I've seen a lot of comments to the effect of how 4th Edition takes away from or doesn't allow for roleplaying. Now that I've had a chance to read the demo rules from Keep on the Shadowfell, I'm getting the exact opposite impression.
Before I post any arguments to these other comments I'm seeing, I wanted to find out exactly why some of you feel the way you do.
What is it about 4th edition that makes you think it's unfriendly to role playing?
It´s not unfriendly to *role-playing* per se, but it certainly seems to promote a "my PC has this bag of kewl powerz" attitude, with no drawbacks for the characters.
In 3rd edition you normally had to deal with sucking at something, unless you rolled ungodly high. In 4th edition, everything is easier.
That is not to say that 4th edition players will be/are worse RPers, but the whole atmosphere of the game seems to promote powerplay more. Only now *everybody* does it just by the nature of the game. And that doesn´t work for me, somehow. Not because I want to be the only powerplayer. :P But because it somehow feels *wrong* that WotCs solution to 3.5 problems seems to have been "Let´s make every class be totally AWESOME!!!!1111oneoneeleven".
In 3rd edition you normally had to deal with sucking at something, unless you rolled ungodly high. In 4th edition, everything is easier.
Can you explain this? I never really had any 3rd Edition characters that had to "deal with sucking at something."
If you mean, by wearing heavy armor the fighter wasn't good at sneaking... Well, that's still in 4th Edition. But, I never had a fighter who took the Cleave feat and had to "suffer" in some way because of it...
It´s not unfriendly to *role-playing* per se, but it certainly seems to promote a "my PC has this bag of kewl powerz" attitude, with no drawbacks for the characters.
In 3rd edition you normally had to deal with sucking at something, unless you rolled ungodly high. In 4th edition, everything is easier.
That is not to say that 4th edition players will be/are worse RPers, but the whole atmosphere of the game seems to promote powerplay more. Only now *everybody* does it just by the nature of the game. And that doesn´t work for me, somehow. Not because I want to be the only powerplayer. :P But because it somehow feels *wrong* that WotCs solution to 3.5 problems seems to have been "Let´s make every class be totally AWESOME!!!!1111oneoneeleven".
I have played enough 3.0 and 3.5 to know that it's easy to powerplay it. I don't see these supposed drawbacks that your talking about. Are you talking about racial ability modifiers, weapon and armor proficencies, hit points? I believe that they are still in 4e. Just because my wizard has the least amount of hit points in the group does not make me a better roleplayer. And our games are not going to be bragging sessions on how cool our characters are.
I think what your seeing in 4e is character balance at work. I don't think you will see one or more characters dominating the game with their cool powers as you see in 3.5. Everyone will have their chance to shine.
|
What is it about 4th edition that makes you think it's unfriendly to role playing?
Ok, the way you phrased that question is vastly more helpful than your thread title.
As far as I'm concerned, people think 4th edition won't be suitable for RP-heavy campaigns based on information they get from the following two sources.1. Horrible marketing by WotC replete with designers and playtesters apparently so geeked out about the new combat system that they don't get round to try, let alone talk about, other elements in the game. Add the fact that the much hyped "social combat" resolution mechanics never made it to the core rulebooks. If it was ever made in the first place.
2. The adventure modules produced by WotC which have been played (or playtested) so far for 4th edition. Scalegloom Hall (D&D Experience), Keep of the Shadowfell (reviewed by yours truly), and Kobold Hall (DMG) are all hack fests and (rightly) declare themselves to be low on both "decision points" and "story elements". They really are, and they really do. They are parcours to test drive the new cobmat system, because that's where 4th edition shines and provides solid entertainment.
These things encourage a very one sided impression of fourth edition. I think we'll have to wait for at least two months of solid play testing by the broad public to produce a better verdict of what 4th edition can accomodate and what it can't. Most of all, have a look at what third party publishers do with 4th edition. I really expect Necromancer Games to shine there. They already promised to re-introduce save/die rolls into 4th edition because leaving it out won't make it D&D for a great many people. And I expect further things to happen on the RP side.
A much more focused question, by the way, is (1) how immersion-friendly 4th edition is and (2) what in 4th edition, and what in general, makes immersion difficult. For instance, there are people who think playing with miniatures and/or engaging in meta-game thinking completely ruins immersion based role playing. My experience is that it has an impact, but not so drastic as to "ruin" or (even) seriously "interrupt" things.
Now that I've had a chance to read the demo rules from Keep on the Shadowfell, I'm getting the exact opposite impression.
Well that's funny. Because there's not one chance for you to use your social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidation - or whatever they're now called) in the module. Fact is, none of the key NPCs is statted out for you to perform such skill checks, and that's a heavy indication that they aren't meant to be performed throughout KotS.
It´s not unfriendly to *role-playing* per se, but it certainly seems to promote a "my PC has this bag of kewl powerz" attitude, with no drawbacks for the characters.
3rd Edition classes did not give you drawbacks. They gave you class features, though I will say many of their classes were horribly underpar when it came to doing what they claimed the class could and should do.
In 3rd edition you normally had to deal with sucking at something, unless you rolled ungodly high. In 4th edition, everything is easier.
