That is not a problem with the RPG...
Very true.
To be fair, Fletch did say the game was fun to play -- he didn't say the game was flawed.
...It is a problem with player expectations.
Expectations built up by WotC. That's what marketing does, and it's what WotC tried to do -- they want WoW players to believe D&D will satisfy their expectations.
But why is it important? Fletch said the game was fun.
That is not a problem with the RPG. It is a problem with player expectations.
Right, that was my point. Unfortunately, the misinformation came straight from WotC itself. The player expectations that caused them to cast aside RP (during the combat scenes, I should stress) were based on announcements from the game makers themselves.
I still think there's room for RP in 4th Ed, I just encountered an unexpected speedbump during my own actual experience with the game.
BTW, I think WotC's marketing is further agitating 3.5 supporters -- unavoidably and unfortunately.
WotC needs to expand the traditional boundaries of D&D play for business reasons. When their marketing advertises this, it fuels the (false) accusations that 4e doesn't offer the same play opportunities previous editions offered.
Just another thought.
Totally off topic but ...
The main forum page shows this thread as having 80 posts in it.
The thread itself says it has 101.
I'm currently reading page 3 of the thread, but can only select from page 1 or page 2.
Buh?
Edit: Of course, posting has caused page 3 to appear as an option! :P
I'm guessing you were looking at a page that needed refreshing.
I'm guessing you were looking at a page that needed refreshing.
I thought so as well, but by my third refresh I figured I'd post something and see if I was alone. And of course posting made the problem go away!
Stupid board, stop making me look crazy! I do well enough on my own!
When their marketing advertises this, it fuels the (false) accusations that 4e doesn't offer the same play opportunities previous editions offered.
Oh how I tried to get them into the swing of things. I roleplayed the heck out of my kobolds, presenting their 'marking', 'shifting' and other abilities in the best roleplay terms I could. It just didn't take. Hopefully, again, as we get more used to the rules, we'll have more time for that.
Stupid board, stop making me look crazy! I do well enough on my own!
Mwah-hah-hah-hah!
|
Allow me to add my two cents worth:
A system doesn't make or break RP. A single rule "pretend you are.." is sufficient for any RP (if you're a good rp gamer).
However, 4th Ed does somewhat leans toward powerplay instead of roleplay. It needs to spell out every rule, make every character useful and X vs Y = success or fail...etc
I read some postings and people are critizing that bard sucks and hence not played and hence poor roleplay...hence 4.0 better than 3.5...sigh.
Give me a bard and I'll show you what is roleplay.
Even if my mage at level 1 cannot cast any more spells (only 1 level one spell and a few level 0), I can still roleplay and make the game more "real" and enjoyable...that's roleplaying! Not at-will powers at my beck and call! Usefulness doesn't warrant good roleplaying...think Raistlin in "Dragons of Autumn Twilight"....a featherfall and sleep and his rasping away...
Possibly those gamers who gravitate toward 4th ed isn't wrong except that they are already good roleplayers but 4th ed without proper guidance for new gamers will turn them into powerplayers.
Take for example: Do you see any MTG players roleplaying out a game? That's Hasbro.
Another example:
A recent outing at a local gaming store and I overheard a few gamers (and one RPGA DM to boot) talking about taking this feat and that (in 3.5 D&D)...so I popped a question (actually one leads to another), "shouldn't some feat require roleplay or a sort of quest to obtain instead of opening up the rulebook and choosing it? Or the character can learn it from a retired beggar who once is a mighty warrior?" What I got was a few shocked looks and open mouth?
My next question (after a few exchanges of opinions) was "can a character be allowed to perish if it lends to good roleplaying and the player is duly rewarded thereafter with another character with more abilities or something? I got another set of aghasted looks...sigh
So RP in 4th ED? It's not the rules but the players but the rules will attract that sort of play.
I had a chance to flip through the books today at my FLGS, and I've come to the conclusion that the notion that 4th edition doesn't promote roleplaying is b~@~&*@%. Plain and simple, it's a solid game. It will be fun to play. This I'm sure of.
I am not pro-4th. I'm not buying the books. In fact there are still things about the game that leave a sour taste in my mouth, but these arguments are quite honestly ridiculous, from both camps.
It's apples to oranges now.
Seconded.
