|
If all you ever read (or quote) is that one paragraph you will miss the larger point - fun is relative and you should play in whatever style your particular group defines as fun. They are being descriptive not prescriptive.
And by focusing on any quote alone, you miss the larger point of the conceptual design of 4E, which defines fun very narrowly as anything that is tactical, in essence. (Let alone the fact that you assume I read that passage alone in the first place - how is this supposed to make me feel respected and welcome in this debate?)
I mean, I don't mind debate, but in one case I don't quote and express a large point to be criticized for not doing so, and in the other I quote and get accused of not seeing the larger picture. It really leaves a bad taste of "4E can do no wrong" in my mouth.
Point is, 4E defines "fun" very much. After, anyone has the choice to like or dislike this definition as presented by the game itself - and there's no morally wrong choice to make, really.
People use encumbrance?
I try to keep my characters within the bounds of encumbrance, but otherwise, no our group ignores it completely. The same applies to the tracking of non-magical ammunition, and food and water. We just don't care really (although of course, adventures based on the scarcity of those resources would likely bring them to the forefront again!)
Cheers! :)
And by focusing on any quote alone, you miss the larger point of the conceptual design of 4E, which defines fun very narrowly as anything that is tactical, in essence. (Let alone the fact that you assume I read that passage alone in the first place - how is this supposed to make me feel respected in this debate?)
I mean, I don't mind debate, but in one case I don't quote and express a large point to be criticized for not doing so, and in the other I quote and get accused of not seeing the larger picture. It really leaves a bad taste of "4E can do no wrong" in my mouth.
Point is, 4E defines "fun" very much. After, anyone has the choice to like or dislike this definition as presented by the game itself - and there's no morally wrong choice to make, really.
I agree with you Red, you do miss the forest for the trees by focusing on one quote alone. Which is why I completely disagree on your assertation that 4E defines only tactical encounters as fun! I wish I could offer some more quotes up. I don't want to make assumptions based on how much of the DMG you've read, but check it out. I barely read two chapters and there was ALL types of stuff that I thought sounded extremely cool ... and stuff that I know would put my group to sleep.
It takes all types, and the 4E DMG fully acknowledges that.
Cheers! :)
|
If all you ever read (or quote) is that one paragraph you will miss the larger point - fun is relative and you should play in whatever style your particular group defines as fun. They are being descriptive not prescriptive.And by focusing on any quote alone, you miss the larger point of the conceptual design of 4E, which defines fun very narrowly as anything that is tactical, in essence.
I disagree. Rituals are not tactical. Most skills have plenty of non-tactical uses. Quests are not tactical. And most importantly roleplaying is not tactical.
People use encumbrance?I try to keep my characters within the bounds of encumbrance, but otherwise, no our group ignores it completely. The same applies to the tracking of non-magical ammunition, and food and water. We just don't care really (although of course, adventures based on the scarcity of those resources would likely bring them to the forefront again!)
Cheers! :)
That's what I do, too. I've tracked mundane resources for those adventures where it's a factor, like long wilderness or desert treks, but that's about it. No one likes recording weight and I've seen sessions back in the day devolve as we tried to figure out how much we were carrying, referencing character sheets and the party loot list. We just agreed, amongst ourselves, that encumbrance was one of those things that's nice to talk about but the ultimate in buzz kill to do.
|
|
I disagree. Rituals are not tactical. Most skills have plenty of non-tactical uses. Quests are not tactical. And most importantly roleplaying is not tactical.
1/ Rituals cover 20 pages at the end of the PHB. Among these pages, many rituals do have tactical uses. Silence, Water Walk, "View" rituals, among others.
2/ Skills have more tactical uses than not. The chapter is 13 pages long.3/ Quests cover goals, not (tactical) means to reach that goal. I would argue that, in the hands of the wrong DM, quests can railroad and inhibit the side-treks that provide mundane role-playing encounters, as I was talking about in earlier posts on this thread. Rather than talking to the fool of the village to try to find out what's going on here, you have a clear idea of where to go, what to accomplish. There are of course some ways in which this inhibition does not happen! But again, what matters is what the noob does with these rules, not what veterans understand by virtue of being veterans.
4/ And most importantly, role-playing as such is not covered by rules mechanics. Role-playing is discussed in the books, but not to the extent tactical situations are. Not by a long shot.
Hence our disagreement here.
I just want to precise: I do not, repeat, do not think 4E sucks. It doesn't. It is a rules system that is tailored for a precise, tactical, gameplay, however, in which role-playing is not on the forefront, but rather a side dish. That's my point.
PS: Ergo, I disagree that role-playing has "no place" in 4E. That is way too much of an overstatement.
There are no Craft or Profession skills in 4th ed. 3.5 had rules for starting and running businesses / having a life (and income) outside of adventuring. The new rules cover destroying pretty much anything your character encounters but not one sentence, in any of the three core books, instructs you on how to create something.
Unless you count creating magical items; Have components? Have feat? POOF. Item. Congrats.
Bards have been mentioned. That class is based around having a skill many "adventurers" would consider useless: creating music. Outside of combat, in a town, they had a way to earn income and keep a roof over their heads. The other characters did not inherently possess that type of ability.
I've read more than a few comments from WotC's development team that stated, in no uncertain terms, that they thought DnD was about adventure and not about mundane experiences like haggling over the price of a room. I agree with them. However, the option to engage in the exchange of services not directly related to "kill creatures and collect reward" should never have been abandoned.
Does role playing have a place in 4th edition? Yes. Your PC still has the ability to speak and that is really all you need to engage in social exchange. But there used to be many other avenues a player could explore within a given community that are now absent the game. I, for one, will be house ruling them back in as soon as I can decide on the mechanics.
I've never been of the school of thought that you need a bunch of rules for the roleplaying aspects of the games. I started with 1e AD&D, which isn't heavy on the RP rules, and those groups were some of the best RP-deep groups I ever played with. 3.5 has more rules regarding things like RP-type skills, and while in some ways those were good in other ways I think they stymied roleplaying because they establish a set of boundaries around roleplaying.
It seems like people who started with 3.X are more inclined to feel that you need to have RP rules to really have RP. At least, that's been my personal observation. I've had many of my best RP sessions using editions that don't have RP rules.
I've never been of the school of thought that you need a bunch of rules for the roleplaying aspects of the games. I started with 1e AD&D, which isn't heavy on the RP rules, and those groups were some of the best RP-deep groups I ever played with. 3.5 has more rules regarding things like RP-type skills, and while in some ways those were good in other ways I think they stymied roleplaying because they establish a set of boundaries around roleplaying.
It seems like people who started with 3.X are more inclined to feel that you need to have RP rules to really have RP. At least, that's been my personal observation. I've had many of my best RP sessions using editions that don't have RP rules.
Steerpike7 has a very good point. When we played 2E, we had an cleric in your party who was also a barber, and an NPC wizard who was also a medic.