By "ungodly high" I assume you mean the average roll, which is 11. It is incredibly easy to come out on top with no result below 10, even after considering racial modifiers, and thats assuming that you even rolled at all: many groups use point-buy, in which case its extremely easy to get away without anything below 10.
That is not to say that 4th edition players will be/are worse RPers, but the whole atmosphere of the game seems to promote powerplay more. Only now *everybody* does it just by the nature of the game. And that doesn´t work for me, somehow. Not because I want to be the only powerplayer. :P But because it somehow feels *wrong* that WotCs solution to 3.5 problems seems to have been "Let´s make every class be totally AWESOME!!!!1111oneoneeleven".
Or rather, lets make every class at the least competent in the role that they were supposed to be competent in: fighters are now capable of actually holding the line and not sucking at higher levels, and wizards dont have to guess and hope when it comes to spell selection.
I dont think thats a bad thing, and having a sucky character isnt "good roleplaying".
What I am trying to say is, that in 3rd edition, you ( as a character ) normally had areas where you where really bad, in 4th edition you will not suck as much in them as before. That´s because you don´t have negative attribute modifiers anymore, all your skills go up when you level, etc..
I don´t know if I am not getting this across as I should, but a great part of what makes me so uneasy about the new edition is the feeling that the mechanics make it seem that everything is just too damned easy for the characters. They are heroes already from day one, they get god-like at level 21... maybe I just like D&D a bit more down-to-earth. Yeah, fireballs and flying and all that, but for me 3rd edition still seems to make the characters less of a bunch of Ubermenschen than what 4th edition already sets out at first level.
While of course the PCs will be heroes because they overcome adversity, the system itself seems to want to make sure that any *inner* adversity won´t come from having to take any boo-boos when creating your character. And that feels wrong to me.
Hope that helped somewhat as an explanation.
My take on it:
Basic D&D and AD&D had no rules (or very crude rules) for what happened outside of combat. You could interpret that as giving lots of room for roleplaying (because there aren't any rules saying that you can't do X), or you could interpret it as giving little room for roleplaying (because it's easier to stick to the rules and just kill monsters and steal their stuff rather than coming up with ad hoc rules for every situation). D&D 2nd edition came up with a skill system (sort of) so you could have a better grasp at whether you would succeed or fail at certain non-combat activities.
Then D&D 3.0/3.5 introduced a much more sharply defined skill system, so you could perform a wide variety of non-combat activities that would be covered by skill checks. That both encourages creativity outside of combat (since you have a better idea of whether you will succeed or fail at a given activity) and stifles creativity (since your character will probably be unsuccessful if he doesn't have the relevant skill).
Now D&D 4.0 has gone away from the 3.0/3.5 skill system so that fewer non-combat activities are covered by defined skill checks. So whether 4.0 is "better" or "worse" for role-playing depends on whether you think rules (a) add unpleasant restrictions or (b) remove unpleasant ambiguities.
All I can say is that the only drawbacks that I can think of in 3rd Edition are from racial ability score penalties. Generally that amounts to like, a -1 to an array of checks that varies by the score (some are attached to more mechanics).
For example, a Charisma penalty is in general never going to affect the fighter, who doesnt have any Cha-related abilities and wasnt planning on it in the first place. For a sorcerer, the Cha penalty is a HUGE deal, but a Strength one? Not so much.
However, not all races even gave you a penalty: some give only a bonus or do nothing at all.
Moving on to classes, they all just give you stuff. Some give you less than others, and others try to maintain a sense of balance by making you crappy in a couple areas, disguising it as "diversity". The bard is a problem class in this instance. Sure, you can cure...eventually...and crappily. You can also fight...crappily. Is there anything the bard can do well? Sure: roll ridiculously high Diplomacy DCs.
On the surface, it might appear that the characters are just all-around better than before. They get more hit points, some deal more damage (some deal less), and they are all-in-all actually good at what they were designed to be good at (which I dont consider a bad thing).
However, many things have changed. Some monsters got waaay more hit points than before. Some also got nifty attacks as well that let them cream the entire party and knock them around, which is pretty cool.
Its not something that you want to compare straight across, since the game math is much different.
Does this mean that characters are good at "everything"? Certainly not. Sure, a fighter can learn rituals if he burns a couple feats, perhaps takes a multiclassing feat, but he's never going to roll out the spells that a wizard is. He might deal close damage, but the wizard is likely smarter than him and so has a better chance of hitting and its harder. However, the fighter had to burn at least one feat to get a low-level spell as an encounter one, and another if he wanted to trade his exploits out to learn a few magic tricks.
A wizard isnt going to be able to pick up a sword and use it with any proficiency that the fighter can. He could make a basic attack, yeah, but not the kind of stuff that a fighter can pull off.
This kind of potential for a character to actually perform a couple stunts that another class can do isnt a bad thing: its flexibility and helps maintain some concepts like a fighter/wizard type. The difference is that it works.
The only area that I can really see coming anywhere close to "everyone good at everything" is skills, since they all get a level-based bonus (like your attacks do). A fighter has the same basic bonus as a rogue does to all of his skills, both of whom have the same bonus as the wizard does to skills. There is still a big difference here: training. Not only does training grant a +5 bonus to the skill, but opens up a LOT of options.
