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

[AikiGhost]

So what would a game properly designed for roleplaying be like, then?

FATE is a good example of a game built completely around the premise of playing a character IMHO. The system is built in such a way as to be good for telling just about any kind of story with a focus on character rather than fighting or investigation.

[Nightshade]

So what would a game properly designed for roleplaying be like, then?

There are plenty of them. They either involve mechanics that interact with the actual roleplay process (a lot of games that award something like hero points do this to some degree) or are rules-light and deemphasize mechanical processes (often making that part of the process boring, sometimes deliberately).

The truth is, game mechanics can vaguely enhance or get in the way of roleplaying; but they don't have anything much to do with it for the most part, and a game that spends much time on mechanics (depending on whether it tries to do mechanical encouragement of roleplaying and whether you feel that's useful to do) isn't spending its attention on making the "roleplaying" part of "roleplaying game" better; its making the "game" part better. And its a continuum where the emphasis is on which part can vary considerably.

The truth is that for people interested in roleplaying and only roleplaying, mechanics are either largely irrelevant, or at best, not an impediment; there are such people, and many of them get by without any mechanics at all (freeform roleplaying on webboards and, at least a number of years back, many MUSHes and the like were like that) and often only minimal hard-edged character definition.

What most people who are talking about when they talk about a game being "not about roleplaying anymore" are really saying is that the balance point has swung farther over to the game end then suits their particular taste, but as I said, its a continuum, and there's plenty of people who'd already consider whatever game they think of as being "about roleplaying" as too "gamey". Its just a question of where you like your admixture.

[Harshax]

So what would a game properly designed for roleplaying be like, then?

I can think of a few already, and my criteria is fairly simple: A ROLE playing game is designed to interact with the mental (both psychological and emotional) state of its characters.

eg: CoC, Dying Earth, and Pendragon.

All three of these feature mechanics that force players to accept a role in a scene.

[Nightshade]

I can think of a few already, and my criteria is fairly simple: A ROLE playing game is designed to interact with the mental (both psychological and emotional) state of its characters.

eg: CoC, Dying Earth, and Pendragon.

All three of these feature mechanics that force players to accept a role in a scene.

And many people consider those to be exactly the opposite, because to one degree or the other, they take control of the appropriate reactions of characters out of the hands of their players.

And yes, its an old argument.

[Harshax]

And yes, its an old argument.

And a flawed one.

[frogspawner]

All three of these feature mechanics that force players to accept a role in a scene.

And many people consider those to be exactly the opposite, because to one degree or the other, they take control of the appropriate reactions of characters out of the hands of their players.

Thanks, gents. I'm interested to hear that, because I've just come around to a mechanism which lets players choose a couple of traits (as skills) and gives them minor one-off bonus if they act accordingly and make a 'skill'-roll. Hopefully it helps them play their chosen personality role, but avoids being controlling.

I don't suppose we can learn anything about roleplaying from 4E, though... except, they may tell us, that the "R" in RPG really means those "defender, controller,... etc" roles!

[Nightshade]

And a flawed one.

If some people didn't think so, it wouldn't be an argument, would it?

[Nightshade]

Thanks, gents. I'm interested to hear that, because I've just come around to a mechanism which lets players choose a couple of traits (as skills) and gives them minor one-off bonus if they act accordingly and make a 'skill'-roll. Hopefully it helps them play their chosen personality role, but avoids being controlling.

I'm not against some personality mechanics myself, but I know of people who are adamantly against them. Like the above mentioned game/roleplay spectrum, its a continuum of attitude.

[Harshax]

If your intention is to play a role playing game, where role, motivation, and mental state is featured, then the game should manipulates those qualities. Emotion and Motivation, for example, replace Hit Points. As a gamist, I feel such a game should treat such things the way other games treat combat. Else why call it a game? Right? Why not just call it acting, and go LARP it up?

I love adding bits to games that influence how a character behavings, and reward players for roleplaying.

If some people didn't think so, it wouldn't be an argument, would it?

