There’s No Room for Roleplaying in 4E? Find a different room.
-
I just read an interesting editorial from D&D Insider that claims that there are actually people out there in cyberspace that have been saying “There’s no room for roleplaying in Fourth Edition.” After a short search on the web, I found out that Chris Youngs was right! I couldn’t believe it, until I thought about my initial perceptions of the game.
I’ll admit it. I love D&D, always have. My group stopped playing 3.5 because we were tired of the number crunch. We were tired of the same old routine: I roll, I miss; I roll, I hit, I damage! I roll, I miss. Rinse, lather, repeat. During an initial foray into Deadlands, we (the then-current incarnation of the gaming group, with a few more along for the ride) were introduced to Savage Worlds, a.k.a. “Fast, Fun, Furious!” We were introduced to a brave new world of streamlined mechanics and open-ended descriptive fun.
There were new mechanics for using my Smarts to “trick” somebody and gain an advantage. I could do a similar trick by agilely outmaneuvering my opponent. The magic system allowed for characters that could cast whatever spells they knew as long as they still had some magical power left in their body. I had all kinds of perks and flaws to choose from. I had everything I needed to roleplay instead of just roll-play.
The group experienced some growing pains; people’s schedules changed, medical issues affected one member, family issues another, etc. We ended up shrinking to a core group of players led to battle by a gamemaster I’m sure readers of this blog are familiar with. For the better part of a year, we experienced much fun playing fantasy games using the Savage Worlds game system.
All honeymoons, no matter how sweet, eventually come to an end. Some of us found that the simplified mechanics of the game were very easy to roleplay around but, at higher levels, simply ended up making every fight seem the same. I knew being an archer that I was always rolling against the same target number and was able to easily tool my character to never miss with the bow. Our fighter was able to do the same for melee and the wizard, well that’s another story. Bedewah Emin Fernandez had become a power point god from his abilities and items. The mechanics for magic that we fell in love with didn’t mean anything any more when Bedewah would regain all of his power between encounters. There was a pattern forming here…
We were telling compelling stories about Bedewah, Rorrg the troll fighter, and Vhash the goblin tooth fairy. They were hot on the trail of some organization we ended up calling the Festering Eye (we could never remember their true name and our name was so much better!) There were wins and losses (We will miss you, Raff) and tragic stories, too; “Are the children alright?” Bedewah will never sleep again without setting a trap for stuffed zombies.
But then Wizards announces 4th Edition… My DM hops on the bandwagon and starts buying all of their propaganda books and their web hype and forces us along for the ride. “Well, you better let me borrow your books because I’m not buying my own.” I demanded.
“Whatever it takes man, trust me, you’re gonna love it. They’re making a lot of changes that I think will make this game feel more like Savage Worlds, but definitely still be D&D.”
Okay, now I was intrigued. Then the books came out. I look through John’s copy and start looking through the classes and their so-called powers; I mean what is this, Marvel Super Heroes or Dungeons and Dragons man?!?!?! I read, “Tide of Iron, Inspiring War Cry, if I turn the page and see ‘Pikachu, I choose you,’ I’m so outta here.” Game day swiftly arrived. I had a warlord with his fancy powers and fancy cloak (you have to imagine his fancy accent – I’m a hack of an actor), everything I needed to head into battle.
As the round started and I looked at the initial layout, I found myself thinking, I already miss the simple mechanics for “tricks” that were my bread and butter in Savage Worlds. I was upset that my highly intelligent martial combatant didn’t have that simple method of outmaneuvering or outsmarting my opponent. Then I noticed these powers had the tricks built in; “Wolf Pack Tactics” let my Warlord not only outmaneuver his opponent, he could extend that trick to an ally. “Opening shove” would move one opponent and distract others so an ally could escape or gain an advantage. “Warlord’s Favor” would highlight an opponent’s weakness. My actions in combat made me feel like a leader of men.
Then I noticed that the Paladin sitting across the table felt like a martyr by virtue of her actions. The Wizard finally felt like someone that had a basic mastery of magic they could usefully use as opposed to a 4 hit point piece of paper, threatened by the nearest breeze. Our actions as players turned our minis into cinematic versions of their “class,” something I never experienced in Third Edition, Savage Worlds, Shadowrun, or any other game I’ve been exposed to. Shadowrun comes close, but for me, the mechanics leaves a lot to be desired.
But what of the compelling storytelling from my Savage Worlds days? There were no rules in 4th Edition for roleplaying outside of combat. What kind of oversight was this? Here I am playing an eladrin warlord who has spent most of his life in the mortal realm because of his mother while his father lives in the Feywild. He led a failed expedition to found a settlement in a haunted area. He travels with a dragonborn paladin whose egg he recovered from that same settlement. She never knew her parents and was raised by the clergy in town. Another of his men lost his brother to a raid by the Iron Fang Goblins. He now accepts the responsibility for taking care of his former sister-in law and her 2 children by running his brother’s inn, “The Last Star.” With 3 other players and their compelling stories, I struggled to understand what people are complaining about.
Thinking about our last couple of gaming sessions with this in mind, it hit me. I recalled the last 2 sessions of our game. We were retaking Fort Griffon and fighting against impossible odds. Character personalities and flaws added much color to what would have otherwise been a bland running series of encounters. Sergeant Ungaro’s giving in to the rage over the predicament of his wife and kids. Jorgrim’s constant needling of his leader’s tactics. Lady Draco standing fast and stemming the tide while seeking guidance from Bahomet. Cini’s uncharacteristic bravery and cinematic flair scaring off a wereboar. Crux-tel rushing into battle, seeking glorious death to earn him the favor of the Raven Queen. In addition, there was much more storytelling that happened behind the scenes and between encounters.
Remembering this, I was armed with the knowledge that there is plenty of compelling roleplaying to be had in this game. I rushed to the bookshelf to grab my Player’s Handbook and seek out the section that gave us the rules that were responsible for the roleplaying I was enjoying. After pages and pages of fruitless searching, I came to a realization. The rules barely covered the concept or regulation of roleplaying because that’s our jobs as players to tell compelling stories and make vibrant, dynamic, and interesting characters.
The writers and editors at Wizards could have given us rules to “aid in making memorable D&D characters,” but they know that their job is to provide a consistent, useful ruleset governing the portion of the game affected by chance as much as by choice. I personally want a mechanic to streamline the part of the game that should be fair and equitable – combat. I don’t want the game doing the rest of my work for me. If you think that your game doesn’t allow for roleplaying, maybe you need to look at the room you are playing in as opposed to the game on the table.
Leave a Comment
August 8, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“The writers and editors at Wizards could have given us rules to “aid in making memorable D&D characters,” but they know that their job is to provide a consistent, useful ruleset governing the portion of the game affected by chance as much as by choice.”
