NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5322324" data-attributes="member: 87792">More like a board game and less like a roleplaying game than what?  4e is a roleplaying game therefore its rules are those of a roleplaying game.   And the mechanics of 4e are the least dissociated mechanics of any version of D&D I have ever played.  When I play a fighter in older editions, I stand next to my target playing pattycake until one of us reaches 0 hp - we are still entirely functional up to that point.  When I play a fighter in 4e, I push my opponent around with my shield and size.  I see and exploit opportunities.  I get so far in my opponent's face that he doesn't dare turn his back and it will take a few seconds for him to recover his cool even if he slips away.  And I sometimes step back and try to recover my breath if I'm getting tired.  And I do flag part way through.  4e combat is subject to the limitations of a grid - and the strengths of one (much clearer shared visualisation because you can see where everyone is). If "disassociated mechanics" means 'represents damn well for the level of detail what I do in real life, then turns it up at higher levels' then yes, 4e has disassociated mechanics.  If it means 'makes a fun game by turning real life actions up to 11' then yes it has disassociated mechanics.  If it means 'saves a hell of a lot of time and hassle by having a pretty clear set of rules for complex actions even at the expense of fine detail' then it has disassociated mechanics.  If it means something else, could you please explain in detail what that is and how 4e is any worse than older editions of D&D (or even e.g. GURPS)?  I've never played Burning Wheel, but from what I can tell it (like Dogs in the Vineyard) has a set of mechanics that are jointed with the fiction, but disassociated from the world.  Still, it looks a nice system.  Simply a largely narrativist one - and 4e has the best narrative support of any edition of mainstream D&D (ignoring e.g. fantasycraft)  Does the criticism of "disassociated mechanics" really boil down to "It's D&D"?  You've never played a skill challenge with me as DM.  They are a brilliant DM tool that's badly explained - and I really must finish that guide.  And when used as more than a dice rolling excercise are far more immersive than skill systems in previous editions because they are not either (a) pass/fail or (b) largely down to DM fiat.  Unfortunately the guidance sucks - which is why I must write my own.  4e's mechanics are a better fit to the fiction than most games.  And unlike most wide open games (like e.g. Dogs in the Vineyard), they bring things of their own such as combat styles.  Which encourages me in riffs I'd never have thought of without the seed presented right there in the mechanics.   Some is.  And a lot was paid when the game was designed.  Yes.  If you're using a board like that, how are you holding it?  How are you getting it positioned in combat in the few seconds you have?  How are you using a board not expecting the rats to go over and round it?  If the rat swarm is big and feral enough to be threatening adventurers in combat and you try to bend over to use a board to push them back you're going to get rats up your legs, up your arms, and all over you unless your DM is a pushover (and, for that matter, swinging something in a wide arc is a close attack rather than melee).  If someone were to try that damn fool stunt with me DMing, I'd allow them under the guidelines of page 42 of the DMG.  Improvised weapon vs reflex (rats dodge), low damage expression (on a good day), close blast 1 and push 1 on a success.  Rats get an attack of opportunity because it's a damn fool stunt. But that's not an orthodox push attack.  It's an improvised close area attack (close blast 1, probably).  And there's plently of precident for making close bursts and blasts with melee weapons.</blockquote>

Verification