D&D 4th edition rules and what we can learn from them...

[Harshax]

The question whether D&D 4.0 is an RPG or not must have a lot of POW ...

After looking at the leaked files, all I'll say on the matter is that D&D is not not an RPG. There aren't any rules that make role playing verboten and no DM guidelines suggesting that players should retire to the drawing room while you clear the table and prepare the next melee battleground.

I think it is very cool that you could run it strictly as a skirmish game, without a DM. The DMG has some suggestions about it too.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I so want this horrible thread to die and be replaced with 3 different threads:

I hate D&D

I like this about D&D and will use it

Personality Mechanics and Gaming

[frogspawner]

4th edition has a built in "Ending". Each character is supposed to be created with a final Epic Destiny in mind. After a character reaches 30th level they embark on their final adventure and achieve that epic destiny, and therefore leave the game.

Congratulations! You won D&D! You are now free to create a new character and start over again!

Epic Destinies:

4th Edition Excerpts: Epic Destinies

As for converting 3.5 to 4.0, I don't think they are at all concerned with it. It appears to me that they expect everyone to just "finish" their game, make new characters and start over in 4.0. You don't have to get rid of your world though! You can just have some world shattering catastrophe explain all of the changes that are taking place. They even give you ideas how to do it.

Catastrophic Endings:

Steal This Hook! - The Sky Is Falling!

Thanks for that - most informative, though it is bitter-sweet to have one's worst suspicions proved right.

This is not just an "I hate DnD" thread, for me at least - I am genuinely looking for things to learn from 4E. The trouble is there's precious little that's good - mostly it's teaching us what not to do in an RPG.

Yes, RPG - it is still an RPG. As I said before, anything can be RP-ed. So you could have "Noughts and Crosses - the Role-Playing Game" (with the exact-same rules as we all already know) and it would be an RPG. Sadly, though, 4E appears to be trying to twist what "role" means: to just combat function instead of character personality.

WotC seem to have succumbed to the classic GM temptation, becoming controlling instead of enabling (like GS's Glorantha?). And their reasons are obviou$.

[Enpeze]

Basically, BRP will probably never be seen on the shelves of my FLGS, because more and more people are going for miniatures games;-(

No, please dont confuse it. Miniature Games like D&D4e ARE roleplaying games. At least according to Wizards of the Coast and some participants of this thread.

And next year WotC is producing a MONOPOLY variant with some castles for houses, dragonlair for jail and gold pieces included and label it at the front cover as "Dungeonopoly - the new 3D roleplaying experience". I am sure some people will love this game for its potential for roleplaying. The rules of this game would be not that important, as long as you can play you character between movement from hotel- ahem- castle to lair and vice versa. I mean hey why not? Its Wizards of the Coast. They know what a rpg is, no? If they are putting their rpg label at the front of game box/book, it IS one!

Other examples of this exceptional tolerant view what a rpg is, are WoW, Everquest, Advanced Heroquest, Warhammer Mordheim, Fighting Fantasy Books, this thread and of course Talisman. (at least I heard from people who used to play out their Talisman characters ingame and with a game master)

[rust]

Now, let us take a look at a common (Wikipedia) definition of roleplaying ga-

mes:

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the

participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively cre-

ate or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters

based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to

a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvi-

se freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Can one do all this with D&D 4.0 ?

- assume the role of a fictional character: yes

- collaboratively create or follow stories: yes

- use rules to decide the success of actions: oh, yes

- improvise freely within the rules: well, yes

- shape the direction and outcome of the game: yes

Is D&D 4.0 a roleplaying game, according to this definition ?

Obviously, yes.

Do we need another, more narrow definition of what an RPG is ?

Not in my opinion, I have no idea what it could be good for.

So, could we let it stand there, please ?

[Enpeze]

Thanks for that - most informative, though it is bitter-sweet to have one's worst suspicions proved right.

This is not just an "I hate DnD" thread, for me at least - I am genuinely looking for things to learn from 4E. The trouble is there's precious little that's good - mostly it's teaching us what not to do in an RPG.