Anyone can attempt an Acrobatics check, and the guys with training not only have a big advantage but also can reduce falling damage (which is a trained-only application of the skill). Similarly, Arcana can be used by anyone to recall information about certain critters, but only a trained person would know about the Far Realm or use it to detect magic.
In the end, I see a group of characters having chances to succeed in their own particular fashion, without necessitating specific characters or classes. Dont got a rogue? Well a warlock character with Thievery can do the job proper, as could any character with Skill Training (Thievery). Dont have a wizard? Well, the rogue can pick up Arcana and still ID your stuff and use it to also tackle magical traps.
|
RP is more driven by the skill set and disposition of the DM than by the system. When I am running 4.0 for the RPGA, I will make certain there are RP elements present, as I value this as a DM and like to create these components for my players.
4.0, conceptually as a marketing platform, is not focused on gamers with a traditional focus on RP. Rather, it is focused on attracting 20 somethings that cut their teeth on World of Warcraft and not on paper and pencil RPGs. This anchors the design philosophy. It colors the design of the rules and the strucutre of the books.
As I peruse the books, I see a streamlined, simpler game, focused on rapid and cinematic play style. It is a different game, targeting a different market, and focused on a different demographic. I do not find the mechanics particularly offensive, but I clearly see they owe as much to D&D minis as they do the work of Arneson and Gygax.
So, is it RP friendly? Is is RP hostile? No to both questions. It's a new design. Time will tell how durable it is.
Most certainly the adventures released to date are more hack than chat. That tells me quite a bit how the designers relate to this system.
The bard is a problem class in this instance. Sure, you can cure...eventually...and crappily. You can also fight...crappily. Is there anything the bard can do well? Sure: roll ridiculously high Diplomacy DCs.
And that can just save the day in more than a few campaigns... convincing a bunch of Riders of Rohan to go lift a siege anyone? Seducing the jailer?
If you see the game as (mostly) a series of dungeon/wilderness forays, bards are a bit on the down side. If you play a complicated overarching campaign which includes negotiation, alliances and espionage, the "4 core classes" (thinking of a rogue concentrating on sneaking and trapbreaking) are going to be in deep trouble if they restrict their development to their standard roles. Of course, that's a matter of diversity in DM / published module creativity. But some systems do encourage combat powers and others are more diverse in letting you have fun with any role... I remember one of my players who player a morbid physician, with Expert (Scholar) levels and little Fighter/Rogue skills... He was ok with a crossbow and nice at non-magical healing and many lores (plus intimidate!), but, more than any other thing he was fun to have in the party:[Mother with baby afflicted by mutating disease]
Mom: Can you help him?
PC [Rolls Profession-Physician to diagnose, good success]: "My advice, burn it quick, if you don't mind."
Damn, he was a load in most fights, but priceless for role-play!
4.0, conceptually as a marketing platform, is not focused on gamers with a traditional focus on RP. Rather, it is focused on attracting 20 somethings that cut their teeth on World of Warcraft and not on paper and pencil RPGs. This anchors the design philosophy. It colors the design of the rules and the strucutre of the books.
As I peruse the books, I see a streamlined, simpler game, focused on rapid and cinematic play style. It is a different game, targeting a different market, and focused on a different demographic. I do not find the mechanics particularly offensive, but I clearly see they owe as much to D&D minis as they do the work of Arneson and Gygax.
So, is it RP friendly? Is is RP hostile? No to both questions. It's a new design. Time will tell how durable it is.
Most certainly the adventures released to date are more hack than chat. That tells me quite a bit how the designers relate to this system.
Some curious facts about the "emphasis on role-playing" of 3.5E compared to 4E:
- The 3.5E PHB has three paragraphs of how to build the personality of your character. The 4E PHB has more than an entire page.
- The 3.5E PHB has one paragraph of how to role-play a dwarf. The 4E PHB has five paragraphs.
- The 4E PHB/DMG present various evocative, non-combat artwork. The 3.5 core books basically show iconic characters making poses and slaughtering.
It's undeniable that both the 4E PHB and DMG have a stronger focus on RP than its 3.5E counterparts. And the reason of this is exactly the fact that it's intended for "World of Warcraft and like" players - it has to tell its new players of how role-playing is like, unlike the 3.5E core books that seem to assume that every reader is a 10-30 years veteran and wouldn't waste time reading this "personality" stuff.
The bard is a problem class in this instance. Sure, you can cure...eventually...and crappily. You can also fight...crappily. Is there anything the bard can do well? Sure: roll ridiculously high Diplomacy DCs.And that can just save the day in more than a few campaigns... convincing a bunch of Riders of Rohan to go lift a siege anyone? Seducing the jailer?
