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.
I see what you're saying. Of course nothing in the rules has anything to do with a person's ability to play a role but the rules definitely constrain/allow how you do it. Alignment is a perfect example. A game, say, without things like alignment or other frameworks for a moral code etc, would have an effect on roleplay. I'm not suggesting that it has an effect on a persons' ability, just that these things do impact the experience - and from other things said on this thread, I'm glad that 4E still allows for a decent experience of RPing without limiting choice.
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.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.If mechanics support a style of game well, that can help to get a good mood going for what's happening, which hopefully feeds through into relaxing everyone and making roleplay easier.
If on the other hand, the mechanics are doing weird things with regards to the style of game under way, that's a distraction for everyone.
I know if I'm trying to play a gothic horror game I probably wouldn't want 'March of the Gladiators' (which I associate with circus clowns), playing as background music. (Or at least not unless it was one of those evil, twisted Nicholas Logue modules with clowns in, at which point it might take on sinister undertones...)
I'm trying to explain myself, but I don't know if I'm communicating very well.
Sure - notice that most extremely lethal systems that are successful have a lot of role playing? I mean fights make up only a very small portion of either Call of Cuthulu or Shadow run mainly because they are so lethal. If you go over why your characters have died in a game like Shadowrun you'll find that death was almost never heroic, its usually something inane like you pulled off the run perfectly except that you never accounted for the rent a cop along the escape path. One bad roll later and the rent a cop managed to pull out his gun and blow your head off before he went down in a hail of bullets from the rest of the runners.
The moral of the story is getting sloppy during planning and forgetting to really investigate the escape route was a lethal mistake. Plan better next time. Great game but not what everyone is looking for in their escapism.
|
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.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.
OD&D wasn't "all about miniatures combat", chainmail was. and chainmail wasn't a roleplaying game. it was a miniatures wargame game, with supplimental rules for fantasy wargaming and individual "heroes" on the board representing one person rather than a unit. OD&D removed the heroes from the miniatures wargaming board, and birthed true fantasy roleplaying. and with the "greyhawk", "blackmoor" and "eldrich wizardry" suppliments, OD&D moved closer to AD&D. BECMI was a refinement of the original three digest booklets for OD&D, AD&D was a refinement of all seven of the original digest booklets.
thus endith the mini-history lesson for the years 1974-1979...
you know he's going to try to argue that......not trying to be disagreeable or anything like that but just expressing my opinion that there will be those that try to argue the history lesson ;)
|
|
you know he's going to try to argue that......not trying to be disagreeable or anything like that but just expressing my opinion that there will be those that try to argue the history lesson ;)
they can argue away. i cut my d&d teeth in the 70's. i know the difference between OD&D and chainmail, even if the whippersnappers don't... ;)
Re the assertion that 4e encourages role playing and non-combat actions/scenes/encounters easily as much as any previous edition (or any other rpg come to that) ... if that really is the case someone had better tell WotC, as judging by every recent official adventure they have produced they seem utterly unaware role-playing/non-combat stuff was being encouraged. ;-)
Seriously, 4e seems massively skewed towards combat to me. Certainly waaaay more so than any previous edition (and I'm not getting into whether Chainmail was a previous edition of D&D or not - it wasn't, end of).
Everything in the three initial core books screams out 'battle-battle-battle' to me, from the art, most of the text (save a couple of strangely incongruous bits of advice in the DMG that seem to have fallen in from a different game), to the excised less combat oriented spells, to the mechanical MM with it's glorified computer game like opponents who have no cultural notes or identity at all and seem to exist solely to be fought and killed, to the encourgement and language aimed at describing the party as some kind of violent American Football team, and the pushing of minis up to a near essential part of the game. It doesn't surprise me in the least that every adventure/module I've glanced at for 4e so far has about half it's content given over to battlemaps, tactics etc, and that's not including the earlier 'overview' covering those same combat areas in less specific detail! Each adventure has been decidedly light on what some like to term fluff, as if flavour text and backstory are somehow an optional and largely unnecessary detail.
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?
You better tell my players they're doing 4E wrong then as they're role-playing to the hilt. I'll get on and tell them to stop. :D
|
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?
Nope. Rules and mechanics can distract people from roleplaying - typically those mechanics are just crappy or overly complex (which is just another flavor of crappy).