Yes, RPG - it is still an RPG. As I said before, anything can be RP-ed. So you could have "Noughts and Crosses - the Role-Playing Game" (with the exact-same rules as we all already know) and it would be an RPG. Sadly, though, 4E appears to be trying to twist what "role" means: to just combat function instead of character personality.

This focus on "what is important" is perfectly suited to a skirmish game. And for this D&D 4 is great. I play 4e since several weeks as skirmish game and our group loves it. Its a much better designed game than 3.5 or earlier versions.

WotC seem to have succumbed to the classic GM temptation, becoming controlling instead of enabling (like GS's Glorantha?). And their reasons are obviou$.

Well controlling the things the players do from 1st level heroic path dungeon crawl to 30th level destiny path crawl is an old trick for achieving an integrated game experience which has a similar quality for everybody. Many good boardgames do this. For example Talisman ends when you get the crown of the country after going through 3 tiers of difficulty. D&D 4e ends when you reach your destiny after going through 3 tears of difficulty (heroic, paragon and epic). Nothing special except that the quality of 21st century D&D4e rules have improved dramatically in comparision to AD&D of the 90ties. They are not more complex than previous editions but are offering you more possibilities (for example with the help of predefined keywords, eg if a monster gets the keyword "dazed" because beeing target of one of your powers it means that you and others in your team gets "combat advantage" with +2 to hit)

[Enpeze]

Now, let us take a look at a common (Wikipedia) definition of roleplaying ga-

mes:

A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the

participants assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively cre-

ate or follow stories. Participants determine the actions of their characters

based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to

a formal system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvi-

se freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Can one do all this with D&D 4.0 ?

- assume the role of a fictional character: yes

- collaboratively create or follow stories: yes

- use rules to decide the success of actions: oh, yes

- improvise freely within the rules: well, yes

- shape the direction and outcome of the game: yes

Is D&D 4.0 a roleplaying game, according to this definition ?

Obviously, yes.

Do we need another, more narrow definition of what an RPG is ?

Not in my opinion, I have no idea what it could be good for.

So, could we let it stand there, please ?

I think you should first take a look at the 4e books before answering your own questions with "yes".

[rust]

I think you should first take a look at the 4e books before answering your own questions with "yes".

Rest assured that I did take a close look at what has been published until

now. I will definitely neither buy nor play it, as mentioned "upthread", but

I will also not give it a dishonourable discharge from the ranks of RPGs.

[Tywyll]

I think you should first take a look at the 4e books before answering your own questions with "yes".

Having done so, I can say that 'yes' fits the bill to all those questions. You may have limited yourself to playing it as a skirmish game, but that is up to how your group used it, not what you can and cannot do with the game. BRP could be played as a skirmish game if you wanted. All games if you simply focus on combat can be reduced to such.

Since we aren't debating Gamist-Simulationist-Narrativist styles of play, and last time I checked, BRP still fell in the GS camp rather than the N camp, the only thing missing from 4E currently (and even that is debatable) is a detailed setting to use the rules in.

[Enpeze]

Since we aren't debating Gamist-Simulationist-Narrativist styles of play, and last time I checked, BRP still fell in the GS camp rather than the N camp, the only thing missing from 4E currently (and even that is debatable) is a detailed setting to use the rules in.

Not really true. In the DMG there is a valley and a city description. Additionally a 4e forgotten realms sourcebook and module is coming up later this year. Next year will be Eberron the focus.

[Enpeze]

Rest assured that I did take a close look at what has been published until

now. I will definitely neither buy nor play it, as mentioned "upthread", but

I will also not give it a dishonourable discharge from the ranks of RPGs.

D&D was never a very honourable rpg so a final discharge is not that extreme. On the other hand, now it finds its proper place as a rising star in the boardgame genre .

[Nightshade]

D&D was never a very honourable rpg so a final discharge is not that extreme. On the other hand, now it finds its proper place as a rising star in the boardgame genre .

I think we've established at this point you don't think its an RPG, and I think we've established that a number of the rest of us aren't buying it. Is this round and round still serving any sort of purpose?

[rust]

Is this round and round still serving any sort of purpose?

Yep, it is. Just think of the Guiness Book of Records and the next entry on

The Longest Forum Thread. We are working hard on it. :cool:

[frogspawner]

One thing to learn from D&D is the giving of rewards for RolePlaying. IMO this is A Good Thing. In 3.5 there were extra XP for RP - still a crude mechanism, but better than nothing (which is what by-the-book BRP has, even now).

