D&D version 4.0--what do YOU think it's going to be like • Page 12 • Collecting General • The Acaeum

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

D&D version 4.0--what do YOU think it's going to be like
	Page 12 of 26 • 1 2 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 24 25 26

Author

Gnat the Beggar
Grandstanding Collector
JG Valuation Board
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 5029
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 16, 2017
Location: Texas

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:38 am

serleran wrote:The same way a potion of fire breathing works in AD&D - magic.

I dont agree.
A breath weapon is supposed to be a dragon's natural ability.
A potion of fire breathing is as you said magic, created by an alchemist to mimic a red dragons breath weapon.

An example: A spell (Dispel Magic) cast by a mage at the PC carrying a potion could destroy that potion.
That same spell could not affect a dragon's breath weapon.

IMO the two are not the same thing at all.

"Guys, I am starting to think Tegel Manor might be haunted..."
Stated by me as a PC during a run of Tegel Manor DMed by killjoy at NTRPGCon 2010

Charter Member of the ATM

Deadlord
Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5885
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jul 31, 2026
Location: Cow Hampshire, US

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:54 am

From the sound of it, the Dragonborn Paladin's ability is natural. Maybe he has fire glands in his cheeks (facial ones).
I've watched D&D devolve from a roleplaying game to a game. You will never convince me that 3/4E is based on roleplaying. I have been in a few 3E games, DMed one, and watched dozens. The rules are designed for a combat-based game, not a roleplaying one.
MMORPG's and video games are no different. There is no roleplaying in either. You kill creatures, pick up loot, and upgrade skills and equipment. Certainly not the concept of a ROLEPLAYING game.
People lean towards 3E and other video games because they are quick. 1E was focused largely on player-NPC interactions and decision making. Combat was certainly part of it, but not the focus.

If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:25 pm

serleran wrote:The same way a potion of fire breathing works in AD&D - magic.

Well, you could fall back on that, but "it's magic" really should not be used as a convenient catchall. It should be a last resort. The reason is that repeated use chips away and strains plausibility. "What? Why?!? In a fantastic fictional work, how can that be so?", you might ask. Well, good question. I'll 'splain how.

We don't know exactly how things work in a fantasy universe -- but we do collectively know quite a lot, based on shared experience. At least some part of "how things work" has been accepted as fact, even if based solely on indirect observation and/or faith. There's an existing model, and in a fantasy universe that model includes magic itself!

So anything that cannot be explained within the traditional, albeit subjective canon runs contrary to those shared "truths", magic notwithstanding. The correct response to "it's magic" in the case of something that defies established truths would be "No, magic doesn't work like that. We know quite well what magic does, and it's doesn't do that. So it must be something else entirely."

Newer role-players will naturally have less of a problem with new and/or divergent material, as they haven't accepted the same truths.

Plaag
Long-Winded Collector
Subweb Admin
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 4597
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Last Visit: Aug 06, 2026
Location: Land of 10,000 ponds

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:43 pm

Has no one played Dragonlance? The Aurak Draconians had a breath weapon, and yeah of course there was the half-dragons from 2nd edition and template for 3rd ed. So its a new race and inborn ability, no different then Drow having magic abilities, Duergar and their growth, etc.

ShaneG.

I reject your reality and substitute my own

robertsconley
Prolific Collector

Posts: 205
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Last Visit: Jun 16, 2026

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:10 pm

Deadlord39 wrote:I've watched D&D devolve from a roleplaying game to a game

You should read the PDFs of the three booklets of OD&D. 4th edition pretty much covers every topic that was in those books.

Rob Conley

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:34 pm

robertsconley wrote:You should read the PDFs of the three booklets of OD&D. 4th edition pretty much covers every topic that was in those books.

Rob Conley

OD&D ain't a checklist. :lol:

That pretty much sums it up the issue, though. OD&D was derived from Chainmail, a wargame. It's come a long way since 1974.

4E is returning to the Chainmail roots. The very opposite direction OD&D and all subsequent editions went. If that trend continues, can we expect Dungeon and Dragons, Fifth Edition to be akin to Little Wars?

killjoy32
Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8283
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 26, 2025
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:06 pm

my problem with it is simple: it doesnt "feel" believable - in a fantasy RPG sense.

if i dont have a natural feel for it that makes sense, i cant get my head around a game, no matter what it is.

dragonborn paladin just sounds silly to me, but thats prb the archaic me talking.

if its good for the folk who like that kinda thing, excellent!!!