4e encourages role playing just as much as any version of D&D - and any other RPG for that matter.
You better tell my players they're doing 4E wrong then as they're role-playing to the hilt. I'll get on and tell them to stop. :D
Who said they couldn't or shouldn't? I'm just saying to me 4e seems to HEAVILY emphasise combat in pretty unarguable and large ways. And more so than previous editions, though I'd accept that part is more arguable.
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?Nope. Rules and mechanics can distract people from roleplaying - typically those mechanics are just crappy or overly complex (which is just another flavor of crappy).
4e encourages role playing just as much as any version of D&D - and any other RPG for that matter.
I disagree. For example, Runequest rewards non-combat skill use, actively in it's system - that greatly encourages non-combat skill use, and really helps make out of combat actions more interesting to players (most of whom are point whores at heart in my experience) and thereby almost tricks them into roleplaying more.
To suggest rules have no effect on how the game is played is very much a half truth imo. It's not all rules either ... how many roleplaying/non-combat oriented 4e adventures have we seen? How many have been kind half and half? Big fat none as far as I can see, and reading the books that really doesn't surprise me.
You better tell my players they're doing 4E wrong then as they're role-playing to the hilt. I'll get on and tell them to stop. :DWho said they couldn't or shouldn't? I'm just saying to me 4e seems to HEAVILY emphasise combat in pretty unarguable and large ways. And more so than previous editions, though I'd accept that part is more arguable.
I agree that the crunch emphasizes combat, but not necessarily the books themselves. They do put a lot of ideas and focus, particularly in the DMG, on how to make the world come alive and make exciting. I actually have found for my group that by not putting things such as "Cooking" as skills and other kinds of flavor items into a mechanic, it actually frees up noncombat encounters to make them whatever our imagination chooses.
If a game is just a series of crunch and numbers, I agree that 4e is mostly combat. But if you look at the totality of the 3 books, I think they've actually put more effort than any previous edition on making the world fun and exciting.
|
|
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?Nope. Rules and mechanics can distract people from roleplaying - typically those mechanics are just crappy or overly complex (which is just another flavor of crappy).
4e encourages role playing just as much as any version of D&D - and any other RPG for that matter.
I disagree. For example, Runequest rewards non-combat skill use, actively in it's system - that greatly encourages non-combat skill use, and really helps make out of combat actions more interesting to players (most of whom are point whores at heart in my experience) and thereby almost tricks them into roleplaying more.
To suggest rules have no effect on how the game is played is very much a half truth imo. It's not all rules either ... how many roleplaying/non-combat oriented 4e adventures have we seen? How many have been kind half and half? Big fat none as far as I can see, and reading the books that really doesn't surprise me.
Out of combat mechanics is not the same as roleplaying - it's just out of combat mechanics.
|
|
You better tell my players they're doing 4E wrong then as they're role-playing to the hilt. I'll get on and tell them to stop. :DWho said they couldn't or shouldn't? I'm just saying to me 4e seems to HEAVILY emphasise combat in pretty unarguable and large ways. And more so than previous editions, though I'd accept that part is more arguable.
4e has fewer combat rules than 3e. 3e has some non-combat mechanics that 4e lacks.
Neither of these has anything to do with how much roleplaying happens during a 3.5 or 4e game session, or how important roleplaying is during a game session.
how many roleplaying/non-combat oriented 4e adventures have we seen? How many have been kind half and half? Big fat none as far as I can see, and reading the books that really doesn't surprise me.
I felt this way at first based on Keep on the Shadowfell and the first few Dungeon adventures, but it is getting much better. I'm loving Thunderspire Labyrinth, which so far has had an equal mix of combat vs. roleplaying in my group. The Dungeon adventures are getting much more involved as well.
It still feels like 4e adventures from WotC are trying to hit their stride with mixing combat and flavor, but it is getting better.
Re the assertion that 4e encourages role playing and non-combat actions/scenes/encounters easily as much as any previous edition (or any other rpg come to that) ... if that really is the case someone had better tell WotC, as judging by every recent official adventure they have produced they seem utterly unaware role-playing/non-combat stuff was being encouraged. ;-)
You'd think some one would have brought this to their attention sometime during the 3.x era but apparently no one ever did.
Turning Ravonloft from dark moody Gothic horror into a hackfest was the low point for me in this regards.