If you see the game as (mostly) a series of dungeon/wilderness forays, bards are a bit on the down side. If you play a complicated overarching campaign which includes negotiation, alliances and espionage, the "4 core classes" (thinking of a rogue concentrating on sneaking and trapbreaking) are going to be in deep trouble if they restrict their development to their standard roles. Of course, that's a matter of diversity in DM / published module creativity. But some systems do encourage combat powers and others are more diverse in letting you have fun with any role... I remember one of my players who player a morbid physician, with Expert (Scholar) levels and little Fighter/Rogue skills... He was ok with a crossbow and nice at non-magical healing and many lores (plus intimidate!), but, more than any other thing he was fun to have in the party:[Mother with baby afflicted by mutating disease]
Mom: Can you help him?
PC [Rolls Profession-Physician to diagnose, good success]: "My advice, burn it quick, if you don't mind."Damn, he was a load in most fights, but priceless for role-play!
Everything you mention can be done by another class, virtually as well as the bard. A cleric or paladin with ramped up Diplomacy for starters, can tackle the pretty tame skill DCs, and anyone can have a character with a fun personality and quirks.
Basically, the bard sucks. Fortunately, I suppose, its not alone: many classes are designed with a purpose in theory but fail to execute properly. That doesnt make them good for social roleplay: it puts them on par with every other class for RP potential, but still makes them suck in other regards.
I don't think I'll have a problem. I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions. I'm pretty excited about 4e and am happy more people seem to be hopping on board. That said, I think I can take a stab at why people might think it's less roleplaying friendly than other editions.
For real social endeavors to happen, there has to be a consistant world beyond the dungeon--an assumption that there's one big world out there that everyone exists in. Fourth edition seems to be trying to stifle that pretty hard. There's one set of rules for how the world works for PCs and one for NPCs (and maybe another for monsters). Some of the abilities are more about how it plays and how balanced it is rather than how or why it does what it does in the world. There's almost the feeling that PC's are a breed apart somehow, that they're some different kind of race or something, from all the poor sad scared people who live in the Points of Light who can barely heft a pitchfork let alone cut loose with Powers.
I'm really of two minds about this. On one hand, I love all the stuff the PC's can do now--and how they feel competent right out of the gate. On the other hand, the gulf sometimes feels so extreme that I'm tempted to roll up PCs as "human monsters" and let them live in the same world with everyone else, just for the sake of internal consistency.
Well that's funny. Because there's not one chance for you to use your social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidation - or whatever they're now called) in the module. Fact is, none of the key NPCs is statted out for you to perform such skill checks, and that's a heavy indication that they aren't meant to be performed throughout KotS.
Yeah, I think this is where my definition of roleplay starts to go askew. While there really is very little content in KotS for social encounters, I don’t consider those moments to be the only place for roleplay. “Roleplay”, to me, is simply when you immerse yourself in the illusion of the game and that’s just as likely to happen in combat as out.
Fer instance “I swing at him with my sword” is no more roleplaying than “I attempt to trick the guard into letting us in.” I much prefer to hear “I throw caution to the wind. Letting the rage build up inside me, I hammer away at his shield until he weakens and my blow strikes home.” There isn’t a whole lot of socializing, but I’d still call that roleplaying.
However, I’m totally on board with comments about a lack of social encounters. Not because the rules don’t allow for them but, like Grimcleaver said, the PCs are really detached from the world. Not only does this Points of Light premise lack a full world for the PCs to be a part of, but the absence of crafting skills (for example) or NPC classes means the PC seemingly would have no role in society even if there was one.
<====Wonders why people think a set of rules might stop you from roleplaying.
I don't think I'll have a problem. I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions.
Okay, but we resolve combat with skipping rope challenges. Then I'm in.
<====Wonders why people think a set of rules might stop you from roleplaying.
I don't think I'll have a problem. I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions.Okay, but we resolve combat with skipping rope challenges. Then I'm in.
So the fit guys always win? Nuh-uh. How about one class can skip rope and another counters by eating little chocolate doughnuts? You know, game balance.
|
|
<====Wonders why people think a set of rules might stop you from roleplaying.
I don't think I'll have a problem. I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions.Okay, but we resolve combat with skipping rope challenges. Then I'm in.
Skipping rope is so 3.14159265e.
All of the hip kids resolve combat with underwater yodeling.
<====Wonders why people think a set of rules might stop you from roleplaying.
Its not so much the rules, its the electrodes that they make you attach to yourself before you play. You only get so many words to describe your actions during the turn, and if you go over . . . ZOT!
Hurts like the dickens.
Ahem . . . on a more serious note, when some of he FLGS regulars played KOTSF last Saturday, we did quite a bit of roleplaying. Sure, lots of it was stereotypical and over the top, but part of that is an extension of using pregenerated characters.
But yeah, we had a ton of fun RPing, and it had little to do with the rules system one way or the other.
I can understand why wizards might kick off the new edition with a hack and slash module, namely KotSF. I didn't do much roleplaying when I played KotBL in '78 and it was a great introduction to the game. It would have been completely mindless violence had it not been for my mother's (first and last) DMing.
I hope a bunch of new players can have the fun I had (with KotBL) when they play KotSF.
|
|
Some curious facts about the "emphasis on role-playing" of 3.5E compared to 4E:- The 3.5E PHB has three paragraphs of how to build the personality of your character. The 4E PHB has more than an entire page.
- The 3.5E PHB has one paragraph of how to role-play a dwarf. The 4E PHB has five paragraphs.
