|
If you call, "We've been fighting for 20 rounds and things still won't die. When will it end?" an "entertaining" amount of time than 4E does do that. I call it monotonous and boring. I don't want everything to die anticlimatically in the first round, but the 20 round snorefests of spamming at-wills that happens all too often in low level 4E combat is not desirable either.
Fortunately in the dozens of encounters I have played or run I have yet to encounter a fight like that. I think they will be an exception rather than the norm.
|
|
Yeah we can ... I mean, it has been fun. :DAre you guys done arguing about 3.5 cause it's clogging up the 4e board :-)Haha, you're right. It's been such a long time since I've had a 3.5 char op discussion though.
True - I was just point out the irony of a 3.5 dust up on the 4e boards. Finally we see that arguments happen on an intra-edition basis as well :D
|
|
:::Runs for Cover:::This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.
You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.
*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*
No worries. New Coke is actually alive and well and enjoyed by millions if not billions of people every day - the New Coke formula is used for Diet Coke. They took a flop and made an ass load of cash on it.
Weird....
Was sitting at work, surfing for RPG stuff and this computer tech walks in and sees me looking at miniatures on the net.
"You into miniatures?" he asks.
"Yeah," says me.
"So am I," he replies etc etc.
...I only just got back into DnD about three years ago. I'd played mainly ADnD. Never really thought it was that good a game rules wise etc. When I got a hold of 3.5 (and I was instantly skeptical) I was blown away. It was all the things DnD should have been as far as I was concerned...
So this guy asks me to play in his 4E game. I said ok. Never played it but I'll have a try. He had also played ADnD but never 3.5. How bizarre.
Here's the crux. 3.5 is pretty rules heavy, but if I don't like the rule I don't use it. That's what I like about 3.5. It can be as in-depth or as light as I want. Doesn't seem like 4E could say the same. that's important to me. Better to have all the tools rather than a select few. Still, just because 4E is here, doesn't stop us playing 3.5! And it's not like there aren't enough 3.5 supplements. Hope you 4E converts enjoy yourselves - I'll have a more evolved opinion after Saturday when I've given the new system a good thrashing.
This is true. As long as that means you accept that the Dungeons and Dragons movie is also D&D.. It's got the logo on it, after all.
You also have to accept that New Coke is Coca-Cola.
*Sits back awaiting either flames or headsplodes*
EDIT: To be fair, the "It's not D&D" comment is usually meant as this does not sound/play/feel like what the person expects from a D&D game, rather than an actual denial of its titular reality. I'm sure many of them also feel that 4E does not deserve to be called D&D for it's numerous perceived failings, but, as you say, it is.
Hehehehe I have heard this argument all over the place. Does the D&D logo = real D&D well as far as the brand name goes I suppose. I concur that the current incarnation of D&D is D&D for the moment. However if the reviews on Amazon.com mean anything then I would say that it will be the incarnation of D&D that survives the least amount of time as any historically or that it may well be the incarnation of D&D that kills the brand name. So go ahead and call it D&D if you want to the rest of us will just sit back and laugh or either cry until it either dies and a new rpg is born or until Pathfinder RPG becomes the replacement for the true D&D. There may remain a market for D&D 4e and Pathfinder but you know I foresee Pathfinder RPG taking the market by storm and leaving 4e in the dust. The reason for this is that the folks behind Pathfinder tend to care what the community wants, Wizards of the Coast could care less. They build up a model that they think will do well based upon their current view of the market and they push that through. All the while treating the community as if their opinion is worth crap until it begins to effect sales then they listen somewhat but by then it is a day late and a dollar short. I used to be a major WotC supporter during the 3.5 era because they were producing some bang up material, especially close to the end but not anymore. 4th edition is a miniatures or board game with a few RPG elements thrown in. I have actually thought about getting the rulebooks when they become cheap on Amazon marketplace so I can be sure Wizards will get about 0 income from the sale and basically using them for an expanded miniatures game. So if you like 4th edition more power to you but I will almost bet any amount of money you want to bet that it will be the shortest lived D&D rules set ever. The sooner they get over this little 4e glitch and get back to real D&D the better. I want no mistake about it there is not enough scathing remarks in the whole of the world to express the damage that 4e has done to D&D in general and I make no apologies for my remarks. 4e may have the brand name but in spirit it is simply NOT D&D! Also I do not necessarily think it is by accident that the 4 key on a PC keyboard occupies the same space as the $ key so that is is a simple mistake to type $e rather than 4e. I believe the whole marketing campaign surrounding 4e was a supreme grab for money with a game that looks good on the early levels for the demos and the like but that makes absolutely no sense for anything very far beyond first level. 4E is a bunch of beanie baby characters running around with their little daily and encounter powers that would do well to fight their way out of a 4e brown paper bag because the 4e brown paper bag would likely have 500 hit points for a 1st level party. Nuff Said!
