Jump to content

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


AikiGhost

Recommended Posts

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.

Yes, yes, we know, a game focused on combat and adventuring isn't a roleplaying game.

You know, trying to stake out the term "roleplaying games" for only those systems one approves of is an old tactic; I was seeing it at least as far back as 1985.

D&D, even D&D4, is as much a roleplaying game as any on the market; roleplaying games are defined by the degree to which you control your character design and development, and the freedom you have to play them as your vision dictates within the mechanics. Any attempt to define it finer down that that would exclude most games on the market--including, I might add, BRP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, we know, a game focused on combat and adventuring isn't a roleplaying game.

You know, trying to stake out the term "roleplaying games" for only those systems one approves of is an old tactic; I was seeing it at least as far back as 1985.

D&D, even D&D4, is as much a roleplaying game as any on the market; roleplaying games are defined by the degree to which you control your character design and development, and the freedom you have to play them as your vision dictates within the mechanics. Any attempt to define it finer down that that would exclude most games on the market--including, I might add, BRP.

Just because a game labels itsself as "roleplaying game" it does not mean that it is one. And just because a game allows for "character design" and "developement" it does not mean that it is a roleplaying game at all. Advanced Heroquest, Avalon Hills Magic Realm and many other mini-, board and skirmish games have "character design and development" too. I mean the game company put even a sticker on the AHQ box labeled "3D Roleplaying". Maybe for you all these games are roleplaying games?

:rolleyes:

Face it, some few rulesets are good for roleplaying (BRP), most are very poor (like D&D3.5) and some are not suited at all. (like D&D4e)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but was it FUN? I love BRP as a game, but having played with some complete buffoons, the system does not guarantee a fun game. Likewise I have played exceptionally fun games using D20, Palladium games wonky rules, etc.

Granted, some systems make the fun easier/harder...but it the game master, fellow players and the adventure that make the GAME fun or not, the rules set can hinder or help, but claiming that 4E is an abomination of gaming and will doom all who play it is a bit disingenious...I am positive that there are some very good DM's out there that will have great and fantastic games using it, just as I am sure that there were people who had fun playing Phoenix Command in the early 90's (or not...it was the hardest and most unfriendly gaming system I've ever seen).

With that said, I won't be running any games in 4E, but I am sure that I will play in several games using it, and after the learning curve levels off, I may even have fun during it.

I am still a hardcore BRP fan, but bashing a system is rather pointless...a GM's skill and ability to craft a fun story is far more important.

-STS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a GM's skill and ability to craft a fun story is far more important.

-STS

Plus player ability has a lot to do with making the game fun as well. Remember, our game play is all about a group effort and if the group doesn't make the game fun, then the game won't be fun.

As far as role-play vs roll-play, the ability to do that is entirely in the hands of the group as well. Personally, I've never liked level based systems, though I have pulled things from those systems in the past and have even run 2 3.5 campaigns, very successful campaigns at that.

I never have to worry about needing players and when we've had players leave the group due to real life issues, I've always been able to replace them at a moments notice. I've even had too many players on occasion, I prefer to run only 6 players at my games.

Anyway, I'm sure we'll be able to look at 4th edition and get what we want out of it, but each person's mileage will vary.

Skunk - 285/420 BRP book

You wanna be alright you gotta walk tall

Long Beach Dub Allstars & Black Eyed Peas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a game labels itsself as "roleplaying game" it does not mean that it is one. And just because a game allows for "character design" and "developement" it does not mean that it is a roleplaying game at all. Advanced Heroquest, Avalon Hills Magic Realm and many other mini-, board and skirmish games have "character design and development" too. I mean the game company put even a sticker on the AHQ box labeled "3D Roleplaying". Maybe for you all these games are roleplaying games?

:rolleyes:

Character design and development and free choice of how you play your character. I said that's the core and I meant it. If those games fit that, then yes, they are roleplaying games and you can roll your eyes all you want.

