Quote from: Thanlis;366345I'm honest to god not asking this question to try and make a point.

How do the OD&D rules support roleplaying in ways that the 4e rules do not?

It is not a question of support as it is of the background ideology determining the focus of the game. OD&D, RC D&D, 1e AD&D, and even 2e and 3e (at least until the latter days of 3.5) all assumed that the rules were there to assist emulation and immersion in the world, and that the latter took precedence. 4e assumes that what matters is the game system, and that this is more important than the actual play in the world. That's because GNS presents the totally wrong assumption that you don't want a game that can do more than one thing, that this is "incoherent", what you want is either a game that's all about "telling story" or a game that's all about "simulation" or a game that's all about "gaming the mechanics"; and that immersion in any case is a sort of mental illness that is not desired under any circumstances.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;366361When 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.

Check. Two things.

First, note my previous regarding time spent. I think it's ultimately futile to compare the initial experience with a new game to 30 years of experience with an old game.

Second, and more important: half of what you describe above is the assumptions you're bringing to the game. Specifically:

• Calculating the best square to move your miniature on. I don't do that. I move my miniature to the point on the map that my character would want to go to. That might be the best he can think of, tactically. It might be the place where he can interpose himself between monsters and friends. It might be something else.
• Contemplating how this aspect of the rules interact with that one for the optimum result. Also not a big part of my actual play. I am currently playing an avenger who was stolen from the service of her god on the way to reincarnate; accordingly, she's now stuck serving the dwarven god of thieves. She has multiclassed into rogue. This is not the worst idea I could think of, mechanically, but it's really not at all good.
• Skill challenges. You might want to read AM's description of his assassination skill challenge; I think he said he's expecting something like 15 minutes of roleplaying and talking between each actual physical die roll. A bad skill challenge looks like this: "Roll Diplomacy four times, tell me if you get below a 15." But why assume all skill challenges play out like that?

Checking out your character sheet is, in fact, time spent not roleplaying. Personally I have 95% of the things my level 10 sorcerer does in combat memorized -- again, things really do change when you play a game for two years.

To me, it's all about what actually happens at the game table.

Quote from: Peregrin;366367So 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)?

Just to understand your question better: where did you pick up the notion that we're talking about a shift from "dungeon" to "campaign" in this thread? I don't think that's particularly relevant when comparing the differences between 4e and O/AD&D, specifically.

Quote from: Peregrin;366367So 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)?

The moment people other than miniature wargamers  from the upper midwest started playing it.

I am not trying to make a joke here. If you were not aware of minature wargaming, the game Chainmail or what they were doing in Minneapolis and Lake Geneva then D&D takes on a different look.

However the dungeon was probably dominate until  1977. Judges Guild brought out the City-State of the Invincible Overlord and shortly after that the Wilderlands.  This made it patently obvious there was a whole hell of lot you can do with D&D than dungeon crawl.

But remember CSIO was the publication of stuff that Bob Bledsaw and his group were doing for the past two years. So people where doing non-dungeon stuff way before CSIO.

Quote from: Thanlis;366318Yes, of course. Note that I used the word "awesome." That was for good reason; 3e was and is a very good game. That said, I have no interest in discussing 3e vs. 4e in this thread, and I apologize for the fact that I'm not going to address your criticism further.

Ah, I see. I took "awesome" in this context to be simply describing the size, not the quality. I understand now.

Quote from: Benoist;366370Just to understand your question better: where did you pick up the notion that we're talking about a shift from "dungeon" to "campaign" in this thread? I don't think that's particularly relevant when comparing the differences between 4e and O/AD&D, specifically.

From my understanding, didn't dungeon-crawling with limited RP come first, and then later "role-playing" developed across different groups, with the more "there's more than what the rules talk about" (at least in terms of playstyle) view coming later?

I mean, Old Geezer goes on all the time about "killing things and taking their stuff" and how great dungeon-crawling is, making it seem like OD&D, in terms of focus, isn't actually much different than 4e, except for the greater focus on the dungeon as a set-piece rather than encounters.

This is taking things at face-value and ignoring the hodge-podge of different cultures surrounding the games, though.

Quote from: Sigmund;366373Ah, I see. I took "awesome" in this context to be simply describing the size, not the quality. I understand now.

Ah! Sorry about being unclear.

No, I played 3e for a few years and I enjoyed it a lot. I think it's the pinnacle of a certain style of design, and there's nothing wrong at all with that style. I'd actually do some Pathfinder living campaign if there was a convenient location near me. There are things you can do with 3e that you can't do with 4e.

I could keep saying nice things but they're all true and you get the idea.

Quote from: Thanlis;366369Check. Two things.

First, note my previous regarding time spent. I think it's ultimately futile to compare the initial experience with a new game to 30 years of experience with an old game.

Er. So why make the claim that there is no difference betwen 4e and OD&D in the first place (the premise of the thread)?