On 3E/3.5E, the chances of having a PC with a profession as background are much smaller. You know why? Because you need to spend skill points in order to have a profession. In other words - to be anything else than an adventurer, you need to sacrifice your capability as adventurer. In other words: you are penalizing roleplaying and a good background, rather than encouraging it.
A cleric with a barber background would be indeed rare, since clerics already have so few skill points, and some things the party will almost certainly count them to have - Relligion, Spellcraft, Concentration. A wizard medic? Woops, Heal isn't a class skill for wizards.
|
|
It seems like people who started with 3.X are more inclined to feel that you need to have RP rules to really have RP. At least, that's been my personal observation. I've had many of my best RP sessions using editions that don't have RP rules.
Just to precise, in case this refers partially to my arguments: my point that RP is not covered by rules isn't to say that because it wouldn't, it would not be RP. It is to point out that saying "role-playing isn't tactical" doesn't explain anything as to the intent and concepts behind the rules' design. It is at best suggested by design, and in this case, I don't see examples that would foster role-playing at the game table. If you have some as it pertains to 4e, with page references, I would be grateful. Really.
RP can be discussed at length in a Role-playing game, too. I would point out games such as Changeling: The Lost and other White Wolf games for such a point (and no, I'm not a big fan of "RP is superior to all" approach of the hardcore WW dicks).
And for the record, I started gaming with AD&D, First edition, back in the 80's.
|
|
1/ Rituals cover 20 pages at the end of the PHB. Among these pages, many rituals do have tactical uses. Silence, Water Walk, "View" rituals, among others.
Just because the rules are only 20 pages does not mean that rituals are a small part of the game. Heck the combat rules are just 30 pages long.
Furthermore, just because a ritual may end up having a tactical use does not mean that they are in essence a tactical aspect of the game. Using that logic all of the rules in 3.5 are tactical (short of some profession and craft skills and even then you could argue they have an impact).
2/ Skills have more tactical uses than not. The chapter is 13 pages long.
This is going to be true for any mechanic - tactical use requires rules to adjudicate tactical resolution. Use in non-tactical situations have far fewer mechanical requirements.
3/ Quests cover goals, not (tactical) means to reach that goal. I would argue that, in the hands of the wrong DM, quests can railroad and inhibit the side-treks that provide mundane role-playing encounters, as I was talking about in earlier posts on this thread. Rather than talking to the fool of the village to try to find out what's going on here, you have a clear idea of where to go, what to accomplish. There are of course some ways in which this inhibition does not happen! But again, what matters is what the noob does with these rules, not what veterans understand by virtue of being veterans.
It does not matter how much priority is placed on roleplay vs tactical rules - a bad GM will ruin the experience.
4/ And most importantly, role-playing as such is not covered by rules mechanics. Role-playing is discussed in the books, but not to the extent tactical situations are. Not by a long shot.
... and how is that different from any other version of D&D? The core rules have always focused on ... well ... rules. Since rules tend to be used for the resolution of tactical situations then every version of D&D can be said to focus on the tactical far more than the non-tactical.
I just want to precise: I do not, repeat, do not think 4E sucks. It doesn't. It is a rules system that is tailored for a precise, tactical, gameplay, however, in which role-playing is not on the forefront, but rather a side dish. That's my point.
If roleplaying is a side dish in 4e because of the space dedicated to tactical rules then all versions of D&D consider roleplaying to be a side dish for the exact same reason.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've never been of the school of thought that you need a bunch of rules for the roleplaying aspects of the games. I started with 1e AD&D, which isn't heavy on the RP rules, and those groups were some of the best RP-deep groups I ever played with. 3.5 has more rules regarding things like RP-type skills, and while in some ways those were good in other ways I think they stymied roleplaying because they establish a set of boundaries around roleplaying.
Excellent observation. Yes.
Back (waaaay back) when 1st Edition introduced non-weapon proficiencies (NWPs), I figured that they weakened characters. Why? Because before the DSG and WSG, if you wanted to, say, swim across a lake or light a campfire, you just did so. The game system had been silent on those actions, and "Conan could do it", so your PC could, as well.
Once Swimming and Fire Building were in the rules, however, you had to invest in those NWPs in order to do stuff everybody used to be able to do.
The same is true with some of the social skills. If you want to impress the Prince, and the game system has a Diplomacy skill, you'd better have it. If you need to know trivia about the Prince, and the game system has a Knowledge (nobility) skill, you'd better have ranks in it, too.
(There were indeed rules in 1st Edition for social interactions with NPC's, q.v. "Treglesh Mul." Those rules mostly involved bribery.)
On the other hand, the Bluff / Sense Motive skills are nice to have, because they give good game mechanics for things that PC's have always wanted to do ("lie to the guards") but which have been hard to adjudicate.
RP can be discussed at length in a Role-playing game, too. I would point out games such as Changeling: The Lost and other White Wolf games for such a point (and no, I'm not a big fan of "RP is superior to all" approach of the hardcore WW dicks).
And for the record, I started gaming with AD&D, First edition, back in the 80's.
I'm curious to know - what in the 1E or 3.5E core books that so strongly encourage role-playing?
If a person is a D&D noob, and she reads the 3.5E PHB, is she going to have the impression that the game is almost entirely focused on role-playing and the tactical aspect is secundary? That's weird, because I had the impression that more than 90% of the 3.5E PHB/DMG are focused on exploration, challenges, and of course, a lot of combat. Almost all pictures from the 3.5E PHB/DMG show characters either making badass poses with their weapons, or slaughtering monsters.
|
|
The diplomacy skill is a puzzle. On the one hand it does add roleplaying flavor to a character. On the other hand it is no substitute for the player's ability to roleplay a diplomatic situation. There have been times when I had wished the two would be in sync. A player that is well spoken with a low diplomacy modifier can't influence the situation where a diplomacy check is required. A socially awkward, or introverted player with a high diplomacy is less likely to roleplay, and is more likely to just want to roll the die.
As to craft, profession, and earning a living in D&D. I do that everyday in real life. I have no interest in adding that to my gaming life. I would rather include background about a character's trades or professions. Heck, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (which I enjoy far more than 3e or 4e) every character has a profession, but that is what they do while they are not adventuring. Once the game starts then the professions are set to the side (for the most part) and the PCs head out on an adventure.
|
|
How does the fact, or lack thereof, that any previous edition would encourage RP more or less than 4E discuss the merits of 4E itself? I just don't understand the eagerness to compare editions with regards to the arguments at hand.
Crosswiredmind, specifically: I saw you complain to feel "unwelcome" here. I just want to say that as of this moment, I have not read you make any compromise on any criticism about 4E yet. Ever. I bet this participates to the reactions many have towards your posts, because I know it makes me feel like talking to a wall who basically would do and write anything to defend 4E. Why are you doing this? What's the point?