Face it, some few rulesets are good for roleplaying (BRP), most are very poor (like D&D3.5) and some are not suited at all. (like D&D4e)

Utter nonsense. Roleplaying is primarily about the people involved and what they're doing with it. Some rulesets can make it easier or harder, but only to mild degrees, and none that fit the criteria I quoted make it impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as role-play vs roll-play, the ability to do that is entirely in the hands of the group as well. Personally, I've never liked level based systems, though I have pulled things from those systems in the past and have even run 2 3.5 campaigns, very successful campaigns at that.

Exactly. The only real degree to which a system impairs roleplaying has to do with two issues: the degree to which it mandates character design choice (this is an area class systems have always had some problems with, but there's a conflict intrinsic in campaign design constraints there too, so rules design isn't the only issue there) and the degree to which it mandates removing player choice (which is why I'm of the school that says that manditory (as compared to optional) personality mechanics are often anything but a benefit to roleplay). D&D4 might have some issues on the former ground (but no worse than many games do), but I see nothing to suggest it does on the latter, and everything else is really an issue of people, not the game system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the school that says that manditory (as compared to optional) personality mechanics are often anything but a benefit to roleplay).

Not to expel you from that school, or apply to it, but I'd like to know why you think personality mechanics don't benefit roleplay. Why are personality mechanics different from injury mechanics? How is it, that you can accept 'Taking 14 points of Damage, suffering a major wound and losing 1d3 points of APP', but not 'Try as you might, but you can not overcome your lustiness'? [Pendragon Reference]

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP". - Simon Phipp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but was it FUN? I love BRP as a game, but having played with some complete buffoons, the system does not guarantee a fun game. Likewise I have played exceptionally fun games using D20, Palladium games wonky rules, etc.

Granted, some systems make the fun easier/harder...but it the game master, fellow players and the adventure that make the GAME fun or not, the rules set can hinder or help, but claiming that 4E is an abomination of gaming and will doom all who play it is a bit disingenious...I am positive that there are some very good DM's out there that will have great and fantastic games using it, just as I am sure that there were people who had fun playing Phoenix Command in the early 90's (or not...it was the hardest and most unfriendly gaming system I've ever seen).

With that said, I won't be running any games in 4E, but I am sure that I will play in several games using it, and after the learning curve levels off, I may even have fun during it.

I am still a hardcore BRP fan, but bashing a system is rather pointless...a GM's skill and ability to craft a fun story is far more important.

-STS

Of course you are right in your opinion that a good roleplaying game could be also a d20 game. I can make even a roleplaying game out of just randomly rolling some d6 or tossing a coin for combat. I can make a good roleplaying game when I push around marines a Space Hulk boardgame or the Alien boardgame from Leading Edge, provided I am good GM and have good players. No problem with this.

So maybe I was exaggerating with my assumption that the new 4e is not suited at all for roleplaying and I am sorry for this. But using the rule set for roleplaying will be extremely difficult, especially if you play it according to the vanilla rules. (eg. every player heals automatically max hitpoints once per day - without magic, and heals additionally as much wounds as he want - up to his healing surges - each 5 min :))

But what 4e is instead? A damned good boardgame design. Cudos to the designers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to expel you from that school, or apply to it, but I'd like to know why you think personality mechanics don't benefit roleplay. Why are personality mechanics different from injury mechanics? How is it, that you can accept 'Taking 14 points of Damage, suffering a major wound and losing 1d3 points of APP', but not 'Try as you might, but you can not overcome your lustiness'? [Pendragon Reference]

Because frankly, the way you respond to physical injury is almost always a more coarse process and less tied up with your characterization than the way you respond to being seduced. Fundamentally a screw-up in how physical mechanics works doesn't throw off characterization (it might throw off suspension of disbelief or genre emulation, but those aren't the same thing and are, on a piece by piece basis, less disruptive of someone's ability to play their character).

In theory a set of mechanics could do so with enough modifiers, but in practice even if you had such a set, that would just mean in practice the GM was running your character as much as you are, because he'd have to make too many ad-hoc decisions too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

suited at all for roleplaying and I am sorry for this. But using the rule set for roleplaying will be extremely difficult, especially if you play it according to the vanilla rules. (eg. every player heals automatically max hitpoints once per day - without magic, and heals additionally as much wounds as he want - up to his healing surges - each 5 min :))

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

To me what is interesting is how the rules support or hinder roleplaying. At the extremes you can roleplay in anything, and you can probably turn almost any game into a rote roll/board game.

