Never really understand the 4e has no Rolplaying argument.
Right: because no one contends that. It's a strawman. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.
However: if you're saying that you don't understand how 4e has made roleplaying a bit harder for some players... well, it's largely a preference thing. I'll try to explain, but I reckon you may not actually desire to understand my preference:
Delving into 'labels' for convenience here: I understand how 4e's rules can allow for greater freeform drama and Narrativist-type play. However, a lot of Narrativist seem unwilling to understand how less focus on consistency, 'realism' and verisimilitude can hinder roleplaying for Simulationist-types like myself... who view the role in roleplaying as adopting realistic responses rather than 'acting'.
And WotC's focus on gamist balance and combat in 4e likely aids Gamists in roleplaying, but can hinder both Narrativist's and Simulationist's roleplaying by establishing expectations and patterns. Some 3e details simply aided roleplaying for some player types.
Now: if you're one of those people that don't believe that rules mechanics can even effect roleplaying... then I don't think I can help you.
Right: because no one contends that. It's a strawman. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.However: if you're saying that you don't understand how 4e has made roleplaying a bit harder for some players... well, it's largely a
Never really understand the 4e has no Rolplaying argument.
Right: because no one contends that. It's a strawman. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.
However: if you're saying that you don't understand how 4e has made roleplaying a bit harder for some players... well, it's largely a preference thing. I'll try to explain, but I reckon you may not actually desire to understand my preference:
Delving into 'labels' for convenience here: I understand how 4e's rules can allow for greater freeform drama and Narrativist-type play. However, a lot of Narrativist seem unwilling to understand how less focus on consistency, 'realism' and verisimilitude can hinder roleplaying for Simulationist-types like myself... who view the role in roleplaying as adopting realistic responses rather than 'acting'.
Now: if you're one of those people that don't believe that rules mechanics can even effect roleplaying... then I don't think I can help you.
You don't contend that. People aside from you do, maybe not in this thread. Look at the book reviews on Amazon. Narrativists (including me) don't "act". If you take on the character's role from a realism standpoint, that's pretty in-depth "acting".If you view leaving out things like "No more than 3 rangers to a party" as reducing realism, then I won't even contend that, it's such a staunchly traditional bias that this would escalate into an edition war.
And WotC's focus on gamist balance and combat in 4e likely aids Gamists in roleplaying, but can hinder both Narrativist's and Simulationist's roleplaying by establishing expectations and patterns. Some 3e details simply aided roleplaying for some player types.
Such as what? In my (admittedly brief) experience with 3.5, the rules almost told you how to play your character, like having barbarians being defaultly ilterate.
Right: because no one contends that. It's a strawman. The only people that say that are the one's arguing against it.However: if you're saying that you don't understand how 4e has made roleplaying a bit harder for some players... well, it's largely a
You don't contend that. People aside from you do, maybe not in this thread. Look at the book reviews on Amazon.
I did when you mentioned this earlier. However, I did not find an instance of someone stating that 4e has no roleplaying. Only that is has less roleplaying.
Some 3e details simply aided roleplaying for some player types.
Such as what?
Some examples: - The spell descriptions contained expanded details and more spells were designed to be used outside of strictly mechanical/combat roles. - Save or die effects indicated that some things could still kill you instantly, which was 'realistic' and caused more players to portray their character with that reality in mind. - Resting for 5 minutes did not remove all injuries, no matter how severe. - 3e combats were often resolved in 3-4 rounds, and often required using the right item of effect. 4e combats were designed to take 7-8 rounds, and can eventually be overcome using almost any effect.
Not saying that all of these things are good, merely that they aided roleplaying for some player types.
I did when you mentioned this earlier. However, I did not find an instance of someone stating that 4e has no roleplaying. Only that is has less roleplaying. Such as what?[/quote]Some examples: - The spell descriptions contained expanded details an
I understand how 4e's rules can allow for greater freeform drama and Narrativist-type play. However, a lot of Narrativist seem unwilling to understand how less focus on consistency, 'realism' and verisimilitude can hinder roleplaying for Simulationist-types like myself...
The catch is that some of us would completely agree with that statement... and use it to explain why we prefer 4E over 3E.
The catch is that some of us would completely agree with that statement... and use it to explain why we prefer 4E over 3E.
- The spell descriptions contained expanded details and more spells were designed to be used outside of strictly mechanical/combat roles.
Those exist in 4E as well, but they're expensive and take longer - removing the ability of the spellcaster to make all non-spellcasters obsolete by doing his own job *and theirs*, better than they could. It's a pure game design improvement.
- Save or die effects indicated that some things could still kill you instantly, which was 'realistic' and caused more players to portray their character with that reality in mind.
- Resting for 5 minutes did not remove all injuries, no matter how severe.
That doesn't happen in 4E, either. A full day will get you all but the most severe and lasting injuries, yes, but that's a full day. 5 minutes lets you catch your breath.
4e combats were designed to take 7-8 rounds, and can eventually be overcome using almost any effect.
Uh, 7-8 rounds is a LIFETIME, in 4E as well. When the game came out a certain kind of fight tended to take that long, and that was a problem, not a case of working-as-designed. And it got fixed.
And sure, if your objective is "kill all the monsters using combat", then generally just about any tactic you take is going to work. That's an IMPROVEMENT over D20 and it's tendency to say "Oh, in this kind of fight? Those characters don't get to contribute at all. Enjoy sitting around and watching the other players play."
If your objective is something other than "kill all the monsters using combat", then 4E is still more likely to have something interesting for all characters to do in every round.
Not saying that all of these things are good, merely that they aided roleplaying for some player types.
.... no, those are all mechanical complaints. And yes, the kind of mechanical restraint and inability to function effectively that was endemic in D20 did, in fact, lead to some players roleplaying their way around it - but that's not something 4E PREVENTS, just something it no longer requires. In D20, you abandoned the mechanics because using the mechanics prevented you from playing entirely, yes, but that's not a sign in it's favour over a system that DOESN'T keep you from using the mechanics. That's just a sign that it's a poorly designed game.
Those exist in 4E as well, but they're expensive and take longer - removing the ability of the spellcaster to make all non-spellcasters obsolete by doing his own job *and theirs*, better than they could. It's a pure game design improvement.Bad game
Eh, simulationism. I like the idea of being 'realistic' and 'accurate' in some regards, but in most cases it seems like a lot of effort with very little payoff. (Well, other than players appreciating the power of magic a bit more later on.)
I understand the appeal of building around limitations. But one doesn't really need hard-coded limitations, just fluff that says "These guys typically don't do these things." If a DM feels strongly about a race/class combo not existing, required alignment/codes of conduct for certain classes, etc... he/she can add that restriction in pretty easily. It's a lot easier to add such setting-based limitations rather than have them baked-in.
Adapting and acting despite temporary disadvantages still exists in 4e, just rarely as absolutely penalizing as "All of the enemies here are immune to your primary shtick").
Non-combat uses for combat spells...well, so long as you got the memo, 4e does it probably better than at least 3e. (The 'memo' is in the DMG2, I think; yeah, not a good location for it, but I'm not sure the game designers thought it was necessary.) My main contention with 3e's execution of this is that some spells make sense (fireball sets things on fire) while others do not (lightning bolt has no special effect upon striking water). I'd rather go in with the idea that all non-explicit uses will be made up by the players, subject to DM approval.
Save or Die effects sound good to me in storytelling theory, but are pretty anticlimactic in the reality of my game table. Either the party knows about it ahead of time and equips themselves appropriately to more-or-less negate the effect, or they stumble upon it and hope Lady Luck smiles upon them. As much as I enjoy the horror on the player's faces when they come upon a foe who can one-shot them regardless of their Hit Points (and the resulting scramble and focus fire effect), an enemy who can **** up the PC's world quickly often has the same result, without the high chance of derailment that is PC death. On top of that, if the SoD is completely negated (either through preperation or luck), the encounter feels lame and is almost free XP as the PCs didn't expend any HP or perhaps many spells neutralizing it. It's an interesting/frustrating wrinkle in play, and morbidly exciting for the DM in preperation, but that's about as far as it goes.
4e could make it hard for people to take seriously if those people believe Hit Points literally represent how many times you can be stabbed/bashed/cut/blasted before dying. That said, HP has always been an abstraction of resiliency in D&D, they just take far longer to replenish without magic.
Eh, simulationism. I like the idea of being 'realistic' and 'accurate' in some regards, but in most cases it seems like a lot of effort with very little payoff. (Well, other than players appreciating the power of magic a bit more later on.)I understa
I still find hilarious for people trying to see D&D as simulationism and realistic...it's a fantasy rpg game with monsters that breat ice and thunder, warrior that beat giants 4 times their mass with brute strength, godzi...i mean tarrasque, gender bending traps, etc...
And people saying that bashing someone with your shield to push him 5 square backward it's unrealistic...
I still find hilarious for people trying to see D&D as simulationism and realistic...it's a fantasy rpg game with monsters that breat ice and thunder, warrior that beat giants 4 times their mass with brute strength, godzi...i mean tarrasque, gender b
I did when you mentioned this earlier. However, I did not find an instance of someone stating that 4e has no roleplaying. Only that is has less roleplaying.
Hmm, in chundreds of reviews of the 4e core rulebooks you didn't see any of the knee-jerk reactionary reviews tating that? Maybe you should look harder, they are definitely there.
Although, really, kind of an odd point to hold an argument on.
Hmm, in chundreds of reviews of the 4e core rulebooks you didn't see any of the knee-jerk reactionary reviews tating that? Maybe you should look harder, they are definitely there.Although, really, kind of an odd point to hold an argument on.
I did not find an instance of someone stating that 4e has no roleplaying. Only that is has less roleplaying.
Hmm, in chundreds of reviews of the 4e core rulebooks you didn't see any of the knee-jerk reactionary reviews tating that? Maybe you should look harder
Can you at least provide a single quote and/or link? I've been saying it's not a normal argument... but all I've asked for is a single instance of some crazy person saying it.
kind of an odd point to hold an argument on.
The original poster started this thread with a strawman as a title. Twisting a player's preference statements around to a statement that is clearly false is not a good way to start a dialog. Poor form. He created a thread catering to one POV, even though other preferences are valid.
Hmm, in chundreds of reviews of the 4e core rulebooks you didn't see any of the knee-jerk reactionary reviews tating that? Maybe you should look harder[/quote]Can you at least provide a single quote and/or link? I've been saying it's not a normal arg
I did not find an instance of someone stating that 4e has no roleplaying. Only that is has less roleplaying.
Hmm, in chundreds of reviews of the 4e core rulebooks you didn't see any of the knee-jerk reactionary reviews tating that? Maybe you should look harder
Can you at least provide a single quote and/or link? I've been saying it's not a normal argument... but all I've asked for is a single instance of some crazy person saying it.
kind of an odd point to hold an argument on.
The original poster started this thread with a strawman as a title. Twisting a player's preference statements around to a statement that is clearly false is not a good way to start a dialog. Poor form. He created a thread catering to one POV, even though other preferences are valid.
No I can't, and thus I concede the point. Although there are hundreds of reviews on Amazon stating the usual crap about 4e being too game-y, taking away "flavor" from the classes (Guess they mean the books don't tell you how to RP your character, I'll gladly take that change), etc, I could not find any instance whjere someone specifically stated that 4e has no roleplaying. Even a google search didn't bring anything up. So, like I said, the point is yours.
This is all academic now, of course, but I would contend that if someone really did say 4e has no roleplaying, and meant it, then that wouldn't be a strawman. If you disprove a thesis statement, you disprove the argument.
