Quote from: Glazer;458909I agree, but I think this may be a problem. You see, I think that organised play for what is without doubt the most popular rpg in the world, should probably emphasise role-playing, othewise, what's the point? Shouldn't the aim  be to get people to play and enjoy tabletop rpgs, rather than play and enjoy wargame scenarios?

If you're WotC, the aim is to get people to buy into the game that you're publishing. The point is to make money off it, and they've obviously decided that this is the best way to invest the organised play part of their marketing budget.

You might disagree with that (I would, for many games, but I think D&D4 could pull it off), and they may well turn out to be disappointed by their numbers, but we also don't have access to the same financial data and market research that WotC based their decisions off.

Quote from: thedungeondelverNo, you misunderstand me and I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying if WotC calls this ... variant? would that be the right word to use? straight up D&D rather than breaking it off into it's own subgame ("Dungeon Assault" or something, whatever) then that's fine.

But it's called D&D, because it is a D&D game. Branding the format is fine, but it wouldn't work as well as advertising if they removed the D&D name.

Quote from: jibbajibba;458942I reckon if you turned up to this event with a hobbit who was kind of a reluctant theif who lived to smoke a pipe and never missed 2nd breakfast and chat about fishing the other players might not appreciate it.

Well... yeah. That's not what the group is going to be there to do for this format; they're there to kick ass, it's a game with a distinct victory condition. This isn't the right event for the Hobbit character... unless he's willing to man up and throw down.

If I turned up to your Hobbit slice-of-life game as Killy McKillerson, killbot whose only hobbies are killing, killing, and resurrection (So it can bring people back to life to kill them again, duh), your group might not appreciate it. And that's fine!

Is it roleplaying?

Depends. If my character screws up for in character reasons, cracks under the pressure, freezes at a crucial moment or just makes a dumb call to reflect his low Int score, would that be accepted by the other players or would it be considered bad form and extreme "my guy-ism"?

If it's the later, the tactical aspect of the game is the priority and the actual portrayal of the character just of fluff for the downtime then it doesn't seem  much of a roleplaying game to me.

To fair I would not have much sympathy for that kind of player under there circumstances either. The advertisement clearly states the kind of play that is intended. So either get with the programme or get out. But it still doesn't make it much of rolepalying game to me.

QuoteThe D&D Lair Assault program is designed for players looking for more complex, strategic, and highly tactical challenges.  

I think it says it all right there. Role-playing is not the emphasis of the D&D Lair Assault program. The truth points to itself.

Quote from: Soylent Green;458970Is it roleplaying?

Depends. If my character screws up for in character reasons, cracks under the pressure, freezes at a crucial moment or just makes a dumb call to reflect his low Int score, would that be accepted by the other players or would it be considered bad form and extreme "my guy-ism"?

If it's the later, the tactical aspect of the game is the priority and the actual portrayal of the character just of fluff for the downtime then it doesn't seem  much of a roleplaying game to me.

So does the "challenge the player" mantra of the old-school playstyles make them less of an RPG?

What you're seeing there is a conflict of "What is play about", not the false dichotomy of roll vs role.

I'm not a purist , but yeah playing the character right, getting into it's head is what makes roleplaying fun for me. Challenging the player, not so much. There are better games for that.

Quote from: Soylent Green;458982I'm not a purist , but yeah playing the character right, getting into it's head is what makes roleplaying fun for me. Challenging the player, not so much. There are better games for that.

Different strokes, different gradients.  I think the fact that RPGs can engage people on so many different levels is one of their strengths as a medium.

Quote from: Peregrin;458987Different strokes, different gradients.  I think the fact that RPGs can engage people on so many different levels is one of their strengths as a medium.

Totally. Hence my claim that I am not a purist. And that one of the skills a GM needs to have, figure out what different players are into and work with them.

it sounds like merely a "bring your best build to the fight" kind of thing--which IMO is as much roleplaying as you'd have in talisman or any other board game.  especially if the bulk of the event time would be spent in the "raid" itself.

Quote from: stu2000;458887I read that as "Liar Assault."

"Liar Assault: The Destruction of Kevin Siembieda."

Quote from: beeber;458997it sounds like merely a "bring your best build to the fight" kind of thing--which IMO is as much roleplaying as you'd have in talisman or any other board game.  especially if the bulk of the event time would be spent in the "raid" itself.

Maybe you're thinking of the other board-game that uses minis/maps?  Cause Talisman is pretty damn abstract -- like Monopoly abstract.

It looks like raiding.  It reads like raiding.  I'm fucking certain that it'll play like raiding, which means that there will be no tolerance for amateur theatrics or suboptimal anything.  Since I already play (and raid in) World of Warcraft, I have no motivation whatsoever to partake of this offering.