- The 4E PHB/DMG present various evocative, non-combat artwork. The 3.5 core books basically show iconic characters making poses and slaughtering.
It's undeniable that both the 4E PHB and DMG have a stronger focus on RP than its 3.5E counterparts. And the reason of this is exactly the fact that it's intended for "World of Warcraft and like" players - it has to tell its new players of how role-playing is like, unlike the 3.5E core books that seem to assume that every reader is a 10-30 years veteran and wouldn't waste time reading this "personality" stuff.
Point taken. There are some fine build outs and explanations of basic archetypes.
The art issue... that's more aesthetics than anything else. I could go page by page and argue how this or that stance is more or less RP focused or not. This is too deeply focused on personal taste to be productive.
However 4.0 is not any more or less of a RP system than 3.5. That depends on the stories told by the DM and his or her particular skill set, and the destires of the players.
Hasbro does need to develop better adventures, however, if it is focused on cultivating a greater RP focus, which I am not certain is the concern of the designers.
Keep in mind, I am playing both, and do not have a fundamental problem with 4.0 as a mechanic or a system. I have argued elsewhere in this forum that 4.0 is an extension of the design philosophy of the old D&D/basic/red box and 3.0/3.5 are an extension of the old AD&D design philosophy. I loved and played both games then and I will do the same now.
I am glad that Paizo has kept the 3.5 rules set alive with PFRPG as there is much I value in 3.5. I see 4.0 & 3.5 as markedly different version of the same game descended from two different approaches to the game. D&D---->2.0------->4.0 AD&D--->2.0------>3.0/3.5.
Sorry if I have threadjacked.
The bard is a problem class in this instance. Sure, you can cure...eventually...and crappily. You can also fight...crappily. Is there anything the bard can do well? Sure: roll ridiculously high Diplomacy DCs.And that can just save the day in more than a few campaigns... convincing a bunch of Riders of Rohan to go lift a siege anyone? Seducing the jailer?
If you see the game as (mostly) a series of dungeon/wilderness forays, bards are a bit on the down side. If you play a complicated overarching campaign which includes negotiation, alliances and espionage, the "4 core classes" (thinking of a rogue concentrating on sneaking and trapbreaking) are going to be in deep trouble if they restrict their development to their standard roles. Of course, that's a matter of diversity in DM / published module creativity. But some systems do encourage combat powers and others are more diverse in letting you have fun with any role... I remember one of my players who player a morbid physician, with Expert (Scholar) levels and little Fighter/Rogue skills... He was ok with a crossbow and nice at non-magical healing and many lores (plus intimidate!), but, more than any other thing he was fun to have in the party:[Mother with baby afflicted by mutating disease]
Mom: Can you help him?
PC [Rolls Profession-Physician to diagnose, good success]: "My advice, burn it quick, if you don't mind."Damn, he was a load in most fights, but priceless for role-play!
Everything you mention can be done by another class, virtually as well as the bard. A cleric or paladin with ramped up Diplomacy for starters, can tackle the pretty tame skill DCs, and anyone can have a character with a fun personality and quirks.
Basically, the bard sucks. Fortunately, I suppose, its not alone: many classes are designed with a purpose in theory but fail to execute properly. That doesnt make them good for social roleplay: it puts them on par with every other class for RP potential,...
Yah know, I'm getting really fracking sick of people badmouthing bards. I'm also getting sick of people who think "every char. has to be able to hurt the bad guys every round in combat, or the char. sucks!"
That is a very juvenile attitude, IMO. Look at real life. Does the electrician have to able to work on a construction project every day, from start to finish, to be useful? Of course not. He is needed when he is needed, and not when their is plumbing to be done, etc.
Now, OTOH, the bard is a handyman, IMO He is pretty good at a lot of things. He can fix the leaky sink, or re-wire the kitchen light, etc. Could he re-wire a house? Probably not. But that's not his job. But he could fill in for the plumber, and is a great assitant.
Now lets look at the bard, who is, rightfully, a jack of all trades and a master of none. Can he fight like a fighter? No, but he can fight. Can he heal like a cleric? Again, no, but he can. My bard was able to fill in for the cleric when he was absent, and the rouge when he was absent. He was even a credible archer, since he had a good dex. Add in the spell casting, the buffs of bardic signing, and the fact that he was so charismatic, he dominated non-combat encounters.... 'Nuff said.
Please don't say my bard sucks. Just because YMMV doesn't make it universally true. And for you to tell me that I can't is just plain offensive. This attitude is more than anything else why I'm anti 4-E. Wizards, or anyone else, telling me how to play MY game....? I think not.
|
for me and my group 4e lacks the ability to present non-heroic roleplaying opportunities with ease.
4e portrays the PCs as heroes from level 1 through to level 30, the fixed scaling of the DCs and powers makes this hard to avoid. I find it kind of ludicrous that the types of doors you put into a dungeon are determined by the level of the party too!
In 3.5 the progression had an increasing power curve for the early levels and it was easy to consider PCs from 1st to 3rd as nothing more than commoners. Also the addition of NPC classes helped DMs control low power campaigns by forcing PCs to choose an NPC class at 1st (though I don't like this idea personally it has been used by a few of my DMs with varying degrees of success).