Amen Colin. This is key especially for a guy like me who’s just really tired of the D&D fluff that’s been hanging out forever and wants to do his own thing with the rule set provided. Not having mechanical straightjackets tied to Alignment or to “find member X of random organization Y and get him to teach you Z” lore block requirements for prestige classes is one of my favorite things about 4e, and not having people begging for the Profession skill to be houseruled to do something useful is yet another blessing.
August 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm
@ Colin – It took me a while to get used to it, but I think having rules for combat and little rules for roleplaying was the way to go. You’re right, it does allow you to do what you have to do outside of combat.
I think Spycraft is a good example of a game where they try to regulate roleplaying with rules. I think the game is very creative and well thought-out, but it becomes problematic later.
Let the players and the GM take care of the story and roleplaying. The system should take care of the ‘chance’ portion of the game, like you stated.
August 8, 2009 at 3:56 pm
1- I agree on not bashing 4th Ed.
2- “The rules barely covered the concept or regulation of roleplaying because that’s our jobs as players to tell compelling stories and make vibrant, dynamic, and interesting characters.”
This is a faulty argument. It assumes that it is not the player’s job to make vibrant, dynamic and interesting combats (encounters) and it assumes that rules are needed for this to happen while no rules are needed for vibrant storytelling to happen.
The fact that these things can happen does not mean that they should happen or that “it’s the way it is.” Every ruleset encourages certain behaviours and discourages certain others. People bashing 4th have a problem with the disposition of behaviours sitting on boths sides of that fence.
Federico.
August 8, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Point well taken. If we do not feel that the role-playing is strong, we need to look to ourselves to see if we are putting in enough effort to role-play before complaining about the system.
However I would still argue that some systems get more in the way of role-playing then others. I can’t speak for D&D 4E as I haven’t played D&D since 2nd Ed., but I can relate other experiences.
I’m currently playing in a game of Rolemaster. In a recent combat, I was trying my damnedest to have my character engage in witty banter with his comrades while we were fighting zombie pirates. The situation was certainly ripe for drollery. However every time I tried to start an exchange, my fellow players were too busy consulting charts and rolls to engage with me.
Then again, perhaps this is an unfair example as this was Rolemaster.
August 8, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Federico, I completely disagree with you… again.
August 8, 2009 at 10:39 pm
The rules for roleplaying are in 4e.
It’s only about 7 pages long (PHB 18-24), but it’s there.
What isn’t there is the need for dice rolls to define how well you do your job as an inkeeper or how many children you have.
That section is small, but it provides (in addition to the campaign info given by the DM) most of what you need to create a dynamic and memorable character.
The explicit instruction that allows you to refluff the power description (pg 54 under Flavor Text) also helps to add roleplaying to combats.
August 8, 2009 at 10:52 pm
@ButlerB: Please feel free to disagree with whom you like, but at least do all of us the courtesy of explaining what you disagree with and why.
@Federico: I have no problem with anyone “bashing” 4E; it’s not my product and I have no vested interest. I have a problem with people throwing out unqualified remarks about how something “doesn’t work”, “sucks”, “is broken” without qualifying their statement.
On the subject of vibrant, dynamic combats – all things dynamic and vibrant belong in the hands of the group not the rules. I had a fantastic exposition on Cini’s uncharacteristic bravery that will have to wait for another time. However, combats at a bare minimum require useful, fair, and most of all consistent rules because that is the area where players are most likely to argue (and be correct, in my humble opinion):
Player: “Last week combat advantage let me do double damage. How come this week they only give a +2 to attack?!?!?”
DM: “Because we saw how out of control double damage is.”
Player: “But I bought this feat because of double damage and now it’s useless!!!”
DM: “Sorry.”
Its much harder to legitimately argue that the Duke should treat Player A better than Player B, or that he should act a certain way because of the rules governing established protocols of the feudalistic courts of the Nerath empire. Most non-combat actions should fall in the context of the needs of the story and the game master should have the absolute discretion to decide how that element affects his campaign world without having to override rules.
August 8, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@C.L. Fewlass: Your example speaks for itself. Regardless of my personal feelings about powers and their execution, I can’t argue the fact that this RPG is the only one I have ever played that I have gone entire sessions without having to crack the book open to refer to some table, spell description, or needlessly complex combat maneuver (although grabbing and moving a targets still provokes some discussion at our table… oh well, can’t win ‘em all) The only other time I can think of is that one Red Hand of Doom session where we didn’t even have a combat encounter…
August 8, 2009 at 11:12 pm
@Cedric: Good point. I did not see that section as rules so much as a short primer/guide and “Points of Light” campaign setting (just the pantheon of deites, really) The only “rule” was the short section on alignment that really is now more fluff than rule (as it should be) now that there are no spells, powers or specific class restrictions (Paladins can have any alignment as long as it matches that of their deity).
@everyone: Thanks for your feedback and patronage of RoleplayingPro!
August 8, 2009 at 11:34 pm
@Wyatt: Thanks for your support.
@Everyone else: Wyatt has a fantastic post on this same topic I just came across from earlier in the week with some great commentary:
http://spiritsofeden.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/wizards-tells-you-to-roleplay-in-4e/
August 9, 2009 at 7:41 am
We role-played just fine in our D&D 4E campaign; there’s certainly nothing in the rules that prevent you from doing it. That said, my group missed the extra depth/crunchiness/whatever that comes from having profession and craft skills in 3rd Edition, and it was something that couldn’t simply be addressed by some hand-waving and saying “I was a fisherman before I became an adventurer”.
Our players liked being able to fall back on their professions and crafts during downtime. A good example was my bard Thom, who spent several days a week performing at local bars and taverns. We could have simply handled this through role-playing, with no dice rolls needed, but turning it into a skill check made things much more interesting (especially when he critically fumbled or succeeded). As a half-elf adventurer who was perennially putting his gear into hock, those lucky breaks where he found himself flush with silver or goal made a huge impact.
There are skills and attributes in 4E that I could hijack for similar purposes, but when it came right down to it, my group liked having rules that allowed the elven archer to fletch his own arrows or the elementalist to carve stone creations with a craft check. That’s just the way we roll.
August 9, 2009 at 9:12 am
@Ken Newquist
“We role-played just fine in our D&D 4E campaign; there’s certainly nothing in the rules that prevent you from doing it.”
This about sums it up.
“(Regarding professional lives of characters) We could have simply handled this through role-playing, with no dice rolls needed, but turning it into a skill check made things much more interesting (especially when he critically fumbled or succeeded).”
In my personal experience it works the other way around, it is much more interesting when I handle it through roleplaying or decision making than skill checks.
@SonofDayerethsMom
“I can’t argue the fact that this RPG is the only one I have ever played that I have gone entire sessions without having to crack the book open to refer to some table, spell description, or needlessly complex combat maneuver”
Rest assured there are much more rpgs that allow you to do this (run a session without opening the book) than ones that prevent you from doing it.
“I have no problem with anyone “bashing” 4E”
If I happen to read it, then I do. 9 times out of 10 I just wasted time that I won’t be able to get back. Notice that I don’t say critisize the system (which seems fine), I’m talking about the idea that you need to be a fanboy or a hater and nothing in between (not even indifferent.)
“all things dynamic and vibrant belong in the hands of the group not the rules”
Agreed
“However, combats at a bare minimum require useful, fair, and most of all consistent rules because that is the area where players are most likely to argue (and be correct, in my humble opinion)”
I say the same thing for social interaction. On both accounts I think that fair and consistent rules (which can be very simple) are very welcomed. On both accounts I could also do without them completely. YMMV
“Most non-combat actions should fall in the context of the needs of the story and the game master should have the absolute discretion to decide how that element affects his campaign world without having to override rules.”
I say the same thing for combat actions as well. IF and only IF, I’m playing (most likely running) a game where certain authorities are not shared. If that happens, then yes I do have absolute discretion. The separation between combat and non combat is not necessary.
@Cedric
Don’t have the books with me, will check later.
@Everyone
Don’t feed the troll.
August 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@Federico For us it wasn’t an either or thing; the role-playing always feeds into the checks (and visa versa). IMHO die roll is there in the social interaction for the same reason it’s there for combat: to provide an unexpected result. So role-playing wise, Thom talked his way into his weekly gig, and I’d always come up with a few new song titles (and maybe a line or two of lyrics) based on our adventures.
But when it came time to see how well he did, well, that’s when the dice hit the table. We could have just said “you sing perfectly, and everyone loved it” or “you did an average job, here’s your 5 silver” but the chance of an abysmal failure or a spectacular success is what made those encounters the most fun for me.
None of which is to say that this is the best way, or the right way, to play. It’s just worked for us, and it’s something we missed when we played 4E.
August 9, 2009 at 5:29 pm
@ Ken Newquist: I agree that sometimes it can be fun to experience the “unexpected” that comes from a die roll for something. There are times in virtually every session I run where I have players make some sort of die roll in a similar circumstance, however I don’t want the rules, or the rules designers, to dictate when, where, and how this happens.
Once the rule is in the book, it’s a rule. Now instead of the occasional roll for how well the bard sang to add a little flavor to the session, I’ve got players wanted to roll for every little thing. Goodbye roleplaying.
What I love with 4E is that stuff like what you mention can appear as much, or as little as needed for each individual group. Sure, you could choose to not include certain rules if you don’t want or need them in your game, but that would work contrary to WOTC’s concept of saying “Yes, and…” The base mechanics cover everything you need. If the situation you describe came up in my game and I needed a mechanic, it would take me about 2 seconds to say “Give me Charisma check and add +5 because obviously you’re trained in performing.”
In fact, that is so easy and intuitive that I’m thankfull I havn’t paid for 20 pages worth of skills telling me the same thing. Or a dozen charts explaining essentially that “High roll = good / low roll = bad.”
Everything you need is right there in front of you. That is one of the reasons that half your level is added to virtually everything, so that it is even easier to come up with other kinds of checks as you need them. Just pick an attribute modifier, add half level, and decided if it seems like the character would be “trained” or not. There you go, the only thing you might need to consider is if anything else is influencing the outcome (modifers).
Bam! There it is. Everything you’ll ever need provided by 4E (unless of course you like consulting charts and trying to interpret minutia).
August 9, 2009 at 9:14 pm
@Ken Newquist
It’s not an either/or situation. However, when I made it either or it turned out that one of the options worked best than all the other alternatives put together. YMMV
I do use rolls, but for other things for which I like to have a randomizer at hand. It’s not that I could not decide upon them creating a result that would be, for all practical purposes, as useful as the random. It’s because it’s less time consuming sometimes to get the result and then the cause than the cause and then the result. It also has the bonus value of making you work to include results that you didn’t think of and making something interesting out of them…
Once again, for SOME things… it works just fine.
August 9, 2009 at 11:03 pm
@John – The one negative about the system and using it as you described is that your rolls really become pointless and almost completely arbitrary. Yes you could choose some outlandish difficulty to make it a “challenge” for that player but, as my group and myself were talking about recently, the main problem with MOST DM’s and 4e is that your difficulties scale with your level. Impressing the same group of patrons at level 20 is going to take a grossly larger number than at level 2.
Another discussions lately has been on the topic of roleplaying as well. For many players, myself included, I like goals. Goals lead to rewards and rewards lead to progression, that’s how I live and that’s how I play with everything. The flaw in not actually having roleplaying at least lined out is that there are no rewards. You want rewards or progression you must “ROLL”play; whether it’s by fighting or by skills challenge. Other than that you’re just taking up other players time when they could be out there progressing. I do understand that “roleplaying is its’ own reward” and other stuff like that but that’s like telling an F1 Race Car Driver that he’s lucky just to be driving one of those machines and it doesn’t matter that he came in last place.
All in all I do agree that it is up to the players and, most of all, the DM to really invoke roleplaying but I also completely agree that roleplaying is something that is almost discouraged by the 4e system.
August 10, 2009 at 2:31 am
“You want rewards or progression you must “ROLL”play; whether it’s by fighting or by skills challenge. Other than that you’re just taking up other players time when they could be out there progressing. I do understand that “roleplaying is its’ own reward” and other stuff like that but that’s like telling an F1 Race Car Driver that he’s lucky just to be driving one of those machines and it doesn’t matter that he came in last place.”
@ Bryan:
Actually, I don’t think that you understand that roleplaying is its own reward, because from what you just said, roleplaying is pointless in an RPG. You would like for there to be a reward system for good roleplaying, but there isn’t; it’s too arbitrary. So the only thing that can be rewarded IS ‘rollplaying.’ That leaves roleplaying completely up to the players.
“Other than that you’re just taking up other players time when they could be out there progressing.”
I can’t see your point of view. When I get to the table as a player, I look forward to the story, challenge, and playing the character in front of me. For me, the player characters don’t need to progress, because that’s not really why I’m there. Your above statement tells me that you and I play for completely different reasons. By all rights we should be completely incompatable players.
Would you (or anyone) ever play D&D without an experience point system, one where you gain a level every three sessions (or whatever) automatically?
Would you (or anyone) ever play D&D without any progression at all, where the focus of the game was to play a character in a story and not to gain levels?
“All in all I do agree that it is up to the players and, most of all, the DM to really invoke roleplaying but I also completely agree that roleplaying is something that is almost discouraged by the 4e system.”
I agree and disagree. When I first heard about 4E my first words to the GM were, “Hey, it sounds cool. What does it do to encourage roleplaying?” He said it was all in the fluff and descriptions.