Quote from: Ladybird;458962Well... yeah. That's not what the group is going to be there to do for this format; they're there to kick ass, it's a game with a distinct victory condition. This isn't the right event for the Hobbit character... unless he's willing to man up and throw down.

If I turned up to your Hobbit slice-of-life game as Killy McKillerson, killbot whose only hobbies are killing, killing, and resurrection (So it can bring people back to life to kill them again, duh), your group might not appreciate it. And that's fine!

True and I appreciate that. I was only messing
 However, I bet that there won't actually be any tactical challenges either.

You won't have a narrow corridor where the PCs can only advance one at a time and the badguys bow then from hidden murder holes above, you won't have an enemy wizard using a combination of spells that disables the special abilits of the party and allow the bad guys to do X or y.

When they say a tactical challenge they actually mean there is a room with 300 monsters in it and you have to kill them all using your super powers inside 10 rounds.

One of the funny things about the way 4e seems to go is that there is this strand of tactics that is very strong but because the game itself is not immersive the tactics are not genuine tactics as much as they are simple system mastery. The tactics part isn't how do we get through that guarded portico without getting mullered its how do I create a Dragonborn Paladin that can consistently do 100 damage in 3 rounds. Going back to the exception based model that grew out of MTG. The tactical part is building the deck, a welll build deck basically always runs the same. This is true of the 4e character build.

Back in the day (86??) I ran something like this using 1e. I told the players they had 1,000,000 experience points. They could make a PC using Xps for levels or for buying magic items. 8 players and the usual stuff you woudl expect, a Cleric of Thor with the guantlets, the Girdle and the Hammer, an uber mage with the sphere of Anhilation in a portable hole, the Paladin with -10AC and the Holy Avenger, The Master assassin with the cloak of displacement and the dust of disappearance, the dual classed Monk Wizard  you know all the old classics

I threw all the old classics back at them, Grimthooth style traps, portals of disenchantment, Alien style badies whose blood was concentrated acid, a Litch that used Wizard eye/project image to bombard then with uber magic, Rust Monster/Trapper hybrids, Spectres that moved though walls and drained levels.

We played for 48 hours straight I killed them all once but they had Res'es, Raises and a Reincarnation an the end 4 of them survived.

Fun but wasn't really roleplaying.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;459408It looks like raiding.  It reads like raiding.  I'm fucking certain that it'll play like raiding, which means that there will be no tolerance for amateur theatrics or suboptimal anything.  Since I already play (and raid in) World of Warcraft, I have no motivation whatsoever to partake of this offering.

The fact that "suboptimal" is a word that was ever attached even to video gaming fills me with the kind of deep, bottomless rage for which the only cure is the destruction of mankind.

Quote from: J Arcane;459426The fact that "suboptimal" is a word that was ever attached even to video gaming fills me with the kind of deep, bottomless rage for which the only cure is the destruction of mankind.

If this goes live, as it were, I fully expect the WOTC forums to degenerate into a virtual clone of the WOW forums- only none of them will produce online TV series such as "Legendary" or "Azeroth Daily" (or attract such personalities).

So, lots of bitching and theory-crafting, and far less funny shit to make up for it.  Lame all around.

Quote from: jibbajibba;459425True and I appreciate that. I was only messing
 However, I bet that there won't actually be any tactical challenges either.

You won't have a narrow corridor where the PCs can only advance one at a time and the badguys bow then from hidden murder holes above, you won't have an enemy wizard using a combination of spells that disables the special abilits of the party and allow the bad guys to do X or y.

When they say a tactical challenge they actually mean there is a room with 300 monsters in it and you have to kill them all using your super powers inside 10 rounds.

From what I've seen of recent adventures, you're probably right.  It's partially 4e's fault but not entirely.  Part of it is the lazy adventure design that's predominant in WOTC.  In recent history, they went from "We don't need no stinking adventures!" to "Maybe we need to throw a few out to prime the pump."  to beginning to realize that they need to put effort in it but not really going all the way back.  

Most of the official stuff seems to preclude any strategy or thought that extends beyond the current encounter (beyond saving daily powers).  This is partially built into the rules 4e's healing.

I think a lot of it is attitude though.  It goes along with what you said about the build being the thing.  Instead of thinking outside the box, they give you a well stocked box and you are expected to use the tools as prescribed.  I've seen some examples from official sources where players can use powers only as described on the card.  It makes sense from a perspective - if playing Magic, what would you think if an opponent tried to reason that monster A realistically should be able to kill monster B instantly despite what the card says?  But they've really given up a key part of what makes roleplaying different from boardgames and computer games.