Al

Are we nearly there yet?

Busman
Prolific Collector

Posts: 260
Joined: Feb 25, 2003
Last Visit: Jan 10, 2021

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:17 pm

I don't understand how people believe that 4e is any less capable of role-playing than anything else. I could role-play in Monopoly if that's what I wanted to do (and have done!). Role-playing is almost tautologically outside of rules as it's the flavor that players add to the situation to increase the immersion, etc. The combat rules are what books concentrate on, because those are the mechanics that need to remain consistent from game to game so that people can transport from one game to another and have a similar experience.

There can be no argument that the combat rules have changed. When a new edition comes out it is these rules that get nearly all of the concentration of conversation, because it's difficult to define (I'd say nigh impossible) to define the role-playing rules. I've always taken the first rule of role-playing is that there are no rules.

I'd propose that about the only thing you can come to talking about the role-playing rules are the environs that are defined for the players to play in and skills.

For the world, I find 4e's "Points of Light" and the shattering of The Great Wheel to be fantastic. The best basic world that has ever shipped with the core rule books of any world I've played in, excepting possibly EPT. The incorporation of the Feywild and Shadowfell crossing in and out of the PMP is just amazing. It reminds me strongly of A.A. Attanasio's books and Gene Wolf's books. I'm quite enamored with all of the decisions they made with the structure of the multiverse.

Then we are left, imo, with Skills. I do think skills are anti-roleplaying. They take the place of the player and DM having to enact a situation and play out it's success. All that happens instead is, can I Bribe this guy? Roll a d20 and check against the DC. Arguably, skills have been around since 1976 and Supplement I: Greyhawk with the introduction of the Thief. They continue down this path further in AD&D and the listing of Secondary Skills, and only get worse and worse from there. I don't think that 4e is any worse than 3e or even 2e in this regard (I'm having trouble recalling didn't UA have a heavy skills component in them? I'm seeming to recall they did).

My take is that skills, and all of the iterations of D&D since OD&D, have set out to make it easier for the unskilled or just plain bad DM and players to have a decent game. If you've ever had the displeasure of playing with a bad DM, you'll know it can be excruciating. The more tightly you constrain and hand-hold people who aren't good, the higher you can raise the minimum bar and the more people that will experience some fun.

Great DMs barely need anything, the 16 pages of rules from Men & Magic was more than sufficient for people like Gary and Dave and other imaginative DMs to run amazing campaigns. They aren't for whom the more rigid and tightly defined modern rules are made.

Personally, since I haven't had a regular group to D&D with in a long time, the majority of my D&D play comes from tournaments and cons. Increasing the base level of DMing gets two big thumbs up from me.

Deadlord
Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5885
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jul 31, 2026
Location: Cow Hampshire, US

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:39 pm

D&D was designed to be a player-driven game. The referee was supposed to be a storyteller, situation presenter, and rules judge.
I have yet to see a 3E campaign where the campaign world itself was anything more than a breeding ground for targets. I don't know much about Eberron, but I am pretty sure the vast majority of DM's don't use it.

If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

sauromatian
Sage Collector

Posts: 2554
Joined: Jul 25, 2007
Last Visit: Jan 06, 2024
Location: Far Harad, Texas

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 4:44 pm

Deadlord39 wrote: I have been in a few 3E games, DMed one, and watched dozens. The rules are designed for a combat-based game, not a roleplaying one... 1E was focused largely on player-NPC interactions and decision making. Combat was certainly part of it, but not the focus.

It sounds like the differences are in the people you're playing these games with. Whether someone leans on rules mechanics or roleplaying is up to them, not the rules.

I don't play with the same individuals, I'll never even meet them, none of us will. How are these personal anecdotes you've cited even slightly relevant to anyone other than yourself?

Gnat the Beggar
Grandstanding Collector
JG Valuation Board
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 5029
Joined: Oct 11, 2004
Last Visit: Jan 16, 2017
Location: Texas

Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:27 pm

Busman wrote: .......I've always taken the first rule of role-playing is that there are no rules.....

Hear hear.............

