“You enter the last room in the crypt, there are 3 sealed coffins, lined up in perfect order. A large one, flanked by two smaller ones. The etchings on the wall tell the story of a man who killed his family. You can safely assume these are them.” The Rogue says “I want to open them and see what’s inside. There may be something of interest here.” “Not so fast,” warns the Cleric of Moradin, “I will not allow you to desecrate the resting place of a mother and her children.”
What followed was a twenty minute argument about the consequences of desecrating the tomb and stealing the magical items guarding the bodies in the afterlife. This was roleplaying at its purest form, and it happened within the constraints of the 4th ed. ruleset. I want to understand critic’s arguments about the (apparent) lack of roleplaying capabilities of 4th Ed.
When I played my most recent game of 3.5, we’re talking maybe 2 1/2 years ago, our Dm was running us through “Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil”. I have not read the module, but the way it was run, it seemed like a big dungeon crawl once you were inside. As I experienced it, the potential for roleplaying was minimal at best. I may have had a crappy DM, but that’s what I got from it. We never finished, so who knows how it played out… Now, I love roleplaying, and I love crafting a story. My real life job involves producing, creating, and pleasing audiences, so being creative (or attempting to be) is something I have to do every day to feed my family, so having to do it in my hobby is fairly easy. I like stories and I like the players to feel involved in it, and for the most part they do.
I have yet to feel that the system is hindering my ability to craft a good story, or feel that the players are not able to get into character and get involved in whatever plot I’ve laid out for them. Rather, it’s the opposite, as sometimes emails fly back and forth between game sessions speculating about what’s happening next.
So I put it out there to the reader: convince me that 4th Ed. is keeping my players and I from experiencing role-playing. I want to know why you feel that is. Is it because the craft skill is gone? You can no longer (on paper) be a fisherman? So what? “Hey DM, my character fishes for a living, and makes pottery on the side.” “Ok.”
I don’t understand. KOTS gets a lot of flack for being all combat and no role-play. That’s bad DM’ing. Splug can be role-played, the Hobgoblin Warchief can be role-played, the characters in Winterhaven, Kalarel, all those guys can come to life if the DM cares too.
My take on it? MMORPGs may have something to do with it I think. Players have gotten so used to just chatting as themselves on those games, seeing monsters re-spawn 10 minutes later, metagaming the hell out of it, that they’ve forgotten how to create three-dimensional characters. A digital avatar doesn’t need to be three-dimensional, so neither does the character sheet.
I argue that the system has nothing to do with it, it’s the way you are playing the system.
As a group, we’ve role-played plenty in my campaign.
Why aren’t you?
www. Newbie DM .com 
Mad Brew
May 1, 2009
Yeah, I recently had a comment asking my opinion about 4e hindering roleplay… you can roleplay with every system I know of… it’s a matter of group dynamics and expectations.
mmaranda
May 1, 2009
Any game can be a dungeon slog or roleplay heavy if the DM wants it. I believe that 4E provides a number of ways to let DMs and players “play” social encounters without really roleplaying. Does that mean the system is flawed?
Nope!
It does, however, give people some ammo against the game, to claim it isn’t an RPG but is instead a Skirmish Scenario Generator.
Marcel Beaudoin
May 1, 2009
Personally, I think that the amount of RP that you experience in a group is *much* more dependant on the personality of the group and how they mesh with the rules as opposed to only the rules.
There are some groups for whom the ability to say in their background “I was trained as a furniture maker” opens up the world of RP opportunities much more than putting skill points in “Profession: Furniture Maker” ever would. The lack of rules (and thus, restrictions) will, for some people, allow them the freedom for their imaginations to run wild.
There are others for whom that freedom is almost paralysing. To use an analogy, take me the first time I went to buy some 3.5 Ed books. I enter the game store, and the sheer number of options (once I had grabbed the PHB) was almost paralysing to me. For these people, having the limitations defined for them allows them much more freedom to roleplay within those limitations.
Neither side is right, neither is wrong.
Rob Conley
May 1, 2009
The problem isn’t the 4e Rules but the 4e presentation of the supporting products.
newbiedm
May 1, 2009
@Rob Conley – That comment warrants a follow up… what do you mean?
Zachary
May 1, 2009
Agree with Mad Brew. There are a lot of reasons I didn’t go with 4e, but of course you can still RP with it. There are games that reward (and ostensibly encourage) RP through game mechanics and recommended rewards, but I don’t see 4e or the earlier D&D editions being any different in regards to that they largely leave RPing outside any heavy mechanics tie-in.
mike
May 1, 2009
your not a fisherman on paper though, your a hero that’s the point of 4e is the players are hero’s. even at 1st level, people know you. you want to make money on the site, go adventuring that’s what you do. you can come from a fishing background sure, that adds character.
but roleplaying comes down to the players and DM’s. sometimes roleplaying is rollplaying. i find 4e is too new to really judge it, people in my game have loads of fun in the fights, and roleplay the story that leads up to the fight. give the characters options in combat that are not combat options.
think of it like die hard, vs lord of the rings. die hard has some roleplaying and very action pack (die hard 3 is full of skill challenges). and lord of the rings is heavy roleplaying, walking and walking for one stupid ring, how boring is that.
anyway just my opinion.
Dead Orcs
May 1, 2009
Excellent post, Newbiedm. I’ve never understood the argument that there is a role-playing “deficiency” in 4E. Is there enhanced focus on combat mechanics and miniatures? Sure. However, it’s up to the DM (and his players as well) to craft the story and make attempts to role-play. No game system can really do that for you.
B Suskind
May 1, 2009
I think what Rob Conley was getting at is that 4e is presented with a much greater focus on enhancing the table-top combat aspect of the game. Was this at the expense of roleplaying? Again that depends on the group you are playing with.
I’m also in the business of creating characters and entertaining audiences so I think anyone can roleplay anything.
Here’s a phonebook and a set of dice, go!
That said, I think the criticism of 4e comes from a lack of material supporting non-combat roleplaying. This only means that the system does not spell out how to handle social situations as much as previous editions. Any DM worth his salt can (and should) add these elements back into the game if his players are supportive of it.
Is 4e a bit less aimed at roleplaying? Sure.
Does 4e cause less roleplaying? No.
Is 4e better than 3.5 or other editions? That’s a tale for another time. (Cue Conan music)
wickedmurph
May 1, 2009
I think in 4e they intentionally put the rules in the place that they needed them – combat. Role-playing has always been something that was mostly non-dice related for me, while combat always needed good, clear rules.
The only issues I’ve had with 4e and role-playing is that the use of the powers can be somewhat immersion-breaking. With a little training of the players, and good examples by the DM, you can get around the issue though.