My view of RPG was always that the milieu and adventure were the important things, and that character development always happened within the context of the world. It was an eye-opener for me playing 3.5 when characters started developing new abilities in response to publications of new rulebooks. The effect was somewhat subtle, but effectively the rules drove campaigns.

Yes, GMs could and did stop this when needed, but RPGs are social, and aside from the amount of energy it takes to overturn the wishes of one's players, there's a limit to how many times a GM is willing to do it.

I'll be curious to see what things 4.0 supports and what things it fights. My guess is that it will continue to move the hobby away from a focus on story and world, and continue the move toward gizmos and superpowers. That will help sell additional rulebooks. While that will be good for WotC in the short run, I fear that it will dilute what makes pen-and-paper roleplaying unique, and ultimately leave people wondering why they bother when the online RPGs take care of all of the notekeeping for them.

Steve

Bathalians, the newest UberVillians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

Well both is normally connected to each other. E.g. if there is a rule system where no injury for PCs exists, only dead, beeing "fatigued" or at full strength you cannot play all the fear and suffering of receiving serious wounds in combat, no? So rules and roleplaying emotions have an intense connection. Rules backup emotions and give truth to them if the rules are good.

But in D&D4e a typical conversation between 2 players could be: "well I have just 2 Hitpoints left and this means am really tired now. You too, Sir Lance-a-lot? Lets bash the monsters in 5min after the break, when we have back our full hitpoints." (and this is no exaggeration!)

This I mean D&D4 will be extremely difficult to play as a serious roleplaying game. Of course you can play it satirical. Or as a boardgame - as we do.

Another example is that D&D4e is designed from the beginning as a game with map and minis. In D&D3 you had the choice to play with or without board. Not in 4e anymore. They closed the obvious gap and every combat encounter (24 in the first adventure module!) you play is designed for using the tabletop rules and boards the company provides. You can use 90% of the powers of monsters or PCs only in conjunction with a exact positioning and pushing around minis.

A third example is that each class has a defined role on the board. There are tanks, strikers, AoE and Leaders (healers) like in my beloved WoW MMorpg. Btw. I play WoW also not as a roleplaying game.

So I would say that D&D4 is not more rpg than say Advanced Heroquest. If AHQ is one for you, then go for D&D4 and use it as rpg. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aplogies for (re)stating the bleeding obvious but:

A 'good' GM and 'good' players can have a fun, roleplaying experience with any rulest or none.

However mechanics CAN (not Do but Can) shape the game.

Example

In my Pendragon games PCs get double Glory for defeating their foes

a) if unarmoured

B) without fighting

(unarmoured and without fighting you get triple not quad)

coz Blodwyn the Druidess repeatedly hitting a Goblin fae with a stick until it stops moving is not glorious or saga worthy. But Blodwyn the Druidess fooling said Goblin into thinking that the autumnal leaves are gold and sending him off cackling to collect them as a solve is saga worthy. AND MORE FUN.

Al

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll buy that :) It also makes a nifty mental image.

:focus:

I think that 4E will, IMO simply be a rules set that I pull from to add to my Warhammer 40K/Inquisitor/Warhammer games (or my Star Wars mini games) or Heroscape mini game rather than add having it anything to any RPG that I play.

-STS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the focus of D&D 4e obviously is on the combat system, and combat is

not at the centre of my setting (with futuristic weapons around, characters

develop a tendency to avoid realistic combat ...), I will most probably ignore

4e and the almost inevitable 4e Modern and 4e Future.

What 4e has to offer apart from the combat system is just a - from my point

of view - overly complicated and all in all quite mediocre system, with a lot

more unnecessary rules than I like for my roleplaying.

"Mind like parachute, function only when open."

(Charlie Chan)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I think the border between skirmish games and role-playing games is blurred. There is no clearcut distinction, as shown by the fate of OD&D itself (originally but a supplement for Chainmail). For me, a role-playing game is one where you can RE-USE the same character from a previous game session. Heck, you could even role play your squad leaders with Avalon Hill's Squad Leader!

