4e vs RP: Weem’s Perspective

I had a HUGE post typed for this topic, but just now deleted it in favor of the following not as huge but still long post. My goal here is not to change any opinions on whether 4th Edition is detrimental to roleplaying or not, but rather to simply share with you what I have experienced regarding this subject.

Many people (myself included) enjoy playing within a world setting of their own creation. One of the reasons given is that we feel less restricted by existing cannon, or that we know our world well and are better prepared to answer any question or situation a player might present to us within its walls. I have really been enjoying the bottom-up approach allowing me to build the world as we play and move about within it. The players don’t need to know much beyond some of the basic assumptions, and I can more freely react to their behaviors in game and even more dynamically incorporate their actions into the construction of the world. In my world, for example, if a Gnome steps up and punches you in the knee you may laugh. In Dark Sun, you might ask, “I thought there weren’t Gnomes in this world?” (channeling @sarahdarkmagic there).

Roleplaying
Roleplaying
As such, the same mentality (for me) is somewhat reflected on the system vs roleplaying side, specifically when it comes to 4th Edition.

I was telling my brother that back in the 2nd Edition and earlier days, things felt so much more loose (for me as a DM) because there were simply rules everywhere and the players (and myself) didn’t know them all. I know some people do but no one in my circle, or anyone else’s that I knew of had a full comprehension of all of the rules.

So (I started with a “so”, see that @newbieDM?), I gave an example of a warrior PC swinging to hit a an evil magician. Back in the day, if he rolled even a 20, I could say, “your sword swings in for what appeared to be a killing blow, but stops short slamming into an unseen force and shatters!”. The player at that point might react with, “Whoa shit… that’s crazy… we may have to get creative here”. The other players also may begin to worry and might even enjoy this mysterious turn of events. You see, even if they knew the rules well, it was not likely they had read through (for example) the thousands of items in the various Encyclopedia Magica books, etc. For all they knew, there very well might be some way (within the rules) that the magician stopped and broke the weapon.

But in 4th Edition, those kinds of things stand out like a big red flag. The game often, for me, comes to a standstill with the player telling the DM “did you mess up, or is this a DM thing?”. Even with the expectation set that the DM will be using the rules as merely guidelines, it can be halting at the table. As a player I can roll with (ignore) it, but the moment stands out nonetheless and immersion is lost (something I try to avoid as a DM). The 4th Edition system is so well balanced, and clear, and so much of it is on the player side, there is no masking your use of “creative license” (as my brother calls it). To me, this aspect is not something to be fixed – there’s nothing to fix really – it’s simply a bi-product of clarity and balance.

Again, to be very clear, this is just how it is. It’s not broken in my opinion, there isn’t a flaw that is preventing me (anyone) from roleplaying, it’s just that it’s so good at what it is supposed to be good at that it shines a big light on something I would rather not have front and center… the rules.

With that said, I have two different perspectives depending on which side of the screen I am on…

DM Weem

For me 4th Edition has HELPED my roleplaying as a DM. It allows me to focus much more attention on the roleplaying aspect of my game. In fact, I feel some of my best RP-focused games have been in this edition (and again, I have played them all). I feel that 4e puts a huge emphasis on combat BUT I have had 3 game sessions go by without combat, more than once! Less combat does not necessarily mean more/better roleplaying but likewise a combat focused system does not have to mean less roleplaying.

Do I feel like I need to try harder to not break immersion for my players? Yes, but that is not a huge price to pay when it gets you balance and allows you to focus on other aspects of your game. Do I miss spells having a larger purpose outside of combat? Very much so. There are things I am not that into as a DM when it comes to the system, but its effect on my roleplaying is almost non existent.

Player Weem

Someone earlier on Twitter mentioned something along the lines of 4e was more of a speedbump to roleplaying than it was a roadblock, and this is something I could agree with on the player side of things. I think it can indeed get in the way, or at least call attention to itself when I would rather it fade into the background. As mentioned above, the rules are clear and generally well known by most after a relatively short number of games. As such, it becomes painfully obvious to everyone when you are doing something non optimal – often times something you could classify most “p42” actions as will be considered non optimal. You want to roll down the stairs and stab someone at the bottom? Well, sure, here is a difficulty for that, but (as your fellow players point out) would it not be “better” to just stay here and use power X?