Generally speaking, I haven’t had any more difficulty fostering good role-playing in 4e than I have in any other version of D&D. It’s rarely quite as good as White Wolf stuff, mind you, but that’s kinda the nature of the beast.
Dominic Ford
May 1, 2009
We just finished two sessions of pure RP in our campaign, which is full fledged 4E, with no real house rules to encourage RPing (although I do give XP for certain things, like background construction, a bio of allies/friends, etc.) They could have gone into combat, but worked out a different way of overcoming the challenge.
newbiedm
May 1, 2009
By the way, not all combat needs to end in death.
The Intimidate skill leads right into roleplaying in the middle of combat.
Nick
May 1, 2009
I agree with wickedmurph, the Power system can certainly be immersion-breaking. It’s pro’lly the only problem I have with the game, but it’s such a big part of the game that I can’t ignore it. The only character I could build and fun with was a Wizard, since most of the spells I could pick would not come off as immersion-breaking.
wickedmurph
May 1, 2009
That’s not to say you can’t get by the immersion issue, though. Using a variation of the flavor text instead of the power name helps. As does encouraging players to describe how exactly they are using the powers, and adding situational bonuses if they do a good job.
Ultimately, the tone that the DM sets is largely (but not completely) responsible for how much role-playing happens.
newbiedm
May 1, 2009
Don’t think of them as powers, but “just the way I fight”.
“I just happen to launch 2 arrows really quick” as opposed to “i have the twin strike power”.
Rob Conley
May 1, 2009
@newbiedm – if a company puts out RPG X that is meant for a broad genre rather than a narrow niche or setting. If the company puts out a bunch of adventures and other products that are focused on a narrow niche of that broad genre then their customers will think that RPG X is really for the narrow niche.
D&D 4th edition is meant for the broad fantasy genre. It has two problem here. First the selection of powers and classes make it fee like High Fantasy. Now D&D was never a generic toolkit but older edition had a certain flexibility was what it mean to be one of the character.
With D&D 4th edition the power give a definite “high fantasy” feel to each of the class.
The second are the adventures and splat books (Perils from the Grave, etc). They almost solely focused on the battle board with tones of encounters, stat blocks, and other items to get you going.
Now having played 4e and reading some of the third party products out there. There no real reason why 4e has to be anything. It is very flexible if you put the time in to create different power lists. You easily alter the feel of the game by doing this.
Also it is OK to have “lite rules” outside of combat. It not like that the 1974 rules for D&D had much outside support outside of certain areas.
However when your support products repeatably minimize the non-combat aspects then your customer base will think your RPG is about combat not that roleplaying stuff.
The 4th edition DMG is one of the best that has been released for any edition. One reason is that it gives you a full laid out town and mini-setting to adventures. Along with excellent advice on refereeing all aspects of roleplaying game. The the one thing that really I thought was clunky was the included dungeon which is little more than a handful of combat encounters strung together.
The problem is that out of all of the advice in that DMG they choose to follow was that dungeon. They are ignoring the rest.
However there are indications that Wizards is realizing that what they have been publishing has be skewed too much to one style of play. So we will see what lat 09 and 2010 brings.
Finally I stated elsewhere one thing I would be doing differently is offering sub-genre books. I would provide explicit support for different styles of play, Dark Fantasy, Swords & Sorcery, etc and endeavor to make 4e a big tent covering all aspect of Fantasy RPGs.
newbiedm
May 1, 2009
@Rob – Yeah, but I would argue that Wizards is in fact facilitating the RP aspect of D&D, by not filling the book with fluff, and forcing the DM to create it himself.
One of the reasons I hate playing in established settings (and don’t do it here at home) is the baggage that came with it, and the need to work your way around established npc’s and history.
In 4th Ed., they give you nothing. Zip. Just rules and stats. The rest you get to make up and use your imagination.
Remember, 1st Ed. D&D gave measurements in inches! Inches! If that wasn’t combat based, what was?
Rob Conley
May 1, 2009
The Rulebooks are fine. It is the subsequent adventures and monster books that are the issue. Points of Light by D Gillingham and myself shows how combat challenges can be interwoven with roleplaying hooks in a product that caters to 4e.
Sean Brady
May 1, 2009
I think this was a great article. I am of the opinion that the roleplaying is not something that is part of the rules of a game. It is part of the players playing that game. All RPG’s have some sort of basic resolution mechanic, and 4e is no exception. As a DM I think that any game with a resolution mechanic can facilitate roleplay if the GM and players want it.
I am getting ready to start a 4e campaign with a modified Keep on the Sahdowfell. There is a lot of great information in that book to facilitate roleplay. Read what Wil Wheaton was able to do with it, and some teenagers to facilitate some roleplaying. I don’t really want a bunch of roleplay rules n the module, I would rather it emerge from the players and the gm. IMHO, 4e works as well as any other system I play at facilitating non-combat oriented roleplaying.
Harlan
May 1, 2009
And to be clear, there WERE goodies inside the tomb.
newbiedm
May 1, 2009
“And to be clear, there WERE goodies inside the tomb.”
So says the Rogue who can’t pick a lock out of a lineup.
Wimwick
May 1, 2009
Great post, I must admit based on the title I arrived expecting to read another post bashing 4e and the inability to roleplay with the mechanics. So here I am pleasantly suprised!
Role playing is all about group dynamics and personalities. My group has had plenty of great role playing opportunities with 4e. I have to shake my head at the critics who seem to want a system with hard rules and mechanics on how to role play, doesn’t that just defeat the purpose?
Great post today.
Rob Conley
May 1, 2009
I am getting ready to start a 4e campaign with a modified Keep on the Sahdowfell. There is a lot of great information in that book to facilitate roleplay.
Yes however I find the ratio to be way to high. The encounter format just sucks up way too much space. Even when they don’t use encounters, they still choose a bad ratio. In Adventurer Vault the neat vehicle rules and stuff were a small portion of the larger book. Perils of the Grave likely in roleplaying stuff. 4e has it but they need to improve the ratio to a lot higher level.
Micah
May 1, 2009
The restructuring of spells to be so combat heavy removed a lot of the creative problem solving, IMO. Some of the best RP sessions come from a botched attempt at solving something with a spell, then trying to RP your way out of it.
Graham
May 1, 2009
That rather misses the point.
G
Michael
May 1, 2009
There’s a difference between playing pretend and playing a role playing game. 3.5 and ogl games have in-game rule for role playing, that is game rules that faciliate and moderate the role playing. 4e leaves it up to the DM, which is the equivelnt of allowing role playing in a game of clue. To this effect, 4e is no different than every miniatures game I’ve played. Sure you could pretend to be the characters, but without hte ruleset it is what it is, a game of retend.
An RPG is a different type of game, one that provides rules and guidelines for role playing other than (you have hte option).
