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

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by soltakss

Just looking at the summary at the start of this thread, it looks as though:

- assume the role of a fictional character: Clearly this is a major part of the game
- collaboratively create or follow stories: This is clearly possible as scenarios don't seem to be completely closed
- use rules to decide the success of actions: No problem here
- improvise freely within the rules: Probably as much as any game - you can play BRP very rigidly and not allow improvisation and you can play D&D and allow improvisation
- shape the direction and outcome of the game: Simply by their actions they can shape the way the campaign/hame goes

So, I honestly can't see how it cannot be a RPG.

Perhaps this is the classic BRP vs D&D (or the old RQ vs D&D) revisited.

Absolutely not. I am not caring about D&D 1-3.5 as roleplaying game. It have no interest to discuss previous editions of D&D. My opinion about them is that they are roleplaying games (of course very weak ones, but still rpgs). No, I am interested in discussing 4e only. 4e is a break with previous D&D editions and rpg traditions in general. And this makes it interesting.

Originally Posted by soltakss

I know some D&D players who would be very put out if you said they didn't play a RPG. I can't see that changing in D&D4. D&D isn't my cup of tea, I like RQ too much, but it has a lot going for it.

just because some wikipedia authors think the above points are enough to define a roleplaying game it does not mean that it is, no? Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter? According to the above criterias Advanced Heroquest is a roleplaying game too. Do you think this?

And again before you think that you can compare 4e with the previous editions of D&D you should read the core books, then decide, not before. I am wondering that the most "pro D&D4e" people here didnt even read the 4e books. But they claim to know something about it. But this opinion is not more than a prejudice resulting from what they know from previous editions.

Maybe I should wait some weeks, when the official version is out and the peeps here can take a look at them. This probably make the discussion more interesting.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

just because some wikipedia authors think the above points are enough to define a roleplaying game it does not mean that it is, no? Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter? According to the above criterias Advanced Heroquest is a roleplaying game too. Do you think this?

If it fits all that, I'd say that it is, whether it was built theoretically as a board game or not. I suspect, however, you're finessing the difference in degree of outcome possible to make your point.

And again before you think that you can compare 4e with the previous editions of D&D you should read the core books, then decide, not before. I am wondering that the most "pro D&D4e" people here didnt even read the 4e books. But they claim to know something about it. But this opinion is not more than a prejudice resulting from what they know from previous editions.

I'll freely admit to not having read them, because honestly, its not worth my time. However, I've gotten pretty good summaries from at least two people who's views are close enough to my own and who's opinions I trust to be willing to state what I've stated. Bluntly, I think you've gotten an internal model of what makes a roleplaying game that allows you to exclude what you don't like, and are trying to extend that model to other people who don't share it here.

You're welcome to whatever narrow definition you care to use, but don't expect other people to share it just because it suits your view.

[rust]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

Or do you think that Wikipedia is the definitve source about this matter?

Not necessarily, but on the other hand I do not see any reason why I should
prefer your definition to the Wikipedia definition.

And in the end the entire question whether D&D 4.0 is a RPG or not is hardly
more than a way to kill the time, and I do not prefer my time dead.

[frogspawner]

Gentlemen, please give it a rest! Anyone saying you can't do roleplaying in 4E is wrong. But anyone saying 4E is good for roleplaying is also wrong.

:focus:

I think we may have a clue to what we should be thinking about in this thread:

Originally Posted by frogspawner

In 3.5 there were extra XP for RP... Mind you, is that bonus going to survive into 4E?

Originally Posted by Enpeze

No. They took it out in 4e (you know why...)

So what else has been removed from D&D in creating 4E? Given that its design is moving in the wrong direction for a good RPG, anything that's been taken out might be worthy of careful consideration for inclusion in BRP. That's how we can learn from 4E!

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Gentlemen, please give it a rest! Anyone saying you can't do roleplaying in 4E is wrong. But anyone saying 4E is good for roleplaying is also wrong.

I think some of that question turns on what makes a system "good for roleplaying", however. First off, I tend to think that a game system only impacts the roleplaying potential of a game its used in in minor ways; most of what matters there is campaign structure and game culture. Second, I would suggest strongly that there's a vast gulf between what people consider to encourage roleplaying; just as an example from earlier in this thread, there are people who think personality related mechanics help, and those that think they harm.

I have my own criteria of course, but they're nothing but mine; I know for a fact that some of what I consider beneficial other people consider a deficit.

[badcat]

I agree with Enpeze. Weekend before last I watched a game at the local store...and it did not feel like a roleplaying game to me at all. What it felt like was an attempt to play a computer game without the computer. I did not get the feeling it would help me in any way. There was mostly talk about how someone could not do something because it was not their 'role' and how to use various 'powers'.

Someone at another forum (Troll Lords, I think) christened it 'Dungeons and Dragonballz'.

[AikiGhost]

Its interesting that the consensus on here seems to be that D&D 4th ed is moving in the wrong direction for a RPG.

To me it looks like the rules are becoming more streamlined and open and the base assumptions of the system are moving away from "Vance & Tolkien through the lens of war gaming", this is a good thing IMHO.

D&D 4th is still too gamist for me though, I prefer my gaming more immersionist hence my love of simple systems that don't encourage "Pawn stance".

[rust]

Originally Posted by AikiGhost

Its interesting that the consensus on here seems to be that D&D 4th ed is moving in the wrong direction for a RPG.

I do not think that it is the "wrong" direction for a RPG, and I have no doubt
that many roleplayers will consider it the "right" direction and welcome the
changes.

However, with its focus on the combat system it is definitely moving in the
wrong direction for my way of roleplaying and my preferred setting.

For example, it is simply impossible to create most of the character types
of my setting with D&D 4.0. Both the combat-oriented character classes
and the level system prevent it.

(I still want that record ... )

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by rust

However, with its focus on the combat system it is definitely moving in the
wrong direction for my way of roleplaying and my preferred setting.

For example, it is simply impossible to create most of the character types
of my setting with D&D 4.0. Both the combat-oriented character classes
and the level system prevent it.

And I think that's a perfectly legitimate objection on an individual-usage level; its a lot different to say "This doesn't support the kind of roleplaying game and characters I want to have" and attempting to claim its not a roleplaying game.

[badcat]

I don't know terms like 'gamist' so I usually don't understand what someone who uses such terms is trying to say, I fear. This ain't the Forge or rpg.net and I sincerely hope it does not get that way. I wouldn't say 4e is moving in the 'wrong direction' for rpgs because I don't consider it to be a rpg, especially after watching (suffering through) the gamestore session...and I definitely see no way it can be of use to a classic rpg gamer. Too restrictive, too dependent on too many devices. Bad design, unless you are Hasbro and WOTC and are looking to make lots of money re-selling a game to customers who will go for it (again), of whom there are many out there, it seems. Not this customer, though. Ever. Better no game than Dungeons and Dragonballz.