Greg_314]But for the sake of discussion the easiest place to start would be by halving the number of healing surges every character gets, renaming them to "drama points", and combining them with action points. A drama point can be spent in the same way as either an action point or a healing surge, and can also be used to instantly rejoin the party if you're separated from them (and/or other dramatic uses).
This is a terrible sounding mechanic. The completely arbitrary nature of it as well is something I also entirely dislike, for the same reason I've always hated these mechanics in other systems and found them often problematic.
I fail to see how this supports roleplaying either to be pretty honest, just like I don't see how when other games use similar nonsense it really helps things much (EG Drawback systems or awarding arbitrary XP/rewards). Not to mention mechanically it's awful because certain classes get far more healing surges than anyone else (like defenders, or classes that use con as a base stat like Warlocks).
But for the sake of discussion the easiest place to start would be by halving the number of healing surges every character gets, renaming them to "drama points", and combining them with action points. A drama point can be spent in the same way as either an action point or a healing surge, and can also be used to instantly rejoin the party if you're separated from them (and/or other dramatic uses).[/quote] This is a terrible sounding mechanic. The completely arbitrary nature of it as well is something I also entirely dislike, for the same reason I've always hated these mechanics in other systems and found them often problematic.
I fail to see how this supports roleplaying either to be pretty honest, just like I don't see how when other games use similar nonsense it really helps things much (EG Drawback systems or awarding arbitrary XP/rewards). Not to mention mechanically it's awful because certain classes get far more healing surges than anyone else (like defenders, or classes that use con as a base stat like Warlocks).
If the answer is yes, that's fantastic, and you should have a mechanical way of expressing your appreciation and rewarding that performance.
You have not made a convincing argument anywhere this is required by the rules. The DMG already suggests that if someone comes up with a particularly good idea or a suggestion that makes a great deal of sense for in character or roleplaying reasons, the DM should award bonuses (such as a +2 bonus) onto the relevant check. Automatic successes on skill challenges are another thing frequently noted (several modules for example).
Nothing needs to replace what can be called "A DMs common sense" and simply writing these things down as suggestions. Not building them into the game like rigid mechanics.
The fact that the D&D rules are packed with a collection of essays on roleplaying does not make D&D a roleplaying game, or - relevantly to this thread - allow Chris Youngs to make the claim that the D&D 4th Edition rules support roleplaying.
Except for a whole load of bluster, I do not feel you have managed anywhere to actually prove this. Also I disagree with you because these essays are in the DMG and are directed at the DM. They are there to encourage and produce roleplaying like anything else in the book. You do not need mechanics to produce roleplaying, you even seem to have conceded this argument and yet you keep arguing that you need specific mechanics for roleplaying to make it a roleplaying game? You do see the inherent gaping contradiction here I hope. As for me, I get roleplaying from my players in all of my DnD campaigns. I do not get "roleplaying" from anyone I've played monopoly, cluedo or chess with.
Ergo, one of these things really IS not like the other Greg. I again go back to my original argument you failed to even address:
Roleplaying is made by the DM and the players at the table.
Not the system or mechanics.
You have yet to prove that systems with "roleplaying" mechanics produce better roleplaying automatically. My Call of Cthulhu example refutes that brilliantly (despite it being my favorite system, it does not automatically produce better roleplaying despite its numerous mechanics to encourage it).
You have yet to prove anywhere that 4E DnD cannot produce roleplaying from its advice on how to do so to the DM in the DMG, the fact the campaign settings emphasize and encourage the DM (and players) how to roleplay within them (especially the Eberron Campaign Guide and Eberron Players Guide). Core to my argument here, is you have failed to prove that why such advice explicitly in 4E books is not a part of how this edition encourages roleplaying. Essentially you argue you can only generate roleplaying with mechanics and pretend everything that isn't an explicit mechanic isn't encouraging roleplaying. While it is true you could take the DMGs advice or the ECGs advice and apply it to anything, it doesn't change the fact these are 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons books. Simply because it does it in a non-mechanical way, doesn't mean it isn't there. It means it isn't FOR you.
Really, all you're trying to do is insist your right and ignore everyone who asks you "Where is the actual proof in your argument?". I'm just not seeing it anywhere, because you constantly undermine your point by proving the basis of your argument is just a big straw man (EG comparisons with Pizza, Monopoly and similar).
This is a terrible sounding mechanic. The completely arbitrary nature of it as well is something I also entirely dislike, for the same reason I've always hated these mechanics in other systems and found them often problematic.
The "arbitrariness" of the system is dependent upon having a DM who has good judgement; that's the only "arbitrary" element. If you don't have a DM who has good judgement, you've got bigger problems in your game than deciding when you get roleplaying rewards. I don't think there's any problem with a mechanic making the basic assumption that the DM is capable of making reasonable decisions.
Bear in mind that encounter design, plot, loot, and all non-loot non-XP rewards are already either mostly or wholly the product of DM's judgement; I'm not sure what's wrong with basing another mechanic on the DM's ability to run a fair and satisfying game.
Not to mention mechanically it's awful because certain classes get far more healing surges than anyone else (like defenders, or classes that use con as a base stat like Warlocks).
That's because certain classes NEED more healing surges than others; assuming players still need healing at approximately the same rate there's not a problem.
But I accept you can find other problems with this mechanic; that's why I've said I wouldn't go about changing D&D - it wasn't designed with this kind of thing in mind. Which is exactly my point - D&D makes no mechanical contemplation of roleplaying.