What do you dislike about 4E, for instance? I'd like to know. A new thread for you to create, perhaps? A bit of nuance would be welcome and would greatly add to the credibility of your arguments (in my eyes at leat. Not that it matters much, but at least you're aware of it, now).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As to craft, profession, and earning a living in D&D. I do that everyday in real life. I have no interest in adding that to my gaming life.... Once the game starts then the professions are set to the side (for the most part) and the PCs head out on an adventure.
I'm a big fan for keeping background skills, in some modified form.
I think my concern with the 3.5 background skills is that the very fact that they have ranks. Let's say I have a character with a background in brewing. This has myriad trivial effects on the campaign (a DM might allow him a Profession (brewer) roll to see if he notices that the ale in our favorite tavern has changed, or to grow suspicious of the dwarven spy we caught with elvish wine in his wineskin...), fine.
But what's the difference between two ranks in Profession (brewer) versus four ranks, or eight? The same with Craft (cartwright).
Maybe there should be only one rank (like in languages). Or maybe there should be two or three ranks: apprentice, journeyman, and master / connosiour (and the same could be done with languages: literate, fluent, native).
|
|
How does the fact, or lack thereof, that any previous edition would encourage RP more or less than 4E discuss the merits of 4E itself? I just don't understand the eagerness to compare editions with regards to the arguments at hand.
Crosswiredmind, specifically: I saw you complain to feel "unwelcome" here. I just want to say that as of this moment, I have not read you make any compromise on any criticism about 4E yet. Ever. I bet this participates to the reactions many have towards your posts, because I know it makes me feel like talking to a wall who basically would do and write anything to defend 4E. Why are you doing this? What's the point?
What do you dislike about 4E, for instance? I'd like to know. A new thread for you to create, perhaps? A bit of nuance would be welcome and would greatly add to the credibility of your arguments (in my eyes at leat. Not that it matters much, but at least you're aware of it, now).
In this very thread I posted some of the things i dislike.
Here is a repost for ya:
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.
|
|
I am sure there are more. I am no cheerleader - I just can't stomach disinformation.
Thanks. It's just that the cheerleader aspect is so overwhelming, it's hard to not consider your posts as trolls sometimes. Really. I'm trying to inform you, not offend you. I'm sorry if it does.
Now, I hope you don't consider my posts to be "disinformation". Do you? Maybe that's part of the problem.
Contributor
|
How does the fact, or lack thereof, that any previous edition would encourage RP more or less than 4E discuss the merits of 4E itself? I just don't understand the eagerness to compare editions with regards to the arguments at hand.
This is a simple result of the fact that so many people on these boards (not you) are trashing 4E in comparison to 3E. There are multiple posts to the effect of "I'll stick with 3E because 4E removed all elements of role-play from D&D"
Not that this is a direct quote. I'm sure I wouldn't have to look far to find one if you want. My assumption has always been that this is essentially the false comparison that the OP was questioning.
|
|
This is a simple result of the fact that so many people on these boards (not you) are trashing 4E in comparison to 3E. There are multiple posts to the effect of "I'll stick with 3E because 4E removed all elements of role-play from D&D"
Not that this is a direct quote. I'm sure I wouldn't have to look far to find one if you want. My assumption has always been that this is essentially the false comparison that the OP was questioning.
I see. Now, for the record, I consider the "I'll stick with 3E because 4E removed all elements of role-play from D&D" to be factually wrong. Role-play does have a place in 4E. I just happen to think it is also factually wrong to pretend it is on the forefront of the game's design.
|
|
I am sure there are more. I am no cheerleader - I just can't stomach disinformation.Thanks. It's just that the cheerleader aspect is so overwhelming, it's hard to not consider your posts as trolls sometimes. Really. I'm trying to inform you, not offend you. I'm sorry if it does.
Now, I hope you don't consider my posts to be "disinformation". Do you? Maybe that's part of the problem.
Oh, no. Not at all. That was a part of the earlier post.
I think you have some legitimate points and to some extent I agree with much of what you have been saying. My point is that roleplaying games (apart from those that are incredibly rules light) will always appear to emphasize the tactical over the situational or even roleplaying itself.
I do not see 4e as any more or less tactically driven than any other RPG with a similar amount of mechanics.
How does the fact, or lack thereof, that any previous edition would encourage RP more or less than 4E discuss the merits of 4E itself? I just don't understand the eagerness to compare editions with regards to the arguments at hand.
Well, because this thread is about discussing the claim that 4E has less of an RP focus than 3E. If you're trying to say "4E doesn't focus very heavily on RP, just like pretty much any edition of DnD", well ... yeah. 4E IS still DnD, with much of the same tendencies of gameplay that all editions have had over the years. RP is there, no doubt, but I don't know that it has ever been a majority part of any DnD book that I've read.
Cheers! :)
|
|
I do not see 4e as any more or less tactically driven than any other RPG with a similar amount of mechanics.
I think you do have a point to say that many RPGs don't focus much more than 4E on role-playing itself. Warhammer, previous editions of D&D, etc. come to my mind.
There are games that focus much more on role-playing though. I mentioned Changeling: The Lost as an example, and I would hardly consider it "rules light". That's often a misconception about WW games.
Its mechanics are often closely related to what the player role-plays, and how he ends up role-playing his character though (the connection to faerie, for instance, affects how you feel about the world around you, how you connect with it, how of a loner you feel, etc).
Same could be said about relationships between Blood Potency, clan, disciplines and the way you actually role-play your character in Vampire: The Requiem.
The big difference I see, here, is the level of abstraction that is up a notch in 4E. The fact that level would affect the confidence of your character, his way he relates to those around him, his place in the world, and most importantly, how to decline this in many different ways while building and developing your character, are not the focus of 4E, whereas it actually is in a game like Changeling.
It probably has to do with ideas like "it's not what you are that matters, it's what you do" that influenced this in 4E like it did in Iron Heroes before. It sounds like a cool idea at first, but when you focus on what a character does, you effectively focus on the rules (particularly when differences between options are subtle) at the expense of anything that is not covered by rules.
So while you do have a point as it relates to previous editions of D&D, I do not think you can generalize to "any other RPG".
I do believe that 4E is more tactical than any other previous edition, though. Its focus is more on the neat tricks you do while playing the game rather than immerse yourself in make-believe. It's the powers, the feats, the "did I mark this guy? Do I use my Daily Prayer now or next round?" aspects that the game thrives to make exciting. It's its focus. Not how to role-play a character in the most exciting ways or come up with the most interesting character concepts.
I believe that 3e encouraged the players to think more outside of the box, honestly, and focussed more on character concepts than tactical roles by the concept of prestige classes, the selection of feats, the repartition of skill points, and these dozens of tiny things that would give volume to a character. By contrast, in 4e, you have a handful of powers of each type, feats that are not nearly as defining as they were in 3e, limited, framed PRCs in paragon paths and epic destinies. And roles are very clearly defined, which seems to say "don't think outside of the box, but create a character that fits its role first". It is more constraining, in the name of playability and game play, I think.
PS: sorry for the nebulous post. I kept editing while ideas kept coming in. I hope it's still understandable.
