I see a lot of statement like this about 4th edition

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;279672SIGH... 4th ed is stuck in a box. It is so heavily geared toward mini's that the amazingly balanced well thought out rules stymies creative off the cuff roleplay moments.

The question is this is true of any RPG that treats their combat system like a tactical wargame. GURPS, Harnmaster, Dragonquest (SPI), Fantasy Trip are some of the few which have their combat system as RPGs.

Note I can understand if you don't prefer this approach. It perfectly fine as a matter of taste to like a less complicated rules system. However is it a truism that it automatically  makes roleplaying more difficult.

If it doesn't then what that says about the 4 edition RULES discouraging role-playing.

Quote from: estar;279679Note I can understand if you don't prefer this approach. It perfectly fine as a matter of taste to like a less complicated rules system. However is it a truism that it automatically  makes roleplaying more difficult.

Having played many different games both with minis and without, I can say the best roleplaying moments don't occur during combat, so the decision of whether to use minis or not has very little impact on the overall quality of roleplaying.

I think the mini's can be distracting, if you let them. Or at least in my experience that's been true. We use them (Well wooden crafters spools anyways.) from time to time, but we don't rely on them.

Yeah, I like using minis from time to time.  Never took away from RP.

It all depends on the players. I know some people who are considerably more creative when they have a visual representation of the battlefield. Some more creative when they don't.

So minis or not is completely irrelevant.

I've played many rpgs where we have and haven't used minis, but anytime the mini's came out it was just a loose representation of the action, not a square x square game.  4e is the first RPG that I've found really ingrains the use of mini's and the tactical map into the mechanics.

For me when we break into combat I completely get distracted from the role playing and switch into pure table-top tactician mode.  My character and the other characters are tactical pieces to move on the map to obstruct and defeat the enemy pieces.  I lose interest in the personality of my character and only care about the numbers and how many squares an abilities range is etc....

So for me the original statement is very true and why I quit the 4e campaign.  I found for me the rules were discouraging to role-playing and that if I wanted table-top combat there are vastly better games for skirmish level play.

I think it definitely distracts from rp. I hate minis. Sometimes I use dice or something to show distance relationships, but, as a rule I stay away from them.

I don't think it is just about minis or a new phenomena. But I do think there is a trade off between a tatcial depth and roleplaying and different groups gravitate towards the system that gets the balance right for them.

If the system is fairly light, you can stage a combat scene without really changing the pace of the game and players can just go with what feels right for the character in combat, because frankly there aren't any meaningful tactical choices to make anyway.

A detailed system, not just 4e but in any of the classic crunchy systems, rewards players for playing to the rules rather than playing the character in combat. It becomes about knowing the rules and how to make the most of them more than knowing the character and what motivates him.
Ultimately its between a combat system that get's you screaming in character to an NPC "Why won't you die!" and another in which you might ask "Should I use my barbarian rage this turn or next?"

Pace has a role in this too. If the fight is solved with a few quick rolls, you doesn't really break the flow of the game. If you suddenly have to impose a strict turn sequence, with things like GM calling out "Okay, anyone goes on '7'?" or breakout maps and minis, of of course it going to feel different.

And don't forget that complex combat can be a real time sink. If you average "roleplaying encounter" takes 10 minutes and your average fight takes 1 hour, just in terms of actual play time combat is going to crowd out your roleplaying.

Quote from: jswa;279691It all depends on the players. I know some people who are considerably more creative when they have a visual representation of the battlefield. Some more creative when they don't.

So minis or not is completely irrelevant.

This is my opinion as well. However I understand why GMs and players who don't want to deal with them or use a minimal setup.

My personal GM style is very miniature heavy. And I like using and playing crunchy tactical rules. However my style of using miniatures has been refined over the years oriented to the goal of having a visual representation of what the players see and but having fast play.

The key to this is my toolkit which is comprised of a bunch of miniatures meticulously organized, a bunch of bits like buildings, mats, tiles, and furniture.  And a grid mat.

I have basically five containers of standard miniatures (humanoids, armed humans, undead, animals, and regular folks). The majority of my encounter consist of throwing out a preprinted map (like a road or a wooded glen) and picking out the correct number of humaniods/etc.

If it is a locale like a tavern or shop I have another tray with all the furniture I need.

