I know that this here site has been somewhat content-lighter lately. Summer has arrived and I start to feel the pull for other evening activities than blogging.
Also, since I don’t have a game going anymore, gone are the periodic DM logs or Game Prep posts. There’s nothing to be worried about, just a more infrequent stream of RSS feeds from your neighborhood Chatty DM.
While I’m at it, why don’t you have a look at my latest guest post over at Geek’s Dream Girl.
All right, time for another little debate!
The 4th edition of the World’s Most Popular Roleplaying game has embraced Action Roleplaying as its most basic philosophy. It’s all about the encounter (mostly combat) and their resolution in the most entertaining way possible.
This double focus on Action and the ‘fun’ that must be derived from it is apparent in all parts of the game’s design. From the ton of powers available to players during Character Generation/Leveling up, in rules that try to foster speedier resolutions, in the actual DMing tips that support this playstyle to the somewhat minimalist designs of monsters in the Monster Manual.
Let’s be honest here, D&D has always had the potential to be all about action, but in editions prior to the third one, it was just one of the playstyles the game could easily embrace, especially in the 2nd edition. In fact the A D&D 2e Planescape campaign Setting repeatedly mentioned that Killing and Looting was not the ‘best way to play the game’ anymore.
My debate questions are thus:
- Is Action-Oriented Roleplaying game more likely to entice new Role players in the hobby?
- Can one have an immersive story-intense roleplaying expercience in a such a system?
- Do the rules that foster such action (Combat, skill challenges) act as a barrier preventing immersion to a certain degree? (or: Can you Roll-Play and Role play at the same time?)
- Do other action oriented system (like Savage Worlds and maybe Burning Wheel) have the same features and barriers?
My take on it:
Action oriented Roleplaying games are the best entry-level systems for new players. The designers of D&D 4e were going after a new market nd time will tell how succesful they’ll be. I predict that we’ll see significantly more new players with the release of the ‘Starter Game’ in large-chain bookstores later this year.
As one learns the many specific rules around an action-based (tactical) Roleplaying game, the mechanics take center stage and pretty much occludes Story-driven method acting. As the rules get mastered, action scene accelerate and players who enjoy this type of gaming immerse themselves in this action. Battle moves and stunts may start getting described outside of mere mechanical constructs and players may start quipping NPCs and each others.
However, as any modern action film can attest, an action scene is all about the action and the special effects. The story more or less grinds to a halt for that Chase in the markets of Marrakesh or that fisticuff with the Ogre-Sized Nazi underneath a parked bomber plane.
To that effect I believe that D&D’s approach to Core Game action rules will tend to squelch role-playing in favour of Roll-playing in most player types. As anything else about RPGs, I find it a perfectly valid way of playing a game.
I believe that this is a conscious design/business decision. The Core Game is mostly only about action and conflicts and straight up go-beat-the-bad-guys heroics. Later products will likely explore wider possibilities and playstyles.
That’s why I hope that later campaign settings will, like A D&D 2e, explore the game’s potential outside of relentless action and mayhem.
Sound Off
The difference from a MMORPG experience and a table-top experience is the ability to have a blast out of combat. I don’t think new gamers will be especially drawn to D&D by the combat, but that’s not to say they won’t enjoy it. They definitely will. However, the role-playing aspect and freedom of imagination is (or I feel, ought to be) the selling point. That said, 4e provides a great roll-based out-of-combat system: the new encounter challenges. If the new players aren’t comfortable yet with more free-form role-playing, make even small encounters challenges. The DM ought to role-play the results of the rolls, thus encouraging the new players to look beyond the dice.
Yes, the book is packed full of rules for action scenes, from combat to collapsing cliffs to chase scenes. In my opinion, that is the section of the game play that requires complex rules.
If the designers had put an extra five pages of “high concept” blather about “free form roleplay” and “interactive theatre” before the cuurent skill chapter in the 4E PHB… well, you’d have had a skill system not to disimilar to White Wolf’s 1E WoD. Yet one is routinly praised as the ultimate in arsty-fartsy intense freeform roleplaying expercience, the other mocked as kick-in-the-door munchkinism. Why?
Limited choice of skills? Characters with super powers? Character whos main concern is advancment? Little to no guidelines for setting skill target numbers? The longest chapter in the book is character classes and/or kewl powerz?
From a technical standpoint, there isn’t much different in the rules of “role play” between the two systems core books. (1st ed. VtM or WtA compared to 4E PHB). The biggest difference between the two is that White-Wolf hammered their default setting and background into every page, every rule, every bit of fluff. WotC has rather kindly left out almost any assumptions about the settings, and the half-dozen references to an estalished world are easily altered.
They’ve made D&D into the penultimate freeform RPG! My immersive story-intense roleplaying expercience is going to come from the story, not from tracking my social standing points or my morality/ethics points. When the story calls for my character to be tempted by the promise of evil (the darkside has cookies!) then it will be a roleplaying expercience to resist or succumb to it.
I don’t need rules to roleplay. I do need rules to roll during play.
Yes, the archetypial story told in D&D is kill the monsters, take their stuff. So what? Why can’t you make a good story out of that? It worked for the Odyssey, Beowulf, The Hobbit, Pirates of the Carribean, Indiana Jones, and Kingdom of Heaven….
I’m terribly addicted to the tactical RPG genre of video games (FF Tactics et al) so for me 4th Ed is perfect. I can pretty much run the surrounding play in freeform (or free to make up whatever rules I like) and then I have the tactical combat engine for those set-piece encounters. While I’m not sure I consider “action” to be the foundation of my campaign, it’s is for sure one of the supporting walls.
Hmmmm. Good questions.
> Is Action-Oriented Roleplaying game more likely to entice new Role players in the hobby?
Possibly, though I think Wizards’ have gone about it in entirely the wrong way. You won’t tempt MMORPG gamers away from the consoles and keyboard by trying to simulate what they’ve already got in a far more attractive, less expensive and simpler form.
On the contrary, it’s more likely to get existing D&D’ers (such as your goodself!) looking at WoW again with fresh eyes and spending more time (and therefore, money) playing that instead. Bad move, Wizards’ – you’ve made a product designed to facilitate consumer shift.
But yes, Action is important in a role-playing game and that means the combat and resolution mechanics should be fast-paced, flexible and reward heroic, cinematic play. Rather than providing a list of powers that’s lifted straight out of an MMORPG it should have a system that encourages players to invent their own cool moves so they can do things that are impossible in a computer-controlled environment. 4e fails in that respect but (by comparison) Mutants & Masterminds suceeds brilliantly – in that game players are downright TOLD to use their super-powers in wild and clever ways, and are rewarded for doing so.
> Can one have an immersive story-intense roleplaying expercience in a such a system?
In such a system, yes. But 4e D&D isn’t that system. There’s too big a disjoint (in our experience, anyhow) between combat and the rest of the game. It’s like you’re playing two games at once – a role-playing game where you ARE the character, and a boardgame where that little biddy token is the character. My players are likening 4e D&D combat as some kind of mini-game that very, very good – but it’s not role-playing.
> Do the rules that foster such action (Combat, skill challenges) act as a barrier preventing immersion to a certain degree? (or: Can you Roll-Play and Role play at the same time?)
To an extent, all rules are a barrier to immersion by definition as they’re meta-game contructs that take you out of the imagined world and back into being just a bunch of geeks sat around a table. How much of a barrier they are depends on the rules’ complexity, the players’ familiarity and how much time is spent flicking through the rulebooks. As your mastery of the rules improves, the immersion improves though, and I’m hopeful that will happen with 4e.
In some ways, 4e is better than 3e in this respect as most of the rules the players need is right on the characters sheet, and the GM can handle the majority on the monsters without having to page-flick during combat. That’s a Very Good Thing indeed!
> Do other action oriented system (like Savage Worlds and maybe Burning Wheel) have the same features and barriers?
Yep, though some systems are definitely better than others. Rules-light systems that trust the GM (my own Microlite20 or RISUS) put up the fewest barriers as there’s not many rules to get in the way in the first place 🙂
Savage Worlds does a very good job once all of the players are familiar with its playstyle.
Perhaps the best barrierless system of all time was the original Traveller RPG. In this game all of the game stats were in-game values – a character’s UCP and skill rankings would appear on their CV, for example, the ship stats were exactly what the character would see on their terminals and the Universal World Profiles were entirely written in suitably hard sci-fi style. This made Traveller arguably the most immersive RPG of all time (to my mind, at least) 🙂
Awesome, the debate blasted off between me clicking on ‘publish’ and me getting to work!
@Rafe: One advantages of Tabletops over MMORPG is that you can set the pace of the action and interact more freely with your friends (unless you’re having a LAn Party and everyone sits around the same table).
While it’s a logical assumption that WotC was going after the MMO crowd I had the Collectible Card/Miniatures teenagers in mind. When such players want to explore outside of Yu Go Oh/ Maple Story/ Magic the Gathering, tabletop roleplaying games are one of the venues to explore.
There are a LOT of CCG players on the planet. Most of them, like MMO players, are used to plunking money on a regular basis on a game. D&D and what is supposed to become D&D insider is banking on that I believe.
D&D 4e’s exception based approach (as much as Greywulf hates it) is very friendly to CCG players. You can literally build your PC like a Deck/warband.
@Ish:
Therein lies the biggest divide between both ‘philosophies’. Some players loved what White Wolf did to bring the setting to life. Others (like myself) could not stomach so much fiction-like material in a rules book. I’m not sure you can strike a balance in the same game. I’m more like you and I prefer to make my own fluff… keeping fluff outside of the Core Book is a selling point for me.
I agree… although some very clever rules have been made to make roleplaying easier/better in later designs (mostly independent). Skill challenges, if fixed or re-explained correctly by WotC would be such a set of rules.