You have not made a convincing argument anywhere this is required by the rules.
I'm not trying to make that argument; D&D is fine the way it is. There are other games that are masterpieces of roleplaying; but those games don't handle combat and dungeon-crawling half so well. It's swings and roundabouts.
My argument here is that D&D dosen't get to claim credit for having mechanics that do anything more than permit roleplaying.
The DMG already suggests that if someone comes up with a particularly good idea or a suggestion that makes a great deal of sense for in character or roleplaying reasons, the DM should award bonuses (such as a +2 bonus) onto the relevant check. Automatic successes on skill challenges are another thing frequently noted (several modules for example).
I'm pretty familiar with the H series modules; none of them provide any mechanical rewards for roleplaying, in skill challenges or anywhere else. Which module are you quoting? And a page number for the DMG bit you're quoting wouldn't hurt either.
Except for a whole load of bluster, I do not feel you have managed anywhere to actually prove this. Also I disagree with you because these essays are in the DMG and are directed at the DM. They are there to encourage and produce roleplaying like anything else in the book. You do not need mechanics to produce roleplaying, you even seem to have conceded this argument and yet you keep arguing that you need specific mechanics for roleplaying to make it a roleplaying game?
You're correct, I'm not arguing that roleplaying needs mechanics. I'm arguing whether D&D can take any credit for roleplaying that takes place in its presence. (It can't.)
Let's use a humorous but apt analogy. Say you go to a supermarket, and you buy two boxes that purport to contain a frozen hamburger. One box contains, in fact, a frozen hamburger - or at the very least frozen hamburger meat. The other contains a piece of paper saying, "Hamburgers are tasty, and you can make one by putting a beef patty between two buns. We recommend adding lettuce, tomato, and sauce!"
It's the Magritte painting of a pipe, with the (French language) caption, "This is not a pipe". There is a difference between the thing, and the description of the thing. A review of a movie is not the movie; a summary of a book is not the book. D&D does not produce roleplaying, it merely suggests you produce roleplaying. It's a direction to create something, rather than the actual process of creating it.
Now, you can say, "I do not want a process, I do not want rules." And that's okay, you can say that, it's a good argument and it has merit. You're in luck, because D&D 4th Edition does not give you rules. That's a decision 4E has made and it might be a good one or a bad one.
But having made that decision to not have rules, it doesn't then get to turn around and say, "It's the way that we haven't provided mechanics addressing this topic that makes us good." It's a flawed argument. The extension is that they could write a blank page and claim it's perfect due to not limiting players in any way whatsoever.
They can say, "We're rules-neutral on roleplaying," and okay, that's a valid design decision. But they're also rules-neutral on world peace, and whether or not that's deliberate they still don't get to accrue the work of the UN to 4th Edition's design process...
... no matter how many helpful suggestions about world peace they put in the DMG.
The "arbitrariness" of the system is dependent upon having a DM who has good judgement; that's the only "arbitrary" element.
That is probably the worst element of anything, because "Good judgement" often boils down to "This is a mechanic for punishing players doing anything I dislike and having the rules support me!".
Fundamentally I view such mechanics as not required anymore and I know full well how to roleplay myself and how to encourage my players. This is not something I needed to "learn" from mechanics and in fact mechanics are not something that can ever substitute actual roleplaying from the beginning.
That's because certain classes NEED more healing surges than others; assuming players still need healing at approximately the same rate there's not a problem.
Um.
You realize some classes use con as a primary or secondary stat, yet aren't actually always in frontline combat right? These classes usually never use all their healing surges, so all they are doing is getting a big boost in power while still sitting in the rear lines.
And then your "mechanic" fails to do anything except provide another brilliant option for powergaming.
Also meaning it fails doubly.
Which is exactly my point - D&D makes no mechanical contemplation of roleplaying.
By far it's best and strongest point as a roleplaying game in my opinion.
My players play what they like and then make their own minds up how that characters acts with the world. Not the mechanics.
There are other games that are masterpieces of roleplaying
I agree.
But they don't produce that roleplaying through inherently better roleplaying mechanics. I find Call of Cthulhu gets good roleplaying because of its theme and the love I (and my then current players) had for H.P. Lovecrafts Mythos.
Did we need sanity mechanics for roleplaying? No. But they provide a fair and balanced way of dealing with horrible things from another dimension people can't understand.
Did we need obscure skill charts going down to what dialect of latin you could speak? No. But it is a part of the mythos and it is something that is often extremely important (as knowing your enemy was more important than a firearms skill in many cases).
Did any of this make "roleplaying" out of thin air when 3 players wanted to be a bean counter, the guy who shot birds at the airport and the G-string inspector?
Wait, that answers itself. Incidentally, these guys did no better in 3rd edition DnD from that respect, but the game at least let them kill things and take their stuff. Ultimately that was fun for them, but neither system made them "roleplay" any better. This is all despite whatever praise I could have about the way Call of Cthulhu generates atmosphere and such through its skill system and the way it handles combat etc.
My argument here is that D&D dosen't get to claim credit for having mechanics that do anything more than permit roleplaying.
An argument in pure semantics and you know it. Chris argues that 4E DnD does not discourage roleplaying and does in fact have systems in place to handle roleplaying situations (which Skill Challenges do in fact have some basis in solving - not perfectly but then I can make arguments no system fully does in a way that will be satisfactory for everyone). Additionally, the DMG and other books published do point out ways to roleplay characters within the context of the overall system.
