Every now and then I try to explain to my wife (a non-gamer) what the recent changes WotC has made to D&D has meant to me.
I try to use analogies to help her understand, but D&D players are a unique bunch. Very often our emotions are tied to the game and changes to the game, whether from house rules or Brand X publishing company elicit ecstatic huzzahs and/or vitriolic flame-fests. Roleplaying games make us feel things personally because very often it defines the relationships we have with others at the gaming table.
In reality, the problems that are occurring right now are due to different people seeing the same game in different ways. Some players view roleplaying as playing a role vis-a-vis the other adventuring party members, much the same way a demolitions expert might play a role in a military special ops squad. In this instance, game balance amongst the roles in the adventuring party is key to making everyone feel integral to the team. Other players view roleplaying on the character-personality level, where every player in the game has chosen an alter-ego that suits their fantasy no matter what the composition of the party might be. A party could be made up of all half-orc barbarians who all have distinct personalities. Both visions of roleplaying are perfectly acceptable.
However, when playing a roleplaying game in the first style of play, it is necessary to define what the purpose of that style of play is. If people have vastly differing views on their style of play, you have the vast arguments we have today regarding D&D 4th Edition. Some people see D&D one way (myself included) and others see it another way depending on what you enjoy doing at the gaming table.
It is regrettable, I feel, that WotC has decided to favor the first style of roleplaying over the latter. This is very much influenced by a change in popular culture in which the definition of roleplaying has been usurped by computer and video roleplaying games rather than tabletop roleplaying games.
I understand their decision from a business standpoint.
I understand their decision from a post World of WarCraft cultural standpoint.
It still doesn't mean I have to like it.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Great post, veector. I agree whole-heartedly. The definition of role-playing in terms of gaming has definitely changed over the years, and I think you've managed to capture the differences admirably. Grognards like me look at role-playing at the character personality level, which is one reason why 4E doesn't appeal to me.
Grognards like me look at role-playing at the character personality level, which is one reason why 4E doesn't appeal to me.
I consider myself a Grognard too. I starting playing D&D back in Junior High and I continue to play it now in my mid 40's.
But, I like 4E and I don't see any thing in it that would prevent me from roleplaying a character with a personality.
Just my 2 cents.
I'm not sure both versions are mutually exclusive. Roleplaying has always attracted a variety of people with a variety of play styles - long before WoW was even an idea.
I didn't mean to imply they were exclusive, sorry if it came across that way, just that it appears to me that WotC definitely sees a future in a certain style of play and wants to promote that. You can certainly try playing 4e material with any characters you want to play with, I just don't think you'll do so well.
I guess what I take issue with is WotC basically telling me I have to play the game the way they think it should be played as if D&D was a board game.
I do actually see some problems with trying to role-play in fourth edition. Quite a lot of abilities in fourth edition are well-defined in terms of mechanics, but gie no clue as to how they actually work in the game world or what the character is actually doing - or why someone else can't do the same thing.
The most annoying one I've seen pointed out involves "Marks" - since a target can only have one mark at a time, how does the fighter doing fancy footwork and focusing on an opponent ("Marking Them") negate the magical compulsion to attack the Paladin? Can someone "Mark" you without revealing their presence?
There are lots of others though. What game-world effect prevents my mage from trying to throw dirt into someone's eyes? Where do new abilities come from? Why are they the same all over the world? Why aren't there local languages? Why does lava do differing amounts of damage depending on the level of the person who pushed someone into it? Why can't my character try to do things I can do in the real world?
That kind of thing makes role-playing kind of awkward. If the world doesn’t work by consistent principles, how can my character respond to it rationally?
|
|
As someone who values personality-roleplaying very highly, I feel the need to chime in here.
I feel that 4th edition is, on the whole, not for me. I'll still give it a fair shot, mind you. If someone wants to run a 4th ed campaign, I'll jump right in. I'm even planning on running one or two converted Dungeon adventures for my younger players. But I dont intend to buy any more 4th edition products after the 2 core books (the DMG is a waste of money; it small and full mostly of information an experienced DM will not need to reference more than once, aside from the "falling in lava" rules. Better to just "aquire" a PDF.)
One main reason is that WotC's writing quality seems pretty abyssmal. They have no interest in creating an interesting and engaging world.
Even the best Video Game RPGs are acclaimed not because of their mechanics, but because of their gameworld. It's not the Destruction Skill or the Luck ability that made me love Morrowind; it was the city of Vivec, the mushroom trees and Telvanni towers, the ashland Daedric ruins full of really tough opponents, that made the game good.
I feel as though 4th edition monsters exist only as statblocks. They have no ecology, no motivations, and no explaination. Encounter building forces you to toss additional creatures in for no particular reason. Why the hell would a band of gnoll slavers include a giant snake or a bulette?
To me, D&D has always been more of a tactical simulation than dramatization. Many of the ‘flaws’ leveled at 4e are things I have bemoaned D&D since Basic. 4e seems a very natural evolution of D&D from my experiences.