I admit, I was bummed. I wanted to see tables for secondary skills and professions. I wanted to see tables that told me my mother had died and my father was a criminal. I wanted to see tables that told me how I acted when confronted with my worst fear (and what that fear was).
I didn’t get those things, but I still have fun. I think D&D would be perfect with those things. However, just because 4E does not have those things does not mean that 4E discourages roleplaying. Not even a little bit. In my opinion, it does not encourage roleplaying, it simply does not discourage it. 4E puts that power completely in the hands of the gamers, so they could roleplay as much or as little as they want.
August 10, 2009 at 5:27 am
@Chris Stevens & @Bryan
“I can’t see your point of view. When I get to the table as a player, I look forward to the story, challenge, and playing the character in front of me. For me, the player characters don’t need to progress, because that’s not really why I’m there.”
Warning: I might be putting words in Bryan’s mouth. Bryan, please correct me.
Progression is not = to gaining levels, better skills, items and so on. These CAN (but not always and, dare I say it, not most of the time) be the mechanical representations of progression on the game world when all things go right.
Character progression is a result of character exposed to a dramatic situation where change is fueled by tension. With no advancement there is no meaningful story and (in my point of view) no meaningful roleplaying.
What I think (now I’m putting words in your mouth) is that you WANT progression… just not necessary the mechanical representations that are sometimes associated with it (i.e. your goal is not just to gain a level, better skills, better items and so on…)
“In my opinion, it does not encourage roleplaying, it simply does not discourage it.”
Well… it rewards activities that are not roleplaying. By doing so, it encourages choosing activities with rewards attached to them, rather than activities that are unrewarded. All rule systems do this (encourage certain activities and discourage others) and it’s one of their jobs to do it.
…
Then again…
“We role-played just fine in our D&D 4E campaign; there’s certainly nothing in the rules that prevent you from doing it.”
This about sums it up.
August 10, 2009 at 6:28 am
@ Federico
“Warning: I might be putting words in Bryan’s mouth. Bryan, please correct me.”
Well… I was saying why I’m there, which is different than why Bryan is there. Yeah.
“Progression is not = to gaining levels, better skills, items and so on. These CAN (but not always and, dare I say it, not most of the time) be the mechanical representations of progression on the game world when all things go right.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure that progression is exactly “=” to gaining levels, better skills, items, and so on.
“What I think (now I’m putting words in your mouth) is that you WANT progression… just not necessary the mechanical representations that are sometimes associated with it (i.e. your goal is not just to gain a level, better skills, better items and so on…)”
I’m certainly not opposed to it. I just don’t need it to play an RPG.
[In my opinion, it does not encourage roleplaying, it simply does not discourage it.]
“Well… it rewards activities that are not roleplaying. By doing so, it encourages choosing activities with rewards attached to them, rather than activities that are unrewarded. All rule systems do this (encourage certain activities and discourage others) and it’s one of their jobs to do it.”
Um… yeah?
[We role-played just fine in our D&D 4E campaign; there’s certainly nothing in the rules that prevent you from doing it.]
“This about sums it up.”
Um… yeah. I said the same thing.
I can’t really tell… Are you disagreeing with me, or agreeing with me?
August 10, 2009 at 7:53 am
@Bryan:
“the main problem with MOST DM’s and 4e is that your difficulties scale with your level. Impressing the same group of patrons at level 20 is going to take a grossly larger number than at level 2.”
If you think your DM is roll-playing instead of roleplaying you should definitely communicate that so that the two of you and your group can meet on common ground.
The definition of roleplaying varies from group to group and each has to decide what works for them. Don’t be afraid to change or evolve what your group does to eventually arrive at the gaming you want. Over the years, for our group, this has even included changes in the players at the table.
Moving on. If your deeds and story haven’t impressed your patrons enough over the course of 18 levels that you are still rolling to impress that patron, then roleplaying obviously isn’t its own reward in your group. I can’t speak for everyone’s definition of roleplaying, only my own. That being said, in our Friday night game, we have been interacting with a “patron” named Baraxis since first level – we haven’t needed to make any rolls since our first encounter (except maybe a few Insight checks) due to the roleplaying at the table. Rolen even acquired the use of a magic item without needing to roll for it, just a little lively discussion between him and the GM in character.
Also, (as in Chris’s and Federico’s posts) do you not consider progression of plot and story, PC Fame and glory, esteem in the eyes of patrons, etc. as progress that affects the world around them as much or more than your new power or magic item? (author edit: If the story evolves without characters gaining levels or items or gold does this mean there is no progress in your game?)
“I do understand that “roleplaying is its’ own reward” and other stuff like that but that’s like telling an F1 Race Car Driver that he’s lucky just to be driving one of those machines and it doesn’t matter that he came in last place.”
It depends on how you define last place. Like Federico, I don’t want to speak out of turn for people, but I guess if your enjoyment of the hobby is purely based on winning every fight with the least amount of resources lost, then yes you need to roll play. But what if the bad guy gets away to live and fight another day, or if the PCs are captured and need to find their way to freedom? What if they are all killed in a glorious battle that they had every reason to avoid, but their player/character flaws wouldn’t let them? As long as they told a great story and can’t wait to start the next one, did they attain last place?
August 10, 2009 at 9:01 am
A couple of quick points:
If your “goal” in D&D is to level-up, and that is the primary goal, you are a roll-player. If the story is only interesting, engaging and rewarded because dice are rolled, then you are a roll-player. If numbers on your character sheet are more important and are refered to more often than your character’s personality, relationships, and desires, then you are a roll-player.
I don’t care how anyone plays the game (so long as you are not disrupting my game), but I would suggest to someone who plays in the above manner to try something like Descent over D&D. In Descent the goal is to kill monsters, loot their stuff, level-up. It has every element a roll-player needs to feel complete without the pesky story pulling your attention away from your texting, reading, or internet surfing.
Based on feedback from the players at my table they all feel as though there are numerous goals and consequences for success and failure. In fact the players maintain a dry erase board of “Things to investigate / accomplish”, and nowhere on that board does it say “level-up”. In fact this campaign is just over one year old and the PC’s just made 7th level. The roleplayers at my table are focused on story and character growth (not character sheet growth).
I’ve played RPG’s for 30 years and with dozens, perhaps hundreds of different people. I’ve played in long running groups and one-shots at conventions. I’ve found that there are essentially three types of players:
X: People who need little to no inspiration to create full, rich, and exciting stories, simply a “light” rules framework in which to tie things together.
Y: People who need rules and fluff to stimulate and inspire them. Things to get their creative juices flowing and they take it from there.
Z: People who want the rules to do the roleplaying for them. Maybe they don’t really like roleplaying, are uncomfortable with it or just prefer the more mechanical elements of the game.
