Quote from: jeff37923;366346I do not think that the OD&D rules support role-playing in ways that 4E does not. However, OD&D was the first version of a RPG that has since evolved over 40 years to get to be 4E. During that evolution, the concentration of focus on the game of D&D has changed from the general (role-playing which includes combat) in OD&D to the specific in 4E (miniatures combat with occassional role-playing).

Can you explain what concentration of focus means with reference to the rules of the game? Or are you talking about the expectations people bring to it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;366284That "little bit of GNS" turned D&D4e into a fucking joke.

My view is that the 4e rules is perfectly fine for an RPG.  The problem has been in terms of presentation and focus which has been nearly exclusively focused on the combat game.  Only the ritual system seem to provide a mechanic to effect a campaign outside of combat.

I haven't seen a at-will, encounter, or daily power setup that represents a character during the normal course of a day like a village priest, castle guard, sage, or bureaucrat. For example what does being a Warlord give you in the way of recruiting troops at 15th level? Or a wizard at 18th level in dealing with a mage's guild.

Some can argue that well it like OD&D in that regard. Make it the hell up! But the problem is that when so much of the company's attention is devoted to the combat side then the game will start attracting players that like combat and leave those who like roleplaying feeling unsupported.

Quote from: Thanlis;366349Can you explain what concentration of focus means with reference to the rules of the game? Or are you talking about the expectations people bring to it?

I honestly think the question itself reveals much about the changes that took place up to now, with 4e. The notion that mechanics are the core of the game itself, that they support or do not support role-playing, is IMO a red-herring. The relevant question here is what type of game play the rules decide to emphasize, and how time consuming it is at an actual game table, and from then, what is left for the players and DM to actually role-play. That's where the differences between the original game, or even AD&D, and the current design contrast the most.

When you spend time rolling a skill challenge, calculating the best square to move your miniature on, checking out your character sheet to read the rules text and determine what it means on the game board, contemplating how this aspect of the rules interact with that one for the optimum result, that's all time spent at the game table not actually role-playing your characters and enjoying the make-believe.

Also, estar's post above is, IMO, spot on.

Quote from: Benoist;366351Also, estar's post above is, IMO, spot on.

Seconding agreement with estar's assessment.  

Although I'll add that I found a similar problem with 3e's community.  Home campaigns were the only time I had any real fun with it, because my group doesn't obsess over rules much.

QuoteOnly the ritual system seem to provide a mechanic to effect a campaign outside of combat.

Unfortunately.  It was one of the few things I liked about the revamped magic system.  And everyone ignores it.  

Quote from: Peregrin;366352Although I'll add that I found a similar problem with 3e's community.  Home campaigns were the only time I had any real fun with it, because my group doesn't obsess over rules much.

I agree. That's what gradually came to frustrate me the most in discussions about 3e.

Quote from: Benoist;366351I honestly think the question itself reveals much about the changes that took place up to now, with 4e. The notion that mechanics are the core of the game itself, that they support or do not support role-playing, is IMO a red-herring. The relevant question here is what type of game play the rules decide to emphasize, and how time consuming it is at an actual game table, and from then, what is left for the players and DM to actually role-play. That's where the differences between the original game, or even AD&D, and the current design contrast the most.

Well, OK. Can someone who has the original box handy break down the percentage of the three books devoted to roleplaying advice vs. the percentage devoted to combat rules?

Quote from: Peregrin;366352Unfortunately.  It was one of the few things I liked about the revamped magic system.  And everyone ignores it.  

I don't see why some of the stuff in there is pure gold and will utterly turn a campaign setting on it's head. I like the one where you can recall a chest to you regardless of where you are. Rent a house, hire a bunch of smucks and you will never ever have to run out of supplies or a lack for a safe secure spot to store your treasure.

Quote from: Thanlis;366354Well, OK. Can someone who has the original box handy break down the percentage of the three books devoted to roleplaying advice vs. the percentage devoted to combat rules?

That too is a question that reveals much IMO in the way expectations regarding game books evolved.

I think it misses my point: it's not about the books themselves, the rules or advice they contain, but about what's actually happening at the game table when you use them.

Quote from: Thanlis;366354Well, OK. Can someone who has the original box handy break down the percentage of the three books devoted to roleplaying advice vs. the percentage devoted to combat rules?

First the word playing doesn't appear anywhere in OD&D. The closet it come is roles.

Here are the table of contents and the page count of each book.

Note they are all digest size books 5.5" by 8.5".

