You assume I care about 3rd edition or any other incarnation of D&D. I wouldn't want Shadowrun to use any of those systems. Which, not surprisingly, is a point you seem to continue to ignore.

That said, yes, older editions of the game were different -- shocker! -- but all of them -- every last one of them -- had more options available outside of combat (the vast majority of which you ignore in order to make your point, such as all the non-combat oriented spells, proficiencies, class abilities, kit bonuses, situation modifiers, and etc.). 4th Edition, however, went out of its way to throw all of that to the dogs. In fact, your examples are so insanely biased that you may as well not even have bothered mentioning any of it. It's also amazing how everyone in 4th Edition has every skill, all of which automatically increase with them. Even the idiot savant and antisocial Fighter (who's lowest Charisma score is an 8, by and by, because.. uhm.. well, that's just how things are) is a veritable Don Juan at higher levels. That's not a roleplaying mechanic, that's... I don't even know what that is.

And, as an aside, each example you gave were 1) not skill challenges, 2) used just one skill (and only skills; other abilities? wassat? those are only for combat!) each time, and 3) required the exclusion of the majority of other players for each one. All things you were heralding against earlier in the thread.

Oh, and the word is "rogue."

You are knocking the System. I have been playing since 1981. I have run/played almost every system that came out before 2000.
My 4 favorits RPGs are
1] Aftermath, but the combat can get insaine [Up to 20 rolls to determain a single gun shot] {Skill Based Sytem}
2] Shadowrun {Skill Based System}
3] D&D 4e {Level Based System}
4] World of Darkness
Other than D&D the whole system based on Skill Checks and other than a small section on how to roleplay.
They each have thier stong points and weak points.

4e is probably one the best games to teach Roleplay. all of the PHBs, DMGs and most of the source books give you averthing you need to learn to rollplay. D&D PHB1 1st page is "This is a Roleplaying Game".
Every other game on this list requires Soscial Skill Rolls, Driving Rolls, Stealth Rolls and Combat Rolls.

The point I was trying to make is
IT IS THE GROUP NOT THE SYSTEM

I don't see how my example debunks that there is no Rolplay. This could have come up in SR, Aftermath, GURPS, or Bunnies and Burows. You role play and let that dertermine if thier is any modifiers and then make a roll.
In Showdow run it would have been the Face, the Street Sam, the Hacker and the Street Mage It is still all the same.

Sorry, but with utterly insane comments like that, the only thing to do is agree to disagree.

Then I guess the half dozen or more peaple that I have tought D&D don't know how to roleplay.

Not one of your favorites?

I'll agree with you Kovu, D&D is typically the easiest game to introduce people to RPGs. Weather it makes good training for better roleplaying, that is more individual dependent.

I could have made the list longer my Favorites
Furry Outlaws/Pirates
Gear Krieg RPG
Iron Claw/Jade Claw
Wolrd Tree
Toon

I just personally spend half my time playing 4th ed being bored. I mean it pans out combat wise and out of combat wise as a flow chart(all the time) ffs if one wanted you could write a program do play it endlessly for you (tough it would be a slightly inane idea due to no GM input). Sure I've never got to far in to it ect but thats how it seams.

Oh come on, really? It might be one of the easiest to get players for but come on! Mouseguard, Nobilis, Vampire... Your really going to pick D&D 4e?

We recently introduced 3 new players to roleplaying. The GM chose GURPS set in the watership down world because they had all either read the book or seen the cartoon. He pregened our rabbits and we sat down and played. The session rocked cus the GM ignored all the rules in GURPS except roll 3d6 under your skill level. The rest of it was all roleplay, including one bunny making the black rabbit appear crossing the moon using her Fiver power (psionics) to scare away the dogs. That was not in the rules but it was awesome.