I think for me as a player the system can be a great tool through which to roleplay, but I feel many DM’s get caught up on the combat aspect. The system was (among other things) made to answer all of your combat wants and desires, and as such, the games of many DM’s focus heavily on the combat. There’s nothing wrong with that if you enjoy that aspect of the game, where you might spend 90% of your session resolving combat – it’s just not something I am into as an avid roleplayer. So while I don’t blame the system directly (because I think the right DM for me can work around this), it tends to draw people into that aspect naturally.

And So

Anyway, that’s just the situation I find myself in. Overall I am very happy with 4th Edition and my ability to roleplay within it’s walls. It’s a great, solid system that is well balanced (which is big for me). There are things about it that make me twitch, and I hope I clearly explained where (I think) they originate – but I understand it might just be me, and/or that you may not find it a valid thing for me to get hung up on.

One of the final notes I wanted to add was that I think people can have negative things to say about 4th Edition that may be completely valid for their situation but not match our experience. Just because it may not match with what we’re seeing does not mean it is any less valid. It’s a shame to see people tell someone with a 4e complaint to simply “go play something else” – it’s dismissive and rude really. We don’t do the system or gaming in general any favors by simply shutting down someone we don’t agree with like that. I think in many cases people voice complaints because they feel the system is close to being exactly what they want. They are simply trying to find a way to make it work, even if their way of expressing it could be done better.

Sometimes the answer really is, “don’t play it”, but it’s nice to know we’ve tried before getting to that point.

Published
Categorized as News

17 comments

  1. This is a very well written piece.Thanks for it. You’ve put a lot of my own feelings into words. And yet, you’ve come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion that me and my group have. I think that only demonstrates that underlying all of this debate is a matter of very personal taste.

    For instance, I too value immersion (narrative immersion). In fact, it is probably the most important facet of the game for me (as a DM). I need the world to be real to me (in my head) in order to run it and react to the player’s choices. The interesting thing is that I, too, feel that I have to work harder for that immersion in 4E. Whereas you, however, are willing to pay that price, I wonder if it is worth it. I’d rather have the easy immersion and have to keep a tighter reign on the balance. If the game balance gets a little screwed up, it’s fine. But if the immersion breaks, that’s a disaster.

    Likewise, I am watching my players (very good, creative players, mind you) falling more and more into the trap of taking the mechanical, optimal path and letting the creative “off the character sheet” actions go because the game provides such a tight combat system with so many good options enumerated mechanically. As you say, “why fall down the stairs when you can use Power X.” That’s been really painful to watch. And I too miss the toolbox of non-combat options. Again, I can encourage good role-playing, but I’m working more at it and still failing sometimes (no DM is perfect).

    I, like you, do recognize that the game emphasizes combat, but that I don’t have to let that guide me. I can (and have) run the full sessions of RP. I’ve all but dropped codified skill challenges in favor of a looser narrative design (and I improvise more). And that’s the rub, for me. When you strip away the combat from 4E, what do you have left? What is it, outside of an amazingly tight, tactical combat system, that 4E uniquely offers? That’s not a rhetorical question. I honestly don’t have a good answer.

    I like 4E. I think it is a very good system, but after two years of playing it, I’m discovering that it doesn’t match my priorities and I’m not sure what I’m getting in return for shifting my priorities aside from the flagship balanced, tactical combat system that I really don’t want to be focus of my game, even though it certainly wants to be.

    1. Thanks again for the response, I appreciate it!

      As I was saying on Twitter, the reason I am willing to “pay the price” (continue to use 4e) is that my players love the system, and that I’m not sure where to go from here specifically regarding what kind of player-base I would have once I went there.

      I would LOVE to run a Rules Cyclopedia game (via Mystara), as we were discussing, but I think I might have 1 person willing to play. If I went 2nd Edition I might get 2. Pathfinder? I might be able to get them all to try it, and we are about to get that chance (with a player of mine about to run a game there) so we’ll see.

  2. This will sound bad, but I don’t miss the creativity.

    Partly, that’s because “creativity” in past editions was often caused by imbalance in the game. The wizard wanting to blind someone with Light because he’d already used his one spell for the day is a classic example. Later, the fighter would be the one needing to get “creative” as magic became better than anything else. Now, PCs all have plenty of interesting and effective options.

    The other reason I don’t miss creativity is that it’s still around. 4th Edition’s mantra of “Yes, and…” is foremost in my mind, and (I hope) the minds of my players. That’s just good DMing, and not really tied to 4E (in fact it comes from improv theater) but the abstractions in 4E really enable me to follow that precept.

