I would love to play a 4e game where people put more emphasis on roleplay. I don't want to be asked whether I'm playing a striker, a controller, a leader, or a defender. Those are predetermined roles for a style of gaming I don't want to play right now. I want to be asked what kind of character I'm playing, and where the question: "What is your character's name?" is given importance. That is the group I want to play with.
So, play with that group. Game rules have nothing whatsoever to do with roleplaying.
That's not entirely true. You could theoretically run a D&D game where the PC have no names, no personality, and simply march through a string of unconnected dungeon rooms, levels 1 through 30.
On the other hand, a system like Primetime Adventures demands a certain level of storytelling, or there simply is no game.
That's not entirely true. You could theoretically run a D&D game where the PC have no names, no personality, and simply march through a string of unconnected dungeon rooms, levels 1 through 30.
On the other hand, a system like Primetime Adventures demands a certain level of storytelling, or there simply is no game.
No, you can do that with any system. It depends entirely on the DM and the players and what they choose to do with it.
No, you can do that with any system. It depends entirely on the DM and the players and what they choose to do with it.
No, you don't understand. Go play Primetime Adventures. The story is the game.
D&D is a roleplaying game in the sense that it allows and envisages roleplaying; there's no mechanical support for it, although it's clearly intended to be something that happens. You can, theoretically, play the game without the slightest bit of characterisation and story and still engage with and use every paragraph in the Player's Handbook, although obviously you won't be having the fullest possible experience of what the game offers.
By contrast, 7th Sea or World of Darkness are games that support and encourage roleplaying - it's built into the system, required as part of character creation, and mechanically rewarded through the core rules. You simply can't make a character without making decisions about who he is, what he believes in, and what his goals are. And players who perform well at roleplaying will get in-game advantages that make their characters more successful and effective.
And then you have Primetime Adventures or Burning Wheel, which requires roleplaying. That's the game. You don't roleplay what you're doing in the game. The roleplaying is the game. Challenges and conflicts aren't abstracted resolutions of in-game problems, they're about directly taking control of the narrative. Go check it out.
Yeah, but I'd love to attract the group to me.
If you have decent enough people skills then you shouldn't need the game to act as a social filter. A social filter is something that gets rid of people you don't want to talk to before they open their mouth like dressing like a punk or having a ton of tattoos.
I got a bunch of friends together to learn 3.5 with and found out the hard way that a number of my friends don't play games the same way I do. I was a little upset at first, but as I got deeper into gaming I started being able to figure out what kind of person games the way I like. Not that it's impressive or anything but I can get a pretty good idea of how a person would game with me from the way they tell me about their day.
No, you don't understand. Go play Primetime Adventures. The story is the game.
D&D is a roleplaying game in the sense that it allows and envisages roleplaying; there's no mechanical support for it, although it's clearly intended to be something that happens.
By contrast, 7th Sea or World of Darkness are games that support and encourage roleplaying - it's built into the system, required as part of character creation, and mechanically rewarded as part of the core rules.
And then you have Primetime Adventures or Burning Wheel, which requires roleplaying. That's the game. You don't roleplay what you're doing in the game. The roleplaying is the game.
Trust me, I've seen people who could not-roleplay in any system. The players and GM, not the system, creates RP.
Trust me, I've seen people who could not-roleplay in any system. The players and GM, not the system, creates RP.
Aargh, you're missing the point. Can a skilled craftsman build a cabinet using driftwood, rusty nails and a brick? Probably. Skill and craft will show, regardless of their tools. But will he have an easier time of it using purpose-appropriate nails, top quality timber and a new, properly weighted hammer? Of course he will.
And we're not talking skilled craftsmen here. We're talking average people. While we all want every player to be the consummate roleplayer, the fact is they're not. Unless you're recruiting entirely from the deep, educated, experienced end of the player pool you're going to end up with a regular roster of players who are sub-par in at least one aspect of the craft, and just telling them to "play better" all the time won't get you anywhere. You have to accept that talent is rare, not commonplace.
Which is where your system comes in. Yes, a person can make a detailed, realistic character in D&D or 7th Sea. But is he more likely to do that in 7th Sea, where the system explicitly asks him about his homeland, his personality flaws, his character arc, the kind of plotlines he'll get involved in, and his ties to the existing institutions of the world? Of course he is.
And if what you want is to be exposed to, on average, more of these kinds of thought-out, living, breathing characters, well, then maybe you should try some other systems.
The DM sets the tone in any game; I can try to Roleplay through the Box Text all I want, but it's not going to happen if I can't even make a comment In-Character before we roll Initiative again. :S
The DM sets the tone in any game; I can try to Roleplay through the Box Text all I want, but it's not going to happen if I can't even make a comment In-Character before we roll Initiative again. :S
This is very true, and I've been unfortunate enough to see it. I was spared the pain of playing under this DM, but I was DMing at a table near him. When my group took a break, I slid over to watch this guy in action.
The group seemed to be having fun, so I really couldn't say anything, but during non-combat RP, the Dm would literally say such things as "Go into the tavern, blah, blah, blah, talk to the dwarf in the corner, blah, blah, find out where the lair is, blah, blah...OK...you get to the cave, go inside, find some trolls...Initiative Rolls!"
The players didn't have any chance to RP at all. Now, I'm not certain if they told him to run the adventure like this or not, but I really can't imagine a group wanting to play this way. At least, not for very long. I could be wrong, though...wouldn't be the first time.
Dungeons and Dragons 4e is a good game. however, its too cinematic in its emphasis for my tastes; but its a good game.
I would love to play a 4e game where people put more emphasis on roleplay.
While I'm an old-school D&Der, myself in some ways, and perfectly happy to emphasize the interesting tactical aspects of 4e, it's still an RPG and I'm happy with that aspect, too. How much you RP is very much a factor of the group. My regular group is fairly 'gamist' - not even tactical so much as just enjoying the cinematic action that 4e simulates so well, and the satisfaction of roll a crit or a getting in a big damage combo. Another group I'm associated with are serious /storyteller/ types, you know, the kind that came into the hobby with White Wolf games, angsty vampires, LARPs, that sorta thing. They always hated D&D, but they /love/ 4e, precisely because it is 'cineamatic.' A cinematic feel leaves a lot of room to insert character-defining bits and portray character development.
So, don't dispair, I suspect you'll eventually find a group that leverages 4e to support the sort of campaign you're looking for.
Yes, a person can make a detailed, realistic character in D&D or 7th Sea. But is he more likely to do that in 7th Sea, where the system explicitly asks him about his homeland, his personality flaws, his character arc, the kind of plotlines he'll get involved in, and his ties to the existing institutions of the world? Of course he is.
From your example of 7th Sea, it sounds like the right kind of thing to spark a coherent and interesting story for the characters. But I don't understand how that is necessary. I mean, will 7th Sea not work if PC fluff isn't accounted for? Other than giving the GM an outline of where to go with the plot, how does it affect PCs? -2 to attack a Royal from your homeland? Faster healing when cared for by a loved one? More XP for killing your arch-nemesis?
I hope you're not offended, but I find it a bit silly to mandate someone RP in a certain way, even if they get a choice in how it happens. When I DMed 3ed, I asked everyone for their alignments. Invariably, I got N, CN, and CG, none of which really told me much about their characters, and often led me to reprimanding them for straying into other alignments.
I'm of the mind that how you roleplay is what your character is. If someone with AD/HD says they're a LG Fighter but continues to rob peasants, I'm not going to tell him "That's not how your character should act!" I'll note "Confused morality" in my character profiles and move along.
That's the DM's responsibility; he sets the tone for the adventure.
It's just as much an issue for the DM. Do we want every DM to be the master of his craft? Yes. Are they? No. And nor should we expect that. The reality is that a vast contingent of DMs are average or poor, and that's exactly what we should be anticipating given the nature of statistics.