@Caid: Yeah, I loved FF tactics, and the rich story around it is a good example of what can be achieved. And since “on the fly” DMing is now better supported in 4e, you could have a campaign based on a similar premise, only less linear.
@Greywulf: As I said to Rafe, I doubt that MMORPG players have been targeted. Both activities are not exclusive.
As for the ‘too big disjoint’ do you believe it will remain so or that the divide can diminish as rules are better understood and your group starts bending the system’s possibilities (like creative uses of the Thunderwave power).
Funny you should mention Traveller. I was mostly put of this game exactly because it was too ‘thick’ in the genre to allow me a foothold in it. (Then again I was 14 when I looked at it).
Excellent points all.
In my experience, the rule lawyers and power gamers in my groups have never been very immersive. They often mentally skipped smalltalk between PCs and NPCs, for example. Sure, it’s always possible to use a miniature focused tactical rule set and not use it half the time as you immerse yourself in non-combat situations. But – as people like to say in usability testing – the rules “afford” (encourage, support, invite you to) combat, tactics, levelling up, and so on.
In my games, for example, I have a hard time steering my Monday group away from combat. The group consists of five players, three of which apparently embrace this game style. They like D&D, and they’d probably like 4E, too. I’m not sure whether they’d continue playing in a M20 or Risus game.
Thus, I suspect that 4E will attract the very people that like to play miniature tactics, the rules afford just that, and there will be a lot of self-selection such that group pressure will keep it that way. Even though it doesn’t have to be that way, I think it will mean that 3E and 4E even more so will always be strongly action oriented.
I’m not sure whether publishing a campaign setting that encourages a different style of play would be a good business move for Wizards. I suspect it would not.
Certain games lend themselves to certain styles of play, this is not a bug, but rather a feature. It is why we all have multiple games on our shelves after all.
I forget if it was here or over at Gnome Stew, but there was an excellent post about how the way the GM sets up the table has a big impact on how the plays perceive the game. If the players walk in to see a battlemap and lots of tokens/minis, then they will rightly expect/focus on combat. If the GM has lots of puzzle props and treasure map handouts, they will focus on the mystery and the riddles. And so on and so forth.
Given that 4E is, what, three weeks old? I think that a great deal of the perception of the game as “roll play,” “MMORPG,” “CCG,” or “war game” comes from this same effect. Over half the pages in the PHB are devoted to combat, powers, and feats; Skills, character description, and other “roleplay” bits get far less coverage.
Now, I’ve never bothered to count the pages, but I’d wager the ratio of “roll” vs “role” is about the same in the the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition Player’s Handbooks… Heck, compared to Pre-“A” versions of D&D, its probably got far more “fluff.”
But really, sometimes I think certain hobbyists just want D&D to do things it wasn’t intended to do. D&D is a swords and sorcery engine for telling swords and sorcery stories… These are stories that if not wholly about combat certainly feature it on a regular basis. The game assumes certain things, namely, that there will be swords, there will be sorcerors, and that there might even a few fire-breathing reptiles that dwell in underground structures.
If your group wants to tell a story about such things, then D&D4E is perfect for you. If that is not the type of tale you want to tell, then I have to ask why you picked up the book in the first place.
7th Sea is about swashbuckling pirates. M&M is about superheroes. Traveller is about spacemen in rocket ships. GURPS is (mostly) about simulationist modern day adventure. Blue Rose is about romance. D20 Modern is about cinematic modern day adventure. Paranoia is about… wait, you don’t have appropriate security clearance. Disregard.
Bottom line, I don’t think 4E is any better or worse at roleplaying than 3.x or any earlier edition of the game. Swords and sorcery as a genre has certain assumptions, D&D is built to reflect them.
I like the responses above, particularly Greywulf’s. Here’s my own stab at them:
Is Action-Oriented Roleplaying game more likely to entice new Role players in the hobby? I don’t think new players know enough about a game to pick based on something like this. A better question is whether action-oriented roleplaying will keep them after their first session… and, as ever, I suspect the GM and group are more important than the rule system.
Can one have an immersive story-intense roleplaying experience in a such a system? You certainly can, though you’re swimming against the current a bit. The rules do a good job of implying what you’re supposed to do, and your rewards are powers that make you better at combat. That certainly seems to guide you toward expecting combat to be the focus.
Do the rules that foster such action (Combat, skill challenges) act as a barrier preventing immersion to a certain degree? (or: Can you Roll-Play and Role play at the same time?) They aren’t barriers… but they do nudge you. If the game treats all challenges as equal (in system support, etc.), then you’ll have players who try lots of ways to accomplish their goals. [Previous game exposure can throw this off, of course.] If the game spends a lot of time making combat challenges fun, then people will try to solve problems the fun way.
Do other action oriented system (like Savage Worlds and maybe Burning Wheel) have the same features and barriers? They have similar features and barriers, though Burning Wheel’s barriers are higher in the character creation stage– but the work on Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits helps give the characters a good default personality that’s not purely combat oriented. (The Arthra rewards and Duel of Wits also steer you in a different direction.)
ScottMs last blog post..Valedemar: Winds and Storm Trilogies
Okay, answers first.
1) Yes. It requires less initial investment (mental, emotional), if you aren’t ready to give it.
2) Yes. Fuck yes. No mechanic can prevent roleplaying.
3) What Greywulf said. All rules do this, not just action-y rules.
4) *shrug*
Okay. Rant now.
We need to remove a term from our collective gaming vocabulary. That term is “roll play”.
First off, it’s a stupid term that doesn’t really mean anything. Second off, everybody who is “roll playing” is also roleplaying!
For fuck’s sake, people! This term is not the antonym to roleplay! It’s a stupid, pretentious term created by stupid, pretentious people for the sole purpose of talking down to a specific group of people, specifically those who enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game.
Let it die, people. And let the pompous jackasses who still demand we use the term fade into the background.
I am a gamer. I enjoy mechanics.
I am a roleplayer.
Fuck!
Very interesting questions. Here’s my take:
Yes. Yes it will. Action oriented console and PC games have been hitting the market hard and heavy over the last few years. If a P&P RPG can give them the same experience that they’re getting in a video game, a person will be more inclined to at least try it.
Yes. Of course, it still, and always has, depended on the players. But just because the setting is more “action-oriented,” that doesn’t mean it precludes anyone from trying to roleplay or a DM from creating a setting that the players can really sink their teeth in to.
Yes. I see skill challenges as a tool that actually fosters roleplaying. For example, in 3.5 there were a plethora of skills. I’ve had players who wanted to negotiate with an NPC. Instead of saying anything, they would just say “I roll a diplomacy check of X. What happens?” Now, a player would not be able to say that. They may say “I roll a diplomacy check of X. What happens?” but the other players have to do stuff too because of a) the high DC or b) they have to have more than one success to meet the challenge. So it fosters creativity in that respect. Another player may say, “Ok, I’m going to roll my Insight because I want to see if the diplomacy is working. If I don’t think it is, I’ll tell him to stop talking so as to not make things any worse.
I’m not sure about this, since I haven’t played those systems, but I truly believe that it doesn’t matter which system is used. If the players want to roleplay, they will.
Weee I took the super secret make Graham annoyed award. More on this below.
@Ish: Agreed on all accounts.
What I believe though is that pre-2e version of D&D had a bigger world exploration element. It was a lot about strange Dungeon rooms with tricks and traps, it was about political maneuvering the goblins against the kobolds to get to the hidden passageway to the next level.
While a lot or people have been using it to kill and loot (which is one hell of a fun way to play it) later versions of the game have made it more likely for PCs to survive a bit longer while doing this all the time.
@Graham: I agree that Roll-playing is a bad word. I don’t feel as strongly as you do about it because I give it no special/judging meaning. For me when you focus on the mechanical elements of a game and maintain your discussions at the level of the mechanics ‘I attack, I hit AC 21, I do 13 points of damage’ that’s what I define as roll-playing. It’s an easy play on words for me, nothing more.
However, as crunch-focused as I may be about a game, our best combats were the ones where we started being more graphic in explaining how some key mechanics translated in the actual situation the game portrayed… Describing exceedingly gory/awesome critical hits is one that comes to mind easily.
We remember how we disemboweled the King of Rats with a +2 dagger…. not that we rolled a 20 and scored 34 points of damage.
So yeah, help me define a term when you want to describe when you focus almost exclusively on mechanics for whatever reason… knowing you, you’ll answer “I call this playing the game”
Which is fine too… *Shrug* indeed.
@Tony: Good points. I really need to start reading more on successful uses of skill challenges. It’s one of the things I want to see work the most in 4e. God it kills me that this game got out just as my gaming group disbanded for the summer!
For me when you focus on the mechanical elements of a game and maintain your discussions at the level of the mechanics ‘I attack, I hit AC 21, I do 13 points of damage’ that’s what I define as roll-playing.
So we have two extremes.
‘I attack, I hit AC 21, I do 13 points of damage’
‘Farthun the barbarian swings his mighty axe, given to him by the dwarven king, and cleaves the goblin’s skull in twain. I hit AC 21, I do 13 points of damage.’
Which one is roleplaying?
Answer: both.
The second one is not more “roleplaying”, but is method acting. Method acting is not required for roleplaying at all. No acting is.
Let’s say that I’m a rather introverted player, who enjoys gaming, but I am not able to be “in character”, largely due to my introversion. I run my character. I play my role in the party. I don’t do much in the way of descriptive text.
Am I now not roleplaying? Am I not playing my character?
So yeah, help me define a term when you want to describe when you focus almost exclusively on mechanics for whatever reason… knowing you, you’ll answer “I call this playing the game”
I’d say “roleplaying”.
If you can’t call it that, then just “gaming”.
Fair enough… anyway, I remembered from a past post that a very large majority of RPGs sessions are about the DM/GM describing (at various levels of details) what happens and players playing the role. and sticking preety close to the mechanics…
If that’s how the majority is playing that game, I for one will never make a judgement on how ‘correct’ that play style is.