Charles
Hehehehe I have heard this argument all over the place. Does the D&D logo = real D&D well as far as the brand name goes I suppose. I concur that the current incarnation of D&D is D&D for the moment. However if the reviews on Amazon.com mean anything then I would say that it will be the incarnation of D&D that survives the least amount of time as any historically or that it may well be the incarnation of D&D that kills the brand name. So go ahead and call it D&D if you want to the rest of us will just sit back and laugh or either cry until it either dies and a new rpg is born or until Pathfinder RPG becomes the replacement for the true D&D. There may remain a market for D&D 4e and Pathfinder but you know I foresee Pathfinder RPG taking the market by storm and leaving 4e in the dust.
Man, you are going to be so disappointed.
The rest of your post, unfortunately, is not worth comment. The sort of person who would type that is really not the sort of person I want to sit across from at a game table.
Hehehehe I have heard this argument all over the place. Does the D&D logo = real D&D well as far as the brand name goes I suppose. I concur that the current incarnation of D&D is D&D for the moment. However if the reviews on Amazon.com mean anything then I would say that it will be the incarnation of D&D that survives the least amount of time as any historically or that it may well be the incarnation of D&D that kills the brand name. So go ahead and call it D&D if you want to the rest of us will just sit back and laugh or either cry until it either dies and a new rpg is born or until Pathfinder RPG becomes the replacement for the true D&D. There may remain a market for D&D 4e and Pathfinder but you know I foresee Pathfinder RPG taking the market by storm and leaving 4e in the dust.Man, you are going to be so disappointed.
The rest of your post, unfortunately, is not worth comment. The sort of person who would type that is really not the sort of person I want to sit across from at a game table.
I seriously doubt PfRPG is going to become the replacement for D&D. Don't get me wrong, it will be successful, but it will probably not be wildly successful, not that it needs to be. Paizo can survive on a much smaller piece of the pie than say WotC, as long as they get enough to do so, they are in the gravy. But PfRPG won't replace D&D for a couple of reasons. The 4e fans won't turn to it, they've been there and done that for the most part. PfRPG doesn't offer them anything to make them want to go back to a 3.x style of play. Second there are many 3.5 groups that won't go to it either, they have no desire to switch, not for 4e or for PfRPG.
The thought process of many PfRPG fans was made evident by a thread I saw in the D&D 3.5/OGL board. In it a PfRPG fan was asking 3.5 fans of the Realms that if they didn't like what WotC was doing in 4e to the Realms, why not abandon the Realms entirely and go for PfRPG setting. Ah, huh? I like the 3.5 Realms, but am not excited about the 4e Realms, so I should just abandon it all together? Sorry if I was a fan of the 3.5 Realms, I would rather just stick with it, not toss the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
Moral of the story, the internet is not representative of anything besides itself, doubly so for amazon reviews.