Hmm, in chundreds of reviews of the 4e core rulebooks you didn't see any of the knee-jerk reactionary reviews tating that? Maybe you should look harder[/quote]Can you at least provide a single quote and/or link? I've been saying it's not a normal arg
I would contend that if someone really did say 4e has no roleplaying, and meant it, then that wouldn't be a strawman.
It would cease to be a strawman if you were arguing with that particular person (who is currently fictional). But it's still a strawman when arguing against players that believe that 4e has less roleplaying (who do exist).
It would cease to be a strawman if you were arguing with that particular person (who is currently fictional). But it's still a strawman when arguing against players that believe that 4e has less roleplaying (who do exist).
I would contend that if someone really did say 4e has no roleplaying, and meant it, then that wouldn't be a strawman.
It would cease to be a strawman if you were arguing with that particular person (who is currently fictional). But it's still a strawman when arguing against players that believe that 4e has less roleplaying (who do exist).
Reread my post.
It would cease to be a strawman if you were arguing with that particular person (who is currently fictional). But it's still a strawman when arguing against players that believe that 4e has less roleplaying (who do exist).[/quote]Reread my post.
Can you at least provide a single quote and/or link? I've been saying it's not a normal argument... but all I've asked for is a single instance of some crazy person saying it.
Does calling 4e a board game count? Or a tabletop miniatures game? 'Cause both of those, by default, don't have roleplaying in them.
Does calling 4e a board game count? Or a tabletop miniatures game? 'Cause both of those, by default, don't have roleplaying in them.
I do not think 4E has any less role-playing value to it than any other D&D iteration. I think that misnomor comes up simply because the vast majority of 4E powers are for combat and the non-combat options generally tend to be very weak. Since so much of the builds are geared towards combat and giving 4E characters does weak stats does not work at all. I think that most people view it as a poor roleplaying game. I do not agree with this thought but I can see where that line of thinking comes from. In 1E you could make a fighter with a 9 strength and survive with that character. He may not be optimal but he could work. In 4E, a 12 strength fighter would not be able to fight at all and survive in this system. The system is designed to take highly optimized characters and make them the "average" which the game is based upon. It is very differfent from previous editions in that respect.
I do not think 4E has any less role-playing value to it than any other D&D iteration. I think that misnomor comes up simply because the vast majority of 4E powers are for combat and the non-combat options generally tend to be very weak. Since so muc
In 1E you could make a fighter with a 9 strength and survive with that character.
But you dont feel like a fantasy hero.
Benefits from attributes were pretty sublime in 1e in effect - never the less the attributes of modern characters are a little more focused maybe ... but not really substantially different than what I seen in practice. 4d6 takes the highest three then place as you will was the most popular but then some would extend that to include re-rolling ones and so on. So characters with multiple 18s and similar things didnt end up uncommon at all where as you never saw anybody play anything like straight 12s with an 8 and a 10. Even characters with a high of 13, I dont think I ever seen.
Mechanically the lower or moderate scores werent a big deal but psychologically?
It would be valuable perhaps to adjust the 4e point buy system so it rewarded moderate scores more (because that could allow for more diversity) and increased the price for the high end a little more.
Since 5e atleast plans on using all attributes as defenses there is a mechanical reward for diversifying your attribute values.
But you dont feel like a fantasy hero.Benefits from attributes were pretty sublime in 1e in effect - never the less the attributes of modern characters are a little more focused maybe ... but not really substantially different than what I seen in pra
In 1E you could make a fighter with a 9 strength and survive with that character.
But you dont feel like a fantasy hero.
Benefits from attributes were pretty sublime in 1e in effect - never the less the attributes of modern characters are a little more focused maybe ... but not really substantially different than what I seen in practice. 4d6 takes the highest three then place as you will was the most popular but then some would extend that to include re-rolling ones and so on. So characters with multiple 18s and similar things didnt end up uncommon at all where as you never saw anybody play anything like straight 12s with an 8 and a 10. Even characters with a high of 13, I dont think I ever seen.
Mechanically the lower or moderate scores werent a big deal but psychologically?
It would be valuable perhaps to adjust the 4e point buy system so it rewarded moderate scores more (because that could allow for more diversity) and increased the price for the high end a little more.
Since 5e atleast plans on using all attributes as defenses there is a mechanical reward for diversifying your attribute values.
I am not suggesting that people have poor stats. I often given out very high stats as a DM that the character builder flags as obviously illegal by their matrix. My whole point is that very high level stats in 4E don't feel spectacular either. The game is designed around you having a 20 in your primary stat since a 20 stat equals to about a 10 on the attack roll regardless of class if you have expertise and appropriate gear for your level and the monster is in your level range. This translates to me that someone such as Conan or Raistlin is not dominant with superior stats but has a 50/50 chance for success at any given level. Joe average or a good but not exceptional hero has a much more difficult time of it under 4E rules than any other edition for combat. I am not complaining about it. I just think it is a fair observation
But you dont feel like a fantasy hero.Benefits from attributes were pretty sublime in 1e in effect - never the less the attributes of modern characters are a little more focused maybe ... but not really substantially different than what I seen in pra
My whole point is that very high level stats in 4E don't feel spectacular either. The game is designed around you having a 20 in your primary stat
Gee, that's strange, most of my most-effective characters have 17 in their primary stat at level 1. And yes that's post-racial. Putting a 20 in the primary stat usually (not always!) leaves so little for the secondary stat that it hurts overall effectiveness. Particularly if you also need a tertiary stat.
Gee, that's strange, most of my most-effective characters have 17 in their primary stat at level 1. And yes that's post-racial. Putting a 20 in the primary stat usually (not always!) leaves so little for the secondary stat that it hurts overall effec
I'd say the game is designed around 16 primary stat at level 1, +2 prof vs AC or implement v NADs, no expertise, no epic destiny stat boost, and fighting enemies at approximately equal level to yourself. The improvements in the nature of your powers is supposed to allow you to overcome numerically superior enemies. The expertise bonus and ED bonus, combined with the higher monster damage could be considered part of the revised design, to make higher level combats run faster. But the basics otherwise remain the same. If your party is heavily optimized, it can lead to confusion about where the baseline lies, because the DM will most likely compensate by upping the difficulty of encounters. In particular, you will mostly face enemies of a higher level than yourself, so that they can hit you and sometimes avoid hits. The higher level the enemies are above you, the bigger difference optimization makes (especially to hit). A +1 attack is +10% damage output (ignoring crits for simplicity) if you otherwise hit on an 11, but +20% damage output if you otherwise only hit on a 16.
I'd say the game is designed around 16 primary stat at level 1, +2 prof vs AC or implement v NADs, no expertise, no epic destiny stat boost, and fighting enemies at approximately equal level to yourself. The improvements in the nature of your powers
My whole point is that very high level stats in 4E don't feel spectacular either. The game is designed around you having a 20 in your primary stat
Gee, that's strange, most of my most-effective characters have 17 in their primary stat at level 1. And yes that's post-racial. Putting a 20 in the primary stat usually (not always!) leaves so little for the secondary stat that it hurts overall effectiveness. Particularly if you also need a tertiary stat.
Gee Warrl. Try posting my whole response instead of one line. I mentioned that I often give out very high stats so your arguement that an 18 in one stat leaves no room for other choices in your character build is a complete strawman arguement.
My complaint on 20's not being overpowering for a start stat is simple. 20 str, +3 weapon,expertiese and fighter 1 handed feat = +10 at level one vs kobold dragonshield ac18 is a 8. Hardly overwhelming.
Warlock 20 cha & expertise vs goblin blackblade reflex 14 = 9. Hardly overwhelming.
Gee, that's strange, most of my most-effective characters have 17 in their primary stat at level 1. And yes that's post-racial. Putting a 20 in the primary stat usually (not always!) leaves so little for the secondary stat that it hurts overall effec
And if he's not willing to go through the links, here's some quotes: "I was a fan of 4th edition until I realized that my group wasn't actually roleplaying anymore; we were instead playing a miniatures game.""the game system is very 'game-y' and does
I can definitely say that 4e does not have a lack of Roleplaying.
I host and write a monthly comedy show called "The Critical Hit Show." It's a 90-minute, live D&D adventure. And I use the 4e rules.
We wouldn't be averaging 150 audience members per show if there wasn't roleplaying. Sure, people love to come up on stage during combat encounters and play the monsters (They declare their actions and I roll for them). But the reason they come back month after month is to see the heroes grow and develop and interact as characters. They're watching talented comedians play roles.
They're doing nothing that you can't do sitting around a table instead of standing on a stage. How much or how little you want to roleplay depends on the DM and the gaming group.
I can definitely say that 4e does not have a lack of Roleplaying.I host and write a monthly comedy show called "The Critical Hit Show." It's a 90-minute, live D&D adventure. And I use the 4e rules.We wouldn't be averaging 150 audience members per sho
I'm not a fan of powers at all. With Caster classes it's okay, but with martial it make me wanna vomit (and I play a core 4e fighter). I do think powers have limited out of combat uses. Other than wizard utilities I don't think there was another power in the PHB that was out of combat oriented. Skill powers on the other hand added some more out of combat options.
Now that that has been said I shall retreat to my bomb shelter and cuddle up in a fire blanket.
I kinda have to go with the third quote...I'm not a fan of powers at all. With Caster classes it's okay, but with martial it make me wanna vomit (and I play a core 4e fighter). I do think powers have limited out of combat uses. Other than wizard util
I think that people have determined they are going to hate 4e, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Most of the reasons I have seen over the years seem to indicate to me that people just never really gave it much of a chance. There is as much roleplaying in 4e as your groups wants to spend. If they spend little time doing it, then there isnt much at all. if they DO choose to do it, then there is as much as they put into it. 4e simply doesn't /railroad/ you into roleplaying.
I think that people have determined they are going to hate 4e, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Most of the reasons I have seen over the years seem to indicate to me that people just never really gave it much of a chance. There is as much
My whole point is that very high level stats in 4E don't feel spectacular either. The game is designed around you having a 20 in your primary stat
Gee, that's strange, most of my most-effective characters have 17 in their primary stat at level 1. And yes that's post-racial. Putting a 20 in the primary stat usually (not always!) leaves so little for the secondary stat that it hurts overall effectiveness. Particularly if you also need a tertiary stat.
Gee Warrl. Try posting my whole response instead of one line. I mentioned that I often give out very high stats so your arguement that an 18 in one stat leaves no room for other choices in your character build is a complete strawman arguement.
Ah, I see. YOU as DM decided to jack everyone's attributes, and in the resulting variant system a character with with attributes that are neither jacked nor "optimized" can't keep up.
I absolutely agree.
But I don't see this as even relevant to the system as written, where characters' attributes aren't jacked. Specifically it doesn't prove that a non-jacked, non-optimized character can't keep up with other non-jacked characters optimized or not, and it's no condemnation AT ALL of the system as written. You might as well condemn 4E for not meshing well with WoD rules.
Gee, that's strange, most of my most-effective characters have 17 in their primary stat at level 1. And yes that's post-racial. Putting a 20 in the primary stat usually (not always!) leaves so little for the secondary stat that it hurts overall effec
I think that people have determined they are going to hate 4e, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Most of the reasons I have seen over the years seem to indicate to me that people just never really gave it much of a chance.
This. is pretty much true of most activities, there are some people who are determined to not have fun.
This. is pretty much true of most activities, there are some people who are determined to not have fun.
