A very odd take on the system. I don't understand why a system that has a strong social combat or social resultion system would create more role-playing. Rather, it might actually create /less/ roleplaying as free form interaction is replaced with Dominate or Majesty a la Vampire, or some random list of endless Exalted social charms.
D&D has always been about exploring dungeons, fighting dragons, getting stronger, and looting. But on that foundation you've had some of the most memorable epics ever. Did Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment really have advanced social mechanics? They certainly didn't. But they've torn the plotlines of virtually all other games to shreds in comparison. The same goes hands down to the tabletop version.
To me, there is no need for a lengthy system to force me to roleplay. That comes with the territory.
//edit// Also.. I sincerely recommend for you to read the Dungeon Master's Guide. There are excellent, excellent sections on roleplaying and game mastering advice there.
__________________
"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."
Last edited by morgonstjarnan; 10-06-2008 at 07:26 AM..
Hmm... i wonder how this ties with my experience last week, where a great deal of the session was taken-up by us / the PCs arguing about what the fate of a gnome illusionist miscreant acting as a lookout for a band of orc marauders in some very deep wilderness that we had captured.
From basic concerns, like whether he'd run to the orcs & tell on us if we let him free or if he was attacked & killed by some wild animal if we tied him up to more philosophical looks into the thing, like whether killing him was the same or not as killing a foe in battle & if we had the authority to pass judgment on him.
My LG character, a holy warrior (& no sign of "Paladin" on his CharSheet, by the way), after a good deal of back & forth went by that he'd go by whatever judgment the 2 Rangers in the group (an actual one & a multiclass Wizard) would decide on, as in the setting & the place the wilderness rangers (note the non-capitalization, it's a society that both PCs belonged to) were the closest thing to being the law. A big distinction in his eyes that a decision was taken by the 2 of them as officers of the law instead of the group as a bunch of random individuals.
Of course, the others didn't agree.
So, yeah, roleplaying. Certainly not happening in 4e.
__________________
----
"I'm from Greece so i can say 'Tzimisce' with ease."
//edit// Also.. I sincerely recommend for you to read the Dungeon Master's Guide. There are excellent, excellent sections on roleplaying and game mastering advice there.
I second this. The DMG is full of advice on how to run a roleplaying game, to the point that it's even worth reading if you are brand new to GMing but thinking about running some non-D&D game.
First, a disclaimer: I do not, nor do I wish to, play 4E.
That said, just as a question: The three of you who posted previously, let me ask you this. Were you role-players before 4E? What I mean by this is that the reviewer suggests that the book doesn't provide any incentive for role-play. Based on what many (most?) of the reviews have said, it may appeal/seek to draw from computer role-play gamers. In my experience, those individuals are not role-playing. They aren't interacting.
If they come from that background (no real roleplaying), and read the book, would they understand the joys of role-playing, or just have a non-computerized hack?
If you three had previously played RPGs, then it's not like you are going to 'forget' to roleplay with this new edition, and it does mean you are more likely to make assumptions and read-between-the-lines.
So really, I guess the question is this: If I handed a non-role-player 4E, would they understand the role-playing aspects, or just the pseudo-wargame aspects?
I think that is the reviewer's concern. Having not read the books, I don't know. But is it a possibility?
EDIT: Having seen Shawn's comment, one more thing: I am just talking about the PH, as that is what is being reviewed here...
__________________
"Fiction must be believable. Reality has no such requirement." - nexus, responding to an article about a boy who survived a knife stuck through his head.
Last edited by Portin Astorm; 10-06-2008 at 08:26 AM..
Reason: Clarifying Comment
A person who praises a product loves the product and ignores it's flaws, while those who completely throttle the product will let you know what is wrong with it.
What?
Those who praise a product don't need to love the product. And those who praise a product also don't need to ignore its flaws, they just think it's a good product. It's very well possible for people to simply come across a good product and say so, without them becoming unreasonably biased.
Meanwhile, those who completely throttle a product could let us know what is wrong with it, but experience tells us they could also be whiners filled with nerdrage. This is the internet, after all.
Now I'm not saying Dustin Cochran must be the latter, but his statement I quoted above is... out of touch with reality.
I'm not going to discuss the review itself really. Since Yo! Master is already here, anything I say would be redundant.
__________________
Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.
EDIT: Having seen Shawn's comment, one more thing: I am just talking about the PH, as that is what is being reviewed here...
I was actually in the middle of typing up a comment asking a question very similar to the one you asked, then realized that, hey, it's already been brought up. I don't think the PHB is anti-rpg at all, but it certainly doesn't push the whole roleplaying thing anywhere near as well as the DMG.
I'm not sure if this is okay or not. On one hand, the majority of players are only expected to read this one book, so it does have some responsibility to represent the game as a whole. On the other hand, the PHB isn't intended to be a closed environment. Someone at the game (the DM) is expected to have the other two books and to be able to clearly communicate the intended style of play to the rest of the players.
Why did a reasonbly informative review have to turn into a Hasbro conspiracy theory with absolutely no shred of link to reality at the end, thereby making it all to easy to dismiss the reviewer's opinion as just another 4e basher?
__________________
"Once there was a golden age, but since the great Fantasy Heartbreak, they call their land Generica."
So really, I guess the question is this: If I handed a non-role-player 4E, would they understand the role-playing aspects, or just the pseudo-wargame aspects?
See and this is a perfectly valid criticism of the PHB - for people new to RPGs, it's not a very good introduction to the RPing aspect of it. Note I didn't say it was terrible, it does have some basic questions on character personality and such, but it certainly isn't great either.
The reviewer had some good comments, but fell apart in the last few paragraphs, which you could see coming by the word "BOARDGAME" in all caps on the horizon
__________________
--
Learn by going, where to go.
My Auctions! Alternity, Dark Matter, Shadowforce Archer, Riddle of Steel, and Iron Kingdoms: CG
Linear Mode