When you decide to role play in 4e, you are now leaving the system you are playing and making up your own rules, opening the door for all types of inconsistancies and rules discussions.
newbiedm
May 1, 2009
What rules did 3.5 have to facilitate roleplaying? The only sort of rule I can think of is the “award some extra xp for good roleplaying” one, which I can houserule tonight…
What rule discussions and inconsistencies are you referring to that could come about by role playing in 4th ed.? Did you experience this phenomenon?
I haven’t come across any since July 2008, which is when we started our campaign.
Robert Conley
May 1, 2009
Ok. What rules did 3.5 have to facilitate roleplaying?
Skills (which 4e has) and more important Feats that did not relate to combat.
This issue goes to the heart of two differing style of play. Lite versus full-on. Lite relies on referees tracking what the players have done in past sessions and adjudicating on that basis. “You took 3 months and now you can create Extra Healing Potions”. The full-on approach assigns numbers and relies on formal rule system. “You bought your skill up to a 20 you can now make extra healing potions.” Most games are hybrid of the two approaches.
As for players they like the full-on approach because they can customize their characters to the nth degree. If you want to make a adventuring blacksmith you can.
Player like the lite approach because they don’t want to be burdened with a load of extra rules. They like the free form interaction with the referee.
As for 4e it is full-on with combat but lite with everything else. It is an interesting approach.
Alan De Smet
May 1, 2009
If a 7-year-old kid playing in the Keep on the Shadowfell with the stock characters can manage to role-play in 4e, I trust adults can figure it out. http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6630
(Now this isn’t to say that 4e will heal the lame, or even that it’s appropriate for all situations. I’m on the fence myself, feeling there is absolute brilliance mixed with mind boggling idiocy, and while 4e delivers heroic fantasy adventures out of the box better than any previous edition, it did so at the cost of the unique and still enjoyable style that previous editions had. But 4e is hardly the miniatures combat game with RPG dressing that some paint it as.)
Richard Green
May 1, 2009
Great post! I’m in four 4e campaigns (playing in two, DMing the others) and we’ve carried on role-playing just as we did in 1st edition, 2e & 3.x. Our DM for Keep on the Shadowfell made a big effort with the NPCs and is doing the same thing in Thunderspire Labyrinth – great fun!
Martin Ralya
May 1, 2009
It’s not that 4e actively inhibits roleplaying, it’s just that as a system it doesn’t do much in particular to encourage it.
I mused about this from the other end on the Stew: RPGs Are Engines for Making Interesting Decisions. D&D doesn’t support many interesting decisions outside of combat — whereas as system like Burning Wheel has mechanics that dovetail directly with things you want to roleplay.
It’s got nothing to do with one being a better game than the other; they just do different things well.
Mike Shea
May 1, 2009
I think people can roleplay as much in 4e as they can in any other system but I do think 4e has such a refined tabletop battle system that people tend to focus on that. I know my current group (with your friend Jorge in it) tends to focus more on combat than roleplaying. It doesn’t matter – we’re having fun.
I think less battle-heavy systems are more roleplay friendly simply by the fact that they don’t have a lot of rules for combat.
Still, its up to the DM and the players to decide how much roleplaying they’re going to put in.
Sean Brady
May 1, 2009
I think a lot of this will come down to preference. I love a good hack n slash game where to much talk will just get you more hacked or slashed, but I also like story development and interaction between characters.
I have Burning Wheel and Burning Empires and that system confuses the hell out of me. In my opinion all the intricacies and insane detail of a system like BW (which I will admit to having never played – though I have read it) make it just plain hard to play. Again, this is likely just preference, but I don’t really need complex social interaction rules. IMHO, there is plenty in 4e to meet my needs.
kaeosdad
May 1, 2009
Here’s my solution to the immersion breaking powers
http://symptomsofmadness.blogspot.com/2009/03/adding-your-own-flavor.html
Basically white out the power names and the fluff and have the players come up with their own descriptions using just the mechanics. Treat powers as tactical options the character has at their disposal.
This solution isn’t something that should be done at the first session though, let new gamers get used to it, have them describe what happens whenever they kill a monster, whenever they use a new power for the first time have them describe it. It slows down the game initially but after a few sessions have everyone erase the power card names(white out) and let them describe what they are doing and use the power cards purely as mechanics for tactical options.
kaeosdad
May 1, 2009
Also@rob: What you propose may support role playing, but not having a system in place does not hinder role playing. It hinders accurately simulating crafting, professions and such by not having a set mechanic but not having a system to support it does NOT hinder role playing.
I agree that it would be helpful and nice to have such mechanics available, but the game is new and 4e is an excellent intro for new gamers.
I’m glad they didn’t focus on those systems because it makes running games and playing in them much more accessible. If you feel they are a necessity than please stop being elitist and just play.
I do wish their were additional systems and have settled to work on my own, but you know what? It does not hinder role playing, i repeat it does not hinder role playing and you are looking into it the wrong way and completely missing the point.
4e is accessible, 4e is standardized so it’s easy to home brew and house rule the hell out of it, 4e is introducing a whole new generation of gamers to role playing and 4e can be just a war game if you want it to be just that, but if you want to play it as a role playing game it can be that too. I’d recommend just dropping skill challenges and using your own power descriptions and dropping power names. Those are the only things that I can see as hindering role playing.
mxyzplk
May 2, 2009
System does matter when it comes to role-playing. It’s certainly not *everything*. A group can certainly role-play in any system including Monopoly. But Monopoly doesn’t support that, and as time goes on, when you move around and try to play Monopoly with other groups of people, they’re going to think you’re a freak. Especially as 4e is supposed to introduce new people to the hobby and not rely on experienced role-players, my concern is that overall and over time, it will alter the character of the “average gaming group” towards the gamist. If you take five brand new gamers, hand them 4e, and have them play it – what kind of game do you think will emerge on average? Will they all intuit role-playing out of nothing?
D&D 4e has moved pretty far in that direction. Its majority focus is on the tactical minis combat, and clearly the majority of time and effort is intended to be expended on that (and the published adventures, etc. back that up.) Spells are now useless outside of combat. Powers have “gamist” effects that harm immersion. People admit these flaws and show articles on how you can mitigate or fix them – write your own power descriptions, fix skill challenges, try to play without minis… Sure, you can change it up and make it work better, totally.
But in my case, I had to ask “why?” Why make this game work when there’s hundreds of others? Does it really capture enough of that D&D spirit that I’ve played throughout many editions to do that? I always felt that as I transitioned from Basic to 1e to 2e to 3e that the core game had kept the same spirit but gotten better, so I adopted the new version and altered the remaining rough edges. With 4e I don’t see that, personally. In my opinion 3e and maybe even 2e are better games.
