Community

Aug 24, 2012 -- 3:55PM, Arcane_Guyver wrote:

Mechanical bits that enforce/demand roleplay sound like a good idea, but they always seem to either interfere with how I want to RP a character or - more annoyingly - dominate the party's RP. Give me setting hooks to hang my character concept on, as well as plenty of white space to do what I please.

Many things sound good in theory. But once implemented suck. Look at Communism, free or near free housing, free healthcare, a strong sense of security (with secret police and such). But look at how it turns out. it turns out like an extremely railroaded D&D session.

D&D 4th is a roleplaying game with solid, customizable ("less rules, more exeptions") and funny mechanical rules, based on epic ACTION. Periodi.

It's still a roleplay. Rules affect roleplayin' style, but not roleplay itself. This is not a game about "realism" or "inner torment", or, at least, it's not thought with that in mind...D&D has never been, outside few non-mechanical exeptions (no "flaws", level-up system, etc...mechanics about combat and action, sometimes about pure exploration and interaction, but still based on the idea of "heroes doing something epic"). So it's always been.

Now: if there's someone who need rules to roleplay his character or alignement, the problem is psychological. The game is not a living creature: the DM and players do. They decide the way a game is played, even if the game tends HEAVILY to combat, thrilling exploration and mechanical encounters. 

If you wanna play a game where your character is fully designed, detailed with "merits and flaws", described with more than an "alingment" and developed in a deep way, go White-Wolf, I.E. D&D is something else.

And pay attention: I'm not going against my own idea, even if it seems. I say that YES, rules modify the way you roleplay...but that has nothing to do with "4e lacks roleplayin'". Does 3.5 has more non-combat stuff? Maybe yes, maybe not..."Basic Attack bonus", the central value of the sheet, has NOTHING to do with roleplay. Combat is an ability and should be threated as any other ability, as for 4th edition (where attack checks are the SAME that non-attack checks. Ab + 1/2 level + relevant modifier. Period.

Then, I saw lots of new player come into roleplayin' by 4th edition...That's great: WoTC finally gave young DMs (or old but too busy Dms) the possibility to play with a simple and yet deep set of rules...At the same time, this big amount of young players in some cases is a problem.
I'm sorry to say this, but there are lots of "young players" that come from MMORPG and they don't have an idea of what roleplay is...With good Dms, they would understand. 
There's not a "generation exchange".

Anyway, you're FREE to play 4th edition as you wish, as well for any other game in the planet. The fact that Vampire is not made for actual combat, doesn't mean that you cannot base an entire campaign on action. So it's the opposite.

Playin' D&D has a lot to do with epic combat, weird exploration in dangerous settings and so on...AD&D, 3.5, 4th...and Next.

The good thing about 4th edition is that you can play a whole COMBAT-based campaign with a lot of flavour and with no actual need to have a "Rule-Degree". That's fine.

But in the end, if people are not roleplayin' in a D&D game...they're not doing it right.

Aug 25, 2012 -- 8:19AM, wrecan wrote:

Aug 22, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Noctaem wrote:

Most notably it's been mentioned and again stated in your article that there are no outside of combat powers.  This is not true.

My article does not state there are no out-of-combat powers.  It says that the vast majority of character building is geared towards combat mechanics, and that is true.  I obviously know about noncombat mechanics as my blog writes about them extensively (and my first blog was about rituals).

Please don't misrepresent my article just so you can dismiss its conclusions.  That's unfair.

It is simply inaccurate to state that a system does not affect how people roleplay.  Player psychology is a real phenomenon and designers disregard the psychological effect of rules at their peril.

To be fair to me Wrecan, I didn't dismiss your article just because you put in:

"Players invest a lot of time in 4e getting their characters properly equipped for combat.  Feats, Equipment and especiallty Powers are all combat-oriented.  This investment psychologically encourages players to want a return on their investment."

I pointed out that there are many many powers, and also feats I should add, that are not combat-oriented which seem to contradict the point you were making here specifically.  While I don't think a system can affect how people RP and that it's more of a personal choice that the player makes himself or herself during play.  You are entitled to your opinion, which I admit was an interesting read.

Futhermore, if you allow me some anecdotal evidence of my own, I played in a group for over a year with a bard who took the linguist feat twice.  He took other non combat oriented feats, was a great RP'er and also took powers that were non combat oriented.  His entire build was built around his character concept.  Not to the point of being a weight for the party, but enough so that he was proud and happy with it.  He chose this and while not every player will take the linguist feat twice for the RP flavor, I believe a player has all the options available to him / her to take feats and powers that focus on RP and not combat.

Does this more clearly explain my previous post ?