TheRPGSite

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

I have no problems with using miniatures and the like... my problem comes when combat in a role-playing game becomes needlessly complex.

Carefully counting movement in 5' steps, calculating line-of-sight, gauging area-of-effects and "nudging" special moves add a satisfying amount of depth to the tactics portion of combat, if you like that sort of thing.

The miniatures are there as a result of the need for visualization, not the other way around.  WotC D&D, as an example, would be rather difficult to play without miniatures handy... they're just needed to keep everything straight when all these various rule elements are interacting with one another.

Also, sometimes you just need a visual.  Even the most desriptive DMs can't always convey every single key detail of a complicated fight in an instant.  This isn't always the case though... after all, melee/ranged/magical combat can all be boiled down to very simple elements, if you so desire.

I don't like my combat to be overly tactical, I find that using a complicated ruleset contributes nothing to a game with creative players.  If anything, it will discourage immersion a bit, in the sense that they might be more inclined to "think inside the box", when the box is so clearly laid out on the table before them.  I like my combat rules to more represent my idea of combat... quick, deadly. Dramatic.  Everything happening in a blur.  All of these things are quite possible without visual aids.

DM: "He's about 20ish feet away from the lead character in the group, it's hard to say in the dark with everyone shuffling around."
Player: "The priest's blessing is still on me... I rush them!"
DM: "Heh, fearless!  Hmmm... alright, we'll say you can muscle your way past your teammates and get there in time.  Roll it."
Player:
DM: "Right in the gut, he's dead.  His partner retaliates."
DM:
DM: "His retaliation fails.  His sword hits the wall and you see a brief spark jump from it in the dark."

I see no difference between this and using a grid to count the squares to make sure that he has enough movement points to get there, and to make sure he suffers no AoO and is still within range of effect x and area-spell y.  The DM makes the call and the dice fall in literally seconds.  Works for me.

Quote from: joewolz;279727GURPS only relies on minis when you turn it up to 11.  Basic combat (i.e. sans hexes) is completely narrative based.

Very much agree with this thought.

 Many times its also a case of how a GM handles or runs combat scenes.


- Ed C.

I always thought of the minis as an extension of role-play. It was something I could do in between games. I used to love to shop for the perfect miniature to represent my character, or conversely, I would often make up a character to reflect a really cool miniature. I used to really enjoy trying to paint up the miniature for a favored character or NPC, trying to make it reflect the character as closely as possible. If I found a great monster that wasn't part of the D&D system, I would make something up to represent that monster. None of it was essential to role-play, but I remember that I and a lot of my players tended to think of the minis as an extension of the role playing just as much as a tactical game piece. Being able to say; "this is what she looks like," or "and THIS comes around the corner" was fun. To some extent we used the paint jobs as narrative devices, and this was satisfying precisely because we did do the painting outselves.

Of course this is mostly the reflections of a long time 1st edition player. Thigs are different now. The notion that minis are largely tactical representations is actually rather new to me, and I think it has a lot to do with changes in the marketing strategies of various companies, the presence of plastics and what not.

I would add that I think some of my most satisfying role playing moments have actually occured during combat. They come from situations in which part of the challenge of combat involves something a little beyond simply simply beating the enemy When characters have slightly different agendas going into a battle and the tactical options reflect that, things can get rather interesting.

E.g. a group I was running raided a brothel recently, at least partly due to information that the owner was holding several of the women against their will. Some of the characters cared about that and some didn't. I turned the game over to another player who ran it beautifully. It was a running battle with just enough danger at any given point that real fighting was always happening, but there were always a couple characters essentially free. And so a BIG part of that game was dealing with the customers and the prostitutes, trying to sort out who was a threat and who wasn't, protect the innocent, etc. The battle was an all-day affair, and the various player personalities were fully at stake the entire time.

Ah well.

I like a representational map - minis is almost a meaningless term in these debates because for some it means just actual miniatures, for others it means any type of physical representation, and some folks use the term interchangeably - because they help the GM and players get on the same page about what's happening.

I think shared expectations are vital to a game's success, whether we're talking about game concept, character concept, or what's happening in play, right now. I think a representational map helps out immensely with that.

There are many games I wouldn't want such a map for. These are games where the mechanics are such that participants are neither penalized or rewarded for tactical thinking.

But in the case where there are mechanics dealing with such things, it's nice to know where you stand (that's a pun, by the way). If you're trying to talk an NPC into a particular course of action and you think you're 5 feet away from the NPC but the GM has it in her mind that you're actually 10 feet away, you're not going to be penalized for said misunderstanding. The same thing can't be said of combat in games where there are penalties, etc.

Another thing: Combat is important to players. Most of the time, PCs don't face death during witty repartee. It isn't as if they're going to drop dead if the choose the wrong form of address. It could lead to combat or something else, but it per se isn't deadly. In combat, the stakes are high and because of that, folks really want to know where they stand...

Seanchai

I agree comabt is important to players, but I don't think the fear of death is really the main driver.  Most characters don't tend to die more than once over the course of a campaign, if that. To be honest I don't even remember the last time a character I played got killed.

But perhaps, more to the point, notice how even if the party is comfortably winning a fight, every player will want to do their bit of damage on their turn. Even if there is not real risk, the players are still fully engaged.

I think the thing about combat is that it's one of those few times in a roleplaying game player feel thay have control. I most other activities in a game you kind of rely on the GM interpretation of your action to get a result. In combat, if you hit you know you get to roll that 1d8+2 damage, and it would take a very brave GM to say "Don't roll damage, I think you did 3 points damage this round." But that is actually how a lot of skill systems work. The player rolls dice for a skill and the GM says "I think this happens now."

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

Quote from: kogi.kaishakuninSIGH... 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.

Tactical role play wargaming is only role playing in so far as it is both representative of what actually happens in the field and participants act out the roles.  The screed against 4E D&D is that its combat system is too abstract to be called role play.  This is not to say participants may not act out the role of combatant in a fantasy world.  But it is saying the game is no longer representative enough of combat to qualify the decision making by the participants as role playing.  (obviously they are not physically acting out the roles, just the verbal and decision making aspects).

Combats that are all about manipulating the game mechanics and character abilities tend to break the immersion for my group. The more we look at rules in the books, numbers on the PC sheet, and see the battlefield in game terms, the harder it is to stay immersed in the game world. And if we're not immersed in the game world, it's tough to roleplay.

With miniatures, a grid, and grid-derived mechanics, combats tend to take so long that they feel more like a boardgame than an real-time imaginary movie in our heads.

A contributing factor to the matter is that the common player takes a literal view of thing.  If you say "I strike him with my sword.", then the common player imagines a single swing--as if one used a baseball bat--at the target; he then turns around and interprets this as being represented by that attack roll.  One attack roll equals one simple swing with a melee weapon, or one shot with a ranged weapon, and either you hit or you whiff.  Complicating the matter is that there is no benefit, commonly, for doing more than that; if the literal swing of a sword gets the same attack roll as the flowery description of gripping the blade in a half-sword manner and stabbing his target (something else that most gamers do not know to be possible), then they won't bother trying- this is the origin of the 3.0 (and later) trend of codifying combat maneuvers by way of Feats (and later, Martial Manuevers).

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.

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.

Total bullshit on every level.  Everyone needs to get over the old elitist lie that only rules light/ruleless games allow "true role playing."

Quote from: Gabriel2;280273Total bullshit on every level.  Everyone needs to get over the old elitist lie that only rules light/ruleless games allow "true role playing."

Damn it! I dropped a word

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 NOT truism that it automatically makes roleplaying more difficult.

Quote from: howandwhy99;280255The screed against 4E D&D is that its combat system is too abstract to be called role play.  

To abstract? I don't know what people are looking at as it is highly descriptive. I understand if the objection that it plays like a wuxia film all the time. (The kind where they leap in the air and stuff like that). But it is not abstract in the least.

Quote from: Soylent Green;279723I understand the idea of realism as a goal because it provides a common term of reference.

Not really, because people just argue about what's "realistic". Plus, you know, truth is stranger than fiction and all that. Stuff both good and bad or just plain weird happens in real life which if it were presented in a movie or rpg we'd say, "that's bullshit!"

I like to avoid those moments where everyone at the game table thinks it's stupid, so I never say my campaigns are "realistic". The themes may be realistic, but individual actions, some particular swing of a sword or hacking into a computer won't be.

Quote from: Soylent GreenBut in actual fact, when it come to me, I've never been in combat, neither have my players.

And even if you had, you'd still argue about what was "realistic". I once had two players who were IT professionals. One said "I hack into the GSM network so I can listen in to his mobile calls." The other said, "er, I don't think you can do that." Me, I wouldn't have a clue - but two professional guys who should have a clue had opposite opinions. In the end I said, "well, it's big corporation with billions of dollars and teams of highly-skilled people and the latest equipment and years to prepare vs one competent guy with a laptop and an afternoon. The odds are against you, roll the dice."

So I never aim for realistic, I aim for reasonable or plausible. Sometimes minis can help that, since they help us see things, sometimes they make it like a wargame and it all seems rather abstract. It's hard to feel the sweat and fear of a lethal combat when you're counting movement points. Balance.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279771I agree, that this is basically true, regardless of what game or edition you're talking about [...]

I don't think 4e is any more or less likely to resolve the "I rolled a 17" syndrome.

I don't know about D&D4e, but in GURPS 4e it's all so complicated that almost none of the players know all the rules, so they end up just describing what their character does, the GM tells them to roll and then describes the results. Excessively complex rules enhance roleplaying, how's that for a paradox? :)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;281120I don't know about D&D4e, but in GURPS 4e it's all so complicated that almost none of the players know all the rules, so they end up just describing what their character does, the GM tells them to roll and then describes the results. Excessively complex rules enhance roleplaying, how's that for a paradox? :)

I suspect that it might just be that none of your "cheetoh" players are keeners.
Usually, in a group you'll have a couple of people who'll do what you say above, and those will be the ones who's characters will never get much of the spotlight or will tend to fail in what they attempt.