I think that people have determined they are going to hate 4e, and that's pretty much all there is to it. Most of the reasons I have seen over the years seem to indicate to me that people just never really gave it much of a chance.
This. is pretty much true of most activities, there are some people who are determined to not have fun.
What really gets me with the 4e hate, is that I made nearly all the same arguments they did. I came from 2e, and didnt want a pen and paper MMO, yada yada yada. A friend at work asked me to try it, and give it an honest try, if we (myself and the other grognard we work with that ive been playing D&D with since 97 when we were stationed together in Korea...) didn't like it he'd run a 3e game.
We tried it out, and guess what? Both the other grognard and I prefer 4e more then the rest of the guys who had already tried it. out and had to talk us into it. So when I see those comments, and then someone inevitably says "I just knew it wasnt for me" I know for a fact that they never gave it a fair shot.
Regardless, for the people who think there is no roleplaying in this game, go look at the character development thread, and tell me some of the things they talk about in there arent roleplaying. Hogwash. There is every bit as much RP in this game as there were in any of the others. The main difference is, this game doesn't force you into stupid things like the old additions did.
LG only paladins, I'm looking at you among others.
This. is pretty much true of most activities, there are some people who are determined to not have fun.[/quote]What really gets me with the 4e hate, is that I made nearly all the same arguments they did. I came from 2e, and didnt want a pen and pape
I don't think when people say there is little to no role-playing in 4th edition they are talking about "mechanics" or "design" as much as the simple reality from experiance, though we try to find causes for it there. This was the case for me and my various groups who have never had any trouble role-playing in any other systems (These are the nerdy, 30 page background kind of players), but when playing 4th edition it was flat and very little of it and it was so in every single group I ran for or played in. In fact to date, no matter what efforts I have seen GM's put into trying to illicit role-playing using 4th edition, they have had only marginal success.
For me personally it has to do with trouble of associating the many abstractions in the game to the narrative, I simply couldn't get myself to care or relate to them. Things like healing surges for example or "encounter or daily" powers where just too far fetched and I had no personal attachment to them, they where just resources to be managed during combat and had no relevance out of combat. By comparison most good role-playing games that use abstractions intertwine it with some aspect of the story and/or realities of the gameworld.
The blood pool from Vampire: The Requiem is an abstraction for something in the game world. I cared about the blood pool because it was the source of my power, their was a story element to gaining it like hunting and feeding, without it I felt weaker, when I had a lot of it I felt strong and this feeling (and caring about it) translated to my narrative, its levels defined the situation, said something about how I looked, how I should feel as a character. With Dungeons and Dragons the abstractions where not relatable in the story, hit points and healing surges for example, it didn't matter how few or how many I had and I only cared when I was out of them, but in neither case did it ever have any baring on the story or my narrative. It was just a number that said "Alive" or "Unconsious", "can heal" or "can't heal". Its relevance was so diluted it had no bearing on the narrative, it was strictly a mechanical representation of a resource I managed.
This sort of over abstraction creeps into every aspect of 4th edition and mixed in with a complete lack of flavor or distinct style the whole system came off really bland. I think this is at the root of the disassociation I feel from my characters and this translates to a lack of motivation to role-play for me.
I don't think when people say there is little to no role-playing in 4th edition they are talking about "mechanics" or "design" as much as the simple reality from experiance, though we try to find causes for it there. This was the case for me and my
I don't think when people say there is little to no role-playing in 4th edition they are talking about "mechanics" or "design" as much as the simple reality from experiance, though we try to find causes for it there. This was the case for me and my various groups who have never had any trouble role-playing in any other systems (These are the nerdy, 30 page background kind of players), but when playing 4th edition it was flat and very little of it and it was so in every single group I ran for or played in. In fact to date, no matter what efforts I have seen GM's put into trying to illicit role-playing using 4th edition, they have had only marginal success.
For me personally it has to do with trouble of associating the many abstractions in the game to the narrative, I simply couldn't get myself to care or relate to them. Things like healing surges for example or "encounter or daily" powers where just too far fetched and I had no personal attachment to them, they where just resources to be managed during combat and had no relevance out of combat. By comparison most good role-playing games that use abstractions intertwine it with some aspect of the story and/or realities of the gameworld.
The blood pool from Vampire: The Requiem is an abstraction for something in the game world. I cared about the blood pool because it was the source of my power, their was a story element to gaining it like hunting and feeding, without it I felt weaker, when I had a lot of it I felt strong and this feeling (and caring about it) translated to my narrative, its levels defined the situation, said something about how I looked, how I should feel as a character. With Dungeons and Dragons the abstractions where not relatable in the story, hit points and healing surges for example, it didn't matter how few or how many I had and I only cared when I was out of them, but in neither case did it ever have any baring on the story or my narrative. It was just a number that said "Alive" or "Unconsious", "can heal" or "can't heal". Its relevance was so diluted it had no bearing on the narrative, it was strictly a mechanical representation of a resource I managed.
This sort of over abstraction creeps into every aspect of 4th edition and mixed in with a complete lack of flavor or distinct style the whole system came off really bland. I think this is at the root of the disassociation I feel from my characters and this translates to a lack of motivation to role-play for me.
To be honest I wouldn't mind seeing a Mana Pool rule in 5e. I think 4e fighter powers would have worked better if there was some form of stamina pool where it refills after a good amount of sleep. And if it reaches zero then you can only do basic attacks at a penalty.
To be honest I wouldn't mind seeing a Mana Pool rule in 5e. I think 4e fighter powers would have worked better if there was some form of stamina pool where it refills after a good amount of sleep. And if it reaches zero then you can only do basic att
If you can't roleplay without the system forcing you to roleplay, then the problem is not the system, is the player and/or DM. Right now i am taking a break from DMing, but i notice that alot, there is a big diference between people that RP and not on the same system, is not related to how optimized their character are, the game mechanics, etc, it's attached to the person/player. The player i had that was the biggest into RPing, was also the one that was the biggest into game mechanics and character optimization and such...
If you can't roleplay without the system forcing you to roleplay, then the problem is not the system, is the player and/or DM. Right now i am taking a break from DMing, but i notice that alot, there is a big diference between people that RP and not
If you can't roleplay without the system forcing you to roleplay, then the problem is not the system, is the player and/or DM. Right now i am taking a break from DMing, but i notice that alot, there is a big diference between people that RP and not on the same system, is not related to how optimized their character are, the game mechanics, etc, it's attached to the person/player. The player i had that was the biggest into RPing, was also the one that was the biggest into game mechanics and character optimization and such...
I don't think anyone suggested that the system must force you to role-play, not even sure what you mean by that to be honest. What I'm talking about is a system that creates a reason for you to care about its mechanically suggested story elements, for example things like the Blood Pool in Vampire the Requiem. You care about it not because its a "resource" but because its part of the games story elements as its levels say a great deal about the state of your character. Most of the elements in 4th edition have no connection to the actual character, healing surges are so vague and abstract that its just a number that says "I can heal this many times" and you have to really stretch the suspension of disbelief (which I believe has limits) in order for it to have any semblence of reasonable explaination. Daily and Encounter powers too are so abstract you can't help but ignore its story implications and just accept it based on pure mechanics.. it does X this to Y that, there is nothing else behind it and trying to explain some logic into it requires a severe leap. Another words, many players simply can't associate many of the mechanics with something that is part of their characters story, personality, ability or anything, its just this thing thats out there thats executed to counter act other relatively meaningless things like hitpoints. All of this is part of the disconnect that players have with their characters and the game world and this is what ultimatly leads players from focusing on the story to focusing to what they can grasp on to, the many combat abilities that effectively make a 4th edition D&D character.
I'm also not suggesting that this wasn't always a problem with other editions of D&D, because to various degrees this has always been present, but I think the disconnect in 4th edition was made significantly worse and more difficult to overcome because the abstractions are so vague and inexplicable that its hard to find the purpose or meaning behind them. More importantly their aren't any other mechanics that normalize this. For example in 3rd edition things like Vatican magic where abstractions and required a stretch of the imagination, but because it could be written off as "its magic" and other aspects of the game where founded in more realistic elements that players could relate to, it was more managable as an explanation. But when martial "powers" work the same as "magic" powers which work the same as utilty powers and their is an absence of anything that has a foundation in the real world the whole game kind of becomes a stretch, instead of just one element. If you told me that there was a power that allow a ranger to fly and shoot arrows out of his eyes in 4th edition, it woudnt suprise me, because given the rest of the game, this really isnt that much of a stretch.
I guess what Im saying is that the abstractions where overdone to a degree that for me and my players their is too much of a disconnect from the story as a result as its hard to imagine all of these powers, surges and various abstract elements as part of a logical world that could exist. For all its effort to "leave the fluff up to the players", the mechanics really hard code the fluff to an extreme.
I don't think anyone suggested that the system must force you to role-play, not even sure what you mean by that to be honest. What I'm talking about is a system that creates a reason for you to care about its mechanically suggested story elements, f
by role playing, are you talking about how your character behaves and interacts or others, or describing how the powers work? I'm honestly confused about your inability to fold abstractions into the game.
The former would be my drow priestess telling the party " Fool! How can you be so weak? Fortunately, I still need you to advance my plans. healing word, take a surge +15, and all praise be to the Spider Queen"
and the latter "You feel Lolths blessings fill you, mending your body and spirit as you regain a surge +15"
I'm just not sure where the RP is missing there.
by role playing, are you talking about how your character behaves and interacts or others, or describing how the powers work? I'm honestly confused about your inability to fold abstractions into the game.The former would be my drow priestess telling
by role playing, are you talking about how your character behaves and interacts or others, or describing how the powers work? I'm honestly confused about your inability to fold abstractions into the game.
The former would be my drow priestess telling the party " Fool! How can you be so weak? Fortunately, I still need you to advance my plans. healing word, take a surge +15, and all praise be to the Spider Queen"
and the latter "You feel Lolths blessings fill you, mending your body and spirit as you regain a surge +15"
I'm just not sure where the RP is missing there.
It's whichever excuse they can think of off of the top of their heads at the moment. That's about it.
It's whichever excuse they can think of off of the top of their heads at the moment. That's about it.
by role playing, are you talking about how your character behaves and interacts or others, or describing how the powers work? I'm honestly confused about your inability to fold abstractions into the game.
The former would be my drow priestess telling the party " Fool! How can you be so weak? Fortunately, I still need you to advance my plans. healing word, take a surge +15, and all praise be to the Spider Queen"
and the latter "You feel Lolths blessings fill you, mending your body and spirit as you regain a surge +15"
I'm just not sure where the RP is missing there.
It's whichever excuse they can think of off of the top of their heads at the moment. That's about it.
Who is "they"?, just curious what new neat category I'm being placed in today so that I can easily be dismissed.
I get what your saying crzyhawk, but we aren't talking about the same thing here. Your talking about freeform and thats fine, but freeform can be applied to pretty much everything. I can role-play while playing Monopoly, Risk or Texas Holdem. That doesn't mean those games make effective platforms for inspiring creativity. What I'm talking about is a game mechanic that lacks those key elements that inspire you to role-play and give you a reason to care about it which I think is missing from 4th edition D&D. In part I think the nature of the many vague abstraction is the root cause, just like Monopoly which has little for you to base a character on, 4th edition kind of falls closer to that end of the spectrum than it does to actual role-playing games.
It's whichever excuse they can think of off of the top of their heads at the moment. That's about it.[/quote]Who is "they"?, just curious what new neat category I'm being placed in today so that I can easily be dismissed.I get what your saying crzyha
Actually, for me and my group, connecting flavor and mechanic too much actually hinder our RPing. making our take on what we do from the flavor point of view gives more chance to RP, it make our character and what we do more personal, because we feel is something we came out with and because of that, we are more connected to our character, hence making it easier to RP.
