I've been playing with the same group for a bit more then 4 years now. It was only up until 8 months that we switched from 3.5 to 4e. I'm what the DMG (3.5 anyways) an "actor", I generally put alot of thought into my characters and plan out personal story arcs to really flesh him out (goals, mannerisms, quirks, that sort of thing), and most importantly have my character react to his environment, which is where the roleplaying and acting come in.
So in those 9 months, we're up to level 15, I'm playing a deva cleric. However I'm finding myself increasingly not RPing, which is my source of fun in the game, as of late. I've stopped completely being an actor in battles since I'm too busy crunching numbers (bonuses, penalties, etc.) and planning my next move that battle has become more of a math quiz then an RP session. In 3.5, I have alot of memorable memories of things I described and can visualize from a fight (i.e. my monk running up and shatter caster wands and evading all the damage from the explosion to say the least). Perhaps it has to do with the transparency of the battle mechanics in 4e (you actually get to know if a creature is at half health because they are bloodied) and skill challenges. Another thing that bugs me is that in 4e, you start of automatically a hero, whereas I prefer the story arc of my character, I want to experience him learning those level 1 powers. I could keep on rambling but I hope you get the point I'm making.
If any of you have had this problem, were you able to remedy it and if so, how?
Thanks!
My Shifter Fighter is actually a werewolf. He transforms in combat at first blood, his executioner axe is actually his savage bite. It's awesome.
My Revenant Assassin is a drunk because he believes his drunken (or drug induced) hallucinations are visions imparted to him by his god of the people he's supposed to kill. He goes into battle drunk because he believes it weakens the barriers between him and the divine, so his god can actually act through him.
I dunno, just... try to make things a tiny bit more chaotic.
Roleplaying outside of combat is of course still good, and you should be able to talk to your DM about the "born a hero" stuff (which I too find lame).
RP between combats is still good.
I played in an old v3.5 game in the summer for a weekend. Although I was annoyed at the horrid skewedness of my character and dumb things such as spending half of the combat encounter dominated (thus basically narrating my dominated actions), I did find the old pattern of RP, and problem solving came back, and that was quite enjoyable. So IMO, there is something about the nature of the games that affects my group. I suspect it affects us because we are not especially focussed on any aspect of the game, so will tend to "go with the flow" with the style of play that the game encourages. I'm sure that a strongly RP-focussed group can maintain that in 4E.
They and I have no problems RPing in combat.
One of largest factors to help in your problem, is that we use the DDI Character Builder to generate our characters. The reason I say that I think this can help you, is that the character builder does all the number cruching for you and displays the full bonus to any particular power your character has. Because of this all we have to do roll the dice and add the bonus at the top of the card.
I all took all of my power cards and wrote down what those powers like when they are manifested. As far other little tidbits of action, I just adlib those.
Hope this helps.
The reason I say that I think this can help you, is that the character builder does all the number cruching for you and displays the full bonus to any particular power your character has. Because of this all we have to do roll the dice and add the bonus at the top of the card.
That's true provided you never mark, curse, have to know the difference between your stats bloodied/unbloodied, have conditions which end "at the end of your next turn" etc etc
It's not the math that gets in the way, it's the amount of tracking and, worse, cross-referencing of tracking, that absorbs all those brain cells. Offloading to this to simple tracking props and tools may help free up some grey matter for RP (my groups still in progress of picking a few helper tools)
So in those 9 months, we're up to level 15, I'm playing a deva cleric. However I'm finding myself increasingly not RPing, which is my source of fun in the game, as of late. I've stopped completely being an actor in battles since I'm too busy crunching numbers (bonuses, penalties, etc.) and planning my next move that battle has become more of a math quiz then an RP session.
You might enjoy playing a different, more straight-forward class and/or build. Part of the fun of playing a leader is juggling all those different bonuses around. But if that's not for you, maybe something a bit more forward. A Paladin built to engage and lock down one opponent, for example.
In 3.5, I have alot of memorable memories of things I described and can visualize from a fight (i.e. my monk running up and shatter caster wands and evading all the damage from the explosion to say the least). Perhaps it has to do with the transparency of the battle mechanics in 4e (you actually get to know if a creature is at half health because they are bloodied) and skill challenges.
My group doesn't roleplay combat all the time, though we do ham it up from time to time. Especially if a spectactual success/failure/strategy is involved. For example, when our dragonborn fighter, after falling into a pit trap set by some ambushing goblins, leaps out of it in a jump, roars in anger, and starts smearing frightened goblin chunks all over the forest in a fit of rage. Priceless.
Skills challenges are hard to judge and advise on in a vacuum. I'm seen them handled well and not so well. Ideally, you shouldn't ever know you're in a skill challenge. If you find this to be the opposite case more often than not, try talking to your DM about it. There's lots of strategies for making skill challenges more immersive and less mechanical.
Another thing that bugs me is that in 4e, you start of automatically a hero, whereas I prefer the story arc of my character, I want to experience him learning those level 1 powers.
Actually, this was very true in 3e as well. Even at that small fraction of potential, a 1st level PC start with abilities your average NPC could only ever dream of aquiring.
Your local priest may be well learned and wise, but he can't channel his god's divine might like a cleric or paladin. The local guardsman might be good with a sword, but is still a few tricks shy of the fighter. And so on.
Of course, that's just the default assumption that your PCs exist in a world populated primarily by normal people. In worlds more heavily populated by powerful individuals, your first level features (3e) and powers (4e) may amount to nothing more than palor tricks and beginner's kata. It all depends on how the world is framed.
The biggest difference between 1st level 3e and 4e characters, I think, is not the presence or absence of powers. Both 3e and 4e characters start the game with cool stuff (generally). But rather that 4e characters are less frail. 4e characters start off not needing to fear death from a single, lucky blow from a kobold, so there's no "infancy" stage that requires a wholely different gameplay style to survive until you "graduate," and the game grows a beard and genre shifts from a survival/noir to high-fantasy adventure. Perhaps you are nostalgic for that gritter introductory periord.