Simply because they aren't mechanics does not mean they are not there.
I'm pretty familiar with the H series modules; none of them provide any mechanical rewards for roleplaying, in skill challenges or anywhere else.
I am looking at Dungeon Modules actually, the H, P and E series are pretty complex and long dungeon crawls as a general rule. Some of them are a lot better than others.
And a page number for the DMG bit you're quoting wouldn't hurt either.
Dungeon modules have suggested these things before and so does the DMG (even if it's been a while since I read it, they make these points to consider a players roleplaying in the DCs of checks). This has also been made clear in articles on skill challenges; in fact a long time ago I even criticised Mike Mearls article for essentially stating that you should award bonuses to players for roleplaying or similar as a way of "Fixing" skill challenges flawed maths (but that is a different debate).
You're correct, I'm not arguing that roleplaying needs mechanics. I'm arguing whether D&D can take any credit for roleplaying that takes place in its presence. (It can't.)
Again, a semantic argument but not overly relevant in the end and entirely missing the point anyway.
I'm simply ignoring your strawmans in the hope you'll stay on the actual argument I've made.
But having made that decision to not have rules, it doesn't then get to turn around and say, "It's the way that we haven't provided mechanics addressing this topic that makes us good." It's a flawed argument.
No it's not.
It's just a different one and one you refuse to accept.
Once again, either you argue you must have mechanics to produce roleplaying or you have no argument beyond trying to make an irrelevant semantic decision. That's what it has come down to by this point to me.
I'm simply ignoring your strawmans in the hope you'll stay on the actual argument I've made.
Look, for starters, straw man is two words and in argument it's used to describe when a speaker constructs a ludicrous argument, attributes it to another speaker, and then demolishes it to artificially prop up his own position. If you're saying I'm doing that, it would help to describe where, and how your actual position differs from the one I understand you to be putting.
I'm not interested in knocking you down as a person; I'm interested in knocking down your argument and it's a pretty hollow victory if I've not correctly understood that argument. Enlighten me.
To directly address the discussion - let's be clear here: I'm making one argument in this thread, and one argument only. As I read him, Chris Youngs claims that 4th Edition is as good as previous editions at roleplaying, or better than them, for the specific reason that it has less skills.
My argument: Chris' statement is absurd in that 4th Edition can't claim any credit for an absence of rules, regardless of whether or not it constitutes a wise design decision.
The fact that something is better because you have ignored it does not let you take credit for it.
Example 1: An incompetent carpenter invariably causes lasting structural damage to any house he works on. Realising his ineptitude, he ceases doing carpentry on houses and instead takes up work as an interior decorator. Later, he looks down a street of houses he hasn't worked on and says, "The fine carpentry in all these houses is thanks to me."
I'm not trying to be absurd here but I'm at a loss for how else to explain this point if you can't grasp it as a direct statement. If my analogy is flawed in some way please tell me how.
Example 2: A popular cookbook over past editions has routinely included an instruction that all pizzas should have fetta cheese as a topping. In its latest printing, the cookbook removes that instruction and no longer provides specific instructions on making pizzas at all. Claims the writer in a press conference, "Now that we've removed artificial restrictions on pizza creation, all our readers will benefit from a new, flexible approach to making pizzas that improves on our previous editions."
A deliberate decision to not address a topic may be a good decision, either inherently, or specifically due to the strengths and weaknesses of the writers. But stepping back is stepping back; there's no credit to be drawn from acknowledging your own inability to improve on the status quo.
This is the argument Chris is running, yes? That Wizards believe that any rules they could make would only limit people's ability to roleplay and worsen the overall experience, and therefore they've made such rules as they have fewer, simpler and/or absent altogether. So that's great, but then he can't claim that 4E offers a superior roleplaying experience; he can only claim that it doesn't offer a terrible one.
NB: Your note about certain provisions of the 4E DMG relating to skill challenges may still be a strong point but in the absence of a direct quote and/or page references I'm not able to sensibly address it. But I invite you to come back to it when you have your book handy.
Let's be clear here: I'm making one argument in this thread, and one argument only. As I read him, Chris Youngs claims that 4th Edition is as good as previous editions at roleplaying, or better than them, for the specific reason that it has less skills.
Itself a straw man, because that's an over-simplification of his argument and you know it. Let's quote the part of Chris' argument I have repeatedly quoted at you and you've chosen to repeatedly ignore:
Beyond character background or skill challenges, this complaint makes the least sense to me because in every RPG I've played over the past twenty years and more, roleplaying was ultimately a result of the narrative brought to the table by the DM and players, not something provided by rules. That's the beauty of roleplaying, after all! D&D has always been a game of heroic fantasy, and there's nothing about those two words that requires rules of any sort.
This is actually the argument he made I most agree with and by far the most important one in many ways. That you gloss over it and focus on one of his less firm statements and one of two at that (that 4E removes skills and makes decisions like being a blacksmiths son a part of a characters background and the way skill challenges are designed primarily to negotiate non-combat scenarios or roleplaying challenges - so you construct another straw man again proving my point BTW).
Aside from this you're making two arguments, not one contrary to your assertion and it's a clever piece of baiting and switching at that too IMO.
A) You argue that 4E cannot claim that it supports roleplaying as it doesn't have rules to do so.
