D&D 4th edition rules and what we can learn from them...

[GianniVacca]

Actually I think the border between skirmish games and role-playing games is blurred. There is no clearcut distinction, as shown by the fate of OD&D itself (originally but a supplement for Chainmail). For me, a role-playing game is one where you can RE-USE the same character from a previous game session. Heck, you could even role play your squad leaders with Avalon Hill's Squad Leader!

:focus:

Maybe one thing that can be 'learnt' from skirmish games is that clear combat rules are a plus, and that the possibility of laying out clearly combat on a grid- or hex-based map is a plus, as role-playing games DO tend to include lots of combats, and you don't want those to slow your game down.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Well both is normally connected to each other. E.g. if there is a rule system where no injury for PCs exists, only dead, beeing "fatigued" or at full strength you cannot play all the fear and suffering of receiving serious wounds in combat, no? So rules and roleplaying emotions have an intense connection. Rules backup emotions and give truth to them if the rules are good.

Sure you can. You just have to do so in absence of rules support. But there's always going to be something like that, because no rules set does an adequate match of reality (even if its trying to); the only question ends up being what it decides is important enough to go into detail on and which not.

And again, many genres ignore these things regularly, so unless its your position its intrinsically harder to roleplay in some genres (which it could be) I think that's likely as important as the rules decisions per se (and of course rules decisions are often driven by genre considerations).

But in D&D4e a typical conversation between 2 players could be: "well I have just 2 Hitpoints left and this means am really tired now. You too, Sir Lance-a-lot? Lets bash the monsters in 5min after the break, when we have back our full hitpoints." (and this is no exaggeration!)

Or "That was a rough one. I've taken a bit of a beating here, but after I get my wind I think we can soldier on and get to the next thing." I have to point out a _lot_ of cinematic adventure runs like that in practice; action adventure movies or TV shows only very rarely emphasize any effects of injury unless its severe (and extremely severe injury is rare).

This I mean D&D4 will be extremely difficult to play as a serious roleplaying game. Of course you can play it satirical. Or as a boardgame - as we do.

Or as a high cinematic game which I suspect is how most players see it and are perfectly capable of engaging with it as. As I said, I haven't heard anything about it appreciably worse than assumptions I've seen in many such games.

Another example is that D&D4e is designed from the beginning as a game with map and minis. In D&D3 you had the choice to play with or without board. Not

So was Runequest. And Hero. And a number of other games I can think of. Yet you can still do so, and I doubt seriously it'll be impossible with 4e, either.

A third example is that each class has a defined role on the board. There are tanks, strikers, AoE and Leaders (healers) like in my beloved WoW MMorpg. Btw. I play WoW also not as a roleplaying game.

Given the number of posts I see by people trying for niche protection in other games, however, I fail to see how a defined role in combat makes roleplaying impossible.

So I would say that D&D4 is not more rpg than say Advanced Heroquest. If AHQ is one for you, then go for D&D4 and use it as rpg.

I gave my criteria before; if they don't suit you they don't, but I again think this is little more than trying to stake out a definition of RPG to exclude ones you don't like.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Al.

Aplogies for (re)stating the bleeding obvious but:

A 'good' GM and 'good' players can have a fun, roleplaying experience with any rulest or none.

However mechanics CAN (not Do but Can) shape the game.

I'd never deny that. What I'm arguing against is the extremely narrow definitions some people are trying to use to define what supports roleplaying. In this thread we have one person who doesn't think its a roleplaying game without personality mechanics, and another who doesn't because the rules aren't realistic enough to suit him, are written around a battle board, and include predefined combat roles. Given that all of these but the last also describe RuneQuest, I'm just not going to let that pass.

[Ars Mysteriorum]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I gave my criteria before; if they don't suit you they don't, but I again think this is little more than trying to stake out a definition of RPG to exclude ones you don't like.

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

That said, I like D&D for what it does: offer a strategy/tactical fantasy game of epic power levels. I like to attempt to play a character, but most people I play with have been turned off by such concepts. I've even had a player respond, "Oh... you do it THAT way... that's all right." As in, he didn't want to act out a role in his roleplaying game. Very, very odd.

I digress.

We can scale this argument so far as to say everything is an RPG, or to say that only BRP games are RPG's. Neither is "right," neither is "wrong."

I will state simply, *I* don't consider D&D as an RPG as it's designed. To me, it seems to work less under the assumption that players will be acting out the role and playing the persona. Just my opinion.

[soltakss]

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

I will state simply, *I* don't consider D&D as an RPG as it's designed. To me, it seems to work less under the assumption that players will be acting out the role and playing the persona. Just my opinion.