Making PreGens is just one of the tools to teach
What else makes it good is somthing nobody ever thinks of, the GM knowledge of the Game/Adventure.
I use the Village of Homlet as my Teaching adventure. I have probably ran it 8-10 times in 1st-4th eds, Oriantals Adventures, Furry Outlaws and I even have a version of it writen for Shadowrun, but I have not run that one yet.
I can run it in my sleep, which means I can concintrate on teaching the rules not what is going to hapen next in the adventure.

Which is to say that GURPS sucks as an introductory game for beginners? Throwing out all the rules is pretty much conceding to that. Which I guess was your point?

I will say that out of all of the D&Ds, a case can be made for 4e as one of the best for experienced GMs to introduce to RPGs, and I would suggest very well could be the best for an inexperienced GM. Basic D&D might be the closest competitor there, yet 4e has a lot of polish for things such as helping beginners to avoid stepping on their own dick.

But once you include the whole of RPGs, yeah, it faces some very stiff competition. Especially on the inexperienced and younger side of GMing.

There's a difference between introducing players to the nature of roleplaying games, and between a game encouraging and being an excellent system with which to roleplay. Huge differences.

my 2 copper....


1. I like D&D4E. I would not say it is my favorite game, but it is an improvement over previous editions. And like it or not, it is the most played game. Which means it will be the easy to find groups/people to play with. Although in my area Pathfinder may be making a run for popularity.

2. I do not disagree with most of what Dr. Funk is saying. I just think he is being a bit unfair. D&D is a Role Playing Game because it allows Role Playing. It may not be the best at it and we can argue the degree to which the game encourages RP. Regardless, RP can and does happen. So no matter how combat centric the game is, it game deserves the title RPG.

It is also unfair to compare combat vs. RP in a game. All games have both. Some just emphasize one over the other and some do a better job at one or the other. (or both) In many cases a products choice in design is driven by its fan base. The truth is that a lot of people want a combat centric game and WoTC is trying to give it to them.

3. Skill challenges were designed to encourage RP. I honestly believe that. Allow me to explain. This is the first time in D&D that an attempt was made to allow character advancement by doing something other than killing things. Theoretically a player could advance without ever engaging in combat. So yes I like the idea of skill challenges. Unfortunately I think the designers missed the mark. Skill challenges in practice, all too often discourage RP in favor of rolling dice.

4. D&D can be a good tool to introduce people to RPG's. Mainly because, as I mentioned above, it is the easiest to find people to play and in many cases the easiest to find material for.

5. Role playing is more about the People than the System, but some systems are more encouraging to RP than others. So, yes I have seen some D&D4E games with great RP. Though truth is, that the better RP players are not drawn to the system.

6. If I want a good beer-drinking chip-eating night of combat with hours of BS and tangents, then I play 4E. If I want more RP and some plot, I play Shadowrun. (Note: Just examples not a definitive list.)

7. Dr. Funk is entitled to his opinion. Though I must say he seems to put a lot of energy into hating D&D4E. Don't hate it, just don't play it.

The discussion was about Shadowrun adopting a D&D4e system. That's what I "hate." I don't care much one way or the other about 4e in and of itself. I even play it from time to time, but I'm going to scoff at anyone who says it's a great roleplaying game, let alone one of the best for encouraging actual roleplaying. That, alone, is patently absurd.

Well to be honest, such a thing would ruin Shadowrun for me as well. I just find your opinion to be a little harsh. (Though basically correct) *shrugs*

The variety of opinions expressed in this thread are the perfect example of why there needs to be a variety of games and systems.

I've said before, and I'll say again, I like D&D4e. It's not perfect, you can roleplay just fine in it. You just have to, you know, roleplay. Kinda like you had to do back in the 80's when I started gaming. Honestly, having skill rolls to fall back on far too often puts the Roll in Roleplaying, even in Shadowrun.

That said, I do still agree with you here. Shadowrun would be terrible under D&D 4e. It would be terrible under D&D 3.X too.