Very true. The real world experience that came as a bit of a shock to me was down at DragonCon. Living Greyhawk had very few players compared to Living Forgotten Realms. 4e Blackmoor was also very very popular even though they only had two mods available.
I would say that the 4e games had nearly double the number of players overall compared to 3.5.
My local RPGA day is also breaking the same way with about 1/5 of the players wanting to stick with LG in the last poll they ran.
I just don't see the doom and gloom scenario that causes 4e to flop.
|
Just to post an experience, I have had 4e combats last a lot of rounds, 20+ on multiple occasions.
In my experience even if it doesn't actually last 20 rounds, it sure feels that way. If you find yourself constantly looking at your watch during the fight, you know it should have been over a long time ago.
|
|
In my experience even if it doesn't actually last 20 rounds, it sure feels that way. If you find yourself constantly looking at your watch during the fight, you know it should have been over a long time ago.
It seems that you and I are playing two very different games. I have never felt anything close to boredom in any of the combats I have played through.
|
The 4e fans won't turn to it, they've been there and done that for the most part. PfRPG doesn't offer them anything to make them want to go back to a 3.x style of play. Second there are many 3.5 groups that won't go to it either, they have no desire to switch, not for 4e or for PfRPG.
And that dear gamers is the sad truth!
I 3rd edition times most D&D players used the 3rd edition Core Rules*.But now the Fanbase has the 3rd and 3.5 Core Rules, the PFRPG and 4th edition.
That split can not be good for the hobby as we will play different games.
Ok, PFRPG and 3.5 will be compatible, but there will still be significant differences.
*of course there were, are and will be a group of players sticking with OD&D and AD&D 1st and 2nd.
And that dear gamers is the sad truth!
I 3rd edition times most D&D players used the 3rd edition Core Rules*.
But now the Fanbase has the 3rd and 3.5 Core Rules, the PFRPG and 4th edition.
That split can not be good for the hobby as we will play different games.
Ok, PFRPG and 3.5 will be compatible, but there will still be significant differences.*of course there were, are and will be a group of players sticking with OD&D and AD&D 1st and 2nd.
While I share a bit of your lament, I do beg to differ on the split. Having been around RPGing for over 25 years. I've played quite a few different games. One of the things that I have found true is that no single game can be all things to all the people. We have always played different games. Every group I've every played with had some sort of house rules for whatever version of D&D they were playing. The major different now is that some of these house-rules have been printed and sold. In my opinion, the split is good because, we as gamers are given a choice. You like 4ed, I personally do not, so I choose to play something else. Does this polarize things? Maybe it does, but we've always had that. We've always thought our camp was playing the best game and the other camps were somehow mistaken that they had the best game. So really nothing new here. Will this current split hurt, WoTC? I'm sure it will a little, but that's not my problem, that's theirs. They went one way and I'm going a different way. That's the way markets are suppose to work. Again, you can't make everyone happy. So as a way to close, go play what makes you happy and stop crying about things that can not and should not be changed.
|
|
In my experience even if it doesn't actually last 20 rounds, it sure feels that way. If you find yourself constantly looking at your watch during the fight, you know it should have been over a long time ago.I really have to disagree - though, again, this is based on my own experience. The thing that is really interesting about 4E combats is that even if they are running long, stuff is always happening. Every player's turn comes around pretty quickly, there is very little time spent sitting and perusing the PHB for twenty minutes waiting for your next turn.
If you mean missing with powers on a regualr basis and doing minor damage compared to the load of hp the monsters have or gettig a good view of your eyelids half of the combat, yeah you are doing something. Unfortunately, IMHO, it hasn't exactly been a thrilling, interesting, or engaging "something".
In my experience even if it doesn't actually last 20 rounds, it sure feels that way. If you find yourself constantly looking at your watch during the fight, you know it should have been over a long time ago.It seems that you and I are playing two very different games. I have never felt anything close to boredom in any of the combats I have played through.
Same here.
The 4e fans won't turn to it, they've been there and done that for the most part. PfRPG doesn't offer them anything to make them want to go back to a 3.x style of play. Second there are many 3.5 groups that won't go to it either, they have no desire to switch, not for 4e or for PfRPG.And that dear gamers is the sad truth!
I 3rd edition times most D&D players used the 3rd edition Core Rules*.
But now the Fanbase has the 3rd and 3.5 Core Rules, the PFRPG and 4th edition.
That split can not be good for the hobby as we will play different games.
Ok, PFRPG and 3.5 will be compatible, but there will still be significant differences.*of course there were, are and will be a group of players sticking with OD&D and AD&D 1st and 2nd.
It really won't be that much of an issue. Most games will end up as 4th Edition, with some playing 3.5 and some playing Pathfinder. The ones playing the latter two probably won't be the type to need their system compatible with other gaming groups, since their play will be confined to their own group. That's just how it goes.
As a comment on 4E, in a test scenario playing with 3rd level characters I found that the warlock (daily & encounter powers exhausted) did more damage indirectly by standing next to a monster marked by the fighter (also adjacent to it) and provoking attacks of opportunity from the monster thereby allowing the fighter to take another swing at it, than with the warlock's own at-wills.
It could just be that they weren't optimised enough characters, but it struck me as distinctly odd that a situation like that should end up arising.
Your 1d10 + 1d6 + charisma/constitution was worse than the Fighter's 1[W] + strength?
I have difficulty believing that.
That does sound pretty odd. Even the lowest damage warlock powers would be dealing 1d6 (base) + 1d6 (curse) + Con or Cha. A fighter with the biggest weapon out there, such as a Maul, would be dealing 2d6 + Str, for about the same damage. If the Warlock is using Dire Radiance or Hellish Rebuke, they nearly double their damage if it gets triggered, while Eldritch Blast on its own should be higher damage than the fighter. I have to imagine it was just a difference of optimization, with a very heavy damage fighter build and a less focused warlock build.I find (after checking the sheets I was supplied with) that the Warlock was using eldritch blast with infernal pact, (and a +1 rod), whilst the fighter was using a +1 frost great sword.
It was some time ago, and I don't recall exactly what the opposition was, but I do remember the Warlock wasn't hitting anything with the Eldritch Blast, whilst the fighter was hitting fairly regularly.
It could just have been the defenses of what we were fighting favoured attacks vs. AC, rather than vs. Reflex.
Ah, if you came across one of those odd monsters with a Reflex higher than its AC, that's possible. But your damage should have been comparable to the Fighter's (or better than it) when you hit.
If you mean missing with powers on a regualr basis and doing minor damage compared to the load of hp the monsters have or gettig a good view of your eyelids half of the combat, yeah you are doing something. Unfortunately, IMHO, it hasn't exactly been a thrilling, interesting, or engaging "something".In my experience even if it doesn't actually last 20 rounds, it sure feels that way. If you find yourself constantly looking at your watch during the fight, you know it should have been over a long time ago.I really have to disagree - though, again, this is based on my own experience. The thing that is really interesting about 4E combats is that even if they are running long, stuff is always happening. Every player's turn comes around pretty quickly, there is very little time spent sitting and perusing the PHB for twenty minutes waiting for your next turn.
Again, this is not how 4th Edition has ever played for me, my friends, and anyone I've spoken to through LFR games or the local club.
|
|
If you mean missing with powers on a regualr basis and doing minor damage compared to the load of hp the monsters have or gettig a good view of your eyelids half of the combat, yeah you are doing something. Unfortunately, IMHO, it hasn't exactly been a thrilling, interesting, or engaging "something".
Why do you keep missing your rolls? Are the encounters you are playing out of balance with your level? Is the party not playing well together?
My first level cleric was like +5 to hit with Righteous Brand and I was up against foes with like a 15 AC. Every time I hit I gave another character an additional +3 to hit. The fighter would step in to flank and end up with a +11 to hit.
