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

[Mugen]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

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 in 4e anymore.

You know, one of the most recurrent complaint I heard about D&D 3.x is that it cannot be played without miniatures because of AoOs

The same could be said about Warhammer FRP (at least in its 1st edition, I never read 2nd edition), whose combat rules were designed with movement rules suited for (Citadel ?) minis. But I never heard anyone complain about this.

[Skunkape]

Originally Posted by Mugen

But I never heard anyone complain about this.

I think the main reason for complaints about DnD is due to the fact that they released 3.5 what oh 3 or 4 years ago and now we're getting yet another new version of the game. Oh and 3.5 came right on the heals of 3.0. I just think it's a reaction to a perceived notion that Wizards is just out to milk the fans of their money.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

All I have gleaned about 4e is from the available articles on the Wizards site. I know 3.5E reasonably well as I have run it and my son currently runs it.

Played as drafted 3.5E created a structured hierachical approach to roleplaying that is not my favourite. I prefer PCs to retain intimations of their vulnerability to comparatively minor threats however experienced they may become i.e. know that it is possible to die in a melee from a knife thrust from some street thug (unlikely but possible).

From what I can see of 4E it appears that more emphasis is being given to structured progression from level to level e.g. making sure that gold piece acquisition is even in order to allow characters to have the right level of equipment for their level. As someone who routinely reduces cash and magical resources to their PCs and in D&D made even a +1 sword a signfiicant benefit for any character this is not an approach I prefer.

Also the change to 'squares' does imply a more map based approach to combat. I've run 3.5E and lots of other RPGs without a grid - miniatures/markers make life easier but are not essential.

Does 4E seem to focus more on the powers available to characters rather than on their personalities? Possibly from what I can see, however the influence of personalities on a game is usually the effect of the GM not the rules - rules always emphasise mechanisms over roleplay - the GM infuses the game with the cultures, the personalities and the environment which create roleplaying.

Is 4E still a roleplaying game? From what I can see it is. Is it the type of roleplay I want to play/run - probably not.

Regards

Edward

[Ars Mysteriorum]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

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.

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

Yup. I grew up with AD&D 2nd Ed. There was actually roleplaying there. A lot of roleplaying. I never read the 3rd ed. stuff... only 3.5, which was more in-line with 4th edition (though 4th seems MUCH more extreme in the direction it's taking). I played 3.5 a few times with the group I played with as a child... it was no longer roleplaying. We depended on dice for almost every interaction and the plot was wafer thin. The adventure called for constant combat to make us ignore the lack of plot (where in the past the games and rules always bowed down to the plot... kind of... we were kids!).

Hmmm... I think the D&D roleplayer would make the same argument of me, but I prefer old-school roleplaying... as in really getting INTO your roles, y'know?

That's kind of rambling. Anyways, I thought 3.5 quashed roleplaying as it was, but 4th seems to be going out of its way to show, "No... THIS is how you quash roleplaying!"

[Dredj]

Originally Posted by Skunkape

I think the main reason for complaints about DnD is due to the fact that they released 3.5 what oh 3 or 4 years ago and now we're getting yet another new version of the game. Oh and 3.5 came right on the heals of 3.0. I just think it's a reaction to a perceived notion that Wizards is just out to milk the fans of their money.

I remember one year back in the 80's, I forget which year it was, but TSR came out with 3 different versions of AD&D, because the rules in the prior one just wasn't good enough. My friends and I thought it was just to milk the consumers. That pretty much did it for our love of AD&D. It was Warhammer Fantasy from then on (and we liked the Warhammer gaming system a lot better, anyway).

[Lord Twig]

I don't think you can really judge whether a Role-Playing Game is a Role-Playing Game based solely on whether or not you can role-play while playing it. I role-play while playing Talisman, but that doesn't make it a Role-Playing Game.

While the definition of what a Role-Playing Game is will always be a bit fuzzy, I think the best that can be said about D&D 4th Edition is that it has elements of a Role-Playing Game in it. It really is just a tactical miniatures skirmish game with persistent characters and a bit of story tacked on to give you are reason to keep playing.

