Quote from: Peregrin;366637What, the "storytelling" bits in the DMGs?  The weapon lists?

The 75% of each race writeup that's dedicated purely to roleplaying, say.

Quote from: Sigmund;366629I don't agree. I think 4e is loads more "gamist" than any other version of DnD ever, and more even than many other RPGs in general.

Whereas I mostly agree with Seanchi - D&D has always been one of the most gamist RPGs out there, has always been focused on the dungeon crawl / hack n slash style of playing, and has never been great about supporting non-combat activities.

The way I'm playing 4e now is not all that different from how I played BD&D back in 1985, or AD&D 2e in 1995, or D&D 3e in 2005.  Through the decades and with all kinds of different people, I've always found D&D to play more or less the same way.  It's an action-adventure game about people going off to kill monsters and get treasure.

Kind of like the complaints with the modules - as far back as I can remember, sample adventures and modules for D&D always were heavy-combat / exploration affairs with a tiny bit of role-playing and heavy hand-waving to get to the setup (remember how many modules started with your PCs already assumed to have taken a job or wake up captured or whatever?).

4e is certainly more over the top than ever.  But it's always been an over-the-top kind of game.  It's like complaining about how action movies of the 2000s are too over-the-top these days while talking about how much more realistic "Rambo First Blood Part 2" was.

Quote from: Thanlis;366555If 4e was as awful for roleplay as all that, how could someone with my background possibly be enjoying it?

What's your background?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;366652What's your background?

Roleplaying for 25 years. Started out with Tunnels and Trolls, played AD&D 1st edition for a while. Didn't play 2e, did play a lot of 3e. I have played in lasting campaigns of Feng Shui, Champions, Amber, Unknown Armies, and Primetime Adventures. (Which last I did not like that much.) I have run lasting campaigns of Vampire: the Masquerade, Vampire: the Requiem, WHFRP (James Wallis version), Adventure! d20, and 4e. I've run and played one-shots of... lots of stuff. GURPS, Savage Worlds, Over the Edge, random con games of stuff I'd never heard of, you name it.

If I say "hey, I did not find it very hard to roleplay in 4e," it's probably not because I just don't know how good I'd have it with some other game, is all I'm sayin'.

Quote from: jeff37923;366575I agree. I think that listening to the RPGA crowd for feedback is what caused a lot of the things that turn me off of 4E to come into being with that version of D&D.

It's a problem that started prior to/with the conception of First Ed AD&D. Honestly. Not that it mitigates your point in any way, shape or form -it's not intended to-, it's just that organized play, networks of sustainability and standardization have been issues with the game since it became widely popular, at the dawn of RPG gaming.

4e just happened to turn the volume up to 11.

Edit - Heh, Stormy apparently made the same point afterwards. What's interesting in this regard is that the OGL sort of contradicted the notions of standardization and support from organized play in the sense that what spawned them was the idea that the D&D IP needed to be shaped and controlled, that it had to be clear that one table was playing "D&D" and the other wasn't, for the sake of network sustainability, D&D gamers sharing the same base understanding of what the game is and isn't, etc. With the OGL, suddenly, you had this idea that "hey, what the heck, let's have people publish their variants, create games based on D&D... whatever. So long as it's referring to D&D, it's publicity, and it's good for the brand". Now with 4e, you have a definite come back to the notion that the game has to be standard, providing a very specific type of game play, etc.

Quote from: Benoist;3666594e just happened to turn the volume up to 11....

On the Marshall Stack of magnificence!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366661On the Marshall Stack of magnificence!

Again I reply to the triple winds
running chromatic fifths of derision
outside my window:
   Play louder.
You will not succeed. I am
bound more to my sentences
the more you batter at me
to follow you.
   And the wind,
as before, fingers perfectly
its derisive music.

Quote from: Thanlis;366645The 75% of each race writeup that's dedicated purely to roleplaying, say.

Fluff and extraneous bits have little to do with the core engine of a game. I could write the most detailed fluff in the world on how demons and humanity fit into the world for a Sorcerer campaign and it wouldn't make Sorcerer any less nar in focus.