As for defining mechanics-prevalent gaming… I’ll stick to describing it in detail…
I’ve only read the post half-way through, so forgive me if I’m leaving something out or writing something that wouldn’t make sense having read the full post. I think no matter what system/edition one is playing, roleplaying encounters are always possible. I think rather than the rules determining weather RP encounters are viable or not, it is the choice of the GM. Rules can facilitate good RP encounters (like the skill challenges in 4ed) but ultimitly it falls upon the GM to create good RP situations.
Words are a clunky old thing, and I have never cared for the phrase “roll play” myself. But I think the debate over narrative description of actions versus mechanical descriptions (the above axe attack examples) is actually a red herring.
The focus is on what type of story you want to tell. There is no wrong way to tell a story, and no wrong story to tell… provided everyone in your group enjoys it. There, thats it, thats the Golden Rule of Hobby Gaming.
If your group enjoys kick-in-the-door, hack-and-slash… Then you would be bored to tears by an ultra-immersive, multi-faceted, high simulationist epic even if Neil Gaiman himself was your Game Master.
If you want an deeply psychological, character-driven romance or tragedy… your going to hate an action packed thriller even if John Woo was directing it with a $1,000,000 gift certificate to Weta Workshop to produce your minatures.
Neither one is “bad” or “wrong” roleplaying, they are just different styles of story and require different styles of storytelling. The mechanics of D&D4E neither hurt nor hinder either style of story.
On the surface, the D&D books may seem to tip the balance to “action” and “combat,” but as I said earlier, that is because one requires complex mechanical resolution… the other doesn’t.
Please note ScottM’s answer before Graham’s rant, I just unlocked it from my Anit-Spam.
I’d check your site Scott, that’s the second source that tells me that llama fodder might have something incubating in it.
Phooey– I guess it’s time to get serious about scrubbing it then. I’d hoped that my previous efforts had been enough, but no dice.
Just note to all that I am in the ‘you don’t need RPing rules to have some method acting level narratives’
While I want to explore more story-driven plots in my game, I’m not sure we can as a gaming group nor that we would particularly enjoy it.
D&D 4E is in my mind the first RPG that is truly screams action from all it’s pages (3.0 started the shift and we see it’s next iteration in 4e).
I recall reading a post about Gygax saying that 3.0 was a good action game but not what he saw what D&D should be… (What that may mean is material for another debate).
Today’s debates was about the relative merits of such the design choice behind the biggest dog in the yard. From what I read, the response is mostly yes, mitigated by personal preferences.
Gary Gygax had lots of opinions about what he though D&D should be, and where the game should go… However, his essays about 3.x fly in the face of his actual written output. Lejendary Journies and Castles & Crusades had no more mechanical incentive to do anything different with the story than AD&D or 3.x did. Not too mention, he spent an awful lot of time advancing the cause of 3.x with his column in WotC’s (pre-Paizo) Dragon.
I can also recall Gary bemoaning that AD&D was not what Dungeons and Dragons should be, which is one of the reasons why TSR had D&D and AD&D on the market at the same time.
Gygax was a great guy, but frankly, I give his opinion about what D&D should be as much weight as I give George Lucas when deciding what my Star Wars game should be.
“Gary, you made us all nice hobby. Thanks. Now hand me my DM Screen, grab some dice, and roll up a character. I’ll take it from here.”
@Ish: Hey, I’m not going to hold a few inconsistencies against Grandaddy Gygax. I mean I still read the 1e DMG to get regular dose of just that!
(Actually my stance on his input to the genre are similar to what I think about Tolkien and Herbert, they created Genres, other took the genre and improved on it to something I have an easier time with).
I’ll let the guy rest in peace and thank him for creating the hobby that makes me write these lines.
True enough, I myself hope to be able to sit at the man’s table for a game or two when I shuffle off from this Prime Material Plane. I didn’t intend to knock the man, just point out that his should not be considered the definitive word on the subject.
It’s all good Ish, I gathered as much.
I’m not sure I would LIKE playing at Gary’s table… I’d probably bore him to tears with my cautiousnesses and Method acting antics and get killed by a pile of Rock-shaped poisonous scorpions.
Like I said, a game or two…. Then its off to find J.R.R. Tolkien’s game table… Hey, it is paradise, right?
Graham makes me giggle.
I’m going to tackle this debate from my Noobie Perspective:
1. First, I think new players would have to realize it was action oriented for this to be debatable. The game still involves sitting around a table, doing math, and reading words for actions and then trying to picture that action in your mind. I do not necessarily see rolling the die to see what happens as what might constitute as “action” particularly in the minds of the young video game gen people they are likely targeting. That kind of player is going to think, hum, sit around the table for 2 hours just trying to make up a damned character to play, or pick up a controller and blow stuff up…
There is also the issue of finding other people to play with, finding someone to lead, and the stigma attached to playing games of this type (uber nerd, or practicing warlock damned to hell). I think these things will factor in more heavily than this so-called action based system.
I think the bigger selling point of the new version is the fact while still complex, many things have been simplified in order to provide new guys an entry point into the game but that said I believe it will continue to attract the same type of people it attracted in previous versions.
2. Once people have the core mechanics down roleplay is bound to happen. I also think it is the role of the GM to assist in this by making playing around with the flavor text and maybe voice acting the NPCs – lead by example. The rules just provide a general structure for the players to build upon.
3. This goes back to the answer to question 2 really. Sure, it could happen. You could sit around and just roll the die, yeah you hit, okay, now you hit again. You could. I do not see that as a fault with the system. Again, I think there is a lot the GM could do to coax players away from that kind of playing. I also think that players have responsibility here in keeping the game from being just a matter of unending rolls – you get out what you put in.
4. I don’t know anything about these games and therefore cannot comment.
Heathers last blog post..Life: Our Neighbors Are Harboring An Elephant
I’ve gotta agree with what seems to be the majority opinion here. 4E’s focus on action doesn’t detract from roleplaying or storytelling; if anything, it gives the DM and the players more freedom to do so. Outside of combat, skill challenges are a great balance between rolling dice and roleplaying (at least, as I’ve used them; lots of bonuses for doing cool or inventive things), and in battle, the DM has tons of freedom to whip up cool, dramatic enemies that would require a ton of work and balancing to create in 3E.
I think the emphasis that 4E puts on its default “world” is its biggest limitation. Despite what’s claimed in the DMG, it’s a very limiting setting, both due to the crapsack world and the insistence that every town or village should have some “fantastic” element to it. I’m sorry, Wizards of the Coast, but that’s not how I roll. Considering how vitally important this setting is supposed to be to 4E, it can be intimidating to say “nope, I’m not doing that” (at least, it was for me) and just take what you want. And even when you get over this hesitance, there’s a lot of holes in the fluff and crunch that you’ve got to fill.
So, yeah. Crunch-wise, I don’t think 4E’s action-orientedness limits a group’s ability to tell an epic story. Fluff-wise, not so much.
Kavondes last blog post..Blatant, but awesome, filler.
…… so Gygax and Tolkien are playing D&D in heaven with Robert Asprin and Douglas Adams when Arthur C Clarke drops a crystal skull dice thrower on the table and asks to join in.
Man, /that/ would be some game!
CDM, I’m not sure about 4e being “the first RPG that is truly screams action from all it’s pages “. Heck, huge chunks of the PHB just shout “repetitive boring Powers listing”. I reckon other games can claim the all-action accolade – Toon, d20 Modern, Marvel Superheroes, M&M, the Warhammer RPG, the orginal Judge Dredd RPG and even the much loved Paranoia (among many others) were all about action first and foremost. In contrast, 4e is just pushin’ figures round a battlemat 🙂
Graham makes me giggle.
Hooray!
My work here is done. 😀
4e is a soulless shell of a game meant to lure MMORPG’ers into the pen and paper hobby. My group tried for three weeks to run Keep on the Shadowfell and we got through the first encounter and some time in Winterhaven. Try as I might the players just drifted off to talk about other stuff and avoided started the actual sessions until late in the evening. Last week I said screw it and offered to go back to playing our Ptolus campaign. Boy, did the character sheets come flying out and the table was abuzz with discussion of the last things we had done 10 months ago that they remembered fondly.
For our group, 4e just doesn’t cut it. It’s a B-level action movie with no soul. I condemn it back to the previously viewed (not so much enjoyed) shelf of my library perhaps to be dusted off another day.
Deadshots last blog post..4e – One Player’s View
What got me into D&D was the combination or Role play and the action with the Roll-Play. I agree that action-role play is good to start acclumating in new players and they will eventually get into the role playing, but making a system where it almost all about teh action may not be a good thing.
Joeys last blog post..Dragons! – Part 3 – Encounter of the Good Kind
As far as the ability to roleplay in such a roll-focused system goes, I believe it’s entirely possible to have a solid roleplaying experience in this system, just as much as it was possible to run a very crunchy game in 3e…the result is entirely dependent on the DM and the players, however…
I’m trying to create as immersive a game as possible, so I’m running 4e w/o minis, using blank office paper with freehand drawings most of the time, and converting over to graph paper for large combats that require it…this forces the players to rely a lot heavier on their imagination and sparks more creativity as a result…mind you, we still run a very crunchy game, but that’s just how the group is…
I think when all the tools in the toolbox look like a hammer, then most of your problems will look like nails.
Am I limited in the stories I can tell with 4E? No, but certainly some stories are far more difficult to tell than they previously were.
