Thoughts on 4.0 now that the fervor has died down a bit

[kristof65]

A pet peeve of mine is when people only want to play (not GM) one system.

I guess I don't understand why that's a problem. If you don't like a system, don't play it. I've made exactly that choice with D&D 4. I tried it at some length, cordially despised it, and chose not to play in the stuff my regular group is running now. (Now anyone who insists that others also only play the game that he wants to play is just being rude.)

 

When I GM, though, I feel I should be able to select the rule set that is best going to fit my campaign. I'm through trying to fit my campaign visions to the ruleset players feel they have to play.

Absolutely. You should only commit to running a game that you like. IME, other choices fail badly. But if nobody (or only a subset of your normal group) wants to play that system, you might be out of luck. If you try to insist that others play the game that you want to play -- well, we're back to rude again. (Saying that you're only willing to GM if it's your system isn't insisting that anybody play anything. Anybody else can volunteer to run something different if it's that important.)

crud - I was having computer problems yesterday, and my carefully thought out and worded reply to this didn't post.

 

I used to be part of a group that was much like Bryan's - there were several of us who would switch off GMing, and basically, most of us would try anything - we played tons of different stuff, including homebrew RPG systems and hybrid RPG/Mini games among them. It was a great 11 year run, but then I had to move, leaving them behind. I've been trying to put together another group with the same mindset for the last 8 years, but I've been running into resistance to anything but D&D here in the Denver area. Yes, I've met more than a few players who are willing to try new & different stuff, but due to scheduling, locations, etc I've been unable to get them into a single group.

[Gimp]

crud - I was having computer problems yesterday, and my carefully thought out and worded reply to this didn't post.

 

I used to be part of a group that was much like Bryan's - there were several of us who would switch off GMing, and basically, most of us would try anything - we played tons of different stuff, including homebrew RPG systems and hybrid RPG/Mini games among them. It was a great 11 year run, but then I had to move, leaving them behind. I've been trying to put together another group with the same mindset for the last 8 years, but I've been running into resistance to anything but D&D here in the Denver area. Yes, I've met more than a few players who are willing to try new & different stuff, but due to scheduling, locations, etc I've been unable to get them into a single group.

We'll just have to imagine the glorious word play and insight, then. I feel your pain. It's no fun having a forum burp just as you try to post something.

 

I'm very happy with the gaming group we have right now. I've seen enough geoups with serious issues to appreciate good gamers.

 

It's easier with a gaming family, because you can fill out a group with people that are readily available. I've run some games with very small parties when we couldn't get everyone together. It can make some games easier (espionage or stealth missions), and adds some interesting challenges, but also loses some of the fun of a larger group. Of course, you can also have the problem of a very large group that wants to play. I prefer four to six players, but have had good campaigns with over a dozen.

[Deguello]

Its not really role playing....

Its really just a bunch of connected encounters...

It is fun.

More a computer game on paper than a paper game..

[fer]

Its not really role playing....

Its really just a bunch of connected encounters...

It is fun.

More a computer game on paper than a paper game..

 

that was actually my impression from my limited experience with 4.0...that it was created to address integration issues the rpg and the crpg

 

things like neverwinter nights were awesome, but it always felt that it was wedged into the rpg ruleset more then just influenced by it...now it seems the other way around, the rpg feels like it was wedged into something that a crpg would be great with..

 

if that isn't clear, sorry, I am sick :P

[Star Drifter]

Its not really role playing....

Its really just a bunch of connected encounters...

It is fun.

More a computer game on paper than a paper game..

To this end I'll stand up for 4.0. Back in the AD&D days, my game store owner used to proudly tell of a game that happened in his own store. The DM of a D&D game pulled out a Candyland board and had his players roleplay their way through that game, using the personas of their D&D characters.

 

I loved the 3.x non-combat skills. Those finally brought the game on par with all of the good things you were seeing in the newer game systems without losing the D&D feel (to me).

 

You can stand around and talk in character using nearly any system.

[Reaperbryan]

Its not really role playing....

Its really just a bunch of connected encounters...

It is fun.

More a computer game on paper than a paper game..

I will argue until I am blue in teh face that the amount of Role-Playing that occurs at your game has NOTHING to do with the ruleset and EVERYTHING to do with the players and the DM. If your players didn't speak in character or make decisions based upon their character's goal/outlook/wishes, then you can;t blame 4e, 3.x, 2e, Oe, or anything except the players. If your DM did not provide opportunities for interaction, moral or ethical dilemmas, or otherwise, then it;s the DMs fault.

 

Case in point, this Saturday, our party encountered a Nursery. Literally a dozen infant kobolds. Now, I was prepared to drop my AOE spell andobliterate the nest of monsters (the kobolds had kidnapped girls form the local neighborhoods and had been feeding them to the young), until our Good player argued that we should kill the armed adults only, and the young, while they represented a future potential threat, were not evil and were gulity of no crime. 4e game, nice long in character morlas debate (which my tiefling is a bit fuzzy on moral anyway )

 

Likewise, Friday night, my kids and I were in a dungeon, and while the rest of us were indifferent to the 3 wounded orcs we came across that did not raise their weapons at us so we let them pass, my youngest will not suffer a kobold to live, even one that surrenders, because his backstory says that kobolds ravaged his hometown and left him an orphaned only child.