I guess i just don't see how, where, or when 4e was ever marketed as a role playing game that did not require role playing? I don't see where this expectation would have come from.
No one said it was marketed that way.
Though to split hairs, reference this thread -- D&D is "a role playing game that [does] not require role playing." To be clear, I am not saying this is the designed form for play.
|
|
My issue with 4E not promoting roleplaying is that so many people ignore the 1st 2 chapters of the 4E PHB (the general comment seems to be for many critics "waste of paper, things people everyone knows already")
Yet to me, these ARE the essential building blocks for making a good roleplayer. Asking the player to think about questions such as "How does your character react to this situation" etc are all more likely IMO to actually encourage roleplaying.
I've never really equated the Profession/Craft skills as "roleplaying skills" but accounting skills.
I've bought the gift set of 4th ed and had read through the PH and DMG and most likely to start on it in parallel with my 3.5 stuff (actually, I also run AD&D too).
However, 4th Ed is like asking you to drive with character and style regardless of what car you own but only giving you a purely powered car.
However, 4th Ed is like asking you to drive with character and style regardless of what car you own but only giving you a purely powered car.
I agree.
I've said it many times, and others have also: 4e facilitates a different style of play than do earlier versions. Why is this so hard for many to admit?
White Wolf's Storyteller system would be hard to adapt to traditional D&D play; Iron Crown's system would be hard to adapt to a Call of Cthulhu game; Palladium would be hard to adapt to a Traveller game... the list goes on and on.
Would it kill people to say "oh yeah, 4e is a different game, with a different style?"
|
|
My issue with 4E not promoting roleplaying is that so many people ignore the 1st 2 chapters of the 4E PHB (the general comment seems to be for many critics "waste of paper, things people everyone knows already")
Yet to me, these ARE the essential building blocks for making a good roleplayer. Asking the player to think about questions such as "How does your character react to this situation" etc are all more likely IMO to actually encourage roleplaying.
I've never really equated the Profession/Craft skills as "roleplaying skills" but accounting skills.
I've bought the gift set of 4th ed and had read through the PH and DMG and most likely to start on it in parallel with my 3.5 stuff (actually, I also run AD&D too).
However, 4th Ed is like asking you to drive with character and style regardless of what car you own but only giving you a purely powered car.
Ok, I'm dumb...what does this analogy actually mean?
And again, why is something like asking the player to answer
"How assertive are you at a decision point" not conduicive to roleplaying yet skills like Profession (BasketWeaving) are?
Bleach, 4th Ed is asking for a different flavour to gaming.
Example:
In page 36, Play a dwarf if you want...
* to be tough, gruff, and strong as bedrock
* to bring glory to your ancestors or serve as your god's right hand
* to be able to take as much punishment as you dish out
* to be a member of a race that favors the paladin, cleric and fighter classes.
An excerpt from page 37 of PHB:
"...Dwarves believe in the importance of clan ties.....deeply respect their elders....dwarves seek guidance and protection from the gods..Dwarves never forget their enemies,...Dwarves harbor a fierce hatred for orcs....Dwarves despise giants and titans.....To a dwarf, it is a gift and mark of deep respect to stand beside an ally in battle...."
What does these two pages of the dwarf description contain?
Bleach, what is roleplaying? All powerful? Heroes? Paragon? Epic proportion?
4th Ed advocates roleplaying but what kind?
Read the short paragraph in page 18 again...yet what does the rules point toward?
Ever play a one-arm warrior? A blind rogue? Dwarf with phobia of the underground? Character who makes the wrong decision or freeze up during a battle? A drunken ex-paladin?
4th ed is not bad...just a different game altogether but only qualm is whether it is what it is trying to advocate...
Can anyone name the 4th edition cheerleader that shows up to chime in on every 4th edition thread? How incredibly annoying.
|
I've said it many times, and others have also: 4e facilitates a different style of play than do earlier versions. Why is this so hard for many to admit?
I guess I just don't really see the stylistic difference that you see. Perhaps 4e is a bit more cinematic but not by much. I guess I would be more inclined to agree with you if you (or anyone) could help me understand what you are seeing that I am not.
The only difference I do se is that you can't create an intentionally weak PC. I have never understood why it was more a more "genuine" roleplay experience to play a PC that the party would then need to carry through every combat encounter.