I might be tempted to ride it out if it appeared that things would be improving, but with WotC growing in hatefulness every month, that’s unlikely. I see a comment above that the GSL Points of Light does things more “right” in 4e, and sadly that’s the kind of third party product minimized by moving from the OGL to the GSL, as well as minimizing the kinds of changes a supplement like that can propose.
So is it impossible to role-play in 4e? No. Especially for veteran role-players, you can impose your own group conceit upon it. Does it do one single thing to help you do that? No.
I built a DIY bookcase with only a screwdriver; I used its haft to bang in the nails for the back. Yay for my ability, but boo for a screwdriver being the right tool for the job.
kaeosdad
May 2, 2009
>>But in my case, I had to ask “why?” Why make this game work when there’s hundreds of others? <<
simple answer mxy: I like the combat system. It’s a brand new game that has obviously not been playtested enough so naturally their are some flaws. Hell, it’s been 30 years and people are still figuring out the “right” way to play od&d.
I also like the simple monster stat blocks, and the accessibility of the system.
Man, I just realized that this string of comments is quickly moving into edition wars territory.
Alright, I’ll say it, if you have to ask why or don’t understand get over it and move on. Stop taking a shit on everyone else’s parade by passively trying to convince everyone of your editions superiority.
Also I just realized that 4e does support role playing.
It’s called CHARACTER CREATION!!!
You don’t make your own character with a background, history, and such in monopoly. You could but their are NO rules to support it in monopoly. Sure their are less skill options for crafting and professions, but guess what, you don’t need it for role playing!
So 4e does indeed support role playing since you create your own character who’s role you take on.
I also made my own french fries out of a potato and I had to use a fork to cut the wedges, yay for obscure nonsensical metaphors, but boo for being a passive agressive elitist.
xero
May 2, 2009
My group has done more RPing in a year of 4E than we ever did with 3E. It’s a matter of perspective. With 3E any attempt at RPing was hampered by what the rules supported. In 3E the RP rules were more heavily tied into the combat system, so focusing on one lead to the detriment of the other. Not so in 4E; there are no real mechanics for deep RP, which frees it up considerably. In my 4E game, I’m currently playing an amnesiac warforged barbarian who thinks he’s a minotaur. As silly as it sounds, he ended up turning into a pretty deep character with lots of RP hooks for further down the line and so on. I don’t know if I could do this in 3E, because I’d have to figure out many skill points I’d have to put into “profession(bovine)” and “knowledge(labyrinth)”, and then I’d be short-handed when it came to things like jump or endurance.
mxyzplk
May 2, 2009
@kaeosdad, I quote from the original post – “convince me that 4th Ed. is keeping my players and I from experiencing role-playing.” Seems to me this invites response. No one’s “taking a shit” on anything, but if that’s the level of discourse you require, then suck my nuts.
kaeosdad
May 2, 2009
suck your own damn nuts. nut
Mythranar
May 3, 2009
Newbie, we roleplay alot at your house when we play. Remember when you asked us to kidnapp the girl and we all stared at each other wondering WTF!! It didn’t matter if we were unaligned, we all knew that we would be crossing a line with that and role-played the hell out of it.
Role-playing starts with the players and if you have a good DM, he will add story to what the players are trying to accomplish.
Personally, I love playing a bard just for the role-playing possibilities.
Tommi
May 3, 2009
I can’t accept this challenge without also explaining why 3e hurts/does not help roleplaying, as the games are very similar in this respect.
First thing is defining roleplaying in this context. I’ll stick with making important decisions that tell something about the character’s inner life. I think it is a pretty good definition for this discussion.
Right. The first, most obvious, part is that combat takes obscene amounts of time in both 3rd and 4th edition and further all materials (that I have seen) encourage plenty of combats. This is a problem because most of the time the combats are an exercise in tactical decisions, not character-revealing ones. There are of course exceptions; chase the enemy leader or help defending your comrades, say; but they are not, in my experience/by hearsay very common and the rules do little to encourage such moments.
Second, more subtle, feature is that both 4e and 3e encourage GM to script the game ahead of time. Preparing encounters (an activity certainly encouraged by both games) does this, as does the very concept of adventure paths. An adventure scripted by GM makes some choices (that would reveal character) null and void, hence by the definition I decided to use reduces roleplaying.
Actually, I have a third point, though that I’m not sure it relates to the games themselves as much as to the culture surrounding them. Third issue is fudging. At least 3e DMG had something not entirely negative to say about it, I think. Fudging makes some decisions taken and statements made by players effectively null, hence reducing roleplay. For example, a rash action done in spite of the risk that character might die tells a lot about the character when the dice are rolled in the open. When there is fudging, this is not true.
d7
May 4, 2009
The only issues I’ve had with 4e and role-playing is that the use of the powers can be somewhat immersion-breaking. With a little training of the players, and good examples by the DM, you can get around the issue though. — wickedmurph
This is actually a deal-breaker for me in any system, and why I stopped playing 4e despite being gung-ho to play it at launch. For me, immersion is necessary in order to roleplay, so anything that repeatedly breaks immersion is going to hinder my roleplaying. Not everyone plays RPGs for the immersion, and not everyone uses immersion to drive their roleplaying, so 4e is going to hinder some people and not others.
And, I’ve already heard the advice to just reflavour the powers so that they’re not immersion-breaking. This just isn’t possible. There are a lot of powers that have effect that make no sense in setting terms, so there’s no way to give them immersion-safe setting flavour. Marking is the most obvious immersion-breaker of that kind: How does a paladin’s mark do damage? Let’s assume it’s divine wrath. Then why does the fighter marking the paladin’s marked target remove the holy fire scorching the target? Once you start asking these questions, they just go in crazy circles that don’t lead anywhere consistent.
So, that’s why 4e hinders my roleplaying: The design goals of the mechanics didn’t include representing an internally-consistent world, so there are all these little, tiny inconsistencies scattered throughout the rules. It’s like watching a movie about hackers written by someone who doesn’t know a thing about computers: Many people will not notice or care, and can enjoy the action. The people who are sensitive to those details are going to hate it despite cool action scene and say it’s a stupid movie.
Andrew Franke
May 19, 2009
I think that 4th edition is a return to the original style of Dungeons and Dragons. It is NOT filled with rules on Roleplay nor was the original game. I prefer that the rules focus on Combat and tasks and not Roleplaying.
The lack of RP rules forces the gm and players to actually roleplay. RPG’s to me are about immersion in a story that as a group we act out. I prefer not to have to roll alot of dice and break the mood. When I played 3.5 it seemed that there were skill checks for nearly every situation.
The fisherman example people use. IF I have a player that wants to have a background as a Fishermans son or indeed a Fisherman himself; I can allow him to put that in his back story and don’t need a set of skills he needs to roll against to see if he caught any fish. If there aren’t a lot of fish in the lake he won’t catch much.