Mantle of Glory, followed by Healing Word, and finishing the turn by downgrading your move to a minor and using Divine Vigor. If you aren't having fun or having difficulty roleplaying then reflavor your powers, your race, anything that will make it fun for you. Who's to say your mace and chainmail couldn't look like a staff and robe? You're a deva, you're immortal, undying - maybe you're a ghost watching over a decendant or a group of heroes you've decided to be a guardian angel for. If you don't want to keep track of all the variables then don't. Tell your group "You now have +2 to your defenses until the end of my next turn." Then it is up to them to remember, not you. Instead of keeping track of your party's health just have them call out when they're bloodied so you know who to heal and when or when they need a saving throw.
Switch between OOC and IC descriptions. Using the above example it would look like this:
OOC - I use mantle of glory, I rolled a 30. Does it hit? 20 damage.
IC - I clasp my holy symbol and speak a prayer to the Raven Queen. A bright light billows forth from the cold steel. "Raven Queen, Goddess of Winter, lend me your breath to bring the souls of these heathens into your embrace."
OOC - Who needs a heal? I use Healing Word.
IC - I lay my hand upon (character name), "Great Goddess of Death, please stay your hand until your servant has completed his task."
OOC - I downgrade and use Divine Vigor.
IC - "Now, everyone, forward! Allow the strength of the Raven Queen to fill you! We will not die this day!"
It really shouldn't be hard to still be an actor unless your group is discouraging it.
Editions don't have anything to do with roleplaying. It's all the same
I don't know why you feel like you can't roleplay in combat. Its the same as another edition. I have my tatics figured out while I am waiting for other players turn. On my turn I can describe my actions.
Editions don't have anything to do with roleplaying. It's all the same
If this were Twitter, I'd retweet that.
Editions don't have anything to do with roleplaying. It's all the same
That's a nice ideal, but in ~30 years of playing multiple systems, experience tells me otherwise. I am definitely not seeing that it's all the same. Including a recent switch back from 4E to v3.5 with essentially the same group, quite recently.
A hardcore "Actor" or "Storyteller" style of player can probably bring their approach to any game. And that is where I expect statements like this quote are coming from - from players and DMs who are secure in their own personal style and approach to RPGs.
Isn't this almost a version of the nature vs nurture argument? E.g. some people have it in their nature to lean heavily toward RP (or otherwise), some people are more influenced by suggestions from the environment - including the game system and what kind of play comes out of it on a path of least resistance.
Party RP took a ridiculous nosedive when we switched to 4E forever ago. Our side-game of Pathfinder, lots of RP though. One guy used to say these crazy prayers and invoke Pelor and just do a bunch of cool RP with his cleric, then the mechanics of 4E found him switching classes and generally powergaming (not that i'm opposed to powergaming just that it wasn't the game we were playing) instead of RPing.
Our pally would yell at everything he'd attack when he used his smites and stuff, but then kind of meeked out at the intimidating mechanics (he was as casual a player as you'd ever meet with regards to mechanics) and then just bailed entirely.
The problem with 4E on RP is the mechanics quantify your character too objectively, but you have to kind of just give the finger to mechanics and optimization for the sake of fun. Try and find classes that kind of carry their own weight automatically or with little feat support if you're running with a high-op party, and don't worry about slowing anybody down if you're not.
One of the worse problems I've had is someone finding the craziest crap they can, and then writing their character around it, with that annoying 3rd person explanation for why they have to use the game mechanics equivalent of a rube-golberg machine
Edit: I think it's because it's so abstract. I feel very free to reflavor things, and this leads me to a richer character concept and more characterization overall. Probably that was possible in other editions, and in other games, but 4th Edition really helped me realize it.
Perhaps the original poster is just getting bored with his character and just needs a new character for a fresh start. Particularly heavy rp often leads to the eventual evolution of the character and they reach the end of there story arc. Players who enjoy lots of rp could certainly grow bored with a character who has gone through his important life crisis'.
I've enjoyed 3.5, 4.0 and have finally settled on pathfinder. Switching to pathfinder was more initiated by my fellow players but it didn't have anything to do with rp. It has been my opinion that a game is what you make it. Certainly 4.0 came in with a bit of baggage but I've never had any problem with it.
^This.
Party RP took a ridiculous nosedive when we switched to 4E forever ago. Our side-game of Pathfinder, lots of RP though. One guy used to say these crazy prayers and invoke Pelor and just do a bunch of cool RP with his cleric, then the mechanics of 4E found him switching classes and generally powergaming (not that i'm opposed to powergaming just that it wasn't the game we were playing) instead of RPing.
Our pally would yell at everything he'd attack when he used his smites and stuff, but then kind of meeked out at the intimidating mechanics (he was as casual a player as you'd ever meet with regards to mechanics) and then just bailed entirely.
The problem with 4E on RP is the mechanics quantify your character too objectively, but you have to kind of just give the finger to mechanics and optimization for the sake of fun. Try and find classes that kind of carry their own weight automatically or with little feat support if you're running with a high-op party, and don't worry about slowing anybody down if you're not.
One of the worse problems I've had is someone finding the craziest crap they can, and then writing their character around it, with that annoying 3rd person explanation for why they have to use the game mechanics equivalent of a rube-golberg machine
sounds like a problem with the players and not the game. They found something that currently has more of there interest then RPing. It's not the game that has changed but the players
Editions don't have anything to do with roleplaying. It's all the same
That's a nice ideal, but in ~30 years of playing multiple systems, experience tells me otherwise. I am definitely not seeing that it's all the same. Including a recent switch back from 4E to v3.5 with essentially the same group, quite recently.
A hardcore "Actor" or "Storyteller" style of player can probably bring their approach to any game. And that is where I expect statements like this quote are coming from - from players and DMs who are secure in their own personal style and approach to RPGs.
Isn't this almost a version of the nature vs nurture argument? E.g. some people have it in their nature to lean heavily toward RP (or otherwise), some people are more influenced by suggestions from the environment - including the game system and what kind of play comes out of it on a path of least resistance.
I have not noticed the mechanics of 4E forcing new players to powergame/optimize. I have seen DMs force new players to powergame/optimize.
I am currently teaching 5 (originally it was 8, 1 left for personal reasons, 1 has work, and 1 just didn't like it)new players 4E. one has been playing D&D for years, but is new to 4E. The other 4 are 17-18 years old, and had no tabletop rpg experience at all. After one session you could tell who the powergamers were, who the storytellers were, who the actors were, and who the instigators were. One of the players even wanted to reflavor his powers. He wasn't aware of the term "reflavor" at the time, but he saw a chance to personalize his character and wanted to do it.
Perhaps the original poster is just getting bored with his character and just needs a new character for a fresh start. Particularly heavy rp often leads to the eventual evolution of the character and they reach the end of there story arc. Players who enjoy lots of rp could certainly grow bored with a character who has gone through his important life crisis'.
I've enjoyed 3.5, 4.0 and have finally settled on pathfinder. Switching to pathfinder was more initiated by my fellow players but it didn't have anything to do with rp. It has been my opinion that a game is what you make it. Certainly 4.0 came in with a bit of baggage but I've never had any problem with it.
Thanks 1red13, after some thought that's the problem I'm having. My character has already gone through an important life crisis and his current goal is lacking. Time to get working on that.
I don't know why you feel like you can't roleplay in combat. Its the same as another edition. I have my tatics figured out while I am waiting for other players turn. On my turn I can describe my actions.
Editions don't have anything to do with roleplaying. It's all the same
I totally agree.
Re: tracking effects/durations in combat, we use a big dry erase whiteboard with the initiative order, noting effects. Less to remember, and it autoprompts people "on deck".
Armor.
Ok, so you buy it, it looks one way, but you want to look another way, but have the protection.
That platemail could be regular plate, or maybe your priest has complicated robes, hes wearing weighted cloth, but defends like plate.
That barbarian has leather armor but wants to be bare chested. Great! The time to put armor on for a fight is now: time to ready ones self fully. same delay as armor that mechanics represent, but the described appearance is different.
Ive even seen druids in wooden armor.
In a way this is an anology for all those powers- they can be described, and unless your group favors warhammer 40k gaming, then they should enjoy it as well. It may even encourage them.
As far as mechanics, just spend soem time, make a chart, and refer to it. All the math out of the way early.
My dancer (Tempest Fighter hybrid Ranger, balanced str/dex striker) is a pretty complex character. Because of the dynamics of the game I had him in (I moved), he was sometimes in armor and sometimes not; sometimes wielding a bow, sometimes a pair of enchanted swords, sometimes a pair of unenchanted swords, sometimes daggers, and sometimes an unarmed strike.
I ended up doing a spreadsheet with three major sections. One has six columns for defenses (four rows, one per defense), one has two columns for skills, and one has seven columns for attacks (one row per power including basic attacks, grab, and bull rush).
That leaves only the stuff that happens in combat.
He is a tarkatan samurai warrior who always covers himself in the blood of his enemies. He never removes his red phazite armor and with one swift swipe across a man's chest using his retractable arm blades, and his entrails spill out on to the ground. He stuffs them in his mouth as food afterward.
Also you can't accuse me of cannibalism because I am not a human genetically. Technically speaking I can only be a cannibal if I eat another tarkatan, which I never have.
^This.
Party RP took a ridiculous nosedive when we switched to 4E forever ago. Our side-game of Pathfinder, lots of RP though. One guy used to say these crazy prayers and invoke Pelor and just do a bunch of cool RP with his cleric, then the mechanics of 4E found him switching classes and generally powergaming (not that i'm opposed to powergaming just that it wasn't the game we were playing) instead of RPing.
Our pally would yell at everything he'd attack when he used his smites and stuff, but then kind of meeked out at the intimidating mechanics (he was as casual a player as you'd ever meet with regards to mechanics) and then just bailed entirely.
The problem with 4E on RP is the mechanics quantify your character too objectively, but you have to kind of just give the finger to mechanics and optimization for the sake of fun. Try and find classes that kind of carry their own weight automatically or with little feat support if you're running with a high-op party, and don't worry about slowing anybody down if you're not.
One of the worse problems I've had is someone finding the craziest crap they can, and then writing their character around it, with that annoying 3rd person explanation for why they have to use the game mechanics equivalent of a rube-golberg machine
^This.
I've been playing 4th Edition with at least 30 different people over the past two years (never played earlier editions), and not once has any combat been a descriptive, flavorful event like people describe above.
I've never heard a cleric curse his enemies in the name of his god, never heard a bard describe the song they use to distract/harm/heal enemies and allies (let alone sing it), and never heard a ranger say anything else than "that enemy is now my quarry, I use [insert power name] to shoot it". The most consistent roleplay I've encountered during combat came from barbarians, who would roar before charging an enemy.
The difference between mechanical and flavorful combat became clear to me when earlier this year, I played in a Vampire: the Masquerade campaign. When their turns came around, players would go through great lengths to describe their desired actions. The DM would then figure out what skills/powers this required, and told the players to roll.
No battlemap, no miniatures, no list of power names. Just ideas from the players, followed by a DC that the player needs to make. Personally, I would not be disappointed if future D&D would head in that direction, instead of becoming more like playing videogames on a tabletop.
I've been playing 4th Edition with at least 30 different people over the past two years (never played earlier editions), and not once has any combat been a descriptive, flavorful event like people describe above.
Funny, most of the combat I've been in has included descriptive, flavorful events, so I can't say I see what difference the edition makes.
No battlemap, no miniatures, no list of power names. Just ideas from the players, followed by a DC that the player needs to make. Personally, I would not be disappointed if future D&D would head in that direction, instead of becoming more like playing videogames on a tabletop.
Your use of the tired "4E is a video game" trope makes me seriously wondered if you've played 4th Edition at all. But I actually agree with you. The game should emphasize that minatures and maps and, heck, every other rule is only necessary when you're playing with people you don't have a ton of trust with, such as at a convention. It would be great for the game to explore ways to minimize the accoutrements normally associated with it. Exact numbers and distances rarely matter in combat. Maybe now that WotC is out of the miniatures business, that will be downplayed.
The power system is just a method of balancing the game, so that warriors and magic-users can take the field together without one making the other obsolete. There are certainly other ways to do that, so maybe we'll see another in the future.
Funny, most of the combat I've been in has included descriptive, flavorful events, so I can't say I see what difference the edition makes.
Look, people are not the same. Just because you don't see any differences across editions doesn't mean that they don't exist for other people. If you cannot see what the difference is after reading the various explanations offered by other posters, then repeatedly stating "I don't have this problem, so there is no way you could be having them" isn't helpful.
I've been playing 4th Edition with at least 30 different people over the past two years (never played earlier editions), and not once has any combat been a descriptive, flavorful event like people describe above.
Funny, most of the combat I've been in has included descriptive, flavorful events, so I can't say I see what difference the edition makes.No battlemap, no miniatures, no list of power names. Just ideas from the players, followed by a DC that the player needs to make. Personally, I would not be disappointed if future D&D would head in that direction, instead of becoming more like playing videogames on a tabletop.
Your use of the tired "4E is a video game" trope makes me seriously wondered if you've played 4th Edition at all. But I actually agree with you. The game should emphasize that minatures and maps and, heck, every other rule is only necessary when you're playing with people you don't have a ton of trust with, such as at a convention. It would be great for the game to explore ways to minimize the accoutrements normally associated with it. Exact numbers and distances rarely matter in combat. Maybe now that WotC is out of the miniatures business, that will be downplayed.
The power system is just a method of balancing the game, so that warriors and magic-users can take the field together without one making the other obsolete. There are certainly other ways to do that, so maybe we'll see another in the future.
But this does proves or shows that this is always the case or typical. In my games we do roleplay during combat.
One of the best times I remember was with my barbarian. I have the music to the "tank" from left 4 dead on my phone.
I started the song on my turn, and because of all the extra attacks I got it lasted the entire turn, plus I was roleplaying by running around the room a bit when I hit.
The game doesn't stop roleplaying it's the players/dm
When you played vampire you might have had a different group of people or a different DM that makes all the difference
and never heard a ranger say anything else than "that enemy is now my quarry, I use [insert power name] to shoot it".
I'm pleased to say that in my dancer's very first combat, after I got past the minions I looked at the BBEG and said "Shall we dance?" to tag him as my quarry.
The difference between mechanical and flavorful combat became clear to me when earlier this year, I played in a Vampire: the Masquerade campaign. When their turns came around, players would go through great lengths to describe their desired actions. The DM would then figure out what skills/powers this required, and told the players to roll.
But any of the World of Darkness subsystems (except maybe Human) allows any character to do almost anything if he has enough dots in the right places. The few defined powers are offered only as samples and don't even begin to cover combinations of power-domains within the same subsystem. Players in the larp I was in for a while would occasionally sit around before a session describing how to make common items using the various subsystems; for example, a mage wanting to make a pager or cellphone would need one dot in Time and two dots in Correspondence (which is basically magic involving the shape and location of space).
Mechanically it has almost nothing to do with any edition of D&D.
Oh, and in I think three years in the larp I was involved in two combats and witness to three more. Killing monsters and taking their stuff is not generally a big part of the system. Very unlike D&D. And it's the tactical combat that demands the precise rules and clearly defined powers of D&D.
For starters, I must state that this is NOT a 3.5 vs 4e flame post.
...,
If any of you have had this problem, were you able to remedy it and if so, how?
Thanks!
I never had that problem, 1st, 2nd, 3, 4th, Champions, Tom's Space Marine or Ambrose's Anime, whatever. No matter the rpg or edition, a Dm and players can role play, deep characters with backgrounds and quirks. Speak in character, narrate quirky actions and describe unique features are ways to role play in any game. It helps to have a good Dm who can spin an intriguing narrative out of the raw game mechanics, it helps, a lot, all the players get into the role playt (But it is not crucial, imagination is).
As for 4e in particular, look for ways to twist your Pc's narrative arround feats, theme's, class bonuses and racial powers. Many game mechanic like powers, feats and background bonuses are also narrative cues for players and Dms to add certain twists and descriptions into the game's over all evolving story being played out, I suggest you use them as such. I think the key may be to use the games mechanics and tactics in help shaping the games story and viewing such things as story aid and not a story hinderence. You would be surprised how much such a change in mindset will help in enjoying any endeavor, including playing dungeons and dragons.
PS if your an actor then you probably like speaking in character, continue to do so in 4e. Use your voice, facial expressions and body language to bring your pc and that pc's action to life at the game table. That kind of stuff still works at enhancing the roleplaying experience in 4e (at least for some.., like myself
).
Funny, most of the combat I've been in has included descriptive, flavorful events, so I can't say I see what difference the edition makes.
Look, people are not the same.
That's basically my point. The implication tends to by that the edition is the cause of peoples' problems, but it's more to do with the difference between people. A given edition is not inherently better or worse for roleplaying, except for very narrow types and definitions of roleplaying.
Just because you don't see any differences across editions doesn't mean that they don't exist for other people.
Of course I see the differences, I just don't see how they interfere with roleplaying, unless a person is utterly inflexible
If you cannot see what the difference is after reading the various explanations offered by other posters, then repeatedly stating "I don't have this problem, so there is no way you could be having them" isn't helpful.
I'm not trying to be helpful to them, because they don't want my help. They want to complain. I'm just trying to counter any implications (or explications?) that it has anything to do with the edition one plays.
That's basically my point. The implication tends to by that the edition is the cause of peoples' problems, but it's more to do with the difference between people. A given edition is not inherently better or worse for roleplaying, except for very narrow types and definitions of roleplaying.
Oh lord. Another post-modernist. The premises for the discussion were clear, however. We weren't discussing the inherent role-playing induciveness of "any" rpg in the abstract, but the nature of 4th edition as experienced by certain posters. So there is a spoon, whether you like it or not.
Of course I see the differences, I just don't see how they interfere with roleplaying, unless a person is utterly inflexible
Oh, if only we weren't so inflexible and had such narrow definitions of everything.
I'm not trying to be helpful to them, because they don't want my help. They want to complain. I'm just trying to counter any implications (or explications?) that it has anything to do with the edition one plays.
Your own definition of "complain", however, seems extremely rigid. It was a perfectly normal discussion, and not at all in need of your superior paladin powers.
For us combat contained a lot of:
"I smack the troll, it takes 30 damage and then I push it back 1 square. Now it's marked, and trolls #3,4 and #5 but not 2 have a -2 penalty to hit me blah, blah blah, and then I spend my action point and I..."
That's just a made up example, and doesn't reflect any real power, but in a fight I found there to be a near constant chatter of this nature. I tried to discourage it as DM, but at the same time a lot of it is information that I need to know, so it's really of hard not to have it. It tends to get worse at higher levels, and it probably isn't quite as bad if you are playing essentials characters since the martial ones are a little more simple and don't tend to throw down as many status effects.
I enjoyed the balance and tactical options of 4E when I first started playing it, but after a few years of running it and listening to all the metagame chatter that it's combat system spawns at my table, I got sick of it. I think some of my players still liked it alright, but I couldn't take it anymore. I wouldn't go back to running 3E because I dislike how magic utterly rules/destroys the game in that system, but I don't want to play 4E anymore either, so now I'm not playing any D&D type rpg. Luckily, all but one of my players were happy to try other games, and they are now really liking the Shadowrun game I'm running (Of course that game has it's own set of issues, but it's been a nice change from D&D and has a way different feel to it).
So yeah, I agree with the orginal poster. Sure you can rp in any rpg, but the design of certain games lends itself better to certain types of play, and if you feel otherwise I suspect you don't have much experience with a wide variety of systems. For instance, in our Shadowrun game the game world and system is designed to encourage a variety of approaches to solving problems. In this game we typically have sessions that feel like they have lots of action, but still have little to no combat, and when there is a fight it tends to be quick and dirty. This would be unheard of in our D&D game, and it is the same group of players playing both games. The reason for this is that the system and world in Shadowrun encourage scheming, clever planning and finding alternatives to just fighting your way through everything, and as a result the players spend a lot of time doing these types of things. D&D does not do this naturally. In D&D the default assumption is that you will fight your way through any opposition you encounter (which obviously isn't always the case, but it is the norm). In fact because this is the assumption the designers have put a great deal of effort into balancing the classes so that they all have a very specific niche to fill in a fight, and that they can all be useful in battle. Therefore, when I was running a D&D game with the same group, the normal tactic was to hack through a group of enemies unless they were obviously much more powerful. This resulted in a much more combat orientated game, and the metagame chatter of the 4E tacitcal system came to dominate much of the game play.
I was having a similar experience with 4E during combat. The problem for us was that we had a group of 6 players, which meant that to keep things moving everyone tried to complete their turns pretty quick. Although there is room for narration and rping in combat in 4E (I had one player out of six that was pretty good at this part), the system doesn't lend itself to it because you end spending most of your turn spewing out all the necessary metagame details that the gm needs to know, and by the time that is complete you forget about narration (or give a very brief bit) and want to make sure the game keeps moving so you end your turn.
For us combat contained a lot of:
"I smack the troll, it takes 30 damage and then I push it back 1 square. Now it's marked, and trolls #3,4 and #5 but not 2 have a -2 penalty to hit me blah, blah blah, and then I spend my action point and I..."
That's just a made up example, and doesn't reflect any real power, but in a fight I found there to be a near constant chatter of this nature. I tried to discourage it as DM, but at the same time a lot of it is information that I need to know, so it's really of hard not to have it. It tends to get worse at higher levels, and it probably isn't quite as bad if you are playing essentials characters since the martial ones are a little more simple and don't tend to throw down as many status effects.
I enjoyed the balance and tactical options of 4E when I first started playing it, but after a few years of running it and listening to all the metagame chatter that it's combat system spawns at my table, I got sick of it. I think some of my players still liked it alright, but I couldn't take it anymore. I wouldn't go back to running 3E because I dislike how magic utterly rules/destroys the game in that system, but I don't want to play 4E anymore either, so now I'm not playing any D&D type rpg. Luckily, all but one of my players were happy to try other games, and they are now really liking the Shadowrun game I'm running (Of course that game has it's own set of issues, but it's been a nice change from D&D and has a way different feel to it).
So yeah, I agree with the orginal poster. Sure you can rp in any rpg, but the design of certain games lends itself better to certain types of play, and if you feel otherwise I suspect you don't have much experience with a wide variety of systems. For instance, in our Shadowrun game the game world and system is designed to encourage a variety of approaches to solving problems. In this game we typically have sessions that feel like they have lots of action, but still have little to no combat, and when there is a fight it tends to be quick and dirty. This would be unheard of in our D&D game, and it is the same group of players playing both games. The reason for this is that the system and world in Shadowrun encourage scheming, clever planning and finding alternatives to just fighting your way through everything, and as a result the players spend a lot of time doing these types of things. D&D does not do this naturally. In D&D the default assumption is that you will fight your way through any opposition you encounter (which obviously isn't always the case, but it is the norm). In fact because this is the assumption the designers have put a great deal of effort into balancing the classes so that they all have a very specific niche to fill in a fight, and that they can all be useful in battle. Therefore, when I was running a D&D game with the same group, the normal tactic was to hack through a group of enemies unless they were obviously much more powerful. This resulted in a much more combat orientated game, and the metagame chatter of the 4E tacitcal system came to dominate much of the game play.
This is the problem with the players not the game. They seem to prefer tatical side of 4th more then roleplaying in combat.
Even given your example of what could happen that is what 30 seconds of acutally rules in combats, which leaves plenty of time for roleplaying.
If your players can't get tactics down when it's not there turn, maybe you should push them to get the tactic side of combat decieded before it's there turn not during there turn.
As a gm, I got bored of the combat. The tactical options of it were fun at first, but after about a couple of years of running it the novelty had well worn off, and it was just feeling "twinky/wargamey". For the most part I think my players were still liking it because I generally made it pretty challenging for them, and I tried hard to vary the tactical situations I threw at them (using interesting terrain, different mixes of monster types etc.). The main problem was that I got sick of running it as a dm. It was becoming too much book keeping for me, and I was getting irritated by all the weird "neener, neener" effects the characters were constantly dishing out (which of course I had to keep track of). I was also tired of drawing maps on battle mats. It's been nice to play a game where I rarely need to pull out a battle grid and lay down minis (espcially since I don't really have any shadowrun appropriate minis). On the other hand I have a ton of D&D minis now sitting in drawers doing nothing...
The issue wasn't that my players are wasting time figuring out what to do. Generally they had their actions planned out, so they knew what they were doing on their turn. We were also using average damage so they didn't have to spend time rolling and calculating their damage. The issue we ran into was that so many of the powers have status effects (moving opponents, adding a condition, combinations of both of those things etc.). The dm needs to know that information, so even if a player makes some attempt to narrate his actions, he still has explain to the dm whatever "twinky" effect the power he used has. Some of them aren't hard to narrate, nor that twinky (like flat ongoing fire damage). However, a lot are more intricate (like whenever an opponent comes near my character he becomes immobilized and takes 8 damage- this is the kind of thing I consider twinky) and don't loan themselves to narration. Once you get a bunch of effects like the one I just mentioned going on (which was happening pretty much in every fight once my party was paragon tier), our game quickly became almost purely tactical with a few flourishes of narration here and there to remind us that we were still playing an rpg. Of course this was only during the combat portions of the game, we still had story and rping going on through the rest of the game. However, because combat takes a pretty long time with 6 players running paragon tier characters it tending eat up about a little more than half of our game sessions.
As a gm, I got bored of the combat. The tactical options of it were fun at first, but after about a couple of years of running it the novelty had well worn off, and it was just feeling "twinky/wargamey".
I agree that this is the case for our group as well. Once you hit Paragon, the game becomes very much more tactical with the amount of buffs, debuffs, status effects, etc. being spread around. As mentionned oh so many times, and hell, I've even started debating it with some friends who play 3.5 or stopped playing, is that anything can be roleplayed, which is true. But we also find that battles do eat up more than half our game sessions. Actually, my favorite little bit of in-combat rp'ing took place just after the cleric errata:
Me: "I draw upon the powers of Pelor to create a burst of radiant energy to destroy all the vile undead creatures present!" Uses Turn Undead
Warlock PC: "Wasn't your blast larger the last time I saw it?"
Me: "It was. Hmmm... perhaps Pelor does not wish me to vanquish the minions of Orcus that easily."
I was having a similar experience with 4E during combat. .
This is the problem with the players not the game. They seem to prefer tatical side of 4th more then roleplaying in combat.
Even given your example of what could happen that is what 30 seconds of acutally rules in combats, which leaves plenty of time for roleplaying.
If your players can't get tactics down when it's not there turn, maybe you should push them to get the tactic side of combat decieded before it's there turn not during there turn.
. . . emphasis mine.
This hits a point home to me (and probably most of my group). Only a little RP in combat. We get our RP doses mainly in discussions, exploring and problem-solving and decision-making out of combat, and also played out with non-combat interactions with NPCs. With the relative amounts of table time taken up with combat and non-combat between editions, this is where a lot of the feeling of "lost RP" in 4E comes from for me I am certain.
Also, of course, RP itself is different things to different people. Some of these things are easier to bring to the combat games than others, and some are better supported with the by-the-book 4E mindset (I'm thinking re-fluffing here as an excellent descriptive tool):
- Depth of character background.
- Character personality and behaviour.
- Character physical descriptions (including "re-fluffing" here for me)
- Colourful (cinematic?) descriptions of actions and events
- Speaking in character (including "stuff my character would say" and "talking in a funny accent")
- Witty (or at least entertaining) banter that defines PC relationships
- Collaberation on story/drama
- Talking to NPCs (perhaps for negotiation, or just some entertainment/enrichment)
- Free-form play
. . . these are off the top of my head, probably overlap, and I've probably missed a host of other things. You can find examples of all of these things happening in combat - however, I see a lot more of it happening outside of combat. Even a group committed to bringing all this into the combat board game still has to make space for the actual combat rules, which in 4E are a big time sink.
Of course that leads to one way to bring more RP to 4E - play less combat. The out-of-combat rules are either free-form with a few guidelines, or if you have time for it, you can create more skill challenges as a framework. I find skill challenges somewhat unfullfilling as a roll game, but they are just fine as a framework for structured RP.
..,
Of course that leads to one way to bring more RP to 4E - play less combat.
A conceptolder than any edition war (I am not insinuating this thread is part of that).
The out-of-combat rules are either free-form with a few guidelines
I assume you are refering to the lack of background skills such as caligraphy, blacksmithing or even weapon smithing. For new RPG gamers, this is a no brainer, for some older gamers weaned on 2e and 3e or even other skill based rpgs like heroes system, the idea of a player can just "make believe" his dwarven fighter is also a skilled weapon smith requires a conceptual leap of what the game mechanics should or should not cover.
,
or if you have time for it, you can create more skill challenges as a framework. I find skill challenges somewhat unfullfilling as a roll game, but they are just fine as a framework for structured RP.
That is the key for me, in using skill challenges. If you focus on the die rolls, then you can turn skill challenges into a dice rolling exercise. If you use a skill challenges as a vehicle for story telling, then it work very well in enhancing the role playing experience in a group of storytellers and actors. I find the same true when it comes to the 4e combat rules. But then my tastes may differ from others, who find difficulty enjoying "roleplaying" DnD 4e.
The out-of-combat rules are either free-form with a few guidelines
I assume you are refering to the lack of background skills such as caligraphy, blacksmithing or even weapon smithing.
Not really. I was referring more to things like travel rules and standard DCs. More skills within the current system would only make things slightly less freeform. The lack of a (roll) game in the the framework is what is freeform . . . the guidelines add up to a bunch of things helping you describe a story, but are not themselves a (roll) game.
The issue we ran into was that so many of the powers have status effects (moving opponents, adding a condition, combinations of both of those things etc.). The dm needs to know that information, so even if a player makes some attempt to narrate his actions, he still has explain to the dm whatever "twinky" effect the power he used has. Some of them aren't hard to narrate, nor that twinky (like flat ongoing fire damage).
However, a lot are more intricate (like whenever an opponent comes near my character he becomes immobilized and takes 8 damage- this is the kind of thing I consider twinky) and don't loan themselves to narration. Once you get a bunch of effects like the one I just mentioned going on (which was happening pretty much in every fight once my party was paragon tier), our game quickly became almost purely tactical with a few flourishes of narration here and there to remind us that we were still playing an rpg.
Of course this was only during the combat portions of the game, we still had story and rping going on through the rest of the game. However, because combat takes a pretty long time with 6 players running paragon tier characters it tending eat up about a little more than half of our game sessions.
Of course that leads to one way to bring more RP to 4E - play less combat.
Now this is what it boils down to, in my experience. The way 4th Edition emphasizes combat, it's not unusual to have game nights that are dominated by dicerolls.
In my own campaigns, I try to rotate between combat-heavy sessions and RP-heavy ones. This way, whenever my players get bored of one, they can be sure the other is right around the corner. It doesn't solve the "no RP in combat" issue, but it keeps them happy and RPing.
The out-of-combat rules are either free-form with a few guidelines
I assume you are refering to the lack of background skills such as caligraphy, blacksmithing or even weapon smithing.
Not really. I was referring more to things like travel rules and standard DCs. More skills within the current system would only make things slightly less freeform. The lack of a (roll) game in the the framework is what is freeform . . . the guidelines add up to a bunch of things helping you describe a story, but are not themselves a (roll) game.
Could you eleborate I am a little lost? I'm not sure how the rules on travelling in 4e are much different from other edition rules and how they change the dynamics of role playing within a game between editions. Also, I am not sure in what context you are discussing "the lack of (roll) game in the frame work is free form"? Are you talking about the lack of dice rolling while speaking in character, or the lack of interaction skill checks? Which if you want are thier with roll checks for bluff, diplomacy and insight. A bit of ellaboration will help me understand.
The out-of-combat rules are either free-form with a few guidelines
I assume you are refering to the lack of background skills such as caligraphy, blacksmithing or even weapon smithing.
Not really. I was referring more to things like travel rules and standard DCs. More skills within the current system would only make things slightly less freeform. The lack of a (roll) game in the the framework is what is freeform . . . the guidelines add up to a bunch of things helping you describe a story, but are not themselves a (roll) game.
Could you eleborate I am a little lost? I'm not sure how the rules on travelling in 4e are much different from other edition rules and how they change the dynamics of role playing within a game between editions. Also, I am not sure in what context you are discussing "the lack of (roll) game in the frame work is free form"? Are you talking about the lack of dice rolling while speaking in character, or the lack of interaction skill checks? Which if you want are thier with roll checks for bluff, diplomacy and insight. A bit of ellaboration will help me understand.
Sorry, wasn't comparing editions, was being a bit more introspective. That probably explains most of it.
I just wrote a whole bunch of stuff trting to explain my stance on this, but it seems to be getting a little too tangential to the OP's post.
Really I just wanted to make the point that there's more than a few different things that count as RP. Different ways of describing combat manuevers, no matter how colourful, and how in character the "arrghs!" and "Yah! Missed!" comments are, don't cover the core feeling of "I am doing RP" for a lot of people.
Out-of-combat, the analysis does get more interesting I think, because of the way different systems support non-combat play. And there is plenty to be said about 4E's approach compared to other games - most of that doesn't relate directly to amounts of RP though, because the open-ended freeform RP that 4E supports has about the largest RP-to-rules ratio you are going to get. It is odd though, how this apparent freedom to RP as much as you want, neatly sidelined from the roll game, has not worked well for everyone - and in fact polarises opinions about whether 4E supports RP well.
Taking all posters experience at face value here, it seems that the set up of 4E both encourages and discourages roleplay. It also does not affect RP. This is based on evidence from honest posters, not opinions. I don't believe anyone posting here saying "I RP more in 4E" or "The group RPed less in 4E" or "It makes no difference" is being dishonest, and between just the posters here, we are probably logging several hundred years worth of person/RPGs. So these statements are all true. Something deeper, perhaps about exposing different personalities and apitudes to different systems, is going on.
Really I just wanted to make the point that there's more than a few different things that count as RP. Different ways of describing combat manuevers, no matter how colourful, and how in character the "arrghs!" and "Yah! Missed!" comments are, don't cover the core feeling of "I am doing RP" for a lot of people.
Out-of-combat, the analysis does get more interesting I think, because of the way different systems support non-combat play. And there is plenty to be said about 4E's approach compared to other games - most of that doesn't relate directly to amounts of RP though, because the open-ended freeform RP that 4E supports has about the largest RP-to-rules ratio you are going to get. It is odd though, how this apparent freedom to RP as much as you want, neatly sidelined from the roll game, has not worked well for everyone - and in fact polarises opinions about whether 4E supports RP well.
Taking all posters experience at face value here, it seems that the set up of 4E both encourages and discourages roleplay. It also does not affect RP. This is based on evidence from honest posters, not opinions. I don't believe anyone posting here saying "I RP more in 4E" or "The group RPed less in 4E" or "It makes no difference" is being dishonest, and between just the posters here, we are probably logging several hundred years worth of person/RPGs. So these statements are all true. Something deeper, perhaps about exposing different personalities and apitudes to different systems, is going on.
The level of combat complexity for 4E i'd say initially does diminish RP because the combats are so much more involved that players efforts are to getting their head around how the different characters powers interact with each other.
Once past that period, I'd say that 4E encourages RP by the player not having to worry that they don't have the applicable skills for a task (because they can use every skill but at varying degrees of success if trained or not).
Because the characters powers offer more than a standard 'I attack and do damage', the player's can RP in combat more, Tide Of Iron for example is a classic "I cut across the orcs chest and follow up with a shield smash to the orcs face sending it staggering" or Footwork Lure that I normally describe "I duck across, slashing the orcs across the thigh and sending it staggering toward me".
Tide Of Iron for example is a classic "I cut across the orcs chest and follow up with a shield smash to the orcs face sending it staggering" or Footwork Lure that I normally describe "I duck across, slashing the orcs across the thigh and sending it staggering toward me".
. . . although some in our group do take this style of play (adding colourful descrriptions) a little, we don't find it fits what we think of as RP*. So it may tick "we do RP in combat" for some people, and for others, even if they actually do this, they will not consider that it counts as "we do RP" - it's cool, but the main RP event for that encounter is the in-character discussions about the plot after the battle, once the PCs find out what the gang of orcs was doing in the area.
*Edit: Or rather, it's a welcome addition to the game (provided not overlong or distracting), but more of small appetiser for later RP, not the main way that we do RP.
Tide Of Iron for example is a classic "I cut across the orcs chest and follow up with a shield smash to the orcs face sending it staggering" or Footwork Lure that I normally describe "I duck across, slashing the orcs across the thigh and sending it staggering toward me".