For special locales I will have stuff already picked up put to the side. if I am using random monsters so are usually easily pulled out.

With the practice I have I have everything set by the time I am finished verbally describing it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;279704A detailed system, not just 4e but in any of the classic crunchy systems, rewards players for playing to the rules rather than playing the character in combat. It becomes about knowing the rules and how to make the most of them more than knowing the character and what motivates him.

The reason I started using miniatures in the late 70's because of all damn arguments over exactly how the scene was setup or where the character where position. Finally I  got fed up (plus I am 50% deaf and need hearing aides so I did miss stuff.) and learned to use miniatures quickly. After that those arguments disappeared in my games. This is using AD&D.

Granted that we were junior high and high school kids (ages 11 to 18) at the time. But once I started I honed my use of miniatures to the point where it takes me longer to verbally describe the scene than to set it up.

I find that for my games It enhances the roleplaying because you don't have to guess what missing from my description. You don't have the guess what I am visualizing. It there in front of you so. As player in my game you can ponder the scene naturally and decide whether to go up to the blonde at the end of the bar or stay away from the scarface individual in the corner. I don't want my players having to guess what in my head.

Now my setup isn't a perfect hologram of what I am describing. I weave the description into the setup of the miniatures so the two techniques reinforce each other. If I have an elaborate setup I will have all the bits and pieces prepackaged to speed up the time.

The principle applies to combat as well. Assumption with rules light system is that is flows more easily but ultimately it end with the player having to guess the assumptions in the ref's head about what he know about combat. Most of us don't notice this because we often play with our groups long enough that all of this is absorbed over multiple sessions. Again by me running a detailed combat system like GURPS my player don't have to guess what in my head.

The RPG  I choose don't just have detailed rules they are also are grounded in realism as well. There are plenty of RPGs with detailed combat I won't play because they have detail for detail sake. I have to feel that the detail has to be from a good design. This is why I like Harnmaster and GURPS.

As for 4th edition, it will depend on the players whether there is a lot of role-playing in a particular group. The fact it is a rules heavy system requiring a lot of miniatures has no bearing on the quality of role-playing  in a 4e campaign. Just as the LACK of detail in Original D&D rules (the 1974 rules) prevents rich and roleplaying filled campaigns from being run.

I understand why you and many other will be turned off by 4th edition approach. If you don't like using miniatures, you are not going to like it. Wizards, for whatever reason, decided that you are not part of their market. Likely what they think is that it is a game so fun that you will play it anyway.

And I will admit that in actual play it works and works well. The lack of any type of realism is a turn off. But as a gamer who has played many RPGs and wargame I have to say it is a elegant combat system that allowed a great deal of options without having to memorize a ton of rules.

The real problem of 4th edition has been it's presentation. Wizards decided to jettison large part of the 3.X market in favor what they feel what a new generation of gamers want. In the presentation department Wizards has been underwhelming. But regardless 4th edition D&D rules hav the same capabilities for role-playing as any other RPG.

I understand the idea of realism as a goal because it provides a common term of reference. But in actual fact, when it come to me, I've never been in combat, neither have my players. Our common term of reference boils down to "how it is done in movies" and we're probably not thinking about good movies either. And given the game I'm likely to be running is something like Star Wars or Gamma World, realism was never going to be a priority.

I run 4e and I see no lack of roleplaying among the gamers.   I get a laugh at this absurd online myth of everyone giving passionate theatrical soliloquies before each attack roll in pre-4e gaming.  

The FACT is that those gamers who just said "I attack, does 17 hit?" in AD&D are now saying "I use Tide of Iron, does 17 hit?" in 4e and those gamers who used descriptive language in AD&D are still doing so in 4e.  

Roleplaying is not for everyone.   Most players want to be passive and leave the description, theatrics and atmosphere to the GM.   A good GM knows how to bring out the most roleplay possible in his group - regardless of game system.

Quote from: estar;279679I see a lot of statement like this about 4th edition



The question is this is true of any RPG that treats their combat system like a tactical wargame. GURPS, Harnmaster, Dragonquest (SPI), Fantasy Trip are some of the few which have their combat system as RPGs.

GURPS only relies on minis when you turn it up to 11.  Basic combat (i.e. sans hexes) is completely narrative based.

