Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5322265" data-attributes="member: 83768">Right. I agree completely. This is my stance. However, some people don't agree. The rules are what matter (even when you misinterpret them). Hussar, I see where you are coming from. The problem with this thread is &quot;tone&quot;. Some people seem to think that if you equate D&amp;D combat to a &quot;tactical board game&quot; that's a bad thing. It's not. Why? Because some people want to go into board game mode when they go into combat. Others, however, like to stay &quot;immersed&quot; or whatever you want to call it. There's a serious problem if when we roll initiative all of a sudden we zoom out of the game and project ourselves onto this map with minis and the fiction ceases to exist. We're playing a tactical miniatures game, a board game, like D&amp;D minis. It's not a bad thing. But, it's certainly not roleplaying.I know there are some people that prefer this method of combat. They want everything to be codified, like chess. It doesn't matter if it makes sense in the fiction, so long as it follows the rigid formula set by the game parameters. That's fine. In fact, I can really understand why you would want to do that. It's a big flaw in 4E, that it's hard to associate the mechanics in combat to the fiction. Most people don't have their DMG open to page 42 when they play. They use the powers on their sheet, and that's about it. But, don't tell me I'm &quot;confused&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot; or a &quot;bad DM&quot; or using &quot;DM fiat&quot; or whatever because some of us prefer to use the fiction as the core of the game. Especially, and this really gets me, when it comes to using skills. I just can't fathom someone saying, &quot;I roll diplomacy&quot; without any fiction backing that up. Man 'o man. Anyways, like I said upthread. To each his own. Play the game how you wish.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="P1NBACK, post: 5322265, member: 83768"] Right. I agree completely. This is my stance. However, some people don't agree. The rules are what matter (even when you misinterpret them). Hussar, I see where you are coming from. The problem with this thread is "tone". Some people seem to think that if you equate D&D combat to a "tactical board game" that's a bad thing. It's not. Why? Because some people want to go into board game mode when they go into combat. Others, however, like to stay "immersed" or whatever you want to call it. There's a serious problem if when we roll initiative all of a sudden we zoom out of the game and project ourselves onto this map with minis and the fiction ceases to exist. We're playing a tactical miniatures game, a board game, like D&D minis. It's not a bad thing. But, it's certainly not roleplaying. I know there are some people that prefer this method of combat. They want everything to be codified, like chess. It doesn't matter if it makes sense in the fiction, so long as it follows the rigid formula set by the game parameters. That's fine. In fact, I can really understand why you would want to do that. It's a big flaw in 4E, that it's hard to associate the mechanics in combat to the fiction. Most people don't have their DMG open to page 42 when they play. They use the powers on their sheet, and that's about it. But, don't tell me I'm "confused" or "wrong" or a "bad DM" or using "DM fiat" or whatever because some of us prefer to use the fiction as the core of the game. Especially, and this really gets me, when it comes to using skills. I just can't fathom someone saying, "I roll diplomacy" without any fiction backing that up. Man 'o man. Anyways, like I said upthread. To each his own. Play the game how you wish. [/QUOTE]

Verification