I’m not judging any of these types of players, there is a place for all of them. But the problem with any discussion of this nature is that a Type X player is simply never going to understand how someone can be a Type Z player, and vice versa. When I read Bryan’s comment above I simply cannot relate to his viewpoint. In essence we are playing two very different games.
I think the important thing is to understand yourself as a gamer. If you are a Type Z player find a game with other Type Z’s and I would recommend staying away from D&D, in fact if you want an RPG I’d suggest something like Rifts or Rolemaster you will feel much more satisfied. On the other hand if you are a Type X player you’ll probally love D&D and things like Savage Worlds or anything based on the Cortex System. Oh and for you Type Y’s, White Wolf’s entire line is a perfect fit.
Bottom line: Figure out what you like, find others who like that too, play the game, fave fun (however you define that). Besides I think Colin’s point here is that there are plenty of roleplaying opportunities in D&D but your group needs to define it’s needs and definitions of roleplaying.
August 10, 2009 at 10:25 am
I was going to type a rather involved answer but …
“do you not consider progression of plot and story, PC Fame and glory, esteem in the eyes of patrons, etc. as progress that affects the world around them as much or more than your new power or magic item? (author edit: If the story evolves without characters gaining levels or items or gold does this mean there is no progress in your game?)”
This sums most of it up.
@ John Lewis
“(…) if you are a Type X player you’ll probally love D&D and things like Savage Worlds or anything based on the Cortex System.”
Really? Those three in the same group?
@ Chris Stevens
“Um… yeah?”
Yeah.
August 10, 2009 at 11:45 am
“Besides I think Colin’s point here is that there are plenty of roleplaying opportunities in D&D but your group needs to define it’s needs and definitions of roleplaying.”
Well said, John. As I said in the article:
“maybe you need to look at the room you are playing in as opposed to the game on the table”
It is obvious from this thread that we all have different wants and needs from this hobby and it is important to be aware of that to maximize your enjoyment. Take that back to your individual tables and make sure your group is all on the same page.
August 10, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I knew, for a fact, that my post would generate quite a bit of “negative response” even though it was rather subtle. Sadly the main problem with roleplayers now is that there is only one way…their way. If you enjoy it any other way than their way then you just aren’t a “role”-player. It’s unfortunate and it’s also one of the reasons why the industry will be hurting.
Personally, I enjoy both aspects. I love getting into my character and really playing the quirks and nuances BUT I also enjoy the “mechanical aspect” of it all. Developing my skills, focusing my character and really just honing him to be whatever my initial (or current) goal might be. Again…I can’t stress enough that I LOVE the story development and plot development but at times it seems like pulling teeth to try and do anything without having to roll-play and to have a very well laid plan that might have taken an actual hour of real play-time to plan completely ruined by an arbitrary roll really makes you want to focus more on making sure those rolls can’t be lost rather than focusing on the roleplaying….but I guess that’s a viewpoint no one else can understand.
For a group of people (roleplayers in general) so ostracized by most just for the mere mention of the hobby you would think there would be more tolerance. I’m honestly rather disgusted at the negative generalities and subtle stabs that have taken place here.
August 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@ Bryan:
I have to admit: at first I thought that I was offended by your original post. You have to admit, it was pretty strong. You clearly stated where what you do and don’t look for in a game.
Then, as I was writing my opinion, I realized that I wasn’t offended, I just had a – different opinion. I can get pretty hot on certain things, so I apologize if you felt I was “shooting back.”
@ Federico:
Dude, I never know what you’re saying.
August 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@Bryan:
“I knew, for a fact, that my post would generate quite a bit of “negative response” even though it was rather subtle. Sadly the main problem with roleplayers now is that there is only one way…their way.”
I have to admit to being disappointed. I’d like to think that some of the last few posts have been the definition of “tolerance” and acceptance. In case you missed it here’s a couple of quotes:
From John: “Bottom line: Figure out what you like, find others who like that too, play the game, fave fun (however you define that). ”
From me: “It is obvious from this thread that we all have different wants and needs from this hobby and it is important to be aware of that to maximize your enjoyment. Take that back to your individual tables and make sure your group is all on the same page.”
Both of these quotes seem to be openly accepting that there are many different styles of play and each individual style is not for everyone. If you read anything that seemed to threaten your style of play, maybe others did from your posts, too. I would’ve that that no one intended to fan the flames but for this quote:
“I knew, for a fact, that my post would generate quite a bit of “negative response” even though it was rather subtle.”
This sentence makes it seem to me that you intended to fan the perceived flames of intolerance and bigotry. Hopefully, I rolled a 1 on Perception/Insight and completely misinterpreted your intentions.
“Personally, I enjoy both aspects. I love getting into my character and really playing the quirks and nuances BUT I also enjoy the “mechanical aspect” of it all.”
I think it’s great that you enjoy both aspects of the game and that D&D 4E can be a vehicle for you to acheive your gaming goals. However, from the tone and commentary of your previous post (“I do understand that “roleplaying is its’ own reward” and other stuff like that,” for instance), it may appear to other readers of this thread that you are being dismissive of a concept that others hold dear. Personally, if I want to play a game that is about gaining XP and Levels and racing toward victory (define this how you will), I can find venues that will be much more satisfying. But if I want to find a game that has a wide variety of character options, engaging, cinematic combat, the opportunity to do intersting things in combat with excellent rule support and just the right pinch of non-combat rules – I personally am hard pressed to find a better venue. I am not saying that because I feel this way you have to also. If you feel differently than I do about your expectations of your gaming experience than D&D 4E may or may not be the right vehicle for you/your DM/ your group.
“But the problem with any discussion of this nature is that a Type X player is simply never going to understand how someone can be a Type Z player, and vice versa. When I read Bryan’s comment above I simply cannot relate to his viewpoint. In essence we are playing two very different games.”
When I wrote this post, it wasn’t to incite a flame war about roleplaying styles across the pages of Roleplayingpro.com. I was simply asserting that however you define roleplaying, its up to the players to find their gaming experience and their own “style” of roleplaying or rollplaying, whatever floats your boat. I am just glad that the big corporate entity know as Wizards has not stomped down with their stormtrooper boots and told me how to do it. In fact they have removed restrictions, untied my hands, and are staying out of my way. Amen.
August 10, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“Dude, I never know what you’re saying.”
I’m sure you will as soon as you check my quote. I’m saying that yes rule systems encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. Which doesn’t mean (just to be clear) that they make you do stuff.
D&D 4th Ed (like any other roleplaying game ruleset) rewards certain behaviours and discourages others. Most of the time this is done by offering rewards in some places while denying them (or choosing not to offer them) in others. Although this is just one way.
Which comes around to saying that “there is nothing in D&D 4th Ed that will PREVENT you from roleplaying.” Saying that it actually encourages roleplaying over other behaviours (or even at the same level) is another beast entirely.