I don’t know that I buy the argument that D&D wasn’t meant to tell certain stories– I have supplements for 2E that give guidance for creating a viking campaign, a campaign set in charlemagne’s era, a pirate-based campaign, asian-oriental adventure style campaigns…I’d read about Roman Republic era campaigns thick with politics, tradition, duty, honor… Maybe I’m the grognard who has been tinkering with the old engine so long I can tell what’s wrong by the feel of the vibration, but I really don’t agree that you can’t tell fun swashbucking-political-romance-sci-fi-western-ninja-vampire stories within the D&D system. D&D in it’s older incarnations was flexible enough to handle these genres and gave you suggestions on how to go about doing so. There were certainly aspects you’d need to create yourself in the 1/2E timeframe (Unless you snagged the proper Judges Guild/Flying Buffalo/Other Supplement and shoehorned…a legitimate choice!), but as we entered the wide open space of the OGL and 3E, wow, the options became many and all system compatible! That was the strength of 3E– it could handle the variety of playstyles without exclusion. Your table of combat smashers could talk to your table of politicos and speak a very related lingua franca of d20.
4E… not so much. Some will say, “The absence of rules frees you!” Others say, “The abundance of combat defines gameplay!” There’s truth in both statements, but that freedom isn’t going to be recognized unless the table is sophisticated enough to set their DCs on the fly, to generate their skill challenges in the absence of a lucid rules section, to basically operate around the void of tools that 4E has for serious RP. Sure, the absence means you can jujitsu the game into whatever you need RP-wise, but where are the cool new toys to augment the RP? Where are the storyhooks built into character creation that grow throughout the character’s career, that matter as much at level 10 as they did at level 1? The designers worked very hard to make sure that combat was *always* fun, but they glossed over providing the same tools for RP, and that’s my biggest complaint.
Can I create the stories I want to tell in 4E? Sure. Can I do it without a lot of prep-time on my part, given the current ruleset and the more social-political-combat balanced playstyle I enjoy? As I said…Not so much.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
@Ben –
While, yes, you could run those sort of games with older editions, how many of the changes were crunch, and how many were fluff? 99% of the things you needed to change were fluff.
As such, I just don’t see how 4e’s crunch (or any game system’s mechanics) prevents running that sort of game. Just add the fluff, exactly as you did with 1e/2e/3e.
Where are the storyhooks built into character creation that grow throughout the character’s career, that matter as much at level 10 as they did at level 1? The designers worked very hard to make sure that combat was *always* fun, but they glossed over providing the same tools for RP, and that’s my biggest complaint.
Where were these in 1e/2e/3e? They didn’t exist there, except in fluff, and possibly in supplements. Faulting the core 4e rules for not including them is like faulting your new car for not coming with a jet engine built in, when you had modified your old car to have one.
As for glossing over RP tools, the 4e DMG has far more tools for this sort of thing than the core 3e books had combined. The only thing that the 3e books really had over 4e in this regard was the Profession skill.
> As such, I just don’t see how 4e’s crunch (or any game system’s mechanics) prevents running that sort of game. Just add the fluff, exactly as you did with 1e/2e/3e.
Kinda, but the crunch in 4e is much closer tied to Wizards’ perceptions about what is D&D’s baseline than ever before. We’ve got stuff in Core (Dragonborn and Eldarin, I’m looking at you) that’s likely to be tossed for many homebrew campaigns, and stuff that missing (Barbarian! Monk!) that would be darned useful far more frequently. I’d much, much rather have more classes & Powers and fewer, less campaign-specific races in the PHB. Stick ’em in the MM with the rest 🙂
Sure, you could run a 4e D&D campaign straight from the core rules that’s based on the Vikings, Crusades, Dark Sun, Planescape or whatever, but once you’ve taken out the stuff that’s not applicable to your worldview you’ll be left with precious little character variety due to the pitifully few Powers each class has to choose from right now, especially at 1st level.
For example, last night I generated an Eldarin (nerfed to Daily use Fey Step) Wizard. Choosing his Powers and Rituals was almost laughable – NOTHING fitted my character concept. Picking 2 Daily Powers out of a list of…. uhhh…. 5? OH PLEASE!
4e good, PHB complete joke.
Rant over 🙂
As I just posted, a lot of people seem to be missing the point that Wizard left things out of the Core book on purpose to sell more books of fan-expected stuff later.
The PHB is about martial, Divine and Arcane heroes and is only the first of many many many books.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad decision… But that’s the one they took.
Plus I have seen no one at WotC saying that D&D 4e will allow you to make all characters you want right outside of the Core Book. GURPS and Heroes this game ain’t… So far.
From that point of view, I’m happy and actually a bit surprised of the amount of things that are in the Core books.
I understand your point Greywulf, but I’m willing to bet that Wizards skill at Buisness poker is accurate.
@Graham: RE: 1/2E … *blink* no, we used some amount of crunch that we designed– stuff that augmented off the etiquette NWP, that dealt with language and situational modifiers, things learned in adventures. There were followers, there were apprentices, there were a number of hints you could steal out of the old module _Test of the Warlords_, out of the Companion Rules, out of a number of small supplements that detailed running games in particular periods. Suffice it to say, I did not simply run a fluff-oriented socio-political aspect.
RE: 3E? OMG, there’s _Dynasties and Demagogues_, from Atlas Games. and the various feats for working with Diplomacy… even PHBII had rules for turning Diplomacy into a more clever tool with master manipulator.
And storybuilding hooks? In Unearthed Arcana that could build on flaws, but Prestige Classes were *supposed* to be completely storybuilding hooks if used properly– these organizations that build up specific skills, powers, histories. And the organizations from DMGII? Leadership encouraged the cohort and the followers– that created whole stories of acquisition, assistance; involving the character in a community. The training suggestion put characters in the position of finding experts to teach feats and spells. The tools were *legion*.
And I can certainly critique 4E for not having more– they had 3 years to realize where the storybuilding tools were missing. They told me in at least one excerpt/preview that there *would* be new tools. Aside from skill challenges (which I can fully slap my palm to my forehead and say, “well, duh!, of course they’re being integrated into my 3E game) what do they provide? Pawning it to the setting rules does us no good– there’s no setting to draw from. I’m sincere in this request: What do they provide for storybuilding in 4E?
All I’m seeing is the reduction of tools. The elimination of PrCs. The elimination of Leadership. There are 4 non-combat feats from levels 1-10. None for the paragon or epic tiers. Perhaps rituals? (I consider that kind of a cheat as it chews up our previous extended spell list) That’s bringing me up empty for the PHB.
The DMG gives us some of the Robin Laws material, good…but that’s player management, not storybuilding. Important, but not going to help build stories, it’s going to keep them on track. Chapter 2 is good on the tactical level of running a session, but where’s the strategic level of creating a campaign? 18 pages on combat encounters. 18 pages on building combat encounters. Twenty-three on noncombat, and seven of them are a trap monster manual. Then, 94 pages in, we get to the adventures– you don’t think this might have come after the part on play styles? And it’s 24 pages, but again, focused on the tactical single session and not the strategic longer arc. There are nine pages on running campaigns, and even then, you’re not looking at tools for improving that process, only aspects of each one….
Like I said, if you’ve got tools in there, I’d love to know what I’m missing. Right now it feels bare-bones, less than I had in 3E. I think they should have distilled the finest points of 3E and included new tools, that’s how you grab new people and win over your existing base.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
That remains to be seen, but I’m unconvinced. The trick with Poker is not to be blatant about your strategy, and the PHB positively smacks of “we’re limiting the game ‘cos we know you’re gullible fools who will buy more”. I don’t like that.
Also, having the most used Core Rule book being – as you admit – downright new player unfriendly means that I reckon there’s going to be a lot of consumer dropoffs after the initial purchase of the Core Rules. Folks are going to buy this new thing called 4e D&D, feel hopelessly lost and shove the books on eBay or onto their shelves to be forgotten.
Two things Wizards’ aren’t great at is marketing and software (neither should they be!), and with 4e they’re trying to do both at the same time. Big mistake.
greywulfs last blog post..FightClub: 4e. Made for Arena Combat? Oh yes!
I can’t disagree much, except I think they are better at Poker than we think.
As Monte Cook pointed out in a recent blog post, non D&D players do not know about the new edition. Most of the market are not Internet Savvy. Barnes and Nobles or whatever large chain bookstores are popular in the UK are those that will sell 4e.
I think the June Launch was actually aimed at D&D 3.X players.
As such, I think WotC is going for a second wave to market with their entry-level Starter Game.
I’m just not sure it will be enough to get new players to grok the PHB.
You need a the game system to contain math to tell you how good of a leader you are? Well, good news it Leadership as a feat shouldn’t be difficult at all to port over…. However, from my side of the table, Leadership always seemed like a kludge. If your character concept and your actions in game would mean you attract a loyal following then you should. That’s roleplaying, if you ask me, whereas having a bit of mechanical information on your sheet is roll play (god, i hate that term.)
Third-party supplements (Dynasties and Demagogues), late edition supplemental rules (Unearthed Arcana), or books designed specifically to alter the game’s genre and play style (A Mighty Fortress, Testament, Planescape, Savage Coast) all strike me as hardly fair means to compare the style of the 4E PHB and every other edition.
It’s the main, default, baseline book for main, default, baseline D&D…. and once you get past the aesthic differences (Dragonborn, Warlords) you’ll find it isn’t too different from any other PHB. Yes, there are no monks… I recall hordes of hair-shirted grognards bemoaning the _inclusion_ of monks and barbarians in 3E.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
D’accord à tous les niveaux Ish.
While I concede 100% that 4e is not for all D&D gamers, some of the reactions are definitively a product of the Nostalgia Filter and insanely high expectations for the game.
Ben is right in that D&D could have had a few of the more modern techniques/rules for more story-oriented gaming. While it does spring forth naturally in some group, it could have been a nice introduction to a different play style. On top of it all, designers like Mike Mearls and Keith Baker are proponents of richly described, fluffed up games…
But I think they wisely chose not to impose this on the game and gave the tools to allow us to grow them.
I am, myself, a big believer in richly described, fluffed up settings. However, D&D has always been a game where the setting and the mathematics are seperate entities. Had WotC folded a setting into the core rules, the hue and cry from the grognards would have been just as vocal – possibly moreso.
If our hobby is going to be subject to this edition war every ten years, and I think it is unavoidable, I’d just like to establish a basic ground rule. The X Edition core rules should be weighed against the Y Edition core rules, not the supplemental material… be it supplemental mathematics or supplemental prose. And yes, I promise to be singing the same song when 5th Edtion is released.
D&D’s core has always been a toolbox; a book of mathematics that you dress up with your own stories. D&D’s supplements have always skewed towards supplemental prose… 3.x was unique in that is had so much more add-on mathematics (PrCs, Epic Levels, 25+ new “base” classes, etc.).
Is the 3.x PHB any more or less “freindly” to a complete new hobbyist? I’d wager it is a good deal more confussing. Eleven classes, all of which can be combined; character powers, skills, feats, and combat tactics scattered amongst eight different chapters (and THREE books)… and thats just with the core rules!
Roleplaying games are a tricky hobby, and any new hobbyist is best served by joining an existing group. Thus has it always been.
These aren’t insanely high expectations. This isn’t nostalgia. I’m not pining for my quivering palm, my cavalier, kits, my undermountain, any of it…
I want the game to encourage more than one playstyle. It always has. I can do Cthulhu, Eberron, Modern, Conan, M&M, Fading Suns, D&D, all with D&D and d20 without too much in the way of modification.
I want the game to grow and take advantage of the last *8 years* of design in d20– incorporate some of the other ideas for playstyles out there. Something. Anything. All of that newer material was obviously known to the designers, they don’t operate in a void. They should have taken a cue from the breadth of available material, and incorporated the choicest bits. We deserve that sort of growth, don’t we?
@Ish: I don’t need mechanics. However. It can speed things, it can help the improvisationally challenged. It can inspire the free-wheeler. A framework can allow for a lot of springboard; asking for a little something isn’t one type of play or another, it’s guidance. Proper guidance only improves play.
And of course I can compare all of 3E to 4E. That’s the option I have, don’t I? I can play with a fully loaded toolchest to design whatever story I want… or, I can play with a very limited toolchest. Saying I need to wait 4 to 6 months to tell something that’s already done better and more completely in _Exalted_ is not a very good deal.
And @Chatty, I politely pose the question again:
What tools?
If they’re there, and they’re good faith quality tools, then I take my crow four-and-twenty and baked in a pie. I’m the first to admit when I’m quite obviously missing something. But first, you have to show them to me.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
Ah lively debate is achieved.
Ish, you’ll get along fine with Graham in the camp of the Brutally honest but practical.
Ben, I wasn’t targeting you with the Nostalgia Filter comment (and I’m sorry if it came off thus). I found it covers a lot of the knee jerk reaction I’ve seen on the web so far…
Actually on some sites, it starts to feel like a Star Wars fan argument…
We spoke at length about your misgivings about the game and I understand your position, we agreed to disagree on a few things and I’m way cool with that.
I still believe your are being a bit unfair about what to expect about a just released core game but I concede, again that it could have used a few more pages of story-helping tools (skill challenges is one such tool but they rolled a one on the writing).
In fact I did try to answer you question here:
I’ll say that I should have said ‘some’ instead of a few more… There are short personality tips in the RPGs and ways of putting non combat encounters in the adventuring section, but nothing groundbreaking.
@Ben: You seem to be missing my point. Cthulhu, Eberron, Modern, Conan, M&M, and Fading Sun we all either supplemental material or wholly new games. The 3.x Player’s Handbook _alone_ was not enough to run any one of those games. Eberron and Conan rewrote classes, races, feats, and skills. Cthulhu, Modern and Fading Sun tossed just about everything except the most basic mathematics out the airlock. M&M? It chucked everything!
These are all fun games and fun settings, but but they are not core D&D, and never were in the past.
Eberron and Conan should be more than easy enough to do. For Conan, bar any PC race beyond Human, discourage spellcasters, and encourage everyone to play things very moody and grim. Eberron, well, I’ll admit I was never an aficinado, but I believe WotC has already posted some Dragon content for 4E Eberron, and the book is due out soon. But Warforged on in the MM, airships should be easy to handwave, and most Dragonmarks could be turned in Enouncter or Daily powers available as feats (c.f. Channel Divinity).
The best part of this hobby, to me, has always been the nigh indestructible nature of the material. I’ve used D&D 1st edition modules for AD&D2e or 3E campaigns. I’ve run Gamma World scenarios for Rifts adventures. Heck, with a good deal of time with a Baby Names Book I transported a L5R scenario into a Deadlands D20 oneshot.
Mathematics changes, but never really that much. Prose is nigh immortal.
After thinking about it, I think that’s a lot of the debate.
1e and 2e adventures were often a lot like a very detailed disarming of a large and complex trap. Searching for traps every step, random stuff happening for no telegraphed reason, etc.
3e Didn’t break completely with the past, but did put more emphasis on the characters and their development, with strong guidelines to challenge the players rather than just coming up with a sandbox world and letting the PCs stumble into too difficult or too easy things by chance.
4e continued the trend; rather than “solving” the dungeon, the dungeon’s more a backdrop for cool action scenes. The emphasis is on letting the PCs struggle and shine, not illuminating the GM’s brilliance.
ScottMs last blog post..Hello world!
“Is Action-Oriented Roleplaying game more likely to entice new Role players in the hobby?”
I think there is a myth at play here. It goes like this: A significant number of people grab an RPG from a store and start/try to play. From my experience, almost all roleplayers were mentored by existing ones. (But I am quite young, so there may be a lot of older, completely self-taught rpers around.)
People inherit their style from their group. Some change it, some refine, some stick with it. The game that is played influences the style of play, so D&D being action-adventure is significant factor in making all roleplaying look like action-adventure.
“Can one have an immersive story-intense roleplaying expercience in a such a system?”
Yes. System does matter, but ignoring the written rules and focusing elsewhere is easy. Changing the written rules is a time-honoured activity among roleplayers.
A proper system (where “system” means something more than mere numbers) can help most styles of play, including immersive story-intense one. D&D is not such a game. (To know what is it is advisable to first make very clear what immersive story-intense play is.)
“Do the rules that foster such action (Combat, skill challenges) act as a barrier preventing immersion to a certain degree? (or: Can you Roll-Play and Role play at the same time?)”
Telling what “roleplay” means above is necessary (and maybe sufficient) condition to getting useful answers.
“Do other action oriented system (like Savage Worlds and maybe Burning Wheel) have the same features and barriers?”
Similar, but not the same. As a rule of thumb: The more similar the systems, the more similar styles of play they encourage and discourage.
(I could explain how BW is very different from D&D. Example: Lifepaths automatically explain how the characters relates to their society.)
Tommis last blog post..A mediocre session and some inn-fighting
I don’t see how 4E can be more hostile to role-playing than 3E or previous versions.
Is it the lack of non-combat spells & feats, like Charm Person, Leadership, etc? Weren’t we complaining that those were either useless or broken in 3E?
Is it the skills? I think the 4E changes make it easier to create a competent character skill-wise, since there’s fewer mandatory skills & you no longer suck royally at skills you don’t invest all your points in.
Is there an emphasis on combat instead of non-combat roleplaying? Yes. I think there’s a good reason for that: combat is more entertaining for the entire group than roleplaying is.
In combat:
1. The entire group is involved. Everyone has a purpose. Sitting out of a combat is frowned upon.
2. It is extremely hard to make fatally bone-headed mistakes. As long as you’re damaging the monsters or healing the injured and not just walking into pit traps, you’re doing alright. Errors are usually attributed to dice rolls, not moronic players.
In roleplaying:
1. Only a few people are involved. The rest either can’t think of anything to add or are “persuaded” to stay inactive because:
2. It is easy for someone to make a faux pas and screw everything up if they are ill-suited to the task.
All of my worst memories of RPGs come from the roleplaying moments some wish 4E focused more on. Let’s compare: how many of these phrases, or variants thereof, have you heard at the table?
-“No, you can’t come scouting with us; they would hear you a mile away.”
-“We’ll let the beguiler speak to the King, because he’s the most diplomatic, and just wait for him to finish.”
-“You IDIOT! Why did you try to hit on the sorceress? There’s no way we’ll get her help now thanks to YOU!”
In my experience, roleplaying is nice filler, but combat is what keeps the players coming back to the table. Probably because there’s less chance the group will drag a player into an alley and beat him up for getting involved.
I guess I should throw something a little lighter than an anvil like my earlier post.
I agree with the assessment that the 4e Core Rules is definitely a shell designed to hang more rules on. Snap-on tools for RPG’s. 3e could be played with only the core rules for the most part and you felt like you had a meaty gaming experience. 4e doesn’t provide that and almost revels in the fact that you don’t have much variation in the characters.
Basically I feel like I have been abandoned by WotC. In their search for this elusive new market, they have abandoned the market for 3.x edition that didn’t focus on combat as the driving force of their campaigns.
I’ll wait to see what supplements come for 4e but won’t be spending tons of cash on it try to make it something that I already have.
@Deadshot:
I’m curious as to where people getting this “you don’t have much variation in the characters” meme that I keep seeing on the webs.
Each class (we’ll ignore the warlock for a moment) can choose from 4 at will powers at first level. That’s 4x3x2 = 24 different combinations, and that’s just counting the at-wills. Toss in the choice of 1 of 4 Encounter powers, and 1 of 4 Daily powers, plus 1 of however many feats, plus one of the 8 races (each one *does* feel a little different in each class) and that’s a whole lot of variation. Add in things like “rogue tactics” and the warlords “commanding presence” and you’ve double the number of each of those. There are a *few* less feats, but most of those were either “sub-optimal”, or don’t really fit in with the new system anyway.