 

So please, don't tell me there's no RP in 4e. The rules may not tell you how to RP, but there's a significant amount of space in Chapter 1 (or 2? I forget) dedicated to detailing personality and how you handle crises and ethical dilemmas.

[haldir]

I agree with Bryan on the RP

 

While 4e may lean toward attack, damage, kill approach. If your DM or even the players don't want to use the RP aspect of a RPG, then yah it'll be like a computer MMORPG, no matter the system your using.

 

RM

[kristof65]

Bryan - I agree with you in principle - rulesets don't have as much influence on how much roleplaying there is as the GM and players do. However, I feel that the adventures published for some rulesets do have an influence - if you look at many published adventures, all they are is a series of unrelated combat encounters that might have a bare thread of background to justify them. As the king of rpgs, D&D has more of these type adventures published for it than any other system - and that, IMO, has led many people to that style of "role-playing."

[Reaperbryan]

Except that I have one group that's doing the H1 module Keep on the Shadowfell. We spend easily half the bloody game arguing in character about treasure, looting the tombs (one of our paladins feels that looting a tomb is desecrating a sacred resting place) etc. We have a blast, and it's all roleplay that has nothing to do with the module, because we're roleplaying amongst ourselves, while the DM makes the monsters have time to prepare since they heard us arguing 3 rooms away.... So again, it's not the module, it's the group. Our group designed itself to have personalities that we knew would confilct like a fmaily - not sever enough to hate each other, but not so homogenous that we never disagree on the details. The wizard wants to study everyhting. The Warlord wants to collect samples of every plant or mold (he's a brewer who wants to make the perfect beer, and has to try many varieties to get it right) The Paladin wants to protect the dwarf she adopted as her brother (complicated story, there) and the Rogue wants to get rich, get drunk, and get laid. We all fight as a unit, an combat is beautiful. Outside of combat, however, we bicker, banter, and cajole. Since none of us is motivated by heroics or fame (well, maybe the rogue) the DM has to appeal to our character's motives, and ususally that means convincing the Wizard and Warlord that there's a flavorful/exotic plant int eh dungeon, and if we want it to brew/study with, we need to kill these Kobolds, first....

 

Roleplaying is NOT system driven, nor is it dictated by the module.

[kristof65]

Roleplaying is NOT system driven, nor is it dictated by the module.

And I'm not disagreeing with you in principle.

 

But pick up several modules and read through them. You'll find many that have no real role-playing component to them at all. Many don't even make sense if you try and justify why that particular dungeon exists in a given campaign.

 

This is not a problem for a group that truly wants to roleplay. But many modules picked up by a GM and/or group with no true role-playing experience are simply being leading them through a bunch of combat and or puzzle encounters without encouraging true role-playing. This is especially true of many early D&D modules, like White Plume Mountain. This does nothing to encourage new-comers to the hobby to actually role-play.

 

A good module should encourage role playing by giving well defined NPCs and true role-playing situations. Instead, many give an NPC a stat block, and weak set of motivations that encourage resolving the encounter with combat, if they even bother with anything but monsters to be killed.

[Lars Porsenna]

I think what Kristof65 is talking about here is the culture of D&D, as presented in the modules, which is hack n' slash. Sure, you can have a great RP experience using rock-paper-scissors as a game mechanic. But the culture of the game suggests a specific style.

 

Damon.

[kristof65]

To give a you a better idea of where I'm coming from, my very first role-playing experience was as a GM for some friends back in Junior High. We had seen some people playing D&D, but none of us could afford the books. We all had copies of Metagaming's Melee and Wizard games, so we began role-playing a LotR campaign using those games to handle combat - everything else was true roleplaying. We eventually did move to a "true" rpg - D&D - however, what we found was that we didn't like most of the modules, because many of them were just dungeon crawls that made no sense.

 

so, yes, I know that you can role-play with any set of rules or even without them - been there, done that, enjoyed the heck out of it - but there are things about certain rule sets and modules that encourage more role-playing than other rule sets and modules do, which, as Damon said, is probably best defined as their culture. That's probably a better way of putting it - The culture of D&D certainly leans more towards a series of hack-n-slash combat encounters than it does character driven stories - particularly in a lot of D&D's published modules.

[Spike]

After trying out 2nd edition, 3rd edition, and a bit of 3.5, we've reverted right back to 0e. Those of you who are interested in rules-light gaming and roleplaying that is more dialogue-driven as opposed to having every skill check resolved by dice..you need to look into some of the Oe clones available.

 

Matter of fact, if anybody's keen on trying some free Oe, there might be a game gathering soon down in the roleplay forum here.

 

What I'm liking best about the older style is that the damage ranges for both PCs and monsters is tighter, so that there are no double-damage crits, no 1st level characters being killed by one single sword-wielding kobold who got lucky, and far less opportunity for powergaming.

 

OF course like Bryan said, the GM has the ultimate power to keep that kind of stuff in check, but having players whine "but the book says I can have one" makes it harder for the DM to do what the DM might think is best for his or her game setting.

[Akela]

A lot of sturm und drang to arrive back at the point we all knew at the beginning - it's all about your group.

 

For our part, 4th edition is a fine system and one I enjoy a very great deal. Reaper Bryan's posts (the most recent especially) echo my thoughts on the matter(s) presented.

[kristof65]

I recently read elswhere* that 4e's sales figures aren't as good as WotC expected and/or as good as 3.5e's. Anyone else heard that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

*it was on the Mongoose forum, which means I'm taking it with a grain of salt.