Players have limited choice in picking their DMs. Many groups have one person prepared to do it. Lucky groups might have a choice of up to five that they know well. You don't get to trawl the entire market and play with only the apex of the art. So barring someone developing a magic ray that transforms every DM into a god among men, how do we generate better DMs? Obviously education and community discussion plays a big part but it's not the solution any more than the existence of universities guarantees every citizen a PhD.
That's where we look at systems. It's where we look at mechanics that promote specific kinds of DM activity, that focus DMs on particular kinds of interaction, that mechanically promote DMs towards their full play potential.
Take twenty random DMs, drop half of them into D&D and half into something like 7th Sea and ask them to generate an adventure. I guarantee you that on average the 7th Sea ones will be better, deeper and more compelling.
Might the single best adventure be for D&D? Yes, it might. Might the single worst be for 7th Sea? Of course. But the average - which is what we're concerned with - will be in favour of the system which has mechanically focused its DM on storytelling and characterisation.
If you have decent enough people skills then you shouldn't need the game to act as a social filter.
Actually, you didn't understand what I wrote. The operative word is attract. Look up the Law of Attraction.
If you want a pure RP experience, you can technically sit around and tell stories to each other with a 6 sided die to determine outcomes and skill checks. I find that D&D is like having a full spice rack in the kitchen. You can just boil the meat and potatoes and they will be edible. In the hands of an experienced chef though, the meal could be unforgettable.
And again I think you're missing the point. The very reason we don't play that way is we want a system that structures and supports that experience, that gives it context, depth and flavour. And I'm saying that if roleplaying, storytelling and characterisation is your goal, D&D isn't the best tool for the job.
I'm not saying it's not a great game; I'm saying that it's chosen to be a game that allows roleplaying rather than a game that supports roleplaying, in order to (originally) more fully explore its simulationist aspects and (more recently) deliver a really tight combat experience. You build a game to fill a niche, and that's not the niche that D&D has ever been primarily concerned with filling.
It's just as much an issue for the DM. Do we want every DM to be the master of his craft? Yes. Are they? No. And nor should we expect that. The reality is that a vast contingent of DMs are average or poor, and that's exactly what we should be anticipating given the nature of statistics.
It doesn't take a genius to simply ask his Party, "Ok, what are your characters doing?" when you're done fighting monsters and are back in town. I've been playing DnD for almost two decades now, and that sentence is the single best way to get your Players to Roleplay. It's also an excellent way to figure out what type of Party you're dealing with; the RP-type turns to his friends and starts having side conversations, they pull out the 3-Dragon Ante deck and start RPing how their characters are enjoying it, etc, etc. The Hack-and-Slash type just stare at the DM; they don't look at the other Party members, they just stare and wait for the DM to say, "Roll Initiative."
This all applies to any and all Editions of DnD; in 2E, in 3E, in 4E, whatever. If the DM starts an adventure by asking the Players what they're doing, where they're going, how they met, you know, basic, easy questions, then anybody who wants to Roleplay will immediately put forth the effort to answer. In such a scenario, the Campaign will involve Roleplaying, even (in my experience) from people who've never really done much of it before, since asking such easy questions won't scare them off of it.
On the other hand, telling the Players what they're doing, railroading them here and there to move your story along will only result in a Hack-and-Slash. It would be like playing the worst Final Fantasy game ever made, and then skipping all the cut-scenes, anyway. IMHO, pointless.
I myself am an absolutely horrible DM, so I fail to see how anyone who actually wants to DM and reads the DMG, maybe even taking cues from his own Players how they want to best enjoy their game, could possibly have any trouble just asking his Players to enjoy themselves by getting more in-depth with the story.
D&D is a roleplaying game in the sense that it allows and envisages roleplaying; there's no mechanical support for it, although it's clearly intended to be something that happens. You can, theoretically, play the game without the slightest bit of characterisation and story and still engage with and use every paragraph in the Player's Handbook, although obviously you won't be having the fullest possible experience of what the game offers.
I agree. As long as roleplaying is the intent of D&D, I'm happy. For me, D&D has always been a "Product of Your Imagination". I really appreciate that the new edition has seemed to embrace this simple motto (i.e. no 'rules' for RP).
Just because you don't use the framework doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Actually, you didn't understand what I wrote. The operative word is attract. Look up the Law of Attraction.
The Law of Attraction, as in The Secret?
A statement like "more emphasis on roleplay" could mean a number of different things. For example, "mechanical support for looser character creation concepts", "greater emphasis on noncombat activities in the setting", or "tangible in-game rewards for convincing character portrayal." Less charitably, it could be "the mandate to run a severely deficient character" or "the chance to obsess over the minutiae of the game world."
While some of these seem like good ideas, exactly how much they help the experience of playing the D&D game is debatable. The heart of the game is a band of allies that quests to overcome challenges. When the PCs themselves become the challenge, it's a different game and not necessarily a better one. Similarly, if the game world de-emphasises the questing aspect, D&D sessions turn into a series of tableaux with little forward propulsion. While some might prefer that sort of game, I can't say it's to my taste.
Similarly, if the game world de-emphasises the questing aspect, D&D sessions turn into a series of tableaux with little forward propulsion. While some might prefer that sort of game, I can't say it's to my taste.
Well, no more than something like Fight Club or Alien has no narrative drive. I think you mean to say that you want structure, progress and goals, which you've conflated into the idea of "questing". And those things are common to almost all roleplaying games.
Either way, though, provided you've actually tried both alternatives, you're welcome to your tastes.
I hate to bring this up as you are all having such a great time arguing this, but 4e has rules for roleplaying. That is to say, it has a specific risk/reward system for non combat situations that involves allowing characters to advance in level in a codified way outside of combat.
Just because you don't use the framework doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The point remains the same ;). With or without a framework to support it, roleplaying can be found in the new edition.
I hate to bring this up as you are all having such a great time arguing this, but 4e has rules for roleplaying. That is to say, it has a specific risk/reward system for non combat situations that involves allowing characters to advance in level in a codified way outside of combat.
Just because you don't use the framework doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You're welcome to that definition of roleplaying, but it's the not the one I was using, and I was reasonably sure it's not the one anyone else was using. Generally, roleplaying is not the same thing as "mechanical conflict resolution" - in fact, they're generally regarded as diametric opposites.
When I talk about "mechanical support for roleplaying" I'm talking about stuff like 7th Sea's drama dice system, where you're awarded tokens for actions which are notably brave, witty, inventive, cool, or just well described (to tie in with that setting's swashbuckling theme). Those can then be spent for a range of both mechanical and narrative benefits ranging from attack bonuses through to returning from unconsciousness or causing the villain to unwisely reveal their master plan. So, in short, playing inventively and descriptively in a manner consistent with the tone and atmosphere of the game is tangibly rewarded by a core mechanic of the rules.
7th Sea also includes a "backgrounds" mechanic, where a character gains additional experience when they tie the main storyline in with their (typically unresolved) backstory, mechanically encouraging players to create the connections between their character history and the main plot.
Or World of Darkness (or at least the Old World of Darkness) where advancing key statistics such as Arete, Humanity and Gnosis past certain levels was directly tied to your character learning, growing, and progressing through their character arc. To get more powerful, you had to get more enlightened.
You get the point. These are all systems that support roleplaying; roleplaying is a key part of the game and required for both progress and effectiveness. Compare and contrast with what D&D has to offer. D&D's a great game, but it allows roleplaying rather than supporting it.
D&D's a great game, but it allows roleplaying rather than supporting it.
In my oh-so humble opinion, I would argue that by disengaging itself from intensive roleplay that DnD makes itself a little more versatile. It allows groups to do intensive roleplay, or allows them to play more hack and slash without regard to a character beyond numbers.
It's just up to the DM to tell the players what sort of game s/he's creating, and up to the players to meet the DMs expectations. If the DM wants to play a hack n slash game, and the players want to as well, then they should know that there is going to be more combat than roleplay.
If the Dm wants to play a more roleplay intensive game, and the players want to play in that game, they should know that they'll need to have a character rather than a bunch of stats.