In anycase I think you might be mistaken in this in terms of pure word count if nothing else since they need to spend a nice chunk of their word count on the Skill Challenges.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Re the assertion that 4e encourages role playing and non-combat actions/scenes/encounters easily as much as any previous edition (or any other rpg come to that) ... if that really is the case someone had better tell WotC, as judging by every recent official adventure they have produced they seem utterly unaware role-playing/non-combat stuff was being encouraged. ;-)
Seriously, 4e seems massively skewed towards combat to me. Certainly waaaay more so than any previous edition (and I'm not getting into whether Chainmail was a previous edition of D&D or not - it wasn't, end of).
Everything in the three initial core books screams out 'battle-battle-battle' to me, from the art, most of the text (save a couple of strangely incongruous bits of advice in the DMG that seem to have fallen in from a different game), to the excised less combat oriented spells, to the mechanical MM with it's glorified computer game like opponents who have no cultural notes or identity at all and seem to exist solely to be fought and killed, to the encourgement and language aimed at describing the party as some kind of violent American Football team, and the pushing of minis up to a near essential part of the game. It doesn't surprise me in the least that every adventure/module I've glanced at for 4e so far has about half it's content given over to battlemaps, tactics etc, and that's not including the earlier 'overview' covering those same combat areas in less specific detail! Each adventure has been decidedly light on what some like to term fluff, as if flavour text and backstory are somehow an optional and largely unnecessary detail.
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?
Ah, lack of perspective, is there anything it can't distort.
You're absolutely, objectively correct. 4e is nothing but computer game combat around the table. We will quit enjoying 4e and admit that we play it only as a form of self-punishment given that no reasonable human could claim to enjoy it. Plus, I think I speak for everyone who has ever played 4e when I say that we don't bother roleplaying, we only like to kill things. And only in the ways WotC tells us to kill them (or to like killing them).
Now go rant somewhere else. Maybe Razz found some forums out there and the two of you can be BFF's and swap stories about the grand conspiracies to destroy 3e and work yourselves into an emotional lather about the sins of 4e. It'll be fun, I'm sure.
Re the assertion that 4e encourages role playing and non-combat actions/scenes/encounters easily as much as any previous edition (or any other rpg come to that) ... if that really is the case someone had better tell WotC, as judging by every recent official adventure they have produced they seem utterly unaware role-playing/non-combat stuff was being encouraged. ;-)
You'd think some one would have brought this to their attention sometime during the 3.x era but apparently no one ever did.
Turning Ravonloft into a hackfest was the low point for me in this regards.
Oh I agree, and recall saying as much to friends, not realising at the time it was a trend leading into what would become the 4e adventure standard - ie page upon page of battlemaps and combat notes.
Re the assertion that 4e encourages role playing and non-combat actions/scenes/encounters easily as much as any previous edition (or any other rpg come to that) ... if that really is the case someone had better tell WotC, as judging by every recent official adventure they have produced they seem utterly unaware role-playing/non-combat stuff was being encouraged. ;-)
Seriously, 4e seems massively skewed towards combat to me. Certainly waaaay more so than any previous edition (and I'm not getting into whether Chainmail was a previous edition of D&D or not - it wasn't, end of).
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?
Ah, lack of perspective, is there anything it can't distort.
You're absolutely, objectively correct. 4e is nothing but computer game combat around the table. We will quit enjoying 4e and admit that we play it only as a form of self-punishment given that no reasonable human could claim to enjoy it. Plus, I think I speak for everyone who has ever played 4e when I say that we don't bother roleplaying, we only like to kill things. And only in the ways WotC tells us to kill them (or to like killing them).
Now go rant somewhere else. Maybe Razz found some forums out there and the two of you can be BFF's and swap stories about the grand conspiracies to destroy 3e and work yourselves into an emotional lather about the sins of 4e. It'll be fun, I'm sure.
Charming as ever. Where have I insulted anyone? As opposed to your entirely customary and SOP rudeness and arrogance.
Physician heal thyself.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Charming as ever.
And sexy. You forgot sexy.
Where have I insulted anyone? As opposed to your entirely customary and SOP rudeness and arrogance.
Hmmm...I wonder what you said that was so ignorant and uninformed as to be insulting...hmmm...could it have been:
To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?