Teamwork is the key to 4e. If you play as a team you can handle encounters quickly.
If you mean missing with powers on a regualr basis and doing minor damage compared to the load of hp the monsters have or gettig a good view of your eyelids half of the combat, yeah you are doing something. Unfortunately, IMHO, it hasn't exactly been a thrilling, interesting, or engaging "something".Why do you keep missing your rolls? Are the encounters you are playing out of balance with your level? Is the party not playing well together?
My first level cleric was like +5 to hit with Righteous Brand and I was up against foes with like a 15 AC. Every time I hit I gave another character an additional +3 to hit. The fighter would step in to flank and end up with a +11 to hit.
Teamwork is the key to 4e. If you play as a team you can handle encounters quickly.
Heck, the last solo monster fight I was in (at 1st level, to boot) was over in about six rounds as the party rushed the creature and locked it down. We took eight damage, total. Granted, that was the easiest solo fight I've experienced, but it shows that with some proper teamwork even solo monsters are enjoyable to fight.
Teamwork is the key to 4e.
This is what I love best about 4e. It does seem to emphasis teamwork more (not that teamwork didn't exist in 3e, but particular emphasis seems placed in 4e combat on the whole being more significant than the sum of each combatant).
If you mean missing with powers on a regualr basis and doing minor damage compared to the load of hp the monsters have or gettig a good view of your eyelids half of the combat, yeah you are doing something. Unfortunately, IMHO, it hasn't exactly been a thrilling, interesting, or engaging "something".What do you consider a "regular basis" for missing attacks? In 4E, it is true that generally you'll have about a 50% hit rate against most enemies, and that even if you are fully optimized, you are rarely ending up in the 'automatic hit' range of 3.5 (though you can occasionally get there when buffed by the right powers and in the right circumstances - again, teamwork matters).
But is this a bad thing? Again, turns go around quickly - hitting every other round still leaves plenty of time for excitement. How exciting is it if every attack always hits? Doesn't that remove the entire point of a dice-based game?
Not to mention that if you get super frustrated about not hitting on your turn, you can spend an action point to try again.
Not to mention that if you get super frustrated about not hitting on your turn, you can spend an action point to try again.... and if there is a warlord in the group you'll get bonuses to hit and damage.
And about a million other things.
I was just going through the Monster Manual looking at solo monsters. A 3rd-level solo (the Young White Dragon) has 200 HP. At 3rd-level, you can expect the average non-striker to deal in the neighborhood of 9.5 to 10.5 average damage on a successful hit (increase that by another 4 for striker characters). Assuming the characters hit 50% of the time and make a single attack each turn (in reality neither of these things ends up being true - characters typically have a greater than 50% chance of hitting and make slightly more than one attack per round on average), each character will be dealing roughly 5 damage per round (not counting strikers). This means that even without strikers to increase the damage per round, the average party with mediocre tactics will be able to kill that equal-level solo monster in eight rounds.
This is using conservative numbers and assuming no party synergy and no strikers, no use of encounter or daily powers, and no use of action points. It also doesn't take into account the solo monster's abilities that could hinder the party. I expect that these two roughly cancel each other out.
Really, they're not that tough. Eight rounds is a far cry from the 20 that someone was complaining about earlier.
Not to mention that if you get super frustrated about not hitting on your turn, you can spend an action point to try again.... and if there is a warlord in the group you'll get bonuses to hit and damage.And about a million other things.
Seems that alot of the conversation revolving around the Pf, 3.5, 4E thing is relating to combat. I asume that there is as much scope to get the plot/story aspect happening in 4E as anything else but I'm a little surprised at the level of discussion on combat.
