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

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Skunkape

As far as role-play vs roll-play, the ability to do that is entirely in the hands of the group as well. Personally, I've never liked level based systems, though I have pulled things from those systems in the past and have even run 2 3.5 campaigns, very successful campaigns at that.

Exactly. The only real degree to which a system impairs roleplaying has to do with two issues: the degree to which it mandates character design choice (this is an area class systems have always had some problems with, but there's a conflict intrinsic in campaign design constraints there too, so rules design isn't the only issue there) and the degree to which it mandates removing player choice (which is why I'm of the school that says that manditory (as compared to optional) personality mechanics are often anything but a benefit to roleplay). D&D4 might have some issues on the former ground (but no worse than many games do), but I see nothing to suggest it does on the latter, and everything else is really an issue of people, not the game system.

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'm of the school that says that manditory (as compared to optional) personality mechanics are often anything but a benefit to roleplay).

Not to expel you from that school, or apply to it, but I'd like to know why you think personality mechanics don't benefit roleplay. Why are personality mechanics different from injury mechanics? How is it, that you can accept 'Taking 14 points of Damage, suffering a major wound and losing 1d3 points of APP', but not 'Try as you might, but you can not overcome your lustiness'? [Pendragon Reference]

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by sladethesniper

Ah, but was it FUN? I love BRP as a game, but having played with some complete buffoons, the system does not guarantee a fun game. Likewise I have played exceptionally fun games using D20, Palladium games wonky rules, etc.

Granted, some systems make the fun easier/harder...but it the game master, fellow players and the adventure that make the GAME fun or not, the rules set can hinder or help, but claiming that 4E is an abomination of gaming and will doom all who play it is a bit disingenious...I am positive that there are some very good DM's out there that will have great and fantastic games using it, just as I am sure that there were people who had fun playing Phoenix Command in the early 90's (or not...it was the hardest and most unfriendly gaming system I've ever seen).

With that said, I won't be running any games in 4E, but I am sure that I will play in several games using it, and after the learning curve levels off, I may even have fun during it.

I am still a hardcore BRP fan, but bashing a system is rather pointless...a GM's skill and ability to craft a fun story is far more important.

-STS

Of course you are right in your opinion that a good roleplaying game could be also a d20 game. I can make even a roleplaying game out of just randomly rolling some d6 or tossing a coin for combat. I can make a good roleplaying game when I push around marines a Space Hulk boardgame or the Alien boardgame from Leading Edge, provided I am good GM and have good players. No problem with this.
So maybe I was exaggerating with my assumption that the new 4e is not suited at all for roleplaying and I am sorry for this. But using the rule set for roleplaying will be extremely difficult, especially if you play it according to the vanilla rules. (eg. every player heals automatically max hitpoints once per day - without magic, and heals additionally as much wounds as he want - up to his healing surges - each 5 min )

But what 4e is instead? A damned good boardgame design. Cudos to the designers.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Harshax

Not to expel you from that school, or apply to it, but I'd like to know why you think personality mechanics don't benefit roleplay. Why are personality mechanics different from injury mechanics? How is it, that you can accept 'Taking 14 points of Damage, suffering a major wound and losing 1d3 points of APP', but not 'Try as you might, but you can not overcome your lustiness'? [Pendragon Reference]

Because frankly, the way you respond to physical injury is almost always a more coarse process and less tied up with your characterization than the way you respond to being seduced. Fundamentally a screw-up in how physical mechanics works doesn't throw off characterization (it might throw off suspension of disbelief or genre emulation, but those aren't the same thing and are, on a piece by piece basis, less disruptive of someone's ability to play their character).

In theory a set of mechanics could do so with enough modifiers, but in practice even if you had such a set, that would just mean in practice the GM was running your character as much as you are, because he'd have to make too many ad-hoc decisions too often.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

suited at all for roleplaying and I am sorry for this. But using the rule set for roleplaying will be extremely difficult, especially if you play it according to the vanilla rules. (eg. every player heals automatically max hitpoints once per day - without magic, and heals additionally as much wounds as he want - up to his healing surges - each 5 min )

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

[sdavies2720]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

To me what is interesting is how the rules support or hinder roleplaying. At the extremes you can roleplay in anything, and you can probably turn almost any game into a rote roll/board game.

My view of RPG was always that the milieu and adventure were the important things, and that character development always happened within the context of the world. It was an eye-opener for me playing 3.5 when characters started developing new abilities in response to publications of new rulebooks. The effect was somewhat subtle, but effectively the rules drove campaigns.

Yes, GMs could and did stop this when needed, but RPGs are social, and aside from the amount of energy it takes to overturn the wishes of one's players, there's a limit to how many times a GM is willing to do it.

I'll be curious to see what things 4.0 supports and what things it fights. My guess is that it will continue to move the hobby away from a focus on story and world, and continue the move toward gizmos and superpowers. That will help sell additional rulebooks. While that will be good for WotC in the short run, I fear that it will dilute what makes pen-and-paper roleplaying unique, and ultimately leave people wondering why they bother when the online RPGs take care of all of the notekeeping for them.

Steve

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

People assume just as strange a things for genre emulation reasons in any number of games and I fail to see how that interferes with their roleplaying. I think you're conflating world-consistency issues with roleplaying ones here.

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.

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!)

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.

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. They closed the obvious gap and every combat encounter (24 in the first adventure module!) you play is designed for using the tabletop rules and boards the company provides. You can use 90% of the powers of monsters or PCs only in conjunction with a exact positioning and pushing around minis.

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.

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.

[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.

Example
In my Pendragon games PCs get double Glory for defeating their foes
a) if unarmoured
b) without fighting
(unarmoured and without fighting you get triple not quad)

coz Blodwyn the Druidess repeatedly hitting a Goblin fae with a stick until it stops moving is not glorious or saga worthy. But Blodwyn the Druidess fooling said Goblin into thinking that the autumnal leaves are gold and sending him off cackling to collect them as a solve is saga worthy. AND MORE FUN.


Al

[sladethesniper]

I'll buy that It also makes a nifty mental image.

:focus:

I think that 4E will, IMO simply be a rules set that I pull from to add to my Warhammer 40K/Inquisitor/Warhammer games (or my Star Wars mini games) or Heroscape mini game rather than add having it anything to any RPG that I play.

-STS

[rust]

Since the focus of D&D 4e obviously is on the combat system, and combat is
not at the centre of my setting (with futuristic weapons around, characters
develop a tendency to avoid realistic combat ...), I will most probably ignore
4e and the almost inevitable 4e Modern and 4e Future.
What 4e has to offer apart from the combat system is just a - from my point
of view - overly complicated and all in all quite mediocre system, with a lot
more unnecessary rules than I like for my roleplaying.