    1. Thanks for stopping in!

      Yea, that’s a tough one. I would have a hard time agreeing that lack of creativity on the Players end is the DM’s fault (you mention it simply being good DM-ing when it occurs). In many cases, including my own, I really push and give examples, and sometimes my players bite, but for the most part they stick to what is optimal and right in front of them. There’s not much more that I can do, and I don’t think I am a bad DM for it.

      1. We have this idea that good DMing involves the DM encouraging creativity, roleplaying, and description. Not just facilitating them or encouraging, mind you, but actively encouraging them. And between this post, Newbie DM’s post, and the conversations on Twitter, we’ve seen folks discuss different ways of encouragement. DMs can lead by example, they can offer mechanical bonuses, tokens, and other rewards to ‘encourage good behavior.’

        Here’s the elephant in the room: if your players will engage in certain behaviors only when given a reward or cajoled into doing so, is it really good DMing to try and bend their behavior. I’m not excluding myself here. I certainly use techniques to encourage roleplaying and creativity. But, as a DM, I’m now wondering why the behavior has to be pushed and, if the behavior has to be pushed (and, with some groups, pushed hard), does that mean that DM is actually imposing a style that his players don’t really want?

        This question doesn’t have to be about RP in combat. It can be about anything that the DM tries to create additional incentives for that would otherwise be left by the wayside. But its a question that is almost never raised in these discussions. The assumption just seems to be that is good for the game and therefore the DM should do whatever he can to encourage it. Shouldn’t the DM be more concerned with the game the players want to play?

        I realize this question is further complicated by the fact that you have a group of players (DM included) who may all want different things from the game and therefore, the DM does occasionally need to facilitate a compromise between different styles of play so that everyone gets to enjoy as much of the game as they can. I also realize that it can be argued that the DM’s stylistic needs do take priority because if the DM is not fully invested in the game, the game doesn’t happen, whereas players can get by with a lesser investment and everyone can still have a good time.

        1. Typo in above that may muddy my meaning:

          We have this idea that good DMing involves the DM encouraging creativity, roleplaying, and description. Not just facilitating them or ENABLING them, mind you, but actively encouraging them.

        2. “…if the behavior has to be pushed, … does that mean that DM is actually imposing a style that his players don’t really want?”

          I think you hit the nail on the head here, because this is starting to sound an awful lot like imposing a Narrativist GMing style on a Gamist system. (Theory blurb available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory)

          This is roughly where the D&D debate was when last I spent time noodling about theory – egad, about 5 years back. But now 4e has shifted even farther into Gamist territory – the point of play is to overcome adversity, and the tools are the powers with very little room to extend them during play. If you ask what the rules actively reward, you’ve got your point of play. For D&D, it’s always been “Beating up monsters” in various forms. 1e includes “and taking their stuff”, but XP for GP gained has fallen by the wayside. I’ve seen house rules and published adventures give XP rewards for bypassing traps, beating obstacles without combat, best roleplaying of the night, and making the GM laugh. All of these steer the point of play away from combat, but all of them are secondary to beating up monsters. That’s a very Gamist stance, since combat has a clear winner.

          If D&D were more Narrativist, the point of play would be to tell the story, and to think about the conflicts of interest inherent in the situation at hand. Skill challenges in D&D superficially seem to lean more Narrativist, but to me it feels more like the mechanicalness of combat and beating the bad guy is being pushed into the social arena.

          I can still work with that. I can make a very Narrativist adventure in D&D, where the whole point is to make the players choose between two less-than-ideal outcomes. For instance, should the PCs kill the werewolf duke and prevent the monthly peasant corpses, which will plunge the city into a long and bloody war of succession? Or is there another way entirely? There’s plenty of story for me to tell with my players, and I can use the combat rules if we can’t come to a reasonable agreement amongst ourselves (the “over my dead body” arguments among characters), or if we simply want to scratch the “Let’s beat something up” itch. As long as everyone involved agrees to the same social contract, you can do whatever you want.

          “Shouldn’t the DM be more concerned with the game the players want to play?”

          Absolutely. That’s the social contract. If the GM wants to tell a story and all the players want to fight and level up regardless of what’s happening in the world around the characters, there’s a disconnect that needs to be addressed ASAP or the group will fall apart. If that means leaving D&D for another system that better supports the group’s style, so be it. But I’ve barely started playing with 4e, so for me that decision is a ways off yet.

          (Much easier to follow up tot his thread without exhaustion and a head cold clogging my thoughts.)

  3. I’m with Angry on this one. Immersion is hard enough to maintain over snacks and bad jokes; if the system needs more work to maintain immersion, that’s tricky. I come down much more on the side of immersion and the story rather than the rules.