:focus:

Maybe one thing that can be 'learnt' from skirmish games is that clear combat rules are a plus, and that the possibility of laying out clearly combat on a grid- or hex-based map is a plus, as role-playing games DO tend to include lots of combats, and you don't want those to slow your game down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well both is normally connected to each other. E.g. if there is a rule system where no injury for PCs exists, only dead, beeing "fatigued" or at full strength you cannot play all the fear and suffering of receiving serious wounds in combat, no? So rules and roleplaying emotions have an intense connection. Rules backup emotions and give truth to them if the rules are good.

Sure you can. You just have to do so in absence of rules support. But there's always going to be something like that, because no rules set does an adequate match of reality (even if its trying to); the only question ends up being what it decides is important enough to go into detail on and which not.

And again, many genres ignore these things regularly, so unless its your position its intrinsically harder to roleplay in some genres (which it could be) I think that's likely as important as the rules decisions per se (and of course rules decisions are often driven by genre considerations).

But in D&D4e a typical conversation between 2 players could be: "well I have just 2 Hitpoints left and this means am really tired now. You too, Sir Lance-a-lot? Lets bash the monsters in 5min after the break, when we have back our full hitpoints." (and this is no exaggeration!)

Or "That was a rough one. I've taken a bit of a beating here, but after I get my wind I think we can soldier on and get to the next thing." I have to point out a _lot_ of cinematic adventure runs like that in practice; action adventure movies or TV shows only very rarely emphasize any effects of injury unless its severe (and extremely severe injury is rare).

This I mean D&D4 will be extremely difficult to play as a serious roleplaying game. Of course you can play it satirical. Or as a boardgame - as we do.

Or as a high cinematic game which I suspect is how most players see it and are perfectly capable of engaging with it as. As I said, I haven't heard anything about it appreciably worse than assumptions I've seen in many such games.

Another example is that D&D4e is designed from the beginning as a game with map and minis. In D&D3 you had the choice to play with or without board. Not

So was Runequest. And Hero. And a number of other games I can think of. Yet you can still do so, and I doubt seriously it'll be impossible with 4e, either.

A third example is that each class has a defined role on the board. There are tanks, strikers, AoE and Leaders (healers) like in my beloved WoW MMorpg. Btw. I play WoW also not as a roleplaying game.

Given the number of posts I see by people trying for niche protection in other games, however, I fail to see how a defined role in combat makes roleplaying impossible.

So I would say that D&D4 is not more rpg than say Advanced Heroquest. If AHQ is one for you, then go for D&D4 and use it as rpg. :)

I gave my criteria before; if they don't suit you they don't, but I again think this is little more than trying to stake out a definition of RPG to exclude ones you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aplogies for (re)stating the bleeding obvious but:

A 'good' GM and 'good' players can have a fun, roleplaying experience with any rulest or none.

However mechanics CAN (not Do but Can) shape the game.

I'd never deny that. What I'm arguing against is the extremely narrow definitions some people are trying to use to define what supports roleplaying. In this thread we have one person who doesn't think its a roleplaying game without personality mechanics, and another who doesn't because the rules aren't realistic enough to suit him, are written around a battle board, and include predefined combat roles. Given that all of these but the last also describe RuneQuest, I'm just not going to let that pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave my criteria before; if they don't suit you they don't, but I again think this is little more than trying to stake out a definition of RPG to exclude ones you don't like.

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

That said, I like D&D for what it does: offer a strategy/tactical fantasy game of epic power levels. I like to attempt to play a character, but most people I play with have been turned off by such concepts. I've even had a player respond, "Oh... you do it THAT way... that's all right." As in, he didn't want to act out a role in his roleplaying game. Very, very odd.

I digress.

We can scale this argument so far as to say everything is an RPG, or to say that only BRP games are RPG's. Neither is "right," neither is "wrong."

I will state simply, *I* don't consider D&D as an RPG as it's designed. To me, it seems to work less under the assumption that players will be acting out the role and playing the persona. Just my opinion.

"Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..."