. . . although some in our group do take this style of play (adding colourful descrriptions) a little, we don't find it fits what we think of as RP*. So it may tick "we do RP in combat" for some people, and for others, even if they actually do this, they will not consider that it counts as "we do RP" - it's cool, but the main RP event for that encounter is the in-character discussions about the plot after the battle, once the PCs find out what the gang of orcs was doing in the area.
*Edit: Or rather, it's a welcome addition to the game (provided not overlong or distracting), but more of small appetiser for later RP, not the main way that we do RP.
I wasn't saying that that counts as RP, it just adds a bit more RP to the whole game. I've had at least a dozen sessions where the party have had no combat encounters and are just the players roleplaying.
One session was a political one with the party discussing the kingdom and what is to be done. It was excellent, the guys were talking with different factions and deciding what to do next as there was still a major enemy to face. Potential war as one of the groups is from a barbarian culture and wants a war.
Meanwhile the elven mage was meeting with the elven council to get their support. The elves
My dancer has lots of multiattack (spinning) and movement powers.
My crazy cat lady has pet-related powers.
My Disney Princess has powers that fit how the model character behaved in fight scenes in the movie.
My geased wizard has no-damage and avoidable-damage arcane powers, matching the geas.
Of course I refluff a bit, but with the choices I make in character-building the refluffing is easy. Because if explaining how a power works with the character concept isn't easy, the character doesn't get that power.
My characters that I like best tend to have quite a lot of RP embedded in their power selection.
My dancer has lots of multiattack (spinning) and movement powers.
My crazy cat lady has pet-related powers.
My Disney Princess has powers that fit how the model character behaved in fight scenes in the movie.
My geased wizard has no-damage and avoidable-damage arcane powers, matching the geas.
Of course I refluff a bit, but with the choices I make in character-building the refluffing is easy. Because if explaining how a power works with the character concept isn't easy, the character doesn't get that power.
These acutally all sound like people in my apartment building
At the table, I'll give a flavorful description of what my character does, dancing through enemy attacks, hitting them unexpectedly from behind, yada, yada, yada. Then I'll give the DM a summary of the effects (we usually know the monsters' defenses), telling him the gnoll took 12 and was knocked prone, the tiefling took 9 cold and is vulnerable to cold until the end of my turn, blah, blah, blah. And I'll move my mini on the map to his new location. The DM then wants to go over my whole turn action by action and power by power until I've replayed my turn with the same outcome. People need to see/hear the same info presented the way they need to process it.
For generic advice:
1) Pick powers that fit your RP view of your character
2) Know those powers well so that you can describe the fluff and the effect without having to work through the mechanics so mechanically each time
The game can be as mechanical or fluffy as you want it to be. Just like 3.5 was.
I tend to have the opposite problem.
At the table, I'll give a flavorful description of what my character does, dancing through enemy attacks, hitting them unexpectedly from behind, yada, yada, yada. Then I'll give the DM a summary of the effects (we usually know the monsters' defenses), telling him the gnoll took 12 and was knocked prone, the tiefling took 9 cold and is vulnerable to cold until the end of my turn, blah, blah, blah. And I'll move my mini on the map to his new location. The DM then wants to go over my whole turn action by action and power by power until I've replayed my turn with the same outcome. People need to see/hear the same info presented the way they need to process it.
For generic advice:
1) Pick powers that fit your RP view of your character
2) Know those powers well so that you can describe the fluff and the effect without having to work through the mechanics so mechanically each time
The game can be as mechanical or fluffy as you want it to be. Just like 3.5 was.
Shh don't tell people that because we all know 4th killed RPing
..,Sorry, wasn't comparing editions, was being a bit more introspective. That probably explains most of it.
I just wrote a whole bunch of stuff trting to explain my stance on this, but it seems to be getting a little too tangential to the OP's post.
Really I just wanted to make the point that there's more than a few different things that count as RP. Different ways of describing combat manuevers, no matter how colourful, and how in character the "arrghs!" and "Yah! Missed!" comments are, don't cover the core feeling of "I am doing RP" for a lot of people.
..,
Gotcha thanks for the clarification. I'm not terribly concerned about comparing editions, I am just trying to understand your perspective, good job there.
As for the OP's concern about playing an actor and enjoying in depth PC background, motivation and personality, I do think actor players can find those role playing moments, indeed many actors do, regardless of the RPG system. From the Op's own admission, it is the depth of tacitical game play that is in thier way of finding the role playing moments that actors enjoy. From my perspective, if the Op wants to find those moments in 4e combat then a change of mindset and focus is needed. Switch the focus in combat from the tactical play too roleplaying. For instance, on your turn, intstead of thinking about the most tactical action your Pc can take, take actions which highlights your Pc's in depth personality and motivation.
Yes it is that easy, our group does it all of the time. In our group one gets more cudos for for doing something cool (usually cinematic, but also indepth charactization of PC through game play), over doing something tactically good. I think in our group if your gonna fail, fail at something spectacular. Heck, spectacular failures gets you kudos in our group. D&D is about drama, a specatacular failure is more dramatic than sound tactics.
My characters that I like best tend to have quite a lot of RP embedded in their power selection.
My dancer has lots of multiattack (spinning) and movement powers.
My crazy cat lady has pet-related powers.
My Disney Princess has powers that fit how the model character behaved in fight scenes in the movie.
My geased wizard has no-damage and avoidable-damage arcane powers, matching the geas.
Of course I refluff a bit, but with the choices I make in character-building the refluffing is easy. Because if explaining how a power works with the character concept isn't easy, the character doesn't get that power.
These actually all sound like people in my apartment building
You have a wizard and a Disney Princess in your apartment building?
More seriously, I think that's either part of the point or a side effect of the point. If a character-building strategy makes it easier to create a character that is believable, it's easier to imagine living next door to that character.
And similarly, you can turn it around and build an adventuring character based on your next-door neighbor. Maybe on Saturday mornings she takes the stairs rather than the elevator - and slides down the banisters for three floors. That takes some dexterity. But on weekdays she's a computer programmer. That's more or less a controller sort of thing; what controllers are high dex? Binder, Bladesinger, Hunter, Druid. Sorcerers can be controller-build and high-Dex too, even though they are more typically strikers. Does one of these match her personality or other interests?