Lack of role playing? yes or no?

252 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ok so i've been hearing form ppl saying the d&d 4th edition has little or no roleplaying, while others say it does, it just depends on the group on how invlolved in roleplaying they get. So my question to you is: Do you believe there is roleplaying left in 4th edition? And a explination as to why you believe tht.

For me I believe there is, i've played threw some compaings as the DM and had no problem with the Roleplaying aspect, i believe it does depend on the group you play with.
Ok so i've been hearing form ppl saying the d&d 4th edition has little or no roleplaying, while others say it does, it just depends on the group on how invlolved in roleplaying they get. So my question to you is: Do you believe there is roleplaying left in 4th edition? And a explination as to why you believe tht.

For me I believe there is, i've played threw some compaings as the DM and had no problem with the Roleplaying aspect, i believe it does depend on the group you play with.



People saying that don't know what they are talking about. The rules can't  make you roleplay, all these people are talking about is not including lots of fluff. The idea in 4th edition is to make up your own fluff, something which actually encourages roleplaying.

"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
Ok so i've been hearing form ppl saying the d&d 4th edition has little or no roleplaying, while others say it does, it just depends on the group on how invlolved in roleplaying they get. So my question to you is: Do you believe there is roleplaying left in 4th edition? And a explination as to why you believe tht.

For me I believe there is, i've played threw some compaings as the DM and had no problem with the Roleplaying aspect, i believe it does depend on the group you play with.



People saying that don't know what they are talking about. The rules can't  make you roleplay, all these people are talking about is not including lots of fluff. The idea in 4th edition is to make up your own fluff, something which actually encourages roleplaying.


I agree, and in 4th edition i feel a kinda of fresh breeze when we roleplay, its not nailed down by rules. we can play how the story goes
The presence of one thing does not indicate the absence of another. Strong, balanced, detailed tactical combat is very present in 4th Edition. It is what it does well, and better than any version before IMHO. Because that facet of the game is so robust (and the combats can go on a little long at times), people believe that roleplaying is somehow absent from the game. In truth, it is no more absent than any other edition before. Moreover, a case could be made that with the inclusion of Skill Challenges, 4th Edition try to bring some of that balance and challenge to activities outside of combat including roleplaying. To the degree that Skill Challenges worked or didn't work (at all) is in the eye of the beholder (just ask frothsof about that). 
4E lacks the tools that some modern systems like FATE or Fiasco have to facilitate role play. That said, it's every bit as good at role play as every edition of D&D to date. 
How much you do or don't roleplay is essentially up to the group, more specifically up to the individual.  I've seen 'Vampire' games, which many people tout as a great role-playing heavy system (I dispute that, but whatever) that were little more than Monster Of The Week fights.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I never get the argument that 4e doesnt support RPing, the only thing outside of combat that really changed was lack of crafting skills, and classes not being alignment locked (which creates issues rather than roleplaying, someone who RP's a good paladin will RP a good paladin reguardless of mechanics).


From a DM point of view, I find I can create stories that seem more like stories, since bad guys don't need 102 defences against casters.
The people that I heard complain about the lack of roleplaying in 4E were almost always the ones that claimed that 4E was just World of Warcraft in a pen and paper system. Interestingly enough, of the dozen or so individuals that have expressed this sentiment to me, only 1 had actually played 4E.

As has been said already, EVERY edition of D&D has always had as much or as little RP as the group wants. The thing I enjoy the most about 4E is that (again, as already stated) the combat system is incredibly robust and, in my opinion, very balanced and smooth to run. And the icing on that really awesome cake is that there are no game mechanics that get in the way of story-based RP.

I'm about to start an RP-heavy game set in the Shadowfell and I'm really looking forward to it. I told the players that there would probably only be 1 combat per every 2 or 3 game sessions. And those would only happen if the party got themselves into a bind.

So, I think that those that claim an absence of RP in 4E simply don't understand the system. 
No system can roleplay for you.  There are things a system can do to help encourage or discourage roleplaying (in a specific manner), or make it easier or harder to adapt the system to a specific style of roleplaying.  But ultimately, all roleplaying, however much or little, comes from the players.

