Game Mechanics for Role Playing?

[vodokar]

Ever since I started playing D&D 4e, I have routinely had people tell me that there is no roleplaying in the game.

Inevitably this is by people who still play 3.5 or pathfinder. When I ask them what they mean, they say something like that there are no game mechanics that support it.

Forgive me, but I have no clue what these people are talking about. Game mechanics for roleplaying? That is an oxymoron. Roleplaying is something that you do. You walk into the pub and talk to the bartender about if he knows anything about x, y, and z. He talks back to you. I'm unaware of this "game mechanic" that you need to do it. Is there a "talk to bartender" skill that you need? Is there a "speaking in character" skill that you need before you can do it? Or how about a "I only know what my character would know" skill.

Yes, I am being a bit satirical here. I'm aware that 3rd edition had a few skills like farming or performing or whatever. 4e didn't continue those skills. Does that mean you can't be a farmer or a performer anymore for roleplaying purposes. NO. It just means you don't need some book giving you permission to do so.

I can't attest to how everyone else plays 4e. I'm sure there are players and DM's out there that don't have a clue how to roleplay. However, every game I play, wether it's 4e or Savage Worlds or whatever, we roleplay. We don't need no stinkin permission or rules to do so. Thank you very much.

If people are playing 4e without roleplaying, it is either because they don't know how or know that you should or they simply don't care about it. It isn't cause the rules don't allow you to do it. It's a player issue, not an issue of the game.

[Koldoon]

it's an excuse by people who support 3.x and Pathfinder not to give 4e a chance. It makes me sad, but I'm not going to force anyone to play 4e who doesn't want to. Frankly I see more roleplaying in my 4e games than I ever did in my 3.x games.

I still wonder where they get this idea from, given that 1st and 2nd edition had very little framework for role playing, and yet I find we did plenty of role playing in those editions.

Anyway. yes, you're right, it doesn't make sense. Any more than the argument that "but you're always going back to just one at-will over and over" from the same group... who thought that was okay for a 1st level wizard after they cast their one spell for the day, or for the fighter to simply continuously do what would now be considered a melee basic attack over and over again.

I will never understand just why people were so vehement this time around that the "other" edition sucked. 4e supporters were just as guilty of attacks on 3.x games. I abandoned a number of cherished forums over these arguments and I still cringe every time I hear the dreaded "but they dumbed it down and there's no role playing, it's just a stupid MMO" argument launched against 4e, or the arguments going the other way against Pathfinder (who I credit for having some of the best adventures ever).

What they all fail to realize is that role play will happen if the DM and players want it to happen. System doesn't really matter.

[vodokar]

Precisely my point. The point of my post wasn't to have a 3.5/pathfinder vs. 4e debate. It is about roleplaying.

I, personally, have never even played 3.5 or pathfinder. I went straight from 1e to 4e. (I have no idea of the merits or detriments of those games, nor was I commenting on them, other than the fact that it seems like anytime I mention that I play 4e that people from that camp step up to put me down cause I don't play their game.) I've also played about 15 other gaming systems. The two others that I'm currently active in is Savage Worlds and Dresden Files (Fate).

My opinion from all that gaming exposure and my point is that roleplaying doesn't need any type of mechanics; it doesn't matter what game it is; either the players do it or they don't.

There definitely weren't any game mechanics for roleplaying in 1e. It was just something that we did.

[Leonal]

I've almost done away with asking for diplomacy/intimidate/bluff/sense motive rolls in my Pathfinder games, which some might consider roleplay-mechanics.

For trivial and less interesting stuff, rolling is fine, but for more exciting encounters it'll be the players' roleplaying vs my roleplaying of the NPCs that decides the outcome.
When I play Rogue Trader (Warhammer 40k RPG), there are fewer rolls outside of combat I feel. Also having degrees of success makes it a bit different, and more interesting to roll than in for example Pathfinder (where the static bonuses makes the die roll irrelevant at times).


******
[Off Topic regarding 4e]
I've only tried 4e once, after getting the three core books, but one of my players couldn't play a wizard like he wanted to, and we abandoned it in favor of Pathfinder.

I don't see it as having less options for roleplaying, but compared to 3.5/Pathfinder it seemed (from the core books at least) to have less utility options. I don't have the books as they're eight time zones away, but Magic Jar, for example, comes to mind.

Of course now he has abandoned GMing Pathfinder in favor of RT, though for other reasons.
[End Off Topic]

[Koldoon]

I've always found it interesting that this topic comes up in regard to 3.5/4e because they actually have pretty much the exact same mechanics for role playing... diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/sense motive in 3.5 vs. diplomacy/bluff/intimidate/insight in 4e. But I agree with the sentiment of the OP, roleplaying doesn't really depend on the system, but on a willingness of the players and DM.

[RKBrumbelow]

It very well could be the kinds of players each system draws in. There are certainly systems that are designed to encourage role-play (I tend to think of WoD in this category) and there are some that tend to promote dungeon crawling (D&D 4th comes to mind)

[Griogre]

While some systems do encourage role playing more than others (typically the ones that have characters that have interesting virtues/flaws) I don't see any version of D&D encouraging role playing more or less than any other version. Its always the group and how much they want to do.

[RKBrumbelow]

While some systems do encourage role playing more than others (typically the ones that have characters that have interesting virtues/flaws) I don't see any version of D&D encouraging role playing more or less than any other version. Its always the group and how much they want to do.

Oh I strongly have to disagree, D&D and AD&D (really any version before 2000) tended to draw in people who were looking to create their own stories and characters. Since 2000 the people I see being drawn in tend to have more of a video game playing mentality where action is pushed more sternly than it had been.

Certainly it is a spectrum, there can be heavy action in more story telling systems and vice versa. You are correct in that it can well depend on the players, but I think the systems draw different players based on their own strengths.

[vodokar]

RK does have a good point in that the new gamers are different than older gamers, thus that sometimes drives some of the differences in game design.

For a few years before I found Fantasy Grounds and restarted my pen & paper role playing, I drifted thru various MMO's. I had some fun and it tided me over, but never truly satisfied me--primarily because of the lack of roleplaying. Sure, there were some people that like me had done actual roleplaying in the past and so tried to bring it online, but most didn't even get the concept.

So, some of those people likely drifted into playing modern versions of D&D. Nothing wrong with that. If they don't get roleplaying or don't want to, but can still have fun, I'm all for it.

But still, my basic point is true: it's not the game itself; it's the players.

Again, RK is right. Some games more heavily promote roleplaying and their genre's steer you more heavily towards that. I'm currently running two games: Dresden Files under the FATE system which will be about 30% action and 70% roleplaying and the writers heavily encourage roleplaying. My D&D campaign, on the other hand, will likely be more like 70% action and 30% roleplaying. It's a different genre, so the mix is different, but both elements are still definitely there. Nothing in D&D stops you from roleplaying.

In fact, here is a direct quote out of the 4e Rules Compendium:

"

TRY IT!

When you play an adventurer, you put yourself into his or her boots and make decisions as if you were that person. You decide which door your adventurer opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your adventurer's personality, motivations, and goals, and you can even speak in character, if you like. Within the boundaries set by the DM, you control what your adventurer can do and say in the game.

Your hero can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. An adventurer's actions might work, or they might fail spectacularly, but either way the player contributed to the unfolding story and had fun."

Sounds like an encouragement to roleplay to me.


And I'm certainly not buying the idea that 1e was more heavy on roleplaying. Case in point. Village of Homlet module by Gygax. Most of the npc's listed didn't even have names. You had a building with a "farmer" along with stats. Uh, why we need stats for a farmer. Was I supposed to fight him? If I were to talk to him, the DM would have had to determine his name and backstory and such on the spot, because the module neglected to tell you any of that. Oh, well, probably not the best example of a module ever done for D&D. But, you see the point.

[Griogre]

Oh I strongly have to disagree, D&D and AD&D (really any version before 2000) tended to draw in people who were looking to create their own stories and characters. Since 2000 the people I see being drawn in tend to have more of a video game playing mentality where action is pushed more sternly than it had been.

Certainly it is a spectrum, there can be heavy action in more story telling systems and vice versa. You are correct in that it can well depend on the players, but I think the systems draw different players based on their own strengths.

I'm going to strongly disagree with you that D&D and AD&D encouraged role playing more than any other edition. I stongly think it was the group make up not the rules.

While I do believe that the introduction of skills was a negative influence on role playing but I believe it was negligible compared to the basic will of the gaming group to spend time interacting with NPCs and each other vs. just going to a dungeon and kicking in a door.

I think you do have a point about certain systems do drawn in different types of gamers. But my point is most groups of the same players tend to do about the same amount of role playing using any system. That's why I don't see much difference in any version of D&D with the same group. If you had a group and they rotated playing D&D, AD&D, C&C, D&D 3.x or 4E I just don't think you would see a difference in the amount of role playing if the group was comfortable with all those different systems.