serleran wrote:The same way a potion of fire breathing works in AD&D - magic.
Deadlord39 wrote:I've watched D&D devolve from a roleplaying game to a game
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
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.
Busman wrote: .......I've always taken the first rule of role-playing is that there are no rules.....
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