To me roleplaying is what you do with the character regardless of its strengths or weaknesses.
If CWM would concede one negative aspect of the new edition, i would salt and eat a city bus.
It is in the tone of the core rules as written dude. They go out of the way to encourage a hack and slash style of play.
|
|
I've said it many times, and others have also: 4e facilitates a different style of play than do earlier versions. Why is this so hard for many to admit?I guess I just don't really see the stylistic difference that you see. Perhaps 4e is a bit more cinematic but not by much. I guess I would be more inclined to agree with you if you (or anyone) could help me understand what you are seeing that I am not.
The only difference I do se is that you can't create an intentionally weak PC. I have never understood why it was more a more "genuine" roleplay experience to play a PC that the party would then need to carry through every combat encounter.
To me roleplaying is what you do with the character regardless of its strengths or weaknesses.
Agreed. Hence I was telling bleach that roleplay is everything possible instead of everything powerful.
4th Ed is talking about D&D being a RP game (and spent a few pages on it) but instead advocates power...and more power.
PS: I mean overall the rules ain't that bad and still possible for a good game but nature of it is different. Unless the player had been a experienced RPG gamer, the game will become another MTG or DDM.
I don't see where this expectation would have come from.
Apparently it comes from people who haven't been reading every scrap of data about 4th and are just going off of the initial announcements. My players hears "4e is like an MMO" and they said "hey, I know how to play MMOs." and that's what they came in to do.
All I'm trying to say is that those of us who are promoting 4e as being favorable to RP need to be aware of potential (and unexpected) resistance from some players who may just be assuming their isn't roleplay involved.
You don't have to defend the game any more, Cross. I agree that it's a misperception from my players and not a fault of the game. If you don't think that's a valid warning, or think that it doesn't apply to your group, that's okay too.
|
|
If CWM would concede one negative aspect of the new edition, i would salt and eat a city bus.
I see many negative aspects to the rules in 4e.
1) They went too far in the simplification of the skill system. I like the fact that they dropped skill points but the skills themselves are too broad in my opinion.
2) The core PHB should have included the druid. Until the next PHB comes along it will be difficult to run any kind of wilderness campaign.
3) I do not use traps in my homebrew (not much anyway) but the lack of trap creation rules is a bit problematic.
4) Auras are going to be a booking keeping nightmare. I like the granted bonuses that are targeted because they can be tracked with some form of object but the general auras and their ranges are going to be a pain.
5) The "prime shot" class feature (like the aura) will be the most forgotten bonus on the table. The could have saved space and removed that one.
I am sure there are more. I am no cheerleader - I just can't stomach disinformation.
|
|
4th Ed is talking about D&D being a RP game (and spent a few pages on it) but instead advocates power...and more power.
And the players need it. My group thought their characters were "too powerful" when we started H1 and then they got the living crap kicked out of them by a handful of kobolds.
Power is relative. Yes a 4e PC seems more powerful and yet they seem to die just as easily as their 3e analogs.
And power does not prevent roleplaying.
|
|
My players hears "4e is like an MMO" and they said "hey, I know how to play MMOs." and that's what they came in to do.
This is my point - WotC never said that 4e is like an MMORPG.
You don't have to defend the game any more, Cross. I agree that it's a misperception from my players and not a fault of the game.
It's cool. I agree with your premise - I just don't hold WotC responsible.
|
|
Bleach, what is roleplaying?...
To me, roleplaying is taking on the life of a character. Questions that ask "How do you respond to X" help a person to know their character.
That to me is roleplaying. Saying "I have skill points in Craft" don't indicate roleplaying (otherwise you're basically saying that if you pick a fighter, you're not intersting in roleplaying)
For example, the paragraps you listed of the dwarf I thought were brilliant since to a new player, it gives you a clear idea as to what not only the expected dwarf acts like but also what an OUTCAST dwarf (said dwarf can be the one that has killed an elder etc...)
Now here's two questions.
In the 3E PHB, exactly what section/mechanic actually encourages roleplaying but more imprtanty, waht do YOU consider rolelaying?
:) right...so what does the rest of the book do?
Btw, is your knowledge limited to 3E and only D&D? Have you played 1st Ed? 2nd Ed? Exalted? Weapons of the Gods? Qin? Warhammer RPG?