    So I’m also wondering what 4e brings to the table other than combat…

    1. Thanks for coming by!

      I am with him as well – immersion is my #1 goal – In fact, I talk a lot about it here…

      http://www.theweem.com/2010/07/12/rp-prompting-and-immersion/

      I don’t feel I am choosing rules over immersion, but rather I am choosing the game that is favored by all of my players (and others who are not in my current campaign but would be if they could). In my area, in my ring of 12 or so potential gamers, everyone is very much for 4e. I like it as well, but I appear to be the only one willing to give something else a go for the most part 🙁

  4. When I played my first DnD game ~25 years ago the DM was the only one who knew the rules. If my sword stopped just short of the magic user and shattered as you described above I just went with it. Willful ignorance on my part? No, I was just playing the game as it was presented to me. I must have enjoyed it though because I am still playing 25 years later.

    But now, 25 years later, I know a little bit more about the rules. I take my turn as DM too, so I know how it works on the other side of the DM screen as well. But the same also goes for my peers. If something happens, yeah, we each probably know why and we each probably know half-a-dozen ways to get around it also. Innocence lost? Maybe, but what would anyone expect to happen over that 25 year period?

    Our group never played 3 or 3.5, so we moved from 2E to 4E this year. So far we have endeavored to play strictly by the rules, knowing full well that things might change the next time we printed out a character sheet. As the DM I have encountered a few things I considered making a house rule for, but haven’t done so yet because we have so far decided to play “by the rules.” However, I think we have now moved beyond the 4E introductory level of play so it may very well be time to have that discussion with the group.

    PS – Thanks for the Twitter tutorial.

  5. Something that is stated on the rules is that all power descriptions are optional. You can say that your powers look like anything that you want (if your DM approves).

    So, wanna roll down the stairs and stab someone? Just do it.
    -But I don´t wanna do a basic attack. I wanna use a power.
    Then do it. Find one that you want to use, tell your description to DM (‘instead of doing this’ *points to book description* ‘I´ll roll down the stairs and stab him’) and asks if he´s OK with that.

  6. I’m very glad you wrote things out this way, and I am right there with you on pretty much all of it. The example of the wizard stopping the sword and shattering it really resonates with me because I’ve experienced the same thing, though I do try to have my monsters, NPCs, and villains really bend and break the rules as often as possible to get the idea of it through to the players that crazy things can still happen every now and then.

    That said, much like many people are arguing, this isn’t specifically a problem with 4E, however one of the big reasons I was arguing the points yesterday on twitter is that I feel there are certain elements (and they’re elements I like quite a lot) also shine a pretty bright light on these issues, and for me it’s more apparent then they were in previous editions. Once we know the issue, analyze it, we can better address it. I think in the future I’d be able to run a very effective game of 4E where both the players and the DM controlled characters are doing crazy things left and right that aren’t explicitly covered in the base 4E rules.

    Good post, thank you for expressing your thoughts on the topic!

  7. My experience with D&D began with 2E, both as a player and a DM. Behind the screen, it felt really hard to improvise without killing some PCs, so I developed a very pre-planned style. A few years later, 3E came along with its CRs, which looked a lot like what I was doing in 2E. It helped somehow, but building an NPC on the spot was virtually impossible using 3E. Again, winging a session was not an option, for me at least.

    That’s why I know what you mean as “DM Weem”: 4E finally lets me worry about the important things: what the players are trying to accomplish, trying to thwart their plans in interesting ways, and dropping plot seeds which they may or may not find. This has changed my DM style for the better, according to my players’ feedback.

    Of course, as we learned the rules, we used power names all the time, and we still do sometimes. I believe the clarity of the rules and the tools available to the DM really help me run a fluid game and add a bit of RP color whenever its needed.

    Thanks for a really solid post!

  8. I have found that a lot of the criticism about 4e and roleplaying comes largely from people who have not played the game, or played it briefly and decided it was not for them.

    Many complaints are that because there are fewer skills, the system doesn’t support roleplaying. What I think they mean by that is that the system no longer simulates tying knots, playing a flute, or forging a sword. Its less simulationist in that way, but not less of a roleplaying game.

    I agree with you in that I miss the old days of endless tomes of tricks, traps and treasure to confront the PCs with, and that it’s easy to see when the DM does something “outside” the rules. I’ve said on Twitter that my players don’t roleplay much during combat, but I will give them credit in that quite often I’ve had NPCs do things that are not explicitly covered in the rules and they did not bat an eye. I’ve also had sessions that were mostly or entirely combat-free.