In 3.x you had feats. Yes, there were skills in there too. But most players specialized in a few of those skills in order to hope to be good enough to beat DCs at higher levels, and then couldn’t operate at all if the challenge called for a different skill.
3.x also had “necessaries”. You had to have a rogue (or rogue variant from a later book) because only they had Trapfinding (I house-ruled this one a bit because I hated the ability). Every character had to have a good constitution, or you were dead. A Con of 9 or lower meant one less HP per level. For Arcanists, this was killer (d4 – 1 = a range of 1 to 3, combined with the lowest AC in the game, plus the walking XP bombs that were known as ‘familiars’, which had *half* your hp…), for everyone else it was just unfortunate.
All told, I’d say that 3.x had a tendency to fall into a rut. Will that still happen in 4e? Probably eventually. Is there variety in both 3.x and 4e? Absolutely. Tons in both.
Now, for the main topic of the thread…
I’m going to agree with you, Chatty, that action-oriented systems are probably the best for “entry level” games. Of course, that depends on the system, but this will generally hold true. Action is what tends to catch the attention of the player.
Yes, other systems tend to *lend* themselves to a more RP based approach, but there’s nothing in any system (that I’ve seen, anyway) which would prevent you from playing the “opposite” (I don’t think them to be really opposite…) side of the coin.
I think that’s everything that’s bubbling in my head at the moment, but I always have more to say…
Well, its not like WotC is sending jack-booted thugs to confiscate your old books. Nor is there a shortage of alternatives… Paizo’s Pathfinder RPG is excellent.
@MikeLemmer: No. No, I was most certainly not calling Leadership or Charm Person “useless or broken.” Feats should cover a wide range of things. The growth of feats was a good thing. I see the fact that there are *four* noncombat feats in 4E as a BadThing(TM).
I also don’t want everyone good at everything. People specialize or they generalize. You’re either very good at a few things, or not-so-good at many things. Few people are very good at a lot of things– they’re usually very smart and very rare. The idea that I’m good at something just because I’m level N isn’t cool by me.
“Is there an emphasis on combat instead of non-combat roleplaying? Yes. I think there’s a good reason for that: combat is more entertaining for the entire group than roleplaying is.”
… Ok. All I can say to this is that your playstyle and mine are vastly different. My tables have greatly enjoyed the roleplaying noncombat encounters we’ve played. They easily remember them as well as the landmark combats. I don’t think this is indicative of the system as much as the table. Some people really dig their combats. Some people find an equal mix of combat and noncombat just as exciting. Entertainment is in the eye of the table.
Even the guy playing free safety or battlefield medic *is* contributing, but that’s a completely different conversation. I don’t find support roles any less valid than damage-dealing roles, and I don’t think every person has to be laying the smack every round to be useful.
Bone-headed mistakes *should* be possible. TPKs should occasionally happen. Every treasure trove was some poor failed party. Some days you’re looting, and some days you’re the loot.
As far as “roleplaying” involvement is concerned…that’s the GM, and all the GM. His gig is keeping people involved. Creating scenes where one character can shine is ok, but it shouldn’t be the standard.
And my experience is just the opposite– you might get an initial draw from how you run combat, but you need to show them that there’s more at the table in order to keep them there because they can find combat any old place.
YMMV.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
It’s nice to know a beginners game will come out. I tried getting into 3rd edition and got confused because I was so used to 2nd. I really want to get a new gaming group going and if I as the DM can’t understand the rules, how can my players? Especially when some have not played in years themselves and others haven’t played at all.
Dianes last blog post..BBC’s Robin Hood: Some Behind the Scenes
I pretty sure that “YMMV” should come stamped onto the cover of every roleplaying game ever sold. ^_^p
@Ben:
I don’t see only 4 4E non-combat feats as a bad thing. Since most killer situations in D&D end in combat, most players would rather take combat feats that help them survive, rather than non-combat feats. Even one of my best RPing players agonized between getting the Linguist feat and a more combat-oriented one. Why put in more non-combat feats when most players will just ignore them?
And the skill ups for leveling? They fit perfectly for me. 3E skills were bad in that they assumed anything you didn’t actively train in, you never improved in. The party wizard’s trekked thousands of miles adventuring; why hasn’t he gotten any better at climbing or swimming than he did when he left the academy? The party fighter’s traveled across planes and listened to the party wizard prattle on for months; why hasn’t he picked up anything about the basics of arcana? 3E didn’t separate skills into “good” and “not-so-good”; it separated them into “almost-godlike” and “horribly sucky”.
I might have issues with how fast 4E skills advance (perhaps 1/4 Lvl instead of 1/2 Lvl), but if I had to choose between “letting everyone have a chance of succeeding” versus “only letting X players have a chance of succeeding”, I’d go with the former any day.
And no, I don’t think our play styles are vastly different. You’re including non-threatening roleplaying situations. Such situations would crop up in any RPG, even if it didn’t have any rules for RPing, because they don’t NEED rules for RPing. I’m talking about threatening RP situations, the ones you would need non-combat rules for.
In my experience, this is what happens in such situations:
1. Everything is going smoothly. Either no rolls are necessary or they’re easy rolls.
2. Some PC, perhaps one with a Big Idea or a Troublemaker, does something so stupid that the rolls become hard or impossible.
3. Everyone else struggles to make up for it. They either barely succeed, fail miserably, or devolve straight into combat.
4. The other players contemplate lynching the Troublemaker.
My personal experience matches this. There’s been 3 times I’ve felt like throttling my fellow players: all 3 of them occured in RP situations.
In summary? In combat, killer mistakes are either blamed on the GM or the party as a whole. In RPing, killer mistakes are blamed on individual players. Guess which is more destructive to the group.
Appropo of nothing, I would just like to say how happy I am to have a conversation about a topic like this without flames, accusations of fanboy-ism, Godwin’s Law, or any of that other stuff. Good for us.
As I said before, welcome to Chatty’s…
So far things are going good for us.
Appropo of nothing, I would just like to say how happy I am to have a conversation about a topic like this without flames, accusations of fanboy-ism, Godwin’s Law, or any of that other stuff. Good for us.
Sounds like something Hitler’s nazis would say! Damn fanbois.
…kidding! 😀
Gah, I can’t believe I actually used the word “fanboi”. Yeesh.
@MikeLemmer
Your comment’s first paragraph completely represents the reasoning that has me concerned. Not *all* threatening situations should be combat oriented. Feats should be more than combat tricks. They give insight to a character’s personality and interests. They represent a mechanical method for creating a robust character and providing benefits during play. The disregard you’re expressing for noncombat feats reinforces my point– the game has taken an active, intentional, and large step towards making the core focus of a session smashing in the face of the enemy and taking his stuff. In my mind, that’s a step backwards from the variety of playstyles available in 3E.
RE: Skills, I would say then, if your wizard is hiking all over the land, he should be putting skill points into climb or swim and not into Knowledge (Arcana). [Concentration and Spellcraft are probably dependent on how much he’s been casting lately] The party’s fighter isn’t improving his Spellcraft or Knowledge (Planes) because his player is making a metagame decision– “It costs me too much of a limited resource to have my character be very good at that skill. I’ll limit this character to what he can do ‘untrained’ in everything but the skills I choose.” You’re starting down a simulationist path here…be careful… 😉 Allowing characters to advance skills that they’ve used relatively little between levels is a conceit that we just accept as part of the game– because having it reflect the skills used during adventure arcs would spread the points even further. If we really wanted a system that fit your concern, we’d be doing something like Ars Magica or Shadowrun, where a session’s experience is spent to advance skills used in the adventure.
In 3E, we most often focused on specific skills out of metagame choices that GMs permitted us to perpetuate. The division of skills that you mention exists because we want our characters to be heroically good at something, so we drive particular skills to those god-like levels. Honestly? If you want a “better” distribution? We probably shouldn’t be allowed to spend skill points on skills we aren’t using every session. Being forced to put skill points into skills most used, even in RP, between levels would probably spread the ranks out and require us to carefully consider how we set DCs for many skill checks. That whole ‘practice makes perfect’ adage.
Again, I’m ok with the possibility of failure– tragic defeat is just as good a story as triumphant victory in my book, as long as we’re all agreed to that possibility going into the game. The simulationist in me cries out, “you know what, there are things you *suck* at doing!” and I have to agree. By allowing everyone a (pretty) decent chance of success you devalue the specialist. Opportunities to shine are important. Following that, if it’s unimportant, why force the roll? As a party crosses a river on the way from the city of Anywhere to the hamlet of Nowhere, I don’t demand swim checks. Some success and failure is implied there– someone had a harder time, a pack might have gotten away only to be picked up on the shore a little later. I don’t need to get into it, but I can color the travel text with that sort of detail and move on. When the character is knocked overboard by raiders during a storm? Heck yeah, you’ll be making that check and the wizard’s academic focus in the library is going to become obvious compared to the coastal-raiding fighter as one skates the check and the other character’s failure produces a fantastic source of tension. That’s my gripe here– in softballing the difficulty and whitewashing the skillsets, they have eliminated a source of tension that gives sessions electricity. Not having a skill forces characters to find different solutions, and that also drives sessions. Sticking a party in a bottleneck where the absence of skill precludes story progression is a GM failure…not a system failure.
…I’m still fairly certain our playstyles are different, just in the differences I’m noting so far. I think mechanics are good in and out of combat, just enough to give the proper framework for the table to run smoothly. I want the diplomacy table, but I want a list of various circumstance bonuses that might apply. Not a lot. Not the Annotated Grimoire of NonCombat Situations, but suggestions, ideas, things to enhance the system that are perhaps given as possibilities and left as an exercise for the reader. Some tables may not need them at all, others might gobble them up, and still others might spin them out into full fledged subsystems. In drastically simplifying the mechanic *and* failing to provide me *any* springboards, I’m left with a system that again…pushes me to brawltastic solutions.