The RULES for role playing are unnecessary with my group as we have been playing since the original 3 books in a box came out. There was certainly not any rules for roleplaying then and very few examples. The 4th edition has gone back to combat or even challenge focussed rules. I really like that. It allows me to have new players in my game without worrying which of the 500,000 skills or so they want to try and apply to get them out of trouble. My opinion is that keep the wargaming part out of the ROLEPLAYING part. The 4th ed rules do this. THey cover conflict and combat and leave the storytelling to you. Keep on the Shadowfell does a good job of providing the basic background for a DM to round out the roleplaying of his npc’s. It will be a different game with a different DM. Sure the fights will be the same but gathering the information is an entirely different matter. I have Rambled enough.
Simply put. 4th ed is ROLE playing not ROLL playing.
newbiedm
May 19, 2009
@Andrew: I agree completely with you.
d7
May 19, 2009
@Andrew:
You said “keep the wargaming part out of the ROLEPLAYING part”. This is also why I really don’t like 4e. The switch from non-combat to combat in 4e (and also in 3e) is disruptive and interrupts the flow of the roleplaying, because it requires switching into a different “mode” of playing as soon as dangerous opponents appear.
In Basic through AD&D 2e (I’m skipping OD&D because it really depends on what combat system you used) combat was quick: a few rolls, a few tiny HP totals knocked down, and the losers were running, dead, or surrendered. The combat rules were simple enough that they didn’t distract from roleplaying during combat, and the line between combat and everything else was very thing: a mere initiative roll.
In 3e and 4e the line between combat is disruptive: get out the battle mat, draw things up, place models and miniatures, get power cards out, etc. There’s much less motive for players to stop in the middle of combat and try to parlay or try anything else that might interrupt the combat because the task switching overhead (to use a computing term) is too high. At least in 3e I could ignore the disruptive parts (mat, etc) for small exchanges of blows by just narrating it.
Alex
May 19, 2009
“At least in 3e I could ignore the disruptive parts (mat, etc) for small exchanges of blows by just narrating it.”
That can be done just as easily in 4e as in 3e.
d7
May 19, 2009
“That can be done just as easily in 4e as in 3e.”
You can say that, but I can’t believe it without a good example backing it up. My problem with narrating combat in 4e is that it obviates most of the effects of Powers, which *need* the grid to work.
So, if you can tell me how to preserve what makes 4e different from competing games—the way different Powers work, which is at the core of character development—while still giving me narrative control that fluidly moves between combat and non-combat (sometimes multiple times in a single scene), then I will put this objection to bed.
Andrew Franke
May 19, 2009
@ D7, The solution to your problem is then simple. Play second edition. I have ALWAYS used miniatures and a grid or terrain board. The games I play in or DM do not find it disruptive because we do a few things to assure it is not.
1.the GM is prepared with a mat already out and has the monster tokens or figures on hand.
2.I use tokens these days and keep my encounters in envelopes so I am not searching for 2 more Kobolds that I have misplaced since the last encounter.
3. My players stay in character when fighting in battle. When they roll and score a hit or a miss they describe what happened.
Example I use one of my warlord powers that gives another player an extra attack in combat. If I succeed in my role something like the following occurs. ” I scream at the Kobold and bang my shield he hesitates and looks at me. Rundrick sees the opening and realizes he can strike the kobold again.”
Now I have, Used my power, succeeded, and roleplayed how it worked. The miniature in front of me just allows me to see where everyone is instead of guessing. I also ROLLPLAYED it. I checked to see if I succeeded first. IF I had failed I would say “I am Trying to distract the Kobold with Jeers and shield banging but he ignores me.”
Does it take more effort with 4th edition and with a tabletop. It depends. I never liked combat encounters where the DM said okay 8 orcs are in the room roll initiative. Okay this is the order of attack. Keeping track in your head mentally where people were was a pain. Most people didn’t bother they just let you kill one orc and move to the next. One of the reasons I hated that was no one really had a concept of what happened except they killed the orcs. Each of us had a different idea of how it happened.
The way we play 4th ed. EVERYONE is in on the same tale. I am a writer by trade so I journal alot of our Sessions and we take pics of the Mini’s. At the end of the campaign I write a narrative of what happened and give everyone a copy. 2 of the others in my group do the same. It is a great way to see different perspectives but also how MUCH things have changed for the better since we are prepared for the game and combat doesn’t hinder the roleplay and we are all part of the SAME story.
I have nothing against people that don’t like 4th ed. and would prefer another system. I say this all the time when I write articles. You don’t have to play what’s popular play what you enjoy. You may even want to try something like True 20. We use that in my group for our non Fantasy RPG rules instead of 3.5. Much Simpler and easier to RP. I am not saying 4th ed. is the best set ever written, I am saying it can work if you choose to make it work and if it doesn’t work for you use something else.
Expecting WOTC to be able to please everyone is impossible. There is a TON of 3.5 stuff still being published by companies like mine(True 20 in our case.)
Best Regards.
Andrew J. Franke
Alex
May 19, 2009
“You can say that, but I can’t believe it without a good example backing it up. My problem with narrating combat in 4e is that it obviates most of the effects of Powers, which *need* the grid to work.”
Multiply 5 x [number of squares]…you could use a calculator if it helps. Done. The notion that because they’ve replace feet with squares ruins the ability for people to play without mats or grids is ridiculous. I defy you to come up with some legitimate reason why a DM can’t make a simple and insignificant change in vocabulary used while narrating that will break the flow of the game when powers are used.
wickedmurph
May 19, 2009
@d7
“n Basic through AD&D 2e (I’m skipping OD&D because it really depends on what combat system you used) combat was quick: a few rolls, a few tiny HP totals knocked down, and the losers were running, dead, or surrendered.”
Heheh, you must have been playing a TOTALLY different version of 2e than I did. Combat took hours – many hours. More hours than in 4e, because now I don’t have to spend half the time describing where things were, and how long it would take to get to them.
You’re remembering a game that never existed, IMO. Maybe it’s the rose-colored glasses of memory, but combat is rarely fast in ANY RPG – the more rules and rolls, the slower it goes. WFRP is maybe the fastest I’ve seen – barring Recon. 2e was not noticeably faster than 4e, and it certainly was more confusing and difficult to keep track of.
I’m also a little confused as to why, for you, roleplaying stops when the battle mat comes out? Does the presence of a grid kick you into “Wargame” mode so totally that you mentally cannot role-play anymore? Sure, the immersion-breaking is an issue, but if you’re saying that in 2e, you smoothly shifted between role-playing and combat and back without ever breaking character, talking about rules, meta-gaming or generally… um, role-playing, I’m gonna have to call BS.
The game is what you make it – 4e doesn’t encourage role-playing, except by not actively hindering it by creating sub-systems for everything.
Alex
May 19, 2009
Honestly, if D&D was a purely roleplaying game, there wouldn’t be rulebooks; D&D would be an idea, not a “game”. The reasons we have rulebooks is so that we can create characters with mechanics for _for_ encounters (whether combat or non-combat). The roleplaying elements are abstract by definition. To play off of what wicked said above, the game is what you make it, but the roleplaying is doubly so.
d7
May 19, 2009
@Andrew: Thanks for that. Most fans of 4e seem to be unable to accept that it doesn’t work for everyone. It sounds like you’re getting good use of the system. I find the disruption is only partly the physical things to move around, and as much that thinking about the bits of metal and plastic is time taken out of the parts of the game I enjoy more—and 4e really emphasises players taking time to plan out and coordinate combat, which isn’t what interests me as a GM.
I do use 2e when I want to go D&Ding without minis, and other, non-D&D systems that better suit the sort of game I have in mind at the time.
@Alex: If it were that simple I’d have to be a mental defective to not like 4e, and I’m sure that you wouldn’t imply that about someone you haven’t met personally. We both know that 4e combat involves fine differences of positioning and nuanced selection of the most effective Power for the current situation.
It is from the various *effects* of Powers, as you might have missed the first time I said it, that gives rise to problems when removing the grid. When one square can make all the difference in what Powers can and can’t be used, not using a grid becomes more work than using one. And, you’ll note, I objected to 4e because it makes combat more work.
The alternative of that substantial increase in work to run combat is ignoring the effects of most Powers. There’s not much left of 4e after you gut the Powers system, and at that point it’s sort of silly to use 4e.
@wickedmurph: Except that I ran 2e as an antidote to my disappointment with the 4e campaign, and I found that combat was ridiculously fast in comparison. So unless my memory is no longer reliable after a mere couple of weeks, I don’t think you can chalk it up to rose-tinted glasses. (I have a set of posts about my modern experiment with 2e on my blog, if you care to read it.) I do think experience has a lot to do with it, since knowing what to get through quickly and what to linger over makes some difference.
“Sure, the immersion-breaking is an issue”
Actually, this is just the reason why roleplaying stops when the mat comes out. You might consider me the GMing equivalent of a method actor. I found that when I had to work out both tactical combat decisions and immersion-based roleplaying as separate, parallel things, I kept screwing them both up. Since the grid-combat stuff in 4e is its own little tactical mini-game, it takes up a lot of mental cycles.
d7
May 19, 2009
@Alex: So if it doesn’t have combat, it’s just playing Pretend? I thought “roleplaying games” were interactive fiction with elements of chance, not wargames. How many books on the shelf can you count where the whole thing is combat?
Chance can be used for lots of things other than combat. Rules and dice exist to present interesting choices, not just how to hit orcs. Sometimes they *gasp* decide whether your attempts to convince your lieutenant’s Warlord to spare some troops for an assault on the village where your rival has farmland, even though that will make the assault on the Lord’s Manor harder? Do you succeed? Fail? Succeed, but with unforeseen consequences and complications?
Yeah, the game is totally what you make it. Some systems are better, or suck more, for what fiction I make.
“Honestly”, to use your word, all I want is for people to not assume that 4e is the best things since sliced bread for *everyone* and *every* style of play. It does have problems doing certain kinds of games.
Alex
May 20, 2009
I saw “effects” in your post, I simply thought it was a silly statement. Maybe if you gave some example of an effect you think gets muddled up without a mat…
You seem to be under the assumption that powers didn’t exist in previous editions as well. One “square” (5 feet) made all the difference in the world whether that fireball hit 4 orcs or 5 orcs, or whether that sleep spell affected all of the nobles in the hall, or just the 3 closest to the center, respectively. Whether you could hit that retreating scout with an arrow or whether your character thought the jump was much too far, or that it was doable, albeit very risky.
I’m certainly not saying that 4e is for everyone, I’m simply against unbacked, lazy, or simply unfounded arguments as a matter of principle.
You’re not reading carefully enough. In your second post, you described a non-combat encounter, for which there are rules, and for which I mentioned rules were needed. Encounters are the reasons for rules in the D&D game, or in any game. Otherwise, it would simply be getting together with a group and either group storytelling, or improv acting.
d7
May 20, 2009
@Alex: Ah, I see what you mean. Part of my missing the point is that I’m thinking of all non-4e systems that don’t require a mat, and you’re thinking specifically of 3e. 3e definitely has some of the same problem in that some character builds relied on the granular tactical control that a mat gives. I’ll try to keep that in mind, and keep in mind that I have a lot more competitors for my playing time in mind when I write the below that just 3e.
The best example I can think of in 4e is the basic defensive abilities of the Fighter when they’re interacting with creatures designed to make a Fighter’s job harder. Kobolds, for example. I think it’s safe to assume that we’re all familiar with the first cave fight in Keep on the Shadowfell, and how a Fighter’s ability to contain an enemy is significantly challenged by kobolds’ ability to shift as a minor action. Containing a pile of kobolds can be difficult for a Fighter without carefully leveraging a small number of squares and judiciously using opportunity attacks and marking. On the other side, getting some of a pile of shifty critters like kobolds past a Fighter is a considerable tactical challenge.
That kind of situation would be hard to abstract. The difference between one square here or there can be the difference between a backstabber getting to the wizard or not. Without a grid, deciding whether the shiftiness of the kobolds can get them by the Fighter blocking the tunnel mouth is no longer covered by the rules, and is either a judgement call on the DM’s part (fiat) or a house rule.
That’s not a problem so far: I don’t actually have a problem with fiat or house rules when they complement the system. But here’s the first problem: in 4e without a combat mat fiat and house rules seem necessary to *replace* a good quantity of what makes the 4e rules tactically interesting.
Second, situations like that are naturally emergent from the rules and the way particular abilities of the character(s) and opponents interact. They’re hard to predict from just looking at the abilities on paper (which is what WotC intended, and in this I give them credit where it’s due). Without actually seeing how abilities interact on the mat, I would never discover most combinations that make certain creatures or PC Powers meaningfully distinct. So without playing a particular combination of PC part and creature group, I won’t know what emergent advantages and disadvantages I’m suppose to be reproducing with my fiat decisions or house rules. Due to WotC’s exception-based design, few to none of the intended results of creature abilities and PC Powers are written down—the results will depend on what else is being activated on the battlefield. There are thousands of creature/PC abilities, and hence a very large number of possible emergent interactions similar to the kobold/Fighter one that are fundamentally unpredictable.