At least none that cannot be ignored for the fun to be had that not using them might create.

I am going to take a wait and see attitude with 4e....
(Not to say im gonna run off and pre-order it either...)
But the busman has just about convinced me that it cant possibly be worse than 3x........ :roll:

Im not saying a Dragonborn Paladin will be a typical PC in one my games either, or that a Magic Missile spell will miss two thirds of the time.....

"Guys, I am starting to think Tegel Manor might be haunted..."
Stated by me as a PC during a run of Tegel Manor DMed by killjoy at NTRPGCon 2010

Charter Member of the ATM

MadMaligor
Active Collector

Posts: 97
Joined: Feb 04, 2006
Last Visit: Jun 06, 2009
Location: Sacramento CA

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:55 am

deimos3428 wrote:As far as I can tell, the only people that seem to be taking a shine to 4E thus far are those that frequently play 3.0/3.5. Though a lot of disenfranchised 3Eers are looking for greener pastures entirely, it would seem.

If someone who primarily plays 1E/2E could give a review, that would be much more interesting to read. The new version might well be rules-light compared to 3E, but since when is 3E a bellwether for D&D? (Quite a lot of us don't consider 3E to be D&D at all...)

4E seems very heavily over-architected for an RPG, at least in th examples we've seen. It certainly reads more like a CCG, wargame, or videogame.

So if you play 1E and like 4E, please speak up and say why.

Deimos, I was as concerned about this as you, till I play tested. Before I start though I should explain...I despised the rule clutter that is 3.5. Its meta/power gaming feel has its place but its just not for me. So I am a 1E/2E convert as are my players. We were just as concerned about the CCG, Videogame thing (not the Wargame thing but I will explain in a sec...).

What happened is we found that the system freed us up to do alot more roleplay than I had anticipated. It just took a bit of work on our part to be aware of the rules first and not have to get bogged down in "Lawyer"ing ourselves to death (something that was tough given the small amount of released info).

First, 4E is not a pencil and paper game. By that I mean if you dont have your pencil and paper AND your battle mat and minis, your gonna find out fast that some things really break down in play. However, this didnt cause an issue for our group. We have used minis and mats of a sort since we started gaming 25+ years ago. I had to house rule alot of things regarding tactical combat because 1E and 2E rules dont cover the gambit, but we had a working system. 4E puts back in a tactical combat system that is, well pretty darn brilliant (a reason you will see people declaring it as a return to Chainmail...which is not entirely true but the idea is understood).

Since the basic combat system is modular (ie...you can take what you want for powers or insert/create your own similair versions) every class had stuff to do and a good selection even at 1st level. The idea behind At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers works well and creates alot of strategic combos, especially for your "buffing" type classes (the Warlord, Paladin, Cleric now are the strong helper classes). But heres the deal and where I think your worries come in. Does that make for a good roleplaying game? Yes and no. Yes because a good DM and player that study the rules and know the system just insert normal roleplay at will (even emphasise the types of powers and combat in play). No for those not familiar and let the system rules become the focus. But that is a problem in any version really even Basic/Expert D&D if the DM and Players allow this to happen.

Its always been easy to just let the combat system take over in game speak terms, no matter what the edition. No more so than in 3.0 to 3.5. The reason being is that the strengths of the 3-3.5 system are its flexibility and massive amounts of options especially in combat. Even non combat in 3.5 is essentially a skill vs roll fest. Roleplay still overcomes any system though with practice, even 3.5 I would imagine (having not had alot of play experience with that system I am no expert).

Where 4E actually shines a bit is in its use of the non combat skills and what are called "Skill Challenges". Skill challenges are a series of player attempted ideas using a basic skill. The gist of it is that you need more successful uses of a group of skills than failures. For example, to convince the guard to get close enough to the cell so you can attempt a grapple to grab the keys and escape the DM decides you need 4 successes vs 2 failures. So the players roleplay out different uses of the diplomacy and bluff skills (even things like religion from the priest appealing to the mans piety if hes a member of the same or related faith, or history from the wizard getting the guard to talk about how old the prison is and did he know that this cell once housed the famous thief Kalin the Bold who, "Oh look here!", was making an effort to tunnel out and carved his name on the wall), followed up with an acrobatics check...etc...etc. This is then supported by a system of experience rewards for players that succeed.