It's a group by group thing. Some like roleplay some don't, and this system allows for both. All you need to do is be clear about expectations
In my oh-so humble opinion, I would argue that by disengaging itself from intensive roleplay that DnD makes itself a little more versatile. It allows groups to do intensive roleplay, or allows them to play more hack and slash without regard to a character beyond numbers.
That's a valid point, and it was certainly a strength to earlier editions when there was a very limited and generic range of competition to D&D.
I think it's less valid today. There's no reason a group need to do all their roleplaying with one system, and you'll get a vastly better experience out of doing your combat-centric game in a combat system and your roleplaying game in a roleplaying system. Trying to cover two bases with once product generally leads to something mediocre at everything and excellent at nothing.
Which is something 4th Edition's taken to heart, and it's put its feet firmly on the side of being excellent at combat. It's focused now, and I applaud it, and I'll quite happily have a hack-and-slash fest in 4E and then go to another game to do my character-driven one-shots.
Well, no more than something like Fight Club or Alien has no narrative drive. I think you mean to say that you want structure, progress and goals, which you've conflated into the idea of "questing". And those things are common to almost all roleplaying games.
Either way, though, provided you've actually tried both alternatives, you're welcome to your tastes.
I actually meant "questing" in the sense of "journeying to unknown places". It's fundamental to D&D. An Alien-like scenario would make for a thrilling D&D session, but it works best as something the PCs journey to, deal with, then move on from. Ongoing single settings are best handled by other games, in my opinion.
I actually meant "questing" in the sense of "journeying to unknown places". It's fundamental to D&D. An Alien-like scenario would make for a thrilling D&D session, but it works best as something the PCs journey to, deal with, then move on from. Ongoing single settings are best handled by other games, in my opinion.
Exploration gameplay, then. I'm not sure that's something either integral or exclusive to D&D, but I take your point that it's a type of gameplay you want in your games. In case you're curious, 7th Sea does that at least as well as D&D and places a higher thematic premium on it; you might have fun with that system.
That's a valid point, and it was certainly a strength to earlier editions when there was a very limited and generic range of competition to D&D.
I think it's less valid today. There's no reason a group need to do all their roleplaying with one system, and you'll get a vastly better experience out of doing your combat-centric game in a combat system and your roleplaying game in a roleplaying system. Trying to cover two bases with once product generally leads to something mediocre at everything and excellent at nothing.
Which is something 4th Edition's taken to heart, and it's put its feet firmly on the side of being excellent at combat. It's focused now, and I applaud it, and I'll quite happily have a hack-and-slash fest in 4E and then go to another game to do my character-driven one-shots.
It's no less valid. Rules for narrative control and character depth and so on can be "gamed" just as hard as any other mechanic. I've seen people stunting in Exalted with the intent of just using it as an Essence/Willpower regen mechanic, twisting the mechanic's intent of encouraging vivid description. I've seen Vampire players choose Humanity and Virtue scores so as to minimize their impact on how they play their character, with no concern of "who" this makes the character.
By and large, games that encourage the more in-depth roleplay do so by talking about it and encouraging it in that manner. They develop a culture around themselves that buys into that playstyle, and are more willing to work with those mechanics as intended. But it is a consequence of culture, not mechanics.
People that want to do that same kind of in-depth roleplaying can just as easily do it in D&D. Mechanics do not enable it. They may highlight and enforce certain aspect (e.g. Virtue rolls in Vampire may force you to deal with the effects of a frenzy that you, the player did not want). Things like drama dice and such are narrative control mechanics, not roleplay mechanics. They are you, the player, controlling story elements in an external fashion. The ultimate expression of this is a game like Primetime Adventures, where the game mechanics are basically all about narrative control, not character capability.
I remember a quote from Mearls when they previewed the quest system, and people asked why the rewards were all mechanical (XP, treasure) and not softer things (titles, extra scenes of character stuff). "It's because we can't write a rule that says, 'And then your DM gives you some good roleplay.' "
4E gives you what they can give: a good game with the core of the roleplaying experience, and then leaves us to build upon that as we see fit.
The Law of Attraction, as in The Secret?
What an interesting response. Yes.
To expand on Gregs example of crafting, 7th Sea and WoD are specialized tools for masters of the craft but an apprentice would take years to just find out what end of the tool to wield.
DnD on the other hand is more of a multi-purpose tool that might perform subpar for masters but is ever so much easier to pick up and use right away...
The idea that if you pick a random DM and give him a Storytell game to run, chances are it is more fun then D&D, is in my experience utter BS. If you ever have been part of a power-game version of Storytell system you know what I am talking about. These systems place story above balance, which works wonders if everybody is at the same wavelength, but comes down crashing like a house of cards with the slightest touch. I am a lot more picky with my storytell game then with D&D both in regards to DMs and players. Some of the best RP scenes are definitely in these systems, but so are some of the worst.
That's not entirely true. You could theoretically run a D&D game where the PC have no names, no personality, and simply march through a string of unconnected dungeon rooms, levels 1 through 30.
And you could also, in theory, run a D&D game where the PCs have a personality, names and the players roleplay like champions. It is 100% true that roleplaying is not - I repeat - not system dependant.
Well . . . any system can be broken by anyone. You just need to know how to do it.
True, but in D&D (including 3e) it was a lot harder and a lot less likely to happen accidently then it is with the Storytell system (I don't know enough about 7 Seas to have a well founded opinion on it). D&D appeases to a much wider crowd, because it focusses on the one thing that really requires well thought out rules: combat and balance both between PCs and PCs and opponents (the last is only necessary with mediocore and beginning DMs). RP after all is more an aspect of the players and the DM ;)
I must say I prefer the old adage that rules are optional in D&D. You can use them or you can not, or you can abuse them. As long as you have fun. Throw a rule out there, add one of your own there, customize the game to your taste.
The Storyteller/actor games weren't designed for Power Gamers, simulationists, or loons. They were designed specifically for actors. That's why they break so easily in the hands of a munchkin. I have many, many different games. Each one is designed differently to handle a different set of players.
I have a game designed specifically for Power Gamers. Several designed for actors/storytellers, a couple for simulationists, and one that can be played by loons without breaking the system.
If you put a game in the hands of players it wasn't designed for, it can possibly "break." And good players would use their ingenuity to put the game back together by themselves.
The D&D 4e game I want to play is with a group who will take a character that is essentially . . . A hot blooded, noble duelist. A young lord with vassals, a long history his 17 years, and a secret unrequited love for a childhood friend who is in a bad marriage. He is in his element at court. In the dungeon, he is out of his element and therefore wouldn't know what to do even if he was in the dungeon. He leaves dungeoneering to Crack Commandos and Soldiers of Fortune who would find life at court boring.
He's a good duelist. He's trained in using the rapier, using it as a piercing weapon. "Cross me, and we will have words. Cross my love, and we will have swords."
Weaknesses: My character is not a Mary Sue.
Secret Love. He secretly loves a childhood friend that he grew up with. She's currently in a bad marriage, but he will defend her honor and her virtue at any time if given the chance. If his enemies knew about his secret love, they can use that against him. Blackmail. Kidnapping. Murder.
Hot Blooded. A few choice words can set him off. Especially against his family and his friends.
Dungeons. He detests the places. Dragged into a dungeon or a ruin populated by monsters and by himself or so called "friends," he complains. He's truly out of his element. Drag his secret love into the dungeon, and he will enter the dungeon -- but not before interviewing for a team of Crack Commandos to do most of the dirty wetworks. "My love has been kidnapped by a vile enemy and is being held in a dungeon, I want to hire a team of Crack Commandos to go into the dungeon with me and to do most of the fighting for me. I need a controller, a leader, a striker, and a defender."
Lack of Military Experience. My character is not a crack commando or Soldier of Fortune. Crack commandos and Soldiers of Fortune are peasants and ignoble people. They have their strengths (see dungeons, above).
Noblisse Oblige. Another thing that keeps him away from dungeons is Noblisse Oblige, his obligations to his vassals. He runs a manor with lands, although a steward or seneschal handles his lands, his vassals often times need his attention. Sometimes, the vassals and serfs of his neighbors would run to him for protection. Noblisse Oblige.