I've roleplayed using the D&D rules without a problem. Sure, you are shoehorned into various roles, but that doesn't really matter. You can have as much fun with D&D as with any other roleplaying game. My old RQ group used to play very high-level D&D and they had great fun with it, including spending 5 game-years researching the "Turn Stone into Blamanche" and turning an opponent's castle into a wobbling block of blamanche.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

So was Runequest.

Runequest was designed with focus on miniatures use originally? This is new to me. If this true, then I am glad, that they dont stress this anymore in the newer incarnations of the game.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Yet you can still do so, and I doubt seriously it'll be impossible with 4e, either.

No sorry, you cant. Remember I am playing the game. You could rather play Monopoly without hotels.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Given the number of posts I see by people trying for niche protection in other games, however, I fail to see how a defined role in combat makes roleplaying impossible.

Maybe not totally impossible but really hard.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by soltakss

I've roleplayed using the D&D rules without a problem. Sure, you are shoehorned into various roles, but that doesn't really matter. You can have as much fun with D&D as with any other roleplaying game. My old RQ group used to play very high-level D&D and they had great fun with it, including spending 5 game-years researching the "Turn Stone into Blamanche" and turning an opponent's castle into a wobbling block of blamanche.

Well your experience is from previous editions of D&D. They are not very good for me, but have a limited value as rpg system, so I agree that you can have fun with it.

This changed with 4e. Its not the same D&D as you know it. It plays more like a board version of mmorpgs with elite monsters, boss fights, autohealing, DOTs, HOTs etc. (if you know what I mean)

Of course for wargamer the change is not bad and its reveals a phantastic tactical skirmish gaming, much better than Advanced Heroquest.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

You speak mainly from 3rd edition, no? I agree this is a rather cumbersome and not easy to use game. But its still a kind of roleplaying game for many people. 4e does not maintain this. They changed the 3e rules extremely. Its not more a rpg than say Advanced Heroquest or Heroscape or Warhammer Mordheim. Eg not using Miniatures and battlemaps is not intended, its a must. I would say playing it is a mix between a mmorpg computer game and board game. And DDI (D&D Interactive) the new subscribable online service of Wizards contributes to this feeling

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

That said, I like D&D for what it does: offer a strategy/tactical fantasy game of epic power levels. I like to attempt to play a character, but most people I play with have been turned off by such concepts. I've even had a player respond, "Oh... you do it THAT way... that's all right." As in, he didn't want to act out a role in his roleplaying game. Very, very odd.

Yes I observed similar things. The D&D crowd is sometimes a strange kind of roleplayer.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Runequest was designed with focus on miniatures use originally? This is new to me. If this true, then I am glad, that they dont stress this anymore in the newer incarnations of the game.

Given much of the movement and strike rank system was next to impossible to manage without it, I'd say it was as much designed so as any RPG is.

No sorry, you cant. Remember I am playing the game. You could rather play Monopoly without hotels.

Given I've seen people make the same claim about the Hero System, 3e and other games, I flatly don't believe it; in part, because I don't think its possible to make a game designed so that its impossible to play without a battleboard. It can be various degree of hard, but there's a difference between that and impossible.

Maybe not totally impossible but really hard.

And again, I have nothing but the word of someone who doesn't like its style of play to demonstrate this. You'll excuse me if I take this with a shaker of salt, especially since you seem to consider even earlier versions excessively hard to roleplay in, and I've never seen it such. As such, I find your evaluation suspect out of the gate.

(This in no way means I consider D&D a particularly great design, but my issues with it have nothing to do with its RP support).

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of people who don't think D&D is an RPG. I'd classify it more as a tactical/strategy game with social mechanics. When I say "social mechanics," I'm referring to skills like "Bluff" and "Diplomacy," not players interacting under the guise of a persona. Also, I think the use of props that can potentially enhance the idea that the character is NOT the player (having a miniature represent the character rather than the player himself), this further distances the connection between the player and playing the role of his character.

For me, the system is so intensely gamist as to render the attention to mechanics as paramount rather than actually playing a role in the sense of taking on a persona.

As I noted, I've never actually seen an RQ group that didn't use some form of minatures and at least a minimalistic battleboard, so I'm again failing to see any qualitative difference here. This again seems like people wanting to stake out a subset of the roleplaying hobby and call those that don't fit in it "not a roleplaying game"; its not any different in kind than people who try to exclude different subsets because they don't fit their taste. At best its parochialism, at worst an attempt at mindspace dominance, and I don't see any virtue to it at all.