B) You argue that you do not need specific rules for roleplaying*
*Yet consistently try to prove that systems that do are superior while simultaneously desperate to avoid defending this point - interesting by itself.
B inherently contradicts your position A. If you do not need rules for roleplaying, then 4E can claim that it supports roleplaying through non-rule based means such as the essays in the DMG. This is what Chris argues in his piece above and why he feels that removing skills does not mean 4E discourages or removes roleplaying. Instead it moves the roleplaying aspect to the DM and the players, through background and how the DM decides this should influence the game. Again, the DMG points out in the description of a narrative skill challenge what the PC do should be taken into account for the success of it.
You argue that isn't a part of the system unless it writes down specifically some mechanic. Yet you try to assert your argument isn't that roleplaying requires mechanics for the game to be a roleplaying game? Haw haw haw.
Indeed.
More straw men that avoid the point follow. Ignoring those let's go to your next point.
If my analogy is flawed in some way please tell me how.
Because it misses the point: I have repeatedly quoted to you Chris' argument that I inherently agree with. Roleplaying is the function of the DM and the players at the table. The system they use determines what kind of roleplaying I agree, but what I have added to that is the quality can be independent of the system.
This is why I bought up Call of Cthulhu vs. DnD with that zany group of people I played with. Did Call of Cthulhus excellent deep roleplaying mechanics actually make them better roleplayers? No. Did 3rd edition? No. Did I? Well I tried but I failed, but did I still have fun romping over monsters and stealing kobold princesses with 3 people with really zany ideas? Yes, yes I did. Ultimately the so called "superior" roleplaying game provided for an inferior experience when the players weren't interested in it at all.
Fancy that.
Now if your argument wasn't a giant straw man followed by a bait and switch, to me you would have argued:
"Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons does not provide a good experience for roleplaying for people who enjoy a deep skill set. These people enjoy their characters being more mechanically defined and it assists and aids their enjoyment and roleplaying ability. If the DM works with them, even the most obscure skill such as beekeeping can be relevant to the game and provide a player with an excellent roleplaying opportunities to make them feel more engaged with the game.
Less skills disappoints these specific players and as such, 4E dungeons and dragons does not feel as rewarding as games with deeper skill systems. For others, a deep skill system can be mechanically draining on skills that may be more essential in a more combat orientated or dungeon crawl oriented game. Putting points into obscure skills overall weakens a character in other areas required for combat, failing to maintain balance in combat and in other aspects of the game.
By having reduced skills and that are much broader in overall scope, 4E largely places the responsibility for roleplaying in the minds of the players and the dungeon master - but enhances overall mechanical balance between classes. It becomes more freeform in terms of roleplaying with the DM and players creativity and decisions regarding roleplaying creating scenarios as opposed to the DM putting specific encounters in.
For example, in another game a player could have a background and skill in "beekeeping". The DM can design an encounter around that background to make the players roleplaying choice feel relevant and give him some way of using his skill. In 4E, there is no beekeeping skill but a player could instead write himself a background in beekeeping. In a similar encounter with bees in 4E, the DM rules that the background in beekeeping produces a +2 bonus to the nature check for that encounter. This small but important boost rewards the players background choices indirectly.
In both cases, the players roleplaying choice is rewarded by a metagame decision by the DM. The DM in both games, despite the mechanical difference in the skill systems has to design and incorporate an encounter to reward the player with a certain sill (beekeeping). In both systems the DM made the encounter specifically with a player in mind and in both systems the DM rewarded the player specifically - encouraging his roleplaying decision.
Many players subsequently like a more mechanical based focus for skills and so do DMs, because it provides more of a basis for such interactions. On the other hand, it's more limiting because characters have only a certain number of skill points and many things couldn't be accurately (or fairly) represented about a character under such a system. The advantage that a more limited system has, that largely relies of freeform roleplaying for other aspects like character backgrounds in beekeeping appeals to others.
The DM and players can have larger character backgrounds, with a bigger overall idea of things their character might be able to do. When such backgrounds become relevant, it can be simple to adjudicate a small bonus onto checks, without inherently penalizing the player from taking essential day to day skills required for adventuring.
Both approaches have merit and both in the end produce roleplaying from both DMs and players. But neither approach succeeds when the DM chooses to make obscure skills ever relevant in the first case, or when the DM does not permit a player with a relevant background skill in the second a bonus (or does not know or forgets about it). In the end, the preferred approach is the one that feels the most fun and satisfying to the DM and the players involved."
This IMO is more to the point than anything you've argued. But again, this goes onto the question of do you or do you not argue that a game needs roleplaying mechanics to make roleplaying? Do you or do you not argue that if a game does not have specific roleplaying mechanics it is not a roleplaying game? If it does not, then the articles that discuss incorporating roleplaying into skill challenges, the DMGs advice and other things that 4E has put in place to encourage roleplaying (Campaign setting flavor as in Eberron, the core DMGs advice to DMs and discussion on roleplaying etc) are just as valid as any mechanic.
So yes, I am arguing and I am sure Chris would agree that 4E can claim its roleplaying is facilitated by the system. It gives you a more free form roleplaying because it does not mechanically represent specific things down to a T. Either you agree that this doesn't prevent roleplaying (which is Chris' inherent argument quoted above, not the straw man you have constructed and then proceeded to knock down in your previous posts unsuccessfully) or you inherently argue that without roleplaying specific mechanics 4E can't be a roleplaying game.