When a system force you so much about the flavor/fluff of what you do related to the mechanics, you feel like the character you are playing, isn't really your creation, and you start to feel less involved into it.
Reskinning and reflavor make most of us like we are creating our character more than them handling over the flavor/fluff...I am currently playing a gloom pact hexblade reskinned/reflavored as dark pact, the scourge is that whip with snake heads that appear in alot of drow artwork, because the mechanic and the flavor is separated enough in 4e, i can do that, while i can't do that in other editions, because flavor and mechanics are married and hold way too much together and if you change the flavor, you have to mess up with the mechanics... Hence the reason why i hate enforced flavor on DnDNext.
Actually, for me and my group, connecting flavor and mechanic too much actually hinder our RPing. making our take on what we do from the flavor point of view gives more chance to RP, it make our character and what we do more personal, because we fee
I dunno, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I never needed the system to determine how my character behaves.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian casting, not to mention it's focus towards realism with rules. It just tends to lean towards rules that help promote roleplaying. Don't get me wrong, I play 4e, and roleplay in 4e. I understand that 4e does have some rules like that. But it doesn't have the sheer number of them that 3.5 and Pathfinder have.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian
by role playing, are you talking about how your character behaves and interacts or others, or describing how the powers work? I'm honestly confused about your inability to fold abstractions into the game.
The former would be my drow priestess telling the party " Fool! How can you be so weak? Fortunately, I still need you to advance my plans. healing word, take a surge +15, and all praise be to the Spider Queen"
and the latter "You feel Lolths blessings fill you, mending your body and spirit as you regain a surge +15"
I'm just not sure where the RP is missing there.
It's whichever excuse they can think of off of the top of their heads at the moment. That's about it.
Who is "they"?, just curious what new neat category I'm being placed in today so that I can easily be dismissed.
I get what your saying crzyhawk, but we aren't talking about the same thing here. Your talking about freeform and thats fine, but freeform can be applied to pretty much everything. I can role-play while playing Monopoly, Risk or Texas Holdem. That doesn't mean those games make effective platforms for inspiring creativity. What I'm talking about is a game mechanic that lacks those key elements that inspire you to role-play and give you a reason to care about it which I think is missing from 4th edition D&D. In part I think the nature of the many vague abstraction is the root cause, just like Monopoly which has little for you to base a character on, 4th edition kind of falls closer to that end of the spectrum than it does to actual role-playing games.
It's as dismissive as saying 4e has no roleplaying in it, when it is completely independent of system. It has no more or less than any other edition, and it has plenty to stimulate it. Saying 4e has no roleplaying is the same as saying "I'm not going to roleplay". I roleplay within the system. I don't need the system to roleplay for me.
Comparing it to Monopoly in terms of roleplaying? Really? You call me dismissive? Monopoly? I asked you years ago to tell me what 4e is missing that previous editions have that foster roleplay, and you never answered me then, either. I will ask you again.
No edition of D&D has been "roleplay heavy". Just ask the White Wolf folks. They'll be happy to tell you that... in detail..... often.
It's whichever excuse they can think of off of the top of their heads at the moment. That's about it.[/quote]Who is "they"?, just curious what new neat category I'm being placed in today so that I can easily be dismissed.I get what your saying crzyha
I dunno, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I never needed the system to determine how my character behaves.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian casting, not to mention it's focus towards realism with rules. It just tends to lean towards rules that help promote roleplaying. Don't get me wrong, I play 4e, and roleplay in 4e. I understand that 4e does have some rules like that. But it doesn't have the sheer number of them that 3.5 and Pathfinder have.
I generally found that those rules impeded RP, because they always seemed to force you to roleplay in a particular manner (especially egregious with the alignment rules, regarding classes).
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian
I dunno, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I never needed the system to determine how my character behaves.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian casting, not to mention it's focus towards realism with rules. It just tends to lean towards rules that help promote roleplaying. Don't get me wrong, I play 4e, and roleplay in 4e. I understand that 4e does have some rules like that. But it doesn't have the sheer number of them that 3.5 and Pathfinder have.
I generally found that those rules impeded RP, because they always seemed to force you to roleplay in a particular manner (especially egregious with the alignment rules, regarding classes).
This. A system telling you "you have to play your character like this" is not helping roleplay. It is limiting creativity and doing the roleplaying before you ever get a chance to.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian
Reskinning and reflavor make most of us like we are creating our character more than them handling over the flavor/fluff...I am currently playing a gloom pact hexblade reskinned/reflavored as dark pact, the scourge is that whip with snake heads that appear in alot of drow artwork, because the mechanic and the flavor is separated enough in 4e, i can do that, while i can't do that in other editions, because flavor and mechanics are married and hold way too much together and if you change the flavor, you have to mess up with the mechanics... Hence the reason why i hate enforced flavor on DnDNext.
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff. I want to learn about the games thematic presence as its represented through the mechanics so I have an idea of what kind of story fits it well. When I read about a Hexblade, I want to find out what a hexblade is, not get the mechanical rules for a generic class that uses generic powers under a generic. To me this feels very empty and it doesn't inspire me to write. I do reckognize that expanded books in 4th edition did a much better job of this, but its worth mentioning that most of the content I thought was just cheesy with an absence of traditions already desperatly missing from the core game and this only made things worse for me in terms of inspiring me to play the game.
I think the subtle difference in editions has been that in 1st and 2nd edition things where very much driven by classical lore and you had a strong sense of that. 3rd edition was driven by the same thing, but introduced a lot of new things that we reckognized to some degree, but even that system towards the end plunged into territory that was already showing signs of "running out of ideas", which I think was ok, because we had a strong base. But with 4th edition they threw out everything that gave the game a familiar presence and foundation of past editions and replaced it with all new and very poorly constructed concepts like Daily and Encounter powers and healing surges which neither had any basis in lore, or realism, they where just mechanical ways to balance the miniatures combat game. Hardly inspiring narrative material. As such the game lacked both mechanical, thematic and traditional presence. It to me was the equivilant of taking a classic ford mustang (1st and 2nd edition), which was later rmade a modern classic (the new mustangs, still reckognizable new version, but still bad ass like the original) and taking that concept and turning it into a hybrid that looks like a honda accord. It had neither the classic, or the new instead it was designed more to be functional.
Thats what 4th edition is to me, functional, but uninspiring with a lack of any reckognizable. Hence it neither stands on its own, nore a continuation of its roots. I have always said, remove the words Dungeons and Dragons from the title and you really wouldnt be able to indentify it as belonging to the franchise as it is so only by name.
Most of that however I could overlook if it was a good game with a solid foundation, I'm not some kind of Gognard that thinks X edition was the best and everything aftwards must suck. I'm quite open to new ideas, designs, themes and what have you. But fourth edition didn't speak to me at, neither as D&D game or a role-playing system.
Heres hoping 5th edition works out better.
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff. I want to learn about the games thematic presence as its represented through the mechani
I dunno, I guess it's just a matter of perspective. I never needed the system to determine how my character behaves.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian casting, not to mention it's focus towards realism with rules. It just tends to lean towards rules that help promote roleplaying. Don't get me wrong, I play 4e, and roleplay in 4e. I understand that 4e does have some rules like that. But it doesn't have the sheer number of them that 3.5 and Pathfinder have.
I generally found that those rules impeded RP, because they always seemed to force you to roleplay in a particular manner (especially egregious with the alignment rules, regarding classes).
This. A system telling you "you have to play your character like this" is not helping roleplay. It is limiting creativity and doing the roleplaying before you ever get a chance to.
I've found one simple houserule can fix that: No Alignment restraints.
I've never came across a system that tells me how to Roleplay. But I can get where Xguild is coming from, I do like mechanics that support Roleplaying. Maybe that's why I ultimately prefer playing 3.5 and Pathfinder, lengthy skill lists, and vancian
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff. I want to learn about the games thematic presence as its represented through the mechanics so I have an idea of what kind of story fits it well. When I read about a Hexblade, I want to find out what a hexblade is, not get the mechanical rules for a generic class that uses generic powers under a generic. To me this feels very empty and it doesn't inspire me to write. I do reckognize that expanded books in 4th edition did a much better job of this, but its worth mentioning that most of the content I thought was just cheesy with an absence of traditions already desperatly missing from the core game and this only made things worse for me in terms of inspiring me to play the game.
I think the subtle difference in editions has been that in 1st and 2nd edition things where very much driven by classical lore and you had a strong sense of that. 3rd edition was driven by the same thing, but introduced a lot of new things that we reckognized to some degree, but even that system towards the end plunged into territory that was already showing signs of "running out of ideas", which I think was ok, because we had a strong base. But with 4th edition they threw out everything that gave the game a familiar presence and foundation of past editions and replaced it with all new and very poorly constructed concepts like Daily and Encounter powers and healing surges which neither had any basis in lore, or realism, they where just mechanical ways to balance the miniatures combat game. Hardly inspiring narrative material. As such the game lacked both mechanical, thematic and traditional presence. It to me was the equivilant of taking a classic ford mustang (1st and 2nd edition), which was later rmade a modern classic (the new mustangs, still reckognizable new version, but still bad ass like the original) and taking that concept and turning it into a hybrid that looks like a honda accord. It had neither the classic, or the new instead it was designed more to be functional.
Thats what 4th edition is to me, functional, but uninspiring with a lack of any reckognizable. Hence it neither stands on its own, nore a continuation of its roots. I have always said, remove the words Dungeons and Dragons from the title and you really wouldnt be able to indentify it as belonging to the franchise as it is so only by name.
Most of that however I could overlook if it was a good game with a solid foundation, I'm not some kind of Gognard that thinks X edition was the best and everything aftwards must suck. I'm quite open to new ideas, designs, themes and what have you. But fourth edition didn't speak to me at, neither as D&D game or a role-playing system.
Heres hoping 5th edition works out better.
I will be blunt, 99% of fantasy flavor/fluff i found in any kind of settings & media (tv, films, videogames, books) ARE TERRIBLE!... Most of them are stuck with Tolkien stereotypes, who is the most overrated author in history of literature (increible poor phasing, plotholes, mary sues, deus ex machinas...it's as bad storytelling than fanfiction)
The flavor i reskin to my character and campaings is more likely still be terrible or even worst than D&D flavor/fluff/settings, but at least it's ours, that make it sometimes i get attached to it and so i get more involved into it.
I will be blunt, 99% of fantasy flavor/fluff i found in any kind of settings & media (tv, films, videogames, books) ARE TERRIBLE!... Most of them are stuck with Tolkien stereotypes, who is the most overrated author in history of literature (increible
I really just get the feeling that he's not a very creative person. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it does rather limit how correct your opinion on the matter is.
It's like riding a bike, some people are uncoordinated and have bad balance, it requires far more effort for them to ride a normal bicycle taking them out of their comfort zone, they would rather ride one of those 3 wheel bicycles or even need training wheels, which a coordinated cyclist will find restrictive and unnecessary; however, if they claimed that normal bicycles inhibit people that want to go riding, they would be incorrect with regards to the majority as well as with regards to the target audience.