- H.P. Lovecraft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will state simply, *I* don't consider D&D as an RPG as it's designed. To me, it seems to work less under the assumption that players will be acting out the role and playing the persona. Just my opinion.

I've roleplayed using the D&D rules without a problem. Sure, you are shoehorned into various roles, but that doesn't really matter. You can have as much fun with D&D as with any other roleplaying game. My old RQ group used to play very high-level D&D and they had great fun with it, including spending 5 game-years researching the "Turn Stone into Blamanche" and turning an opponent's castle into a wobbling block of blamanche.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So was Runequest.

Runequest was designed with focus on miniatures use originally? This is new to me. If this true, then I am glad, that they dont stress this anymore in the newer incarnations of the game.

Yet you can still do so, and I doubt seriously it'll be impossible with 4e, either.

No sorry, you cant. Remember I am playing the game. You could rather play Monopoly without hotels.

Given the number of posts I see by people trying for niche protection in other games, however, I fail to see how a defined role in combat makes roleplaying impossible.

Maybe not totally impossible but really hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've roleplayed using the D&D rules without a problem. Sure, you are shoehorned into various roles, but that doesn't really matter. You can have as much fun with D&D as with any other roleplaying game. My old RQ group used to play very high-level D&D and they had great fun with it, including spending 5 game-years researching the "Turn Stone into Blamanche" and turning an opponent's castle into a wobbling block of blamanche.

Well your experience is from previous editions of D&D. They are not very good for me, but have a limited value as rpg system, so I agree that you can have fun with it.

This changed with 4e. Its not the same D&D as you know it. It plays more like a board version of mmorpgs with elite monsters, boss fights, autohealing, DOTs, HOTs etc. (if you know what I mean)

Of course for wargamer the change is not bad and its reveals a phantastic tactical skirmish gaming, much better than Advanced Heroquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

You speak mainly from 3rd edition, no? I agree this is a rather cumbersome and not easy to use game. But its still a kind of roleplaying game for many people. 4e does not maintain this. They changed the 3e rules extremely. Its not more a rpg than say Advanced Heroquest or Heroscape or Warhammer Mordheim. Eg not using Miniatures and battlemaps is not intended, its a must. I would say playing it is a mix between a mmorpg computer game and board game. And DDI (D&D Interactive) the new subscribable online service of Wizards contributes to this feeling

That said, I like D&D for what it does: offer a strategy/tactical fantasy game of epic power levels. I like to attempt to play a character, but most people I play with have been turned off by such concepts. I've even had a player respond, "Oh... you do it THAT way... that's all right." As in, he didn't want to act out a role in his roleplaying game. Very, very odd.

Yes I observed similar things. The D&D crowd is sometimes a strange kind of roleplayer. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Runequest was designed with focus on miniatures use originally? This is new to me. If this true, then I am glad, that they dont stress this anymore in the newer incarnations of the game.

Given much of the movement and strike rank system was next to impossible to manage without it, I'd say it was as much designed so as any RPG is.

No sorry, you cant. Remember I am playing the game. You could rather play Monopoly without hotels.

Given I've seen people make the same claim about the Hero System, 3e and other games, I flatly don't believe it; in part, because I don't think its possible to make a game designed so that its impossible to play without a battleboard. It can be various degree of hard, but there's a difference between that and impossible.

Maybe not totally impossible but really hard.

And again, I have nothing but the word of someone who doesn't like its style of play to demonstrate this. You'll excuse me if I take this with a shaker of salt, especially since you seem to consider even earlier versions excessively hard to roleplay in, and I've never seen it such. As such, I find your evaluation suspect out of the gate.

(This in no way means I consider D&D a particularly great design, but my issues with it have nothing to do with its RP support).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

As I noted, I've never actually seen an RQ group that didn't use some form of minatures and at least a minimalistic battleboard, so I'm again failing to see any qualitative difference here. This again seems like people wanting to stake out a subset of the roleplaying hobby and call those that don't fit in it "not a roleplaying game"; its not any different in kind than people who try to exclude different subsets because they don't fit their taste. At best its parochialism, at worst an attempt at mindspace dominance, and I don't see any virtue to it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...