[Nightshade]

If your intention is to play a role playing game, where role, motivation, and mental state is featured, then the game should manipulates those qualities. Emotion and Motivation, for example, replace Hit Points. As a gamist, I feel such a game should treat such things the way other games treat combat. Else why call it a game? Right? Why not just call it acting, and go LARP it up?

Effectively, that's exactly what some people want. And for many people the roleplaying and game are two separate activities; they'd no more apply mechanics to the roleplaying end than they'd ask someone at the mechanical end to detail how they're doing the process of the mechanic. In effect, they're two separate things that don't relate directly.

Or put another way, to some people mechanics are about physical process and roleplaying is about emotional connection, and never the twain should meet.

You're welcome to not agree with that, but flatly, it makes no difference; because that's what they want and if that's not what you offer, they'll go somewhere else and use some other system.

[Harshax]

It definitely is up to the players. When I gamed with my brother, he didn't want any part of it. Which fine. I'm just as happy playing wargamer style.

I love CoC, because of the mechanical quality of effecting a character's mental state, which actually elevates my desire to get into the role of the character. To each his own, I agree. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone.

[Nightshade]

The problem is that with mechanics that affect character behavior, you can't really have it both ways; either they're in play or their not (you can have degrees of course). But there's only three broad states with somewhat sharp edges: you don't have mechanics that effect personality (this includes interaction skills with teeth), you have ones that are advisory only, or you have ones that on occasion, demand behavior or at least produce effects based on personality on targets. For some people the first are a necessity, and for some anathema, and you can't really satisfy both in the same system.

Keep in mind its not people who want to play "wargame style" that have issues with this; ultra-gamists are perfectly willing to treat personality mechanics as just one more mechanical process to deal with. Its people who think no set of personality related mechanics will do an adequate job of matching their internal model of the character, and aren't willing to surrender that.

[Harshax]

Its people who think no set of personality related mechanics will do an adequate job of matching their internal model of the character, and aren't willing to surrender that.

I'm not sure that is exactly right. I have never seen a game attempt to force such a thing. CoC is probably the most intrusive of the personality altering game systems, but it limits itself to dictating levels of scared and phobias.

Dying Earth however has much broader influences on how a character is affected mentally. A character can be duped to thinking just about anything, regardless of whether the Player is convinced of the NPC's motivation.

That to me is a good thing. The game mechanics act like the director in a movie, stating 'Your motivation in this scene is this. . . ' For this reason, I disagree that a role player would have argument with the game system, since the mechanics encourage the method that the Player chooses to portray their character and offers, for anyone who rolls lucky enough, the opportunity to role play surprise twists on a character's personality.

The wargame reference, was my shorthand way of speaking only about those who find a character's mental state inviolate of any influence other than their controlling players. This is, in a sense, a wargame approach because it implies that a character, or piece, does exactly what its controller wants it to do. Its attempt carries with it no additional baggage than its player's desire to succeed. This definition, if I'm feeling sharp today, feels very different from a player who wishes to portray a character who can experience both success or failure and is willing to be directed by clever role playing or the cast of a die roll.

I'm rambling, and hungover, and my sentences have too many commas.

Cheers!

Arthur

[Nightshade]

I'm not sure that is exactly right. I have never seen a game attempt to force such a thing. CoC is probably the most intrusive of the personality altering game systems, but it limits itself to dictating levels of scared and phobias.

Telling a character when he'd be scared and what would introduce psychosis is _well_ into what I'm talking about.

Dying Earth however has much broader influences on how a character is affected mentally. A character can be duped to thinking just about anything, regardless of whether the Player is convinced of the NPC's motivation.

That to me is a good thing. The game mechanics act like the director in a movie, stating 'Your motivation in this scene is this. . . ' For this reason, I disagree that a role player would have argument with the game system, since

You can disagree all you want, but since you don't get to define what a roleplayer thinks, that's still the way plenty of them feel about it. Otherwise you're essentially asserting the right to define what rule players in general think, and those that don't aren't roleplayers. I'll give you the credit of assuming that's not what you mean to say.