So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind? Okay then, what about immersion and metagame thinking? 4th edition seems to favor grid based, tactical descriptions for almost every aspect of the game. Speed, range, area of effect - all of these and more are expressed in "squares". Discussion of any kind that references any of those things will invariably include metagame terms. It is very mechanically oriented and precise but, cosmetically, bland.
"I charge 20 feet and then attack," may be a boring declaration but "I move 4 squares and then attack" obliterates flavor text and immersion in favor of keeping track of tactical movement. Now I'm sure there are many people who can think past this but new players being introduced to table top RPGs are not. They will take that terminology at face value and that will be the game - metagame terminology will be the norm.
IIRC, the rules for "initial attitudes" are also absent. Diplomacy skill rolls aren't targeted against Indifferent to Friendly, categorical, DCs. They are pass/fail situations more than likely based in Skill Challenge scenarios.
So, while I do think that a good role player can certainly get into character and exchange social fu with everyone they might encounter, I believe that the 4th edition rules certainly take the emphasis off of role playing by removing the majority of the mechanics that made it interesting. I don't intend to restate my points repeatedly but I had never considered having a PC who ran a business "on the side". When those rules were presented, I was intrigued and used them to add another dimension (and source of income) to my character. The business (a tavern) provided a stream of adventure hooks and NPCs that enhanced the entire groups perspective on "everyday life in a fantastic setting." For me and mine, losing the ability to 'stay in town every once in awhile and still gain something,' is a serious let down.
As far as going to work everyday and not wanting to imagine another work week, we never did. The suggested option of having cohorts and hirelings run it while we used it as a base of operations worked exceptionally well. Irregardless, my point is that 4th edition amputated too much of that sort of mechanic to measure up, as a role playing experience, to its predecessor(s).
So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind? Okay then, what about immersion and metagame thinking? 4th edition seems to favor grid based, tactical descriptions for almost
4E has a number of aspects that are very much metagaming. It's one of my quarrels with the new edition, and one of the reasons I'll be playing Pathfinder as well.
Feels like the actual rules for 4e are something of a Rorschach blot, those inclined to see demons see them.
|
|
I believe that 3e encouraged the players to think more outside of the box, honestly, and focussed more on character concepts than tactical roles by the concept of prestige classes, the selection of feats, the repartition of skill points, and these dozens of tiny things that would give volume to a character.
My experience was very different. Most players I encountered were focused on optimal builds. These were not power gamers because most had a theme in mind but they still chose levels and options based on benefits rather than flavor.
By contrast, in 4e, you have a handful of powers of each type, feats that are not nearly as defining as they were in 3e, limited, framed PRCs in paragon paths and epic destinies. And roles are very clearly defined, which seems to say "don't think outside of the box, but create a character that fits its role first". It is more constraining, in the name of playability and game play, I think.
I wish you could have been at my FLGS yesterday when two of the regulars were pouring over the classes to find cool paths and multi-class combinations. They were building some very "out of the box" characters. Oh, and don't forget that the splat books are just around the corner.
That being said, I do agree that PCs are far more thematic in 4e but I do not see that as a bad thing.
Anyway WotC will be cranking out the options like mad and soon we will have too many choices.
|
|
"I charge 20 feet and then attack," may be a boring declaration but "I move 4 squares and then attack" obliterates flavor text and immersion in favor of keeping track of tactical movement. Now I'm sure there are many people who can think past this but new players being introduced to table top RPGs are not. They will take that terminology at face value and that will be the game - metagame terminology will be the norm.
Well, I never had anyone tell me how far they were going to charge. In 3e I would ask what a player was doing I would usually get "I charge the rat bastard and smack him". In 4e not much has changed. Now when I ask what a PC is going to do I get "I charge the rat bastard and smack him, then I breath fire on his ass". I have not experienced any more metagame terminology with 4e then I did with 3e.
I do agree that I dislike the whole squares thing. I think I will stop trying to correct myself when I say "five foot step".
IIRC, the rules for "initial attitudes" are also absent. Diplomacy skill rolls aren't targeted against Indifferent to Friendly, categorical, DCs. They are pass/fail situations more than likely based in Skill Challenge scenarios.
Its more like achieve goal or not. The skill challenge assumes that as PCs contribute to the challenge the situation flows from favorable to unfavorable so in that sense there are steps to be taken and its not always black or white.
So, while I do think that a good role player can certainly get into character and exchange social fu with everyone they might encounter, I believe that the 4th edition rules certainly take the emphasis off of role playing by removing the majority of the mechanics that made it interesting.
I actually see quite the opposite. The skill challenge presents an element of drama and tension that was missing from the single skill check. I watched a group in a social skill challenge wrestle with every step. They talked about what angle to take next and how should a particular topic or argument be framed for the best effect. It was a real nail biter. They had a blast with it and it was even fun to watch.
So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind?
So, while I do think that a good role player can certainly get into character and exchange social fu with everyone they might encounter, I believe that the 4th edition rules certainly take the emphasis off of role playing by removing the majority of the mechanics that made it interesting. I don't intend to restate my points repeatedly but I had never considered having a PC who ran a business "on the side". When those rules were presented, I was intrigued and used them to add another dimension (and source of income) to my character. The business (a tavern) provided a stream of adventure hooks and NPCs that enhanced the entire groups perspective on "everyday life in a fantastic setting." For me and mine, losing the ability to 'stay in town every once in awhile and still gain something,' is a serious let down.As far as going to work everyday and not wanting to imagine...
Again, I don't see why taking out the micro-management of certain areas is considered as taking the emphasis off roleplaying? Isn't it kind of the opposite?
A 3.5 PC tells his DM that he wants to open/run a bar. DM wants to know what his Profession (Bartending) or Profession (Hotel and Restaurant Management) skill level is. (Just poking fun :) ). If the PC didn't put points into it, does that mean the DM tells him he can't?
In 4e, the PC tells his DM that he wants to open/run a bar. Because there is no rules limiting what he can or can't do when it comes to this, the DM and Player work out a backstory that fits his PC. The group now has a convenient meeting area/HQ. The DM now has a setting to place adventure hooks. Win-win.
So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind? Okay then, what about immersion and metagame thinking? 4th edition seems to favor grid based, tactical descriptions for almost every aspect of the game. Speed, range, area of effect - all of these and more are expressed in "squares". Discussion of any kind that references any of those things will invariably include metagame terms. It is very mechanically oriented and precise but, cosmetically, bland.
While I did like the addition of Craft/Profession skills in 3E, the fact was that they were very rarely used in an adventure. Even worse, to gain any use from them, you actually had to allocate skill points AWAY from skills that would serve you out in the field ... you were becoming a WORSE adventurer simply for the purposes of background and flavor. That's one reason I always liked variant rules that gave characters a few free skill points to spend solely in those areas, so that you could have your cake and eat it too.
