Quote from: Werekoala;318453Hey, hey, calm down Francis. I've played some 4e and read the core books, and I don't really have a huge problem with mooks

Not directed at you personally, Chuck. There's been a lot of whining about minions going on in this thread, and countless others over the past year.

Don't like minions? Great, don't use them. No one's forcing you to use them. But compare these two statements:

A. "I don't like minions, so I don't use them."

B. "I don't like minions, and anyone who does like them is a pampered child."

As an aside to the whole minions are "good/bad" you are an "arse/I am going to sulk" arguments don't experienced 4e parties just have stuff ready to deal with minions.  
I assume there are still low level large area of affect damage spells/powers (like buring hands or similar) or filling a sling with loads of buckshot, or making some greek fire molotov cocktails or filling some wine bottles with a mildy poisionos gas (1-6 damage save for 1/2 minimum 1 point) or some device that can spray acid (like a mediveal super-soaker). Surely if the minions are flagged as such they are all dead after round 2 and therefore all they have really done is give the bad guys 2 rounds to get ready and wasted 20-30 minutes while the DM works out how many ogres can be hit by an exploding bottle of Merlot.

Quote from: Werekoala;318427This. Instead of 20 opponents, 15 of which are minions, how about 5 opponents of slightler tougher fiber?

Well, if you don't like minions, yeah, that's pretty much how it works by RAW. It's not like the DM's required to make encounters with minions in them. From what I understand, the option's there because a fight with a bunch of minions is going to offer the 'real' enemies more chances to flank, they can run interference for the tougher guys, etc.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318484Not directed at you personally, Chuck. There's been a lot of whining about minions going on in this thread, and countless others over the past year.

Don't like minions? Great, don't use them. No one's forcing you to use them. But compare these two statements:

A. "I don't like minions, so I don't use them."

B. "I don't like minions, and anyone who does like them is a pampered child."

Your last option is a bit of a mis-representation:

B. "I don't like minions, and anyone who goes on endlessly about how the system was utterly broken before the advent of minions because they claim it makes them feel like a total badass while pretending to be an elf princess who butchers imaginary single hit point opponents by the score and furiously defends the very concept as though it is a core principle to their very existance is like unto a pampered child."

So, as I have mentioned elsewhere:  You like minions?  Great.  You want to prattle on about how cool it is to dispatch crowds of them at a time? Great, but you would see me rolling my eyes if you were on this side of my screen.  You want to carry on endlessly about how horrible D&D was before your personal deity delivered the game into your hands and anyone who doesn't like minions is a fatbeard that 'just doesn't get it'?  Ok, but I am going to have to have something to say about that.  It gets worse if said party wants to make some kind of argument about objective improvements to the ruleset, or how it makes it more 'cinematic' (as though this is also an obvious good) without really looking at the extremely narrow definition of 'cinematic' they are employing.

Quote from: Enlightened;318463Out of curiosity, which games do support it to your satisfaction?

D&D 3E and 3.5E to start with. Paizo's Pathfinder also does a wonderful job of supporting role-playing (based upon the playtest version which I've been running).

Quote from: Sweeney;318267I know the Tyranny of Fun is catchy and all, but it's a made up problem.

No, it's really not.

QuoteIt assumes a group where people want different experiences out of the game but somehow aren't able to just talk about it like adults, so oh my god someone's oppressed.

You're almost describing how the problem originates.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;318503No, it's really not.

You're almost describing how the problem originates.

Yeah, that's pretty much my point, I'm making fun of people for fetishizing and labeling a particular narrow case of not being able to talk to each other and instead blaming it on a rules system that they, I would assume, chose themselves if they're sitting at the table playing it. I mean, obviously nobody has so much free time on their hands that they're going to care this much about a game they're not interested in playing, right?

The actual people at the actual table could jointly make up their minds what the power level is for the game, the kinds of challenges, all that shit. So they were, like, playing a game that collectively they wanted to play. Just like when people get together to play golf they decide whether they want to shoot the shit and hit some balls around, or play each hole for money. And if they can't figure out whether they're doing one or the other, they'll just fucking decide, or go play in two separate groups.

Or they could use cutsey labels and disparage other people for having different preferences and go fucking whine about it to people they weren't even playing with. And the folks who play $20 a hole could look down on the ones who finish a beer a hole, call them shitty cowardly players for not putting their money where their mouth is, too. But the beer a hole guys probably wouldn't give a shit, and might even be amused at the extent the REAL SERIOUS GOLF players have a stick up their ass.

Quote from: jeff37923;318433Wondering where their Craft, Profession, and Perform skills had disappeared to in 4E.

:rotfl:

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318479A system can be said to support roleplaying if the ruleset actually contains information for such. A system lacking support for roleplaying, either by providing a framework or making it as mechanically complicated as combats, cannot be said to be supportive of roleplaying.

Not being supportive of RP is different from the idea that the system is incapable of allowing RP. In theory, roleplaying can be overlaid onto any system, even those that were not intended to handle it; hence why Monopoly, chess, or checkers get brought up in this argument. These are games that were not designed with roleplaying in mind, and the rulesets have nothing to support the roleplay, but you can still roleplay while playing the game.

The argument is that this is what is going on with 4e. It is not that one cannot roleplay; it is that, when you do, you are doing so outside the system, because the framework it provides is sufficient only for combat and dungeon-crawling scenarios.

Soooooo . . . OD&D . . . not a roleplaying game . . . ?

