on both combat AND roleplaying. I won't even say that's an opinion because if it were, why would you even call it a roleplaying game?

 

[Vaeron]

Anyone who needs rules to tell them how to roleplay doesn't get the entire point of roleplaying, methinks.

 

[Endroren]

Probably because it's an idiotic impression formed from a combat heavy, hack & slash introductory module that's designed to showcase the major change to D&D: combat.

That seems a strange approach. If the module is "introductory" the goal is to teach players WHAT the game is. Now if it were called a "conversion" module, designed to teach players about what was different I'd believe your argument.

Look, if this is an introductory module, what WotC is telling us is "this is what it is like to play this game" and based on that, sorry...it's a minis game.

The assertion that it's just advanced advanced Hero Quest is ridiculous.

An even handed response. Thank you.

First of all, it ignores the simple fact that you could, and many did, role play in HQ and WHQ. It ignores the fact that rules aren't necessary for role playing. It ignores the fact that you can, any many have and still will, role play during combat. It ignores the fact that there is space between the fights, during which you can role play to your heart's content.

You are right. Good roleplayers can make ANYTHING a roleplaying game. I can make Hero Quest a role playing game. I can make Go Fish a roleplaying game (see my other post). Then again, I could make 3.5E a minis game. But does that make these games something they aren't? No. A game IS what it IS whether or not a creative person can bend it into somethign else.

A game is not a roleplaying game because someone roleplays. It is a roleplaying game because the system it presents supports and encourages roleplaying. The system I'm reading in the introduction that WotC has provided, does not do this. Oh sure, here and there they say "You could talk in a funny accent" but really, is that a system that embraces and encourages roleplay?

 

[Endroren]

Anyone who needs rules to tell them how to roleplay doesn't get the entire point of roleplaying, methinks.

Do you not READ my post? I don't need rules to roleplay. I can roleplay with ANY game, but if you don't need to include roleplaying rules to be a roleplaying game, what IS a roleplaying game? By that definition, EVERYTHING is an RPG. Monopoly is an RPG by that definition.

 

[Vaeron]

Do you not READ my post? I don't need rules to roleplay. I can roleplay with ANY game, but if you don't need to include roleplaying rules to be a roleplaying game, what IS a roleplaying game? By that definition, EVERYTHING is an RPG. Monopoly is an RPG by that definition.

It sounds like you may be confusing role playing with roll playing. One certainly COULD play Monopoly as a roleplaying game, it might even be fun (like they did with the Clue movie), but it wouldn't be very rewarding in the context of a one-shot game like that. Or in most one-shot games, really.