While 4e, as a system, does little to actively encourage roleplaying, it does equally as much to discourage it.  So roleplaying happens in 4e because you want it to, not because you can use it to levy some sort of advantage over the system or avoid some sort of penalty.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Systems don't roleplay, people do.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Do you believe there is roleplaying left in 4th edition?

Odd question: of course there is roleplaying in 4e.

It's just more difficult
(yes, 4e's paradigm's and base expectations do tend to steer it away for RP'ing)
If your players role-play, there is role-playing.
If they don't, there's little to no role-playing.
I have no idea what people are talking about when they say the game mechanics don't support it. Game mechanics have nothing whatsoever to do with Role-Playing. They provide a framework for success or failure with skills and combat. Period. The rules do not force conformity or obediance in some bizare fashion to an outmoted concept of rigid order of character interaction.

"I tell the king he's a bloated sack of lard. To his face. In his audience chamber."
There is no reason you can't do that. It isn't wize, as he has the authority to have you tossed in a dungeon. About the best you can hope for is that everyone thinks you're the new jester/fool, there to entertain them.
I have no idea what people are talking about when they say the game mechanics don't support it. Game mechanics have nothing whatsoever to do with Role-Playing.

Mechanics (and presentation) influence roleplaying (and expectations).

To clarify: when you say "I have no idea what people are talking about", is this an indication that:
a) you are interested in details, or
b) you are not receptive to those details?
It is an indication that the person's comments are directly contrary to my experience.
a) However, if you can back up your argument and prove me wrong, I am all for it and would be interested in hearing it.
b) you are going to have a very skeptical audience.
you are going to have a very skeptical audience.

Thank you for being honest. Some bullet points:
- 4e's presentation and rules focus on combat (and combat optimization). This sets the readers/players expectations towards those goals.
- Anyone can roleplay despite the rules (indeed, RP'ing often requires no rules at all), but going against expectations/precedence is not the 'path of least resistance'. The 'influence' provided by the writers still provides a certain impetus and 'gravitational pull'.
- WotC 4e adventures and public play events are almost always focused on combat (further propagating expectations and facilitating combat-oriented play).

- Counter-example: The Pendragon RPG provided rules crunch and rewards for RP-like activity. This influenced sessions significantly as it set an expectation. Also gamists/optimizers naturally adopted the style of play that accumulated these rewards.

of course there is roleplaying in 4e.

It's just more difficult



My experience with virgin role players and 4e would dispute this entirely.

you are going to have a very skeptical audience.

Thank you for being honest. Some bullet points:
- 4e's presentation and rules focus on combat (and combat optimization). This sets the readers/players expectations towards those goals.
- Anyone can roleplay despite the rules (indeed, RP'ing often requires no rules at all), but going against expectations/precedence is not the 'path of least resistance'. The 'influence' provided by the writers still provides a certain impetus and 'gravitational pull'.
- WotC adventures and public play events were almost always focused on combat (further propagating expectations and facilitating combat-oriented play).



While 4E's rules focus on combat, its presentation most certainly does not. There are significant sections in every 4E book that I've read, with the exception of the Rules Compendium, around fluff. I've read everything from advice on playing your character and making it your own, fluff on the history of the points of light, tons of text on the Forgotten Realms, Sigil, the history of the Dawn War, parables and fables based on the myths of the core D&D pantheon, player dynamics, creating relationships between characters, etc...in the 4E books.
The only books I remember being more "flavour heavy" in presentation than 4e was the Tome of Magic classes, cause they spent a number of pages explaining why they weren't wizards.


Otherwise all races have more or less the same fluff. And the classes have the same amount, if not more, since every power actually has a flavour line.


By mcvincent's own example, every other edition of D&D is just as bad for encouraging roleplay.