Quote from: jibbajibba;318485As an aside to the whole minions are "good/bad" you are an "arse/I am going to sulk" arguments don't experienced 4e parties just have stuff ready to deal with minions.  
I assume there are still low level large area of affect damage spells/powers (like buring hands or similar) or filling a sling with loads of buckshot, or making some greek fire molotov cocktails or filling some wine bottles with a mildy poisionos gas (1-6 damage save for 1/2 minimum 1 point) or some device that can spray acid (like a mediveal super-soaker). Surely if the minions are flagged as such they are all dead after round 2 and therefore all they have really done is give the bad guys 2 rounds to get ready and wasted 20-30 minutes while the DM works out how many ogres can be hit by an exploding bottle of Merlot.

There are low level area of effect spells and they do get used for that, yes.  As for the other, you'd be surprised and disappointed.  4E players like their powers cards.  The ruleset actually discourages trying anything not written out with a damage total in the book, at least past 1st level:  hit point totals and power damage ranges are such that you're going to want to use your powers in preference to something the DM might only assign 1d6 damage to after rolling his eyes.

Quote from: The Shaman;318515Soooooo . . . OD&D . . . not a roleplaying game . . . ?

OD&D is a role-playing game. 4e is a role-playing game.
The former happens to rock a lot more than the latter, though...

Quote from: The Shaman;318515Soooooo . . . OD&D . . . not a roleplaying game . . . ?

Please bear in mind that I know little of OD&D.

But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

However, were there not rules for such things as morale, reaction rolls, and similar? I believe these were in 1e; were they not in earlier editions? As ridiculously minimal as reaction rolls are, they are at least something.

It is also possible that my definition is too narrow. I just know that 4e feels like WoW, and I scoff when folks call WoW an RPG, thus I scoff when 4e is called an RPG. What, precisely, the essence of RPG-ness is, though, is not something that I can readily say.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318520Bear in mind that I know little of OD&D.

But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

However, were there not rules for such things as morale, reaction rolls, and similar? I believe these were in 1e; were they not in earlier editions? As ridiculously minimal as reaction rolls are, they are at least something.

Yes, but can't a save in 4e fulfill the same role as a morale check in OD&D? What about Bluff and Diplomacy skills? Insight? I don't know, I just disagree with the notion that mechanical elements of the rulebook have to define and/or support role-playing at the table for the game to be considered a "RPG". Rules aren't the be-all end-all of RPGs, IMO.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318520Please bear in mind that I know little of OD&D.

But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

A lot of roleplaying gamers would be very surprised to hear that.

I mean, we'd have to come up with a whole new history of roleplaying games. Instead of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson as the fathers of the hobby, they're relegated to the crazy uncles of roleplaying games.

Quote from: GnomeWorksHowever, were there not rules for such things as morale, reaction rolls, and similar? I believe these were in 1e; were they not in earlier editions? As ridiculously minimal as reaction rolls are, they are at least something.

Well, that moves the limbo stick a smidge higher, then. I honestly don't remember off the top of my head if those are in there or not; I only played OD&D a couple of times myself, and then moved on to blue box and AD&D literally the same month, and AD&D definitely includes this.

Quote from: GnomeWorksIt is also possible that my definition is too narrow.

Perhaps a bit.

I tend to think the act of creating and playing a character is really the necessary element of roleplaying, and the actual mechanics for that can be as simple as, "Okay, you're the Cecile the French nurse and torchsinger, and I'm the German flying ace Baron von Grossewurst, shot down behind enemy lines."

I find mechanics more complex than that tend to become more of a hindrance than a help.

But to each their own.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318520But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

Then your definition is wrong.

I am not a grognard, by the way. I like third edition, and a number of other games besides. Right, with that out of the way...

I'm currently running some "white box" Swords & Wizardry (an OD&D retro-clone) and the roleplaying (or, more accurately, the interplay of characters, sometimes with other beings altogether) has been excellent! Exciting, fun, at times highly amusing, and - very rarely - even moving, or (briefly!) thought-provoking. Lesser or greater than in the last campaign I ran, using a system replete with skill mechanics (including social skills)...? I don't know. Maybe about equal. Whatever. This tells me that "roleplaying mechanics" are not a prerequisite for the occurrence of "roleplaying" during a campaign.

QuoteIt is also possible that my definition is too narrow. I just know that 4e feels like WoW, and I scoff when folks call WoW an RPG, thus I scoff when 4e is called an RPG. What, precisely, the essence of RPG-ness is, though, is not something that I can readily say.

Oh fercrissake. Fourth edition D&D is a RPG. If you don't like it, fine. I don't either, I'll just mention in passing. But to deny that it is what it in fact is... that's just silly.

[edit] ... and besides, 4e even has social mechanics - why then deny it entry into your RPG club? [/edit]

The key issue here isn't whether minions are a good thing or a bad thing. The issue is whether players should base their decisions on metagame knowledge. Should they be told right away which of their opponents are 'minions' in game terms, and which are tougher opponents, when the PCs themselves have no way of immediately knowing, or even recognizing the difference between minions and more serious foes.

If you're playing D&D primarily as a tactical wargame, then it's only fair to tell the players what they're up against so they can make the best analytical game decisions. If you're playing D&D as an immersive roleplaying game, then the players should only know what their PCs know, and act accordingly.

QuoteBut if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

That's only valid if the game is defined by its mechanics. However, early D&D assumed that anything involving PCs relating with NPCs and other non-combat situations should be governed not by rules, but by a player explaining exactly what his PC says and does, and the DM adjudicating the response of the NPCs or the environment to those actions. In other words, the assumption is that an intelligent person at the table is a better judge of the success or failure of social situations involving roleplaying than any hard mechanics.

You want to talk your way into the city gates after dark? Okay, start talking. I (the DM) will decide if you're persuasive or not. That's roleplaying.