I don't think tactical game play is the issue.  I have run RPG games using the Warhammer 40K tactical miniatures rules and found that it encourages role-playing the same way Basic D&D is.  The real issue with 4E, and 3.5 to a lesser extent, is the power specificity problem.  Instead of a simple hit or miss combat systems with creatively applied modifiers, the game has moved into the territory of making every move you can imagine into an actual power in the game.

An example for real game play:  In both my Basic and 2E campaigns, players asked if they could get away with various things which would be phrased like so:"Can I hit him with my sword and then roundhouse kick him off the dias?"

In these early systems, the rules didn't allow or disallow for such creative acts.  It was up to the DM.  I myself would generally require a successful hit with the sword, a DEX check on a d20, and then a second attack roll for the boot.  No damage for the kick, but "the guy flies off the dias and lands hard on the floor."

In 3.5 there is a feat in a splatbook that allows a character to make a Roundhouse Kick as part of an attack.  It has specific requirements.  It's this trend in the game's design that limits the imaginative aspects of combat gameplay.  The more imaginative acts that are transformed into feats and powers,the more it encourages players and DMs to think one needs a feat to do anything not on one's list of powers.

The only system I've found with a high level of specificity that enhances imaginative gameplay is the HERO system, which operates on a radically different philosophy than the D&D family of games, representing an entirely different line of evolution.

Quote from: Jackalope;279734I don't think tactical game play is the issue.  I have run RPG games using the Warhammer 40K tactical miniatures rules and found that it encourages role-playing the same way Basic D&D is.  The real issue with 4E, and 3.5 to a lesser extent, is the power specificity problem.  Instead of a simple hit or miss combat systems with creatively applied modifiers, the game has moved into the territory of making every move you can imagine into an actual power in the game.

I think 4th edition combat system did the smart thing in it's design. It is one of the better games at managing complexity for the average gamer. It gives the average gamer a wealth of choices yet doesn't overwhelm with rules. The same idea behind Magic the Gathering really.

However the design is just a structure. By their choice of what to represent as powers colors the game. I view D&D 4th edition as High powered fantasy 24/7. However a different mix of classes and powers could make the game feel very different yet it is still the same design.

Quote from: Jackalope;279734The only system I've found with a high level of specificity that enhances imaginative gameplay is the HERO system, which operates on a radically different philosophy than the D&D family of games, representing an entirely different line of evolution.

I disagree the main difference is that HERO is even more explicit about the math allowing the referee to design how his powers worked. Hero even has a system to build new maneuver system. If you were a by the book HERO GM then everything about the character is defined by the points spent. Even down to the gun or nunchuk the character wielded.

Of course this is an extreme view of how the HERO system worked. Actual play was rarely ever like this and the few instance I experienced this was for Champion which was part of the genre. Fantasy Hero and other Hero system games were more like traditional RPGs in regards to equipment.

However none that matters. Because what it really boils down is how familiar are you with the system. Spend long enough time with any RPG you will be able to do well... just about anything with it.

In this regard RPGs are like a new computer language. Sure you know how to use loops, and condition and can easily look up their equivalent. But to get the most out of a particular language you have to spend time with it. Lots of time.

The same is for RPGs. The more you play a particular system the more you find that you can do with it. The more tricks you develop, as well as house rules that meshes with the system as a whole. The more knowledge you have the more easily you can "make up" stuff.

Quote from: Spinachcat;279726I run 4e and I see no lack of roleplaying among the gamers.   I get a laugh at this absurd online myth of everyone giving passionate theatrical soliloquies before each attack roll in pre-4e gaming.  

The FACT is that those gamers who just said "I attack, does 17 hit?" in AD&D are now saying "I use Tide of Iron, does 17 hit?" in 4e and those gamers who used descriptive language in AD&D are still doing so in 4e.  

Roleplaying is not for everyone.   Most players want to be passive and leave the description, theatrics and atmosphere to the GM.   A good GM knows how to bring out the most roleplay possible in his group - regardless of game system.

I agree, that this is basically true, regardless of what game or edition you're talking about (excepting games where the combat mechanic itself is based on highly descriptive elements, like Amber).

I don't think 4e is any more or less likely to resolve the "I rolled a 17" syndrome. I do think there are other elements of combat in 4e that make the game less immersive than other games, but I agree that combat itself was never an excessively immersive element of D&D gameplay.

RPGPundit