You keep using the word "fun" as if it's objective, not subjective. It might not work for you, but that's not generic enough to be a usable definition.

Then again, 4e wouldn't be fun for me without the roleplaying. By your standard that makes it an RPG. So maybe I could get behind that def.

Quote from: James J Skach;220586Since I've been involved in the conversation about 4e and minis, I want to make clear that this is not my position. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Has it really been anyone's point other than walkerp's? His "minis skirmish game" comment pretty much hijacked the thread.

I'm full on board with Melan's tyranny of fun rant. I think he's spot on about it, and I saw it coming ever since... well, ever since the stupid rust monster article that inspired the original.

But this whole minis sideline is "meh... whatever". I don't like relying on minis more than I feel is helpful, but if you dig it, have a blast. I'm not gonna call it "not roleplaying".

James McMurray: I know people who consider learning traffic order to be most fun, point is that they are very small minority...

And about 4e... well, some people I know consider playing Warhammer 40000 (not dark heresy, minis) without some sort of roleplaying to be boring... but it still doesn't make Warhammer 40000 RPG... or does it...?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220673Has it really been anyone's point other than walkerp's? His "minis skirmish game" comment pretty much hijacked the thread.

Huh?  I've never made that argument.  It definitely is, at it's core, structured around tactical combat encounters using minis and a grid.  But I never said it wasn't an RPG.  And I never said that I had a problem with it being that.  I'm also not alone in saying that (Spinachat, a big fan of 4e, comes to mind).

I take umbrance at the accusation of hijacking the thread.  My post was more about consumer conformity than any criticism of the system itself.  I have no idea how you guys got into the stupid argument about whether or not it's an rpg and I take no responsibility for the thread heading in that direction.

Quote from: jeff37923;220600So, why should people give their opinions if this is what you think you are interpreting, regardless of what they have posted? It would all just be obfuscation to you.

What the hell ya asking me for? You have to ask the people giving their opinions why they feel they should. I'm simply stating what I feel is behind what they are saying. I could be wrong, but I could also be correct as well. It's probably obvious which I think I am, at least until someone convinces me otherwise.

Quote from: Fritzs;220606Said gamer remains RPG as long as roleplaing isn't optional choice that can be entirely ignored, whikle the game still rpovides fun... example of scu game, where roleplaying is entirely otional would be for example Fury of Dracula... you can roleplay in this game, but you don't have to and it might actually slow down the game and make it less fun...

So would classic Traveller fall under this category as well? How about Savage Worlds? Just trying to get a picture of what ya mean here. What, in your opinion, is missing from 4e that was present in previous editions of DnD that makes 4e less of a rpg than those other editions?

And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label. It's just what came to my mind would be the reason for using an alternate designation for the game, especially since it's mostly used by folks who have expressed dissatisfaction with the game.

Quote from: Fritzs;220643Well, actually I don't think I am bringing oppinion here... Imagine playing Shadowrun without slightest roleplaying... said game would be just rolling dice and numericaly describing the efect (you roled 5 succeses, so anemy street samurai got 2 damages -or- you rolled 3 succeses and enemy IC rolled 4, so it's not shuted down)... this game woul not be fun, just not, but if said game has board and minis, it's different story, because it bring a lot more tactical posibilities and it's no longer abstract as boardless comabat in shadowrun is, so this might be fun, even if theres no roleplaying...

So a lot of RPGs are RPGs because they won't work without roleplaying aspect (they might work for some insignificant minority, strong emphasis on insignificance of said minority), while others are just boardgames where roleplaying is technicaly just optional...

I have to disagree with you and side with James again here. Just because you might not enjoy it, others might have a blast doing nothing but running Shadowrun combats with no connection or intervening story in between, so it's your opinion that it's not fun to do so. Even you admit there might be an "insignificant minority" who might enjoy this. The problem here is that your opinion comes into play again because what is "insignificant" to you would most likely not be considered so by said "minority". So, how big does the "minority" need to get to become significant?

Quote from: Sigmund;220708And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label.