As a player and as a DM as well I held a deep and unrivaled love for 7th Sea (at least with the R&K mechanic, I couldn't be bothered to try it as a D20 game).
I'm a huge fan of the world. The d20 adaptation suffered from numerous flaws, and when i ran it, required extensive kitbashing and houseruling to be playable.
Elton, all five of your italicized things are issues that you can do in D&D, or in any other system, by explaining them to the DM, and working out how you and your character will work with and around them.
Which is something 4th Edition's taken to heart, and it's put its feet firmly on the side of being excellent at combat. It's focused now, and I applaud it, and I'll quite happily have a hack-and-slash fest in 4E and then go to another game to do my character-driven one-shots.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with the idea that 4e is combat and only combat. The rules themselves take care of combat moreso than any other situation, sure. However, combat is where the rules are needed the most. Whether that sword cuts a monster's head off or not is very important, and we need to have something solid to support it.
Social situations are different. With the skill system, skill challenges, and what not, ther are more limited rules on social interaction. It's up to the player to choose likely actions, and things are defined less strictly.
However, I make the claim that in-game social interaction is not roleplay. A lot of roleplay happens in social situations, but that doesn't stop me from roleplaying in combat. If you have a particularly hot blooded cleric, and he has the choice between finishing off his enemy this turn, or healing his ally this turn (I'm assuming a situation in which this character can't do both, so bear with me) and chooses to beat the orc down rather than go to the aid of his fallen comrade, that's a roleplay choice.
Roleplay doesn't stop once initiative has been rolled. It changes form a little, but it's still there.
The D&D 4e game I want to play is with a group who will take a character that is essentially . . . A hot blooded, noble duelist. A young lord with vassals, a long history his 17 years, and a secret unrequited love for a childhood friend who is in a bad marriage. He is in his element at court. In the dungeon, he is out of his element and therefore wouldn't know what to do even if he was in the dungeon. He leaves dungeoneering to Crack Commandos and Soldiers of Fortune who would find life at court boring.
He's a good duelist. He's trained in using the rapier, using it as a piercing weapon. "Cross me, and we will have words. Cross my love, and we will have swords."
Weaknesses: My character is not a Mary Sue.
Secret Love. He secretly loves a childhood friend that he grew up with. She's currently in a bad marriage, but he will defend her honor and her virtue at any time if given the chance. If his enemies knew about his secret love, they can use that against him. Blackmail. Kidnapping. Murder.
Hot Blooded. A few choice words can set him off. Especially against his family and his friends.
Dungeons. He detests the places. Dragged into a dungeon or a ruin populated by monsters and by himself or so called "friends," he complains. He's truly out of his element. Drag his secret love into the dungeon, and he will enter the dungeon -- but not before interviewing for a team of Crack Commandos to do most of the dirty wetworks. "My love has been kidnapped by a vile enemy and is being held in a dungeon, I want to hire a team of Crack Commandos to go into the dungeon with me and to do most of the fighting for me. I need a controller, a leader, a striker, and a defender."
Lack of Military Experience. My character is not a crack commando or Soldier of Fortune. Crack commandos and Soldiers of Fortune are peasants and ignoble people. They have their strengths (see dungeons, above).
Noblisse Oblige. Another thing that keeps him away from dungeons is Noblisse Oblige, his obligations to his vassals. He runs a manor with lands, although a steward or seneschal handles his lands, his vassals often times need his attention. Sometimes, the vassals and serfs of his neighbors would run to him for protection. Noblisse Oblige.
The problem I see here that your whole group would need to be playing similar style characters. That is where it is important for the DM to consult the players to determine what kind of game is desired by everyone playing. I could run a game like that in 4e with several players who actually wanted to play that way.
What happens all to often though is that one person wants a character like that and the others want adventurers that go off into dungeons and fight the villians. He sounds like an NPC that would hire the rest of the player characters. In which case, the player of the character described above would likely be sitting around watching the rest of the players play the game.
One 4e game I was in recently had a player like that. He wanted his character to completely abstain from combat. He ended up getting XP just for sitting there and watching the rest of us do stuff while he "roleplayed" the pacifist. And he really just sat and read the game books.
Basically, like many other have mentioned, the level of roleplay is going to be determined by the people playing and not the system. If everyone wants a heavy roleplay game, a DM can make that work. The real trouble comes when there is a major disparity between the players in terms of what they want.
d
The D&D 4e game I want to play is with a group who will take a character that is essentially . . . A hot blooded, noble duelist.
You can play that in 4e, but thats not the thing you have to worry about. You need to find a group that is fine centering the "action" outside of the adventuring norm. That's something you should establish ahead of time. Otherwise, and let me reiterate, there is no reason you could not play that character.
Now here's my beef with that HotB game; You HAVE to play a mary sue character like the one you described to even follow the rules in HotB. I can't play a paranoid trader of exotic goods. I can't play a freed slave looking to find his place in the world. I have to be one of the ven, a whole race of mary sues, that the author has 'laws' for playing. There is nothing more restrictive than hearing that you have to keep your promises.
Now that's fine if you want to play that exact type of game, but I gotta tell you that D&D (especially 4e) was built to accommodate a large range of players and many types of campaigns. Of course it's not gonna look like HotB, but they aren't exactly on the opposite ends of the spectrum in roleplay emphasis. Also, I don't like the way you like to catagorize players into like 4 categories. Humans are so much more complicated than that. I'd prefer if you just explained what kind of games that system supports best.
There are things like "stunt dice" which work for all fantasy settings, but those always ended up being a way for people who were good as descriptions to powergame. Our Exalted GM raised the bar for our stunts twice because he felt he was giving out motes too often, much to the chagrin of the one person who wasn't god at describing ways to commit violence.
D&D is for better and worse a generic fantasy system. The generic fantasy system. Finding a social mechanic that would fit everyones game is a lost cause (which is why alignment is so reviled).
Now that's fine if you want to play that exact type of game, but I gotta tell you that D&D (especially 4e) was built to accommodate a large range of players and many types of campaigns. Of course it's not gonna look like HotB, but they aren't exactly on the opposite ends of the spectrum in roleplay emphasis. Also, I don't like the way you like to catagorize players into like 4 categories. Humans are so much more complicated than that. I'd prefer if you just explained what kind of games that system supports best.
* Waves Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying core book in front of your eyes *
I can play other games.
* Waves Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying core book in front of your eyes *
I can play other games.
...I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Um, what do you think I was trying to say right there?
...I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Um, what do you think I was trying to say right there?
You said that the Ven were a bunch of Mary Sues, that you were unable to play a spice merchant. I wanted to show you another game I have where you can.
I have started the last and current campaigns I DM with group planning sessions about "what sort of campaign is this, who are these heroes and why are they together". The first being a story of officers on a ship exploring new territories; the second being veteran soldiers in an elite "talon" strikeforce (think Sharp's "Chosen Men").
The 2nd time around we used a tenets system (similar to the start up in Primetime Adventures, mostly based on the starting phase of Universalis) that gave us an "inter-great-war" period, with corrupt merchants, refugees, cultists etc.
To ensure play "stars the PC's and their issues and not the GM's story", we started play by having Players create relationships to NPC's of generic or named types fitting the campaign and having to ensure at least one tied to another's interest. These were relationships that reflected different themes (Blood, Money, Sex, Violence) so they were childhood sweethearts who unknowlingly betrayed the PC, strange goblin tribes that menaced their elven homeland, murderous agents of their noble father who sought to kill their bastard progeny to tidy up their history, the benevolent steward of the family fortune etc. At 4@ for PC, those threads give enough to write adventures for an entire campaign. Adventures in which character issues surface and the Minor Quests are always PC-issue centric, there are always at least 2 PC threads in every adventure.