Either one of those are enough to not use a rule system. For the first, if fiat and house rules are replacing the bulk of the game’s rules, I have to stop and wonder why I’m not using a set of rules that better suit play without a combat mat. For the second, if I can’t predict how two abilities interact (let alone several used in concert) without running the fight with a grid first anyway, I know that most of the hidden advantages and disadvantages of creature and PC Powers are going to be eliminated. Again, I have to stop and ask myself why I would use a system that needs the mat so much when I have alternatives for matless combat.
I know that wasn’t as concrete an example as you were asking for. D’you see what I’m getting at, though? It’s not any one example that makes 4e unsuited to matless combat, but the general design of the combat system that does it. I’m not saying that it *can’t* be played matless, but the mass of rules and character/creature features that are lost when playing without a mat doesn’t leave much. If I compare that cut-down ruleset that’s left with any other RPG on my shelf, all the others do combat and character features better, faster, and in more interesting ways.
wickedmurph
May 21, 2009
@d7 I definitely see where you are coming from. 4e is a very deep, tactical game when played with a battlemat. Without it, not so much. I don’t remember 2e combat being particularly immersive, though. Confusing, arbitrary, subjective and difficult to manage – but not that immersive.
All the things that you present as issues with not using the battle mat, I would present to you as powerful reasons to use it. All RPG’s, and D&D in particular, have always focussed heavily on combat – it started as a combat miniatures game, after all. If you really want a narrative story that rarely breaks immersion, I wouldn’t play 4e, or D&D at all. 2e will probably come as close as D&D can get to what you want, but even that won’t work very well.
My experience is that any combat, any move to rules and dice, in fact, breaks immersion, and usually moves role-playing off the table somewhat. Some systems less than others, but mechanics, rules and dice are inherently breaking of true role-playing flow. For you, the battle mat is even worse. For me, not so much. As the DM, I like not having to constantly explain where things are, how long it takes to get to them. Players can plan what they want to do because they know where things are and how things work. For me, it’s a win. For a lot of people, it’s a win. It doesn’t do it for you, which is cool.
Mat or no-mat combat isn’t what we’re really discussing here, though. It’s a symptom of it, really. Some people feel that the tactical focus of the rules, the reduction of non-combat spells and abilities and the lack of rules for stuff like crafting means that they “can’t role-play”.
I think that all that stuff is just crutches. If you want to role-play, and your group is into that, you can make up characters and role-play out a game of monopoly – lord knows kids do it all the time. I don’t need rules to tell me that my characters can do crafts. I do need good, clear rules for adjudicating combat. 4e gives me what I need, and I supply the imagination and characters.
d7
May 22, 2009
Thanks, yes, that’s pretty much what I’m trying to get across.
Though, I have to disagree when you say that the mat is a symptom. You have to go back a few comments to get the context of why I was talking about the mat at all, since it was a tangent that came from Alex’s challenge. I’d originally said that I can’t spare the brain-cycles to manage a good tactical combat using 4e when I’m trying to sort out the roleplaying implications of each stage of the fight and of the motives of the combatants. It’s not that the mat is/isn’t a crutch or a symptom of anything, it’s that it causes me, the DM, logistical problems. And I can’t get rid of it in 4e, hence I don’t run 4e. I think that’s a failure of the system. But! (and it’s a big but) that’s specifically how it fails to serve *me*. As you say, not everyone plays the same way.
Regarding 2e, the combat rules don’t have to be immersive, just not intrusive. You don’t need to get into Tactical Wargame thinking mode to run combats in 2e, but actually have to get further into imagining it as it would look to the characters. The better I got at running 2e combats the less I had to think about the actual mechanics, while I found that it’s the other way around for 4e. 2e’s rules were odd and sometimes nonsensical, but they were at worst indifferent to my immersion assuming I was going to swallow D&D’s peculiar implied world to begin with. 4e’s combat rules just take more work, and they take my player’s attention away from their inner eye of their characters’ view of the battle and onto their physical eyes’ view of the battle mat.
So far I’m largely agreeing with you, but I do have a nit to pick that’s a considerable tangent. It might explain more why I’m dissatisfied with what 4e has to offer, though. You said: “All RPGs, and D&D in particular, have always focused heavily on combat”. That’s not true anymore. There are a number of games that I’ve discovered (in fact, I discovered them precisely because I was disappointed with the 4e campaign and went searching for a system that suited me better) in which this isn’t true. My last few blog posts detail the setup and first session of a one-on-one game in which the main character has no combat ability and is unlikely to engage in combat. The system does have detailed rules for combat, but they’re actually optional. The core mechanics—which are neither combat nor non-combat mechanics—are such that all paths to success and failure are equally mechanically and fictionally interesting. It’s very much a game that is what you make it. It’s also not some foofy rules-lite game, either. (Not that I personally object to foofy rules-lite games, but most people equate “not focused on combat” and “foofy rules-lite”.)
Another system that does the same is The Shadow of Yesterday. Its resolution mechanics also make no distinction between conflicts that do or don’t involve fighting. The same rules that can be invoked to play out a fight because it’s a Big Deal can be invoked to play out a chess match that is a different story’s Big Deal.
And that brings me back to 4e. 4e only has rules for combat being The Big Deal in a story. It also makes it hard to do combat without spending a lot of time on it. (Skill challenges are a sort-of Big Deal, but that subsystem looks like a clunky hack when I compare it to the integrated social/combat/everything resolution mechanics of the systems I seem to be drawn to these days.) I know it’s somewhat unfair to compare them since 4e is purposely doing something very different from these other systems. But the final point on this tangent is that, no, not all interesting RPGs are heavily (or at all) focused on combat anymore.
cheap hunter boots
November 28, 2013
What shape of shoe do you pick? Today’s most popular style of dress shoe is the mildly pointedtoe loafer.
bodybuilding & figure
August 21, 2014
It’s really a nice and helpful piece of info. I’m glad that you just shared this useful information with us.
Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.
Arturo
October 4, 2014
I read this piece of writing fully concerning the difference of most recent and previous technologies, it’s awesome
article.
musclemaxx mass gainer review
October 7, 2014
Hi, its nice article concerning media print,
we all understand media is a enormous source of information.
workout program
October 20, 2014
Just desire to say your article is as astonishing.
The clarity to your submit is simply excellent and i can think you’re an expert in this subject.
Well along with your permission let me to snatch your RSS feed
to keep up to date with forthcoming post.
Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work.
porn
June 4, 2016
We stumbled over here coming from a different web page
and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you.
Look forward to looking over your web page for a second time.
Stevendrots
January 3, 2020
And they submitted to this without a murmur ; but all sighed for salt.
Red Zealot and Lopez.