The scenarios you’re describing 1 and 2-4 are, in my opinion a result of this combat focus… we’ve been given adventures for a long long time that drive you toward the goal of smiting the enemy. The RP encounters are subordinate filler between fights…almost akin to cut scenes in a Final Fantasy game. It takes some trial and error, and it’s not for everyone, but spinning up adventures where there is *no* combat is possible, and it can be a good time with folks who are engaged and into it. Think of the Murder Mystery Dinner Parties– at no point is anyone urged to stab a fellow participant, but a very exciting time is certainly possible. Unfortunately, though, it requires a lot more effort or practice on the part of the GM and a table that finds it fun. I think that in your first point, the GM wants an illusion that failure is possible– a sort of “make them sweat” situation that fails, because the players realize that this isn’t too tough, and so they’ll phone it in with some handwaving and a few die rolls. In the second situation (covering points 2-4) I think that player might see the softball coming and wants to spin it up. He wants to turn the cakewalk into something more, and now that throws the GM off balance– the GM often responds as you say, cranking DCs, having the situation deteriorate, driving the situation towards failure. The unexpected nature of the Trickster’s action frustrates the players who anticipated their encounter, who had seen it as a cut scene and vehicle to the point in the story that they wanted to reach. I think it’s the delay, (and possibly) the consequence of that whackadoo action that really anger those other players.
What needs to happen in those situations is that the GM has to be ready to roll with it, to realize the needs of the story, the game flow, and improvisationally jujitsu the Trickster’s attempted derailment and turn it into the entertainment he’s looking for without permitting the table to go into the weeds. That’s a tough skill, and it’s one that you can never perfect. There are several devious minds to the GM’s one (often sleep deprived, overworked, possibly unsuspecting) mind. Some days, that bear is going to get you.
In response to your summary, I find that combat can just as easily be the mistake of one party member. Groups lacking tactical focus that blunder into fights because of player bravado shouldn’t be able to scapegoat a clever GM. GMs have a responsibility to either lay a fair table when it comes to combat, or give the party the adequate opportunity to demonstrate the better part of valor. In RPing, players and GMs need to approach the encounters appropriately and with as much consideration as a combat. There are combats you can handwave, and RP events you can flippantly phone in with tabletalk. The key becomes the ability to identify which RP encounters are there for transition and which ones are vital to the progression of the story. When you’ve got the mechanics available to make those RP encounters just as engaging as the combat ones, you’re certain to find the players far more invested in how they play out. Right now, the absence of tools within 4E to create that investment means that as long as you are comfortable with just freeforming RP interaction and leaving it to the method actors and storytelling types to drive, then 4E will suffice. If you want to try drawing in your other player types and engaging everyone in RP events such that they become invested, well… 4E is going to leave you wanting.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
I still think you are asking basic D&D to do what it wasn’t written to do. D&D is a game for swords and sorcery genre tales. I’m not aware of any ironclad definition of the genre, but in general sword and sorcery tales tend to be characterized by a strong bias toward fast-paced, action-rich tales set within a quasi-mythical or fantastical framework.
Michael Moorcock’s Elric, Fritz Leiber’s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Robert E. Howard’s Conan…
Many sword and sorcery tales have been turned into lengthy series of adventures. Their lower stakes and less than world-threatening dangers make this more plausible than a repetition of the perils of epic fantasy. So too the nature of the heroes; most sword-and-sorcery protagonists, peripatetic by nature, find peace after adventure deathly dull.
So is it with D&D heroes… at least at the beginning of a tale. Dozens of adventures to save the village, slay the dragon, or recover the MacGuffin. Oh, eventually these all get knitted togther into a save-the-world plot, but not always.
An element of romance is often present in swords and sorcery, but it is rarely the focus. Mystery, epic fantasy, mythology, comedy, history, even religion or politics are often roped into serving as a secondary influence in some swords and sorcery stories… But the heart has always been fast-paced action.
Every edition of D&D (including Chainmail, all versions of Basic, both AD&Ds, 3.x and 4E) have begun as sword and sorcery romps. This has been by design. Every edition (save Chainmail) has seen supplements that have allowed it to be used for other genres. AD&D’s “A Mighty Fortess,” for example, turned it into a historical game. “Spelljammer” turned it into a space opera. “Dark Sun” turned it into sword and planet (a la Baarsoom). “Forgotten Realms” and “Dragonlance” turn it into an epic fantasy. “Eberron” into a pulp adventure game.
Fast-paced, action-rich tales set within a quasi-mythical framework. With hints of romance, mystery, and exploration. Dungeons. Dragons.
If you want more than that, buy an expansion book or roll your own. It has been ever thus.
Ben,
Do you notice how the (3rd edition) D&D rules create a dichotomy: Realistic and optimised characters (or well-roleplayed and powergamed characters) look different.
Still, D&D is, and has been, a game where the rules focus on combat. IMO all characters should be capable of contributing meaningfully in combat, but in different ways (this is what combat feats do). Ideally there should be another pool of points that can be used on noncombat feats and abilities.
This would mean that there is no (false) dichotomy between roleplayers and powergamers and further all characters would have to take some noncombat stuff, hence forcing people to think about their characters outside the scope of combat. (And groups only interested in combats could ignore the noncombat material).
On sword and sorcery: Personally, I think D&D created a new genre of fantasy. It has fairly little resemblance to S&S that I have read (Conan, some Fafhrd and Grey Mouser, and possibly Tad Williams’ Memory, sorrow and thorn). There are significant differences in both the fiction and structure of the stories.
Tommis last blog post..A mediocre session and some inn-fighting
And I would argue that the 3.5 core provided you sufficient framework to make those subgenres work. The baseline was there…it wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t complete, but there was enough there that if I wanted a game that did more than a “sword and sorcery romp,” I could do it without having to cut mechanics whole cloth. In the following 5-6 years (I’ll leave the last two-ish out for playtest and editing) there were a lot of subsystems built for those alternate playstyles that were good, that could mesh nicely with the 4E system while providing the framework for other stories without detracting from a core flavor. I think we can agree there, yes?
My root complaint is that 4E is not giving you those additional baseline mechanics. They failed to incorporate the lessons learned from 2000 to 2006. They just looked at their own sandbox and said, “We’ve got some power creep and a lot of complexity, not to mention some choices that don’t have a lot of impact beyond character creation. Let’s fill those holes and give everyone some cool new shovels and buckets to play with.” They didn’t say, “Hmmm, there’s a lot more out there that’s been done with the old engine. What can we add from those variants to make this new system more inclusive, more robust, truly improved? How do knock this out of the park for everyone at the table, and not just the the guy itching for initiative?” If they’d tackled this edition with the latter sort of vision, I’m willing to bet you’d be hearing a lot less rhetoric and flame. RPGs have evolved over the lifetime of 3E; the 4E designers had a responsibility to incorporate what they felt were the best aspects of that evolution to create a greater incarnation of the game. Instead, we got a sleeker, sharper tool perfect for face smashing and equipped with a handy bottle opener at the handle for a few cold ones after the fact.
Are you saying that the Sword and Sorcery genre is meant to be nothing more than that? That at its very source, the genre is just a long, blood-smeared blur from one fight to the next, pausing for an occasional breath of less brutal interaction and a good ale? [I exaggerate some here, but only a little..well I think we can always include the ale 😉 ] I read more than that in Elric. I think Conan’s wits were just as important during his days as a thief as his swordarm was to his time in the armies of Aquilonia as his force of personality was in kingship. To me, S&S means wondrous fantastic settings, rough and grim battle, conflicting rulers who range from petty to noble, powerful and often mysterious magic, codes of honor and treachery, and a rich world full of characters that create relationships– all of which drives a hero’s growth through interaction and choice (but don’t forget the ale). Pace was a matter of choice, the sort of action a point of taste, the framework most certainly mythic and fantastic. None of it precluding the playstyle I suggest.
I’m not saying that there *must* be a focus on romance, mystery, comedy–any of the aspects you mentioned, but the system should be able to support spotlights turned on those facets, and with everything that’s been developed, it ought to shine. The fact we started slow in the 70’s, made little progress in the 80’s, foundered a bit in the 90’s and began getting the picture recently does not absolve the system of the responsibility to grow and mature while remaining accessible. I might buy an expansion if it meets the need, and I don’t mind rolling my own, but I’d like there to at least be a touch of guidance on how those home–grown mechanics might best develop. We don’t get that guidance, and that’s disappointing.
-Ben.
edit: (Forgot to sign.)
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
@Tommi: Most certainly there is a difference between the two, and I’m completely ok with it– but I would say that it’s very feasible that both characters have been optimized.
One character is more optimal for a table where combat is a much more frequent encounter …
and the other is more optimal for the table where non-combat RP encounters might be proportionate to combat encounters.
It’s very much a playstyle choice and I think both are valid. I just think the system shouldn’t discourage one over the other. A lack of tools for one sort of table is an indirect, perhaps passive hopefully accidental discouragement. Maybe new supplements will rectify that. We’ll see.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
“[T]here were a lot of subsystems built for those alternate playstyles that were good, that could mesh nicely with the 4E system while providing the framework for other stories without detracting from a core flavor. I think we can agree there, yes?”
Yes we can agree; However were we disagree is whether or not they belong in the core book. It is my opinion that they do not. Alternate genres do not belong in the core rulebook(s). I can use Star Wars D6 to run a perfectly good Aliens game, or even a game of pirates on the high seas. Those aren’t in the main rulebook because the game is Star Wars.
“Are you saying that the Sword and Sorcery genre is meant to be nothing more than that? That at its very source, the genre is just a long, blood-smeared blur from one fight to the next, pausing for an occasional breath of less brutal interaction and a good ale?”