To much of the thread content: yes roleplaying is independent of system, you can roleplay without a game system at all; and yes of course system matters. Play a game whose rules focus on combat and combat will usually be focus of game. Most people who choose to play D&D are "signing on to kick monster ass" not "create a character with an issue and then see how resolving it or not changes them". I myself came to D&D from wargaming and certainly see wargaming roots in D&D today.
The "story" produced by playing characters in D&D and the "story" produced by playing them in The Shadow of Yesterday or Burning Wheel are not the same (the latter systems mechanically reward playing to your character type and also changing as a character, dealing with a particular character's beliefs etc) or In a Wicked Age (which is a conflict based game but doesn't limit conflict to fighting and is mostly Player vs Player conflict with GM stirring pot). These are all going to be heroic fantasy tales for the most part but they will be different ones.
You said that the Ven were a bunch of Mary Sues, that you were unable to play a spice merchant. I wanted to show you another game I have where you can.
That's not what I was saying at all. I said you (in the ambiguous form meaning people in general) can't playing anything else but a courtly and conniving ven within HotB. I couldn't care less about what you as a person are capable of.
Special attention should be taken to DaidojiTaidoru's post above cause that mirrors my thoughts on that subject.
The problem here is that your Noble is what is referred to in DnD as an NPC. DnD is about Adventurers who are basically Superheroes compared to NPCs with average Stats, Abilities, etc, etc. Your Noble is not really designed for Adventuring in pretty much any Edition of DnD (I truly pity him in 1st Ed! :weep
, and I'm actually quite impressed that you specifically mention that he is perfectly aware of that fact! Very modest and realistic for a Character Concept. Having said that! I see an excellent Campaign available, if you can get your fellow Party members and/or the DM to participate. In this Campaign, all the Munchkins and/or Powergamers or what-have-you who aren't really there to expound on who their Character is rather than what he can do could simply be hired Bodyguards or some such protecting your Noble as he travels, and the whole group gets into all kinds of mischief wherever they happen to go! IMHO, if people in your group were agreeable to that sort of thing, it would be loads of fun, and everyone would win. :D
And I'm saying that if roleplaying, storytelling and characterisation is your goal, D&D isn't the best tool for the job.
Garbage. The systems that encourage RP the most are the ones with the least rp-heavy rules.
That's not what I was saying at all. I said you (in the ambiguous form meaning people in general) can't playing anything else but a courtly and conniving ven within HotB. I couldn't care less about what you as a person are capable of.
Special attention should be taken to DaidojiTaidoru's post above cause that mirrors my thoughts on that subject.
I can play any role I please. A Mary Sue has no flaws, my character has a secret love that can be taken advantage of.
I can play a pacifist. I can play a wizard with no tongue. I can even play a Kalashtar soulknife bent on Revenge. I can play a dirty child about 8 who follows your Dragonborn Warlord around announcing he's your greatest fan.
I can play a fighter who is missing an arm, or has a permanent muscle injury to his leg. He uses a cane to get around you see. I can even play a blind druid. I can play a thief that has no feet. I can play a prince of Denmark, bent on Revenge against his own Uncle/step-father. I can play a young King of England, who invades France to start the 100 years war; who consorts with scaliwags and outlaws in his youth. I can play a leper priest, a young sheriff, a drunken old monk. I can play a knight, fair and true, who has a passion for the Queen.
I can play a young boy who is a girl magnet, girls just want to be around him. I can play a vampire who has a weakness for a stake through the heart, garlic, and even running water. And he explodes in the sunlight. I can play a master martial artist, who can die from poison. I can play an Archaeologist who goes on digs for artifacts, only to lose them to his rivals. I can play a Jedi who slips to the Dark Side of the Force; only to be redeemed by his brother or his son. I can play an unwashed, half naked ranger who cares for the beasts in his forest, but if he enters into civilization he is reviled for his uncouth appearance.
And yes, I can play a fantasy Crack Commando who goes into dungeons to loot them of their treasures and brings them back into the open. And when he applies for a job at the Blue Cow Adventuring Company, he is unfazed if the person hiring him for a job asks if he is a striker, defender, controller, or leader. And if he can continue to fight as if he is 100% if his leg is burned to a stump, or his eye is put out, or his hand is cut off.
As for Houses of the Blooded, you can play a Ruk: the unblooded. There is a book in the works for it. For the moment, you play a Ven. With strengths and weaknesses that can be Invoked, Tagged, or Compelled.
Besides, I don't see what the problem is. D&D 4e's outstandingness is all for combat. There is so much emphasis on the combat that it overshadows everything else. We have to work hard to find everything else. The typical 4e character is a Crack Commando. The power level of a 4e 1st level character is about a 6th level character made from OD&D Basic/Expert.
Why are you complaining about it? If playing a lower powered character is what you want out of HotB, why aren't you asking for lower level D&D characters? Why aren't you starting your D&D 4e character at level -3 or -5? Don't you want to be consistent?
What is wrong with playing a farm boy who barely knows how to use a sword in D&D 4e? Whats wrong with working your way up from a waifish -3rd level to a powerful 1st level?
I can play any role I please. Except the combat roles, I detest the labels of controller, defender, striker, and leader above all else about 4e!
Well then just don't use them.
Let the fighter stand at the front line taking the beating for others - like he always did.
The rogue could stalk around waiting for an oppurtunity to deliver a devastating sneak attack - like he always did.
And the cleric he could like... heal people and maybe enhance the other party members with protective or augmenting spells.
There's really no need to use those terms. They just took a spoon, made a label saying 'spoon' and attached it to the spoon. If you don't like it, take it off, the spoon will still function fine as a spoon even without the nametag and if you like, you can even cut your bread with the spoon, it works to an extent and perhaps you will lead a happier life.
The problem here is that your Noble is what is referred to in DnD as an NPC. DnD is about Adventurers who are basically Superheroes compared to NPCs with average Stats, Abilities, etc, etc.
Precisely.
Your Noble is not really designed for Adventuring in pretty much any Edition of DnD (I truly pity him in 1st Ed! :weep
I designed him so he can shine in the courts, not underground. I designed him for courtly life, to handle the arena most adventurers in D&D cannot. Where they do go underground and do heroic stuff, take them out of there and put them in court. My character is designed for that.
Having said that! I see an excellent Campaign available, if you can get your fellow Party members and/or the DM to participate. In this Campaign, all the Munchkins and/or Powergamers or what-have-you who aren't really there to expound on who their Character is rather than what he can do could simply be hired Bodyguards or some such protecting your Noble as he travels, and the whole group gets into all kinds of mischief wherever they happen to go! IMHO, if people in your group were agreeable to that sort of thing, it would be loads of fun, and everyone would win. :D
Most bases would be covered by the party.
Well then just don't use them.
Let the fighter stand at the front line taking the beating for others - like he always did.
The rogue could stalk around waiting for an oppurtunity to deliver a devastating sneak attack - like he always did.
And the cleric he could like... heal people and maybe enhance the other party members with protective or augmenting spells.
There's really no need to use those terms. They just took a spoon, made a label saying 'spoon' and attached it to the spoon. If you don't like it, take it off, the spoon will still function fine as a spoon even without the nametag and if you like, you can even cut your bread with the spoon, it works to an extent and perhaps you will lead a happier life.
I intend to. :D
What is your point? I just don't get it - are you upset that you can't play this noble in a "normal" DnD game? Really, what are you getting at?
I must ask:
What is your point? I just don't get it - are you upset that you can't play this noble in a "normal" DnD game? Really, what are you getting at?
My point? I don't want to power game, I want to roleplay. D&D 4e is OVERRUN by power gamers and Munchkins. THEY RULE the game because the GAME is designed for them, specifically. I want to play a character without most of superpowers in D&D 4e. I want to play the role of a NPC as a PC. I want to play a character who's strengths are outside the game's focus -- combat -- and in another focus -- court intrigue. I want to provide RP opportunities for the usual D&D adventurer (as well as for gamists).
I don't understand why you're unable to roleplay to your hearts content in 4e (or any D&D game for that matter).
My point? I don't want to power game, I want to roleplay.