Mind you, is that bonus going to survive into 4E? Perhaps it'll be improved... :innocent:

(Let's get that record... )

[soltakss]

I think you should first take a look at the 4e books before answering your own questions with "yes".

Just looking at the summary at the start of this thread, it looks as though:

- assume the role of a fictional character: Clearly this is a major part of the game

- collaboratively create or follow stories: This is clearly possible as scenarios don't seem to be completely closed

- use rules to decide the success of actions: No problem here

- improvise freely within the rules: Probably as much as any game - you can play BRP very rigidly and not allow improvisation and you can play D&D and allow improvisation

- shape the direction and outcome of the game: Simply by their actions they can shape the way the campaign/hame goes

So, I honestly can't see how it cannot be a RPG.

Perhaps this is the classic BRP vs D&D (or the old RQ vs D&D) revisited.

I know some D&D players who would be very put out if you said they didn't play a RPG. I can't see that changing in D&D4. D&D isn't my cup of tea, I like RQ too much, but it has a lot going for it.

[Enpeze]

One thing to learn from D&D is the giving of rewards for RolePlaying. IMO this is A Good Thing. In 3.5 there were extra XP for RP - still a crude mechanism, but better than nothing (which is what by-the-book BRP has, even now).

Mind you, is that bonus going to survive into 4E? Perhaps it'll be improved... :innocent:

(Let's get that record... )

No. They took it out in 4e (you know why...)

[Enpeze]

Just looking at the summary at the start of this thread, it looks as though:

- assume the role of a fictional character: Clearly this is a major part of the game

- collaboratively create or follow stories: This is clearly possible as scenarios don't seem to be completely closed

- use rules to decide the success of actions: No problem here

- improvise freely within the rules: Probably as much as any game - you can play BRP very rigidly and not allow improvisation and you can play D&D and allow improvisation

- shape the direction and outcome of the game: Simply by their actions they can shape the way the campaign/hame goes

So, I honestly can't see how it cannot be a RPG.

Perhaps this is the classic BRP vs D&D (or the old RQ vs D&D) revisited.

Absolutely not. I am not caring about D&D 1-3.5 as roleplaying game. It have no interest to discuss previous editions of D&D. My opinion about them is that they are roleplaying games (of course very weak ones, but still rpgs). No, I am interested in discussing 4e only. 4e is a break with previous D&D editions and rpg traditions in general. And this makes it interesting.

I know some D&D players who would be very put out if you said they didn't play a RPG. I can't see that changing in D&D4. D&D isn't my cup of tea, I like RQ too much, but it has a lot going for it.

just because some wikipedia authors think the above points are enough to define a roleplaying game it does not mean that it is, no? Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter? According to the above criterias Advanced Heroquest is a roleplaying game too. Do you think this?

And again before you think that you can compare 4e with the previous editions of D&D you should read the core books, then decide, not before. I am wondering that the most "pro D&D4e" people here didnt even read the 4e books. But they claim to know something about it. But this opinion is not more than a prejudice resulting from what they know from previous editions.

Maybe I should wait some weeks, when the official version is out and the peeps here can take a look at them. This probably make the discussion more interesting.

[Nightshade]

just because some wikipedia authors think the above points are enough to define a roleplaying game it does not mean that it is, no? Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter? According to the above criterias Advanced Heroquest is a roleplaying game too. Do you think this?

If it fits all that, I'd say that it is, whether it was built theoretically as a board game or not. I suspect, however, you're finessing the difference in degree of outcome possible to make your point.

And again before you think that you can compare 4e with the previous editions of D&D you should read the core books, then decide, not before. I am wondering that the most "pro D&D4e" people here didnt even read the 4e books. But they claim to know something about it. But this opinion is not more than a prejudice resulting from what they know from previous editions.

I'll freely admit to not having read them, because honestly, its not worth my time. However, I've gotten pretty good summaries from at least two people who's views are close enough to my own and who's opinions I trust to be willing to state what I've stated. Bluntly, I think you've gotten an internal model of what makes a roleplaying game that allows you to exclude what you don't like, and are trying to extend that model to other people who don't share it here.