Also WoTC's adventures have always been rather combat heavy. I mean, look at the example adventure they re-purposed for D&D Next?
And yet there are section about DMs awarding XP for good role-playing. However, as "good role-playing" is entirely subjective, that section of the books takes up a mere few paragraphs. The reward is still there, but it isn't as cut and dried.
I had a player use role-playing to completely destroy the adventure I had planned, not by refusing the quest, but by solving the problem so that he and the rest of the party never had to leave town. They moved around and talked to people within the city, arranged meetings, and talked for most of the session. Sure, I made them roll diplomacy checks and such from time to time, but in the end, the 4-session adventure I had planned was a 1-session adventure, where there wasn't even a fight at the end (the villain knew better than to expose himself, so he had his flunky arrested and thrown to the metaphorical wolves, only to free him 2 sessions (and 3 weeks of game time) later).
I gave the party full XP for the adventure as if they had run all the combats.

Yes, there is a basic assumption that combat will ensue. Yes, most of the rules govern combat and effects. But that's because we don't need rules on how to talk.

My fey-pact warlock doesn't worship elves or fae and didn't sell his soul... His Faery Godmother grants him power, and he just acts as her implement. He doesn't cast Spiteful Glamour: "My Godmother finds you Despicable!" Before the the Swordmage class was introduced, one player was playing a staff-wizard, but cosmetically he was using a longsword. Then there was the dragonborn who wasn't casting spells: he was using his breath weapon with different spell-like effects.

One problem I have run into is poorly written skill challenges. Scales of War has some really dumb ones. All the people you have to persuade act like utter boobs or treat the party as if they have a reputation for being scummy, self-serving, mercenary, ... munchins. Now, if your players are a bunch of munchkins, this can be a good way to teach them about their actions having direct consequences on how the world around them perceives them. On the other hand, if your players have been acting within the edict of the world, as heroes brave and true, sure some might react to them negatively, but when all the leaders of all the civilizations treat the party as scum, there's a problem. The other problem with skill challenges is that frequently there is no penalty for failure.
By mcvincent's own example, every other edition of D&D is just as bad for encouraging roleplay.

It's a subjective issue, so I can readily accept anyone's viewpoint that 4e hasn't reduced (or has even enhanced) the amount of role-playing they do.

But I also know that a large amount of players (and many of the writers) have stated otherwise. Even if I'm speaking anecdotally about my own groups and players I've talked to... it's still a pretty large sampling (I run two regular, long running games, play in another, participate in many public games, and am active in conventions, local events and LFR). The number of players that have an issue with this is statistically relevant even if one's own group does not.
Yes, it is relevant, it doesnt necessarily make it true though. As I've seen it been called before, its sort of a Narrativistic vs Simulationist thing.


If I were to survey the same group on if they prefered coke or pepsi's taste, could I go into a thread say Pepsi does tend to taste bad?
The thing is, crunch devoted to roleplaying limits roleplaying a helluva lot more then it encourages it.
Take alignment, for example. 
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
The thing is, crunch devoted to roleplaying limits roleplaying a helluva lot more then it encourages it.
Take alignment, for example. 



Exactly ,its different groups.


And one reason why a larger percentage of the fan base seems to think a certain way is because that portion of the fanbase has been cattered to longer.
It's a subjective issue, so I can readily accept anyone's viewpoint that 4e hasn't reduced (or has even enhanced) the amount of role-playing they do.

But I also know that a large amount of players (and many of the writers) have stated otherwise. Even if I'm speaking anecdotally about my own groups and players I've talked to... it's still a pretty large sampling (I run two regular, long running games, play in another, participate in many public games, and am active in conventions, local events and LFR). The number of players that have an issue with this is statistically relevant even if one's own group does not.


By that metric(the metric of "but a lot of people think so") we should be putting much more serious inquiry into whether the moon landing was faked and whether or not aliens built the sphinx.  

My point is that if large numbers of people are good at something, it's grabbing an idea and holding on to it, not actually evaluating the truth or falsehood of that idea. 
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
If I were to survey the same group on if they prefered coke or pepsi's taste, could I go into a thread say Pepsi does tend to taste bad?

I think it's fair to make a blanket statement that mechanics tend to influence roleplaying.

I think it's also fair to say that a statistically valid portion of players* have experienced reduced roleplaying in 4e. This implies an overall reduction (i.e. "RP'ing is more difficult in 4e"), even if other groups experienced no reductions... unless possibly one contends that other groups have significantly increased their RP'ing in 4e?