Quote from: Thanlis;366369Second, and more important: half of what you describe above is the assumptions you're bringing to the game. Specifically:

• Calculating the best square to move your miniature on. I don't do that. I move my miniature to the point on the map that my character would want to go to. That might be the best he can think of, tactically. It might be the place where he can interpose himself between monsters and friends. It might be something else.
• Contemplating how this aspect of the rules interact with that one for the optimum result. Also not a big part of my actual play. I am currently playing an avenger who was stolen from the service of her god on the way to reincarnate; accordingly, she's now stuck serving the dwarven god of thieves. She has multiclassed into rogue. This is not the worst idea I could think of, mechanically, but it's really not at all good.
• Skill challenges. You might want to read AM's description of his assassination skill challenge; I think he said he's expecting something like 15 minutes of roleplaying and talking between each actual physical die roll. A bad skill challenge looks like this: "Roll Diplomacy four times, tell me if you get below a 15." But why assume all skill challenges play out like that?

Checking out your character sheet is, in fact, time spent not roleplaying. Personally I have 95% of the things my level 10 sorcerer does in combat memorized -- again, things really do change when you play a game for two years.

I'm glad you're not experiencing these issues much.

Drohem's take is different:

"In my personal experience, the quality of role-playing in my primary group has diminished, and, completely fallen off the map for several of the players in my group. Sometimes I feel like we're playing a game of Axis & Allies in that we are just controlling tokens on a battle board. They love and are eating up the tactical combat aspect of the game, and that has become the sole focus. Role-playing is an incidental byproduct used to justify character re-tooling and magic item acquisition and/or swapping."

Mileages vary.

Quote from: estar;366371The moment people other than miniature wargamers  from the upper midwest started playing it.

I am not trying to make a joke here. If you were not aware of minature wargaming, the game Chainmail or what they were doing in Minneapolis and Lake Geneva then D&D takes on a different look.

However the dungeon was probably dominate until  1977. Judges Guild brought out the City-State of the Invincible Overlord and shortly after that the Wilderlands.  This made it patently obvious there was a whole hell of lot you can do with D&D than dungeon crawl.

Wonder if the future Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG (by Goodman) will be generic hack & slash dungeon crawling, or made to be something more.

Quote from: Peregrin;366374From my understanding, didn't dungeon-crawling with limited RP come first, and then later "role-playing" developed across different groups, with the more "there's more than what the rules talk about" (at least in terms of playstyle) view coming later?

I mean, Old Geezer goes on all the time about "killing things and taking their stuff" and how great dungeon-crawling is, making it seem like OD&D, in terms of focus, isn't actually much different than 4e, except for the greater focus on the dungeon as a set-piece rather than encounters.

This is taking things at face-value and ignoring the hodge-podge of different cultures surrounding the games, though.

I don't think that "dungeon-crawling is cooler than role-playing" is what Mike/Old Geezer is talking about when he goes on about killing things and taking their stuff. What he's usually talking about is that the game is a game, it's about enjoying the play together, beer and bretzel, and such.

There's no correlation between "beer and bretzel" and "Oh okay so we must emphasize rules-game play as opposed to role-playing game play" there. That's something that logically is kind of weird to hear, from my point of view. You can role-play, drink a beer and eat a bretzel, just like you can roll dice, drink a beer and eat a bretzel at the same time.

See what I mean?

Quote from: Benoist;366377I'm glad you're not experiencing these issues much.

Drohem's take is different:

"In my personal experience, the quality of role-playing in my primary group has diminished, and, completely fallen off the map for several of the players in my group. Sometimes I feel like we're playing a game of Axis & Allies in that we are just controlling tokens on a battle board. They love and are eating up the tactical combat aspect of the game, and that has become the sole focus. Role-playing is an incidental byproduct used to justify character re-tooling and magic item acquisition and/or swapping."

Mileages vary.

Yes, indeed they do. Do your criticisms of 4e extend beyond the fact that some people play D&D without roleplaying? Specifically, is there something about the rules themselves that you think encourages that?

Quote from: Thanlis;366383Yes, indeed they do. Do your criticisms of 4e extend beyond the fact that some people play D&D without roleplaying? Specifically, is there something about the rules themselves that you think encourages that?

Yes, in the way they approach D&D's actual game play and shape it from there.

What I was trying to talk about with my examples. If you don't have a text to read on your character sheet to begin with, there's no chance for a player to spend time trying to decipher what it means in rules term. If there's no shift and pull action, there's no chance for a player to spend time pondering on which move to make with his miniature. Et cetera.

The fact that these rules are there means they are intended to be used at an actual game table. The way they are actually used at the game table, and the way they shape what the actual game being played feels and looks like, the actual activity itself, is what matters in the end.

What I mean is that what the rules decide to describe as the play activity shapes the play activity itself, with the caveat that particular mileages will, of course, vary greatly.

Quote from: jeff37923;366320Agreed, these could be houseruled, but they are indicative of a problem I find with the larger framework of the 4E rules that make the game more of a game and less of an immersive experience for role-playing.  