That said, nah I don't really miss the skills. If you told me you wanted your character to own/run a bar/tavern/business I'd probably just let you. No real need for any kind of skill rolls to come into play, and even on the rare chance I thought you should make some kind of check, I think 4E's generic 1/2 level + relevant stat would probably be enough to handle the situation.
I do dislike the square thing, but understand the decision was done to help the game out internationally, where everyone else uses the metric system. Conversion is a pain, but squares sorts it out so that everyone knows where you stand. It does make the game seem more mini-focused than other editions, but I don't think I've played anything since 2E without minis, so it really isn't any problem for me. I'd like to think that if the US switched over the metric system (please, let us switch) the books would start using that 2 meters instead of 1 square.
Cheers! :)
Shadowrun was neat that way because you had a reserve of skill points to buy active skills that you would need in combat and on a mission, and then you had other skill points that were strictly for picking up skills that would add flavour to your character, but not be that useful in the field.
So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind? Okay then, what about immersion and metagame thinking? 4th edition seems to favor grid based, tactical descriptions for almost every aspect of the game. Speed, range, area of effect - all of these and more are expressed in "squares". Discussion of any kind that references any of those things will invariably include metagame terms. It is very mechanically oriented and precise but, cosmetically, bland.While I did like the addition of Craft/Profession skills in 3E, the fact was that they were very rarely used in an adventure. Even worse, to gain any use from them, you actually had to allocate skill points AWAY from skills that would serve you out in the field ... you were becoming a WORSE adventurer simply for the purposes of background and flavor. That's one reason I always liked variant rules that gave characters a few free skill points to spend solely in those areas, so that you could have your cake and eat it too.
That said, nah I don't really miss the skills. If you told me you wanted your character to own/run a bar/tavern/business I'd probably just let you. No real need for any kind of skill rolls to come into play, and even on the rare chance I thought you should make some kind of check, I think 4E's generic 1/2 level + relevant stat would probably be enough to handle the situation.
I do dislike the square thing, but understand the decision was done to help the game out internationally, where everyone else uses the metric system. Conversion is a pain, but squares sorts it out so that everyone knows where you stand. It does make the game seem more mini-focused than other editions, but I don't think I've played anything since 2E without minis, so it really isn't any problem for me. I'd like to think that if the US switched over the metric system (please, let us switch) the books would start using that 2 meters instead of 1 square.
Cheers! :)
Shadowrun was neat that way because you had a reserve of skill points to buy active skills that you would need in combat and on a mission, and then you had other skill points that were strictly for picking up skills that would add flavour to your character, but not be that useful in the field.
Aye, SR was definitely the bee's knees (you can insert your own insectoid body part here if you'd like)! My one complaint was I always had more trouble imagining adventures for it (a trouble I have with nearly any modern or near-modern game, and one I have to a lesser extent with future games. I guess DnD is encoded into my DNA too strongly!) than I did in DnD. Earthdawn seriously rocked the house hardcore (and I can't help but buy ED books when I see them still, despite only getting the chance to play it once!)
|
The problem I find with a lack of craft/profession skills, is what a lot of other posters have said; "if the player comes up to me asking if he/she can open a bar, I'd just let him!"
To me this is a problem, people are different, some might run their business into the ground, others might make it flourish...
Skills in those areas helped define those things. A blanket "yeah, you open a bar" really pin-points the differences in the style of role-play that I and my group enjoy compared to the VAST majority other posters here...
Which in turn I think is the reason why 4e leaves such a bad taste in my mouth...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
As my previous post alluded to, I like skills and feats such as craft and profession! So what if a player has to "burn" points towards them. In my games, players hardly EVER spend max ranks in a single skill anyway! To them, a +1 or +2 (at lower levels) is just fine...
I don't get it, I just don't get it!
But to say 4e does not allow for RP is incorrect. It does not however, allow for the same STYLE of RP (IMO) as 3.xe.
I'm sorry, but I live on the minutia of non-combat skills and feats…
Also, sorry for the twin posts, as this thought came about after I could no longer edit my original post :)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
There are no Craft or Profession skills in 4th ed. 3.5 had rules for starting and running businesses / having a life (and income) outside of adventuring. The new rules cover destroying pretty much anything your character encounters but not one sentence, in any of the three core books, instructs you on how to create something.
The rules on having a "life" in 3rd Edition didnt exist until close to the end, released in Player's Handbook 2. I dont know about you, but I didnt need hard-set rules for a character to settle down, buy a house, etc, in my games.
Likewise, I dont need Craft/Profession skills to give my character a hobby or a history: my warforged fighter worked as a blacksmith (only ironworking) in a chapel, fixing various things.Unless you count creating magical items; Have components? Have feat? POOF. Item. Congrats.
Is this a flaw in 3rd Edition? 4th Edition works the same way except that you dont need to burn a feat for every category of item you want to make, you just need one ritual to do the job proper.
Bards have been mentioned. That class is based around having a skill many "adventurers" would consider useless: creating music. Outside of combat, in a town, they had a way to earn income and keep a roof over their heads. The other characters did not inherently possess that type of ability.
The bard only had Perform because it was required for the class. Any other class could fritter away ranks in the skill if they wanted, but it was so utterly limited in use that its no surprise that you dont hear about characters taking ranks in those skills. Its not like 3rd Edition characters were loaded with skill points.
Of course, other skills could just as easily pull in money: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Profession, and Sleight of Hand come to mind. Not that I've heard of numerous broke adventurers who absolutely needed to make a couple silver pieces to find a place to crash for the night.I've read more than a few comments from WotC's development team that stated, in no uncertain terms, that they thought DnD was about adventure and not about mundane experiences like haggling over the price of a room. I agree with them. However, the option to engage in the exchange of services not directly related to "kill creatures and collect reward" should never have been abandoned.
Its not, and they never said that you still cant. You wanna haggle over the price for a room? Roleplay it socially or have them make a skill check (Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate would all work fine) to reduce the cost. Works the same way as 3rd Edition.
Really, I'm all for glossing over the mundane details like overland traveling, asking about every character's meal for the day, or what every character's favorite color is.Does role playing have a place in 4th edition? Yes. Your PC still has the ability to speak and that is really all you need to engage in social exchange. But there used to be many other avenues a player could explore within a given community that are now absent the game. I, for one, will be house ruling them back in as soon as I can decide on the mechanics.
I cant think of anything I could do in 3rd Edition that I cant still do in 4th Edition.
|
|
Really, I'm all for glossing over the mundane details like overland traveling, asking about every character's meal for the day, or what every character's favorite color is.
See my previous posts concerning differing STYLES of Role-playing...
To each his own I guess...
I cant think of anything I could do in 3rd Edition that I cant still do in 4th Edition.
Only now you make a blanket judgment call with no rules but your own whim to justify them! If that's what you want, then fine, who am I to judge...
But I like having a little more structure in my games than whatever whim happens to tickle my fancy at the moment! It lets the players know I am playing by the rules (and no, I'm not suggesting that you are not playing by the rules. I am just pointing out the different styles of play involved)...
-That One Digitalef Fellow-
Really, I'm all for glossing over the mundane details like overland traveling, asking about every character's meal for the day, or what every character's favorite color is.See my previous posts concerning differing STYLES of Role-playing...
To each his own I guess...
I cant think of anything I could do in 3rd Edition that I cant still do in 4th Edition.Only now you make a blanket judgment call with no rules but your own whim to justify them! If that's what you want, then fine, who am I to judge...
But I like having a little more structure in my games than whatever whim happens to tickle my fancy at the moment! It lets the players know I am playing by the rules (and no, I'm not suggesting that you are not playing by the rules. I am just pointing out the different styles of play involved)...
-That One Digitalef Fellow-
You raise a good point. 3E did provide a structure for things that had, mostly, been worked out mutually between the DM and player in previous editions instead of going by a set number on a character sheet.
In AD&D my players and I did a host of things not related to combat. Basically if we imagined it and it fit in with our character our DM (me, most of the time) allowed it or incorporated it. That's how AD&D worked. 2E's non-weapon proficiencies were broad enough that this continued, though in a more specialized sort of way.
One of my biggest complaints with 3E when it came out was the Skill system. I worked around it, mostly, by giving every character double their Skill points at 1st level to be used for background Skills. It worked, to a point, but it was one of those things that I didn't enjoy with 3E.
4E continues to use Skills, which is still kind of annoying but understandable, I suppose, but they streamlined them enough, and concentrated them into Skills that have direct mechanical effect in-game, that I am running the game much more like I ran my AD&D and 2E games than before. It seems a natural thing to me so not a problem at all. It really lets a character's backstory take the route they want without having to worry to much whether what they're proposing is possible.
Note that this is only one aspect where I feel 4E plays more like older editions. It has changed a great deal when compared to the older editions, mechanically, and I don't want to falsely try to imply differently.
So no one else is bothered by the lack of craft or profession skill sets of any kind?
I'm not exceedingly bothered by them at this point. I'd not mind some inclusion in a future supplement or in Dragon but not using the same rules as the other skills. Players should not automatically get better at Brewing as its not part and parcel of being an adventurer. It needs its own subsystem really. As it stands the model would not work if applied to the core of what we have with the current rules and they faced significant issues in 3.x.
The major issues being:
* They represented very suboptimal choices when taken as the classes were so tight on skill points that picking them up meant not taking a skill that would help with adventuring.
* They helped to contribute to the effect in the game where all the classes had an extremely wide range of possible skill distributions. The net effect is that you need to carefully craft the adventure for your specific party. Adventures made by some one that does not know your party can not know if you have lots of skills in a certain area or none at all. Its very difficult to write and adventure featuring the skills for some unknown party (i.e. when writing a professional product). The net effect is that the Skills actually get used less in adventures unless your DM crafted them for your specific party.
We certianly still saw some skill use in such modules but with a more constrained system I hope to see the skill system cease to be something that occasionally pops up and become something thats featured heavily in every adventure along with the skill challenges system (once they work out the bugs). Can't effectively do that if players are sacrificing jump for craft (brewer).
* My actual experience with the old skill system was anything but good. Excited by its possibilities many of my players invested in such skills heavily with their first characters. It does not really work. Making even mundane objects takes obscene amounts of time (Though I suppose its actually kind of realistic if crafting of an exceptional sword takes a year game time). One by one my players abandoned their initial characters when the craft system really did not pan out.
Chris Mortika (above) provides a pretty good alternative system where your a crafter of three different levels (journeyman, master etc.) and that kind of system might add some fun role playing opportunities but I think Dragon (and maybe later a splat book) is the correct place for such system and not the core books.
Okay then, what about immersion and metagame thinking? 4th edition seems to favor grid based, tactical descriptions for almost every aspect of the game. Speed, range, area of effect - all of these and more are expressed in "squares". Discussion of any kind that references any of those things will invariably include metagame terms. It is very mechanically oriented and precise but, cosmetically, bland."I charge 20 feet and then attack," may be a boring declaration but "I move 4 squares and then attack" obliterates flavor text and immersion in favor of keeping track of tactical movement. Now I'm sure there are many people who can think past this but new players being introduced to table top RPGs are not. They will take that terminology at face value and that will be the game - metagame terminology will be the norm.
So?
As you say, those that want something deeper can get it. We probably should start players off thinking in a simpler abstract. If they want to graduate onto something more immersive after they have grasped the basic ideas so much the better, but we don't do this hobby any favours by throwing everyone into the deep end straight off and seeing if they sink or swim.
IIRC, the rules for "initial attitudes" are also absent. Diplomacy skill rolls aren't targeted against Indifferent to Friendly, categorical, DCs. They are pass/fail situations more than likely based in Skill Challenge scenarios.
I won't miss them even slightly. This was one of the most damaged part of the entire game. The current system is based on the DM setting up the situation and deciding what the results will be. You can't force Devils to be friendly with high level Bards though the DM could well decide that the Devil might be willing to parley for say the souls the dead. Won't be friendly though - Devils are never your friend. Its pass/fail only if the DM designs it like that. The current model presumes that you design social encounters using something close to the same kind of detail once usually reserved for combat encounters. The DM is supposed to sit down and really think about what the NPCs want and what the players can do to increase their odds - or, as the DMGs example involving a Duke, what might be a really bad idea. In the example in the DMG players should not try and intimidate the Duke - that will count as strike one against them automatically, this particular Duke can't be intimidated in this particular challenge.
So, while I do think that a good role player can certainly get into character and exchange social fu with everyone they might encounter, I believe that the 4th edition rules certainly take the emphasis off of role playing by removing the majority of the mechanics that made it interesting.
They punted.
Such mechanics are there but its the DMs job to craft the encounter. To write it out with the same kind of detail as a combat encounter. Bribing Goblins with sausage is not the same thing as trying to fast talk your way out of having to fight a mercenary intent on collecting the price on your head.The mechanics have given up trying to tell the DM that all encounters are essentially the same and now instead attempt to provide tools to help the DM craft such encounters through the challenge system but it just provides basic guidelines, the actual details of how much Goblins like sausage or whether the mercenary is easy to bribe or not is left in the DMs hands - depending on the details of the story being told and the nature of Goblins (or Mercinary Head Hunters) in the DMs campaign world.
There is also no longer the hard dichotomy of parties with a 'face' versus those that don't have a 'face'. What I mean here is that one used to usually deal with one of two extreme situations. Either you had a Bard or Paladin in your party - in which case the parties diplomacy was probably through the roof, if you failed then the DC was so high no mortal could conceivably have beat it. Or, alternatively, you did not have any of these classes and your Diplomacy skill was probably basically non-existent.
