Review of Combat in Motion (Enhanced 4E) by Christopher F. Ash

The author's blatant rip-off of WotC's 4E trade dress turns me off right there. I know you "shouldn't judge a book by it's cover", but it's a sign of lazy production, lack of creativity, and lack of understanding of what's okay and not okay when using other's work.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Specifically, the following portion:

Licensee understands and agrees that it is not authorized to, and will not utilize, any Wizards Intellectual Property (other than Licensed Materials).... “Wizards Intellectual Property” means any patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade name or trade secret right and any other intellectual property or proprietary right owned by Wizards....

(emphasis added) means, basically, that you are not permitted to make any Licensed Product that looks like a WOTC publication. (There's more to the section, but that's what the inclusion of "trade dress" in this section means.)

A quick change of cover design should do the trick. IMO.

 

[alien270]

Snip

I have also reviewed this product (if anyone's interested, check it out), and IMO the generalization that it's simply more complexity is a little unfair.

I can't disagree too much with your assessment of the first chapter; I personally don't have a problem with 4E's gamist grid and think of it in the same way that I think of distortion from map projections. I do see the value in providing an alternative for those groups who favor simulationism more. I don't see paces as being any more confusing that the 3.x method; some may prefer using an in-world concept as a reference point, and I think that's the biggest value of paces.

Motion States are a baseline for a lot of the material, yes, but plenty of the more interesting options don't require them, and even those that do can still be useable without them with some tweaking. Really it's just the special in-motion movements (sprint, soar, and cruise) and two of the off-turn actions (outpace and interdict) that require using the in-motion rules, and the more important of those (outpace and interdict) can be ruled to simply trigger when it makes narrative sense. For example, and alternative wording that makes these actions useable without motion states could be "Trigger: another creature that you can see moves twice on its turn (for example, by making a double move, for moving and then charging, or for using a standard action power that grants movement)." I personally think it's worth incorporating these rules even without using motion states to solve the problem of creatures moving great distances without affording their opponents an opportunity to respond.

This "problem" may not be evident to gamers used to turn-based systems, but after reading Dungeon World I've been thinking a lot about how to use game mechanics that work with the fiction in ways that make sense, as opposed to simply ruling that things work "just because those are the rules."

Regarding off-turn actions in general, yeah immediate actions are a problem but they mostly slow things down by giving players a greater number of actions. The new actions presented in Combat In Motion "borrow" actions from future turns, which will make those future turns go faster. Indeed, reducing reliance on the powers system seems like something that would speed play up since players would be flipping through their cards less (that's the big time-suck at my table). Ultimately I haven't playtested any of this so I feel I'm not qualified to judge whether or not the new rules slow down or speed up play (or leave play time unchanged). I imagine that it would depend on whether or not every single new rule is used, as well as how much experience players have with the rules. Yeah, it'll slow things down as everyone is learning them but a lot of this stuff seems like it could be mastered pretty quickly. The advantage to having a universal set of options is that players will eventually learn them well enough to have them memorized (unlike the staggering number of unique powers, many of which get trained out through play).

Finally, I'd like to comment on Chapter 7 because I really don't think that you gave it a fair shake. I'll first note that while the "Keep Rolling" Dramatic Direction relies on motion states, the other two do not. In fact, Dramatic Directions are so universally applicable that I'm strongly considering using them in pretty much every initiative-based game that I run. My fondness for this mechanic is again partially influenced by my recent reading of Dungeon World. Combat will always flow in a way that makes narrative sense because there are no turns. While that loose a structure isn't possible with many games (4E unequivocally being one of them!) it's still worthwhile to try to incorporate elements of narrative-driven structure into the initiative order. IMO it makes more logical sense than simply using randomly rolled numbers to determine who goes when.

In fact, as a GM I'd say it many cases it's outright preferable! Who wants to sit there and watch the GM roll 6 attacks in a row for the group of goblins? Are the players at the edge of their seat when this is going on? Not at my table. Doesn't it make more sense to allow them to act when they're attacked, preserving the cause and effect relationship and forming a cohesive "scene?"

Regarding the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, that might be one way of looking at it. But if you don't try alternatives how would you know whether the way you're already doing it is the best? The way I see it, my favorite new rules from Combat In Motion allow games to be run with more emphasis on dramatically appropriate actions and descriptions. Personally I'm on the fence about using Motion States because they are a bit "crunchy" and until I playtest it I'm not sure if the additional "crunch" is worth their benefit. The answer to that will definitely depend on the group, though. I know I won't be using Chapter 1 because the existing grid simplification simply isn't an issue for my group. Everything else, though, I'm excited to incorporate into the game. I think it'll add depth (from both a mechanical and story-telling perspective), and especially if motion states get nixed I see the additional complexity as minimal (once everyone becomes familiar with the new actions; there's a learning curve with any new rule(s), though).

 

[Christopher F. Ash]

Update to Cover Art

Combat in Motion is now available with an updated cover design.

View attachment 55703