Yeah...that's the ticket.
Out of combat mechanics is not the same as roleplaying - it's just out of combat mechanics.To suggest 4e encourages roleplaying as much as any system is frankly absurd imho. Love it, or hate it, 4e is all about the combat surely?Nope. Rules and mechanics can distract people from roleplaying - typically those mechanics are just crappy or overly complex (which is just another flavor of crappy).
4e encourages role playing just as much as any version of D&D - and any other RPG for that matter.
I disagree. For example, Runequest rewards non-combat skill use, actively in it's system - that greatly encourages non-combat skill use, and really helps make out of combat actions more interesting to players (most of whom are point whores at heart in my experience) and thereby almost tricks them into roleplaying more.
To suggest rules have no effect on how the game is played is very much a half truth imo. It's not all rules either ... how many roleplaying/non-combat oriented 4e adventures have we seen? How many have been kind half and half? Big fat none as far as I can see, and reading the books that really doesn't surprise me.
I feel you're being rather ... what's the word ... 'literal' there.
Of course out of combat game mechanics aren't roleplaying. Having a good and (genuinely) encouraged set of out of combat game mechanics tends to promote and encourage increased roleplaying. IMO of course.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Of course out of combat game mechanics aren't roleplaying. Having a good and (genuinely) encouraged set of out of combat game mechanics tends to promote and encourage increased roleplaying. IMO of course.
Ah. I understand now. So, 1e, 2e and OD&D must all have been less about roleplaying because they didn't have nearly as many out of combat game mechanics as compared with 3e or 4e.
Got it.
You better tell my players they're doing 4E wrong then as they're role-playing to the hilt. I'll get on and tell them to stop. :DWho said they couldn't or shouldn't? I'm just saying to me 4e seems to HEAVILY emphasise combat in pretty unarguable and large ways. And more so than previous editions, though I'd accept that part is more arguable.4e has fewer combat rules than 3e. 3e has some non-combat mechanics that 4e lacks.
Neither of these has anything to do with how much roleplaying happens during a 3.5 or 4e game session, or how important roleplaying is during a game session.
It's not all about numbers.
I'm talking about the massive emphasis that I at least perceived when reading the books. An emphasis that isn't about numbers of rules, it's about the emphasis in the rulebooks, and the emphasis I see reflected in every adventure I've looked at so far coming out of WotC (and yes actually that includes the later -transitional- modules WotC put out for 3.5 ... presumably to ease people into the new model).
Can and do people play roleplay heavy sessions? *shrug* I'd imagine some do, (and judging by the strangely defensive posts here this afternoon it seems some indeed do) but it doesn't seem to me at least as being the norm set out in the rulebooks (art, fluffless monster manual, lack of non-combat spells, blah blah blah) and every adventure from WotC. So far.
Hey you guys can play what you like, how you like. Just as I can. I have an opinion and I'm posting it as politely as I can on a board for opinions about games. Sorry if that rattles your cage. Ah, hell, let's be honest, I'm not sorry if does. It's my opinion and I'm just stating it. So ... there.
I disagree. For example, Runequest rewards non-combat skill use, actively in it's system - that greatly encourages non-combat skill use, and really helps make out of combat actions more interesting to players (most of whom are point whores at heart in my experience) and thereby almost tricks them into roleplaying more.
Kind of like how 4th Edition rewards non-combat skill use through skill challenges.
I actually thought the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft published adventure was awesome. I ran it twice, and both groups had a blast. Half of the book made creating the setting and mood easy and enjoyable, and the other half of the book made running the adventure's combats and other crunch-related bits enjoyable.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's not all about numbers.I'm talking about the massive emphasis that I at least perceived when reading the books. An emphasis that isn't about numbers of rules, it's about the emphasis in the rulebooks, and the emphasis I see reflected in every adventure I've looked at so far coming out of WotC (and yes actually that includes the later -transitional- modules WotC put out for 3.5 ... presumably to ease people into the new model).
Maybe the deficiency is not in the books, but in your ability to perceive what's actually there.
Can and do people play roleplay heavy sessions? *shrug* I'd imagine some do, (and judging by the strangely defensive posts here this afternoon it seems some indeed do) but it doesn't seem to me at least as being the norm set out in the rulebooks (art, fluffless monster manual, lack of non-combat spells, blah blah blah) and every adventure from WotC. So far.
