4Edition. Do you like it?

[Jester of the FoS]

I agree that hitpoints can represent adrenaline, luck, fatigue, scratches, etc. As the quoted post said, my problem is NO damage is physical.
There's no bandaging or shrugging-off a 50' drop into a pit, a point-blank blast of fire, and a dip in burning lava. Yet it takes as long to "heal" as any other "wound".

I'm just not digging the changes. If I want to play a board game I'll break out a board game. I don't care if Puerto Rico is realistic because it's a game.
I want my RPGs to have elements of sandbox play or reality simulation. I want to be able to play many different types of game and styles and have them feel different.

4e's a good game but a poor role-playing game.

[Isabella]

I've been dipping into the dangerous world of RPG blogs lately. And I've found some curious ramblings about D&D and 4e:

http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hate-fun.html
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php? ... stcount=70

I think some of the points are well made about how the game has changed.

To me, these just seem, well... bitter. Bitter that other people are "having fun", fun other than what the OP thinks people should have.

Which is, of course, what both of them are arguing - that WotC is trying to tell them how to have fun. I just wish they wouldn't turn around and resort to insulting every one of the new fanbase to make their point. They really come off as the sort of gamer that gives gamers the bad reputation they have - obsessive. I mean, the first guy even admits he's trying to be inflammatory.

Maybe I'm wrong. But what else am I supposed to make of them calling people "the kind of people older rulebooks... warned us about. People whose characters got their swords destroyed by a rust monster and who threw a hissy fit over it"? (Except there are rust monsters in 4e now.) Especially since he's talking about me, even if my problems were along different lines. He's talking about the people the game was designed for, the people who didn't like the older editions and who enjoy the new game.

What about "Yeah, that sounds elitist, and it’s meant to"? You might say I'm missing the argument, but that is the argument to me. It seems less about the game and complaining that a bunch of stupid fratboys got into their D&D and ruined it, by making it "accessible" or something. Because the new people "don't get it". So they shouldn't be allowed to play. Is there something wrong with the older editions now that 4e is out? Or is it just the fear that the industry trends will keep going that way? But isn't that the point of the free market, that if WotC leaves behind an unfilled niche, someone will come fill it - just like Pathfinder split off, when WotC made the edition shift?

It's fine if they don't like it, but do these guys have to call me stupid because I do?

And what about the system means I can't tell a decent story with it? I could argue that having your characters drop dead every two levels is a lot more disruptive to the narrative than having them survive some ridiculous antics now and then. For all the talk amongst the posters about how they are the ones who have to use their intelligence and creativity, they certainly can't use it to see 4e as anything more than a cheap WoW rip off with no potential for any "true" challenge or merit.

[Igor the Henchman]

4e's a good game but a poor role-playing game.

Every time I hear that, I'm tempted to ask: "have you actually tried roleplaying with it?

[Sorti]

4e's a good game but a poor role-playing game.

Every time I hear that, I'm tempted to ask: "have you actually tried roleplaying with it?

I also roleplayed in Monopoly (no, really, not joking ) but that does not make monopoly a role-playing game.

[Igor the Henchman]

Are we really discussing whether 4E is a real roleplaying game? I'm in the middle of a 4E game session as I write this. We're talking in character and everything. That part of the game, at least, hasn't changed in the slightest.

[Mortavius]

I have to agree Igor, I don't think the role-playing aspect of 4E is any different than any other version of the game. But I have a theory about where that sentiment comes from, since I have heard it echoed from my players and other friends, and I think I know where it comes from.

The 4E PHB doesn't talk about role-playing very much at all. It's entirely a rules-focused book. Mostly, on combat and how things relate to combat. I'm cool with that, because I just see it as the framework that the roleplaying is built around. But I can understand why people might look at it and think that D&D is just about going from one fight to the next now.

I see it as the PHB doesn't tell you how to roleplay anymore. It doesn't hold your hand in that department; instead it lets your group figure out how much roleplaying you want in your game. For example, my current 4E game has very little roleplaying in it. But that's fine, because that's what my group wants. I have played in the past in very heavy roleplaying groups, and that was cool too. Maybe by not telling people how to roleplay in the PHB, they're forcing others to figure out what works in that department for themselves, to have the most fun?

[alhoon]

And I also have to add, that with the skill challenges the game can be more roleplaying than the last edition.

4E just needs more character classes.

I will make and post some non-combat character classes that suck in combat but are helpful in skill challenges and social situations etc.
Obviously, they won't be as powerful as the regular classes.


As for roleplaying, I would respectfully disagree. When the book is all about combat, then it encourages combat focused game.

[Igor the Henchman]

You might have a case regarding the book.

I find that all WotC books (with a few welcome exceptions like the 3.5 DMG II), are all about rules, feats, classes, stats and combat anyhow. I've gotten used to it. At least the 4E PHB opens with an intelligent explanation about what a roleplaying game is. The 3E PHB completely missed that information.