    It would help if everyone could agree on a definition of “roleplaying”. I think there’s certainly an argument to be made that making “character” decisions based on what’s optimal within the game’s mechanics is not roleplaying. At that point, you’re more gaming the system than playing the game.

    John Wick (of L5R & 7th Sea fame) is fond of telling a story where he started a 1st level PC whose sole guiding purpose was to avenge the death of his father. Once he’d accomplished that, he announced the character’s retirement. He likes to say that everyone at the table was astonished, but I think that’s a good example. That’s roleplaying. He didn’t press on to earn more gold or experience or treasure. His PC had achieved his goal.

    I had something similar happen in my first D&D 4e game. I was playing a ranger who was hunted by an assassin’s guild. I thought it would be a cool plot hook for the DM to play with. However, after being assaulted by bounty hunters working for the guild and putting the rest of the party in peril, I felt that he would rather go off on his own than continue to burden the other PCs with his personal history. Thus, I set him aside and created another PC to take his place in the party.

    The thing is, that kind of roleplaying wasn’t “supported” by any edition of D&D. There are games that encourage thinking about character motivation and social interaction via the rule systems they employ. D&D is not nor has it ever been one of them.

    However, that doesn’t mean you can’t roleplay in D&D. It does mean that you won’t be using the rules much when you do.

  9. While I do agree that 4E hinders RP somewhat, I don’t think it’s so bad that it’s a problem, once you recognize the issues. Certainly, in combat, having lots of cool power choices can obscure the fact that you’re not limited to using them. Many of my players early on in 4E would sit there and scour over their power cards for the “right” choice. It took us a few months to realize that not only did this bog combat to a slow grindy experience (we were still learning at the time too) but it also gave the illusion of “more” freedom. The first impression was, “wow, look at all this stuff I can do”. But the reality ended up being, “wow, I’m limited to like these 8 things”. People complain about 1E and say well, every round was the same, “I hit it with my sword” but that’s not the way we played. We always created our own flavor and were even making up powers, mostly stuff that was just and attack in conjunction with a str/dex check. But we never just “hit with my sword”. If you think about it and look deeper, nothing has truly changed. In 4E, like 1E, you can try whatever you can think of. In fact, I’d argue that the mechanics involved in improvised actions are superior, certainly better defined now than they were then. But somehow, being given so many choices up front, and so much specific mechanical capability, it seems less necessary to improvise (and I don’t simply mean reflavor a power). But now that we have experience, there are lots of situations where my players choose to basically make up their own powers based on what would make sense for the situation, and assuming a reflavored power would be less useful. Now that we all have a solid understanding of the underlying math, we can all pretty quickly agree on whether the proposed move would be the equivalent of an at-will or an encounter, etc.

    Ultimately, I think 4E is pretty versatile, even if it is very “combaty” as written. Even though I choose to avoid traditional 4E design in a lot of my games, I’m glad the underlying system is there and that it is as robust as I need it to be. I find it’s easier to ignore rules you don’t want/need than it is to fill in gaps in a weak system

    That being said, my one gripe with the way 4E combat tends to overshadow the design as whole is it’s dependence on grid maps and minis/tokens. I would prefer to run most skirmishes without a grid or minis, saving those for more in depth, tactical, set piece, or boss battles. I don’t like busting out the maps/minis for every combat. I find it somewhat tedious and can easily derail a smoothly flowing narrative session that requires some combat. I really wish they would offer a category of power choices that were not grid centric. We’ve tried to run without a grid and the use of counted squares is so heavily entrenched in combat mechanics, the amount of handwaiving necessary is staggering. I’ve been slowly but surely catelogging those powers that don’t rely on heavy grid use and I hope to someday run a campaign that doesn’t touch a battle mat or tiles, but exists only in the imaginations of the players, an interactive storytelling style of combat.

    1. I have been thinking along the same lines. I am playing with the idea of a separate combat form – abstract combat for incidental fights. Use the ranges from warhammer. Extreme – long – medium – close and engaged. I will need a table to convert square ranges to the above so range 20 you would have to be at long range or less that sort of thing. Moving between ranges would take a number of move actions – 3 from extreme to long 2 for long to medium etc.

      The only other thing to take into account is powers that move people. Maybe they grant combat advantage or a + to hit.

      This would make it a bit more free flowing and narativist. Would still use full tactical rules for big fights but for me (and this is where I get back on topic) the big hinderance to rp in 4e is the gridded combat, it a) takes you out of the world and b) takes such a long time that not much time is left for story or character development.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *