[Spectral Knight]

Originally Posted by Susanoo Orbatos

You're the one who decided my "bashing" Gurps was not relevent to the topic.

I didn't have to decide. It was plain enough on its own.

Originally Posted by Susanoo Orbatos

As I only brought up Gurps because its a clear example of an RPG that has less "reason to roleplay" built in and no one has ever said its a board game.

Maybe you should say that in so many words next time, instead of just using an insulting, tacked on little jab at a game written under a completely different design philosophy? It wouldn't make it relevant, but it would make it more easily understood.

Originally Posted by Portin Astorm

So what I think is happening, is that people feel that 4E doesn't emphasize any roleplaying, and highly emphasizes tactical combat. GURPS on the other hand, even without a setting, has a number of inherent role-playing comments and incentives (ads/disads, etc.).

Again, I think this is the case. So from that perspective, since no one had made any comments about GURPS to the point of your post, your comment was non sequitor and irrelevant.

I've got the latest edition of GURPS, and you're exactly right. Comparing GURPS and D&D is comparing apples and oranges, as they're written for entirely different purposes. That both use separate settings, both are in their fourth edition (if you don't count at the 2-3 editions of original D&D), and both use separate world books are their only real similarities.

Originally Posted by Portin Astorm

On the other hand, that's typical in RPG.net forums, so I don't know why Spectral was a) shocked, and b) seemingly somewhat offended.

Actually, I wasn't A, but a little of B. Then again, I've got this thing against bashing games, whether I like them or not, especially when it's not even relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery

Would it be fair to say you feel that D&D's focus on combat detracts from its utility as a role-playing game then? This seems to be you initial point.

No. I was making a general point that seems to escape a lot of people, not just many D&D players: complicated rules do not discourage RP in and of themselves, but remembering them and trying to think in terms of them can, and does. Had I been speaking specifically about D&D4, I would've referred to it.

Originally Posted by Andrew Montgomery

Where I get confused is that you seem to take issue with the previous poster's statement that D&D 4 has more "flavor" in the core books with evocative references, and that it feels more like "fantasy" to him. Your response sounds to me--not putting words in your mouth, just trying to be clear--that you feel evocative references are not enough, and that a role-playing game should contain more setting information and advice on role-playing (from your statement in the first part).

You are essentially correct on the first point. Words that are evocative, but describe nothing, can do a lot for inspiration, but they aren't much good as flavor.

I don't feel that an RPG has to have a setting, but if it doesn't it shouldn't try to pretend it does. Heck, you have to look in a whole different book from their original mentions to find out that the Feywild and the Shadowfell are actually different planes. Even then, the paragraph each that they get seem like they were written only to tack something onto the otherwise meaningless phrases. There's no choice: you have to flesh them out to get any use out of them, or ignore them entirely. That's not setting material, that's a cop out. That's saying, 'We didn't want to write/are incapable of writing an actual setting, so we'll throw all these words out there to give you interesting feelings, so you can do what we didn't.' Better to have nothing at all than to have words that ultimately say nothing.

Here are a few examples of what I mean, from other sources. Some of these phrases I feel are inspiring, but all of them actually mean nothing:

Knight of the Old Code: Okay, what is the Old Code? For that matter, what's the New Code? Is there one? For something that was so essential to the story of a certain dragon-featuring movie, very little is actually said about it. Inference and inconclusive hints dropped throughout the film are all the viewer has to draw upon.

Fell Beast: This term has become so commonplace as to be almost a cliche (for all that it referred to quite a specific creature originally).

Warder of the Wraithgate: One of my own. Warder is obvious enough, but what's the Wraithgate? I followed this one up with a description early on in the story it was in, but by itself it doesn't tell you anything.

Other such glittering generalities include Death Knight, Dread Guard, Dark Tower, The Outfit, Extreme Condition, Unfortunate Events, and New Generation. They make great titles and subtitles, but what do they really tell you?