Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5808519" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>"It insitutes a way the rules are made and what their goal should be."</p><p>That is what I said then, and it is what my reply shall be. Also, CAS does the same, but that line only makes sense in relation to the rest of the paragraph and to the two lines before it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>How many times do I have to say this, I care not for the "balance" issue you have having with other posters. Since you have twice drawn me in however I will now respond to it - see below.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Isn't all back and forth trying to rationalize a preference?</em></p><p></p><p>I may have been unclear. It is patently false that "it is just a game and therefore it will work itself out". That there is no need to look after other types of preferred play because they'll fall in line. It is false because we didn't. It is false because after 3 years they are having to make a new edition to reclaim their old membership.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Those keywords weren't used in previous editions? What about Types, subtypes, weaknesses, abilities, etc.?</p><p>My problem, one that I was trying to avoid raising, has to do with the implied limitations or expectations associated with those keywords or with ability descriptions at all. That the <em>Fireball</em> doesn't touch paper because it targets only creatures. Things like that. I'm not going to get into it over and over so I'll leave it at that.</p><p></p><p>I do think that previous editions did a better job of setting the expectations at: "does this happen in the real world? Yes? Okay then it happens in the game." Whereas in 4th it is set at: "does this happen in video games? No? Then it doesn't happen in the game."</p><p></p><p></p><p>There's that word again - balance. I didn't realize that all editions of DnD had been working to improve balance. I thought they had been working to improve the game, all aspects not just balance. I think that 4th edition went too far, as do many, into the balance-direction. It balanced many things at the sake of too many other things. It is a trait many of us dislike about 4e.</p><p></p><p></p><p>When you say things like "modernizing" I just have to shudder and remember that clip from How I Met Your Mother - where Barney says "Newer is always better" and sticks to it even when provided grape scotch.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So? Does the term work, are we satisfied with it and understand its implication? We don't have to agree with the term, or think it is ancient to use it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That is ALMOST what he (I assume he, may be she) is saying. What he did say was "Many of us dislike the "modern" redesign goals of 4e" and gave the example of balance. Balance by itself isn't a bad thing. It becomes bad when it cuts away at many of the elements we enjoy. It becomes an issue when it reduces the fun of a sizable segment of the playing population.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is the first time I've needed (in this post) to break up what you have said, but you state many things which are opinion and misrepresentation as well and it would be a jumble if I left it all to the end.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Alrighty, excuse any minor discrepancies as I do not play 4e and do not wish to scour through the books to find examples.</p><p></p><p>Do you need to keep track of; food (rations, apples), ammo (bolts, arrows, sling bullets), basic equipment (candles, chalk, flour), spell components, pages in a spellbook?</p><p></p><p>Because if not then haakon1's point is valid.</p><p>The resource management you list are dailies, surges, and encounter powers. How are these different than the same abilities used in different editions? Cleric still needed to know how many turn undead they had left, barbarians raged, wizards had their spell-lists. I fail to see the point you are trying to make.</p><p></p><p>(Caveat: If your point was <u>only</u> to say that 4e still has things you need to track, please disregard this section.)</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yes, they are both 1d8+n. Do they both shunt the enemy back 2 squares (not 10 feet, 2 effing squares)? Do they both have the keyword of, let's say, acid therefore we know to have it deal 1d6+k continual for 1d3+l rounds? No? Sharing the mechanic for shocking grasp and a scimitar isn't really the same as sharing a mechanic across (nearly) all powers across (nearly) classes - at the same level of course.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>If by Vancian, do you mean fire and forget? Then what do you count encounter and at wills? How is it "Vancian magic" for the wizard but different for the fighter?</p><p></p><p>Warriors are as much spellcasters as wizards are spellcasters. Both have X dallies, Y encounters, Z at wills per day. They differ ONLY in the power source. But as many 4e'rs have admitted, power sources are pretty much still just magic. I think a lot of us (on the non-4e side) find it puzzling why fighters NEED a power source.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>We mean they are built the same, at level 6 how many of W (surges), X (dallies), Y (encounters), Z (at wills) do you get to use? Is there variation there?</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Please refer to above comments about disliking balance.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Actually, with all the racial stuff in 4e, the differences in races are rather bland. Rather "balanced" to suit one another and to no longer have a perceived unbalanced effect.</p><p></p><p>(Caveat: I don't know what point haakon1 was trying to make about races.)</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Why are <u><strong>all</strong></u> characters in 4e meant to be the main protagonist? The one who never dies? Imagine if comics worked that way, where (super)heroes never had the chance of dying, they never got sick, never lost a fight. Once upon a time, that was true but we have changed, evolved into something more closely resembling reality.</p><p></p><p>Characters should die, no scratch that. They should have the chance of dying. They shouldn't go out every day knowing that the world is designed for them to win. They should leave knowing that their actions will have an impact. They should leave knowing that if they die they die for a reason.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Good. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My faith is waning that they can build a game to cater to all crowds. I clearly want different things than you do Hassassin. We want to build very different games.</p><p></p><p>But going forward I really don't want them to make a crappy product which is a mutant of 4e (or 3e or 2 or 1) with other editions thrown in. I DO want them to make a new game. A game which is its own, but incorporates elements from all prior editions. This is a FAR preferable idea to me, and one it seems like they are already doing - if you pay attention to the playtests reviews.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Just a general question, both for you Hassassin and to anyone else who wants to answer it. When in history, literature, myths, legends, etc. have we ever had stories where the heroes were good to go ALL THE TIME. Where they fight 1000 battles and end up as fresh as they start.</p><p></p><p>For me, this is a problem bigger than 4e but exacerbated by 4e's (healing surges and encounters). It seems like there SHOULD (looking at those sources) be a large amount of downtime, for prep, research and healing. I don't really want a video game mentality where you wait 2 minutes out of combat and suddenly you are 100% ready again. I would love to see a system where you fight, get tired (winded), need to surge into battle again (second wind) but then end up sore, fatigued and in need of extended downtime to recoup. Not just 5 more minutes and then good to go.</p><p></p><p>I digress, not the point of this post or this thread.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I do like Combat as War, cannot stand Combat as Sport. Let me break it down.</p><p></p><p>Overly cautions? Good. Non-Heroic? I don't see how.</p><p>The point is to come out of the fight alive, the point is to defeat the enemy and for them to need to be defeated. I can't imagine anything more heroic, even if you have to be cautions and to overcome great odds.</p><p></p><p>Why does Combat as Sport support heroes more traditionally - to you?</p><p></p><p>Being King Arthur vs Croaker has nothing to do with the CAW/CAS debate. It does have to do with the outlook and playstyle of the characters but it has nothing to do with the rules of the game themselves. If anything I've found CAS people to be more interested in money, greed and shiny things than people playing for CAW where the goal and outcome matter more.</p><p></p><p>As far as your Black Company remark - I don't agree with your characterization but I do understand it - I want you to look again at my former post, I've quoted it here for your easy reference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 5808519, member: 95493"] "It insitutes a way the rules are made and what their goal should be." That is what I said then, and it is what my reply shall be. Also, CAS does the same, but that line only makes sense in relation to the rest of the paragraph and to the two lines before it. How many times do I have to say this, I care not for the "balance" issue you have having with other posters. Since you have twice drawn me in however I will now respond to it - see below. [i]Isn't all back and forth trying to rationalize a preference?[/i] I may have been unclear. It is patently false that "it is just a game and therefore it will work itself out". That there is no need to look after other types of preferred play because they'll fall in line. It is false because we didn't. It is false because after 3 years they are having to make a new edition to reclaim their old membership. Those keywords weren't used in previous editions? What about Types, subtypes, weaknesses, abilities, etc.? My problem, one that I was trying to avoid raising, has to do with the implied limitations or expectations associated with those keywords or with ability descriptions at all. That the [I]Fireball[/I] doesn't touch paper because it targets only creatures. Things like that. I'm not going to get into it over and over so I'll leave it at that. I do think that previous editions did a better job of setting the expectations at: "does this happen in the real world? Yes? Okay then it happens in the game." Whereas in 4th it is set at: "does this happen in video games? No? Then it doesn't happen in the game." There's that word again - balance. I didn't realize that all editions of DnD had been working to improve balance. I thought they had been working to improve the game, all aspects not just balance. I think that 4th edition went too far, as do many, into the balance-direction. It balanced many things at the sake of too many other things. It is a trait many of us dislike about 4e. When you say things like "modernizing" I just have to shudder and remember that clip from How I Met Your Mother - where Barney says "Newer is always better" and sticks to it even when provided grape scotch. So? Does the term work, are we satisfied with it and understand its implication? We don't have to agree with the term, or