[frogspawner]

It depends how you define "wants"; if you define it as "thinks they're the only person at a game table that is authorized to decide how their character would appropriately respond to a mental stimulus", then I'd say that's exactly how many people feel, and I quite think it would be redefining the terms really bizarrely to call them wargamers and not roleplayers.

But even wargames have rules for morale. RPGs, where the player is supposed to supply that sort of control, are often a bit lacking in that regard. That leaves the door open to powergame-style disregard for character.

[Harshax]

I'll give you the credit of assuming that's not what you mean to say.

Yes, I was making a point about oranges.

Scratch that.

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer. Yeah, powergamer is probably what I mean. If your character can be influenced to react in the same way that a character can be struck down with a sword, mechanically or no, then you are a role player. I can decide on a label and also decide that I'm not trying to make you believe it, or attempt to alter an opinion held of yourself or your playmates.

[Nightshade]

But even wargames have rules for morale. RPGs, where the player is supposed to supply that sort of control, are often a bit lacking in that regard. That leaves the door open to powergame-style disregard for character.

That's quite true. It doesn't change the fact that's exactly the stance people I've known I could not describe as anything but hardcore roleplayers sometimes hold. At most they'll tolerate paranormal manipulation (simply because its so disconnected with any normal internal model), and often they don't much like even that.

[Nightshade]

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer. Yeah, powergamer is probably what I mean. If your character can be influenced to react in the same way that a character can be struck down with a sword, mechanically or no, then you are a role player. I can decide on a label and also decide that I'm not trying to make you believe it, or attempt to alter an opinion held of yourself or your playmates.

Then I'll flatly tell you I that's a fairly stupid and entirely useless redefinition of the term.

[soltakss]

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer. Yeah, powergamer is probably what I mean. If your character can be influenced to react in the same way that a character can be struck down with a sword, mechanically or no, then you are a role player. I can decide on a label and also decide that I'm not trying to make you believe it, or attempt to alter an opinion held of yourself or your playmates.

I just don't get this.

I've never needed a rules system to make me roleplay. Some systems force you into certain actions or change tactics because of the rules systems, but roleplaying is entirely independent of rules systems.

Look at RQ, it's a system that isn't particularly friendly to roleplayers, at least that's what a lot of people say, but it has spells that change your emotional state (Fear, Madness, Demoralise, Fanatacism, Berseker) and spells/effects that change how you feel. It also has a rich level of cult/assoaciation membership that influence how you should feel and what lifestyle your PC leads. So, according to your definition, RQ makes everyone a roleplayer not a powergamer. That can't be right, surely.

Perhaps it is, although D&D does much the same thing - you play Alignments and certain character classes define how you play the game - play a Paladin and you play in a certain way. That changes how you think and act.

But, to me, a roleplayer is someone who takes on a role and plays that role in a game. It's as simple as that. How you do it is completely personal. I roleplay in a different way to other people in my group, but we all manage to have enjoyable games.

I just don't get all the theories of roleplaying. You do it to play a game and have fun. Anything more is too complicated for me.

[rust]

If you are the only person who gets to decide what your character thinks or feels, you're a wargamer, or powergamer.

I also do not get it. :confused:

When I create a character, I make a character concept. This concept descri-

bes the personality of the character, what he likes and dislikes, and so on.

And then I roleplay this character according to that concept.

I do not need a rule to decide who can influence the character in what way,

because I know it from the character concept and the way the character

developed during the game, and I play the character accordingly.

[deleriad]

To get back on topic...

What D&D4e seems to be trying to do is to emphasise the "game" element in role-playing game. So, in combat, there are attempts to define various rules and actions. It strikes me that a D&D4e combat (and I say this is an outsider) is most analogous to a game of American Football. The players attempt to execute various moves based on their characters' roles and abilities and the GM opposes them with a NPC team. A "good" combat encounter is probably one in which the teams are "evenly matched" but the players prevail, narrowly, through clever use of tactics.