I like the more realistic approach to D&D sometimes but I can't see an easy way of accomplishing this in 4e.
|
|
I like the more realistic approach to D&D sometimes but I can't see an easy way of accomplishing this in 4e.
It should be very easy in 4e. Start the PCs without a class level or give them limited resources or choices.
Use the standard set of stats (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10)
Have them select a class.
The PC should have the armor and weapon proficiencies from that class.
Give them half the starting HP from the class then add their CON (so a fighter would be CON+6 HP)
Give the PC only one at will and one encounter power.
Do not give the PC any feats unless granted by their racial background.
You could probably give them all of the class features but there may be some that should be withheld.
Give them like 50 to 75GP to buy gear instead of 100.
Use 500XP to reach 1st level and once they get there give them everything that was held back at level zero.
For encounters - use a higher proportion of minions in the mix.
This is all just off the top of my head. i am sure it could be streamlined and perfected without much effort.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
In answer to the OP's question, I think that there will always be room and a place for RP if the players and GM want there to be. That said, 4e doesn't make it very easy.
There are vastly different mechanics for handling combat and non-combat situations, and thus, the flow between the two is very uneven. There should be a balance between the two, even if they're different systems, but in this case, the mechanics are strongly skewed toward combat.
In 3.5, if one were so inclined, you could run a whole campaign in six-second rounds, naturally transitioning from combat actions to non-combat actions. They're the same mechanics. Obviously, this would be a highly tedious way to play, but the continuity between in- and out-of-combat gameplay is what really makes it work as a system. 4e simply doesn't have that.
Bards don't suck.
People arguing they do probably missed something.
Either they saw only poorly played bards. Or they played one themselves, but didn't get a chance to use their potential.
The Bard is a hybrid class. He can fight, cast spells, heal, infiltrate, investigate, negociate and of course entertain. Sure, as a hybrid he cannot really compete with a pure specialist, like a fighter, a mage, a cleric or a rogue. That's the point of being a jack of all trades. In a group he is very versatile, hence always useful. And in solo, well, he is a group by himself.
As much i disliked the original Bard in AD&D 1st edition, i came to like the class in the 2nd and love it in the 3rd.
As a DM, i run a lot of adventures where knowledge and investigation hold a very important part. And that's where Bards shine. They know their stuff, the world around them. In a current campaign, most of the mysteries the players have met were someway solved by the bard PC.
And this brings me to the main topic of this thread : Roleplaying.
From my experience, what makes a good RPG has nothing to do with the rules. That's the complex harmony between the game system, the atmosphere, the DM's talent and the players immersion.
I don't see why D&D4 should be diffferent. If the DM and the players are roleplaying, then fine. If not, well, too bad.
That reminds me many discussions i had about roleplaying in MMORPGs, like World of Warcraft. Whatever the server is, RP, PvP or else, if you want to roleplay you can. Nothing can prevent you. Anyway, the simple fact to play an elf or an orc is roleplaying, by nature. Of coursde, you might not always find a response to your efforts of roleplaying and immersion. But sometimes you do. And then that's great.
No rule gives you better roleplaying. It comes from you. And that's the best part of Roleplaying Games.
As i often say, roleplaying is like politeness. Don't expect some. Just show the example and you might get some in return.
I've seen a lot of comments to the effect of how 4th Edition takes away from or doesn't allow for roleplaying. Now that I've had a chance to read the demo rules from Keep on the Shadowfell, I'm getting the exact opposite impression.
Before I post any arguments to these other comments I'm seeing, I wanted to find out exactly why some of you feel the way you do.
What is it about 4th edition that makes you think it's unfriendly to role playing?
how about such things as this quote from the DMG:
"Fun
Fun is one element you shouldn’t vary. Every encounter
in an adventure should be fun. As much as
possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure
that aren’t fun. An encounter with two guards at
the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through
the gate without much trouble and move on to the
fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance
usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun.
Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient
dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun.
Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter,
and on to the fun!"
Role Playing encounters appearently are not fun... so skip them according to the DMG.
|
|
In answer to the OP's question, I think that there will always be room and a place for RP if the players and GM want there to be. That said, 4e doesn't make it very easy.
There are vastly different mechanics for handling combat and non-combat situations, and thus, the flow between the two is very uneven. There should be a balance between the two, even if they're different systems, but in this case, the mechanics are strongly skewed toward combat.
In 3.5, if one were so inclined, you could run a whole campaign in six-second rounds, naturally transitioning from combat actions to non-combat actions. They're the same mechanics. Obviously, this would be a highly tedious way to play, but the continuity between in- and out-of-combat gameplay is what really makes it work as a system. 4e simply doesn't have that.
I am not sure I am following. What exact mechanic is present in 3e that 4e is lacking to make this "transition" work? And what exactly is this "transition"? Is it simply dropping out of initiative order?
|
|
Role Playing encounters appearently are not fun... so skip them according to the DMG.
Wow - talk about quoting out of context. That whole section is about responding to the particular tastes of you group:
Make sure to include a variety of encounters designed to appeal to the different motivations of your players.