Neither situation really promotes good role playing. If you can't possibly fail to talk your way into the Kings Ball simply because you have a mid level bard to act as the 'face of the party. Thats not really great role playing. There is no drama if you'll always succeed. Similarly if your Diplomacy skill is so low that you'll never manage to talk your way past the Palace Guards then the encounter is basically over before its even began. The system pretty much encouraged extremes - either phenominal or awful but very rarely just pretty good. However the drama and excitement of role playing such encounters falls away at the extremes auto fail or auto succeed isn't actually very much fun. Whats really desired is some chance at success - something that might work out with some real luck and can be helped along with creative lies, bribes etc.
The current skill challenge system is meant to address this and, as a side bonus, all the players are supposed to be able to get in on the fun, not just the Bard. The DM is encouraged to design encounters using a wide verity of skills so that many different character classes get to participate in the Skill Challenge. These Challenges are often tiered so that making one check can add bonuses to further checks or maybe even open up whole other options.
For example (using the example of the PCs trying to get into the Kings Ball above) The Wizards Perception check succeeds and he notices the holy symbols on the Guards. Cleric uses Religion and also succeeds; She realizes that these guards worship a God of Strength. This opens up a new option to the players - They can demonstrate their strength. The Fighter player offers to have a friendly arm wrestling contest with the strongest Guard (sounds like opposed Athletic Skill check probably). If he pulls it off that counts as one 'success' as the Guards look upon the Fighter more favourably etc. The players usually need a certian number of 'successes' to win the Skill Challenge and they must make them before making to many 'Failures'. Of course the system only provides guidelines. Its up to the DM to craft this encounter in the first place and decide what skills will help out and how.
Notice also that because there are only something like 12 skills and every adventurer always has at least 1/2 his level in every skill even a DM that has no idea what your specific party is like can create a Skill challenge, in other words companies like WotC or Necromancer Games can drop them into their modules - the most important thing the adventurer designer needs to know is the level of some unknown party. If this adventure is made for a 6th level party the Skill Challenge should work pretty well for almost any 6th level party. Its even integrated into the XP system. You get XP for winning Skill Challenges - that means its actually possible to design an adventure with no combat (or maybe combat only if you blow any particular skill challenge) and the players still go up a level at the end of the adventure.
My bare bones beginning of an example above does not need to have specifically my personal parties wizard - Lots of classes are pretty good at Perception and all of them are at least OK at it. Same with Religion. Athletics is maybe a little rarer - (maybe), but that option was meant to be a kind of bonus option if other skills where used first. If there is no strong character in the party that bonus option can't be used but there should be other possibilities in a well designed skill challenge.
I don't intend to restate my points repeatedly but I had never considered having a PC who ran a business "on the side". When those rules were presented, I was intrigued and used them to add another dimension (and source of income) to my character. The business (a tavern) provided a stream of adventure hooks and NPCs that enhanced the entire groups perspective on "everyday life in a fantastic setting." For me and mine, losing the ability to 'stay in town every once in awhile and still gain something,' is a serious let down.
Those rules appeared in a splat book. It may well be the case that eventually there will be a splat book that addresses that exact topic but I don't feel that a detailed analysis of running a fantasy business belonged in the core rules. First show us how to play adventurers and maybe later we can get rules for running businesses.
|
|
Skills in those areas helped define those things. A blanket "yeah, you open a bar" really pin-points the differences in the style of role-play that I and my group enjoy compared to the VAST majority other posters here...
I can understand why some would prefer to have a mechanical underpinning to "owning a bar" as a PC. But I can't say I see it as a style of roleplaying. It seems to me that having a bunch of rules and mechanics for running a business detracts from the roleplaying aspect of the game - it becomes a rules game within the larger game.
As my previous post alluded to, I like skills and feats such as craft and profession! So what if a player has to "burn" points towards them. In my games, players hardly EVER spend max ranks in a single skill anyway! To them, a +1 or +2 (at lower levels) is just fine...
I don't get it, I just don't get it!
My experience has been quite different. I have yet to see a bard with less than max ranks in diplomacy and perform, or a wizard with less than max spellcraft and concentration, or a rogue without max disable device, search, hide, and move silently.
But to say 4e does not allow for RP is incorrect. It does not however, allow for the same STYLE of RP (IMO) as 3.xe.
If by that you mean that 4e does not have mechanics to cover non-combat roleplaying like running an Inn then you are correct. But D&D PCs have been running Inns long before D&D had skills dedicated to crafts or professions. The roleplaying experience of runing an Inn is not the same as the mechanics used to adjudicate the success or failure of the business. So I would say the roleplaying is the same but the mechanics are different.
I'm sorry, but I live on the minutia of non-combat skills and feats…
I can appreciate that. That is a solid reason to prefer 3e to 4e.
I tend to avoid RPGs that have detailed mechanics for non-combat situations like running a business. Or when they are present I treat them as purely optional and pretty much ignore them. If I want to play that kind of resource management game there are plenty of tycoon style computer games to play.
|
|
So I would say the roleplaying is the same but the mechanics are different.
Actual Role-play, sure. But if a character has a skill in it, and depending on how many points a character has in that skills determines how good that character is, then I am not going to just give a blanket judgment call based on my whim at the time. I can at least assign a DC to it. Sure you can just roll a few dice for it in 4e, but the rules don't back those rolls up...
If I want to play that kind of resource management game there are plenty of tycoon style computer games to play.
Yeah but see, the skills CAN be used as a role-playing tool...
Otherwise, you are just making judgment calls with no rules to back those calls up...
But then I also use encumbrance...
Does that mean I am playing D&D Tycoon in your eyes?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
So I would say the roleplaying is the same but the mechanics are different.Actual Role-play, sure. But if a character has a skill in it, and depending on how many points a character has in that skills determines how good that character is, then I am not going to just give a blanket judgment call based on my whim at the time. I can at least assign a DC to it. Sure you can just roll a few dice for it in 4e, but the rules don't back those rolls up...
I don't see it as a whim. Back in the day I was in a group that owned an in. The GM and the players collaborated and the success of the venture was determined by the dictates of the story. The Inn would run into trouble when local thugs tried to extort protection money and suddenly we were playing to bring down a local crime lord. Times were good and we attracted the attention of a local Lord that asked us to run his daughter's 16th birthday party - which was then crashed by a jealous demon. The Inn's ebbs and flows were not arbitrary or determined on a whim - they drove the story.
If I want to play that kind of resource management game there are plenty of tycoon style computer games to play.Yeah but see, the skills CAN be used as a role-playing tool...
Otherwise, you are just making judgment calls with no rules to back those calls up...
But then I also use encumbrance...
Does that mean I am playing D&D Tycoon in your eyes?
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
No, I do not see that at all but by making the mundane a big part of the mechanics it can turn out that way. Two examples - Traveller and Pendragon.
In Traveller we had a campaign die because two people in our group were so wrapped up in the trade system that we seemed to spend a majority of every session buying and selling cargo. The other four players (me included) owned shares in the venture and we intentionally lost them gambling with a small time merchant fleet owner. He took over and we hitched a ride on a Scout ship. The campaign then died because we could never get the two merchant players to stop playing the economics game.