I really just get the feeling that he's not a very creative person. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it does rather limit how correct your opinion on the matter is.It's like riding a bike, some people are uncoordinated and have bad balance, it r
Reskinning and reflavor make most of us like we are creating our character more than them handling over the flavor/fluff...I am currently playing a gloom pact hexblade reskinned/reflavored as dark pact, the scourge is that whip with snake heads that appear in alot of drow artwork, because the mechanic and the flavor is separated enough in 4e, i can do that, while i can't do that in other editions, because flavor and mechanics are married and hold way too much together and if you change the flavor, you have to mess up with the mechanics... Hence the reason why i hate enforced flavor on DnDNext.
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff. I want to learn about the games thematic presence as its represented through the mechanics so I have an idea of what kind of story fits it well. When I read about a Hexblade, I want to find out what a hexblade is, not get the mechanical rules for a generic class that uses generic powers under a generic. To me this feels very empty and it doesn't inspire me to write. I do reckognize that expanded books in 4th edition did a much better job of this, but its worth mentioning that most of the content I thought was just cheesy with an absence of traditions already desperatly missing from the core game and this only made things worse for me in terms of inspiring me to play the game.
I think the subtle difference in editions has been that in 1st and 2nd edition things where very much driven by classical lore and you had a strong sense of that. 3rd edition was driven by the same thing, but introduced a lot of new things that we reckognized to some degree, but even that system towards the end plunged into territory that was already showing signs of "running out of ideas", which I think was ok, because we had a strong base. But with 4th edition they threw out everything that gave the game a familiar presence and foundation of past editions and replaced it with all new and very poorly constructed concepts like Daily and Encounter powers and healing surges which neither had any basis in lore, or realism, they where just mechanical ways to balance the miniatures combat game. Hardly inspiring narrative material. As such the game lacked both mechanical, thematic and traditional presence. It to me was the equivilant of taking a classic ford mustang (1st and 2nd edition), which was later rmade a modern classic (the new mustangs, still reckognizable new version, but still bad ass like the original) and taking that concept and turning it into a hybrid that looks like a honda accord. It had neither the classic, or the new instead it was designed more to be functional.
Thats what 4th edition is to me, functional, but uninspiring with a lack of any reckognizable. Hence it neither stands on its own, nore a continuation of its roots. I have always said, remove the words Dungeons and Dragons from the title and you really wouldnt be able to indentify it as belonging to the franchise as it is so only by name.
Most of that however I could overlook if it was a good game with a solid foundation, I'm not some kind of Gognard that thinks X edition was the best and everything aftwards must suck. I'm quite open to new ideas, designs, themes and what have you. But fourth edition didn't speak to me at, neither as D&D game or a role-playing system.
Heres hoping 5th edition works out better.
You see, I'm the opposite. I feel that other stuff /restricts/ my ability to roleplay. For example, I dislike the whole "pact" thing with warlocks, but I really like the class. So, I toss that out, and refluff it as a wizard. What's the difference?
My sorc wants to be a "priest" of the god of magic, but doesn't have the wis to MC into cleric? Take bard, and pick religion as my skill. It plays the same.
4e gives me the freedom to imagine my character virtually any way I want, and play it the same. It feels liberating what you can re-imagine your characters as. My ranger doesn't have to be some tree hugging woodsman. My paladin can be a champion of an evil god. My sorcerer can be a chosen of his goddess. The possibilities are limitless.
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff. I want to learn about the games thematic presence as its represented through the mechani
Comparing it to Monopoly in terms of roleplaying? Really? You call me dismissive? Monopoly? I asked you years ago to tell me what 4e is missing that previous editions have that foster roleplay, and you never answered me then, either. I will ask you again.
Lets keep the context correct here, I wasn't comparing Monopoly to 4th edition, I was illustrating that free form role-playing can be acomplished in any kind of platforms because the rules are not relevant.
I generally found that those rules impeded RP, because they always seemed to force you to roleplay in a particular manner (especially egregious with the alignment rules, regarding classes).
I agree to a certian point, in particular as far as alginment goes because the belief system and morale compass of a person can't really be narrowed down to a couple of sentences. Rules however aren't designed to impede role-playing, they are designed to give the character a definition of his abilities and this acts as a platform for role-playing. For example if your character is a big dumb Orc with an IQ of 6, he should not be role-played as the smartest member of the group. This is how mechanics should influence role-playing and the fact that it "impedes" the player running the Orc as a very academic genius is intentional, as it was his choice to give him such a low IQ and he must now live with that choice (The G in RPG stands for Game). To ignore these things makes the character sheets "mechanics" an external resource that is only relevant when you are in a miniatures combat battle. If you ignore the mechanics you aren't role-playing your character, your role-playing yourself.
I asked you years ago to tell me what 4e is missing that previous editions have that foster roleplay, and you never answered me then, either. I will ask you again.
Sorry if I didn't respond to your question, I must have missed it.
I actually think its the oppossite, its not that 4th edition is "missing" things that foster role-playing, the problem is that it has "things" in it that impede role-playing, or at least break the spell of connecting the system to a story. Mainly the gross abstractions like Daily/Encounter Powers, no discernable difference between a Magic Spell and a Sword Attack, things like Healing Surges that make no sense in the context of a believable world (perhaps in a cartoon or an over the top action movie), extremely broad skill system that covers everything a person could conceviably do in an extremely short list of skills often making extreme connection leaps. Those are just some of the things that come to mind of the top of my head.
Lets keep the context correct here, I wasn't comparing Monopoly to 4th edition, I was illustrating that free form role-playing can be acomplished in any kind of platforms because the rules are not relevant. I agree to a certian point, in particular a
Daily and Encoutner powers make perfect sense from a narrative perspective. Ever see The Karate Kid? A martial daily is the Crane Kick. It's something you pull out when the going gets tough.There doesn't have to be a separate sub-system for everything to make something an RPG.
Healing surges are the best thing that ever happened to hit points, because it finally brought some sense to them. Hit points do not = health.
D&D has never been realistic in the first place. It is not a reality simulator. It is a heroic fantasy simulator. None of these impede roleplaying. They inspire it for many of us. You dismissing it and saying it isn't an rpg is actually insulting.
A skill for underwater basketweaving is not needed for somethjing to be an RPG. They got rid of redundancy in the skill system, which was a welcome change.
You still haven't answered my question. What can they do that 4e can't in terms of roleplay support?
Daily and Encoutner powers make perfect sense from a narrative perspective. Ever see The Karate Kid? A martial daily is the Crane Kick. It's something you pull out when the going gets tough.There doesn't have to be a separate sub-system for everythin
I think I am starting to understand his point of view a little bit better. While I can see your points Samrin, and agree with them, I think I understand where he's coming from.
Daily and encounter powers /do/ make perfect sense. However, from someone used to a 3e wizard who can do everything better then the class that's supposed to do it, it's going to feel like their wizard was neutered. How the heck am I supposed to do the rogue's job without spells for invisibility and opening locks, hm? That's a certain loss in RPability.
Also, the /balance/ while it makes more sense IRL (the old school doesn't like to think that a sword should hit as hard as a fireball, which is...crap), and his comment about not being able to tell the difference between a spell and a sword hit is really key. Under the old systems, it was plainly obvious when a wizard was at work because it did catostrophically more damage.
Now, the fighter can hold his own without being the bus boy carrying the wizard's loot. That's a pretty fundamental change for the old school. Also, figher powers have interesting riders on them, which in the past were the sole property of the magic users. For example, a fighter uses a power that allows him to push an enemy...the old school is like, wait, what? How the heck is that happening?
My reply to that is, let me hit you with a louisville slugger, and we'll see if you don't move.
The bottom line is, 4e is /different/ from 3e and some people just can't accept that those changes could have been for the better.
ONe last thing for those who say that 4e is /not/ D&D:
Is 4e a fantasy roleplaying game? Is it based on the game originally designed by Gygax and Arneson? yes, yes it is. Therefore, it /IS/ dungeons and dragons, whether anyone likes the system or not.
I think I am starting to understand his point of view a little bit better. While I can see your points Samrin, and agree with them, I think I understand where he's coming from.Daily and encounter powers /do/ make perfect sense. However, from someon
Not liking 4e because Fighters and Rogues are actually within the same ballpark as Wizards past level 7 pretty much makes you a giant **** for not being able to have fun without knowing someone else is having less fun.
Not liking 4e because Fighters and Rogues are actually within the same ballpark as Wizards past level 7 pretty much makes you a giant **** for not being able to have fun without knowing someone else is having less fun.
I think I am starting to understand his point of view a little bit better. While I can see your points Samrin, and agree with them, I think I understand where he's coming from.
Daily and encounter powers /do/ make perfect sense. However, from someone used to a 3e wizard who can do everything better then the class that's supposed to do it, it's going to feel like their wizard was neutered. How the heck am I supposed to do the rogue's job without spells for invisibility and opening locks, hm? That's a certain loss in RPability.
No I'm afraid your still not getting, what your trying to do is villify me as a 4th edition hater, or some sort of Gonard that refuses to accept "change", which is not the case at all. Nore do I have some sort of affinity about how powerful Wizards should be. This constant need to identify "whats wrong with me" rather than just sticking to the topic is the only thing thats offensive in this thread. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm discussing what didn't work for me in the system in a thread that posed the exact question I'm answering.
In either case I'm talking about disconnect of the mechanics and the story and while I gave some specifics, it isn't any one of these things that create the problem, its the combination of all of them under the same system that does. For example Daily/Encounter powers might work fine within the confines of a role-playing system, but throw a bunch of vague abstractions like healing surges and hitpoints and you start losing me. Which illustrates a point, hit points have always been there in every edition and I wouldn't have named them as a problem in those editions, but because of the combination of effects of the mechanic on this system suddenly the abstraction is just bizzare and hard to justify.
No I'm afraid your still not getting, what your trying to do is villify me as a 4th edition hater, or some sort of Gonard that refuses to accept "change", which is not the case at all. Nore do I have some sort of affinity about how powerful Wizards
I think I am starting to understand his point of view a little bit better. While I can see your points Samrin, and agree with them, I think I understand where he's coming from.
Daily and encounter powers /do/ make perfect sense. However, from someone used to a 3e wizard who can do everything better then the class that's supposed to do it, it's going to feel like their wizard was neutered. How the heck am I supposed to do the rogue's job without spells for invisibility and opening locks, hm? That's a certain loss in RPability.
No I'm afraid your still not getting, what your trying to do is villify me as a 4th edition hater, or some sort of Gonard that refuses to accept "change", which is not the case at all. Nore do I have some sort of affinity about how powerful Wizards should be. This constant need to identify "whats wrong with me" rather than just sticking to the topic is the only thing thats offensive in this thread. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm discussing what didn't work for me in the system in a thread that posed the exact question I'm answering.
In either case I'm talking about disconnect of the mechanics and the story and while I gave some specifics, it isn't any one of these things that create the problem, its the combination of all of them under the same system that does. For example Daily/Encounter powers might work fine within the confines of a role-playing system, but throw a bunch of vague abstractions like healing surges and hitpoints and you start losing me. Which illustrates a point, hit points have always been there in every edition and I wouldn't have named them as a problem in those editions, but because of the combination of effects of the mechanic on this system suddenly the abstraction is just bizzare and hard to justify.
No, that was not my intent, although upon re-reading my post it sounded /much/ snarkier then I intended. My apologies for that.
No I'm afraid your still not getting, what your trying to do is villify me as a 4th edition hater, or some sort of Gonard that refuses to accept "change", which is not the case at all. Nore do I have some sort of affinity about how powerful Wizards
No worries at all Crzyhawk, I just want to make sure that we don't derail the posters intent to discuss role-playing in 4th edition. I think its a really important topic because while I find myself generally alone in discussions like this on forums, everywhere outside of this forum I find people generally agree with me. Hence to get an oppossing view and have a good counter to my ideas and thoughts I come here, the only place where I can find good discussions that don't amount to head nods in agreement.
For what its worth, I don't hate 4th edition, and I have played it a considerable amount. There is one general truth to 4th edition and that is the fact that it is closer to Gygax's vision than any other edition since 1st ed advanced dungeons and dragons. The key elements of what make for a D&D role-playing game are covered extremely well in 4th edition and for all the things I don't like about it, this is the one base I think it has covered. Like 1st edition this game focuses on the roots of D&D origins.
Which is kind of the odd aspect of my particular point of view. On the one hand I find 1st edition to be the truest form of D&D, and oddly enough 4th edition is without question the closests thing to 1st edition of the 4 editions that have been released from a philosophical design perspective. You would think that being true I would have found 4th edition more to my liking, but it just never spoke to me and so uncovering why that is has become kind of a fascination with me. I do not believe however that the problem is that I don't know how to role-play, or that their is some issue with role-playing in my groups, or that I'm unable to adapt to modern game systems or something like that. Quite to the contrary, I very easily embrace and adapt, I mean I love Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3.0 for example and that's a huge departure from traditions of role-playing. Needless to say I'm hardly alone in this boat and I think as long as people are discussing 4th edition, speaking of its merits and flaws, there is a better chance the next edition of D&D will be better.
No worries at all Crzyhawk, I just want to make sure that we don't derail the posters intent to discuss role-playing in 4th edition. I think its a really important topic because while I find myself generally alone in discussions like this on forums,
Did we seriously have no one just google "4e lack of role playing" to prove toki wrong?
I did. There were no such arguments on the first 3 or so pages, and I didn't see much of a point in looking beyond that.
I don't know how exactly google works but we must not be getting the same search results because I found that in the first 6 pages 90% of the results where complaints about lack of role-playing in 4th edition. Not that really says a whole lot however because doing the same search on 3rd edition brought equally as many results, so its really nothing to discuss. All it means is lots of people have opinions and if you google search an opinion regardless of what it is you will get ample hits on in.
I don't think there is a good way to get a consensus or factual data about what people think about D&D 4th edition or any edition for that matter. Certianly your not going to get one on the fan forums.
I personally think actions speak louder than words. A new edition on the way that is trying to distance itself from 4th edition. 1st edition and 3rd edition reprints. Paizo (Pathfinder) a company and game system very easily competes against 4th edition and is doing as well if not better than 4th edition. Very little fan support, easily one of the least fan supported D&D's in the history of the franchise. Rub all these things together and you start to get at least some sort of a picture about how healthy of a run 4th edition has had and I don't think that picture is that pretty. Its beloved by its fans, and I think that's something that will keep this game on people's tables for a long time to come, but personally I think it was an attempt at a design philosophy that just wasn't popular enough for the D&D franchise.
From my personal experiance, 4th edition is the least popular edition in the franchise.
I did. There were no such arguments on the first 3 or so pages, and I didn't see much of a point in looking beyond that.[/quote]I don't know how exactly google works but we must not be getting the same search results because I found that in the first
Personally, I think that 4th Edition is very good, but is hampered by WOTC. Here is a short and very brief list of actions that turned people away from 4th Edition.
*The release of the character builder, virtual table, and other digital tools was supposed to be not long after the release of 4th edition. WOTC would have been wiser to finish these beforehand, as they are key to attracting modern gamers. Even worse is that they never finished most of these tools, which indicated that WOTC is unreliable in most matters that concern digital tools.
*While publishing PDFs of their books, WOTC decided to reverse direction as a result of piracy. They did this in the worst way possible by revoking the PDFs already being sold by shops, and then canceling the PDFs attached to the digital accounts of shoppers. WOTC was aiming for tighter control of their product by only having shops with physical storefronts being able to sell digital PDFs. This failed due to bad PR, and the fact that physical stores would have less interest in selling PDFs.
*Abandoning the OGL, which had created extremely powerful support from third party publishers. WOTC once again wanted to have tighter control over their brand, but underestimated the importance of having an 'open' process for third parties to produce material for D&D. Worse, they attached a "Poison Pill" clause that would have anyone producing material for 4th Edition to no longer be able to produce any for previous editions. The loss of the OGL is strongly tied to Paizo turning against WOTC.
*Attempting to move their operations in-house, WOTC decided to remove Paizo from developing the material for the Dungeon and Dragon magazines. This removed a source of income from Paizo, and made them turn their eyes from 4th Edition to other pastures. WOTC failed to reproduce the quality that Paizo had, and also shortened the lengths of their magazine releases. Bad combination, as that made the DDInsider service less valuable to subscribers.
*The OGL for v3.5 was open, to the point that Paizo could retrofit that version of D&D into the Pathfinder that we know today. This allowed them to rebel against WOTC, while retaining the wealth of material from 3.5e. Even better, they didn't have to sink much in the way of resources since they took WOTC's property and turned it into their own game. This was a deadly strike against WOTC, especially when combined with the general misfortune and incompentence that has ailed WOTC.
*WOTC's staff constantly changes, which in turn means that WOTC is incapable of sticking with long term plans or having a solid idealogy. This really damages their business decisions, as they tend to backpedal at the wrong times for the wrong reasons.
*The lack of quality videogames that uses the 4th Edition ruleset to good effect. I remember games like Baldur's Gate, Planescape, and Neverwinter Nights 2 introducing me to D&D and keeping me interested in the brand. 4th Edition design was ideal for converting into a genuinely good videogame, but WOTC's constrictive OGL and lackluster licensing had eliminated that possibility. If there was a D&D Tactics on the 3DS and a PC game by Obsidian, it is is entirely possible that WOTC would have had many more players for 4th Edition. Instead, we got half-*** detrius like Daggerdale.
In my opinion, the things that WOTC has going for it right now is the quality of 4th Edition and the Compendium. I am really hoping that some other company develops a D&D-esque game that takes after 4th Edition's principles, as that would lead to a much brighter future for roleplaying games. Here's to some bright team doing a kickstarter to that effect!
Personally, I think that 4th Edition is very good, but is hampered by WOTC. Here is a short and very brief list of actions that turned people away from 4th Edition.*The release of the character builder, virtual table, and other digital tools was sup
Everything you said is 100% accurate from where Im standing and I could probobly add additinol points to illustrates some of the failings of WOTC 4th edition not withstanding, but through it all their has always been a general consensus that D&D is great and the fans love it in one form or another. There are people who play 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions all over the world and they still love it. That is a powerful ally and a very easy to take advantage situation for WOTC and also one of its greatest missed oppertunities. Paizo for example is beating the pants off Wizards in the PR department and customer loyalty for one reason and one reason only, WTOC ceased to produce 3rd edition material, which was foolish. Just as foolish as abandoning 2nd edition was when 3rd edition was released. This is a monumental mistake made by money counters, not people who have a connection to their fans.
No matter how you slice it you can't "convert" the entire community and you'll be lucky if you can get half the people to even look at the new version of a PnP RPG let alone buy it. Understanding that the popularity of a role-playing system never dies and most fans do not "change their mind" is the first step to understanding your customer. Most players cherish their books (whatever edition that may be), they cherish the game and it represent one if not THE favorite hobby for them. When a publisher abadons an edition entirely and looks back on it like it was a mistake its really mud in the eye of the community.
The Franchises primary mishandling has been the idea that "the current edition" is the one we support and love, everything else is just history. This has always been a mistake and I don't understand why game makers have such a hard time understanding this given so many hard lessons learned. Wizards has made this mistake twice now (2nd to 3rd and 3rd to 4th).
The good news at least if you don't dig to deep to reveal it as otherwise it appears at least through their actions that WOTC has come to understand the love and appriciation of their fan base for past editions and at least supported them through reprints. When the 1st edition books got their premium reprints I was first in line for it and to be honest its the first time I have bought something from Wizard in the last 5 years that had been giddy with excitment and I can't thank them enough for reprinting this amazing piece of history, yet still very much playable game. If and when they do it for 2nd edition I will be buying those books as well, because frankly I just love the idea.
I personally have always felt that there was no reason whatsoever to stop writing for 2nd and 3rd editions in particular. These game systems are still extremely popular, their is a huge market for them, they should be supported and if they turned things back on and started writing books for these systems again I think most of the "edition war" discussion would cease. They exist only because of the frustration and anger of a abandoned community of fans. Its easy to hate 4th edition if its existance is the reason 3rd edition is out of print... same is true for 2nd edition and much of the hate from their fans (a bizzare situation at best) stems from this.
Everything you said is 100% accurate from where Im standing and I could probobly add additinol points to illustrates some of the failings of WOTC 4th edition not withstanding, but through it all their has always been a general consensus that D&D is g
I found that in the first 6 pages 90% of the results where complaints about lack of role-playing in 4th edition.
To clarify: many players have complained that roleplaying is reduced in 4e.
However, many posters in this thread were arguing against the notion that Roleplaying doesn't exist in 4e. The point was that there is little need to attack that notion, since it is inherently incorrect, and no one is actually debating for it. It is beating up a strawman.
To clarify: many players have complained that roleplaying is reduced in 4e.However, many posters in this thread were arguing against the notion that Roleplaying doesn't exist in 4e. The point was that there is little need to attack that notion, since
I am really hoping that some other company develops a D&D-esque game that takes after 4th Edition's principles, as that would lead to a much brighter future for roleplaying games. Here's to some bright team doing a kickstarter to that effect!
It already exists. 13th Age. Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet's brainchild. It's a mix of 4e, AD&D, and FATE... to sum it up in the simplest of terms. It is quite wonderful.
It already exists. 13th Age. Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet's brainchild. It's a mix of 4e, AD&D, and FATE... to sum it up in the simplest of terms. It is quite wonderful.
Did we seriously have no one just google "4e lack of role playing" to prove toki wrong?
I did. There were no such arguments on the first 3 or so pages, and I didn't see much of a point in looking beyond that.
I don't know how exactly google works but we must not be getting the same search results because I found that in the first 6 pages 90% of the results where complaints about lack of role-playing in 4th edition. Not that really says a whole lot however because doing the same search on 3rd edition brought equally as many results, so its really nothing to discuss. All it means is lots of people have opinions and if you google search an opinion regardless of what it is you will get ample hits on in.
I don't think there is a good way to get a consensus or factual data about what people think about D&D 4th edition or any edition for that matter. Certianly your not going to get one on the fan forums.
I personally think actions speak louder than words. A new edition on the way that is trying to distance itself from 4th edition. 1st edition and 3rd edition reprints. Paizo (Pathfinder) a company and game system very easily competes against 4th edition and is doing as well if not better than 4th edition. Very little fan support, easily one of the least fan supported D&D's in the history of the franchise. Rub all these things together and you start to get at least some sort of a picture about how healthy of a run 4th edition has had and I don't think that picture is that pretty. Its beloved by its fans, and I think that's something that will keep this game on people's tables for a long time to come, but personally I think it was an attempt at a design philosophy that just wasn't popular enough for the D&D franchise.
From my personal experiance, 4th edition is the least popular edition in the franchise.
I typed "4e Dungeons and Dragons has no roleplaying".
I did. There were no such arguments on the first 3 or so pages, and I didn't see much of a point in looking beyond that.[/quote]I don't know how exactly google works but we must not be getting the same search results because I found that in the first
I am really hoping that some other company develops a D&D-esque game that takes after 4th Edition's principles, as that would lead to a much brighter future for roleplaying games. Here's to some bright team doing a kickstarter to that effect!
It already exists. 13th Age. Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet's brainchild. It's a mix of 4e, AD&D, and FATE... to sum it up in the simplest of terms. It is quite wonderful.
I keep hearing its name batted around but its not in actual print yet just closed beta or something right?
It already exists. 13th Age. Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet's brainchild. It's a mix of 4e, AD&D, and FATE... to sum it up in the simplest of terms. It is quite wonderful.[/quote]I keep hearing its name batted around but its not in actual print yet j
Sort of a closed beta - the core book should be finished and be sent off to the printers by the end of October. No official release date yet, cuz printing schedules tend to mung them up anyways. Dunno when the pdf version will be for sale - us pre-order folks will be getting the final version of the rules by the end of the month, but I not sure if that will be the final, shiny pdf version.
Sort of a closed beta - the core book should be finished and be sent off to the printers by the end of October. No official release date yet, cuz printing schedules tend to mung them up anyways. Dunno when the pdf version will be for sale - us pre-or
Reskinning and reflavor make most of us like we are creating our character more than them handling over the flavor/fluff...I am currently playing a gloom pact hexblade reskinned/reflavored as dark pact, the scourge is that whip with snake heads that appear in alot of drow artwork, because the mechanic and the flavor is separated enough in 4e, i can do that, while i can't do that in other editions, because flavor and mechanics are married and hold way too much together and if you change the flavor, you have to mess up with the mechanics... Hence the reason why i hate enforced flavor on DnDNext.
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff.
There's the difference in attitude.
If I read a character class (or background or etc.) and have *A* good sense of theme, style, flavor, and fluff, I consider that class pretty weak and limited. I prefer to have at least four or five. With at least one of them formed by inverting one of the others. (If mortals can make pacts with demons, why not with angels? - Divine Pact Warlock.)
I recently played a 4E Shaman. Character concept: Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket. Pure refluffing - no houseruling needed.
When I read about a Hexblade, I want to find out what a hexblade is, not get the mechanical rules for a generic class that uses generic powers under a generic.
I don't happen to have the book that introduces the Hexblade. But I have PHB2 handy and randomly opened it on the Sorcerer. It has plenty of inspirational description - of the class itself, of each of several class options, and of each spell - and if you choose an entirely different inspiration, you break nothing. Because while mechanics are almost always consistent with description (and there is actually more description than in prior editions), they are not tied to the description.
Perhaps this is the reason I personally don't care for 4th edition. I want to pick up a book, read it and have a good sense of themes, style, flavor and fluff.[/quote]There's the difference in attitude.If I read a character class (or background or e
Because while mechanics are almost always consistent with description (and there is actually more description than in prior editions), they are not tied to the description.
We must not be reading the same books.
If I read a character class (or background or etc.) and have *A* good sense of theme, style, flavor, and fluff, I consider that class pretty weak and limited. I prefer to have at least four or five. With at least one of them formed by inverting one of the others. (If mortals can make pacts with demons, why not with angels? - Divine Pact Warlock.) I recently played a 4E Shaman. Character concept: Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket. Pure refluffing - no houseruling needed.
Hey I agree with you here, but before we start asking Wizards to create more than one theme for each class, lets at least have them do at least one to begin with. Because by that description, everything in 4th edition is extremely limited as you didn't even get proper descriptions for... well anything. I mean its a wildly generic game. Just take the cleric class. Two paragraphs. The first paragraph is a description of the clice that is the cleric, the second one informs you that clerics apperantly believe in god? Thats it... In the bottom right hand corner, two paragraphs, dedicated to describing the entire class followed by no less than 15 pages of "stats" and powers for that class. How does that inspire anyone to role-play anything? The flavor text on the back of the cards for a character in the boardgame Descent has more description of their class than what you get from the worlds best (formally) leading role-playing. Its a traggedy.
We must not be reading the same books.Hey I agree with you here, but before we start asking Wizards to create more than one theme for each class, lets at least have them do at least one to begin with. Because by that description, everything in 4th e
Because while mechanics are almost always consistent with description (and there is actually more description than in prior editions), they are not tied to the description.
We must not be reading the same books.
Or maybe you just aren't all that creative, or good at lateral thinking.
We must not be reading the same books.[/quote]Or maybe you just aren't all that creative, or good at lateral thinking.
Because while mechanics are almost always consistent with description (and there is actually more description than in prior editions), they are not tied to the description.
We must not be reading the same books.
Or maybe you just aren't all that creative, or good at lateral thinking.
Ok your right, I concede, Im not a creative person and there is nothing wrong with 4th edition, the 2nd most popular game on the market that was 1st for 4 decades until this version was released. Me and the rest of the uncreative people are going to find something else to do now, clearly role-playing isnt for us.
We must not be reading the same books.[/quote]Or maybe you just aren't all that creative, or good at lateral thinking.[/quote]Ok your right, I concede, Im not a creative person and there is nothing wrong with 4th edition, the 2nd most popular game on
Clearly Pathfinder's main rules outselling the D&D core PHB (which has been out for over twice as long) is due to the fact that Pathfinder is the game that does the most to encourage Roleplaying on the market. Not FATE, not World of Darkness, not any of the other systems that put roleplaying front and center. Nope. Pathfinder.
Seriously, lets not use sales to measure how much roleplaying is involved in a game. I've played 3E heavily and 4E heavily and 3E was much worse for roleplaying than 4E. It's like... 3E actively impedes roleplaying, 4E is rather neutral on the entire matter.
You can complain that 4E doesn't even try to be simulationist, and it doesn't, but simulationism isn't roleplaying. Most of the time, it gets in the way of roleplaying.
Clearly Pathfinder's main rules outselling the D&D core PHB (which has been out for over twice as long) is due to the fact that Pathfinder is the game that does the most to encourage Roleplaying on the market. Not FATE, not World of Darkness, not an
Clearly Pathfinder's main rules outselling the D&D core PHB (which has been out for over twice as long) is due to the fact that Pathfinder is the game that does the most to encourage Roleplaying on the market. Not FATE, not World of Darkness, not any of the other systems that put roleplaying front and center. Nope. Pathfinder.
Seriously, lets not use sales to measure how much roleplaying is involved in a game. I've played 3E heavily and 4E heavily and 3E was much worse for roleplaying than 4E. It's like... 3E actively impedes roleplaying, 4E is rather neutral on the entire matter.
You can complain that 4E doesn't even try to be simulationist, and it doesn't, but simulationism isn't roleplaying. Most of the time, it gets in the way of roleplaying.
The major difference as I see it is that 4e's roleplay is more freeform...your character can be who or what you want it to be with very little guidelines. Older editions, somewhat force you into certain things, like a paladin being LG for example. If you're someone who relied on the system to provide that baseline to you, 4e could feel to be lacking.
That's really I think what I was trying to say a few days ago, and it came out in a pretty snarky manner.
The major difference as I see it is that 4e's roleplay is more freeform...your character can be who or what you want it to be with very little guidelines. Older editions, somewhat force you into certain things, like a paladin being LG for example.
Clearly Pathfinder's main rules outselling the D&D core PHB (which has been out for over twice as long) is due to the fact that Pathfinder is the game that does the most to encourage Roleplaying on the market. Not FATE, not World of Darkness, not any of the other systems that put roleplaying front and center. Nope. Pathfinder.
Seriously, lets not use sales to measure how much roleplaying is involved in a game. I've played 3E heavily and 4E heavily and 3E was much worse for roleplaying than 4E. It's like... 3E actively impedes roleplaying, 4E is rather neutral on the entire matter.
You can complain that 4E doesn't even try to be simulationist, and it doesn't, but simulationism isn't roleplaying. Most of the time, it gets in the way of roleplaying.
I think I was just trying to point out that after 25 years of role-playing in every system under the sun, lack of creativíty is not the reason that suddenly the one and only system on planet Earth in which role-playing is an issue is the result of my inability to be creative.
In Mike Mearls own words at PAX 2012 he described the issues with 4th edition and acknowledged that role-playing was a problem. A confirmation, vindication and ultimatly an indication of what 5th edition won't be... aka, nothing like 4th edition. So in short, the D&D fans win.
I think I was just trying to point out that after 25 years of role-playing in every system under the sun, lack of creativíty is not the reason that suddenly the one and only system on planet Earth in which role-playing is an issue is the resul
Nope, Mike Mearls is being PR BSing people, he is saying what 4e haters want to hear to please them, infact i won't be surprised the lack of support of 4e to instead reprint older edition books is another way to please 4e haters.
It's like if i humillate, bully and punch my highschool best friend during collage, to please my junior high friends that stoped being my friends after i started highschool.
Nope, Mike Mearls is being PR BSing people, he is saying what 4e haters want to hear to please them, infact i won't be surprised the lack of support of 4e to instead reprint older edition books is another way to please 4e haters. It's like if i hum
Nope, Mike Mearls is being PR BSing people, he is saying what 4e haters want to hear to please them, infact i won't be surprised the lack of support of 4e to instead reprint older edition books is another way to please 4e haters.
It's like if i humillate, bully and punch my highschool best friend during collage, to please my junior high friends that stoped being my friends after i started highschool.
I don't really care why he does it, though I presume your totaly wrong and he's doing it because he understands the difference between faire weather fans and the responsibility he has to 4 decade old legacy. Suffice to say, he isn't planning to do it, he is already doing it and looking at 5th edition as it is today you could say its a done deal.
I don't really care why he does it, though I presume your totaly wrong and he's doing it because he understands the difference between faire weather fans and the responsibility he has to 4 decade old legacy. Suffice to say, he isn't planning to do i
yeah, because staying to old traditions is always the better options...oh wait, i know about history...is NEVER a better option
We aren't talking about world history, we are talking about a game which encompasses an experiance on which a legacy was built. This isn't a 2012 Camero re-invented for the modern age, this is a 75 mustang that needs a new coat of paint, we don't need Ford pulling out the engine and replacing it with a hybrid V4 to save the enviroment, because you can call it a classic mustang to your hearts content, but the moment you changed it, it died.
We aren't talking about world history, we are talking about a game which encompasses an experiance on which a legacy was built. This isn't a 2012 Camero re-invented for the modern age, this is a 75 mustang that needs a new coat of paint, we don't ne
Is more like staying playing Atari or Colecovision videogames on 2012..., it's kinda cute as a novelty at a bargain price (like 1 or 2 bucks), but it's not something we would prefer over newer games and something we won't be paying full price.
And btw, if i ever want a 75 mustang, it would be just for the chasis (metal, not plastic fiber crap), engines back then spended alot more gas and gas is way too expensive now to be wasting it...also alot of things like sound system, electric doors, having the battery on the side of the wheel so it can't be stolen that easly, a a/c that is worth a damn (weather here can get +50C on summer).
Is more like staying playing Atari or Colecovision videogames on 2012..., it's kinda cute as a novelty at a bargain price (like 1 or 2 bucks), but it's not something we would prefer over newer games and something we won't be paying full price.And btw
Nope, Mike Mearls is being PR BSing people, he is saying what 4e haters want to hear to please them, infact i won't be surprised the lack of support of 4e to instead reprint older edition books is another way to please 4e haters.
It's like if i humillate, bully and punch my highschool best friend during collage, to please my junior high friends that stoped being my friends after i started highschool.
They're simply selling out to what they think will generate more revenue. At the end of the day it's /not/ about design philosophy, it's about the benjamins, pure and simple. I'm going to laugh when 5e flops because the pathfinder people stay with pathfinder, and the 4e hard core stay with 4e. 5e will /not/ re-unite the fan base under one brand again.