The thing is, they aren't mutually exclusive.  It's a question of tendency.  Sure you can do a wide range of roleplaying with 4e and people certainly will, but the tendency of the game is going to go towards encounters structured around balanced combats.  You can already see the bulk of the dialogue about 4e (other than arguing about its pros and cons) is about this kind of stuff.  It's the same with GURPS, where you can do anything but most GURPS players enjoy complex and clever character builds and detailed, internally-consistent combat.  

It sounds like 4e does the high-powered fantasy balanced combat encounter quite well.  You can't really argue about how it does much else, because it doesn't really do much else.  On either side of the argument.  You can't argue that it sucks at roleplaying, but you also can't argue that it is good for roleplaying.  The beauty of our hobby is that a lot of groups don't need system for that stuff.  

However, to close off that argument, what is the system is still going to tend to dominate play and discourse and it will certainly be the case that most 4e games are going to be filled with balanced combat encounters, using pre-codified class-based abilities.  If you find that uninteresting, then why would you be playing 4e?

To try to get back on topic, I have to say that while Melan's OP has a very few points I consider valid, as a whole I have to strongly disagree with the rant as a whole and say that I echo Trev in saying it seems that at the time the post was written it seems Melan has very little direct knowledge of the game at all. Melan makes the same mistake as many others in presenting opinion as objective truth, and what's worse seems to base these opinions on ideas not even espoused by the game he's ranting about. For example, Melan says,

Quote from: Melan"Fun" as "continuous positive reinforcement" and something that comes purely from combat encounters is emphasised over everything else.

But the DMG says the folks in the group are responsible for providing the fun of the game and further says very clearly that different folks have different ideas about what's fun for them. It also goes on to say that different players might find enjoyment from different aspects of the game and advises DMs to keep that in mind. If that's tyranny then bring on the oppression.

Melan makes some reference to the "bad players" and how his opinion is that the design philosophy is catering to them. When talking about this issue he makes reference to players that hated their characters getting killed, complained about game balance (and then again injects his opinion when saying he finds WotC solution as "Uniformisation and sameness"), etc. This is an over-generalization of the many folks having an issue with instant deaths (we've all heard the complaints about "save or die" mechanics), and too much down-time while specialists gain the spot-light. The second issue is hardly common to DnD, as it has been a complaint of all the editions of Shadowrun before the current one (and it's a complaint I agree with). While lots of folks, Melan included, might not like WotC's solution to these issues, at least they are hearing their customers and trying to do something about these issues. I, for one have no problem with 90% of their approach.

As a digression, I do really hate the new save mechanic. I understand that the individual character's strengths are meant to come into play in the initial attack vs. their "defenses", the 50-50 approach to removing ongoing effects no matter how strong or weak the victim might be in the area of resistance just gets under my skin. I can see houseruling this in some way in the future. No game is perfect though.

Back to the topic, I have no idea where Melan is getting this,

Quote from: Melanthere is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design"; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun.

from. If, by writing mechanics for a game make the designer "the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun.", then what game isn't some kind of "tyranny of fun"? Is it because some people seem to think 4e will be harder to houserule than other games? Will it? I honestly don't know, I've never been big on extensive houseruling, just throwing in one or two here and there if needed. I don't see how 4e would be any more or less difficult to houserule than many other games, yet I never read anyone leveling this complaint against them. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding this particular issue. Is it because there are so many sections of advice and guidance for the DM? Melan goes on about some qualified elite, I presume he means in DMing, saving us fromo bad game design, but I see nowhere in any of the books that talk about anything even remotely resembling what he describes. I see the DMG talking about different styles of DMing and their pros and cons, different styles of campaigns and game approachs. Where in this is creativity having suspicion and disapproval cast upon it? To be honest, much of this advice is the kind of advice and guidance I have seen a great many folks give to posters who have come on and asked for advice on starting/running a game. I can see how useful this info could be for newbies coming into the game.

I challenge Melan (or anyone else for that matter) to provide specific examples of how DnD 4e "denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play". Give me references to page and/or game mechanics that support that conclusion. Give me examples of how 4e attempts (any more than any other rpg) to protect gamers from their own mistakes. Explain to me in more detail, with support from the actual text, how 4e will "shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment".