No, not at all. What I am saying is that sword and sorcery focuses on action and adventure. Their is room for action and adventure gaming where violence never appears or is a minor part of the story. Consider the Indiana Jone movies, lots of action and derring-do, not terribly much in the way of combat. The Musketeer novels of Dumas, thrilling action-packed yarns ALSO renowned for their drama and character depth. Same for Elric and (the non-movie) Conan.
The key difference between your veiw and mine is that you see to require a mathematic system to detirmine social or other non-combat encounters. To me, that is counter productive to a good roleplayign experince. The math should only come into play when there is a question of luck or randomness. That is why we have dice. Anythign that doesn’t require mechanical randomization should have no die rolls, and thus requirs little to no content in rulebook.
This was something I first addressed in Post #2 (above). Roleplaying is, to me, when the participants assume the roles of characters. They adopt and act out the role of the character, like a part in a play, and give life to their characters’ personalities, motivations, and backgrounds.
That doesn’t require mathematics, it requires prose. I don’t think that the “Leadership” or similar feats from 3.x were good for roleplaying. They were a mathematical kludge that let your character make freinds and influence people…
I hate to use the term, but that strikes me as “Roll Play.” You are letting the math determine how your character interacts with soceity, rather than letting the story (“roleplay”) make that determination.
D&D4E doesn’t lack tools to encourage roleplay, it recognized that they weren’t needed and chucked them out the airlock.
I’m not adding more to this debate as it is lively enough as it is and mostly because my position tends to mirror Ish’s on most points.
I’ll continue to post periodic debate articles as I see the series is very popular.
I got one lined up already…
Ben,
Right, both characters may be optimised for different aspects of the game, which means that it is possible (maybe even likely) that one player shines only when the other feels as though their character is not having an effect on the game.
I think a combat-centric game should not force anyone to make the choice between character that is capable in combat and one that can do things outside it. Forcing the choice is, IMO, bad design.
Tommis last blog post..A mediocre session and some inn-fighting
I’d like to suggesst “ChattyDM Debate #2: Post-Mortem Equine Sadism”
But that’s beating a dead horse.
“The key difference between your veiw and mine is that you see to require a mathematic system to detirmine social or other non-combat encounters. To me, that is counter productive to a good roleplayign experince. The math should only come into play when there is a question of luck or randomness. That is why we have dice. Anythign that doesn’t require mechanical randomization should have no die rolls, and thus requirs little to no content in rulebook.”
I don’t *need* a mathematical formula to determine the outcomes, I find it very useful in setting a challenge, in drawing in a player who might not otherwise attempt that kind of interaction– those tables and skills begin as “gateway tools,” giving newer or less outgoing players a tool they can grow from and develop those skills.
If I have some kind of social encounter that I’ve set up with DCs and circumstance bonuses and situational modifiers and a few easter eggs and my table’s resident Method Actor steps up and improvises the right dialogue and the proper responses and draws in the right people and does a proper bang-up job, I’m not going to roll anything; I’m going to give it to him.
If the Tactician, who’s usually more at home directing combat but wants to grow the officership side of his marshal tries his hand at the same situation but stumbles a bit, is obviously a little uncomfortable, but wants to experiment with it, then I’ll suggest a couple of rolls for related skills pertinent to the discussion, and if he does decently, give him the hints. Then, if he struggles a little more, I can let him roll his diplomacy. If he pushes through it and does decently, I’ll ask him for a roll that’s anything but failure… the mechanics are useful here, but not mandatory.
For the table that’s all hardcore Powergamers that I’m trying to expose to the possibilities of social interaction encounters or non-combat tension encounters, I can ask for some related skill checks, let them work together but keep it abstract, eventually asking for N successes out of N+X players…then I use some prose to string the checks and discussion along briefly, showing how I can incorporate their planning or actions into an explanation that results in the roll and the consequences… doing this every once in a while, I might get one of them to try a few other aspects of the game.
I think the idea of those guidelines is counterproductive to you because it sounds like your group is solidly in the first example, so you just blur right past the need for guidelines. I’m not always so lucky when assembling a table and time spent rolling and playtesting those mechanics myself is time not spent designing campaign.
“This was something I first addressed in Post #2 (above). Roleplaying is, to me, when the participants assume the roles of characters. They adopt and act out the role of the character, like a part in a play, and give life to their characters’ personalities, motivations, and backgrounds.”
Right, but better defining those backgrounds, motivations, and personalities with tools like feats, hooks, and skills helps players who might not be so accustomed to designing characters and allows them to make more robust character personalities.
“That doesn’t require mathematics, it requires prose. I don’t think that the “Leadership” or similar feats from 3.x were good for roleplaying. They were a mathematical kludge that let your character make freinds and influence people…”
I say mechanics, not necessarily mathematics…two different things. What you saw as kludge, I saw as devilish hook and opportunity to springboard a character and the party off on occasional sidetreks for assistance and growth. Leadership is the best gift a player can give his GM.
“I hate to use the term, but that strikes me as “Roll Play.” You are letting the math determine how your character interacts with soceity, rather than letting the story (”roleplay”) make that determination.”
Hopefully I’ve demonstrated that, no, I don’t need mathematics. I’m looking for mechanics to help design situations, to aid players and ease the abstraction. Being told to “wing it” all the time ain’t cool for a table of newbies. Many times, they’re more likely to pull back into their shell than risk, especially if they’re just trying something that they were uneasy with to start.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
I’m not always so lucky when assembling a table and time spent rolling and playtesting those mechanics myself is time not spent designing campaign.
I have to ask.
Did you completely miss the skill challenge system in 4e? This sounds like the exact thing you’re advocating.
I’m confused by your arguments.
Yep, Graham pretty much beat me to the punch here Ben. The system you described is exactly what I’ve been doing for many years (I cut my teeth DMing AD&D1e) and it is one that has been codified in 4E.
The 4E skill system is made to act as “mechanics [that] help design situations, [that] aid players and ease the abstraction.” At least, thats how I read it when look through my PHB. (Although, I confess, I have not yet purchased the DMG or MM.)
I didn’t miss it at all, I noted that in post #35:
“And I can certainly critique 4E for not having more– they had 3 years to realize where the storybuilding tools were missing. They told me in at least one excerpt/preview that there *would* be new tools. Aside from skill challenges (which I can fully slap my palm to my forehead and say, “well, duh!, of course they’re being integrated into my 3E game) what do they provide? Pawning it to the setting rules does us no good– there’s no setting to draw from. I’m sincere in this request: What do they provide for storybuilding in 4E?”
My point is that other than skill challenges, what else does 4E give us? Nothing. They say “you don’t need it!” when the point is that some tables certainly do need more, and they had more from 3E.
I’m saying this:
A lot of storybuilding tools were developed for d20 in the six years before 4E design got into full swing. *None* of those tools seem to have made it into 4E. A lot of shiny new combat mechanics did get incorporated. Doesn’t that seem just a little unbalanced and driving the focus of the game more towards combat? Didn’t the designers have a responsibility to add more of those storybuilding mechanics to the game so that new players would see the benefits of all that additional development?
@Tommi: I’m saying that those two characters might be optimal for completely different tables. If they’re at the same table, then their GM has responsibility to create a playstyle that accomodates both and keeps both interested and involved. That’s his job, not the system’s.
I don’t think 3E has to be combat-centric, it’s just the path most of us are very familiar with, and so it becomes the path of least resistance. Your suggestion of two pools of resources is interesting, and in a sense we’re halfway there– more skill points and a seperate category of “skill feats” in addition to “combat feats” would probably go a long way to giving a lot of tables the extra tools that might inspire more non-combat driven story.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Robin Law’s Gamer Type Quiz
“Didn’t the designers have a responsibility to add more of those storybuilding mechanics to the game so that new players would see the benefits of all that additional development?”
No. In my opinion they had no such responsibility; furthermore I feel that “storybuilding” and “mechanics” are nigh unto mutually exclusive terms. How does a feat add to the story? Was my Halfling Theif in AD&D not “sneaky” or “agile” because he lacked those feats? Was my charismatic cavalier not an effective leader because there was no “leadership” feat?
Doesn’t that seem just a little unbalanced and driving the focus of the game more towards combat?
No, it seems like it’s a core book with more tools than 3.X core books had, and little room to add anything more.
I think we’ve reached the point where we all circle around the same positions and not meeting a common point.
I’ll let each one post once more and I’ll close the comments at 10h00 PM.
I’ll open a Forums thread to continue the discussion and link to it from here.
Edit: I need to add, thanks for the vigorous activity, it was interesting to read.
Ben
Personally, outside of the ultra structured single story games (my life with master etc) I’ve never seen a satisfactory story mechanic in a straight rpg.
(As opposed to background mechanics like the character novels from Spirit of the Century, which are story building tools, but they primarily make building a coherent party of adventurers easier. I’m considering doing something like that in my next Eberron game.)
I’ve generally found story building mechanics to be, outside of games that are designed to railroad a party through a specific story, at best unhelpful and at worst counter productive.
Of course for my story games, I generally want my combat and my action rules to be simple but robust and my everything else rules to be as minimalistic as possible. (This is why I never ever used those stupid reaction tables in earlier editions of the game, much to the distress of the Diplomacy build half elf uberbard in my last campaign. )
As mentionned, I’m closing the comments.
Discussions can be continued here.
Great discussion one and all
This post and the ensuing debate is, IMHO, a must read for anyone considering 4E D&D over other game systems. I’ve submitted this post to the upcoming OPEN GAME TABLE RPG Anthology for consideration/review. Of course, nothing will be published in Open Game Table until the author releases the material for inclusion in the Anthology. This post was simply submitted for consideration; which is the first step towards identifying the best in RPG blogging. Let me know if you have any questions over at the The Core Mechanic or in the OPEN GAME TABLE google group. In meantime, keep up the excellent work (!) and I’ll be in touch.
jonathans last blog post..Open Game Table: Clarification and Discussions