Except there are non-combat spells.
And monster fluff.
And mechanics for non-combat encounters.
And advice on roleplaying.
Hey you guys can play what you like, how you like. Just as I can. I have an opinion and I'm posting it as politely as I can on a board for opinions about games. Sorry if that rattles your cage. Ah, hell, let's be honest, I'm not sorry if does. It's my opinion and I'm just stating it. So ... there.
Neh. The problem isn't your opinion, it's that you are incorrect in your factual assertions which you use to back up your opinion and then express surprise that no one else shares your poorly reasoned bias. Be as opinionated as you want, but distorting the truth to support your opinion isn't going to earn that opinion any respect.
Of course out of combat game mechanics aren't roleplaying. Having a good and (genuinely) encouraged set of out of combat game mechanics tends to promote and encourage increased roleplaying. IMO of course.Ah. I understand now. So, 1e, 2e and OD&D must all have been less about roleplaying because they didn't have nearly as many out of combat game mechanics as compared with 3e or 4e.
Got it.
I fear debating any point in this discussion with yourself is rather pointless, as you are clearly not prepared to be either sensible or civil.
It's not all about numbers.I'm talking about the massive emphasis that I at least perceived when reading the books. An emphasis that isn't about numbers of rules, it's about the emphasis in the rulebooks, and the emphasis I see reflected in every adventure I've looked at so far coming out of WotC (and yes actually that includes the later -transitional- modules WotC put out for 3.5 ... presumably to ease people into the new model).
Maybe the deficiency is not in the books, but in your ability to perceive what's actually there.
Can and do people play roleplay heavy sessions? *shrug* I'd imagine some do, (and judging by the strangely defensive posts here this afternoon it seems some indeed do) but it doesn't seem to me at least as being the norm set out in the rulebooks (art, fluffless monster manual, lack of non-combat spells, blah blah blah) and every adventure from WotC. So far.Except there are non-combat spells.
And monster fluff.
And mechanics for non-combat encounters.
And advice on roleplaying.
Hey you guys can play what you like, how you like. Just as I can. I have an opinion and I'm posting it as politely as I can on a board for opinions about games. Sorry if that rattles your cage. Ah, hell, let's be honest, I'm not sorry if does. It's my opinion and I'm just stating it. So ... there.Neh. The problem isn't your opinion, it's that you are incorrect in your factual assertions which you use to back up your opinion and then express surprise that no one else shares your poorly reasoned bias. Be as opinionated as you want, but distorting the truth to support your opinion isn't going to earn that opinion any respect.
Ah, the old 4e defence. All my points are factually wrong and my opinion means absolutely zero.
How refreshingly familiar.
Except there are non-combat spells. [\quote]
Considerably less ... you'd agree?
And monster fluff. [\quote]
Considerably (waaaaay) less ... you'd agree. Or do are you genuinely saying you believe that abomination of a MM has lots of fluff?
And mechanics for non-combat encounters. [\quote]See my earlier on 'emphasis'. Tagging some role playing advice into the DMG and a pretty brief and in my personal opinion 'after thoughty' type rules in, in no way equates to encouraging roleplaying when the vast weight of the rest of the game is pushing combat. And every module seems to me to being half way to a tabletop minis combat game.
Anyway, as I say, it's my opinion. And as ever how about you take some of your own advise. You seem to be utterly unprepared to countenance any negative opinion on 4e here. How about you accept some may disagree and post as such, and have possibly valid opinions?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ah, the old 4e defence. All my points are factually wrong and my opinion means absolutely zero.How refreshingly familiar.
I see why you're not debating me. You're really bad at it. And even worse at understanding what is written. I'm sorry you're facts are wrong, I don't know what I can do to help you. You might try quoting actual facts that are, well, factual.
But, whatever. 4e only has rules for combat, it's impossible to roleplay using the system, etc. I'm telling you, I completely believe it. You've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesn't have any non-combat mechanics (and, unlike other games without substantial non-combat mechanics like 1e and 2e, this is a deficiency), it only has combat spells, and there is nothing flavorful anywhere in the book. Heck, Chapter 13 specifically has a section talking about how you are a dweeb if you try to get in character and should consider D&D to be like Risk or Monopoly.