(* a majority from the samples I've been exposed to, but I'm open to the idea that those results are not typical)
It's a subjective issue, so I can readily accept anyone's viewpoint that 4e hasn't reduced (or has even enhanced) the amount of role-playing they do.

But I also know that a large amount of players (and many of the writers) have stated otherwise. Even if I'm speaking anecdotally about my own groups and players I've talked to... it's still a pretty large sampling (I run two regular, long running games, play in another, participate in many public games, and am active in conventions, local events and LFR). The number of players that have an issue with this is statistically relevant even if one's own group does not.

By that metric(the metric of "but a lot of people think so") we should be putting much more serious inquiry into whether the moon landing was faked and whether or not aliens built the sphinx.

Is that what you got from the sources I mentioned? That hardly seems like a fair and accurate assessment.

My point is that if large numbers of people are good at something, it's grabbing an idea and holding on to it, not actually evaluating the truth or falsehood of that idea. 

You don't know me or my background in D&D... but I believe it to be both deep and unbiased. In these forums I tend to be the voice of acceptance towards all viewpoints. See the rules Q&A forum FAQ and the Gamma World FAQ for examples. I always try to use consensus (i.e. majority) answers, even when they go against my own thoughts on the matter. Indeed, I love it when I learn something new or find out about a new majority preference.

However, your above reply does not seem to reflect the same sort of openess to me.

a large amount of players (and many of the writers) have stated otherwise.

Citing one source as an example:
'As they begin this new project, Wizards staff are acutely aware of how changes can go wrong; The fourth edition rules, released in 2008, upset many long-time players, who felt it borrowed too heavily from online RPGs like Activision Blizzard’s World of Warcraft, pushing creative play aside in favor of repetitive combat.

“With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics,” says Mearls. “The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it.”

“In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’” says Mearls. “But there’s other ways to play guitar.”

This time around, Wizards doesn’t want to make the same mistake.'


WotC (and Mike Mearls) have access to the greatest amount of player feedback out there. Far more than any of us.

Your argument continues to be "a lot of people think this, so they must be right".  I do not agree, I think a lot of people can be wrong, and further more, I think they are wrong on this.

You're right that I do not know you, or your background in D&D, though I don't think it's particularly relevant to this argument.  There's no amount of years spent playing or amount of just being a nice guy that would make me agree with you where I otherwise would not.  And you're right that I am not showing the same openness toward this viewpoint that you are.  I do not automatically respect every viewpoint that I'm shown, especially when it isn't so much an opinion as an attempt to state fact.  If someone can sit down, give me some rational arguments and evidence as to why this might be the case, something that can hold up to a bit of debate, something beyond anecdotal groupthink or an appeal to authority, then I'll consider it, but not until then.  
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
Ah, the 10,000,000 ants can't be wrong theory.
Then why does ant-bait work?

Consider how many people belong to/vote along the lines of a political party or religion. Sure, millions can be wrong. (doesn't matter which one, as they all insist that all the others are wrong)
a large amount of players (and many of the writers) have stated otherwise.

Citing one source as an example:
'As they begin this new project, Wizards staff are acutely aware of how changes can go wrong; The fourth edition rules, released in 2008, upset many long-time players, who felt it borrowed too heavily from online RPGs like Activision Blizzard’s World of Warcraft, pushing creative play aside in favor of repetitive combat.

“With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics,” says Mearls. “The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it.”

“In some ways, it was like we told people, ‘The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal,’” says Mearls. “But there’s other ways to play guitar.”

This time around, Wizards doesn’t want to make the same mistake.'


WotC (and Mike Mearls) have access to the greatest amount of player feedback out there. Far more than any of us.



Irrelevant, WotC is renowned for ignoring feedback. Mearls wants to make 4e more like 2/3.x because 1. He personally is not good at tactical combat and mechanical optimization, and 2. Hasbro/Marketing tells him that he will make more money by hedging the grogs back to d&d from pathfinder and other ogl games.