Also…
THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT BAD… or good for that matter. It’s always a matter of personal choice according to tastes and goals.
Was that clearer?
@Everyone? (more than one people touched on this.)
Please read the point above. Indulge me, I think it’s rather important.
Since Bryan has not overtly corrected me until now (feel free to do so Bryan) I think I’m more or less on the ballpark about what he was trying to say. Having said this, the “roleplaying is its own reward” does nothing to address, or simply comment on the point he was making.
This is not about roleplaying being a wonderful and lovely and engaging way to spend your day. This is about a system of rules not establishing rewards for a certain behaviour, in this case roleplaying… which is entirely different.
Really. It is.
I’m not saying that a system HAS TO do this. I’m just saying that whether it does or it doesn’t it has consequences on the gameplay.
As far as I see it, that’s basically what Bryan said. And then he said that, for him, it’d be better if the system did reward it. I truly did not see any sort of flame inducing comments in his arguments…
Have I missed anything?
August 10, 2009 at 6:28 pm
@Everyone. Clearly roleplaying is an intamate experience that differs for each person who engages in it. We all have different wants and needs from both the game system and the people we play with.
What I appreciate the most about Colin’s article is that he is clearly speaking from his personal experience. He hasn’t stated that his is the only opinion, or that other opinions are wrong; simply that this has been his experience in the year that he has been playing 4E.
Ultimately it is important to remember that every game is different and every person who plays a game will have a different experience; some positive, some negative. Trying to convince people of your point when discussing roleplaying is like trying to get them to change religions or political parties (in fact it may be more difficult). Again this is why I liked the article, it wasn’t trying to change opinions or convince anyone of anything. It simply was recounting one player’s experience and how he has found the game to be encouraging and stimulating his roleplaying.
You don’t need to agree, or disagree with the author. His experience is his experience and he shared it with the rest of us in an honest, well written, and well articulated manner. Thank you Colin, and welcome to RoleplayingPro!
August 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@Federico:
Thanks for your comments and the effort you’ve put in articulating your viewpoint. I loved Bryan’s original post for the same reason: it was articulate, he stated his position on one aspect of the game and specifically stated that this wasn’t a universal truth (“MOST DMs”). I hope to see such plainly spoken and deep felt truths from others here in the future.
I used the term “flame war” as a hyperbole to emphasize that some of us appeared to be taking some of the discussion personally and that attention might be called to that to avoid feelings being hurt on all sides. I personally haven’t taken anything to heart here, but I wanted to head such things off at the pass. Again thanks to everyone for their insights and opinions, and thank you John for the welcome.
August 10, 2009 at 7:20 pm
@SonofDayerethsMom
You’re very much welcome. I completely agree on regard to Bryan’s post and find your contributions have also highlighted some interesting facts (though I lack the books now for further investigation.)
@Everyone
I’m not sure what kind of format these comments support. Please do not take the use of CAPS as trying to be rude. I would much prefer to emphasize the words (use italics or bolded text for instance) but I’m not sure what is supported here.
@John Lewis
“You don’t need to agree, or disagree with the author.”
I don’t think we are at this point. At least not with the original article. New points have been made which are being discussed (and are relevant to the original piece.)
Also…
I find more of a tolerant posture than strong evangelism here. Am I missing something?
August 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I take no personal insult from anything…ever…period. I truly do love a good debate and Federico is 100% correct. I think the lack of any sort of guideline or even reward system will lead to certain behaviors. As I said I love to roleplay BUT I also love to attain goals and achievements and everything that goes along with it.
The one HUGE negative of the 4e system is that because it’s so “untied” you have to somehow see where your DM’s head is at before you try something. If I want to roleplay the hell out of something and try to move the story forward in a non-combat way (which I have tried) it seems that somehow, because it’s 4e, there needs to be some mechanic tied to it. This is just my experience and I completely agree and understand that EVERY DM is going to run it slightly different but I would say that maybe John is the exception in accepting the “no rules for roleplaying” completely and actually letting people just advance the story the way they see fit. I truly applaud that, if I’m not mistaken.
As Federico pointed out there were many “tolerant” phrases scattered through every post that also had judgments and critical statements in them as well. I think that sometimes we all can get stuck with the viewpoint that what we’re doing or the way we view things is the way that it should be done and everything else is flawed because we don’t understand it or can’t relate to it. I do it at times myself and chastise myself for it later.
All in all Colin, great post anything that can keep my interest this long and make me look forward to checking on it later is pure gold.
August 10, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Thanks Bryan.
I have been truly fortunate having John as a DM. I feel that there is still plenty of resistance/challenge to trying to move the story because John’s antagonists have their own agendas that are well thought out in advance. His storytelling style has a heavy emphasis on versimilitude (“realistic” circumstances containing “realistic” characters whose choices have consequences that make sense and are consistent with the expectations of the setting) and so when the characters push the story, the story pushes back with no rules governing that interaction but the needs of John’s story. I seldom feel that there is resistance because my DM’s railroading the story back to his predefined plot path. I think he usually somehow gently morphs his obstacles to fit everyone’s needs, hhmmm…
It also helps that he is highly soliciting of player input and tries to accomodate rich, detailed storytelling for all who put forth the effort. If this is what you have tried in the past and not felt rewarded for that, I restate what I said earlier:
“Find a different room!”
No, no; just kidding. What I’m referring to is have an open and honest talk with your DM about what roleplaying needs aren’t being met. If he was less than receptive before, maybe you both have had enough time to define your desires more clearly and can reach middle ground.
August 12, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Hi, very interesting posts from all. I just wanted to toss in a couple of thoughts from a player’s point of view on non-combat skills, their place in roleplaying, and overall character balance in and out of combat. This is no intended as anti-4E as I believe the game accomplishes exactly what it set out to do.
A couple of years ago I experienced one of my favorite roleplaying moments. I was playing a bard in this particular (non D&D) game. In a pure roleplaying scene our group was in town during a big festival. A traveling band of musicians starring an important female NPC was signing on stage. The current song ended and crowd started to quiet down. My original plan was to sneak backstage to make contact with her, but on impulse I described how, from the back of the amphitheater, I began a romantic ballad in an ancient tongue that I new she spoke. At this point my GM called for a roll. To me this was like rolling to hit against the dragon. It carried so much importance to my character (and me) that I was on the edge of my seat more than any combat roll I have ever made. My GM is very good at letting the players narrate parts of scenes that are important to them. I described all eyes turning in shock towards me, her stunned look that someone would dare to interrupt her performance, my hand trembling as I put all my emotion into the song, then….I rolled.
The dice fell maxed out and I re-rolled (they exploded in this system). I obtained one the highest degrees of success that I have ever rolled in a game. My GM took over narration and described the stunned silence of the crowd and the look of surprised amusement on her face. I described walking slowly through the crowd, never taking my eyes off of her as I did so. I timed it so I ended on stage holding her hands and looking into her eyes as the song finished. To my character this was like slaying the dragon.