For the record, I don't think the core game of 4e being focused on the game bits is necessarily bad for the game itself.  D&D, by 'theory-standards', has been a game-sim hybrid for a long time.  Chucking out a lot of the sim aspects addressed issues that were important to a significant subset of D&D players and maybe created a better game for them.  However it's also made it less attractive to a whole 'nother subset (also a significant one), which is why I think we're seeing the rejection of 4e from a lot of long-time players and one of the biggest splits in the fanbase in a long time.

As much as I also hate rejecting something for the sake of rejecting change, I think in this instance we're honestly seeing people who don't believe the game speaks to them on a fundamental level.  I don't think it's so much a matter of comfort levels as it is that the game just doesn't work for them, and it may never, regardless of how much they try to make it work.

Quote from: Benoist;366663Again I reply to the triple winds
running chromatic fifths of derision
outside my window:
   Play louder.
You will not succeed. I am
bound more to my sentences
the more you batter at me
to follow you.
   And the wind,
as before, fingers perfectly
its derisive music.

Don't make me quote Sister Christian at you.

Quote from: estar;366574Administering it may not be their priority but where you think most of their feedback comes from?

Their message boards.

Seanchai

Quote from: Thanlis;3666324e has more rules than OD&D, but it also has a significantly higher percentage of non-gamist material than OD&D. Depends on how you define "loads."

I define "loads" as the game mechanics are "loads" less transparent than OD&D. They are more intrusive in actual application, requiring more metagame thought and decision-making than OD&D.

I will try to provide a metaphor for what I'm referring to. I have in front of me two ways I can hammer a nail into a board. I can pick up a hammer and hit the nail until it's embedded in the board. Or, I can plug in my air compressor, attach an air hose to it, attach a nail gun to that, load the nail into the nail gun, and then fire the nail into the board. There's advantages and disadvantages to each, it all depends on what I need out of having the nail embedded in the board, what kind of nail it is, what kind of board it is, and how many times I'm going to have to repeat the procedure. In each of the processes I achieve a similar result, but just picking up a hammer is quicker, less involved, and more intuitive. It's something I've done many times and barely have to think about, allowing me to devote more of my mind to how the project is going, visualizing the finished product, and also increasing the odds I'll whack the hell out of my hand with the hammer. The nail gun is potentially easier to use once I have it set up correctly, and can be better if I have loads of nails to pound into boards, but it requires a greater engagement with my tool, more thought put into where I can plug it in, keeping the hose out of the way, keeping the job safe so nobody gets shot with a nail. I end up having to be more aware of my tool to use it safely and effectively.

Hope that helps, it's the best way I can think of to describe it at the moment.

Quote from: Peregrin;366664However it's also made it less attractive to a whole 'nother subset (also a significant one), which is why I think we're seeing the rejection of 4e from a lot of long-time players and one of the biggest splits in the fanbase in a long time.

We take this at face value but you know what? I think it's also not true.

Quote from: Peregrin;366664As much as I also hate rejecting something for the sake of rejecting change, I think in this instance we're honestly seeing people who don't believe the game speaks to them on a fundamental level.  I don't think it's so much a matter of comfort levels as it is that the game just doesn't work for them, and it may never, regardless of how much they try to make it work.

And if there's something that's already working for them, why should they try and make it work?

Quote from: Peregrin;366664For the record, I don't think the core game of 4e being focused on the game bits is necessarily bad for the game itself.  D&D, by 'theory-standards', has been a game-sim hybrid for a long time.  Chucking out a lot of the sim aspects addressed issues that were important to a significant subset of D&D players and maybe created a better game for them.  However it's also made it less attractive to a whole 'nother subset (also a significant one), which is why I think we're seeing the rejection of 4e from a lot of long-time players and one of the biggest splits in the fanbase in a long time.

As much as I also hate rejecting something for the sake of rejecting change, I think in this instance we're honestly seeing people who don't believe the game speaks to them on a fundamental level.  I don't think it's so much a matter of comfort levels as it is that the game just doesn't work for them, and it may never, regardless of how much they try to make it work.

Spot on.

Quote from: Thanlis;366673And if there's something that's already working for them, why should they try and make it work?

They shouldn't.  But you also implied earlier that ability to immerse has to do with comfort levels.  I don't agree with that, and I think that the mechanics of 4e discourage immersion for a larger number of people than previous editions due to design choices.