"4e D&D has no roleplaying" is entirely a marketing construct initiated by Paizo and the "I HATE CHANGE" 3.x supporters (who complained about 3.x when it came out to replace 2e), and WotC has since so-opted it as rationale for Next, even though it was their failure to market 4e's superior combat play and thus a reduction in the RP:Combat per session as a major selling point to draw in the wargamer audience, as well as their failure to publish respectable fluff to go with 4e - PoL is essentially Fluff-less, and they killed off all the major plots people knew in Faerun. While 4e has a much better platform for building your characters character, there's little structural support. By which I mean that in a home campaign it's more difficult to tie your character into the story, it's more difficult to say that your character fought at the Battle of the Trarg against the Ovinomancer and are a member of the Golden Keys, if you don't know that any of those things actually existed, and new DMs aren't going to be as able to just randomly work that into their world on the fly. The structural support of History and tools that hold good roleplayers and experienced DMs back (and they'll break them when convenient, ex. Spellcasting Refluffs) are rather necessary for new groups to develop character immersion, Themes help a lot, but were added far too late to dispell the No RP myth.

I love the "no RP" discussions though, it reveals the fakes in the Roleplayer crowd, the people who just like to come up with backstories for their mary sue and wallow their way through both rp and combat encounters, only coming up with "that cool thing their character did" to tell their friends about a couple days later like some juvenile comeback after a schoolyard fight. Not that everyone is like this, others just have some absurd stigma about being good at combat OR rp and not being able to mix them (there's actually a thread about rolled stats vs point buy where several people claim rolling is better because it gives you the chance to roleplay as a character that isn't a bada**, as if the two were remotely connected). It is impossible to create rules that prevent you from roleplaying without outright saying "no roleplaying", just ask any child who likes to 'make believe'.

If you can't RP in 4e, you're not a real Roleplayer.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I think the Role Play vs. No Role Play issue is a question of time management, if a gaming session typically lasts 4 hours or so and each combat takes an hour to run then you have a conflict of time availabilty.  Groups that favor role-playing over combat are going to want to focus their available time budget on the role-playing activities and minimize the time spent resolving combat.  Groups that like combat and the tactical aspect of the game will do the reverse.  On a player by player basis you then can get individual perceptions that the system is slanted against role-playing if all of the game time is dominated by the players who like tactical combat and want to slay lots of monters for their loot.

In short mechanics and the time required to resolve them are directly in competition with time spent on mechanic-free role-playing which can resolve very complex situations in a shorter period of time than the micro-managed time slices that occur in tactical combat.  If a new system gives players the options to abstract combat into a set of quick dice rolls then their perception will be that the system is more role-playing oriented, if the players decide to use their larger pool of available time to role-play.  If they do not and instead focus on killing even more monsters for loot then the perception will be that the game is a "dumbed-down" version of the game with little more than simple board or card game mechanics.


 
"4e D&D has no roleplaying" is

a strawman. No one contends that. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.

What is contended is -
a) Powers are presently mainly as combat effects, causing some players to often think in combat/board-game terms
b) Published encounters are presented as set-piece battles, causing some DM's to run them as canned scenarios.

4e is one of the most Gamist RPG's available. That's not really a bad thing, especially if you are a gamer. 4e also did some great stuff with combat. That's not bad either, especially if you enjoy combat.   
  
I love the "no RP" discussions though, it reveals the fakes in the Roleplayer crowd

Ok fanboy, how 'bout if we say something like "4e did combat so awesomely that now all my group wants to do is run combat scenarios!!". Would you accept that statement? 'Cuz it's basically the same thing. It's simply harder to roleplaying a lot if the rest of the group, including the DM, is expecting to play something more like a boardgame.

"4e D&D has no roleplaying" is

a strawman. No one contends that. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it. 

 
  
I love the "no RP" discussions though, it reveals the fakes in the Roleplayer crowd

Ok fanboy, how 'bout if we say something like "4e did combat so awesomely that now all my group wants to do is run combat scenarios!!". Would you accept that statement? 'Cuz it's basically the same thing. It's simply harder to roleplaying a lot if the rest of the group, including the DM, is expecting to play something more like a boardgame.




You're wrong on the first point. People DO say that. Often.


If you're group isn't mature enough to ealize that just because a system does one thing well, it can't do anything else well, then 4e isn't your problem.
"Apple makes good tablets. Oh well, their computers must suck then".   
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
People DO say that. Often.