Quote from: walkerp;220712The thing is, they aren't mutually exclusive.  It's a question of tendency.  Sure you can do a wide range of roleplaying with 4e and people certainly will, but the tendency of the game is going to go towards encounters structured around balanced combats.  You can already see the bulk of the dialogue about 4e (other than arguing about its pros and cons) is about this kind of stuff.  It's the same with GURPS, where you can do anything but most GURPS players enjoy complex and clever character builds and detailed, internally-consistent combat.  

It sounds like 4e does the high-powered fantasy balanced combat encounter quite well.  You can't really argue about how it does much else, because it doesn't really do much else.  On either side of the argument.  You can't argue that it sucks at roleplaying, but you also can't argue that it is good for roleplaying.  The beauty of our hobby is that a lot of groups don't need system for that stuff.  

However, to close off that argument, what is the system is still going to tend to dominate play and discourse and it will certainly be the case that most 4e games are going to be filled with balanced combat encounters, using pre-codified class-based abilities.  If you find that uninteresting, then why would you be playing 4e?

Well, I have to agree with ya there then. I guess my view is that DnD has always been about combat-heavy high powered fantasy. Perhaps the issue is that the current language and approach are more honest about that than before. I can also see the emphasis on balanced encounters, but I also know that the DMG specifically mentions the option of throwing unbalanced encounters at parties and simply provides advice on how they might be handled without automatically ending in tpks. It seems like sound advice that might be handy for folks who, unlike most of us, don't have years of experience playing RPGs of all kinds.

The crux of the issue for me is when ya write,

QuoteThe beauty of our hobby is that a lot of groups don't need system for that stuff.

I see lots of people complaining about what seems to be a non-issue simply to have something to complain about. I keep asking and nobody seems to want to answer me, what kinds of mechanics are missing from 4e that were present in previous editions that would make the current editions roleplaying experience more or less enjoyable or difficult to achieve?

Quote from: Sigmund;220723I see lots of people complaining about what seems to be a non-issue simply to have something to complain about. I keep asking and nobody seems to want to answer me, what kinds of mechanics are missing from 4e that were present in previous editions that would make the current editions roleplaying experience more or less enjoyable or difficult to achieve?

Well I had the same problems with 3.x as I do with 4e and I never played 2nd edition, so I can't answer that question for you.  From the 3.x fans here who are not totally psyched about 4e, I think it has to do with a lack of open-endedness in the system.

A lot of the neat-o, if unbalancing, class features have been take out.  The paladin's mount, the animal companions, ranger's woodsman skills are all gone and these went a long way towards fuelling and directing roleplaying.

But that's not massive, from my perspective.  My overall problem is with a system that encourages officialness and the kinds of players who are attracted to that kind of system.  I came to this hobby to use my imagination and systems that tell me exactly what my character is going to have as he or she progresses are boring and limiting to me.

Quote from: Fritzs;220676well, some people I know consider playing Warhammer 40000 (not dark heresy, minis) without some sort of roleplaying to be boring... but it still doesn't make Warhammer 40000 RPG... or does it...?

I think Warhammer 40K with roleplaying is absolutely an RPG.  Especially if you were only controlling one character each.

Quote from: Sigmund;220708And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label. It's just what came to my mind would be the reason for using an alternate designation for the game, especially since it's mostly used by folks who have expressed dissatisfaction with the game.

I think a positive thing to come out of the release of 4e is making the term "roleplaying game" a bit more inclusive of some games that were often seen as "other games".  So you can have a Tactical Skirmish Game that's *also* a Roleplaying game.  Like Battletech.

I think this will lead to a greater exchange of game mechanics between a wider variety of games -- and that's a really good thing.

Quote from: Stuart;220732I think this will lead to a greater exchange of game mechanics between a wider variety of games -- and that's a really good thing.

You got yer peanut butter on my chocolate, you story-gaming homo.

!i!

Quote from: walkerp;220695Huh?  I've never made that argument.  It definitely is, at it's core, structured around tactical combat encounters using minis and a grid.  But I never said it wasn't an RPG.

For some folks, I guess, that's an arguing point. Anyways, that comment did seem to be where the train went off the track. Whether or not it was intentional.

Quote from: Sigmund;220708And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label. It's just what came to my mind would be the reason for using an alternate designation for the game, especially since it's mostly used by folks who have expressed dissatisfaction with the game.

Guess I'll blame Sigmund then. :cool: