# 4D Roleplaying: WTF, Mate? tags: #thoughts ![[4D Roleplaying 101.jpg]] This has been percolating for at least 10 minutes in my brain. I have no idea who came up with this whole *4D Roleplaying* concept, but I think I need them to be smacked repeatedly right in the scrotum.  Now, I want to be clear. I consider Vindicta a positive acquaintance. He means well. But honestly, it's like he has spent his entire life inside a very small room prescribed by four walls with [[Dungeons and Dragons|D&D]] written in various fonts on each of them and no windows. It's with that in mind that I had to reply to his tweet in which he posted that he finished his most recent video, which you can see above.  Yeah, let's just go with it.  Brother, I have a serious question. Why did I watch a video in which you talk about something for 15 minutes while using a very specific name for it, only for you to pull out a sheet and finally actually tell me what it is? Even that description doesn't come up with an explanation for the terrible name. Why did that just happen? You could have opened with it, showed the sheet, and then broke it down, talking about how it impacts and deals with problems that you have at the table, rather than talking about the problems first. But there's a bigger problem. I just watched a video where you run through an extremely elongated explanation of a single sheet of paper, which itself largely over-explains gameplay methodologies that we've had in print since 2010. What I'm talking about is both the player and GM guide section of *[[Apocalypse World - Burned Over|Apocalypse World]]*. You know, the indie RPG that led to a massive explosion of games derived from its central principles and mechanics, which have proliferated in vast numbers since then. A short selection of important points: - Roleplaying is a conversation. - To do something, do it. - Be a fan of the characters. - Make the world seem real. - Attach yourself to the characters, not the players. - Make your move, but never speak its name. (Don't refer to the game mechanics to do something. Refer to doing something, which then triggers the game mechanics.) - Ask provocative questions and build on the answers. - Ask questions like crazy. - Nudge the players to have their characters make moves. All that's there in the first printing of the first game in the Powered by the Apocalypse lineage. And while some of the advice is directed to GMs (or MCs), it's also given to the players. Skip forward seven years (seven years!) and you get the now nearly ten-year-old *[[Blades in the Dark]]*, which refines and distills advice from this style of play into an even more potent blend. You get things like: - Go into danger, fall in love with trouble. - Don't be a weasel. (Choose a move which matches what your character is doing.) - Take responsibility. - Don't talk yourself out of fun. - Build your character through play. - Act now, plan later. - Convey the fictional world honestly. - Telegraph trouble before it strikes. - Tell them the consequences and ask. - Hold on lightly. - Lead an interesting conversation. So I have to ask, who is this *4D Roleplaying* for, and what have they been jerking off to for the last 20 years? Because they could have been playing this way the whole time. I can't help thinking that the same people who are suddenly pushing 4D Roleplaying are the same ones who have been sticking their nose in the air when it comes to indie tabletop RPGs for the last 30 years, who wouldn't be caught dead playing one of these theater kids games right up until the time they realized that their modes of play and procedures were leading to bad times at the table, and they should probably do something about that. For me, it's like hearing about the 3,000th retread of D&D mechanics. A general feeling of "here we go again" mingled with "you could have been doing something better this whole time. Why aren't you?" Perhaps I'm overly old or overly cynical, but here we are. --- ## 2026-04-30 02:12 You knew there was going to be more conversation. Nothing stops at that.   Yet they had every opportunity to do so over the last 25 years. I can only assume that they enjoy what they're doing, which obviates the usefulness of whatever this 4D Roleplaying is in the first place. (It would be at least a marginally acceptable name if it hinged on four directives or four pillars which started with the letter D. They couldn't even do that much!) Honestly, at this point, I would rather watch them collapse than try to help them by giving them advice within their own context. They won't collapse, notably. They are doing what they want to do, which is to avoid roleplaying, avoid actual engagement, and even avoid some of the underpinnings of D&D itself, which is tactical decision-making. The games which are pursuing any and all of the above are moving further and further from D&D. Some of them are reminding people why video games won out over that mode of play in the first place. So what is this advice for? What is it intended to do? It literally flies in the face of how a lot of GMing advice is given right in the books. It flies in the face of influencers telling insecure audiences, "Here's how to win at D&D." What's it supposed to do? What's the endgame? I think the intended audience is already too fragmented for the people who want to learn how to play more rewardingly to either hear that advice or know how to apply it. My suspicion is, and it's borne out by more experience than I would like, is that they will never change their way of play unless they change the games they play. You can't give advice within the context of their current table culture without changing the game because too many expectations and bad habits have set in. You can't change the foundations of a house without tearing it down. It's probably more rewarding to simply show good table experiences and good play that just happened to emerge from other games which take these guidelines on as core design intents and not bolt-ons. Don't tell them what they're doing is bad. They already know that if they care. Show them that they can have something better. > [!info] Commentary > As a side note, I have felt this way for a very long time. It's no use trying to improve the experience for people who play D&D and D&D adjacent games because they do not want an improved experience. They want what they're doing. > > There's a classic term for the mode of play that we are trying to dissuade here. It's called *roll-playing*. It is letting the dice play rather than the player play. If you Google the existence of that term over time, you will see it has been on the table for a very long time indeed. It has been a bone of contention among D&D players themselves. The advice for fighting against it has always been the same, yet it never seems to take root. > > Because what they want to do is roll dice and play video games on paper. They don't want to role play or have a serious interaction with someone else or go five minutes without a joke. If they wanted to do those things, they would do those things. They clearly don't.