The Destruction of the 'RP' in 'RPG'

[SpikeFightwicky]

With the advent of 4th ed., I hear the same argument said over and over again by its detractors: 'It aint D&D, it's a boardgame'. I'm wondering what the new edition does to eliminate a group's ability to RP or interact with the world. I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious, and somewhat concerned.

I've been DMing a group (group A) for a few years now, who treat 3.5 as just that: a Diablo style hack'n'slash'to'hell'with'the'story'gimme'more'xp game. I also have a secondary group (group B), which I usually PC with (though not often enough for me to retain my sanity). That group has a more 'balanced' (BUT BALANCE SUX!) approach, focusing on things like character immersion and controversial things like 'talking' to NPCs, as well as combat. Which group do I more enjoy playing with? The latter one.

Now I'm hearing that 4th ed. removed aspects of the game that allow for me to play a 'Group B' style game, and all I'll be able to do is a 'Group A' game (making it an overblow 'Minis' game). Are the miniatures used outside of combat (like, do you always have to use a battlemap), or does the majority of the non-combat game go on descriptively? And if minis are used all the time, who the HELL do they get to playtest it... Final Fantasy Tactics fans?

[KIDS]

Quite so; I enjoy the strategy aspects and minitatures a lot, but would not find them satisfying if there wasn't a good story with interesting personalities involved. Ideally, the two aspects support each other, which happens rarely but is awesome.

I can comfortably say that my style will remain the same in any edition, be it 1E, Baldur's Gate, 3.5 or 4E ($E). The only difference that 4E will bring will to me will (hopefully) be wasting less time on irrelevant number-crunching, being able to better support the roleplaying aspects with less material involved and having less walls that impede roleplaying to bump into (say, alignments, color coded dragons, good vs. evil spells etc.).

[Lapak]

I'd love to hear that argument myself; I just don't see it. If 'what powers my character has' defined 'how I play my character in roleplaying terms,' then there was only one type of personality for fighters in 1E, one for each weapon specialization in 2E, and one for each feat chain in 3E. No one defines themselves by their combat powers, except in the most general of terms. I can be playing a grizzled former roman centurion or a self-taught fifth-century bandit/mercenary or a noble medieval knight or a Greek city-states-era hoplite with the same skills, techniques and power sets. There's no limitation on social rank, background, source of education, personality quirks, appearance, ethnic characteristics, or any of the other thousand-million things that make people unique built into the system.

EDIT: Exactly HOW has it done, that Tippy? Cite a specific example that limits your ability to play the personality you want to play.

[Emperor Tippy]

With the advent of 4th ed., I hear the same argument said over and over again by its detractors: 'It aint D&D, it's a boardgame'. I'm wondering what the new edition does to eliminate a group's ability to RP or interact with the world. I'm not trolling or anything, I'm genuinely curious, and somewhat concerned.

I've been DMing a group (group A) for a few years now, who treat 3.5 as just that: a Diablo style hack'n'slash'to'hell'with'the'story'gimme'more'xp game. I also have a secondary group (group B), which I usually PC with (though not often enough for me to retain my sanity). That group has a more 'balanced' (BUT BALANCE SUX!) approach, focusing on things like character immersion and controversial things like 'talking' to NPCs, as well as combat. Which group do I more enjoy playing with? The latter one.

Now I'm hearing that 4th ed. removed aspects of the game that allow for me to play a 'Group B' style game, and all I'll be able to do is a 'Group A' game (making it an overblow 'Minis' game). Are the miniatures used outside of combat (like, do you always have to use a battlemap), or does the majority of the non-combat game go on descriptively? And if minis are used all the time, who the HELL do they get to playtest it... Final Fantasy Tactics fans?

You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

[Dark Tira]

You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

I don't see it. Seems like any RP stuff you could do in 3.5 you can do in 4.0 about equally well or better.

[AKA_Bait]

You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

I wasn't aware that tactical war games had any non-combat challenges...

[kamikasei]

Now I'm hearing that 4th ed. removed aspects of the game that allow for me to play a 'Group B' style game, and all I'll be able to do is a 'Group A' game (making it an overblow 'Minis' game).

What sort of aspects are you thinking of? I don't know how a game could prevent you from talking to NPCs and developing your character.

Are the miniatures used outside of combat (like, do you always have to use a battlemap), or does the majority of the non-combat game go on descriptively? And if minis are used all the time, who the HELL do they get to playtest it... Final Fantasy Tactics fans?