Now, all of this is doable and has been done to some degree in 1st Ed. A good DM might not ever have even rolled a die in the old school world if things were roleplayed well enough to his satisfaction. Its just that there is a system involved that helps frame things, especially for the initiates to the game. It also takes the emphasis off the DM to decide and allows the players a good deal of latitude to come up with inventive ways to solve the puzzle/problem.

This is a drastic change from the 3.5 "Do or die" one roll and your out kind of mentality that had many a DM house rule how Diplomacy and Bluff worked.

Where I noticed the most change though, wasnt in the system itself, but in my players. They loved the At-Will's, no more so than the fighter and pell casters. The Warlock (our former Wizard) couldnt get enough of his Eldritch Blasts, Eyebites, Ray of Frosts, Witch Mire, and Curse of the Dark Dream. His exact words were "Its like playing a sorcerer with style!" The Fighter felt like he actually had choices and could engage targets and used his position for attacks of opportunity and target marking to full effect (marking is like calling out your opponent, if he doesnt concentrate and attack you he gives up a little defense as you concentrate your attacks on him, only the fighter and paladin can do this, as well as some monsters).

Which brings up the true thrill for the players. Monster abilities. All of a sudden, a Kobold was not a Kobold. There were multiple flavors of Kobolds, each with some unique abilities. The Dragonshields really gave the players a run for their money with their ability to move away when players got in close for melee. A good DM can really role play the heck outa this and all of a sudden your players are having fits killing what amounts to the easiest of monsters in the book, and they are loving it!!

Now this is not unique to 4th Ed. You could certainly change up things and make all kinds of Kobolds in any edition. But the building blocks are all present in the 4th Ed and its modular style allows for so many variations without making it complex or ultra time consuming to set up. Thats the key.

Now just as a quick aside. I also love the minions thing. It gives the DM loads of room to create Hordes without tracking HP. Also something you could do in 1st Ed with simple modifications.

So 4E for me was all about the simplification, modular style of building blocks as a backbone to the core, and making combat really tactically fun. The roleplay just flowed naturally once I was used to the rules and not worried that I was doing something wrong.

MM

Okay, I can't help but ask, but what exactly is a "potato wedger"? - bclarkie

Badmike
Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8079
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 24, 2026
Location: DFW TX

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:09 am

MadMaligor wrote:
Deimos, I was as concerned about this as you, till I play tested. Before I start though I should explain...I despised the rule clutter that is 3.5. Its meta/power gaming feel has its place but its just not for me. So I am a 1E/2E convert as are my players. We were just as concerned about the CCG, Videogame thing (not the Wargame thing but I will explain in a sec...).

What happened is we found that the system freed us up to do alot more roleplay than I had anticipated. It just took a bit of work on our part to be aware of the rules first and not have to get bogged down in "Lawyer"ing ourselves to death (something that was tough given the small amount of released info).

First, 4E is not a pencil and paper game. By that I mean if you dont have your pencil and paper AND your battle mat and minis, your gonna find out fast that some things really break down in play. However, this didnt cause an issue for our group. We have used minis and mats of a sort since we started gaming 25+ years ago. I had to house rule alot of things regarding tactical combat because 1E and 2E rules dont cover the gambit, but we had a working system. 4E puts back in a tactical combat system that is, well pretty darn brilliant (a reason you will see people declaring it as a return to Chainmail...which is not entirely true but the idea is understood).

Since the basic combat system is modular (ie...you can take what you want for powers or insert/create your own similair versions) every class had stuff to do and a good selection even at 1st level. The idea behind At-Will/Encounter/Daily powers works well and creates alot of strategic combos, especially for your "buffing" type classes (the Warlord, Paladin, Cleric now are the strong helper classes). But heres the deal and where I think your worries come in. Does that make for a good roleplaying game? Yes and no. Yes because a good DM and player that study the rules and know the system just insert normal roleplay at will (even emphasise the types of powers and combat in play). No for those not familiar and let the system rules become the focus. But that is a problem in any version really even Basic/Expert D&D if the DM and Players allow this to happen.