They're simply selling out to what they think will generate more revenue. At the end of the day it's /not/ about design philosophy, it's about the benjamins, pure and simple. I'm going to laugh when 5e flops because the pathfinder people stay with
Mearls' commentary is only slightly more useful for determining the direction and intent of D&D Next design as well as anything relating to the success of 4e as a Political debate can tell you about the economy and whether or not Haiti will allow gay marraige (and it is only more useful because you know that so long as Mearls is involved, rules will be sloppy and balance, nonexistant)
Mearls' commentary is only slightly more useful for determining the direction and intent of D&D Next design as well as anything relating to the success of 4e as a Political debate can tell you about the economy and whether or not Haiti will allow gay
Man from this last couple of pages you guys seem real "sore".
I mean why hasn't a ORC stepped in your conversation is just getting more and more off topic and hostile.
Man from this last couple of pages you guys seem real "sore".I mean why hasn't a ORC stepped in your conversation is just getting more and more off topic and hostile.
A confirmation, vindication and ultimatly an indication of what 5th edition won't be... aka, nothing like 4th edition. So in short, the D&D fans win.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.
A confirmation, vindication and ultimatly an indication of what 5th edition won't be... aka, nothing like 4th edition. So in short, the D&D fans win.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.
I'm not wondering, I don't expect anything but fans of 4th edition on the 4th edition forums, so its not a suprise, but this is the only place on planet earth where my opinion is a minority. I just happen to be one of the few D&D fans that has stuck around, the rest are on the Pathfinder forums and have abandoned this franchise quite sometime ago.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.[/quote]I'm not wondering, I don't expect anything but f
A confirmation, vindication and ultimatly an indication of what 5th edition won't be... aka, nothing like 4th edition. So in short, the D&D fans win.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.
But the thing is, many do. This isn't a 1 sided argument. I would say there are more people that would rather have something unlike 4e than like 4e. Therefore the majority wins.
the sheer arrogance of you 3e fans is simply astonishing, and sickening. The fact that you can call 4e fans something other then D&D fans is repulsive. And 3e fans wonder why they are so hated by the 4e fans? I swear, I have more against 3e /players/ then I do the 3e system. For them it's their way or the highway.
I'm a 3e, and 4e fan. But what you just said... That's pure arrogance. Not every 3e fan is rude.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.[/quote]But the thing is, many do. This isn't a 1 sided
A confirmation, vindication and ultimatly an indication of what 5th edition won't be... aka, nothing like 4th edition. So in short, the D&D fans win.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.
I'm not wondering, I don't expect anything but fans of 4th edition on the 4th edition forums, so its not a suprise, but this is the only place on planet earth where my opinion is a minority. I just happen to be one of the few D&D fans that has stuck around, the rest are on the Pathfinder forums and have abandoned this franchise quite sometime ago.
I'm a D&D fan, far more because of 4E than ever because of any prior edition (and I played 1E). Telling me I'm a winner because almost everything good about the best edition of D&D to date is being abandoned in favor of the glaring defects that edition fixed, is just silly.
If 5E moves forward and shows equally good or better design, great. If it's Zombie Edition, bringing back from the graveyard a bunch of stuff that really should stay there, it might become my second-choice version of D&D but it won't be my first. And I don't need two versions of D&D.
If you're wondering why some of the responses to your posts seem vitriolic, it's statements like the above. Many of us D&D "Fans" do not consider a version that's nothing like 4e to be a win.[/quote]I'm not wondering, I don't expect anything but f
I'm a D&D fan, far more because of 4E than ever because of any prior edition (and I played 1E). Telling me I'm a winner because almost everything good about the best edition of D&D to date is being abandoned in favor of the glaring defects that edition fixed, is just silly. If 5E moves forward and shows equally good or better design, great. If it's Zombie Edition, bringing back from the graveyard a bunch of stuff that really should stay there, it might become my second-choice version of D&D but it won't be my first. And I don't need two versions of D&D.
Just for the record I didn't call anyone anything.
And nothing is being abandoned, WOTC has simply identified that a very large portion of D&D players disagree wih you and 4th edition is the reason they left D&D. But it is most definitly going to bring back classic D&D gameplay, so you may as well make peace with that, my understanding however, for what its worth, is that there will be a 4th edition like module.
Just for the record I didn't call anyone anything.And nothing is being abandoned, WOTC has simply identified that a very large portion of D&D players disagree wih you and 4th edition is the reason they left D&D. But it is most definitly going to bri
I'm not wondering, I don't expect anything but fans of 4th edition on the 4th edition forums, so its not a suprise, but this is the only place on planet earth where my opinion is a minority. I just happen to be one of the few D&D fans that has stuck around, the rest are on the Pathfinder forums and have abandoned this franchise quite sometime ago.
Actually most fans of 4E are busy having lives and playing 4E. We don't go on the pathfinder forums to troll people playing Pathfinder because they're having fun with their system mastery clunkster and I'm fine with that. Some people juggle geese.
Of course I'd note that that bloated monstrosity of a system doesn't seem quite engaging enough for the fans without their perpeptual preaching. Honestly, it's like talking to a group of scientologists. Only their religion is probably stupider.
Actually most fans of 4E are busy having lives and playing 4E. We don't go on the pathfinder forums to troll people playing Pathfinder because they're having fun with their system mastery clunkster and I'm fine with that. Some people juggle geese.
Of course I'd note that that bloated monstrosity of a system doesn't seem quite engaging enough for the fans without their perpeptual preaching. Honestly, it's like talking to a group of scientologists. Only their religion is probably stupider.
Once again this thread is getting more out of hand. Could a ORC just close it down?
Once again this thread is getting more out of hand. Could a ORC just close it down?
I find this topic completely laughable. I have played 4e for about 3 years now. I have a co-worker who had tried 4e. He did not like 4e. He found it everything everyone has ever said bad about 4e. So naturally my wife and I got him and his wife to play 4e with us. After the first session of the game he said he doesn't even know why he gets together with his pathfinder group anymore. He completely enjoyed the game and it was the most roleplaying I have ever been a part of. Sometimes people just have to give a game a fair chance and be playing a game with people willing to give it a fair chance. He admitted that basically his group he tried 4e with was not very receptive to it. If you can't try something with an open mind you won't like it. It is like someone who already decided they hate sushi trying sushi. No matter what if they want to believe they hate sushi they still will after trying it. They will spit it out and call it gross and say they tried it, but really that was the intention all along.
I find this topic completely laughable. I have played 4e for about 3 years now. I have a co-worker who had tried 4e. He did not like 4e. He found it everything everyone has ever said bad about 4e. So naturally my wife and I got him and his wife
I find this topic completely laughable. I have played 4e for about 3 years now. I have a co-worker who had tried 4e. He did not like 4e. He found it everything everyone has ever said bad about 4e. So naturally my wife and I got him and his wife to play 4e with us. After the first session of the game he said he doesn't even know why he gets together with his pathfinder group anymore. He completely enjoyed the game and it was the most roleplaying I have ever been a part of. Sometimes people just have to give a game a fair chance and be playing a game with people willing to give it a fair chance. He admitted that basically his group he tried 4e with was not very receptive to it. If you can't try something with an open mind you won't like it. It is like someone who already decided they hate sushi trying sushi. No matter what if they want to believe they hate sushi they still will after trying it. They will spit it out and call it gross and say they tried it, but really that was the intention all along.
I'm not wondering, I don't expect anything but fans of 4th edition on the 4th edition forums, so its not a suprise, but this is the only place on planet earth where my opinion is a minority. I just happen to be one of the few D&D fans that has stuck around, the rest are on the Pathfinder forums and have abandoned this franchise quite sometime ago.
Actually most fans of 4E are busy having lives and playing 4E. We don't go on the pathfinder forums to troll people playing Pathfinder because they're having fun with their system mastery clunkster and I'm fine with that. Some people juggle geese.
Of course I'd note that that bloated monstrosity of a system doesn't seem quite engaging enough for the fans without their perpeptual preaching. Honestly, it's like talking to a group of scientologists. Only their religion is probably stupider.
Lol this post is awesome on so many different levels.
Actually most fans of 4E are busy having lives and playing 4E. We don't go on the pathfinder forums to troll people playing Pathfinder because they're having fun with their system mastery clunkster and I'm fine with that. Some people juggle geese.
Because while mechanics are almost always consistent with description (and there is actually more description than in prior editions), they are not tied to the description.
We must not be reading the same books.
Or maybe you just aren't all that creative, or good at lateral thinking.
Ok your right, I concede, Im not a creative person and there is nothing wrong with 4th edition, the 2nd most popular game on the market that was 1st for 4 decades until this version was released. Me and the rest of the uncreative people are going to find something else to do now, clearly role-playing isnt for us.
I suppose CoD must be a wonderful and innovative game as well? Certainly better than Battlefield or Counterstrike.
We must not be reading the same books.[/quote]Or maybe you just aren't all that creative, or good at lateral thinking.[/quote]Ok your right, I concede, Im not a creative person and there is nothing wrong with 4th edition, the 2nd most popular game on
Man I did not intend such an arguement. Truth is there's roleplaying in every game out there if you, even the game "Clue" can have roleplaying. I never said that I didnt think 4E had roleplaying, I just asking what others think roleplaying is for it.
Man I did not intend such an arguement. Truth is there's roleplaying in every game out there if you, even the game "Clue" can have roleplaying. I never said that I didnt think 4E had roleplaying, I just asking what others think roleplaying is for it.
The amount of roleplaying in a system is really up to the indivdual group and DM.
4th ed combat takes longer than other editions so if you have 3-4 encounters a day in 4th ed you will spend more time as a % of your session in combat I suppose. When we played 4th ed we got through 3-5 fights a session I suppose, in 3.XYZ we had a similar number most of the time but the 4th ed ones would take a bit longer. In D&DN the other day we had 15 or so but that was in a pure dungeon hack and cmbat is fast mostly because the monsters are very weak.
D&D any ediiton has always had a reputation for hackfest anyway so its not exclusive to 4th ed by any means.
The amount of roleplaying in a system is really up to the indivdual group and DM. 4th ed combat takes longer than other editions so if you have 3-4 encounters a day in 4th ed you will spend more time as a % of your session in combat I suppose. When w
This wasn't what I had in mind when I started this. I just wanted to see what ppl thought about roleplaying in 4e. truth is you can roleplay in any game, even gold fish use imagination.
Probably going to delet this soon, if possible.
Even their poo regenerates.[/quote]This wasn't what I had in mind when I started this. I just wanted to see what ppl thought about roleplaying in 4e. truth is you can roleplay in any game, even gold fish use imagination. Probably going to delet this
This wasn't what I had in mind when I started this. I just wanted to see what ppl thought about roleplaying in 4e. truth is you can roleplay in any game, even gold fish use imagination.
Probably going to delet this soon, if possible.
its not your fault. there are a couple of forum posters that basically look for any and all opportunities to badmouth 4e and insult others for liking it. for a bit, the 5e forums held their interest, but sadly they still come around here, and even though they do not play 4e or buy 4e products, they still have nothing better to do with their time than troll the 4e forums. in a way i kind of pity them; i cant imagine being such a loser. that said, you can ask a mod to delete this thread, or at the very least block the trolls for your own sanity's sake.
Even their poo regenerates.[/quote]This wasn't what I had in mind when I started this. I just wanted to see what ppl thought about roleplaying in 4e. truth is you can roleplay in any game, even gold fish use imagination. Probably going to delet this