Then you get the rain-man mega-nerds who've meticulously studied every last paragraph of the 2500 pages of GURPS rules (and for GURPS, read "shadowrun" or "D&D" or "Champions" or whatever), know every loophole, know how to twist and warp the spirit of the rules by sticking to the letter of the rules so that their characters suddenly have superpowers in a non-supers campaign, and end up shitting all over both the emulation of genre, immersion, and everyone elses fun all to get to be Mr. Wins-the-battle.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;281175I suspect that it might just be that none of your "cheetoh" players are keeners.

Some are, it's just that they're usually quite bad at it.

Speaking to other GMs, it seems that D&D is the only game which people regularly try to know most of the rules of. So if you don't play or run that then you're much less likely to have rules be very important. And if you do want rules to be important your best bet is to run D&D.

Quote from: RPGPunditUsually, in a group you'll have a couple of people who'll do what you say above, and those will be the ones who's characters will never get much of the spotlight or will tend to fail in what they attempt.

Not really. The tendency to obsession with rules or indifference to them seems to be a separate thing to how active, reactive or passive a player is during the session.

As for their regular failure, my impression is that you're imagining that players create characters by themselves without talking to a helpful GM. I can't see any other reason except GM spite for their characters tending to fail in what they attempt. If a player says, "I want a character who is really good at X," then the GM ought to be able to walk them through the rules quickly enough that they won't remember them, but slowly enough that they get the sort of character they like. Broadsword 90% is Broadsword 90%, whether it's a player ignorant of the rules or obsessed by them.

Quote from: RPGPunditThen you get the rain-man mega-nerds who've meticulously studied every last paragraph of the 2500 pages of GURPS rules (and for GURPS, read "shadowrun" or "D&D" or "Champions" or whatever), know every loophole, know how to twist and warp the spirit of the rules by sticking to the letter of the rules so that their characters suddenly have superpowers in a non-supers campaign, and end up shitting all over both the emulation of genre, immersion, and everyone elses fun all to get to be Mr. Wins-the-battle.

Yes, there's one of those in my friend's GURPS group. He's less a rules lawyer and more a rules rapist. The campaign is mostly but not entirely dominated by his fucked-up character doing fucked-up things, and he is frequently heard to say, "but I'm just playing in character!"

He tried that shit in an AD&D game of mine and I slapped him down, quoting another rule at him - he didn't try it again. The problem in the GURPS group is that he knows the rules better than the GM. So he never gets the slapdown he needs, and runs roughshod over the events of the session.

Minis might help them a bit. It tends to restrict what your character can see and do. But I s'pose then he'd just read the tactical rpg chapter which is basically designed for minis, and rape those rules, too.

But anyway that's not what most players are like. Most are pretty slack about learning rules, except for some reason D&D. Perhaps it's a cost-benefit thing - HarnMaster or GURPS or Qin or whatever they only expect to play for a few months, D&D they could play any time for decades ahead.

Minis distract me from rp, and from visualising the scene other than in purely tactical terms, so I don't tend to use them.

Other folk, well, some of them find the minis help them visualise the scene and so help them rp.  People vary on stuff like that.

Gurps 3e didn't need minis, it never even occurred to us to use them, and the combat wasn't particularly complex either.  I can't speak to 4e.

I do think the D&D4e system would clash with rp for me, but that doesn't mean those who do play it don't rp, after all, they're not me.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;281120I don't know about D&D4e, but in GURPS 4e it's all so complicated that almost none of the players know all the rules, so they end up just describing what their character does, the GM tells them to roll and then describes the results. Excessively complex rules enhance roleplaying, how's that for a paradox? :)

In GURPS 4e Basic Combat still function like it had in prior edition. You don't need minis and it lends itself to ad hoc referee rulings. The Advance Combat is a full on tactical system using the hex grid and miniatures.

Quote from: RPGPundit;281175Then you get the rain-man mega-nerds who've meticulously studied every last paragraph of the 2500 pages of GURPS rules (and for GURPS, read "shadowrun" or "D&D" or "Champions" or whatever), know every loophole, know how to twist and warp the spirit of the rules by sticking to the letter of the rules so that their characters suddenly have superpowers in a non-supers campaign, and end up shitting all over both the emulation of genre, immersion, and everyone elses fun all to get to be Mr. Wins-the-battle.
RPGPundit

With GURPS at least the problem isn't that any one part is particularly complex (well maybe 3rd edition vehicles is, than goodness I ran a fantasy game) but rather there is a lot of it. So I make cheat sheets for each of my players. They run about two pages and just breaks it down for their characters. I suspect this approach would work with most RPGs with complex combat rules.

In the 1990s making these were a pain due to all the typing. But today PDFs makes creating these sheets a snap. One of the reason I enjoyed GMing 4th edition that is that everything I needed was right there in the stat block. Which is not the case for 3.0/3.5.