Its always been easy to just let the combat system take over in game speak terms, no matter what the edition. No more so than in 3.0 to 3.5. The reason being is that the strengths of the 3-3.5 system are its flexibility and massive amounts of options especially in combat. Even non combat in 3.5 is essentially a skill vs roll fest. Roleplay still overcomes any system though with practice, even 3.5 I would imagine (having not had alot of play experience with that system I am no expert).

Where 4E actually shines a bit is in its use of the non combat skills and what are called "Skill Challenges". Skill challenges are a series of player attempted ideas using a basic skill. The gist of it is that you need more successful uses of a group of skills than failures. For example, to convince the guard to get close enough to the cell so you can attempt a grapple to grab the keys and escape the DM decides you need 4 successes vs 2 failures. So the players roleplay out different uses of the diplomacy and bluff skills (even things like religion from the priest appealing to the mans piety if hes a member of the same or related faith, or history from the wizard getting the guard to talk about how old the prison is and did he know that this cell once housed the famous thief Kalin the Bold who, "Oh look here!", was making an effort to tunnel out and carved his name on the wall), followed up with an acrobatics check...etc...etc. This is then supported by a system of experience rewards for players that succeed.

Now, all of this is doable and has been done to some degree in 1st Ed. A good DM might not ever have even rolled a die in the old school world if things were roleplayed well enough to his satisfaction. Its just that there is a system involved that helps frame things, especially for the initiates to the game. It also takes the emphasis off the DM to decide and allows the players a good deal of latitude to come up with inventive ways to solve the puzzle/problem.

This is a drastic change from the 3.5 "Do or die" one roll and your out kind of mentality that had many a DM house rule how Diplomacy and Bluff worked.

Where I noticed the most change though, wasnt in the system itself, but in my players. They loved the At-Will's, no more so than the fighter and pell casters. The Warlock (our former Wizard) couldnt get enough of his Eldritch Blasts, Eyebites, Ray of Frosts, Witch Mire, and Curse of the Dark Dream. His exact words were "Its like playing a sorcerer with style!" The Fighter felt like he actually had choices and could engage targets and used his position for attacks of opportunity and target marking to full effect (marking is like calling out your opponent, if he doesnt concentrate and attack you he gives up a little defense as you concentrate your attacks on him, only the fighter and paladin can do this, as well as some monsters).

Which brings up the true thrill for the players. Monster abilities. All of a sudden, a Kobold was not a Kobold. There were multiple flavors of Kobolds, each with some unique abilities. The Dragonshields really gave the players a run for their money with their ability to move away when players got in close for melee. A good DM can really role play the heck outa this and all of a sudden your players are having fits killing what amounts to the easiest of monsters in the book, and they are loving it!!

Now this is not unique to 4th Ed. You could certainly change up things and make all kinds of Kobolds in any edition. But the building blocks are all present in the 4th Ed and its modular style allows for so many variations without making it complex or ultra time consuming to set up. Thats the key.

Now just as a quick aside. I also love the minions thing. It gives the DM loads of room to create Hordes without tracking HP. Also something you could do in 1st Ed with simple modifications.

So 4E for me was all about the simplification, modular style of building blocks as a backbone to the core, and making combat really tactically fun. The roleplay just flowed naturally once I was used to the rules and not worried that I was doing something wrong.

MM

Well, if playtesters are saying its not 3/3.5, which was an abomination, then I'm willing to give it a pass. Not that I'll ever play it myself, as I am mired in nostalgia (and my game does everything it needs to do for me), but from what you are saying I could at least watch a group play this without losing my lunch and walking away in disgust.

I don't object to the minis aspect, as my group have used them for the last 30 years, and I also don't dislike the painted plastic minis, but I personally doubt I would use the miniature rules.

Most of the problems inherent in this newer version would no doubt be present in any version of the game. Hell I know 1st edition AD&Ders that couldn't roleplay out of a wet paper bag. I knew entire groups that would just roll, roll, roll dice and hardly even talk during play except for the DM calling out room descriptions and numbers of monsters, while the players chanted damage done. So if the system is forcing players to take a little initiative and roleplay skill encounters, vs just a roll of the dice to solve the problem, thats a good thing.