Which is it Greg?
A deliberate decision to not address a topic may be a good decision
But it does. It just doesn't put it in mechanical black and white.
That Wizards believe that any rules they could make would only limit people's ability to roleplay and worsen the overall experience, and therefore they've made such rules as they have fewer, simpler and/or absent altogether. So that's great, but then he can't claim that 4E offers a superior roleplaying experience; he can only claim that it doesn't offer a terrible one.
lol opinions and all that. See my above phrasing of what I feel the argument should be for a demolition of this point. I don't see any as "superior". Can you prove that please? How do you know 4E does not offer a superior roleplaying experience for certain groups? Can you prove this to me qualitatively because that's such an interesting claim you've just made. Where is your proof Greg? Where is your evidence?
Is it because it has largely no specific mechanics? Are you pulling that bait and switch I just accused you of above again? Reiterated: 4E cannot produce good roleplaying because it doesn't have mechanics for roleplaying and yet you argued earlier didn't you that you don't need mechanics for roleplaying.
I ask you again, do you need mechanics for roleplaying or not? I'm not letting you have it either way Greg, because your argument requires this to make sense!
Personally I feel the same way that Chris does in my crotchety old age that more mechanics and rules actually don't produce a better roleplaying experience. I find 4E has produced some thrilling roleplaying moments for me and my players thus far, even without stringent mechanics. Because I, as the DM encourage and reward my players - not the mechanics but with the story, how their actions affect the world and how the world reacts to their decisions. That's roleplaying to me and it doesn't require mechanics to be satisfying in my opinion.
So 4Es approach suits me fine and yes, I credit it with allowing me to roleplay as I like and my players to roleplay as they like. When they make a background in beekeeping, when they run into a horde of killer bees you should bet that players background in beekeeping matters.
Itself a straw man, because that's an over-simplification of his argument and you know it.
Well, I don't know it, clearly. I re-stated my understanding and opened with "as I understand it" specifically to make clear what my assumptions were and let you critique them. Which you've done; thank you.
If you take the time to assume I'm arguing in good faith I'll do the same for you; I'm not here to soapbox, I'm here to genuinely test my position in intelligent debate.
Let's quote the part of Chris' argument I have repeatedly quoted at you and you've chosen to repeatedly ignore:
I think you've repeatedly paraphrased it; I believe this is the first time you've quoted it. I personally belive Chris is just mistaken when he says this - someone in his position is surely not so inexperienced as to have never played any of the variety of systems that mechanically support roleplaying or consist entirely of mechanically-enabled roleplaying.
But that's not my argument; for this thread I'll give you the assumption. Let's say that rules never help and that roleplaying can only occur in a mechanical void. How does D&D take credit for that?
How does D&D take credit for something that, apparently, happens entirely as a result of the spontaneous and unprompted action of players meeting around a table? How does D&D get to say, "As a result of the $40 you spent on this book, roleplaying happened?"
You've quoted me that passage; that's great. I don't need to argue it. My argument isn't defeated by the existence of one or more intelligent statements in the editorial, even were this such a statement.
Let's be clear. I'm not arguing that Chris Youngs lies through his teeth in every line of his editorial. (For the record, I'm not arguing that he lies at all! He's probably a great guy!) I'm saying that his specific claim that 4E has somehow retained or improved the roleplaying in D&D by including less mechanical support for it is ridiculous.
(that 4E removes skills and makes decisions like being a blacksmiths son a part of a characters background and the way skill challenges are designed primarily to negotiate non-combat scenarios or roleplaying challenges - so you construct another straw man again proving my point BTW).
It would help my comprehension to no end if you could explain your problems without using the phrase "straw man" - I still don't think you're using it correctly, and, if you are, it could benefit from a bit of context.
I'm interested generally in what you're saying in these parentheses, and it's a bit garbled, so I'd be appreciative of you taking the time to say it again with better phrasing. Are you conceding that his examples are weak or ridiculous? In which case I don't think we're actually in disagreement. Or are you defending them?
A) You argue that 4E cannot claim that it supports roleplaying as it doesn't have rules to do so.
B) You argue that you do not need specific rules for roleplaying*
*Yet consistently try to prove that systems that do are superior while simultaneously desperate to avoid defending this point - interesting by itself.
Accept my apologies for allowing other posters to draw me off topic. I do claim that mechanics can and do make for a better roleplaying experience - but I don't claim it here. It's not necessary for me to establish that point to make out my argument on this thread - that, specifically, 4E cannot claim to be a roleplaying game or take credit for roleplaying that happens in its presence.
In as much as I've addressed systems that have roleplaying mechanics, I've done it to provide context and to answer the curiosity of those who've expressed interest in what mechanics like that might look like. It's, as you point out, not relevant to the argument on this thread.
More straw men that avoid the point follow. Ignoring those let's go to your next point.
No, stop.
I've provided honestly-formulated examples - the carpenter and the cookbook - that I see as analogous to my argument. They're clear and they're on point. They're not "straw men" - in that they're not an argument that I've attributed to anyone except myself - and if they don't support my point then the onus is on you to explain why.
Stop, and go back.
If what I've said is so easily capable of being dismissed, do me the courtesy and respect of saying why, in plain English, without resorting to your understanding of what may or may not be appropriate debate jargon. Spell it out in words of less than three syllables, if you feel it's necessary, but give me your reasons.