Book I - Men & Magic 38 pages.
Introduction
Scope
Equipment
Preparations for the Campaign
Characters
Character Alignment, Including Monsters
Determination of Abilities
Languages
Non-Player Characters
Basic Equipment and Costs
Encumberance
Weights and Equivalents
Levels and Number of Experience Points
Necessary to Attain Them
Statistics Regarding Classes
Alternative Combat System
Saving Throw Matrix
Spells Table — Magic-Users
Spells Table — Clerics
Explanation of Spells
Magical Research
Books of Spells


Book II - Monster & Treasure -42 pages
Monster and Reference Table
Monster Descriptions
Magic/Maps Determination Table
Explanations of Magic Items
Magical Items' Saving Throws
Treasure

Book III - Underworld & Wilderness Adventures -39 pages
The Underworld
Distribution of Monsters and Treasure
The Move Turn in the Underworld
Underworld Monsters
Monster Determination and Level of
Monster Matrix
Avoiding Monsters
The Wilderness
Castles
Movement
Wilderness Monsters
Wilderness Wandering Monsters
Evading in the Wilderness
Construction of Castles and Strongholds
Specialists
Men-at-Arms
Rumors, Information, and Legends
Player/Character Support and Upkeep
Baronies
Land Combat
Aerial Combat
Naval Combat
Special Suggestions for Monsters
in Naval Adventure
Healing Wounds
Time
Afterward

The section on Campaign Preperation is rather interesting as it summarizes Gygax's thinking on what D&D was about at the time.

QuotePREPARATION FOR THE CAMPAIGN:
The referee bears the entire burden here, but if care and thought are used, the reward will more than repay him. First, the referee must draw out a minimum of half a dozen maps of the levels of his "underworld", people them with monsters of various horrid aspect, distribute treasures accordingly, and note the location of the latter two on keys, each corresponding to the appropriate level. This operation will be more fully described in the third volume of these rules. When this task is completed the participants can then be allowed to make their first descent into the dungeons beneath the "huge ruined pile, a vast castle built by generations of mad wizards and insane geniuses". Before they begin, players must decide what role they play in the campaing, human or otherwise, figher, cleric, or magic-users. Thereafter they will work upwards - if they survive - as they gain "experience". First, however it is necessary to describe full the roles possible.

Quote from: Benoist;366357That too is a question that reveals much IMO in the way expectations regarding game books evolved.

I think it misses my point: it's not about the books themselves, the rules or advice they contain, but about what's actually happening at the game table when you use them.

I'm confused again. A moment ago you said "The relevant question here is what type of game play the rules decide to emphasize." Do the rules matter, or not?

Quote from: Thanlis;366360I'm confused again. A moment ago you said "The relevant question here is what type of game play the rules decide to emphasize." Do the rules matter, or not?

It's OK. It's because you're taking the sentence out of context:

"I honestly think the question itself reveals much about the changes that took place up to now, with 4e. The notion that mechanics are the core of the game itself, that they support or do not support role-playing, is IMO a red-herring. The relevant question here is what type of game play the rules decide to emphasize, and how time consuming it is at an actual game table, and from then, what is left for the players and DM to actually role-play. That's where the differences between the original game, or even AD&D, and the current design contrast the most.

When you spend time rolling a skill challenge, calculating the best square to move your miniature on, checking out your character sheet to read the rules text and determine what it means on the game board, contemplating how this aspect of the rules interact with that one for the optimum result, that's all time spent at the game table not actually role-playing your characters and enjoying the make-believe."

Emphasized for your consideration.

It's about the way rules and advice come into actual play, not about the percentage they occupy in the game books, in other words.

OD&D is very practical about it's rules. It about getting a bunch of character made to go through a dungeon, advance a couple of level and eventually winding up owning their own castle with the money they earn. But... the way it written is like a bunch of suggestions. There isn't the feeling that you are getting the commandments from Moses to run D&D.  More like a bunch of notes on if you want to play this type of game. It comes off like here are some things you can do.  

It goes too far in the notes direction as some sections are confusing and unclear (notably combat which keeps referring to Chainmail).  Very different than how many rulebooks are written for RPGs today.

Nice Gygax quote. The man was nothing if not atmospheric.

I'd suggest that there's a key difference between OD&D and 4e which is being reflected in the opinions here. We have had literally 30 years to learn how to use the OD&D ruleset as a tool for roleplaying. That's huge. The ruleset isn't particularly hostile or favorable to roleplay -- it's agnostic. It took us (and yes, I've been gaming for 25 years) a long time to work it out.

In the meantime, new games have pushed the framework of the rules into social situations. Vampire's the obvious example, with all the humanity mechanics and so on. But it's only one example. We expect, as noted, big sidebars about roleplaying and so forth and so on.

4e's a bit of a system shock. There's more roleplaying advice in there than most of you are giving it credit for, but it's not rules-oriented advice -- the rules leave roleplaying completely alone. (And there's our huge similarity to the old school games.) And that feels really, really odd when we're looking at a quote unquote modern game.

But it's no more or less support than early D&D provided. It's just about expectations.

So when would you say the shift from dungeon-crawling focused play to campaign-"world"/non-combat play occurred?  OD&D to AD&D?  AD&D 2e (which seemed to really push the whole 90's story and characters thing with it's campaign settings)?