[Mortavius]

As for roleplaying, I would respectfully disagree. When the book is all about combat, then it encourages combat focused game.

I couldn't agree more Alhoon; I think that's perhaps why so many people have the reaction that 4E doesn't support roleplaying anymore. Perhaps the writers could have spent a little but more page time on emphasizing that this is a rules book, and not something to tell you how to roleplay.

[Jester of the FoS]

I've been dipping into the dangerous world of RPG blogs lately. And I've found some curious ramblings about D&D and 4e:

http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-hate-fun.html
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php? ... stcount=70

I think some of the points are well made about how the game has changed.

To me, these just seem, well... bitter. Bitter that other people are "having fun", fun other than what the OP thinks people should have.

Which is, of course, what both of them are arguing - that WotC is trying to tell them how to have fun. I just wish they wouldn't turn around and resort to insulting every one of the new fanbase to make their point. They really come off as the sort of gamer that gives gamers the bad reputation they have - obsessive. I mean, the first guy even admits he's trying to be inflammatory.

The tone does irk me. I hesitated on posting the links for a while but believe some of the arguments have merit.

I have to agree with the writers that the improvements of 4e seemed to be eliminating things deemed "non-fun" rather thank think of new ways to add fun. Now, many of the problems I agree with, but many I do not.

There's also a bit of squeeky-wheel going on, with the people who complained loudest being heard in the changes over other more quiet fans.

4e's a good game but a poor role-playing game.

Every time I hear that, I'm tempted to ask: "have you actually tried roleplaying with it?

I also roleplayed in Monopoly (no, really, not joking ) but that does not make monopoly a role-playing game.

That's pretty much my point.
4e plays like a bastard-hybrid of a MMORPG, a board game, and the mini game.
The fact the revised miniature game plays almost identical is no coincidence.

Are we really discussing whether 4E is a real roleplaying game? I'm in the middle of a 4E game session as I write this. We're talking in character and everything. That part of the game, at least, hasn't changed in the slightest.

Again, being able to role-play and a game being accessible or complimentary for role-playing are two different things.

You can break out the in-character stuff for multiple sessions and not make a single die roll. But you also won't earn an ounce of experience unless the DM adds a house rule. You won't advance at all by the game's system of progress.
Most role-playing heavy RPGs (Storyteller system springs to mind) tend to have some rules element to reward RPing.

4e does have some concessions for non-combat: the still-broken and flawed Skill Challenge system, and the Quest Reward system. The former pretty much makes skills and non-combat into combat, while the latter is pretty much a more regimented story award system.

[DocBeard]

4e does have some concessions for non-combat: the still-broken and flawed Skill Challenge system, and the Quest Reward system. The former pretty much makes skills and non-combat into combat, while the latter is pretty much a more regimented story award system.

That's a bit of a 'damned if you do' sentiment there, Jester. I mean, like, leaving skill stuff up to the DM and players is not supporting roleplaying, but having crunch around skills is turning non-combat RP into combat RP. So what's the answer besides, "You are wrong."?

[Jester of the FoS]

4e does have some concessions for non-combat: the still-broken and flawed Skill Challenge system, and the Quest Reward system. The former pretty much makes skills and non-combat into combat, while the latter is pretty much a more regimented story award system.

That's a bit of a 'damned if you do' sentiment there, Jester. I mean, like, leaving skill stuff up to the DM and players is not supporting roleplaying, but having crunch around skills is turning non-combat RP into combat RP. So what's the answer besides, "You are wrong."?

It's the presentation.

Situations like negotiation (see the example skill challenge in the DMG) suddenly become "I roll Diplomacy checks" until you reach a critical mass of successes.
Mechanically, I like the idea of being able to reward the PCs for skills, however, the experience rewarded is inherently less than that of a combat challenge.

The suffers also suffers all the same flaws as the Diplomacy skill in 3e. It's 100% mechanical with the DM holding sole responsibility for establishing role-playing and no benefits for acting out your diplomatic session rather than just dropping a die.

And the DMG, the big guide on how to BE a good Dungeon Master has no real information on roleplaying encounters or scenes. No advice on what makes a good scene or how to plan one. The only real advice on that atre on pages 23 (1/4 of a page) and page 117 (just under half) with most of those sections relegating to memorable NPCs.
Likewise the PHB has a sad amount of information on making a personality and role-playing (see pages 18, 23-24).

[Mortavius]

I agree with you Jester, that as presented, the rules are just rolling dice till you win.

But D&D as a complete whole, is what YOU make it. This has been true of the game since its inception. No matter what edition you look at it, it's what the players and DM bring to the table that makes the game fun. No amount of different editions will change that.