Andrew Liptak, The Verge , A transgender girl rises up against alien invaders in Rich Larson s novel Annex, 8 July 2018 One clip sees Gomez gargle an eyeball, roll back zombie eyes and eat icing off her leg with a butcher s knife.
http://daimurozolozuruzulkirr.info Journey Through the Past Reprise, 1973 The film is as yet unreleased, which judging from the still on the cover–hooded horsemen carrying cruciform staves–is just as well.Florida Georgia Line – Music Is Healing 125.
RobertJab
January 3, 2020
Р’ , On a Friday.
Sonst könnte man ja alles als pop bezeichnen.
Many of our fan club members gather yearly not only to honor and remember Sam Cooke, but to visit with Sam s family and fans.
http://kalkisnilalmeenawhisperbringer.info If you recall, the Clique discovered that two new songs titled Jumpsuit and Nico and the Niners are now listed in two different music databases.No se si le gusto AyГєdame a enamorarla ay ay ay.
Raymondisott
January 9, 2020
This set is presented as a media pack i.
The Seattle-born musician always paired awe-inspiring tone and feel with incomparable songs which struck a balance between experimentation and tradition.
Beyond Elvis The Hillbilly Cat , however, there was the face that launched a thousand imitators, that black-haired, smiling or smouldering presence who stared from the front covers of numerous EPs, albums and film posters of the late 50s and early 60s.
http://maladibeazelunenuardana.info/lossless/hold-on-instrumental-various-the-best-rappers-vol-2.php You can easily master this in a short afternoon after you watch these DVDs.
Radiohead have some prog rock songs.
Their first lesson was enough to make Harry realise that Lockhart was incompetent, he would spend much of the school year avoiding Lockhart to the best of his power, and practically begged Professor McGonagall to allow him an alternate detention when he was assigned to help Lockhart answer his fan-mails, which Lockhart thought was a treat, when Harry thought otherwise.
EdwardUnelf
January 17, 2020
An essential place to start is with The Ronettes.
Maluma – Me Llamas.
Going up to the country.
http://mavelvcerebordrelanrad.info/320kbps/that-kind-of-girl-various-the-downey-story-landlocked.php You can tell if the policy has changed by checking the last modified date that appears at the end of this Privacy Policy.
The show overruns and Moby Grape do not play.
It s a really bright T-shirt, after all, and people point it out quite often.
TerryDib
January 20, 2020
You have a good taste https://walhez.com/frau-neu-kennenlernen-627.html
TommyDiz
January 20, 2020
KambГґ is known as an ordeal medicine, it is intense but fast, and the unpleasant effects are strong and immediate and only last for about 20-30 minutes.
Every night I was coming home from the studio, and I d stop at an intersection and look around, and if a car pulled up, it was like, This is it.
And it actually worked better because there s alliteration here too with Bob and Bach, and I already had Bach in there for a rhyme with rock, which I changed to pop when I realized that rock was not a term that was used in 1964.
http://shagoresamumkathridred.info/vinyl-rip/suda-balk-oynuyor-orhan-lmez-tuerkue.php Blige , who brought sex appeal and glamour galore to the red carpet.
BEATLES – Yellow Submarine.
ZГЎkaznГk je odpovР” dnГЅ za montáЕѕ systГ©mu a vГЅrobu jakГ©hokoliv prvku potР• ebnГЅ pro jeho sprГЎvnou obsluhu.
DavidPlals
February 7, 2020
Fashions and styles changed rapidly, for a couple of weeks people would be wearing see through plastic rain coats, then it all changed to bright coloured jackets, bought as white coats from the Army and Navy stores and then hand dyed into bright colours.
Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Internet.
Offspring continued their commercial success with its next four studio albums, Ixnay on the Hombre 1997 , Americana 1998 , Conspiracy of One 2000 and Splinter 2003 reaching platinum, multi-platinum, platinum and gold status respectively.
http://rock.fivegallonbucket.net/mentirosa-she-lied-yamb-introducing-jesus-nolasco.php Our mandate is to provide an inclusive community-based site for the delivery and discussion of music news surrounding punk, ska, hardcore, emo, metal and indie.
Come on, to act as if the Stones were just a band of thieves is just ludicrous.
C G Am x3 D x2 With ten miles behind me and ten thousand more to go.
JasonUnode
March 6, 2020
There is a spread of a novel coronavirus https://coronavirus2020.uk/ which is ruining the city of Wuhan located in the Hubei province of China. The break out of the virus started early in December of 2019 and has actually remained to spread. The people that were the initial ones to end up being contaminated were all linked to the South China Seafood Wholesale Market which has been shut ever since.
WilburnBoigh
March 9, 2020
alt.com sign up
WilburnBoigh
March 23, 2020
alt.com
WilburnBoigh
March 25, 2020
alt.com sign up
NathanLyday
March 31, 2020
The even more you comment on various other blog sites
https://piks.site, the a lot more connections you make with bloggers. This assists in constructing long term networks and also partnerships that can work to your benefit on several social media systems. Common relations thrive and also you reach create your own neighborhood of blog writers.
fatma Jax
April 20, 2020
mecidiyekoy turbanli escort kadin gulden 5282
eslik aramak aktuel veri ciddi fotograf yardimiyla ozlemek isaret hararetli ve seksi disi madeni bedel iliski hizmeti toka etmek yayinlamak eser akdetmek bu sayfa yardimiyla dayamak
Justinadova
May 7, 2020
Our dinosaur games https://dinosaurgames.org.uk/ provide amusement with animals from numerous years ago! You can manage cavemen and all kind of dinos; Tyrannosaurus Rex, Velociraptors, as well as Brachiosaurus are all included! Our dinosaurs levels have plenty of different types of gameplay, from combating to adventure to casino poker. You can play any sort of challenge you want, providing you primitive amusement for hours at a time! Battle as neanderthal versus animals, roam the Planet, and also consume your opponents!
TeddyPem
May 14, 2020
Just Build is a video game that aids you progress in games with building system.It allows you to practice your structure with infinity materials and without being disturbed by various other players. Play Just Build Unblocked https://justbuildunblocked.com/
LelandHam
June 7, 2020
The globe’s very first browser-based First Person Egger! Get cracking! Select your course and terminate your enemies with eggstreme prejudice in this 3d multplayer shooter. Furnish deadly tools like the Scramble Shotgun as well as EggK47 as you cluck your method to success. Enjoy Shellshockers Unblocked https://shellshockersunblocked.space/
jamivg69
June 16, 2020
Best tranny porn, big cock shemale, ladyboy cumshot, tranny video, tranny ass tube
http://usaclassifieds.telrock.net/?elizabeth
p or n sex taranny sex shemalemovie.com free shmale sex shemle
maxlt11
June 16, 2020
Twink boyfriends, webcam, hairy gay bears
http://lesbianhongkong.telrock.org/?alexandra
lesbian country sex gay and gay sex com toy box toy store full nylon panties teen gay boys chat