See, not only do I agree, I helped you make up some new facts to support your opinion. We're on the same side!
Ah, the old 4e defence. All my points are factually wrong and my opinion means absolutely zero.How refreshingly familiar.
I see why you're not debating me. You're really bad at it. And even worse at understanding what is written. I'm sorry you're facts are wrong, I don't know what I can do to help you. You might try quoting actual facts that are, well, factual.
But, whatever. 4e only has rules for combat, it's impossible to roleplay using the system, etc. I'm telling you, I completely believe it. You've proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It doesn't have any non-combat mechanics (and, unlike other games without substantial non-combat mechanics like 1e and 2e, this is a deficiency), it only has combat spells, and there is nothing flavorful anywhere in the book. Heck, Chapter 13 specifically has a section talking about how you are a dweeb if you try to get in character and should consider D&D to be like Risk or Monopoly.
See, not only do I agree, I helped you make up some new facts to support your opinion. We're on the same side!
Where have I said the game has no non-combat mechanics?
Where have I said it's impossible to role play in 4e. In fact I've said the opposite.
I mentioned the strangely incongruous roleplaying advice you reference.
It's pointless getting into this with you though, as you aren't prepared to accept the bottom line. I was talking about my impression of the game, and the emphasis therein.
So no, from here on I'll bite my tongue, and move along. I'm sure you'll regard this as some kind of victory. I think I'm happy to let others decide as to that.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So no, from here on I'll bite my tongue, and move along. I'm sure you'll regard this as some kind of victory.
Every argument you've made could be made about 1e or 2e (or, if you were to compare 3e to a less tactical game instead of a different version of D&D). It is your inability to appreciate your narrow perspective that is causing the problem. You start from your conclusion (4e is all about combat) then assemble a handful of choice "facts" to support that conclusion, either discarding or giving less weight to those that do not support that conclusion. I could make the exact same arguments you make about 4e about 1e and 2e.
I think I'm happy to let others decide as to that.
Oooh! A popularity contest? That will resolve this issue!!! How about a battle of the bands instead? Those are more fun.
|
|
Of course out of combat game mechanics aren't roleplaying. Having a good and (genuinely) encouraged set of out of combat game mechanics tends to promote and encourage increased roleplaying. IMO of course.
This is one of the few times I can actually say that your opinion is wrong. OD&D had near ZERO non-combat mechanics and those games were some of the richest roleplaying sessions I have ever had. If you need non-combat mechanics to use as a crutch for roleplaying so be it but do not confuse roleplaying for rules.
|
|
Can and do people play roleplay heavy sessions? *shrug* I'd imagine some do, (and judging by the strangely defensive posts here this afternoon it seems some indeed do) but it doesn't seem to me at least as being the norm set out in the rulebooks (art, fluffless monster manual, lack of non-combat spells, blah blah blah) and every adventure from WotC. So far.
There are plenty of non-combat spells - they are now called rituals. In addition powers can be used out of combat. The MM actually has fluff - every critter has a lore section. As for adventures - heck, even Keep on the Shadowfell has dozens of RP opportunities.
The PHB and DMG are packed with RP advice. Seems to me that you should go back and look at the books again. I think you missed something.
|
|
Of course out of combat game mechanics aren't roleplaying. Having a good and (genuinely) encouraged set of out of combat game mechanics tends to promote and encourage increased roleplaying. IMO of course.Ah. I understand now. So, 1e, 2e and OD&D must all have been less about roleplaying because they didn't have nearly as many out of combat game mechanics as compared with 3e or 4e.
Got it.
I fear debating any point in this discussion with yourself is rather pointless, as you are clearly not prepared to be either sensible or civil.
In other words - Sebastian has a valid point.
It might be noted that many 3.x groups have tossed skills such as bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, and intimidate just because they are seen by those groups has hindering roleplaying.
I'm talking about the massive emphasis that I at least perceived when reading the books. An emphasis that isn't about numbers of rules, it's about the emphasis in the rulebooks, and the emphasis I see reflected in every adventure I've looked at so far coming out of WotC (and yes actually that includes the later -transitional- modules WotC put out for 3.5 ... presumably to ease people into the new model).