Could this scene have played out without a skill or skill roll? Yes. Could the GM just have decided that this is what would happen (not that mine would)? Yes. Would things have not worked out if I botched the roll? Absolutely. The NPC might have paid a visit to my tomato-covered bard in the town jail out of pity. My GM would have found a way to progress the story.
The point to this is; does a fighter really need to roll to hit the dragon? No, but it is way more fun to roll, it adds a measure of control (if random) over the plot. In this case I used a skill that I had invested development points in to influence the story, the same way a fighter does when he uses his skills to advance the plot by defeating things in combat. Fair is fair though, and my bard was not equal to the others in the party when it came to fighting prowess. I had no problem taking the back seat when it was their time to shine in combat.
4E is a technically sound system, with everyone’s characters balanced and such, but I admit to missing the imbalance in different situations more than I thought I would. In the end the story trumps all and my current GM could use the phonebook as a rule set and I would still have a great time, knowing the wonderful stories that will be told week after week.
As a quick post-script, my “unlucky” hindrance kicked in and my bard dropped his coin purse as he made his way to the stage. Broke again…
August 13, 2009 at 12:44 am
Insightful! A guy in my gaming group once expressed a similar idea: D&D isn’t inherently combat-heavy, it just has more combat rules because you don’t need rules to fairly adjudicate roleplaying.
August 13, 2009 at 9:11 am
@Andy V: Ah Raff, he was a good man. Pity about the rats…
August 17, 2009 at 3:01 pm
**Impressing the same group of patrons at level 20 is going to take a grossly larger number than at level 2.
I have disagreed with this. The same seedy bar you performed for at level 2 should be easily wowed by your level 20 skills. However, at level 20 we arent usually performing for seedy bars, we are dealing with Kings and Queens who are understandably harder to impress, but with higher rewards.
August 19, 2009 at 7:38 am
Just as an update (and I just skimmed the comments so forgive me if I’m repeating anything), Dungeon Master’s Guide 2 will have a rules section on awarding XP for role-playing. But I haven’t seen any kind of preview for that particular bit yet so I’m uncertain how it will work or what the criteria for good and bad rp’ing will be.
August 23, 2009 at 6:15 am
Hi all,
I’m new here, so please bear with me.
I enjoyed this article and the comments. It seems to me that the writer is correct and the players and game master are responsible for roleplaying, not the game rules.
I have noticed, however, that there are several new (independent) games out today referred to as story or narrative rpg’s. I’ve seen the FUDGE and FATE rules and they are intriguing. Combining the mechanics with adjectives to describe powers and skills and nouns and verbs to craft spells does seem to contribute to the collective narrative process.
If you all don’t mind, could you tell me if there are any other games out that match this description and I’d also like to know how all of you feel about these types of games. I’m sorry if this question belongs in another part of this site. I’m still not that familiar with it.
Thanks,
Monk
August 23, 2009 at 7:02 am
Welcome Monk!
Two other games that I’d put in the same category are Savage Worlds and the new Cortex System. Both are fairly “rules light” and are quick and easy to learn.
September 11, 2009 at 11:47 am
My feelings exactly, Colin. Anyone who says you can’t RP with 4E (or any system that doesn’t shackle you with rules governing every action) is missing the whole point of RP. Outstanding post.
September 13, 2009 at 10:34 pm
There’s a difference between “can’t roleplay in 4e” and “4e gets in my way”. The first is just nonsense, as you justly point out. The second, though, really depends on who’s playing. For myself, the experience of switching from imagination to battle mat is enough to ruin my roleplaying groove, so games (like 4e) that all-but-require a battle mat do interfere with my roleplaying.
Again, it’s a matter less of the game itself in isolation, and more a matter of how individuals’ roleplaying goals and methods interact with or clash with the game. Once I realised that, it became really easy to see how the people who enjoy 4e are those whose roleplaying methods and goals are complementary to 4e’s rules and how a 4e game is structured (or meta-structured?), while those who dislike 4e are the people who are moving against the grain that 4e establishes at the table.
A good article on the interaction of individual methods and goals with the system is Plugging in Scenes and System over at Buried Without Ceremony. It clarified my thinking on this a lot.
September 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Well said d7.
September 14, 2009 at 1:16 pm
@Monk: There are a lot of games that are similar to FATE/Fudge in that they have things built into the rules for story to hook into naturally.
Some that I have experience with are Burning Wheel, Story Engine, The Window, The Shadow of Yesterday, Shock (which is sci-fi), and Universalis. You should be able to get more information on those by searching Google to find their home pages, or searching RPG.net to find detailed reviews.
Others that you might look into are Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, In A Wicked Age, The Mountain Witch, Polaris, InSpectres, The Shab Al-Hiri Roach, PDQ (also known as Questers of the Middle Realms), and Primetime Adventures. Those are some of the more prominent or ground-breaking story games.
If that’s not enough, browse through Indie Press Revolution’s catalogue.
September 30, 2009 at 9:20 am
Andy V: Great Post. Very vivid.
I agree with the original poster that roleplaying has to come from the group. In my home group, we were pretty oblivious to all the controversy. When we switched to 4E we brought all of our roleplaying creativity and humor with us. Stories and interesting characters just flow out of that cameraderie, but it can also be aided by creating characters with ties to their world and each other.
On the other hand, I agree with Andy V. Background traits have done a bit to codify some more non-combat abilities, but having some rules for performance and crafting would really improve the game, in my opinion. Heck, why not create a group of non-combat skills and let each character be trained in one or two for free? Hopefully they will address this issue in one of the future Players Handbooks.
October 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“We were tired of the same old routine: I roll, I miss; I roll, I hit, I damage! I roll, I miss. Rinse, lather, repeat.”
That is not how 3.5 combat goes in my games. I have a Paladin who quotes holy scripture of his god (that he wrote as part of his character background) every time he makes a smite attempt, a sorcerer whose personality was present at every action “Ignacio says now you die” as a magic missile is loosed, and all sorts of descriptions by other players as to how their characters swing that sword. 4e combat discourages that cinematic flare because the “powers” have a description written down so there is no need for the player to be descriptive at all.
Your statement about 3.5 combat being boring is the exact same statement as there is no role playing in 4e.
October 10, 2009 at 6:36 am
“Your statement about 3.5 combat being boring is the exact same statement as there is no role playing in 4e.”
Fair enough. However, all of those examples you just described are the epitome of roleplaying that is brought to the table by the players, not the mechanic.
“4e combat discourages that cinematic flare because the “powers” have a description written down so there is no need for the player to be descriptive at all.”