Here's the thing, any good DM and group already were using a lot of the "innovations" of 3/4 edition years and years ago. My monsters have ALWAYS had different powers and such (remind my old group about the time they ran into the kobold warrior that was a 7th level fighter who beat their ass five ways to Sunday), my priests have always had unique powers depending on their priesthoods, I've always had unique character classes (we used to run Samurai and Archers way before character kits became available), etc. The power was always there for DMs to make their games unique and spice up playing, only many were too hidebound or dull to think of any sort of different perspective. So while I think it's cool that 4E will do this, my response is to shrug the shoulders and say "Eh, we were doing that back in the day..."

But I like that you said 4E made combat fun. From watching some godawful bog-downs in 3E when I would observe groups playing, that was definitely something that needed to be done. Combat looked as grim and uninteresting as watching slugs drown...any change to that is good.

Mike B.

"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
NTRPGCON

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:03 am

MadMaligor wrote:First, 4E is not a pencil and paper game. By that I mean if you dont have your pencil and paper AND your battle mat and minis, your gonna find out fast that some things really break down in play.

Which to me says "it ain't D&D", as minis were never more than optional. But anyway, I get the reason. WotC sells cheap plastic minis, they want to sell more of them. That actually makes sense.

One thing I've noticed is that you (and others) seem to keep referring to "roleplaying" and then talking about things that seem completely unrelated to roleplaying. I don't think we think it's the same thing at all. Like this bit below:

For example, to convince the guard to get close enough to the cell so you can attempt a grapple to grab the keys and escape the DM decides you need 4 successes vs 2 failures.

So in 4E, you roll dice to determine if you can convince a guard to get close to the cell, as opposed to I don't know, convincing the guard? That's the very opposite of roleplaying, to me. (And then you make a play for the keys, that part's the same -- you roll dice unless you're playing a LARP.)

It also takes the emphasis off the DM to decide and allows the players a good deal of latitude to come up with inventive ways to solve the puzzle/problem.

What happens when a player throws a wrench in the works? The DM makes a call, of course. But the DM gets better at making those calls by doing so frequently. Removing the emphasis from the DM only removes good DMing.

As for the "at-wills" -- of course players like cool freebie powers. It's quite like giving out free permanent magic items at the start of the campaign. Ask me again in 6 months, when they're completely bored to death by them and how easy successes have become. Unless the challenges are also ramped up in power, in which case you're just starting an arms race.

MadMaligor
Active Collector

Posts: 97
Joined: Feb 04, 2006
Last Visit: Jun 06, 2009
Location: Sacramento CA

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:41 am

Ahh, I get where you are coming from now. But interestingly enough, if the type of dramatic DM only rule roleplay is what your interested in, I cant see why you chose D&D.

I certainly make my share of calls, like any DM. But rolls are a part of the system of decision making, as much as are my own decisions. Having me be judge jury and executioner all of the time outside of combat is not my idea of roleplay. It sounds more like story crafting. Its also a good way to frustrate players. The outcome of every situation falls to the whims of the DM based on his or her idea of how well roleplayed every encounter is. That works if your players like bedtime stories. It doesnt work if your players feel they roleplayed well and get frustrated because their actions may conflict with where a DM feels the story should be heading.

While I agree that rolls are not always neccessary and the DM certainly has a right to rule, even a responsibility to the campaign. Roleplay for me is the defining modifier of where the campaign might go, and is influenced at times by the random nature of the roll.

But we digressed from a 4E to roleplay argument hehehe. 4E has no more or less roleplay in it than 1E. Thats my belief based on what I have been experiencing.

If you dont like 4E because it basically forces minis and a mat on you, THAT I can agree with.

MM

Okay, I can't help but ask, but what exactly is a "potato wedger"? - bclarkie

Deadlord
Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5885
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Jul 31, 2026
Location: Cow Hampshire, US

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:25 am

Deimos is dead-on; there has been no real discussion of roleplaying yet. I've heard about fire-breathing paladins, weapons with seeming 30-foot reaches, ninja kobolds, and worse. I haven't heard a thing about ROLEPLAYING.
This game system, along with 3E, seems designed to have you hack down the local shopkeeper, not haggle with him. Then again, he might be a Dragonborn shopkeeper....