There is a law somewhere which is forcing you to power game? What is your point? Are you saying that somewhere someone has a gun to your head and isn't letting you roleplay? Where do you live? I'll call the police for you, but don't let the anti-roleplayer see this thread.
And if you're simply whining that "THAR IS NO ROLEPLAY IN $E BAWWWWW" then I'm done with this thread. 4E has a clear focus and that's on adventurers going out and adventuring*. If that's not what you're looking for in a game 4E is not for you.
* - Adventurers here could be investigators, tomb raiders, whatever. They're doing important things, they're important people.
EDIT - After seeing your edit - whatever. You have an opinion that is extremely invalid and not supportable. If you can't roleplay in 4E its not the system's fault, its yours. Perhaps you should broaden your range of playable characters and stop trying to play against the grain. You can have meaningful roleplaying experiences while playing within the intended parameters of a system. You're cowardly courtier isn't as interesting as you think he is.
A Mary Sue has no flaws, my character has a secret love that can be taken advantage of.
Point of clarification: a Mary Sue has no flaws that make the character a bad person. Too "beautiful" and "too loyal" are the most common "flaws" given to save a character from Mary Suedom and it doesn't ever work.
Unless your secret love is a loadstone like Delilah and every PC at the table shakes their head about how much a meathead your character is. Then it's a non Mary Sue flaw. Probably.
D&D 4e's outstandingness is all for combat. There is so much emphasis on the combat that it overshadows everything else. We have to work hard to find everything else. The typical 4e character is a Crack Commando. The power level of a 4e 1st level character is about a 6th level character made from OD&D Basic/Expert.
About 4th really. More skilled of course, and more durable, but possessing way less cheat codes.
Of course a 29th level 4th ED character is weaker then the average 15th level caster from any prior edition.
Currently D&D encompasses the ranges of "loser trained with the sword" to "Epic Hero." It also covers a vast number of races and any background and history fairly, something most systems (including the one you give) do not. The only change has been the loss of the "comically inept beyond reason" levels and the "boringly invincible if played by smart people" levels. One's that were not well thought of by most.
I designed him so he can shine in the courts, not underground. I designed him for courtly life, to handle the arena most adventurers in D&D cannot. Where they do go underground and do heroic stuff, take them out of there and put them in court. My character is designed for that.
This would make sense in a more poorly designed game where you had to choose which part of the game you got to play. However 4th ED allows people to play the game most of the time, and most parties just don't need a dedicated face. The Rogue/Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer/Bard/etc. can handle it just fine, and his friends can help out too.
I am morbidly curious though. Why do you need to play against type for no gain? And why do you need to do it in D&D instead of in other more restrictive systems? All you need to do is snip off the violent aversion to dungeons and the irrational desire to be weaker then other people in the party and your character would work just fine in any game.
Edit: 4th ED doesn't require you to powergame at all. It hands you (limited) power on a silver platter to avoid that BS, just like 2nd and 1st. 3rd ED demanded powergaming to not build a loser chracter. 4th ED just requires you to choose two high stats.
If it fails, it fails. If I succeed, then you're right and I'm wrong.
If D&D is the "game for all players all the time" I want to see if it actually works by playing against type.
If it fails, it fails. If I succeed, then you're right and I'm wrong.
No - DnD 4E has NEVER made claims that it is a "game for all players all the time" and to attempt to play it that will result in failure. You're inability to understand the aims of the system is not the system's fault.
Roleplaying against the grain doesn't make you special, important, better, or more talented than anyone else. It just makes you unique.
EDIT - Please note - you're the fork who doesn't work here.
Don't let the powers 'define' who or what your PC is; rely on backround, personality, appearance for those sort of details (just as always). Sure, in combat, the PC might be smart and fast, able to 'pin a foe' against a wall with a dagger, but that's not who the PC is.
Everyone fights once in a while, especially in D&D but it isn't the end all; being able to fight is merely a part of who the PC is. Focus on what you want to (roleplaying) and deal with other things (combat) when they come up. It's up to you (and the DM).
D&D is not really a game for all styles all the time. Never was, actually. You are just being obtuse. It has been stated more than once and more than enough that D&D, including 4th edition, is a game about adventuring heroes and not about some weird nobleman who hides behind the next wall.
You could play such a character, but you'd need a group that accepts this style of play from your side and does not get upset about it. I'd wager that the largest part of the D&D player-base wants to play heroes and adventurers and not cowards, so you might have bad cards.
Go pick up the rules for L5R and play a courtier campaign. This will suit your fancy just fine, even if you need to adapt the setting, if you're not into "asian flavor".
Let me see if I get your point, Elton74. You wanna play a game of 'courtly intrigue', with a PC to match. Trouble is, the game focuses on combat prowess; everbody's got at-will, encounter, daily, and utility powers, even your courtier PC. Feels outta place on such a PC. I can understand that.
Don't let the powers 'define' who or what your PC is; rely on backround, personality, appearance for those sort of details (just as always). Sure, in combat, the PC might be smart and fast, able to 'pin a foe' against a wall with a dagger, but that's not who the PC is.
Everyone fights once in a while, especially in D&D but it isn't the end all; being able to fight is merely a part of who the PC is. Focus on what you want to (roleplaying) and deal with other things (combat) when they come up. It's up to you (and the DM).
Thanks Artifact! :D
Thanks Artifact! :D
no, I won't stop being obtuse. The more you try to kick me away from 4e, the more you are proving my original hypothesis. Don't you even see that?
!st edition was better.
no, I won't stop being obtuse. The more you try to kick me away from 4e, the more you are proving my original hypothesis. Don't you even see that?
What is your original hypothesis? That people who enjoy 4E do so by playing with the grain as opposed to against the grain? You sound like a whiny kid who is mad that DM wouldn't let his mary sue into a campaign because the DM didn't feel like it fit the feel. You aren't proving much of anything. I'm sorry that the way you'd like to play DnD is different than your current groups, again, not a fault of the system.
You insist that you can ONLY DO TEH POWARGAMES IN $E but you have no proof. Your proof is trying to roleplay a character that isn't in the intended style of the game. That's like me wanting to play a non-human L5R and wanting to be accepted into the Imperial Court. Its simply not how it works.
For the fun of it all, Daidoji, for the fun of it all. you see, D&D 4e leaves out these types. They aren't there in the books, that's why I want to play these types. If D&D is the "game for all players all the time" I want to see if it actually works by playing against type.
If it fails, it fails. If I succeed, then you're right and I'm wrong.
So your deliberately hamstringing your character and forcing everyone else to cater to your character design to prove a meaningless point?
Yeah, I think I know why D&D groups don't think highly of you.
!st edition was better.
no, I won't stop being obtuse. The more you try to kick me away from 4e, the more you are proving my original hypothesis. Don't you even see that?
Actually I think it proves my original hypothesis. But hey I'm willing to give you a sense of satisfaction if it saves some other poor D&D group from being inflicted with a bad character designed to ruin everyone else's fun by someone with an agenda.
What is your original hypothesis? That people who enjoy 4E do so by playing with the grain as opposed to against the grain? You sound like a whiny kid who is mad that DM wouldn't let his mary sue into a campaign because the DM didn't feel like it fit the feel. You aren't proving much of anything. I'm sorry that the way you'd like to play DnD is different than your current groups, again, not a fault of the system.
The Luke and Anakin Skywalker act like aside, I want to try this. You see, the game is designed entirely from a gamist perspective. I want to prove to myself that I can be capable of playing a character like this. People like Daidoji can be proven right.
The system would be able to handle any character concept if the player and the DM can work together. This is all based on a hypothesis if 4e is a good game for me or not. If this works, I will buy a copy of the game.
The Luke and Anakin Skywalker act like aside, I want to try this. You see, the game is designed entirely from a gamist perspective. I want to prove to myself that I can be capable of playing a character like this. People like Daidoji can be proven right.
The system would be able to handle any character concept if the player and the DM can work together. This is all based on a hypothesis if 4e is a good game for me or not. If this works, I will buy a copy of the game.