Do you know that in Exalted there's such things as penalties? Likewise in Qin?
What were the reasons that WoTC gave for revamping to 4th Ed? Better RP?
Anyway, my earlier post mentioned, the only rule that I need to RP is "Pretend..." It's like acting and I need not act the most powerful and successful to be a good actor/actress but the rules gravitate towards the character to be more powerful (better than an average person...), more successful and all the bells and whistles.
Not that it isn't any good (please reread my earlier postings) but it ain't practising what it is trying to preach.
A question: Why is it so bad that a wizard has limited spells during low level? Does the game grind to a stop if the wizard can't cast any more spells? The player doesn't know what else to do?
Why does the fighter need more at-will abilities to have a fun and illustrative fight? Is it because the player cannot properly describe a fight and hence it devolves into a typical hack-&-slash? Lacking imagination?
DM: Before you stands a savage troll barring your entry to the cathedral whereby the priestess is being ravaged by a mad noble. What will you do?
Player 1: Attack!
Player 2: Oops! My wizard is out of spells. Guess I have to stand back and watch.
DM: Okie, roll your dies
/*Hack and slash....hack and slash*/
DM: Okie, the troll falls dead after 10 rounds of battle.
Player 1: Alright! Troll falls to my mighty dice rolling!
Player 2: /*Stiffling a yawn*/ Okie, let's go; lead and I'll follow.
So what did the WoTC people do to rectify this? Add more powers and at-will abilities
DM: Before you stands a savage troll barring your entry to the cathedral whereby the priestess is being ravaged by a mad noble. What will you do?
Player 1: Attack with cleave!
Player 2: Attack with unlimited magic missile!
DM: Okie, roll your dies
/*Next round*/
Player 1: Not dead yet? Ok! Attack with reaping strike!
Player 2: Use thunderwave to try to push the troll over the bridge! Hahaha....
/*Hack and slash....hack and slash in a different manner*/
DM: Okie, the troll falls dead after 10 rounds of battle.
Player 1: Alright! Troll falls to my mighty dice rolling!
Player 2: And mine too!!
How about this?
DM: Before you stands a savage troll barring your entry to the cathedral whereby the priestess is being ravaged by a mad noble. What will you do?
Player 1: I draw my sword to attack! Elaine, no time to waste! Our prietess is being violated by that evil fiend!
Player 2: Wait Roy! I know you love her but heading in recklessly will be suicidal! You can't hurt the troll enough to slay it. My mentor once told me the troll is able to mend its wound!
Player 1: No time for that! Stay with me or get out of my way!
Player 2: D@mn! I'm out of spells!
DM: Okie, roll your dies
/*Next round*/
Player 1: Gasping...blood oozing from various wounds...i can't last much longer and the troll had healed all its wounds!
Player 2: What can i do? Think! Well, we don't need to kill it; just need to get it out of the way. DM, I'm grabbing the rope from my bag, skirting around the melee fight between Roy and the troll and try to entangle the troll's legs and make it fall over the bridge!
DM: Okie, give it a shot!
/* internally, DM felt that this is a good approach to solving the battle and wonderful RP involved. The god (or dm) is smiling and is fated to be successful */
DM: Roll your d20 adding your dex bonus. The DC is 10 only as the troll isn't paying you any attention
Success!
DM: Okie, the rope caught around the legs of the troll and it stumbled, tottering at the end of the bridge trying to regain its footing or otherwise falling 100 feet into the crevasse.
Player 1: Die! DM, Roy, in his frenzy, rushes forward to give the troll a shaft!
DM: In your mad rush, the troll outstretched arms bearhugged Roy in an embrace of death!
Player 2: Noooo!!
Player 1: Can I struggle out?
DM: Try to pit your strength against the troll
/* Die rolls...failed */
DM: Sorry, the troll had a grip of steel and you're unable to break free...
Player 1: Sigh...no worries. Roy screamed at the top of his voice and stabs his sword downwards into the troll's eye "Die you fiend!" Falling, Roy looked over to Elaine and pleaded "Save her..." and disappears over the edge.
Player 2: I swear to the gods....I will....