You're welcome to whatever narrow definition you care to use, but don't expect other people to share it just because it suits your view.

[rust]

Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter?

Not necessarily, but on the other hand I do not see any reason why I should

prefer your definition to the Wikipedia definition.

And in the end the entire question whether D&D 4.0 is a RPG or not is hardly

more than a way to kill the time, and I do not prefer my time dead.

[frogspawner]

Gentlemen, please give it a rest! Anyone saying you can't do roleplaying in 4E is wrong. But anyone saying 4E is good for roleplaying is also wrong.

:focus:

I think we may have a clue to what we should be thinking about in this thread:

In 3.5 there were extra XP for RP... Mind you, is that bonus going to survive into 4E?

No. They took it out in 4e (you know why...)

So what else has been removed from D&D in creating 4E? Given that its design is moving in the wrong direction for a good RPG, anything that's been taken out might be worthy of careful consideration for inclusion in BRP. That's how we can learn from 4E!

[Nightshade]

Gentlemen, please give it a rest! Anyone saying you can't do roleplaying in 4E is wrong. But anyone saying 4E is good for roleplaying is also wrong.

I think some of that question turns on what makes a system "good for roleplaying", however. First off, I tend to think that a game system only impacts the roleplaying potential of a game its used in in minor ways; most of what matters there is campaign structure and game culture. Second, I would suggest strongly that there's a vast gulf between what people consider to encourage roleplaying; just as an example from earlier in this thread, there are people who think personality related mechanics help, and those that think they harm.

I have my own criteria of course, but they're nothing but mine; I know for a fact that some of what I consider beneficial other people consider a deficit.

[badcat]

I agree with Enpeze. Weekend before last I watched a game at the local store...and it did not feel like a roleplaying game to me at all. What it felt like was an attempt to play a computer game without the computer. I did not get the feeling it would help me in any way. There was mostly talk about how someone could not do something because it was not their 'role' and how to use various 'powers'.:confused:

Someone at another forum (Troll Lords, I think) christened it 'Dungeons and Dragonballz'.

[AikiGhost]

Its interesting that the consensus on here seems to be that D&D 4th ed is moving in the wrong direction for a RPG.

To me it looks like the rules are becoming more streamlined and open and the base assumptions of the system are moving away from "Vance & Tolkien through the lens of war gaming", this is a good thing IMHO.

D&D 4th is still too gamist for me though, I prefer my gaming more immersionist hence my love of simple systems that don't encourage "Pawn stance".

[rust]

Its interesting that the consensus on here seems to be that D&D 4th ed is moving in the wrong direction for a RPG.

I do not think that it is the "wrong" direction for a RPG, and I have no doubt

that many roleplayers will consider it the "right" direction and welcome the

changes.

However, with its focus on the combat system it is definitely moving in the

wrong direction for my way of roleplaying and my preferred setting.

For example, it is simply impossible to create most of the character types

of my setting with D&D 4.0. Both the combat-oriented character classes

and the level system prevent it.

(I still want that record ... )

[Nightshade]

However, with its focus on the combat system it is definitely moving in the

wrong direction for my way of roleplaying and my preferred setting.

For example, it is simply impossible to create most of the character types

of my setting with D&D 4.0. Both the combat-oriented character classes

and the level system prevent it.

And I think that's a perfectly legitimate objection on an individual-usage level; its a lot different to say "This doesn't support the kind of roleplaying game and characters I want to have" and attempting to claim its not a roleplaying game.

[badcat]

I don't know terms like 'gamist' so I usually don't understand what someone who uses such terms is trying to say, I fear. This ain't the Forge or rpg.net and I sincerely hope it does not get that way. I wouldn't say 4e is moving in the 'wrong direction' for rpgs because I don't consider it to be a rpg, especially after watching (suffering through) the gamestore session...and I definitely see no way it can be of use to a classic rpg gamer. Too restrictive, too dependent on too many devices. Bad design, unless you are Hasbro and WOTC and are looking to make lots of money re-selling a game to customers who will go for it (again), of whom there are many out there, it seems. Not this customer, though. Ever. Better no game than Dungeons and Dragonballz.