I personally find that players who will bring cinematic flair to their 3E, Savage Worlds or other games may be hindered by 4E at first because they see the power description as a limiting box that confines them, but they bring plenty of roleplaying in the dialogue that goes on in combat. In my group, I’ve seen more dialogue prompted by the spin-offs of 4E powers and more team-building and teamwork (as oppossed to individual glory) than in other games.
October 14, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“4e combat discourages that cinematic flare because the “powers” have a description written down so there is no need for the player to be descriptive at all.”
That’s just silly. It flat out states in the core 4e rule set that flavor text can easily be substituted for whatever a player chooses. If a player chooses not to pursue this that merely reflects on their own level of commitment and ambition, not the edition.
I have a player who completely reworked all the names and flavor texts of his PC’s warden powers to suit his own vision.
October 14, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“Easy” and “commitment and ambition” are contradictory. Either it’s easy, or it takes commitment and ambition.
This is my problem with most discussions of 4e. Any concern about how the system hinders a part of play or fails to help it sufficiently, legitimate or otherwise, is dismissed as “you’re not trying hard enough, and besides it’s easy to fix.”
4e makes designing encounters easier, right? Therefore, 3e makes designing encounters harder. Is it so inconceivable that there are things that 4e makes harder? We’re not talking about impossibility, just simply more difficult.
Unless you honestly believe that 4e is the peak of game design perfection, you have to admit that it has flaws in addition to its merits.
(If you’re thinking at this point, “It doesn’t hinder my roleplaying, so it’s not the system’s fault”, you’re making the assumption that everyone plays the same way and for the same payoff that you do. Different aspects of a system matter in different ways to different players. It’s not a simple relationship.)
October 16, 2009 at 12:15 pm
““Easy” and “commitment and ambition” are contradictory. Either it’s easy, or it takes commitment and ambition.”
No, it actually can be both. It’s easy to swap out flavor text as it’s, y’know, flavor text. It doesn’t change a lick of the game mechanics or encounter design or cause imbalance. Deciding that the Cloak of Mystical Levitation is green when the flavor text clearly states that it’s red is a very simple word substitution that adds variation to the role-playing aspect of the game but causes no mechanical advantage or disadvantage and no headache-inducing house-ruling for the DM.
Whether a player wants to be “ambitious” and “commit” to this “easy” process depends on the player.
There is no such thing as game perfection except for the game I play in my head. But trying to create some form of doctrine for the impromptu acting aspect of role-playing is an exercise in the ridiculous.
Arguments about the mechanical difficulty of the 4e v. 3.5e and minis & battlemats vs. abstract encounters are beyond the scope of what Colin’s column addresses.
October 16, 2009 at 9:55 pm
It’s not beyond the scope of the post at all. I didn’t get into this directly, but the point underlying the “different folks, different strokes” aside above is that this post, and the article at DDI, are rebutting a straw man. Saying “4e has no room for roleplaying” is an absurdly and ridiculously absolutist statement, and taking it seriously enough to rebut it is equally ridiculous. Discussing this statement, and lauding the wisdom of those who notice that it is not true, is equivalent to rebutting the statement “all cats have bills and poisoned spurs.”
However, there are fine gradiations of playability. 3e made encounter planning harder than it needed to be. Spirit of the Century makes designing mechanically-relevant colour text easy. 4e makes playing a non-combat character harder. The meaningful questions here are: how much harder? easier than what? harder, but for what gain? The question “is it possible to roleplay in 4e” is not an interesting question.
I’ll grant you that, for the meaning of “easy” you’re using, rewriting flavour text is easy. It’s easy in the sense that it doesn’t require any other balancing work to do.
That’s not the “easy” that I was using, though. It takes more than zero time and effort, and I have better things to do with my roleplaying time. There are people who would find that a fulfilling and worthwhile use of time (different strokes), but I’m not one of them. Firmly asserting that we are different people who enjoy different aspects of roleplaying games doesn’t devalue those people’s idea of fun.
Hence, whether the powers’ fluff text is a problem or a feature depends on the player and group.
For instance, for the way I play and GM, the existing flavour text actually already causes headache-inducing houseruling. For instance, the both the Fighter power Silverstep (p 81) and the Paladin power Staggering Smite (p 93) push enemies around. The first is a “trip” according to the flavour text; the second is a “mighty swing”. Frankly, neither should effect a dragon (because of sheer size difference), and Silverstep’s flavour text indicates that it should not effect creatures who cannot be tripped, and yet it does.
As a DM and a player I have no interest in powers that are just thrown around in a formal dance of mechanics. (Not all Powers are like that, but too many are.) If Silverstep gets used on a gelatinous cube, what happens? If I pay attention to the mechanics, it gets shoved back several squares (many feet). If I pay attention to the situation in the game, a fighter is trying to trip a gelatinous cube. Even if you rewrite the flavour text to say that it’s being pushed in some other way, a 10-by-10-by-10 gelatious cube would weigh a staggering 30 tons. No mere fighter is moving that thing!
Some people don’t care about what’s going on beyond the mechanics. Some people don’t care what’s going on except in the situation in-game. 4e only pays attention to the mechanics, so people who care more or only about the in-game situation have to houserule a lot of powers.
It’s easy to avoid this problem by not getting into combats in 4e, but at that point, we might as well play something else, right?
And as for the idea that to “create some form of doctrine for the impromptu acting aspect of role-playing is an exercise in the ridiculous,” that’s also just not having a clear understanding of the alternatives to how D&D does things. There are ways of supporting “impromptu acting” that don’t amount to rigid doctrine, but more about providing useful tools and creating on-the-fly inspiration.
Improv actors don’t operate by a “doctrine” when they use sophisticated techniques for making the play go smoothly and (importantly) in interesting directions. Neither do improvisational musicians use “doctrine” to coordinate their playing with other musicians in order to create an impromptu performance. Your own impromptu acting probably uses a pile of techniques you’ve consciously or unconsciously developed over years, especially if you’re good at the impromptu stuff. If you haven’t read anything other than D&D then you wouldn’t really know it, but systems that do have rules for non-combat situations are just taking those techniques and packaging them up in a way that everyone can use more-or-less well with more-or-less skill.
That’s my other peeve about the discussions of 4e.
Nobody seems to have any idea that there are many, many other games and ways of playing and can’t see beyond the narrow corridor of play and design space delineated by the differences between 3e and 4e.
So, to sum a too-long comment: What’s easy for one person is not even worthwhile to another; The flavour text being unconnected to the mechanics is a feature to some and a game-breaker for others; There are many ways to roleplay in a genuine way that also use rules to smooth out and/or enhance the impromptu acting without making it less impromptu or more doctrinal. And at this point, you either see some glimmer of what I’m getting at and maybe there’s an interesting conversation to be had, or you don’t and there’s nothing to say but a gracious fare-thee-well.