I've always played DnD (in any iteration) as an RPG, not a combat game. That's why it never really bothered me that DnD combat rules were a little vague at times. I concentrated more on the story (but hey, that's just my style). After reading many of the posts here, I think the ppl making the point about 4E resembling something of an MMO are striking a chord with me. Character Optimization?? My idea of character optimization was to look at the six stats and imagine imagine what my character might be like. I get as much fun out of my characters limitations as thier strengths to the point that I've often created characters with major weaknesses on purpose and then role played them accordingly.
All this combat talk sounds like an excuse to meta-game the hell out of combat and turn it into a science.
Tin hat is on for any return fire. :)
Well since "story" aspects are very subjective, it is hard to talk about them in any kind of meaningful fashion. If I say my 3.5 game has great story aspects, how can anyone else judge that with out experiencing said game? That is why alot of online discussions revolve around objective mechanics, because irregardless of your own game, a certain mechanic functions a certain way (without getting into houserules).
I certainly haven't found the fact that the rules handle combat so well in any way lessens the ability to RP.
You make an interesting point and one that I intend to test. balance, I think, is crucial to decent RPG and an art that takes most DM/GM's years to get a grip on.
I wonder how hard it would be to adopt 4E combat into a 3.5 framework or would that make no sense? I've always respected the fact that the writers of DnD material have suggested that players/DM's change the rules to suit their game - that's why every group I have ever played with has offered a slightly different way to play the game.
Bet it won't take long before someone has some kind of hybrid in operation.
As an aside, I don't think 4E will have any market probs. Most ppl I play with have bought the new material out of sheer curiosity.
Well since "story" aspects are very subjective, it is hard to talk about them in any kind of meaningful fashion. If I say my 3.5 game has great story aspects, how can anyone else judge that with out experiencing said game? That is why alot of online discussions revolve around objective mechanics, because irregardless of your own game, a certain mechanic functions a certain way (without getting into houserules).
I understand and I'm not really trying to make a judgement - more get an idea for where the emphasis is. Secondly, most things are subjective in some way but this shouldn't stop discussion. Any net forum or magazine will discuss these very same things. As long as we talk about them with mutual respect (which we are :)) then I can still learn something about a game which many of you guys have far more experience with than me.
Not to mention that if you get super frustrated about not hitting on your turn, you can spend an action point to try again.... and if there is a warlord in the group you'll get bonuses to hit and damage.And about a million other things.
Seems that alot of the conversation revolving around the Pf, 3.5, 4E thing is relating to combat. I asume that there is as much scope to get the plot/story aspect happening in 4E as anything else but I'm a little surprised at the level of discussion on combat.
I've always played DnD (in any iteration) as an RPG, not a combat game. That's why it never really bothered me that DnD combat rules were a little vague at times. I concentrated more on the story (but hey, that's just my style). After reading many of the posts here, I think the ppl making the point about 4E resembling something of an MMO are striking a chord with me. Character Optimization?? My idea of character optimization was to look at the six stats and imagine imagine what my character might be like. I get as much fun out of my characters limitations as thier strengths to the point that I've often created characters with major weaknesses on purpose and then role played them accordingly.
All this combat talk sounds like an excuse to meta-game the hell out of combat and turn it into a science.
Tin hat is on for any return fire. :)
Actually, all the char op stuff talked about was in reference to the previous edition of D&D (3.5), which had an insane amount of character optimization going on because of the huge amount of splat material that often ended up being extremely powerful or extremely weak.
But really, D&D has always had a focus on combat. If you played it differently that's great, but the game has always been about fighting dragons in dungeons, so to speak.
yeah, you're right - there always been a combat aspect. Gamers who loved the combat usually play a different system such as rollmaster etc where things are more specific. DnD's combat system has always been pretty simplistic and even somewhat clunky IMHO.
Still, you're obviously bang on about the archetypal dungeon crawl staple of the game. I'd say that DnD has become more about combat or has expanded combat over the years which is totally understandable but the ODnD stuff was really thin on detail.