...
Actor: Interaction encounters are the actor’s natural habitat. Plenty of decision points give the actor a chance to consider what his character would do and act out the deliberation and debate.
...
Storyteller: This player thrives on encounters that advance the story of the adventure and the campaign and gladly pursues quests that tie into her background
and specific goals.
The whole point of that section is to encourage a DM to adapt to the desired style of the players.
The 3e DMG said the same thing. It talked about the whole "kicking in doors" style of play.
Again - why is it okay for 3e to encourage hack and slash if that is what your players want but when 4e says the exact same thing suddenly the whole game lack roleplaying?
Roleplaying has nothing to do with the rules (see my post above).
You can roleplay in any game.
Hey, i roleplay when i play poker ;)
|
|
Your bard does not suck - but most do. When forming tables at a con for LG people go looking for clerics, fighters, rogues, and wizards. If you have a bard or monk you will get a whole lot of "thanks but no thanks".
LG is its own play style, as is LA and Blackmoor. Powergaming (and this is not a judgement, just an observation, I have written for and administrated MMRPGS) dominates roleplaying in most MMRPGs.
Bards are not built for the hacky end of the power curve. However, in my home game that is about working contacts and getting the correct information to solve problems, the bard is King.
|
|
Your bard does not suck - but most do. When forming tables at a con for LG people go looking for clerics, fighters, rogues, and wizards. If you have a bard or monk you will get a whole lot of "thanks but no thanks".LG is its own play style, as is LA and Blackmoor. Powergaming (and this is not a judgement, just an observation, I have written for and administrated MMRPGS) dominates roleplaying in most MMRPGs.
Bards are not built for the hacky end of the power curve. However, in my home game that is about working contacts and getting the correct information to solve problems, the bard is King.
I know. You are right - in a home game bards can find a place. In my experience with home games the mage is the source for knowledge and the rogue can work the street. The biggest contribution from bards in the home campaigns i have been a part of is that they sing during combat.
I guess I have never really encountered a player character bard that I would classify as a real contributor to a campaign.
Funny, in my Shackled City game the bard is the second most powerful person in the party, after the Warlock/Scout. But thats because our group figures if the attack hits by by the points given by bardic music, then the hit is the bards, regardless of who actually swung. Course, some amusing splatbooking from Dragon Magic means she's usually adding +2 to attack, +2 to damage, and +2d6 electricity to each attack, even if she's blowing 2 bardic musics to do it. That adds up.
Threadjack aside, I think that a previous poster got it right. 4e is ON THE SURFACE less roleplaying focused, because it is attempting to pull in the MMO and Console RPG generation. 4th feels like a video game, because a good video game is what attracts the attention of the new playerbase.
But 4th does have buried within it, like in the DMG, the seeds of roleplaying. It is my fanciful idea that the designers know they are getting "rookie" players, as opposed to veterans. I think they know that the end of Dragon magazine means less veterans bridging the gap, not out of spite, but out of a lack of info. Remember the articles when 2nd passed and 3rd began? We were given a solid play by play almost a year in advance, so all of us 2nd players had the info we needed to decide if we wanted in or not. 4th doesn't have that.
I think the designers have made 4th with the hope that AFTER snagging the MMO generation, they can encourage them to JOIN us veterans in the roleplaying world. Sure, many will stick to WoW-style (I'm a WoW fan, but I acknowledge the difference) hack-n-slash game, but I think that is just the next generations version of the 3rd edition "Chaotic Neutral Punk" effect. A lot of new players in 3rd edition go for the "I'm CN, so I can do what I want! Screw the authority!". Some grow out of it, some dont. I see 4th's version of that being "Talk to him? If it's got stats, its supposed to be fought, duh!" and with time many will grow out of that as well.
I think the seeds of Roleplaying exist in 4th. Whether the new generation of player is a fertile ground for them, remains to be seen.
Just my 2cp.
/sigh
This is going nowhere.
I don't see the point in keeping a debate while most of the participants only want to confront their love/hate of D&D 4th Edition.
I will therefore avoid threads like this...
|
|
/sigh
This is going nowhere.
I don't see the point in keeping a debate while most of the participants only want to confront their love/hate of D&D 4th Edition.
I will therefore avoid threads like this...
Yep. The problem is that the 4e haters are making irrational claims based on non-existent evidence.
You have been right this whole time.
I find it kind of ludicrous that the types of doors you put into a dungeon are determined by the level of the party too!
Probably this is a suggestion to avoid PCs trying to smash the entire dungeon rather than exploring it. Something that 3.5E high-level characters can easily do if they want - and in fact, I already seen that ocurring.
how about such things as this quote from the DMG:
"Fun
Fun is one element you shouldn’t vary. Every encounter
in an adventure should be fun. As much as
possible, fast-forward through the parts of an adventure
that aren’t fun. An encounter with two guards at
the city gate isn’t fun. Tell the players they get through
the gate without much trouble and move on to the
fun. Niggling details of food supplies and encumbrance
usually aren’t fun, so don’t sweat them, and
let the players get to the adventure and on to the fun.