There is nothing transitional about these modules. A heavy focus on the combat aspects of the game has been true ever since WotC became the stewards of the game, evaluated, what TSR was doing wrong and declared 'back to the Dungeon' as their mantra
The kinds of dark moody, relitivly combat light adventures which we sometimes saw from TSR at the tail end of 1st edition (exemplified by Ravonloft) and that continued in varous forms throughout the 2nd edition era simply don't exist, at least not from WotC in the 3rd edition era and so far in the 4E era.
If one is looking for these kinds of adventures one really ought to look back at what TSR was doing in the 2nd edition era because that is the golden age for this sort of adventure. This is true even of the Dungeon Magaizne, which had a much higher percentage of combat heavy adventures in the 3rd edition era then was true of the story heavy emphasis of 2nd edition. That said if we look at the last few years of Pazio's stewardship we begin to see a shift. The Eberron adventures often shifted the focus away from combat and more toward investigation. Prince of Red Hand was combat light, Diplomacy was combat light.
However, when it comes to WotC itself, there is some significant focus on non combat aspects of adventures in the 4E so far due to the desire to utilize the Skill Challenge system. Still very much a minority of the encounters but the mechanics are in place to do adventures that are more about things like skill challenges then combat and still get XP. Something thats not really emphasized in the 3rd edition rules where you got XP mainly for killing things - especially in WotC designed adventures.
Every argument you've made could be made about 1e or 2e (or, if you were to compare 3e to a less tactical game instead of a different version of D&D). It is your inability to appreciate your narrow perspective that is causing the problem. You start from your conclusion (4e is all about combat) then assemble a handful of choice "facts" to support that conclusion, either discarding or giving less weight to those that do not support that conclusion. I could make the exact same arguments you make about 4e about 1e and 2e.
There was definitely less role playing in the 1st edition games I was in than there was in the 3rd edition games I was in. 1st edition had very little in the way of mechanics for roleplaying, and we played pretty much hack and slash. All of the options that were available in 3rd edition opened up a whole new world of options for players. It's been my experience that the more options there are in the game, the better the experience of playing the game is. Choices in 4e are much more limited. There's no arguing that point - 1 phb vs 30 supplements, splatbooks, etc.
I would like to note that your tone is not a very pleasant one - you spoke earlier of people respecting one's opinions. It's my opinion that your tone is not conducive to persuading anyone of your points, either.
I actually thought the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft published adventure was awesome. I ran it twice, and both groups had a blast. Half of the book made creating the setting and mood easy and enjoyable, and the other half of the book made running the adventure's combats and other crunch-related bits enjoyable.
Did you ever play the original?
Truth is if it had been its own adventure I'd probably have really liked it. I honestly have nothing against a good hack fest and one with a great background and a good story - yes please. The problem is they took the ultimate classical gothic horror adventure and made it basically a hackfest. Maybe if the original Ravonloft had not been such an exceptional realization of Gothic horror, if it had not actually managed to take that genre and so perfectly and expertly translate into a D&D adventure I might have been able to over look this reinterpretation of the genre,
I was also sorely disappointed, WotC had made absolutly nothing but hack fests up until that point. They had utterly ignored everything that had been done before that was not essentially a string of combats all related. I was really excited that maybe they were finally 'getting it'. Sure there was a place in D&D for Dungeon and 2nd edition had taken the game to far from the Dungeon. I understood why we needed a 'back to the dungeon' movement But WotC had taken things to far in the other direction. Ravenloft showed clearly that they had not come to the same conclusion I had - they took Moody Gothic Horror and made it Action Horror. Action Horror is a great premise for an adventure, don't get me wrong in that regards, its just that I wanted to finally see a little less action and a little more plot from them and I did not get that.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
On one hand, I can't believe this debate is still going on.
On the other hand, it warms my heart and makes me chuckle to see Sebastian continuing his dismantling of trolls, and Crosswired Mind's fervent devotion to all things 4e.
Bottom line: All D&D editions emphasized combat. Combat is the main focus of the rules because that is the part of the game that requires the most structure. Role-playing requires some guidelines to help build and play your character, but combat requires rules to be followed, regardless of your character/role-playing choice, so that the results of a combat encounter can be resolved fairly and equitably.
All RPGs have their own mechanic for combat and I'd bet the page count of the rulebooks for most RPGs is dominated by their combat systems.
