Quote:
Originally Posted by Kheros  What we've seen right now about 4th edition is not much, people have so far also focused on the mechanical aspect of 4E saying its better, because well, it can be quantified. Roleplaying you can't really quantify in the same matter since that doesn't really change between editions, its only the options within said roleplay that changes (skills in 3.x for example, made alot of roleplaying with skills possible, multiclassing too made character development better fit.)
However there are also some very clunky rules (spellcasting the major one.) that I personally would like to see go.
I think 4E will be a good thing. One can always add optional rules in, however one cannot always take rules out of a game system which I'd like to do in 3.x  |
Kheros has hit it right on-spot. Roleplaying is something subjective. Rollplaying not. If Wizards wants to appeal to as much people as possible, they have no other choice than to focus on the objective side of things.
I feel that each single lapse in roleplaying-content from Wizards can be made up by the DM and the players.
On a sidenote: I think that the reason many of you believe that Wizards focuses to much on rollplayers, is because they make a lot of powerful/easily abused/broken material. That's undeniable, but it's a sign of incompetence rather than willfull intent. Let me explain: one of the articles on the site was about a playtesting session. Afterwards, one of the developers said that a Druid was a good 5th partymember, but not good as one of the basic four in a group. This only goes to show how limited the very designers' knowledge of the game is. (Everybody worth his salt as a D&D player knows that the Druid is one the most atrociously overpowered classes, especially in Core.)
In conclusion: they simply don't realise what they create.