With the sneak peeks at D&D 4e, coming out on different web sites, I have been hearing a phrase coming up, that has been annoying me. On more than one post and discussion thread, I have heard people talking about how the mechanics for 4e is killing the ability for players to properly role play; that 4e is so crunchy that it is now all roll and not role.

Pure rubbish. Want to know why? Keep reading.

In my tenure playing role playing games, which is edging up on 30 years now, I have never read an RPG that has rules on role playing. All the rules that I have read, and there have been a lot of them, typically cover such things as: combat, vehicle chases, skill checks, magic, super powers, etc. Thats not role playing, in the sense of me playing a character, decisions on my actions, and interacting with NPC’s. That is roll playing, that is the mechanical aspects of a game.

The mechanics of RPG rules cover how to perform actions that are beyond the player’s narrative power. In a combat, a player may have the intent of hitting the monster, but they lack the narrative power to make that happen, by just saying it. Thus the rules of the RPG provide a mechanic to translate intent into narrative, and most often do so with a random element, to make the outcome interesting. Those mechanics can be simple or complex, and they form the roll in an RPG.

All RPG’s grant the player enough narrative power to be able to describe what their character says and to allow them to freely declare the intent of their actions. So a player can decide to talk to the Innkeeper, flirt with the barmaid, or negotiate a treaty with the Prince. The player gets to decide what exactly they are going to say to the to the NPC. They do not, in most games, get to control the outcome of their actions. Typically, these actions are described by the player and are reacted to by the GM who responds for the NPC’s. These interactions for what I would call the role in an RPG.

So before people jump on me, there are times where there are times when the roll borders on the role. In d20 there are skills (roll) for Diplomacy and Bluff, which are more social interactions (role). Even in these cases, the skills do not take away the player’s intent. The player still has to tell the GM that they are engaging in an act of diplomacy, and in the rules encourage the player to create the dialog for that interaction. All that the roll does, is to provide a mechanical way to resolve the encounter, giving the GM the option of introducing some randomness into scene. They also level the playing field for players who are not excellent speakers and play characters who are much more eloquent.

Now on to making my point about these 4e naysayers…

A GM can run the crunchiest game ever made and still have room for role playing. As long as there are scenes or opportunities for players to interact with NPC’s or PC’s, then there is a place for role playing. If you add a combat or a chase into the adventure, you now have some roll playing as well. Then you have a balanced game.

I have been running an Iron Heroes campaign for over two years. I think is safe to say that Iron Heroes is about the crunchiest d20 game, that is currently on the market, and I have not had any problem running a session that has had a healthy mix of role playing, where the players have the opportunity to talk and interact with various NPC’s, as well as plenty of roll playing, through high-octane combat scenes. I have even had a session with nothing but role playing, where a single die was not rolled. So it is possible.

<rant>

So I am at a loss when people start saying that a rule system is turning a role playing game into a roll playing game, I want to huck a few precision edged d20’s at them, because the only thing that can suck the role out of a game is the GM. It does not matter how crunchy the rules to the game are, the GM creates the role playing opportunities within the game, by creating scenes that encourage the players to talk and interact. So if you are GM that thinks that a rule book dictates how and when your players can talk and interact with NPC’s and each other, then you are the role playing equivalent of the religious fundamentalist; so narrow minded and such a slave to the written rules that you cannot figure out how to create something on your own, without some game designer holding your hand. In that case, you are better off putting the RPG book down and considering something a bit more locked down, like a nice CCG or a wargame.

And if that is the case, please stop posting your narrow minded, rule quoting, 4e is the end of the world, views, and leave the forums (you know which ones) for more enlightened discussions on role playing.

</rant>

In any case, the game designer brings the roll to the game, giving us rules for how to resolve actions that fall outside of the narriative power of the player and GM. They create a mechanical representation of the world that allows us GM’s to remain impartial, and for the game to be as much of a mystery to us as it is to the players, through the random resolution of various actions. The GM brings the role to the game. It is the GM’s responsiblity to create interesting NPC’s and to place them, and the PC’s into dramatic situations, to create an enviroment for the players to live through their characters, to feel the rush of emotions, and for those moments be transported somewhere else through the shared narriative experience.

RPG’s are a balance of roll and role. Too much role, and you are just acting. Too much roll, and you are playing a wargame. The balance of those two elements reside strictly in the hand of the GM. Anyone who thinks that it is a game designers job to arbitrate that balance, is just being foolish.

Now its your turn. Do you agree, or disagree?