They seem to be emphasizing miniature-based combat more, but that just means miniatures are needed in combat and/or that it's harder to get away with just describing a combat encounter. Again, I have a hard time seeing how a game could be structured to require miniatures outside of combat (or dungeon crawls with various traps, or in general situations where the positioning of characters relative to one another and their environment is important to track closely).

[SamTheCleric]

AKA_Bait, just stop. You may need a book to tell you how to roleplay, but some of us only need the rules when they are truly needed. 4e is not a tactical war game. It still is an RPG and we were able to do an entire session of nothing but RP without rolling a single die... in fact, we didnt need the books at all... the same way you don't need the books in 3e for an extended roleplay session... or in 2e... or in 1e... or in exalted.

The rules are there for the combat and the combat is much more streamlined. If all you see is the combat, that's because they aren't telling you how to roleplay... the book shouldn't have to hold your hand.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I'll be short on this: {Scrubbed}

[Crazy_Uncle_Doug]

Thanks for the big picture view. Sometimes we need that.

4e will no more be the death of RP than any game out there. RPGs are popular that they're sticking around for the time being.

[AKA_Bait]

AKA_Bait, just stop. You may need a book to tell you how to roleplay, but some of us only need the rules when they are truly needed.

Please check your 'reading the context of the thing you are replying to' o'meter. It appears to be broken.

I was pointing out that because there are rules for non-combat encounters in 4e that it is not a tactical wargame.

Sheesh.

[SamTheCleric]

Please check your 'reading the context of the thing you are replying to' o'meter. I was pointing out that because there are rules for non-combat encounters in 4e that it is not a tactical wargame.

Sheesh.

Oh. Well.

Sorry. Having a 16 month old is too distracting to succesfully do anything.

redirect that to whoever said it was a tactical wargame.

[Indon]

Well, I can honestly say a lot of my disappointment has to do with my expectations.

I thought 4'th edition was going to have a highly modular, level-based racial system which would allow for easy play of exotic races. Instead, they put a few race entries in the back of the Monster Manual and made the actual monster entries harder to reverse-engineer than they were in 3.x.

I thought 4'th edition might have had something like a stunt system - it doesn't have anything more than 3.x in that respect.

Overall, I thought 4'th edition was going to be an improvement in the game's ability to facilitate roleplaying, when at best, it's no change.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Well, I can honestly say a lot of my disappointment has to do with my expectations.

I thought 4'th edition was going to have a highly modular, level-based racial system which would allow for easy play of exotic races. Instead, they put a few race entries in the back of the Monster Manual and made the actual monster entries harder to reverse-engineer than they were in 3.x.

I thought 4'th edition might have had something like a stunt system - it doesn't have anything more than 3.x in that respect.

Overall, I thought 4'th edition was going to be an improvement in the game's ability to facilitate roleplaying, when at best, it's no change.

Aaah...so you wanna play Vrocks, Balors, and other overpowered stuff? Because all of the races that could, concievably, be used from level 1 or the like, have been statted.

Oh, and did they promise a stunt system? No. Did they mention it when they talked about big changes in the mechanics? No. Where'd you get the idea that it was coming with 4th?

Did they say 4th was going to be like Spirit of the Century when talking about RP and not like, oh, every D&D edition beforehand? No.

Where did I leave that Facepalm.Jpg again?

[Indon]

I don't see it. Seems like any RP stuff you could do in 3.5 you can do in 4.0 about equally well or better.

Run a campaign in a universe like this one, or this one, perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

Aaah...so you wanna play Vrocks, Balors, and other overpowered stuff? Because all of the races that could, concievably, be used from level 1 or the like, have been statted.

Yeah. You know how 3'rd edition had something called level adjustment to give players access to a wider range of possible race choices? Well, I thought 4'th edition was going to take a feature of third edition and make it better, instead of scrapping it entirely. My bad.

And not even necessarily a Balor. Maybe I'd just like my character to be a werewolf or something.

Oh, and did they promise a stunt system? No. Did they mention it when they talked about big changes in the mechanics? No. Where'd you get the idea that it was coming with 4th?

The trap article.

[AKA_Bait]

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

Wait... core 3.x could do that? Where? How?

[Emperor Tippy]

Just to make this clear:

4e does not make roleplaying more difficult in my opinion. It has just changed the roles that your can roleplay in the system from what you could do in 3.5

If, for example, one wanted to roleplay a caster who would always have others doing his fighting for him, usually through summons or mind affecting magic, in 3.5 core it was down right simple. If you wanted to roleplay the exact same character in 4e it is currently impossible.

[Lapak]

Run a campaign in a universe like this one, or this one, perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

OK, I'll bite. How specifically does 3.5 handle Amber better than 4e? Or the multiverse of Moorcock? (Off the top of my head, it seems like 4E would model Elric specifically a lot more easily than 3.x would.)

Or (non)anthropomorphic animal characters? What rule structure does the 3.5 core bring to them that the 4 does not have an equal or better structure for?

EDIT to Azerian: It's even more basic than that; I don't buy the argument that 3.5 handles those specific cases better than 4.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Run a campaign in a universe like this one, or this one, perhaps.

Or maybe play anthropomorphic or semi-anthropomorphic adventurers in a universe such as this one - or perhaps you think 4'th edition can sucessfully balance a mouse with, say, a bear, in terms of racial abilities?

Oh, yes, of course. Because those are the most common campaigns ever.

Really, cut the nitpicking. You just look foolish by presenting minor, hypothetical, one-time-ever-in-history cases.

[Dark Tira]

Doesn't Amber have it's own system anyway? Seems like a lot of extra trouble to convert it to D&D.

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh, yes, of course. Because those are the most common campaigns ever.

Really, cut the nitpicking. You just look foolish by presenting minor, hypothetical, one-time-ever-in-history cases.

*shrug*

I know that I have homebrew worlds that can not be updated to 4e, they just won't work (that being what happens when the rules of the universe change). Running an interplanetary empire that uses magic items to provide most of its food doesn't transfer so well.

[Azerian Kelimon]

*shrug*

I know that I have homebrew worlds that can not be updated to 4e, they just won't work (that being what happens when the rules of the universe change). Running an interplanetary empire that uses magic items to provide most of its food doesn't transfer so well.

Oh, it does. Healthy doses of handwavium and a basis in the rules (There's a ritual for Create Food and Water, I believe, just make it so someone found a way to condense that into an item) will do the trick. It just requires being able to talk faster/be a better liar/be willing to throw around some homebrews.

[Dark Tira]

Oh, it does. Healthy doses of handwavium and a basis in the rules (There's a ritual for Create Food and Water, I believe, just make it so someone found a way to condense that into an item) will do the trick. It just requires being able to talk faster/be a better liar/be willing to throw around some homebrews.

Actually it already is an item. Everlasting Provisions, PH 254.

[Starbuck_II]

Just to make this clear:

4e does not make roleplaying more difficult in my opinion. It has just changed the roles that your can roleplay in the system from what you could do in 3.5

If, for example, one wanted to roleplay a caster who would always have others doing his fighting for him, usually through summons or mind affecting magic, in 3.5 core it was down right simple. If you wanted to roleplay the exact same character in 4e it is currently impossible.

So it is a matter of fluff/character concept?

I can do that with 4th just from the previews.

Player cast Magic Missile: summons as free action Jippy, my minion (not a real minion as he is invincible but takes no actions unless commanded).
He shoots Magic Missile at them. Samithen the Wizard, just stands there looking good while Jippy does all the work.


Now, unless by let others do fighting for him you meant: in addition to you doing he fighting. That won't work as of yet. No true summons.


But there are can be summons for the purposes of this character concept.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Actually it already is an item. Everlasting Provisions, PH 254.

Well, looks like Tippy has his answer.

And he is the inventor of the LSC transport service, so the rest now problem.

[Indon]

OK, I'll bite. How specifically does 3.5 handle Amber better than 4e? Or the multiverse of Moorcock? (Off the top of my head, it seems like 4E would model Elric specifically a lot more easily than 3.x would.)

Merlin casts Polymorph in book 6. Do you think you'll ever see Polymorph in 4'th edition?

What are the alignments of the lords of chaos and law? Or the Balance and (some of) its' champions?

Or (non)anthropomorphic animal characters? What rule structure does the 3.5 core bring to them that the 4 does not have an equal or better structure for?

Oh, is Awaken not core, then? My bad. I guess they'll make a ritual for it later. It's not overpowered or anything, after all.

Doesn't Amber have it's own system anyway? Seems like a lot of extra trouble to convert it to D&D.

It's diceless, and I'm pretty sure it's not in print anymore.

Though to be honest, I'd use a White Wolf system to run Amber over any edition of D&D - but then I'd use an edition of D&D with a law-chaos axis before one without it.

Really, cut the nitpicking. You just look foolish by presenting minor, hypothetical, one-time-ever-in-history cases.