If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

killjoy32
Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8283
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 26, 2025
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:50 am

"But interestingly enough, if the type of dramatic DM only rule roleplay is what your interested in, I cant see why you chose D&D."

i read this comment and it really interested me. as mike said above, from what you have described, it has interested me enough that i would WATCH a game being played out. at least it looks more sensible and interesting. not that i still like how some things are done, but thats ok, because you will never have anything that every person likes.

however, the comment i highlighted above. i very much role-play my games. for me, its the most important aspect. dice rolling comes into play if there is no other way i can deal with it. a lot of what happens is simple common sense and can be dealt with that way. i DMd for the guys last year and bar for rolling dice in fights, there was very little dice rolling or rule-crunching, but the game flowed very well, and for me, made for a good storytelling that the guys involved themselves in and played a good game. that for me, is 1E and prb even other versions at their best.

i am not turning my back on this new version. i think its interesting and i would prb enjoy watching a group of good players immersed in it, so long as SOME roleplaying goes on. i will, however, stick to the format i already use.

thanks for the time in explaining though - good summarising!

Al

Are we nearly there yet?

JZavoda
Prolific Collector

Posts: 341
Joined: May 18, 2008
Last Visit: Aug 03, 2008

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:06 pm

MadMaligor wrote:Ahh, I get where you are coming from now. But interestingly enough, if the type of dramatic DM only rule roleplay is what your interested in, I cant see why you chose D&D.

I certainly make my share of calls, like any DM. But rolls are a part of the system of decision making, as much as are my own decisions. Having me be judge jury and executioner all of the time outside of combat is not my idea of roleplay. It sounds more like story crafting. Its also a good way to frustrate players. The outcome of every situation falls to the whims of the DM based on his or her idea of how well roleplayed every encounter is. That works if your players like bedtime stories. It doesnt work if your players feel they roleplayed well and get frustrated because their actions may conflict with where a DM feels the story should be heading.

While I agree that rolls are not always neccessary and the DM certainly has a right to rule, even a responsibility to the campaign. Roleplay for me is the defining modifier of where the campaign might go, and is influenced at times by the random nature of the roll.

But we digressed from a 4E to roleplay argument hehehe. 4E has no more or less roleplay in it than 1E. Thats my belief based on what I have been experiencing.

If you dont like 4E because it basically forces minis and a mat on you, THAT I can agree with.

MM

Roleplaying is hard. A bad DM makes for a bad game, even with good players, even with great roleplayers. These 3E/4E games are striving to make up for bad or mediocre DMing by making the game more like a boardgame or a miniatures game. Dungeons & Dragons full circle, back to its pre-roleplay origins.

But it was the roleplay aspects that made D&D and AD&D so much more than just a miniatures game, and the roleplay aspect is what made it so hard to sell outside of a niche market. 2E tried to spoon feed the roleplaying parts with character kits and more monter books, more supplements, more rulebooks, and that was where the money was. Only what made the game great were a handful of modules and base settings that DMs and players could make their own. And 2E ended that as well with novels and linked adventures and setting updates that made many DMs afraid to change anything or fill in the blanks on their own, or just say NO to their players.

1E forced DMs to create, to roleplay, because there weren't endless shelves of supplements and settings and adventures, and the game wasn't a boardgame or a miniatures game, it was a roleplaying game. And it was complete. And a complete rule system doesn't make any money for the company, better to revamp the rules and sell more rulebooks, like the newset bit of fashion wear.

Calling 4E or 3E Dungeons and Dragons makes me a little sick, a bit revolted at where this wonderous game of the imagination has ended up. It wouldn't bother me at all if the left the D&D part out of the name and called it something else. Maybe it is impossible now for a new player to experience what 1E was, ehst s new horizon opened up, how it inspired, obssessed, what magic it was to step into a world and live adventures that had only been in books, to play a hero alongside other heroes, to fight monsters, to die gloriously or foolishly, to sit among friends and share an adventure, and have stories of your own. Listening to the stories told today is akin to listening to gamers talk about a game of risk, I rolled a 6, a 5, and 2 and he rolled two 4's... dice talk, nothing to stir the imagination. Or talk of characters so powerful they wreske Thor for his hammer, or start the game with more firepower than an armored platoon, uber talk.

There can be roleplaying in 4E and balance and great DMs and great roleplayers, but why would they bother? AD&D is already here, cheaply had, and they would need to remove little if anything, change little, and they would be roleplaying.

What will 4E be like? Exspensive. Very Expensive.

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General

Page 12 of 26 • 1 2 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 24 25 26