Thus, a D&D combat could be resolved without any "role-playing" if the players were so minded. Indeed, where the roleplaying comes in depends on the players. For example, a player might decide that their Paladin refuses to carry out the obviously "correct" action because some leering orc has just insulted his god and must be smote. I think what WotC has decided is that you can't enforce roleplaying. Rather you provide the game and let the players decide how much to roleplay. This is probably the correct decision.

Thing is, this has nothing to do with the D&D system as such, you could make exactly the same decisions with BRP. All you need to do are to define the rules and actions so that you can play it as a game. What the D&D designers seem to be doing is defining the rules so that they can be programmed into a computer and trying to analyse what it is that is enjoyable about playing D&D as a game. I think that's really quite interesting in a Windows Vista kind of way.

[Trifletraxor]

They are probably making a good buisness move with this. With D&D the RPG, the card game, the miniature game and MMORPG/computer game, they can take even a bigger bite of the cake.

SGL.

[aknaton]

I got my 'Keep on the Shadowfell' adventure today.

My first impression is that they have succeeded in their intentions in doing it more like a tabletop game, that the players should always feel that they have something to do and that playing should be fun and not a chore. Kudos to them. But it may certainly not be everybody's cup of tea. But the guys and gals at Wizards seem to be professionals ;-)

This is said after flipping through the adventure and reading all of the quick start rules.

/aknaton

[Enpeze]

Regarding 4e I would like to add:

Why does anybody here think this game is a roleplaying game? Is Advanced Heroquest a role playing game? If you think that AHQ is one then maybe 4e is one for you too. But for all those who are opposed to such a thinking, I can assure you that 4e is farther away to be real roleplaying game than any of the previous editions. And those have already been the antithesis to a good roleplaying ruleset.

The first 4e module "H1 Keep on the Shadowfell" is centered fully around combat. About 10p out of 64 are explaining NPCs and a little village in the borderlands. And on the remaining - 54p - you find 24 detailed combat map setups and 140 monster stat blocks, nothing else. Is this a roleplaying game? If anybody here says "yes this is a rpg", he should immediately make a SAN roll.

But I love 4e. I play it as skirmish game and NOT as roleplaying game. This means I play with plastic miniatures and battlemaps and without acting or portraying much the characters. For us its a funny shining board game with alot of videogame influence, great tactical rules, bashing plastic monsters and leveling up. Deep immersive rpg? no thanks. If I want this, I play BRP.

I am so glad that they went the way in direction mini game. The presentation of this game is so much more honest, than say 3.5 or AD&D. No more idiotic fluff which claims to be "roleplaying". (and is of course none) You have healing surges which every toon can use during combat to get 25% of his HP back. Every toon (not only clerics) can even heal hitpoints between combats up to full, which lasts only 5min. Every 6h you can make an "extended rest" where you go back to start and regenerate ALL damage of the day (regardless how bad you have been hurt) and all daily powers and spells. Its great for bashing monsters and pushing plastic minis around in a tactical fashion.

To the TO. Learning for BRP? What? Nobody can learn anything for his BRP roleplaying game from 4e. But you can safely play it as mini game and have alot of fun.

[Skunkape]

Regarding 4e I would like to add:

Why does anybody here think this game is a roleplaying game? Is Advanced Heroquest a role playing game? If you think that AHQ is one then maybe 4e is one for you too. But for all those who are opposed to such a thinking, I can assure you that 4e is farther away to be real roleplaying game than any of the previous editions. And those have already been the antithesis to a good roleplaying ruleset.

So what you're saying is it's a roll-playing game?!

I'm still pretty sure all I'll do is look over the rules in my FLGS and if I see anything I feel will help my BRP game, I'll use that as a house rule, but I'm leaning more and more to not buying it every day. I think if I really want to learn about the game, I'll find someone who's running it and just play, borrowing people's rules to find out the things about the game I really want to find out about.