This is the central point: choosing not to try something does not let you take credit for failing to screw it up. And it applies just as much to your arguing style. Ignoring my arguments is not the same as rebutting them.
How do you know 4E does not offer a superior roleplaying experience for certain groups? Can you prove this to me qualitatively because that's such an interesting claim you've just made. Where is your proof Greg? Where is your evidence?
I don't need to prove it; for the purpose of my argument we can assume it does offer a superior roleplaying experience for certain groups.
But if it does, it's none of it the product of 4E. It's because that group would have had a superior roleplaying experience with any system that provided no mechanical support for roleplaying, because that's how they like to play.
4E doesn't get to cross its arms smugly and say, "Mission accomplished". It hasn't done anything. That satisfied group of roleplayers got none of their roleplaying satisfaction from what 4E brought to the table; the roleplaying side of their game would have been identical whether or not they walked down to their local store and shelled out for one or more 4E products.
What 4E brought to the table was combat, and loot, and monsters, and a whole bunch of other things that that group can dress their roleplaying with, but what it didn't bring was the roleplaying. They had that already, and Chris Youngs has (rhetorically speaking) enormous cheek to try and stamp the 4E brand on it.
@GregT: Not addressing the topic mechanically is different from not addressing the topic at all. I do believe, as a scientist that publishes the results of his research, that I deserve credit for things done using my ideas.
Let's go to an analogy:
Say you are an experimental physicist and are trying to do a particularly complex interference experiment. Then you come by a paper that describes a different experiment and mentions that a certain setup of mirrors is extremely stable and would be of good use whenever free-space interferometers are needed.
You proceed to use said setup and it does indeed help your work.
Did the paper you read give you any mechanical incentive of any sort, or describe a physical law you were unaware of that might be hampering your experiment? Did it give you anything other than good advice, some insight that you didn't have before reading it?
I guess not, but there is no reason for you to say: "Well, I hope that guy wasn't looking for a citation when he put that on his paper!".
Ideas do deserve credit for the consequences they have. If the books talk about how roleplaying is part of the "D&D experience" and even say that metagaming is not a good idea (DMG page 15) then this does deserve credit as incentive to roleplay.
Perhaps not to you, who seems to have played multiple systems for a long time. But try for a moment to roleplay a boy on his early teens (or a girl, for that matter, since it is sad that there are so few in the hobby). You have never player a RPG before, bought your D&D books and started reading.
You read the advice about roleplaying and get that in this game you don't just roll the dice and move from square to square trying to buy more land or to find if Colonel Mustard did it on the Piano room with the wrench. In this game you pretend to be someone else, you make up a back story for your character and you might even get a bonus for doing so, if you use the PHB2, for instance.
The situation above grants credit to D&D for containing ideas about roleplaying.
Now let us continue this gedankenexperiment:
You are still that young teenager. Your DM puts you in a skill challenge. He tells you and your friends that you must convince the Duke to help you in your cause.
If he has read the (better written than the rest of the section, actually) play example from pages 76 and 77, he will play the part of the Duke and interact with you. As you talk to him he will give you a bonus if you said something particularly insightful (DMG page 74) or penalize you if you did something silly.
As the talk proceeds, you roll after you speak to the Duke and an outcome is defined.
Note that the fact that some of your skills are trained and some are not defines that you are better at some things than others. This will naturally incline you to try and use your skills the best way you can. Thus, if you are a soldier and knows nothing of eldritch words of ages past, you are unlikely to try and argue in terms of Arcana or History.
But say you turn to your DM and tell him that since you are trained in Endurance you want to tell the Duke that if he dispatches his troops today, it would require less time to reach the goblin army than if he waits two more days, as the weather is getting worse (for the sake of argument let us imagine you are trained in Nature or that this has been mentioned before).
The DM is encouraged by the book not to disregard your idea (DMG page 75). In fact, as a DM I would allow you to roll and see if your training of endurance actually gave you such an insight. It would be hard, but it could be done. (Maybe I'd ask you to add your INT score instead of your CON)
There you go. Using the 4E rules and advice you have roleplayed.
In fact, the situation proposed above could be valid even for more experienced people. In that case, however, external influences from other games would take credit, as well as those on the 4th edition books.
I, for instance, tend to relate skill challenges to the way Storyteller games flow in my group. People interact with the DM and whenever he thinks it is appropriate, he calls for a check. The result affects the flow of the story in a smooth way.
In theory, since there are rules for giving XP in skill challenges and quests, you could design and play an entire campaign without a single combat, just an endless flowchart of skill challenges that affect each other. The rules allow this, without mechanically interfering with the way you roleplay your character.
I find this way of doing business much more impartial than handing out drama dice-like tokens of acclamation.
Okay, here's the core point: I'll give you that the combination of the encouragement to roleplay, plus advice on how to promote roleplay and how to actually roleplay, may enable you to claim your product has created roleplaying.
And I'll give you that to the extent the PHB and DMG contain that advice, there is material in the core 4E books that creates roleplaying.
My arguments, then, is this:
First, the argument Chris is making is not just that roleplaying is still in some way part of D&D. He goes further to say that their decision to remove rules has specifically improved the roleplaying.
Editorial]One of the reasons those skills (and other such elements from other editions) are gone is that we felt they hindered roleplaying. [...] Liberating, isn't it? [...] Roleplaying was ultimately a result of the narrative brought to the table by the DM and players, not something provided by rules.[...] D&D has always been a game of heroic fantasy, and there's nothing about those two words that requires rules of any sort.