Well? 4th Ed can also do this? Right. I agree but does it encourage this? How does it solve the hack & slash problem? What is it trying to emulate? MMORPG? No spells equate boring game? Fighter boring as it can only hack and then slash?
Sigh....
|
|
4th Ed is talking about D&D being a RP game (and spent a few pages on it) but instead advocates power...and more power.And the players need it. My group thought their characters were "too powerful" when we started H1 and then they got the living crap kicked out of them by a handful of kobolds.
Power is relative. Yes a 4e PC seems more powerful and yet they seem to die just as easily as their 3e analogs.
And power does not prevent roleplaying.
So it advocates a upward spiral of more powers to spice the game right?
CWM, 4th ed is not bad nor broken (i had said it before) but this thread is about RP in 4th ED...it can exist (depends really on players if they wanted to) in 4th ED but this edition doesn't lean towards it. WoTC looks at the problems of pen-and-paper RPG and felt that too few people are able to RP. So how to compensate for it? Give the game system more power. Emulate a console or PC game...
The audience of pen-&-paper gaming is shrinking as people are not inclined towards RP. So how to entrall? Give it more power and make it more accessible and more bells and whistles and more flashes...more HPs more levels....more this and that...RP? Did it try to resolve the RP issue?
|
|
mousey,
Some people actually like to play hack'n'slash. I do not find it to suit my personal tastes and I won't slight those that enjoy it. WotC has to deal with that reality as well. They can't take D&D and make it the Adventure of Baron Munchhausen.
WotC is trying to design a version of D&D that will appeal to all of the people that play it. I do not envy them in that regard.
|
|
mousey,
Some people actually like to play hack'n'slash. I do not find it to suit my personal tastes and I won't slight those that enjoy it. WotC has to deal with that reality as well. They can't take D&D and make it the Adventure of Baron Munchhausen.
WotC is trying to design a version of D&D that will appeal to all of the people that play it. I do not envy them in that regard.
Neither do i dispute that CWM...WoTC do what it needs to do and hence 4th ED. It's not bad and its not broken (thus far based on my limited play and knowledge after reading it extensively) but it doesn't solve the RP issue.
Question of this thread: Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed?
My answer: To clarify, its not a bad edition; kinda fun but it doesn't advocate RP. Players can still do RP (remember my motto, the only rule required for RP is "Pretend..." or imagine) but the rules do not gravitate towards RP.
Envy them? They're just making a living...just like in every industry of work...they're not doing it out of goodwill dude :)
Neither do i dispute that CWM...WoTC do what it needs to do and hence 4th ED. It's not bad and its not broken (thus far based on my limited play and knowledge after reading it extensively) but it doesn't solve the RP issue.
Question of this thread: Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed?
My answer: To clarify, its not a bad edition; kinda fun but it doesn't advocate RP. Players can still do RP (remember my motto, the only rule required for RP is "Pretend..." or imagine) but the rules do not gravitate towards RP.
Envy them? They're just making a living...just like in every industry of work :)
Based on your definition mousey, I'm not sure I'd say any edition of DnD (that I'm familiar with) really supported RPing. Which, of course, is a claim that many people hold to.
Is that close to your claim?
Contributor
|
Mousey, I understand your point but I do have one counterpoint.
Of your three examples, the second one reads like a more fun roleplay experience than the second. The first one really is more or less what 3E supports in terms of what the rules give you. The second one is what 4E supports in terms of what the rules give you. I'm not saying that the second example is an in depth roleplay immersion or think outside the box scenario, but it's a big step up, which to me indicates that 4E does support roleplaying more than 3E. The third example is not really supported by either rules set, although it is by other games (7th Sea comes to mind).
So by your example 4E seems to support RP through its system more than 3E.
|
|
CWM, 4th ed is not bad nor broken (i had said it before) but this thread is about RP in 4th ED...it can exist (depends really on players if they wanted to) in 4th ED but this edition doesn't lean towards it.
I don't really see it that way. 4e has more content on how to roleplay then I have seen in any previous edition. The mechanics have a real flow to them. It feels less like a wargame than 3e. In 3e it was all about know the rules and in 4e it feels like it is more important to know your character and its role in the group.
What specifically do you see in 3e that makes that edition lean more towards roleplaying than 4e?
Mousey, I understand your point but I do have one counterpoint.