Personally, I don't care for 4e because I dislike the rule changes and don't like the way it plays. Other people disagree with me. The thing I've learned to keep in mind is that it's not an inferior game to 3.5, just a different one.
I have been thinking (uh-oh) and wonder if some of these posts are partially motivated out of a concern that something intangible is being 'lost' which is important; that the next generation of gamers, coming to 4e from wherever they come from, will be missing out on something which posters consider essential to roleplaying?
Maybe I'm being too kind with this thought.Edit:
And Sebastian; look, no avatar still.... :D
Speaking as someone who regularly runs games for college freshmen who have never played D&D before, I can say for certain that they are not missing any of the elements essential to a good game of D&D, role-playing or otherwise.
I feel that mechanically 4e is not the same D&D I grew up enjoying. I don't make that statement to irritate 4e fans or to be anarchistic. For me, 3e wasn't either. Yeah, yeah, improvements were made, blah, blah, blah, but they were mechanical improvements. I fully accept that the mechanical improvements made to the game since AD&D were a good decision for the people unable to do basic math. Fine. Whatever it takes.
But, Somewhere along the development path of D&D, something changed. The game switched from mechanics being the subtle operators in the background as a device used to determine outcomes to the story to the mechanics having at least on par importance to the story, or at worst, the primary devices best suited to tell the story through. Game mechanics will always be a part of D&D. No one can deny that. The degree in which they intrude upon the DM's ability to tell and weave a good adventure story is the key, and right or wrong, I think it's undeniable that the latest editions have intentionally or uintentionally moved further away from the story and towards the mechanics. Obviously, superior and experienced DMs can and will make that statement irrelevant. They'll be able to weave magical stories and interesting adventures despite whatever mechanics drive the game, but it's the inexperienced DMs that these system changes will affect over the long term.
But then, what do I know? I've only been DMing since before most DMs today were even born, so it's not like I haven't seen the trends in gamers and D&D over the decades. Hey, if people can run fun games using whatever system they prefer, more power to them. Call it D&D if you want. Call it an abomination. Who cares as long as everyone around the table is having fun playing it.
I'd like to lock this thread. I started it, I know, but I think I'm going to quote a great Japanese admiral. "We have awakened a slumbering giant." I think it needs to be put back to sleep. The circular arguments aren't going to stop. No matter how many times it's going to be said across the boards it will always be the same.
You will either like or love 4th and call it D&D.
You will either dislike or hate 4th and say it isn't.
In between those statements is a set of beliefs and opinions as to why that is. Unfortunately, it's also dragged in beliefs about people and companies and about how they save us or damn us all.
Starting this post is definitely the greatest mistake I have ever made on these boards. Once again, I apologize, and can anyone tell me how to get this travesty locked so we can move on?
It was Admiral Yamamoto, and you forgot the "and filled him with a terrible resolve" part of the quote, which is also accurate. This is why I do not normally post on these subjects, because people have very emotional attachments to particular versions of D&D, and no argument is going to get them to change their minds. I happen to like 4th edition just fine, but I would no sooner try to get a 3.5 adherist to change his mind than I would get a die hard Republican to vote Democrat.
I feel that mechanically 4e is not the same D&D I grew up enjoying. I don't make that statement to irritate 4e fans or to be anarchistic. For me, 3e wasn't either. Yeah, yeah, improvements were made, blah, blah, blah, but they were mechanical improvements. I fully accept that the mechanical improvements made to the game since AD&D were a good decision for the people unable to do basic math. Fine. Whatever it takes.
But, Somewhere along the development path of D&D, something changed. The game switched from mechanics being the subtle operators in the background as a device used to determine outcomes to the story to the mechanics having at least on par importance to the story, or at worst, the primary devices best suited to tell the story through. Game mechanics will always be a part of D&D. No one can deny that. The degree in which they intrude upon the DM's ability to tell and weave a good adventure story is the key, and right or wrong, I think it's undeniable that the latest editions have intentionally or uintentionally moved further away from the story and towards the mechanics. Obviously, superior and experienced DMs can and will make that statement irrelevant. They'll be able to weave magical stories and interesting adventures despite whatever mechanics drive the game, but it's the inexperienced DMs that these system changes will affect over the long term.
Perhaps I'm simply being naive, but I don't think there's any mechanic in 4th Edition that would prevent even a novice DM from telling whichever fantasy story he wants.