This does come back to my personal reasons why I play RPGs, which I think are shared by many others. We play RPGs for the fun of escapism, of being a character in another world far removed from our everyday lives. Powers break the fourth wall in a game and crush immersion for me. They turn the combat of a game into chess moves instead of characters fighting.

To me, this detrimentally affects role-playing and 4E does not support role-playing to my satisfaction.

Now, the response to this that I keep hearing is that the role-playing in 4E happens in between the rules or happens without rules there to support it. In that case, then you could call checkers or poker a role-playing game because you can use role-playing to enhance those games as well. It still would not make checkers a RPG, however.

Quote from: Drohem;366323I with you 100% here.  In my personal experience, the quality of role-playing in my primary group has diminished, and, completely fallen off the map for several of the players in my group.  Sometimes I feel like we're playing a game of Axis & Allies in that we are just controlling tokens on a battle board.  They love and are eating up the tactical combat aspect of the game, and that has become the sole focus.  Role-playing is an incidental byproduct used to justify character re-tooling and magic item acquisition and/or swapping.

Quote from: Benoist;366340I completely agree with this. I think the issue is in the way 4e decided to shift the goalposts (and follow a tradition that at least started with 3e in this regard, if not earlier with Players' Options or the Survival Guides, or even Unearthed Arcana*) to make a huge part of the game about the game system itself. 4e basically gets rid of all the luggage from previous eras to morph into a pure "gamist" experience.

Quote from: Thanlis;366345I'm honest to god not asking this question to try and make a point.

How do the OD&D rules support roleplaying in ways that the 4e rules do not?

Quote from: Benoist;366351The 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.

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?

I think Benoist and I agree when I read these responses, but I'll take a shot at answering it too, from my perspective. I agree, it's not about what rules support roleplaying in comparing 4e with previous editions. It's that the older editions don't get in the way of roleplaying for me. I understand these are games, and that the rules need to be engaged occasionally, but in the case of 4e the rules are so prolific and disassociated from the game world they are attempting to model that I get pulled out of the roleplaying mindset much more than I like to. I have trouble even getting "into character" because the power mechanics are so "gamey" and hyper-focused on these "roles", such as "striker" or "controller" that I stumble when trying to reconcile them with anything remotely familiar to me in life. These concepts are great in MMOs where the visual component and challenge in manipulating the controls of the game replace roleplaying and immersion, but IMO they don't belong in a TTRPG. So looking at the tables of contents will not show you why I, at least, dislike 4e so strongly. It's at the table, when actually engaging with the mechanics themselves, that the nature of the game falls flat on it's face. It's been very, very disappointing, and I honestly can't understand why any of ya'all like it even a little bit, my experience has been that much of a let-down. I do my best, however, to live and let live in regards to 4e and hope someday somebody with loads more sense makes a version I can use again.

Quote from: Peregrin;366374I mean, Old Geezer goes on all the time about "killing things and taking their stuff" and how great dungeon-crawling is, making it seem like OD&D, in terms of focus, isn't actually much different than 4e, except for the greater focus on the dungeon as a set-piece rather than encounters.

First time roleplayers rarely act at first. Instead the roleplaying involves THEM naturally responding to the situation. In short they were roleplaying themselves in the game.  


This is followed by the "character with a shtick". You create a character that has a unique "thing" about them. For example I had a player who always played an elf with silver in his name. Another that alternate alec and marcus for all his characters. The way they wound up being different character is that the campaign in which they were player had different circumstances and events.

From the shtick the player will start to make his acting more complex to his ability or interest. My own personal playing style is that I will make characters with unique personalities and will do "funny" voices if needed to roleplay. Other I know don't go to that level.

As a referee I am happy as long as the player speaks in first person and describes actively what they are doing rather than in third person. For example "I move and attack the Orc." as opposed to "I move Marcus to attack the Orc."

In OD&D day everybody was new to roleplaying. D&D 4e gamers don't have that excuse. Wizards choose to emphasize the game side of RPGs and the result is a game crazy culture that surrounds 4e.

The way this occurs is important too. If you look at a living module it basically structured as . Wow 3/5th of the module is devoted to roleplaying!

However the TIME that it takes to complete the combat portions is 3 times longer than the time to take to complete the roleplaying stuff. So combat winds up dominating the the 4 hour session. The modules that wizards put out are not much better either.

In OD&D in contrast, combat is take about as much time to run as the roleplaying stuff. In the current campaign, we are getting 5 to 6 combat encounters in a evening with Swords & Wizardry (a OD&D clone). And there is roleplaying between those encounters. With GURPS 4e or D&D 4e, we are lucky to complete 2 to 3 combat encounters.

There is a lot of difference between the 4e situation now and the OD&D session back then.

Quote from: ggroy;366379Wonder if the future Dungeon Crawl Classic RPG (by Goodman) will be generic hack & slash dungeon crawling, or made to be something more.

DCCs have a lot of wilderness stuff and a handful of city-based stuff. Plus there been a fair amount talk among the OSR about the end-game which the current retro-clones don't really address well. I wouldn't be surprised that Goodman incorporates some of that into his RPG.