You can play any character you want that is not specifically restricted (large races, etc.) under 4th edition. We have very roleplay-heavy campaigns involving all sorts of political and social machinations - you don't need any mechanics to do so.
You can play any character you want that is not specifically restricted (large races, etc.) under 4th edition. We have very roleplay-heavy campaigns involving all sorts of political and social machinations - you don't need any mechanics to do so.
That's what I want to find out.
That's what I want to find out.
There's nothing to "find out". What I have stated is the reality of the situation - no mechanics are needed.
The only real reason I'm reading this thread is to see what Leich, DT, CTS, and Ard have to say.
Oh, and Artifact, the thing preventing Elton from roleplaying is me. I stand behind him with a wooden spoon and smack him whenever he roleplays. You know how it is.
For the fun of it all, Daidoji, for the fun of it all. you see, D&D 4e leaves out these types. They aren't there in the books, that's why I want to play these types. If D&D is the "game for all players all the time" I want to see if it actually works by playing against type.
Playing against type is a false uniqueness. It's like how so many film student movies have sad endings cause they "don't buy into the happy hollywood fairytale endings" but in doing so make themselves tired and predictable. Thus it is with this.
D&D is a combat game. The players have hp and armor values and they have attack rolls. If combat wasn't meant to happen, they would not have these things. Of course, you would have to be dumb to think combat is the only thing it encompasses. It is a very mainstream game and as such appeals to a very large audience. You will certainly be able to find a number of powergamers and munchkins in the ranks of fans, but that means nothing. It's just a game of statistics.
In the right system you would be very welcome at most tables, including mine, with that concept. They key here is simply: The Right System for the Job To Be Done!
Where were you nine years ago when you could have said that when 3e came out?
Besides, I already have the right system for the Job to be Done.
My first character is complete. Playtesting will begin shortly. :D
Playing against type is a false uniqueness. It's like how so many film student movies have sad endings cause they "don't buy into the happy hollywood fairytale endings" but in doing so make themselves tired and predictable. Thus it is with this.
D&D is a combat game. The players have hp and armor values and they have attack rolls. If combat wasn't meant to happen, they would not have these things. Of course, you would have to be dumb to think combat is the only thing it encompasses. It is a very mainstream game and as such appeals to a very large audience. You will certainly be able to find a number of powergamers and munchkins in the ranks of fans, but that means nothing. It's just a game of statistics.
Why are you defending the Power Gaming aspects of D&D 4e? Has it ever occurred to you that I want to playtest the game for myself on my terms?
And so you have! You can play that character. Question answered. You can play the cowardly courtier.
You haven't even seen what I have in mind, yet.
Why are you defending the Power Gaming aspects of D&D 4e? Has it ever occurred to you that I want to playtest the game for myself on my terms?
You aren't playtesting the game. Your performing a social experiment on your DM and fellow players without their knowledge or consent. Specifically one that's goal is to see how much they'll bow to your personal desires and whims while you ignore theirs.
If you actually were trying to play the game (a requirement for playtesting), you'd be willing to compromise.
You aren't playtesting the game. Your performing a social experiment on your DM and fellow players without their knowledge or consent. Specifically one that's goal is to see how much they'll bow to your personal desires and whims while you ignore theirs.
If you actually were trying to play the game (a requirement for playtesting), you'd be willing to compromise.
QFT. It is only valid if you find a group willing to roll along with your intended style of play else you are just actively disrupting the game for them on purpose.
You've probably hooked up with these adventurers because you think they can help you advance your position in a world of political intrigue... because sometimes killing someone really is the best way to get ahead (no pun intended).
You probably ***** and moan whenever you're forced into the sewers or some other dungeon, and may not enjoy engaging monsters in combat but you do it for the good of your people (or w/e).
You grouse about not being able to keep a hand on your affairs directly and once you hit 8th level will probably bug the **** out of your Wizard or Cleric for at least a weekly Linked Portal back home to check up on things.
But as long as you're not completely worthless in combat and actually do slink around on occasion (e.g. make yourself useful as a scout) you should be able to play the kind of character you want while still letting your friends have fun.
Tada! Character. No need to thank me, go have fun.
But - you know? It was a coincidence like everything else. The most fascinating characters I've ever seen were in a 4E adventure I observed, and I've found that it offers a lot of room for strange ideas I might want to play.
Anyways, I really don't think that 4E attracts powergamers more than any previous edition. Moreso, it places some limits on that practice and ensures that you can completely ditch the concept and still be helpful to your group.
Hopefully this can cheer you up a bit: my last character is a tiefling scholar and healer who likes a peaceful life. Since reading a certain tome, however, he has become possessed by the Devil, which causes him to 'speak in tongues' (he knows all the languages in the world) and sometimes erupt into murderous rages when he loses control of his actions.
Character class? Barbarian.
The important part is that no one ever said how his 3x Linguist feat and whatever would make him not a good barbarian anything, in fact, he was praised for the idea. As long as I see people who enjoy those concepts around, I don't think the edition has a problem with powergamers. Not any more than other editions, at least.
edit: having read through the rest of the thread, I have to agree with others that your character concept (the noble) is a fine one, just that it's probably incompatible with looting dungeons. But he's obviously a person with a fun personality and a lot of interesting points, and I'm sure he would do fine in any kind of adventure with a strong story.
Now --- combat? If you do not want your character to be strong, you can always reduce his hit points by half, make him use an unsuitable weapon or whatever you want. The game is very easy to unbalance from its fine status quo that it has now. But a pacifist character will always feel out of place in a group of people who only want combat. Your character's strict categories of what he does and doesn't do make him stick out and hard to play a group. Honestly, I think it's a great character, but unless we agreed on an adventure of political intrigue, I wouldn't enjoy playing with him. That doesn't change with 4E and, I believe, neither do the players. It's not that they've suddenly become monsters or something.
I can play a fighter who is missing an arm, or has a permanent muscle injury to his leg. He uses a cane to get around you see. I can even play a blind druid. I can play a thief that has no feet. I can play a prince of Denmark, bent on Revenge against his own Uncle/step-father. I can play a young King of England, who invades France to start the 100 years war; who consorts with scaliwags and outlaws in his youth. I can play a leper priest, a young sheriff, a drunken old monk. I can play a knight, fair and true, who has a passion for the Queen.
Not that it matters at this point, but you can't play those characters in 4e. You see, there's no Denmark in Points of Light.
You want to play a rich fop who's good with a sword, but dislikes getting his hands dirty. You are good at fighting, you just can't be bothered to do it on a regular basis - only for sport. And when you actually have to fight, you throw servants or money to fix the problem.
That character isn't a hero, or a level 1 D&D character, and it would be hard to fit him into any party...
I'm not saying that he won't work in a story - he would make a fine NPC in a story - but D&D is a cooperative storytelling game, and having someone who has an unlimited amount of money, resources, and power begs the question: why be an adventurer/hero in the first place?
Frankly, his noblesse oblige is just a fancy term for "my license to be a douche."
You are being obtuse for the sake of it and nothing else, your contributions to this discussion sound more and more like that of a spoiled child in a tantrum, really.
I already found me a DM.
Please, dear readers, bear with me in this post. If I can roleplay a pirate in a general forum, our friend Elton here can play an apparently bloody useless PC in a D&D game.
The system would be able to handle any character concept if the player and the DM can work together. This is all based on a hypothesis if 4e is a good game for me or not. If this works, I will buy a copy of the game.
Arrr, Elton, ye crafty swab,
Methinks ye've answered yer issue with 4e with yer very own post, or rather with the bolded part in said own post, t' be exact. If ye puts th' emphasis on workin' together like a pirate crew in a storm instead of stubbornly clingin' to a hardly playable character like a marooned landlubber 'd t' a piece of shipwreck, ye could try to fix things. The DM 'as a story in mind and ye work yer character into the story, e'en if that means joinin' yer crew of cutthroat commandos on a dungeon crawl every now and then.