And this thread doesn't quite know what it wants to be. It started off with the "Shadowrun adopting D&D 4e rules", but it's kinda morphed a bit into a general D&D thread, and I think you guys are arguing from two different places.

Bull

Yes, exactly. GURPS is crunch at times (especially character creation) so I wouldnt argue it as a good system for noobs. You can still use it, but that doesnt mean the system is good for it



For an inexperienced GM I would say WFRP 2e. Honestly its all you need in one book and is easier for someone with no roleplaying experience to read and then run better than any other RPG I have read. The sample adventure in the back helps to.

For experienced GMs obviously the game your most familiar with is the best for you. Baring that I would say Mouseguard is a top contender.

I find exactly the opposite. Without the dice what the "roleplay" turns into more and more is coded arguing of the player's case. Having the dice there [properly and judicially applied] takes away that odd situation of trying to get the player's point across through the muddled medium of this strange encoded language of "roleplay". This might not be so bad if you didn't have to try tailor it and aim it so hard at one particular person at the table but, save for outlying games, players effectively do.

Also I don't have to lie to my friends to have the characters I'm controlling effectively deceive the characters they are controlling, or out-stubborn other players to bring across a willful character. So I can push into character further without being a jerk myself.


Of course dice poorly applied often come off brutally jarring. I'm looking at you, as written, D&D 3e Diplomacy.



As noted above in one of my previous posts, when I start talking about a port of SR to different system and was told this was a D&D 4e thread (or something to that effect), it started out with discussions about another the hypothetical of the SR license being falling to another existing RPG company that then brought out an SR5 a different, existing game system as the base for the rules. I think this discussion about how D&D works (4e and otherwise) is a fairly decent part of the discussion....as is talking about rules in general and other options.

I really need to sit down and go through that entire book some time. I was in the playtest but I haven't actually gotten to play all of the finished product. I know there have been some changes but the draft I had was pretty good at steering clear of jargon, keeping things straightforward, and explaining what is going on. Mind you it certainly can trip up experienced RPG gamers that come in with assumptions, that don't just read the rules and play them. *shrug*

Dead wrong. 3rd edition was actually the first version of D&D to only give out xp for combat. But even that statement isn't entirely true. They offered guidelines for rewarding other types of encounters and other ways of getting past encounters... but effectively they turned D&D into a purely combat rewarded game. All previous editions gave out rewards in a much more free form way. Basic (see companion set) actually went so far as to break down what % of xp should come from killing, treasure, roleplay, and other sources. Back then creating magic items was more of a quest, and when you were successful you earned xp not expended it... etc.

Reducing social encounters (yeah, that's the roleplaying part of the game) to dice rolls seriously sucks if that's all you're doing. Versions of D&D do that. Shadowrun does that. This is the make or break part of roleplaying: How does your GM handle it? Does he let gather info, intimidate, and sense motive allow the players to get all the clues, manipulate all the npcs, tell which one is lying, and crack the mystery with a bunch of d20's? Same for Shadowrun: Do you let your players rely purely on dice to deal with the Johnson, do their research, manipulate the ncps, and solve everything so they know exactly who to blast and how to cover it up?

Hell no. You let them roleplay at the very least all the interactions with the npcs of note. Johnson got you by the short hairs and lowballin' you? Put on a show! React how your character would react. Argue your case. At the end of it you may use some dice rolls to help the DM decide how far to swing things (for or against you), but RP > dice any day.

Sure you can still use bluffs on security guards and secretaries, but you're missing out on half the fun of running if you don't play these out with even the bare minimum of interaction. As a DM/GM I want even my players with horrible RL social/interpersonal skills to try to RP, "Step out of your shell and try it, chummer. It's fun, and you'll enjoy it." Then I use the dice to help out: Ok RL your social skills are nil, but your guy does have a 5 charisma and a wad of cash... your RP didn't help (you told the bouncer he's cool and asked to buy him a drink. yeah, that wasn't slick), but I'll let you roll your etiquette to avoid getting your face smashed, and heck maybe he got a laugh out of it and will let you in anyway. When I as a GM don't know one way or the other how a less than essential npc will react, I'll let the dice pick up the slack for the player's ability or lack of ability.