Of your three examples, the second one reads like a more fun roleplay experience than the second. The first one really is more or less what 3E supports in terms of what the rules give you. The second one is what 4E supports in terms of what the rules give you. I'm not saying that the second example is an in depth roleplay immersion or think outside the box scenario, but it's a big step up, which to me indicates that 4E does support roleplaying more than 3E. The third example is not really supported by either rules set, although it is by other games (7th Sea comes to mind).
So by your example 4E seems to support RP through its system more than 3E.
It seems we read the examples provided the same way scribe! :)
I like your avatar btw. Hopefully Roy shows up again eventually ... (sorry for OT)
|
|
Neither do i dispute that CWM...WoTC do what it needs to do and hence 4th ED. It's not bad and its not broken (thus far based on my limited play and knowledge after reading it extensively) but it doesn't solve the RP issue.
Question of this thread: Why do you think RP has no place in 4th Ed?
My answer: To clarify, its not a bad edition; kinda fun but it doesn't advocate RP. Players can still do RP (remember my motto, the only rule required for RP is "Pretend..." or imagine) but the rules do not gravitate towards RP.
Envy them? They're just making a living...just like in every industry of work :)
Based on your definition mousey, I'm not sure I'd say any edition of DnD (that I'm familiar with) really supported RPing. Which, of course, is a claim that many people hold to.
Is that close to your claim?
I've gamed for more than 25 years and started with the basic red box of D&D so I guess I can be in a position to comment right? :)
Anything can support RP. All you need is pretend/imagine, tell a story.
I started RP with only teddy bears and dolls and RP with my younger bro even before D&D (i guess nearly all kids can do that :>)
D&D was made to define a rule system for RP (hence its a RPG). So is D&D any good at it in all its incarnations? I guess it really depends on the designers intent...if it supports RP, then i guess it should be fine but if its there to replace the lack of RP, well then the thread speaks for itself.
Of course I can still tell a good story with 4th ed rules; what's to stop me right? I'm the player. I'm alive and the book is dead. The thread's question is whether RP has a place in 4th ed. That's when we explore the intent of 4th ed...is it there to support RP or to do a cover up for a lack of RP?
|
|
So I guess how 4th Ed is perceived is every person's medicine or poison to RP. I've no issue with that :)
To some, more definition is good. To others, indiana jones didn't have cleave nor at-will magic missile but its always high adventure for him (in the temple of doom, at one stage, he didn't even have his trusty whip and gun) through his ingenuity and luck (a possible 5th ed stat?)
example 2 is more 4th ed and some loves it. No prob. Example 3 is neither 2nd, 3rd nor 4th. The rules supported RP when its required. Not intrusive but supportive.
WoTC publicised reasons for 4th ed is to fix broken rules, streamline gameplay, balance up play across all levels (hence there's always some spells for a 1st level wizard to cast) and add more oomph into play.
So does RP has a place in 4th ed? The only thing RP needs is "pretend"/"imagine" and any rule system is there to support it but not to replace it. So what do I think about 4th ed and RP? I believe that the 4th Ed rules does not gravitate or lean towards RP. It seeks to use flashy powers to replace it or to cover up the lack of it.
So is it bad? Like what CWM said, some people love it. I've no quarrel with that.
4th Ed is neither bad nor broken (as far as I know now...). It just doesn't solve RP from the move.
|
|
That's when we explore the intent of 4th ed...is it there to support RP or to do a cover up for a lack of RP?All roleplaying games lack roleplaying - roleplaying is all in the use of the game and not in the game itself.
True :) but does the game want to support RP?
Anyway, what's your definition of RP? Maybe we're going around in circles cos our definition differs :)
|
|
I've never really equated the Profession/Craft skills as "roleplaying skills" but accounting skills.
And to add to this - I've never really understood why I needed rules for these anyways. I guess it's because there's a bit of munchkin in ALL of us, and without having LIMITING rules, we'll all be trying to turn our Profession: Poodle Trimmer into some sort of bonus To Hit/DMG vs. Dragons (...since I am a master Poodle Trimmer, I should be able to evaluate exactly where to give this beast a perfect trim, exposing its vital organs to my weapon; not only will it be dead, but it will look mahvelous...)
|
|
Anyway, what's your definition of RP? Maybe we're going around in circles cos our definition differs :)My definition of roleplaying is pretending to be someone else.
Well, that fits my bill too.
A diff between 3rd ed and 4th ed is at-will abilities (its these differences that define 4th ed right?). Does at-will ability help you to pretend to be someone else? If so, then for you (bold and underline the words "for you") 4th ed supports RP.
But what is my case thus far? Does it gravitate towards RP? Will a new player feel that at-will abilities help him to RP or to give him more power to achieve something? Why? Conversely, does the absence of at-will abilities restrict/reduce your RP? If not, how can it support RP?
Anyway, there's no end to this. Let's just say that rules are there to define our RP. Too little and its mayhem and too much it becomes focused on the rules and players become powerplaying (PP) instead of roleplaying (RP).
My definition of roleplaying is pretending to be someone else.
Well, that fits my bill too.
A diff between 3rd ed and 4th ed is at-will abilities (its these differences that define 4th ed right?). Does at-will ability help you to pretend to be someone else? If so, then for you (bold and underline the words "for you") 4th ed supports RP.
But what is my case thus far? Does it gravitate towards RP? Will a new player feel that at-will abilities help him to RP or to give him more power to achieve something? Why? Conversely, does the absence of at-will abilities restrict/reduce your RP? If not, how can it support RP?
I have two answers for you mousey.
First, based on your definitions, I would think the only rules you'd accept as supportive of RPing would be extremely free form. A really basic resolution mechanic but otherwise no set in stone abilities right?
Secondly, 4E does contain rules for such things. The acrobatics skill, for example, has rules for making up acrobatic stunts which the DM sets a DC for and you roll against. In the DMG there are likewise passages about players performing crazy moves, with the advice being "generally, if players ask if they can do something, say yes!"
It is advice like that that really makes 4E seem compatible to RPing, but I think your definition and my definition of RPing does not exactly equate.
Cheers! :)
|
|
Well, that fits my bill too.Anyway, what's your definition of RP? Maybe we're going around in circles cos our definition differs :)My definition of roleplaying is pretending to be someone else.
Cool.
A diff between 3rd ed and 4th ed is at-will abilities (its these differences that define 4th ed right?). Does at-will ability help you to pretend to be someone else? If so, then for you (bold and underline the words "for you") 4th ed supports RP.
But what is my case thus far? Does it gravitate towards RP? Will a new player feel that at-will abilities help him to RP or to give him more power to achieve something? Why? Conversely, does the absence of at-will abilities restrict/reduce your RP? If not, how can it support RP?
The presence of one type of mechanic versus another has nothing to do with the fact that i am pretending to be someone else. The mechanic may change my understanding of the nature of the world and of magic but that will not stop me from roleplaying nor will it particularly encourage it. It may give me an idea of what my alter ego is like and what his role may be in relation to others but it will not stop me from roleplaying.
Anyway, there's no end to this. Let's just say that rules are there to define our RP. Too little and its mayhem and too much it becomes focused on the rules and players become powerplaying (PP) instead of roleplaying (RP).
My experience does not bear this out. I have played games with complex mechanics that still had tremendous rolplaying experiences. I have also played really dull games that had very few rules because the people involved were just not that into it.
Roleplaying comes from what we do with what we have. I do not see it as cause and effect.
Except that the only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.Teleport - verbal only. Time Stop - verbal only. DC25 Concentration check? I don't even have to roll. DC29? Same - no roll.
Time stop, teleport, force cage, dead fighter.
No he touches the force cage with a rod of absorption or he teleports out. What was found with the arena was that the three quarters of a million gp worth of magical gear was a lot better at stopping the ill effects of magic mind blank, spell storing, freedom of movement, stuff that gives extra saves etc. then it was at stopping you from just being whacked by a magic sword for an obscene amount of damage.
I don't think I'll have a problem. I could probably roleplay with a deck of playing cards and VCR instructions.-Threadjack:
Hey, back in the days I used the instructions for my Tape Recorder as a mission brief for some Troubleshooters in Paranoia. Just put the thing on the table. No other information available. Needless to say almost all clones died before they even knew what their mission was...
Lol.
Paranoia could really be a brilliant game. It was hard to work into a campaign or anything however. Hard to beat as a one off at a convention however.