It does have persistent characters, character growth and things like that.

Maybe we can just call it a Miniature Combat Role-Playing Game?

It is kind of a sub-set of Role-Playing Games like Compute Role-playing Games or Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

Anyways, I thought 3.5 quashed roleplaying as it was, but 4th seems to be going out of its way to show, "No... THIS is how you quash roleplaying!"

Agreed. On the other hand if you ignore the ridiculous fact that it still labels itself "rpg", D&D4e is a great and extremely clever designed combat system as such. I really like the rule mechanics for my weekly wargame session.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

I don't think you can really judge whether a Role-Playing Game is a Role-Playing Game based solely on whether or not you can role-play while playing it. I role-play while playing Talisman, but that doesn't make it a Role-Playing Game.

While the definition of what a Role-Playing Game is will always be a bit fuzzy, I think the best that can be said about D&D 4th Edition is that it has elements of a Role-Playing Game in it. It really is just a tactical miniatures skirmish game with persistent characters and a bit of story tacked on to give you are reason to keep playing.

It does have persistent characters, character growth and things like that.

Maybe we can just call it a Miniature Combat Role-Playing Game?

It is kind of a sub-set of Role-Playing Games like Compute Role-playing Games or Massively Multi-player Online Role-Playing Games.

Perfectly said. This is true in every aspect. The thing that most people dont seem to realize is that 4e is not just "another" D&D version. Its a holistic experience with all its computer assisted content and premade battlemaps and minis, a revolutionary concept and it goes in a different direction than traditional rpgs.

[fmitchell]

Not to disagree with your main point, but ...

Originally Posted by Ars Mysteriorum

I played 3.5 a few times with the group I played with as a child... it was no longer roleplaying. We depended on dice for almost every interaction and the plot was wafer thin. The adventure called for constant combat to make us ignore the lack of plot (where in the past the games and rules always bowed down to the plot... kind of... we were kids!).

A role-playing experience depends heavily on the DM/GM and the adventure. If you were using one of WotC's crap adventures, or your DM hadn't gained much experience since those halcyon 2nd ed. days -- and I have no way of knowing either -- then your D&D experience will disappoint. I've been fortunate enough to find a great GM, and we ran through a d20-based Midnight campaign that rocked.

That being said, the aforementioned GM house-ruled a number of skills (notably Diplomacy) and added his own roleplaying-dependent "bonus-point" system to supplement experience points. I also felt that the game crawled when we entered combat: "uh oh, time to suspend the story while we move minis around and calculate bonuses/penalties/AoOs ... and of course that one guy always wants to grapple ..."

So, I'll have to echo the assessment upthread that D&D 3.5 is mainly a skirmish-level combat game with a unified conflict resolution system, but as a platform for roleplaying it leaves much to be desired. Then again, I was never enamored of previous editions, although at least OD&D/BD&D/AD&D left a big blank that individual groups could fill in with whatever they wanted.

In contrast, BRP -- hey, remember that one? -- and newer generations of RPGs have simple and unified conflict resolution mechanics so you can get back to the story. The same GM who ran Midnight now runs a Spirit of the Century campaign, where non-combat conflicts involve only one or two die-rolls per scene, combat moves a lot faster, and characters move all around the area despite not having an actual board. He's also a big fan of BRP, which despite its "simulationist" roots basically involves simple or opposed skill rolls and characters defined more by what they know than how they fight.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Perfectly said. This is true in every aspect. The thing that most people dont seem to realize is that 4e is not just "another" D&D version. Its a holistic experience with all its computer assisted content and premade battlemaps and minis, a revolutionary concept and it goes in a different direction than traditional rpgs.

While I realize some elements of 4e are a more radical departure, I'll note I heard almost exactly the same kind of statements from some 1 and 2e D&D enthusiasts when 3e came out. Some went as far to say it "wasn't D&D" anymore. In this case its looking like from the outside that someone who doesn't really like it as an RPG is simply being reinforced in his dislike by increased emphasis on elements that make that so to him. To someone (like myuself) who doesn't consider using a battleboard to make something not an RPG, this just doesn't seem like a particularly strong argument.