What you personally allow in your games is the make or break, but here's the rub about 4e: The PHP is 318 pages all describing what you can do in combat. WTH!?! Sure, sure, you don't have to run combat all the time, but what the frag are the expectations of the players? They pick up the PHP and want to know what you do in the game, and all they see are 40 pages per class of ways to whack drek.

Compare that to Shadowrun. You don't even get to the rules before you've read a killer story that sucks you into the world of 2070 (or year of choice). The game is the world. The world is its history. And its history is written in the shadows of the streets. Enter the players into those streets.

I take issue with two things/assumptions embedded in that sentence:
1) combat is a great place to "roleplay", as in play the character
2) if you only roll dice for social then it would suck....the same as if you only rolled dice in combat it would suck, and for most RPGs (and other games) you don't because people generally don't like it, sometimes being refered to as "the game playing you" (think Snakes & Ladders where you just roll the dice, there are no decisions for the player to make)

The general criteria for a social conflict resolution mechanism that doesn't "suck" is:
1) not "mind control", it doesn't change the characters attitude even if it does change their actions, ultimately this means that all people running a character than is directly impacted by the outcome must agree to the range of possible outcomes (prior to the roll in pretty much required in practice)
2) things tend to work better when there is a range of different potential outcomes rather than a binary branching, though if you can get binary branching fine enough (lots of rolling) it can have the same effect as multiple potential outcomes
3) the mechanism should heavily encourage players to say/do things IC (be it by 1st person or 3rd person), and what the character expresses should matter, meaning it is factored to the outcome

This is why 3e D&D Diplomacy sucks in use so much. Binary, no mechanism for shared agreed upon range of results prior to the roll (anti-thematic to the rules overall). There is a little bit of what was said done, factoring in, but it usually is only a die bonus...and with the way the distribution curve for a single d20 roll looks (meaning straight, flat line), so with this wide range of outcomes the bonus (unless it is absolutely huge) often doesn't feel like it "mattered".

And no, Shadowrun has never really explained how to do this. The only thing they really have on D&D 3e/4e is: A more varied number of Skills, so you can put have a number of varied rolls quickly after one another, and the curve of the dice pool probability isn't flat, so you can evoke a little more "it mattered" feeling to bonuses. So no, Shadowrun doesn't do a hugely better job of it but D&D would be a move backwards.

Yeah, you're assuming alright. It's hard to "take issue" with something that doesn't contradict your own views.



Exactly. Did you read the entire post before you shot off a reply?

Mesh

Let me tie that back to part of KnightRunner's comment:



That is an improvement that D&D 4e. While I don't agree that it is the first, it is definitely a stride forward (and yes, Basic D&D was in a number of ways superior to AD&D ... probably the most dramatic demonstration of RPG design passing Gary by, in a number of way generally 3e was closer to Basic than AD&D, as the two lines were folded back together). Skill Challenges tries to set up a structure for mixing in both, in a larger structure over an extended period of time. It certainly doesn't reduce it to just dice rolls, although unfortunately the homogenization of the Skill levels in 4e kind of works against it. And overall it's pretty flat, just more than D&D has provided before.

You know, D&D and Shadowrun are entirely different games based on entirely different systems with entirely different goals. I don't know why you're trying to compare them. Just play the one you enjoy or play both if you don't.

You wanna be the hero of the age? Wanna rise to ungodly levels of power and change the very land upon which you tread? Play D&D.

You wanna be a badass criminal in a gritty, dog-eat-dog world where there are no heroes? You wanna live in a world where the only colours are shades of grey, the system crushes the masses and nobody is innocent? Play Shadowrun.

Whichever you play, have lots of fun!

Did you read the thread, the whole thread?

Why bother? This is dumpshock!