It's an insulting argument wrote:
One of the reasons those skills (and other such elements from other editions) are gone is that we felt they hindered roleplaying. [...] Liberating, isn't it? [...] Roleplaying was ultimately a result of the narrative brought to the table by the DM and players, not something provided by rules.[...] D&D has always been a game of heroic fantasy, and there's nothing about those two words that requires rules of any sort.[/quote] It's an insulting argument; to tell players who've gone out and bought three core rulebooks, any number of supplements, and a subscription to Insider that - guess what - they didn't need any rules in the first place!
But more than that it's just plain bad. He's saying, "Yes, we used to have rules for roleplaying in the form of (amongst other things) a wide range of non-combat skills. We thought those rules were bad, so we took them out, and replaced them with nothing. As a result of our game having less non-combat content, we now feel it offers a better roleplaying experience."
I honestly intend that to be a fair summation of his argument - if you feel I've misrepresented him please say so. But assuming it's more or less on the money, it's a ludicrous argument. The extension of it is that if they'd sold us a book with no rules at all we should have feted them as heroes. If you've got a bad combat system, you rip it out - and you then (as Wizards did) replace it with something better. You don't just say, "Our combat sucked, we took it out, now there's practically no combat system at all, buy our books?"
The fact that they may have been either personally or inherently unable to develop good mechanics for roleplaying does not entitle them to acclaim for not making the effort. It gets them, maybe, a pat on the back for knowing their limitations, followed by an acknowledgement that 4th Edition is a very wonderful combat system and perhaps in the future the designers might follow it up with a roleplaying game.
NOTE: I acknowledge that Chris goes on to mention skill challenges and suggests them as a way of incentivising roleplaying. I'm still waiting for that quote from the DMG that explains exactly how they incentivise roleplaying; there's maybe a separate and valid sub-argument there.
Second - and this is a pretty semantic point, I'll give you - a collection of essays on play style included with a game does not make the essays part of the game. Advice and encouragement of DMing included in the DMG does not automatically rise as high as being either rules or mechanics and there's a good argument to be made that it doesn't form part of "4th Edition" in anything other than an archival sense. It's a valid point but I don't think it's one that I get anywhere from winning so if you're not excited by it please feel free to ignore.
Well, I don't know it, clearly. I re-stated my understanding and opened with "as I understand it" specifically to make clear what my assumptions were and let you critique them.
Have you read the full article? Your surprise at this statement is unusual because it's not like he hides it in there in particular.
I think you've repeatedly paraphrased it; I believe this is the first time you've quoted it.
Yes, but the point is inherently EXACTLY the same. The DM and the players make the game a roleplaying game.
I personally belive Chris is just mistaken when he says this - someone in his position is surely not so inexperienced as to have never played any of the variety of systems that mechanically support roleplaying or consist entirely of mechanically-enabled roleplaying.
Are you now implying that people like Chris and myself have no experience with such systems?
Because I could imply the same of you for an equal result. I have tried such systems and I found them to be fun. But what they did not create was superior roleplaying. They just facilitated different kinds of roleplaying scenarios (which is why I liked them).
But that's not my argument; for this thread I'll give you the assumption. Let's say that rules never help and that roleplaying can only occur in a mechanical void. How does D&D take credit for that?
It takes credit for what it does in context, all your straw men about burgers and other nonsense fails to ever get that particular point of the argument.
How does D&D take credit for something that, apparently, happens entirely as a result of the spontaneous and unprompted action of players meeting around a table?
Because it is quite literally because of the entire context in which people are playing DnD. As opposed to eating hamburgers or playing monopoly. This is why I continue to bring up what the games CORE BOOKS actually write about "What is a roleplaying game". When you fail to even consider this entire facet of a roleplaying game that describes itself as such, guidelines on what roleplaying is actually about and the entire context of it that I dismiss your arguments as "Straw men".
You've quoted me that passage; that's great. I don't need to argue it. My argument isn't defeated by the existence of one or more intelligent statements in the editorial, even were this such a statement.
Except you've completely misrepresented his core argument of course
I'm saying that his specific claim that 4E has somehow retained or improved the roleplaying in D&D by including less mechanical support for it is ridiculous, and that 4E is a better game as a result, is ludicrous.
But you haven't proven or even remotely demonstrated why that is the case anywhere.
I feel it's "retained" it personally, but I wouldn't argue anything really "improves" it. Different yes, improves no. I see things as accomplishing a different mood or even theme (like Vampire with Humanity, or Call of Cthulhu with Insanity for two key examples). These do not inherently improve roleplaying, they provide a different context and theme.
It would help my comprehension to no end if you could explain your problems without using the phrase "straw man" - I still don't think you're using it correctly, and, if you are, it could benefit from a bit of context.
You are misrepresenting Chris argument and when you go driving off the cliff into nonsense about Hamburgers or similar, you're so far away from any point that's relevant its not funny.
Tell me, are Hamburgers at all similar to the complexities of Dungeons and Dragons? Do hamburgers present themselves anywhere near similarly to Dungeons and Dragons? Do hamburgers include written advice about roleplaying, how to play characters and the overall context of "What is a roleplaying game" that 4E does?
As long as you keep gibbering about hamburgers and ignoring the key points, I'm going to keep calling them straw men and dismissing them.
Are you conceding that his examples are weak or ridiculous?
No, I'm pointing out your argument is wrong because he has a three prong argument:
Removal of certain skills and broadening of the main skills.
Skill challenge as a mechanism (warts and all) for engaging non-combat skills with mechanics in roleplaying situations (like negotiations).
That roleplaying is inherently about the DM and the players.
You straw maned it somehow into him saying "Less skills = more roleplaying".
Which is clearly stupid, but it's not his position anyway.
I do claim that mechanics can and do make for a better roleplaying experience - but I don't claim it here.
I disagree and none of my experience has ever supported this. EG: See Call of Cthulhu. I notice you have dodged my repeated requests to actually provide proof of this anywhere, but then I realize (as probably do you) this is purely subjective and opinion based. There is no actual qualitative proof these mechanics enhance roleplaying that can be argued because the argument will turn into "No you're wrong" followed by "No, YOU are wrong" etc.
Because my experience with these systems is that they can't and don't make for a better roleplaying game
It's not necessary for me to establish that point to make out my argument on this thread - that, specifically, 4E cannot claim to be a roleplaying game or take credit for roleplaying that happens in its presence.
Actually it can and I'm still not seeing the proof in this statement yet...
No, stop.
I've provided honestly-formulated examples
AKA straw men IMO.
If we completely drop the fact there are currently several books dedicated to world fluff and how to create a world that people can roleplay in (The Eberron Campaign Guide, the Dungeon Masters Guide, the 4E Players Handbook and such) sure.
But I'm unfortunately not playing that semantic game and I'm firmly sticking to the argument.
Can you or can you not prove that because 4E doesn't have roleplaying mechanics (which actually, I disagree with because it does have some but none the less) it is not a roleplaying game? What games with what roleplaying mechanics make them roleplaying games?
Because I'm honestly sure that based on what you've argued, I can claim Call of Cthulhu isn't a roleplaying game either.
But again, I'm not making irrelevant Straw Men arguments, I'm sticking to the argument. Can you or can you not prove a roleplaying game must have specific mechanics for roleplaying or it's not a roleplaying game? You can come up with all the hamburgers you like, but I'm going to attack your core argument which is built on thin air as far as I can see.
Without the inherent core argument that:
Roleplaying games must have mechanics to roleplay -> 4E isn't a roleplaying game because of that reason
You have no basis for any of your arguments at all. Considering you've crucially said in this thread you don't need mechanics for roleplaying. I just can't understand how you haven't realised your entire argument in this thread committed Hari kari the instant you conceded that key point.
I don't need to prove it; for the purpose of my argument we can assume it does offer a superior roleplaying experience for certain groups.
Certain groups? That's a bit different and also you DO need to prove it because you've claimed it does: before you qualified it anyway. Now you've made an important qualification with the "For certain groups". You've made an important concession here
But if it does, it's none of it the product of 4E. It's because that group would have had a superior roleplaying experience with any system that provided no mechanical support for roleplaying, because that's how they like to play.
I... I can't believe it.
You get it! You get my entire argument! Go the whole way Greg! Drop the hamburgers and other sillyness! Take your above statement and combine it without the ridiculous assertion that 4E doesn't have anything to do with it (because IMO, it actually does) and you have it.
There you go, you now have the entire argument I made and you haven't needed a single straw man to do so. No hamburgers or anything else required.
The simple fact of the matter is 4E does produce the roleplaying in my games. It provides the context of the games setting, core assumptions and mechanics. All of these affect roleplaying to a degree (or not, depending on the system). There are numerous aspects that contribute to roleplaying in 4E:
Setting Presentation of itself as a roleplaying game (Which hamburgers and other nonsense you want to pretend is a valid argument does not) The class based system Skill challenge mechanics for resolving roleplaying based challenges (like a negotiation).
and such which all form together into an overall context.
It's that overall context that makes 4E, or Call of Cthulhu, or Vampire or anything else a roleplaying game. Not the mechanics. As you've conceded that mechanics do not make a roleplaying game and have yet to prove to me in any manner that mechanics make for better roleplaying (critically, you have further conceded this is only for certain groups, making such proof clearly futile); I propose that roleplaying is more than mechanics.
It's about the DM and the players.
And thus we come full circle
That satisfied group of roleplayers got none of their roleplaying satisfaction from what 4E brought to the table
Funny, I'm fully satisfied with the roleplaying I am seeing in fourth edition and believe it firmly to be the result of this edition. Obviously it's because I have a different style and approach, which suits 4E and does not benefit from systems that try to be overly specific.
Prove that 4E isn't contributing to the roleplaying I am enjoying in it.
the roleplaying side of their game would have been identical whether or not they walked down to their local store and shelled out for one or more 4E products.
What a gigantic load of complete and absolute bollocks.
Are you HONESTLY claiming that if I was playing 4E and I had the same group of people in Call of Cthulhu, or Promethean the Created, or Changeling the roleplaying would be identical? Because with the exception of maybe 3rd edition, it's the context of the gameworld and how it is set up that matters.
In fact, the simplest way of saying this is complete nonsense is that are you saying all World of Darkness games that use the SAME system all encourage the same kind of roleplaying?
I mean really?
And if you don't, I want you to come and tell me why they don't. I'll give you a hint: It's not the mechanics in my experience. It's something far more important than ANY mechanics.