think it is ancient to use it. That is ALMOST what he (I assume he, may be she) is saying. What he did say was "Many of us dislike the "modern" redesign goals of 4e" and gave the example of balance. Balance by itself isn't a bad thing. It becomes bad when it cuts away at many of the elements we enjoy. It becomes an issue when it reduces the fun of a sizable segment of the playing population. This is the first time I've needed (in this post) to break up what you have said, but you state many things which are opinion and misrepresentation as well and it would be a jumble if I left it all to the end. Alrighty, excuse any minor discrepancies as I do not play 4e and do not wish to scour through the books to find examples. Do you need to keep track of; food (rations, apples), ammo (bolts, arrows, sling bullets), basic equipment (candles, chalk, flour), spell components, pages in a spellbook? Because if not then haakon1's point is valid. The resource management you list are dailies, surges, and encounter powers. How are these different than the same abilities used in different editions? Cleric still needed to know how many turn undead they had left, barbarians raged, wizards had their spell-lists. I fail to see the point you are trying to make. (Caveat: If your point was [u]only[/u] to say that 4e still has things you need to track, please disregard this section.) Yes, they are both 1d8+n. Do they both shunt the enemy back 2 squares (not 10 feet, 2 effing squares)? Do they both have the keyword of, let's say, acid therefore we know to have it deal 1d6+k continual for 1d3+l rounds? No? Sharing the mechanic for shocking grasp and a scimitar isn't really the same as sharing a mechanic across (nearly) all powers across (nearly) classes - at the same level of course. If by Vancian, do you mean fire and forget? Then what do you count encounter and at wills? How is it "Vancian magic" for the wizard but different for the fighter? Warriors are as much spellcasters as wizards are spellcasters. Both have X dallies, Y encounters, Z at wills per day. They differ ONLY in the power source. But as many 4e'rs have admitted, power sources are pretty much still just magic. I think a lot of us (on the non-4e side) find it puzzling why fighters NEED a power source. We mean they are built the same, at level 6 how many of W (surges), X (dallies), Y (encounters), Z (at wills) do you get to use? Is there variation there? Please refer to above comments about disliking balance. Actually, with all the racial stuff in 4e, the differences in races are rather bland. Rather "balanced" to suit one another and to no longer have a perceived unbalanced effect. (Caveat: I don't know what point haakon1 was trying to make about races.) Why are [U][B]all[/B][/U] characters in 4e meant to be the main protagonist? The one who never dies? Imagine if comics worked that way, where (super)heroes never had the chance of dying, they never got sick, never lost a fight. Once upon a time, that was true but we have changed, evolved into something more closely resembling reality. Characters should die, no scratch that. They should have the chance of dying. They shouldn't go out every day knowing that the world is designed for them to win. They should leave knowing that their actions will have an impact. They should leave knowing that if they die they die for a reason. Good. :D My faith is waning that they can build a game to cater to all crowds. I clearly want different things than you do Hassassin. We want to build very different games. But going forward I really don't want them to make a crappy product which is a mutant of 4e (or 3e or 2 or 1) with other editions thrown in. I DO want them to make a new game. A game which is its own, but incorporates elements from all prior editions. This is a FAR preferable idea to me, and one it seems like they are already doing - if you pay attention to the playtests reviews. Just a general question, both for you Hassassin and to anyone else who wants to answer it. When in history, literature, myths, legends, etc. have we ever had stories where the heroes were good to go ALL THE TIME. Where they fight 1000 battles and end up as fresh as they start. For me, this is a problem bigger than 4e but exacerbated by 4e's (healing surges and encounters). It seems like there SHOULD (looking at those sources) be a large amount of downtime, for prep, research and healing. I don't really want a video game mentality where you wait 2 minutes out of combat and suddenly you are 100% ready again. I would love to see a system where you fight, get tired (winded), need to surge into battle again (second wind) but then end up sore, fatigued and in need of extended downtime to recoup. Not just 5 more minutes and then good to go. I digress, not the point of this post or this thread. I do like Combat as War, cannot stand Combat as Sport. Let me break it down. Overly cautions? Good. Non-Heroic? I don't see how. The point is to come out of the fight alive, the point is to defeat the enemy and for them to need to be defeated. I can't imagine anything more heroic, even if you have to be cautions and to overcome great odds. Why does Combat as Sport support heroes more traditionally - to you? Being King Arthur vs Croaker has nothing to do with the CAW/CAS debate. It does have to do with the outlook and playstyle of the characters but it has nothing to do with the rules of the game themselves. If anything I've found CAS people to be more interested in money, greed and shiny things than people playing for CAW where the goal and outcome matter more. As far as your Black Company remark - I don't agree with your characterization but I do understand it - I want you to look again at my former post, I've quoted it here for your easy reference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
Top