The skill challenge was totally cool. At first I thought it sounded kind of dry ("you have to get 4 successes before you get 2 failures") but the ability to have various characters use various skills that all applied was excellent. And fun!

You know, really 4e reminds me of first edition.

However, the level of roleplaying is entirely dependent on the group & the DM.

I was wondering about that -- I like an RPG where the RP involves more than just hacky-smashy as much as anyone, but disallowing haggling with the innkeeper sounds like a DM issue more than the ruleset. Unless I'm missing something.

You know, really 4e reminds me of first edition.

Huh. And also, huh. Expand?

disallowing haggling with the innkeeper sounds like a DM issue more than the ruleset

There's an interesting dynamic between the DM and the ruleset. Some DMs are comfortable doing stuff that's not written in the rules or the adventure, others hew closely. Pretty much every review of 4e that I've seen on the webnets seems to be written by DMs or players who feel that the DM is just a human computer, knowing the rules and rolling for the NPCs.

The plus side to that is that it's hard to accuse the DM of cheating or fudging the dice or giving preferential treatment to his girlfriend.

I, of course, feel that a human DM brings creativity to the table. He or she makes judgment calls, adapts the adventure on the fly or between sessions to make it more fun for the players, and breathes life into the NPCs. Because I'm like that, I've never understood the players who think their job is to beat the DM. Dude, I'm the DM. Rocks fall from the sky and crush you all.

This requires that the players trust the DM's integrity.

D&D 4e does allow for that kind of latitude in DMing. I don't think it's a ruleset that's super-well suited to it tho; I think it works a lot better as tactical combat game. If you have a continuum with "gamist" on one side (the people who want computer-like accuracy) and "narrativist" on the other (LARPers and people who like diceless games), I'm a bit to the narrative side of middle...and I think 4e is middle gamist.

Ah, the sprog isn't going to let me finish. Quick expansion of the first edition comment: You kind of needed an elf, a fighter, a thief, and a magic-user in 1e. Party build. Each class had unique rules which map to Powers. The game was still close to its Chainmail roots, and played like a tabletop minis game - loads of combat, not much story.

So it does bring the nostalgia factor.

The GSL has been released. Haven't had a chance to look at it indepth yet...

Ok, GTA4 fans, you have to help me. I cannot for the fucking LIFE of me fly the damned helicopter in the Paper Trail missing. I keep losing the target--not that I ever could see the other helicopter in the first place. Clearly I do not get the controls. Please help me. I'm ready to break the game in half. I've been stuck here for a day.

Kristin, on the PS3, using the left and right triggers controls the rudder on the helicopter - that gives you a lot sharper turning control than using the analog sticks to bank left and right. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same on the 360, but it should be similar. As for finding the other heli, use your camera controls to spot it and then get as close to it as you can quickly, and then it gets easier to follow.

Finally! Thanks, amych.

hmm. the comments area seems kind of sparse on this particular (& particularly pejorative) post at Wired.... [link]

I, of course, feel that a human DM brings creativity to the table. He or she makes judgment calls, adapts the adventure on the fly or between sessions to make it more fun for the players, and breathes life into the NPCs. Because I'm like that, I've never understood the players who think their job is to beat the DM. Dude, I'm the DM. Rocks fall from the sky and crush you all.

BWAH! Our group has that "DM as God" that we shorthand as "Cow from space". As in, "Fine, to show my ultimate control over reality at this here gaming table, a COW plunges flaming through the atmosphere and strikes you dead."

In my experience most RPGs are, essentially, a combat system with other stuff built around it. I think the only one that might defy that argument (that I've played) is the Serenity RPG, which seems to give equal treatment to all uses of skills with its "Appropriate Attribute (as determined by GM) dice + Skill dice".

Shadowrun, CP: 2020, GURPS, Champions... all seemed to be primarily about the combat. Which kind of formulated my philosophy as a player and GM; that role-playing is something I have to provide. The gaming system is there for suggestions as to which dice I roll when I'm done role-playing.

I don't mind haggling for dinner prices or, as a GM, letting the players haggle for them. Like Raq's experience with Cthulhu and Denny's, I once ran a Shadowrun game wherein I, as GM, set the goal and the players spent the entire session planning. Easiest session I ever had. I didn't mind at all. And when all was said and done they came up with a fairly nifty plan.

I assume Champions hasn't fundamentally changed since I played regularly mumblety years ago. I found it easy to use the system to create any sort of character you wanted -- I once turned a strongly pacifist friend into an NPC whose big power was the ability to heal.

The books assumed that the players would be doing a lot of combat. But as a player who was more a frustrated actor than anything else (my Champions circle described my trademark character as "an ordinary guy with powers"), I never had any trouble creating characters with non-combat lives reflected on the character sheets.

On the other hand, my first gaming circle included someone who turned Runequest into a universal RPH system. His Indiana Jones campaign flopped, mostly because there were too many players.