To address the questions, molepunch's observation is my primary issue: In 4e, there is a much more drastic separation betweeen 'combat mode' and 'RP mode.' This has always been present in RPGs, to some degree, but I've never seen one so evident as with 4E. People can be excellent roleplayers, but once an 'encounter' begins, all thought of character traits, goals, motives, etc., goes out the window, and it becomes an exercise in tactics, efficiency and power usage. The characters dissapear, and their kung-fu stuntmen step in, so to speak.
As for your question, TedKordLives, I'm happy to answer. We always use a hybrid of in-character dialogue and mechanics in our games. All dialogue is spoken 'in character.' I don't allow 'I convince the man I'm actually the duke.' They have to roleplay it out... *and* provide an appropriate skill check, to determine the reaction of the NPC. Depending on how they, as a person, handle the RP of the situation, I provide a situational modifier to the skill check. It's how I've always ran, and it's always worked in the past.
The same held true for battles. If a character was put into a position where they had to rely on phsyical force, they would roleplay their character's reaction to the use of force, while using the mechanics of their combat abilities to represent their attacks, etc.
In 4E, the players would still RP, and the NPCs still interact, but the board-game aspects of the system create an increasing divide between the game world, and the "gamist world" - the pure mechanics/abstraction that D&D has become. Skill challenges? RP turns off, and people evaluate the most efficient skills for the job. Combat? No longer the threat of death, use of violence to attain one's goals, no - a pure tactics exercise in mechanics and strategy, something so unreal and abstract it can only be compared to a videogame or a game like chess.
I ran 4E like any other game, and I play it like any other game. But it's not like any other game. It's abstract and tactics-focused unlike any other RPG I've encountered. Character goals, drives, personalities - all of this has zero emphasis, in comparison to the almight 'role,' the tactical function, which in all cases supercedes whatever goals the character, as a (fictional) person may have had.
In short, TedKordLives, the game started like any other, but soon devolved into a pure mechanics, hack and slash dungeon crawl environment. I've never seen a 4E game that doesn't. The rules offer zero incentive, and zero support, for RP-based games, non-combat encounters, or creative solutions, and entirely support tactically focused, battle oriented dungeon crawls.
Honestly, I'd never use 3.5 again for running a classic dungeon crawl, along the lines of Sunless Citadel, and it works much better for RPGA games, with it's tight focus on battle. For actual, story and plot, character goal and growth based games, however, I've found it just doesn't offer any support, there.
It's the boardgame aspect at work. The games strengths are clear, and to try to put a round peg in a square hole seems a silly waste of energy. D&D 4E is clearly built around battle. Using it for anything else is an exercise in futility, in my experience. Yes, you probably *can* - but you're working against the system, in doing so, not with it.
Certain posters state categorically that you cannot do certain things (i.e. immersive story driven RP) with 4th edition, and that it is therefore polarizing.
A multitude of players respond that they are able to accomplish these thins within 4th edition. There is no polarization because these players are accomplishing what has been deemed impossible.
It seems that if said posters really wanted to accomplish those RPing story intensive elements within 4th edition, their response would be to inquire as how they are accomplishing it so that they might bring the techniques and elements that responding posters are using to their benefit home to their games.
Rather than ask, how are you making it work, the you-can't-have-roleplaying-and-story posters simply reiterate that you cannot do what many posters seem to be doing quite sucessfully.
The game, as always, is what you make it. If one group can accomplish something within 4th edition, and another cannot, the variable ceases to be 4th edition.
People take offense when being told categorically they cannot do what they are already doing. If two groups attempt things in one system and one can accomplish it and another cannot, the groups are the variables ... the system remains constant.
Perhaps more honest phrasing of the complaint described would be "I don't know run a story driven roleplaying heavy campaign in 4th ed." Followed perhaps by an "I don't feel there are mechanics to support it." Phrasing it that why might give the impression that a poster is open to opinions other than his or her own, and that they are interested in more than making blanket negative statements.
Electricbee, if you'd care to actually let me know, I'll gladly offer: "I don't know run a story driven roleplaying heavy campaign in 4th ed." Followed perhaps by an "I don't feel there are mechanics to support it."
Because I don't know how. I've never met anyone who knows how. The RPGA doesn't know how. And I don't feel there are mechanics to support it.
Electricbee, if you'd care to actually let me know, I'll gladly offer: "I don't know run a story driven roleplaying heavy campaign in 4th ed." Followed perhaps by an "I don't feel there are mechanics to support it."
Because I don't know how. I've never met anyone who knows how. The RPGA doesn't know how. And I don't feel there are mechanics to support it.
The RPGA is more than the DMs near you.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal.
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update" We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better.
Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
As a Swedish citizen, I'm overly happy to see simple squares instead och inches/feet/yards, because it makes RPG-life much easier when we are used to metric system.
Why Star Wars is in meters, and D&D in feet/inches I don't understand, one would've hoped 4e would adapt to it but no. :P
As boardgamey feel, we have always used minis for combats with many participants, because life is much easier that way. 4e hasn't changed anything except we use them in every fight now instead of 90% now. Big deal.
"I don't know run a story driven roleplaying heavy campaign in 4th ed." Followed perhaps by an "I don't feel there are mechanics to support it."
Because I don't know how. I've never met anyone who knows how. The RPGA doesn't know how. And I don't feel there are mechanics to support it.
Having just come back from DDXP, I'd be happy to refute your claim that the RPGA *can't* roleplay. I saw (and participated in) a couple tables with GREAT roleplayers.
I'm more than willing to concede that it isn't always easy to RP at an RPGA table, mind - simply because at a convention or something similar time constraints can put pressure to "get through this quickly".
I see you feel there's no "mechanic" for roleplay. Might I ask what kind of mechanics roleplay needs? I mean, Chess doesn't have rules for roleplay either, but if one really wanted to RP each move of the pieces they could.
I feel roleplay exists beyond rules - and in fact any attempt to make rules for it would only serve to sterilize the creative process from with good RP is born.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide
WolfStar76, I think you've done a lot to illustrate my point: You *can* roleplay in the RPGA, and there are *great* roleplayers participating in it. Unfortunately, the *format* itself is comative of roleplaying.
By the same token, you *can* roleplay in 4e, but the system itself is combative towards roleplay. I disagree that roleplay and mechanics are entirely separate. Good mechanics *support* roleplay, in a number of ways. For one, mechanical incentives rewarding roleplaying are possible. Further, the very *presence* of mechanics that support RP - skill checks to accompany dialogue, mechanics to support actions like crafting, spells to enable actions beyond the human norm *other* than harming others - give support for roleplaying. It's not just the mechanical incentive, but my devoting the time and space to such things, the game is showing that they're *important*.
Where a game's rules lie, there is its focus, I'd say, and far too much of the 4e rules focus solely on combat. It shows: This is what's important. You have a few pages for your skills, for rituals, but that's filler - the combat is the star of the show.
Yes, you can run freeform RP, with no rules whatsoever. But, at that point, which incentive is there to use the system at all? If it's not supporting your playstyle, how can you justify its use?
Some systems go to extremes to encourage, and reward, RP, making things like a character's virtues, their concept, their goals, their fears, and their dreams, things that are written on the character sheet, often with corresponding mechanics. Yes, you can RP those things without them being written down, or without numbers - but those systems, and that focus, *encourage* a deeper, more inctricate game that's about more than combat, and "things in between" combat - it puts social interactions, and other scenarios, on the same "pedestal".
In 4E, combat is all alone on that pedestal. Everything else has only barebones support, mechanically, and in terms of written material. As I've said, for casual gamers, or those coming from a video game or war game background, this actually makes the game more appealing. But for those who love Role Playing Games, it's a sad thing to see.
(All of the above is my opinion, of course. I assume it goes without saying that anything stated is one's opinion, but some take issue, so I'm adding this disclaimer: All one person's opinion.)
Care to give an example of a few non combat scenarios or stories you feel that 4th ed inhibits?
Also, you seem to come across with the attitude that combat and roleplaying are somehow polar opposites? is that your intention? If so please see my signature.
Minis don't = boardgame feel for me, but I do agree that 4E feels more like a boardgame than other rpgs that I play.
4E feels a lot like Descent to me; while I do like Descent, I play D&D for far different reasons. I can rp in 4E, but things I am able to do in the 4E world are far more restricted. There's really no plausible way for me to own land, raise an army, or any number of other things. Sure, the DM can allow me to do those things, but there's really no way for the DM to balance what having those things available for my character means versus the wealth and power assumptions that 4E's construction makes.
I think what I'm trying to get at is that -to me- the way that the 4E rules work sometimes make the 4E world feel more arbitrary and less like a living & breathing world. I can roleplay my character while playing a game of Descent if I really want to, but the rules of that game somewhat restrict my creative options; occasionally, I feel a similar way while playing 4E. I think it is pretty obvious that 4E is constructed to be far more "gamist" (I hate those terms, but I'm not sure how else to put it) than other rpgs that I play.
The grab rules are an example of what makes me feel as though 4E is more of a board game. The way they are set up creates some very unusual and highly unrealistic situations. I know that "realism" doesn't often translate well into an rpg, but -for me- there's a certain amount of realism that I feel makes a rpg more fun, and a lot of the 4E rules have far far less of that amount than I would prefer to have.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