Then it should be pretty easy to point me to a someone contending this. Do so and I'll retract my statement.

If you're group isn't mature enough to ealize that just because a system does one thing well, it can't do anything else well, then 4e isn't your problem.
"Apple makes good tablets. Oh well, their computers must suck then".   

Your analogy is not germane. Despite comparing apples to apples. You do not seem to understand the problem or my point.
Ok fanboy, how 'bout if we say something like "4e did combat so awesomely that now all my group wants to do is run combat scenarios!!". Would you accept that statement? 'Cuz it's basically the same thing. It's simply harder to roleplaying a lot if the rest of the group, including the DM, is expecting to play something more like a boardgame.




I am totally willing to accept that statement. Especially because it clearly points out that your actual problem is one of group dynamics, and that you have an apparent mismatch in desires. You should talk with your group and DM and see if they are interested in a more RP heavy campaign. If not, you can either accept that is just the way that group is and go along, accept that that is the way the group is and go look for a new group, or try to persuade them to try your way anyways.

If you were RPing more heavily in previous editions, probably your group would be perfectly happy to RP more heavily in this edition as well. My own experience going from 3.5 to 4e was that there was no difference in the amount or quality of RP, but several options opened up as now you could RP an unaligned Paladin of Waukeen, with a bit of Barbarian mixed in. But then 3.5 hadn't really stopped me from going down wierd tangents anyways. It only outlawed certain specific tangents. No clause against playing a Librarian. 
I am totally willing to accept that statement.

Thank you.

you have an apparent mismatch in desires.

Right, but 4e helps 'establish' those desires. Each RPG system can have a pretty significant influence on play style.

 
If you were RPing more heavily in previous editions, probably your group would be perfectly happy to RP more heavily in this edition as well.

In my own case: the players are perfectly happy either way, they just tend to play differently in each edition.

In 4e, the powers tended to make them think mainly in gamist terms.

In 3.5e, I used to fill my backpack up with all sorts of mundane oddities: spikes, perfume, flour, powdered soap, lemon juice, salt, catnip, pepper, chalk charcoal parchement, bottles, vials, waterskins, etc. and I always find odd uses for them,

I don't do that anymore as they don't really have a benefit. The WotC adventures are a usually a collection of combat encounters (or pre-scripted skill challenges), and the characters are expected to use powers and skills as written.

Mind you: I still ham it up by describing my powers' effects in unique ways (example: "I sneak attack him with... a horse I just released from the stables... that happens to do the same amount of damage as my +2 dagger"). But 4e players can often expect to meet resistance if they say, try to alter the pre-scripted conditions of a set-piece combat encounter.
People DO say that. Often.

Then it should be pretty easy to point me to a someone contending this. Do so and I'll retract my statement.

If you're group isn't mature enough to ealize that just because a system does one thing well, it can't do anything else well, then 4e isn't your problem.
"Apple makes good tablets. Oh well, their computers must suck then".   

Your analogy is not germane. Despite comparing apples to apples. You do not seem to understand the problem or my point.


Sorry, I don't archive posts away for later use. I'm sure there are some on Amazon.


My analogy is perfectly apt. The question here is whether the rules encourage roleplaying. Certainly the rules   produce excellent combat. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

Also, I'm a bit curious why you are posting on a 4e forum, since clearly you don't care for it. 
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
I'm a bit curious why you are posting on a 4e forum, since clearly you don't care for it. 

You are incorrect: I care for it very much. Acknowledging a downside is different from not caring.

My analogy is perfectly apt.

An apt analogy would be "Apple makes good tablets. This has caused others to be disinterested in Desktops. I'm bummed by the loss of good desktop games, and people to play them with".

I understand that you do not understand or believe others viewpoint. That's ok, but the situation is there regardless of whether you believe it or understand it. It doesn't go away if it makes no sense to you.
I'm a bit curious why you are posting on a 4e forum, since clearly you don't care for it. 

Do you believe I don't care for 4e either?

So, let me see if I understand your point, Toki....

Because 4E has clear and engaging rules for combat, and because 4E players and DM's tend to have fun during combat encounters, it creates a dynamic in which combat pushes role play to the side. Is that it?