Pendragon (this was back in the first edition) had all kinds of rules for the management of an estate. Again we ended up spending way too much time on the day to day rather than the quest. Fortunately we all agreed to ignore those mechanics and played it much like the Inn back in OD&D.
I think the important part for me is the distinction between playing rules and roleplaying. All mechanics driven aspects of a game, be they combat or not, are just frameworks. A mechanical framework can advance the roleplaying aspects of a game but they are not required. An Inn can be run by PCs whether or not the rules provide a mechanical framework for commerce.
The danger with commerce mechanics is that they can get in the way of the game, or replace the game altogether.
I've never been of the school of thought that you need a bunch of rules for the roleplaying aspects of the games. I started with 1e AD&D, which isn't heavy on the RP rules, and those groups were some of the best RP-deep groups I ever played with. 3.5 has more rules regarding things like RP-type skills, and while in some ways those were good in other ways I think they stymied roleplaying because they establish a set of boundaries around roleplaying.
It seems like people who started with 3.X are more inclined to feel that you need to have RP rules to really have RP. At least, that's been my personal observation. I've had many of my best RP sessions using editions that don't have RP rules.
Steer, I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. Too many people see the fluff that was removed for a more streamlined game and are having a cow because they see that WotC has removed the roleplay from the game. As I point out to many people, the rules are there to settle issues in the game, not regulate your roleplaying.
I remember growing up roleplaying all the time without rules. Usually they ended up in fights that could be watered down to "I hit you! No you didn't!" moments, which are what the rules are meant to stop. If you want to roleplay, you don't have to ever crack a book as long as you don't get into a combat, try to pick a lock, or something that requires a random check for.
I think another problem is that people are seeing the Player's Guide side of things and not realizing that the Player's Guide is the more 'tactical' of the books. The Dungeon Master's Guide is greatly geared towards the 'atmosphere' side of the game. Sure, there is some tactical stuff within the DMG just like there is some atmosphere in the PHB, but the majority of the DMG is building atmosphere... you know, how to create roleplay.
Of course, the Monster Manual is a big book of baddies, but even in there are some good hints for roleplay and atmosphere, as well as tactics.
As for things like crafting skills, riding, and those things... I honestly rarely saw them taken by players, and when they did take them, they almost never used them. Why? Too many skills, not enough skill points.
Rules should never restrict roleplaying. If you think they do, you are doing it wrong ^_^
But that's just my opinion
|
|
You make is sound that the 4E skills system is just DM whim and that is incorrect.
I'm sorry, but you're taking this whole "conversation" out of context. Crosswiredmind and I are debating the merits of the Craft and Profession skills (or lack thereof in 4e), NOT skills in general in 4e...
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused you...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
The danger with commerce mechanics is that they can get in the way of the game, or replace the game altogether.
I've actually seen that exact issue before, although it was in EQ2, not a table top game. A friend got so caught up in making gold by buying and selling rare commodities that he ended up not adventuring at all, only logging on to see if anyone had something to buy or was looking to purchase something he had to sell.
It came as no shock when he eventually cancelled his account. (Ok, admittedly it isn't exactly the same as there weren't really "commerce mechanics" but it is pretty close, and stands out as one of the weirded gaming experiences I've had in my life)
|
|
The campaign then died because we could never get the two merchant players to stop playing the economics game.
Did it even occur to you that those players were HAVING FUN?
Selfish to be sure because other players were involved, but it sounds from your description that were having an absolute blast!
For them, that WAS the "adventure"...
I had a solo player try and get a ruined castle up and running (which involved a lot of day to day stuff, playing with finances, and a ton of role-playing)... He says to this day, that campaign was one of the best for him...
All a matter of perspective my friend, all a matter of perspective...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Did it even occur to you that those players were HAVING FUN?
Selfish to be sure because of the other players, but it sounds from your description that were having an absolute blast!
For them, that WAS the "adventure"...
I had a solo player try and get a ruined castle up and running... He says that campaign was one of the best for him...
All a matter of perspective my friend, all a matter of perspective...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
True, they likely were having fun. But the point of this game is to have fun together as a group. I'm all for axing rules that promote the fun of a few over the fun of many.
Frex, one time a DM in my group created a creature that could stun/paralyze you permanently, as long as it lived (this wasn't DnD). It stunned/paralyzed one character, and was promptly captured by another character. His character had all kinds of plans he wanted to do with it, and carried it around for two whole sessions before he was knocked unconscious and the rest of the group killed his new pet.
The guy stunned/paralyzed sat there for TWO WHOLE SESSIONS doing nothing but reading magazines/watching tv, whatever. The guy with the new pet thought it was awesome. The guy permanently stunned ended up quitting the group, and I don't blame him.
The campaign then died because we could never get the two merchant players to stop playing the economics game.
Did it even occur to you that those players were HAVING FUN?
Selfish to be sure because other players were involved, but it sounds from your description that were having an absolute blast!
For them, that WAS the "adventure"...
I can see situations like this happening in almost any game, but at the same time there should be some balance that gets the whole group together regardless of individual fun. As Dave said, the goal is to have fun together.
Perhaps a compromise would have saved the game, maybe play as a group for a few hours, then let the ones who have their side game play for an hour after the rest of the group leaves. That way everyone has fun with their games and everyone still plays together.
However, this particular case is in the past, so not sure if this is even helpful. Nowadays, situations like this can be overcome with online e-mails between the GM and the players who want to 'play the market' so they don't interrupt everyone's enjoyment.
I think I am rambling this time.
But that's just my opinion <(^_^)>
|
|
Did it even occur to you that those players were HAVING FUN?The campaign then died because we could never get the two merchant players to stop playing the economics game.
Of course they were - that is irrelevant.
Selfish to be sure because other players were involved, but it sounds from your description that were having an absolute blast!
For them, that WAS the "adventure"...
Again - that is irrelevant.
I had a solo player try and get a ruined castle up and running (which involved a lot of day to day stuff, playing with finances, and a ton of role-playing)... He says to this day, that campaign was one of the best for him...
All a matter of perspective my friend, all a matter of perspective...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
As other have said - it's all about the group. If you have a group that enjoys that kind of game then find the system that will do it and have fun. D&D is not and never has been the roleplaying game of trade and commerce. Craft and profession skills were just a nod towards the fact that the PCs could have pursuits other than adventuring. It was never a major part of the game and I do not think that many people will miss it.
|
|
D&D is not and never has been the roleplaying game of trade and commerce.
It is if that's what you want it to be! Your statement is akin to what Mr. Gygax said in 1e, that if you added ANYTHING (like new spells or house-rules) to the books he put out, you were NOT playing D&D! You were obviously playing some other game that was similar to D&D, but it was most certainly not D&D...
As for commerce, to this day, Ed Greenwood wants to write a book that deals with NOTHING but trade and commerce for the Realms...
D&D is what you make of it, ands what you get out of it...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-