I see what you're saying about skill challenges. I had the same feelings. So I livened them up. I told my PCs that these certain skills were the primary skills in the challenge, but if they could think of an inventive way to use another skill, lay it on me. And I found my PCs responding.

One thing I have to note though; you indicated that the XP bonus for skill challenges was less than a combat encounter. This is untrue. Many of the modules have a skill challenge wherein if the PC's fail at the challenge then they have to fight the monster in question. Either way, the XP is the same. If they win the skill challenge they get to avoid the fight and get the same rewards. If they fail, they get the same rewards, but they have to fight the monster for them.

Back in 3E, with the Diplomacy thing, I gave my PC's bonuses and penalties to the die rolls depending on what they said when they roleplayed the encounters.

Were these houserules? Yep. (Although I'm sure that last example made it into some later 3E modules.) But 3E wasn't perfect. And as much as I like it, 4E isn't perfect either. Way back when I played 2E I had houserules too, that made the game more fun, at least for my group (an old idea I had about changing level draining to something much like 3E comes to mind).

Has anyone on these boards really played D&D in any edition and not tweaked a rule or implemented some house rule for the benefit of the people playing? I'd be really surprised if anyone here could truthfully say they have.

[Isabella]

I see what you're saying about skill challenges. I had the same feelings. So I livened them up. I told my PCs that these certain skills were the primary skills in the challenge, but if they could think of an inventive way to use another skill, lay it on me. And I found my PCs responding.

Heck, that one is even in the 4e books.

"When a player participates in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it."

Then they wreck it and discourage alternate primary skills, and then turn around again and say:

"Always keep in mind that players can and will come up with ways to use skills you do not expect. Stay on your toes, and let whatever improvised skill uses they come up with guide the rewards and penalties you apply afterward. Remember that not everything has to be directly tied to the challenge. Tangential or unrelated benefits, such as making unexpected allies from among the duke’s court or finding a small, forgotten treasure, can also be fun."

The latter paragraph gives me the feeling that Skill Challenges could be a whole lot more exciting than most people have managed to do with them.

I'm not sure what to think of Skill Challenges. I have problems with them as well, but it seems some of the time it had nothing to do with the presentation or the challenge - it was due to the players absolutely refusing to engage with the mechanic. I've seen skill challenges both turn into blah rollfests and ones that really succeeded, and the difference didn't seem to be anything the GMs did. Just one player really got into it, and before we knew it we had a complicated bridge of ropes that we were weaving across a series of ceiling rings, and a rather silly plan where we threw our wild mage across the pit and threw a rock at him so he could use his encounter power and teleport. It was ridiculous and never would have worked in reality, and it was one of the most fun things we ever did.

I think in the end, the real mistake WotC made was saying to tell the players how the Skill Challenge worked when it started. I see why they did it - the avoid the opposite problem of the players freezing like deer in the headlights out of indecision over what to do, but it seems to just make our PCs brains shut down when they realize they don't have to be creative. They tried something new, it had it's problems. But I'm really not certain what other systems people are referencing that has anything in it aside from "roll until you win, or have the GM decide you've won", one way or the other.

[Jester of the FoS]

I see what you're saying about skill challenges. I had the same feelings. So I livened them up. I told my PCs that these certain skills were the primary skills in the challenge, but if they could think of an inventive way to use another skill, lay it on me. And I found my PCs responding.

One thing I have to note though; you indicated that the XP bonus for skill challenges was less than a combat encounter. This is untrue. Many of the modules have a skill challenge wherein if the PC's fail at the challenge then they have to fight the monster in question. Either way, the XP is the same. If they win the skill challenge they get to avoid the fight and get the same rewards. If they fail, they get the same rewards, but they have to fight the monster for them.

To get any significant reward for a skill challenge you really need to have a Complexity 5 challenge, which awards xp equal to a fight.
Only it's a fight where you have to miss less than 3 times, and if you fail you get no experience. Unlike most fights where you'd get some experience for the effort and monsters defeated.
From a risk/reward perspective, it's almost easier to flub the skill challenge and face the monster where there are fewer penalties for failure/partial success. And for low-complexity skill challenges the follow-up fights would be a breeze for a full party.

It also inherently assumes a party of 5 PCs. My group of 6 cannot get a full encounter's worth of xp from a skill challenge.
Which also means I'm handing-out some extremely strange numbers for experience totals. Skill challenges in general tend to result in fractioning xp (rounded down of course to cost the PCs even more hard-earned experience).

I'm also disappointed they haven't released all the new/revised skill challenge rules that have popped-up in the magazines. They'd be really handy for non-subscribers to have.

I also find the design tenant of not hinging plot advancement to success difficult/ awkward. Regardless of what you do the end result is fairly static adding an inherent railroad effect. "The plot has you getting to the lair, so your efforts automatically succeed. The only difference is if you fight something before or after".