Long treks through endless corridors in the ancient
dwarven stronghold beneath the mountains aren’t fun.
Move the PCs quickly from encounter to encounter,
and on to the fun!"Role Playing encounters appearently are not fun... so skip them according to the DMG.
Unlike 3.5E, encounter on 4E doesn't mean combat or traps. Social interations and puzzles may also considered to be encounters.
Your bard does not suck - but most do. When forming tables at a con for LG people go looking for clerics, fighters, rogues, and wizards. If you have a bard or monk you will get a whole lot of "thanks but no thanks".
Living Greyhawk is notorious for requiring being very deadly -- it is a widely held opinion that characters have to be fairly optimal combat builds to survive. Thus bards are unpopular in LG.
Bards suck only when combat effectiveness subordinates all other considerations -- as is often the case in LG.
This is at the root of a lot of my uneasiness with 4e. The importance of combat equality is so obvious that, IMO, it sends a message that other aspects of the game are less important.
Yep. The problem is that the 4e haters are making irrational claims based on non-existent evidence.
That's not the only problem. Nor are they the only problem group.
And, as has been pointed out (numerous times) before, the words "hater" and "irrational" do little for the level of dialog here.
There are vastly different mechanics for handling combat and non-combat situations, and thus, the flow between the two is very uneven. There should be a balance between the two, even if they're different systems, but in this case, the mechanics are strongly skewed toward combat.
And we have "similar mechanics" for combat and noncombat situations on 3.5E?
Are the 4E mechanics "skewed" about combat more than 3.5E? There is an entire chapter on the 4E DMG about noncombat encounters, including a full page example of how a social interation should run an the table. How many pages about "noncombat mechanics" are on 3.5E DMG?
I can imagin a new, completely dummy D&D player reading the 4E books and having an idea on how role-playing is done. I can't say the same for one who only reads the 3.5E core books.
This is at the root of a lot of my uneasiness with 4e. The importance of combat equality is so obvious that, IMO, it sends a message that other aspects of the game are less important.
How would the inequality of combat effectiveness amongst characters help other aspects of the game?
Wouldn't you rather have characters that were effective at least in someway or the other in all aspects of the game. While there may be balance in 4e combat that doesn't mean that every character is effective in the exact same way.
Really I gotta say, if we're going to be bible-bashing with DMG's I've got the killer. This is from the 3.0 DMG:
Back to the Dungeon!
Dungeons facilitate game play. Dungeons, being underground, set appart the "adventure" from the rest of the world in a clean way. The idea of walking down a cooridor, opening a door, and entering an encounter--while a gross oversimplification and generalization--facilitates the flow of the game by reducing things down to easily grasped and digestible concepts....In the Dungeons & Dragons game, the classes, spells, magic items, and mmany other facets of the game have been designed with dungeons in mind. That's not to say that the dungeon is the only possible adventuring environment, but it's the default setting....When in doubt...use a dungeon.
When I first read that I about clawed out my eyeballs. You want to talk about being unfriendly to roleplaying? Yarg!
By contrast I think the 4e quote is talking about speeding through slow parts. I don't think that's roleplaying at all. Roleplay is the good stuff. It's getting into town, or whistling your way across seven days of walking in the woods, or taking an hour to pull away the rubble from the secret enterance. Or for that matter, going through a bunch of empty dungeon tunnels. It's about editing, and I don't know that that's such a bad idea.
This is at the root of a lot of my uneasiness with 4e. The importance of combat equality is so obvious that, IMO, it sends a message that other aspects of the game are less important.
How would the inequality of combat effectiveness amongst characters help other aspects of the game?
It wouldn't. I didn't suggest it would.
I'm saying that 4e sets a certain tone. When people claim such a thing, they are correct. I'm not attacking 4e -- I'm defending those that say they dislike it.
I have also, on occasion, tried to defend those that do like 4e.
By contrast I think the 4e quote is talking about speeding through slow parts. I don't think that's roleplaying at all. Roleplay is the good stuff. It's getting into town, or whistling your way across seven days of walking in the woods, or taking an hour to pull away the rubble from the secret enterance. Or for that matter, going through a bunch of empty dungeon tunnels. It's about editing, and I don't know that that's such a bad idea.
You are my hero :)
|
|
Most of the quotes we have been rolling back and forth here are both attempts within all systems (3.0/3.5/4.0) to coach a DM on how to run his or her game and how to develop his or her narrative.
I really do not see how either edition of the game is more or less RP focused than the other. I think that 4.0 has been informed by other gaming experiences and that impacts the flavor rather substantially. Whether or not 4.0 is an evolutionary leap or dead end will be determined by the marketplace.
In LG, I have seen roleplaying episodes like "Rites of Eternal Spring" written by Eric Menge out of Geoff/Va., be absolutely destroyed by DMs who did not value the RP component of the game and could not execute on it. Running COCT in Pathfinder requires an effective and fluid narrative style heavily focused on character to be done well.
D&D is about telling a story. Some stories are Henry V and about action, and some stories are Hamlet and about character and the comtemplation of action. Regardless, of which system you use, the ability to animate that story and bring it to life is based on teh skill of the DM, and not the system.