Don't get me wrong - I love the H&S too, but I've spent far more time on plot and motivation, using monsters intelligently and keeping things flowing than I have with sending out the random hordes. The game seems far more satisfying this way (horses for courses).
yeah, you're right - there always been a combat aspect. Gamers who loved the combat usually play a different system such as rollmaster etc where things are more specific. DnD's combat system has always been pretty simplistic and even somewhat clunky IMHO.
Still, you're obviously bang on about the archetypal dungeon crawl staple of the game. I'd say that DnD has become more about combat or has expanded combat over the years which is totally understandable but the ODnD stuff was really thin on detail.
What you're seeing isn't an increased emphasis on combat. You're actually seeing the evolution of game design theory over time. The original D&D was all about miniatures combat, but was not based on a fantastic rules system. The emphasis hasn't really shifted much, but the rules supporting it have definitely been refined and improved.
|
|
The roleplaying aspect of D&D has never changed. It can't change because roleplaying has no rules. No one can argue that roleplaying is better in any system since roleplaying has no system. The only system is what your character can and cannot do - mechanically. That may act as a guide to the way you roleplay but that should never be confused for actual roleplaying.
My biggest beef with 4e is that they printed black letters over a white background and it hurts my brain to sit down and read it for an extend period of time, whereas with 3.x I could sit and read the books cover to cover in one sitting.
The roleplaying aspect of D&D has never changed. It can't change because roleplaying has no rules. No one can argue that roleplaying is better in any system since roleplaying has no system. The only system is what your character can and cannot do - mechanically. That may act as a guide to the way you roleplay but that should never be confused for actual roleplaying.
Can't be argued? That's a pretty conclusive statement. Don't think it would be all that hard at all to argue seeing as my bookshelf has a stack of material devoted to specifically RPing. Yours probably does too. It's just the dice that decide the effectiveness of your RPing.
I agree however that the "aspect" of the game hasn't shifted all that much. There's just more rules now. It's actually amazing how many of the rules I don't use. The game would simply come to a standstill if I used them all. Remember Amour vs. Weapon Type? I used to use it then dumped it. Took to long to resolve. How bout Weapon Speed for the initiative roll? All that stuff would have been RPed years ago and basically still is. BUT, you can look at a table now if you want to, and that's the difference.
My biggest beef with 4e is that they printed black letters over a white background
Kinda like this forum?
In all seriousness, though, is there some way around that? Dimming the lights or something? I don't know much about that sort of condition.
|
|
Can't be argued? That's a pretty conclusive statement. Don't think it would be all that hard at all to argue seeing as my bookshelf has a stack of material devoted to specifically RPing. Yours probably does too. It's just the dice that decide the effectiveness of your RPing.
That is the problem. Role playing has absolutely nothing to do with rules or dice. Effective roleplaying (if it can even be described that way) has everything to do with your ability to get and in character.
I agree however that the "aspect" of the game hasn't shifted all that much. There's just more rules now. It's actually amazing how many of the rules I don't use. The game would simply come to a standstill if I used them all. Remember Amour vs. Weapon Type? I used to use it then dumped it. Took to long to resolve. How bout Weapon Speed for the initiative roll? All that stuff would have been RPed years ago and basically still is. BUT, you can look at a table now if you want to, and that's the difference.
Rules only regulate gameplay. The reason roleplaying never actually changes is that it is formed from pure imagination and a reaction to the gameplay. It is not generated by the gameplay itself.
|
|
The roleplaying aspect of D&D has never changed. It can't change because roleplaying has no rules. No one can argue that roleplaying is better in any system since roleplaying has no system. The only system is what your character can and cannot do - mechanically. That may act as a guide to the way you roleplay but that should never be confused for actual roleplaying.But particular rules mechanics are better suited to particular styles of game, and where the game mechanics do not match or conflict with the style of game, it can make roleplaying a lot more difficult by forcing the threshold of suspension of disbelief in the wrong direction.
I can kinda see your point but I don't really see how the style of game actually dictates your ability to get into character and roleplay.