Harken me, sirrah, yer character would work like a treat or even become a very memorable character with that background. So, if ye fancy having vassals and ye 're disgust'd by those dank and run-down dungeons, so ye and yer DM should find a reason why yer character ends in the dungeon along with th' peasants. Work it out with yer DM, so here's a couple of suggestions:
Regarding roleplaying:
The simple answer t' create such a swab of a character is not one of mechanics, but t' play that Noble **** relunctantly in a dungeon. Tease th' other PCs, complain, scheme, sweettalk them into selling their loot fer yer noble cause, claim the dungeon as part of your domain and use yer recent acquisition t' curry fer favours at the king's court. Make a bloody fuss over going on an adventure - even if ye don't wish to - just like that **** Raleigh and 'is mates did, and try to claim all the glory. Just fix with yer DM that 'e gives extra incentive t' do son. If ye 'ave t' go a'dungeoncrawlin', pretend t' be the shining hero, even if the grunts (them other PCs) did all the dirty work. On th' other hand, ye can still be the anti-hero, the fellow who gets dragged into adventures again and again. Having yer PC drude through the city sewers - being so very out of place - makes the whole game memorable than stayin' at court kissing backsides and exchanging quips with yer fellow nobles while sneakin' after yer liege's arse fer another wee favour.
Regarding mechanics:
Alas, that's not all, even some game mechanics work in yer favour.
There's a foe unworthy of getting your blade dirty? Make one o' them adventurer's attack him (Commander's Strike)... An enemy pestering you? Cut 'im or 'er or it up and leave it to the commoner t' finish 'im off. (some warlord encounter). Warlords make pretty good noncombatants, with 2 nondamaging but controllery at-wills.
Ye don't wish t' loot dungeons? Just ask yer DM whether ye can get what ammounts mechanically t' yer share, from yer estate's income rather than looting. The same goes for magical weapons. Use some ancestral weapon from Great-Grandfather's crypts or Greataunt Helda's shield when ye goes on an adventure. Even the magic item economy can be reworked in yer favour. After yer first adventures, yer family finds ye worthy of using the ancestral blade of yer house, a couple of time later as yer fame rises, ye 'll be granted an even greater boon by yer liege.
All in all, either that or play that PC like ye wants with no compromises. If that cutthroat crew o' adventurers makes yer poxridden lordling walk the plank (or abadones 'im inna tight spot in the dungeon) in turn, ye 'ave still done something right. Working together requires a compromise on both parts, yers and the DM's - as simple as that.
Cheers,
Captn M.
PS: I 'm playing a gnome accountant&historian (resourceful warlord) in that style described above.
Always has, Captain M. My DM and I have been discussing this, and he finds it fun. I do believe that a balance between court life and outdoor life might be struck.
Excellent, alas, this begets a question. Pray enlighten me why did ye turn t' the forums then, if talking t' yer DM would solve the problem easily?
Ogiwan,
this olde pirate 'ere is humbled by yer praise.
Cheers!
Captn M.
My point? I don't want to power game, I want to roleplay.
Did you ever play 3.5?
D&D 4e is OVERRUN by power gamers and Munchkins. THEY RULE the game because the GAME is designed for them, specifically.
Wrong. Balance ensures that players can make any character they wish, and still be effective. Yes, there are ways to break the system, but far less than existed in 3.5. And anyway, the game is built on stats. Of course someone is going to come along and say, "This is how to optimise these numbers for thing X (for example, AC, or damage rolls, etc.)
It happens with every RPG ever, not just 4th edition, and certainly not just D&D, and the 3.5 optimisation boards will show after 5 seconds of being on there.
I want to play a character without most of superpowers in D&D 4e.
Superpowers? Swinging a sword is a superpower all of a sudden? What about knocking someone over?
"Hey Superhero Man, help! These guys are going to blow up the city!"
"Never fear, for I can swing a sword and knock them over at the same time!"
"Wow Superhero Man! How awesome are you?"
I want to play the role of a NPC as a PC.
Umm... What? Sorry, but the last time I checked, the whole point of playing an RPG was to play a player character. There is no system in the world that lets you play an NPC. Now, 3.5 lets you play an NPC class, but it's still not the same thing, since as a PC in 3.5, you have better than average stats, magical weapons, feats and other outside influences.
I want to play a character who's strengths are outside the game's focus -- combat -- and in another focus -- court intrigue.
Then don't play D&D. It's as simple as that. Play another system, do some research and see which of the other hundreds of RPG systems out there cater to your needs.
I want to provide RP opportunities for the usual D&D adventurer (as well as for gamists).
Which is something that transcends any system. No game can either force you to RP, or stop you from RPing. It's not system dependent.
Play an artful dodger rogue with the noble background. Bluff and Diplomacy are skills you want to train. Thievery is for slight-of-hand and showing off with your rapier. You'll also want History as a trained skill (heraldry, etc) and Insight (detecting plots). Grab Weapon Proficiency (rapier). As you're a duelist you're probably not really worried about things like Opportunity Attacks (you can probably eschew Melee Training) but if you can get the "perfect strike" in you'll do extra damage (Sneak Attack with Combat Advantage).
You've probably hooked up with these adventurers because you think they can help you advance your position in a world of political intrigue... because sometimes killing someone really is the best way to get ahead (no pun intended).
You probably ***** and moan whenever you're forced into the sewers or some other dungeon, and may not enjoy engaging monsters in combat but you do it for the good of your people (or w/e).
You grouse about not being able to keep a hand on your affairs directly and once you hit 8th level will probably bug the **** out of your Wizard or Cleric for at least a weekly Linked Portal back home to check up on things.
But as long as you're not completely worthless in combat and actually do slink around on occasion (e.g. make yourself useful as a scout) you should be able to play the kind of character you want while still letting your friends have fun.
Tada! Character. No need to thank me, go have fun.
Glad you posted it before I did.
I would like to add, take up the Nobility background for the character as well, and pick up Skill Focus Bluff (since court life is more about lies than being what D&D calls Diplomacy) and you are set.
If D&D is the "game for all players all the time" I want to see if it actually works by playing against type.
If it fails, it fails. If I succeed, then you're right and I'm wrong.
It's really interesting how the thread started with the OP stating that he wanted to play 4e, but differently, and yet, somewhere in the middle the OP turned his position into a thinly veiled and then fully open attack on 4e. Somehow I suspect that was the motivation all along.
But there's no question they took 4e into the tactical wargame territory where you're trying to optimize your experience -- especially if your DM throws uberpowerful monsters and you need every advantage to win. I have a heavily min/maxed character and it was all I could do to live through our last friday adventure. Add to that the fact that I actually like the mathematics challenge of min/maxing the character almost as much as I enjoy playing him.
If you don't like the tactical wargame that is the 4e encounter, throw in more encounters where instead of fighting, you need to talk or solve a problem.
There are RPGs that encourage role-playing and games that encourage power gaming and min-maxing. 4e is the latter. You can role-play in 4e just by not emphasizing combat -- make the characters talk to the NPCs and monsters to solve their problems.
It blows my mind everytime I hear people say something like this. I never really saw that combat prevents roleplaying. If you are trying to play an immersive Roleplaying game, then combat is simply another action that you can use to help define your character.
I personally find that a system like 4e, with its tendency to give rules simply on those things that truly need them, like combat , facilitate roleplaying more than other systems simply by preventing the system from getting in the way of roleplaying when its not necessary.
I never really saw that combat prevents roleplaying.
It prevents roleplaying for people who didn't actually want to roleplay. If your system has terrible combat rules then combat powergamers won't play your system. Of course roleplayers who actually like good combat systems won't play either, which is why most of those systems are tiny niche things even for RPGs. But the 10 other guys who like your system will all be big into social interactions. And the friends they rope into those games will also focus on social interactions, because the system can't handle anything else.
Of course some of them will be using a combination of rules quirks and GM manipulation to make their character into the star of the show. But for some reason that's not powergaming, because you aren't killing anyone. Despite the fact that the rules system usually gets twisted more by those players then by combat powergamers.