Okay. How about any universe in which a wizard can petrify (Flesh to Stone), transform (Polymorph - or did the Wizard had transformation spells that I missed?), bend others to his will (Admittedly, Geas might be there, I didn't look, but it definitely seems a bit overpowered for 4'th edition, don't you think?).

But I guess you'll never run into those in fiction, right? It's not like 4'th edition's quest for balance has restricted itself from a laundry list of fantasy tropes.

[Lapak]

*shrug*

I know that I have homebrew worlds that can not be updated to 4e, they just won't work (that being what happens when the rules of the universe change). Running an interplanetary empire that uses magic items to provide most of its food doesn't transfer so well.

Actually, I agree with Tippy here. Some settings won't translate well into the new rules, just as running a gritty-realism 19th-century-mercenaries campaign would not have worked well in 3e. That's part of the cost of changing editions, and one reason why I expect 3E to continue alive and well for quite some time to come. I played in a 1E campaign a couple of years ago, for pete's sake. There will definitely be things that are either lost from the get-go but brought in later (enchanters and summoners, as Tippy also pointed out) and some things that will go for good (some kinds of settings won't work so well.)

But to claim that this means that 4e damages the roleplaying part of the game is silly. It doesn't. You can't play an all-powerful wizard any more, either, which is a limitation on character type. But it's not a limitation on roleplaying. You can't play a cyborg in 3.x core, you can't play a god, you can't play a cyberhacker Shadowrun-style, you can't play a huge number of things. But that doesn't mean you can't roleplay in 3.x, and it doesn't mean you can't roleplay in 4.

EDIT moved to separate post.

[kamikasei]

Wait... core 3.x could do that? Where? How?

I do believe this is a "3.5 had the law/chaos axis which has now been discarded" complaint.

Merlin casts Polymorph in book 6. Do you think you'll ever see Polymorph in 4'th edition?

Yes. It seems entirely likely to me that the ability to shapeshift into animals will appear in the game in a later book, since it's apparently what the druid will be built around; and it's entirely plausible to me that this will be a power that can be used by a wizard, obtained via multiclassing or human/half-elf/whoever shenanigans, or in the worst case nicked directly as a special case.

edit: \/ Azerian, come on man, lay off that same image will ya?

[Azerian Kelimon]

{Scrubbed}

[SpikeFightwicky]

What sort of aspects are you thinking of? I don't know how a game could prevent you from talking to NPCs and developing your character.

To be honest, I'm not sure. At first it seemed like overexaggeration, but right now the most common 4th ed. complaint I'm hearing is that it's no longer an RPG so much as it's a board game based off of their minis line -> if this is trumping the 'OMG D&D IZ NOW WoW' argument, I'd hope it would have some sort of basis. I guess one way they could turn it into that would be to emphasize in the DMG or whatever that whenever players aren't in combat, the DM railroads them to the next encounter. It sounds like this is the kind game most of the detractors see when they read/play 4th ed. - the developers removed the non-skill/non-encounter 'interacting with the world' aspects of the game.

They seem to be emphasizing miniature-based combat more, but that just means miniatures are needed in combat and/or that it's harder to get away with just describing a combat encounter. Again, I have a hard time seeing how a game could be structured to require miniatures outside of combat (or dungeon crawls with various traps, or in general situations where the positioning of characters relative to one another and their environment is important to track closely).

This I can live with. When 3rd ed. was out (pre-3.5), we used little glass tokens (looked like the life-counters/bears/tokens you go from the old Magic the Gathering starter set) to represent everyone, so none of my gaming groups are going to be put off by that fact. From what I'm reading from the 'cons of 4th' ed. posts that people keep putting out, D&D somehow became structured around using minis all the time. (BTW, the next quote in this reply is sort of the kind of post I'm talking about)

You can RP monopoly if you are so inclined (and it can be quite fun), that doesn't mean monopoly is an RPG.

D&D has gone from a combat focused RPG to a tactical wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles.

How did it do this, though? What have they done/changed about the game that makes it unable to tackle RPing in the same or similar way as 3.X? I've seen (and played) 3.X played as a wargame which recommends and encourages the roleplaying of and immersion in specific roles, and I've seen (and played) it with no battlemat/minis at all. Barring some VERY absurd changes to the game fundamentals (see my above comments), I'm not sure how they could have gotten rid of 3.X levels of role playing and immersion. In any tabletop RPG I've played, my role-playing experience was more dictated by the DM/GM's style than the actual game rules.