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="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5866720" data-attributes="member: 1544">If I can be blunt about it; I never found combat in the earlier editions to be lacking. 4E expanded combat in ways that I feel were completely unnecessary. Hence my gripe with it being slower. I see powers as a key contributor to that.I don't know enough about terms like 'narrative game' to really contribute to that part of the conversation. What I do know is that I want mechanics that support the story. 4E's mechanics had too many issues for gamers like myself. Too often the mechanics caused the game to halt while we all tried to figure out a plausible way of explaining what just happened. I'm not sure how to explain that better. Hmm.... I want to say "I do this" and then find the mechanics that match. I feel 4E puts the mechanics first and then leaves me trying to find a suitable description for what my character just did. Pre-errata monsters provide some of the most stunning examples of this - my favourite whipping dog being the fact you can knock a gelatinous cube prone. It's a nonsentient ooze, and yet you can stun it, daze it, blind it, deafen it, surprise it, and even dominate it. I'm told that errata eventually fixed those issues, but I'm only using that as an example case. There were plenty of others. Having powers puts you in the mindset that 'these are the things I can do'. Often those things didn't make any sense within the context of the story. I do not find that part of gaming enjoyable. I like the game to make sense first, and then have mechanics that support the logic. This is why I put my faith more in the 'simulationist' camp.If it's logical that a fighter can perform fancy combat manoeuvers all battle (such as Jet Li tripping over a room full of karate guys) then I want the rules to support that. Equally, if it's logical that the bookish wizard isn't as good at that, I want the rules to reflect that, while still allowing him to try it and get lucky.Having a fighter with 18 strength push an orc off a cliff is cool, but not really that interesting. Having the weakling wizard try to push an orc off a cliff out of sheer desperation, and succeed, is amazing. It's logical that the wizard can make the attempt. It's even logical that he can succeed, but the mechanics should reflect the likelihood. In 3E and earlier games, this pans out as expected. In 4E, the wizard has a greater chance of success due to adding half level to attack than he would in any other edition. I don't find that logical, yet other players do. It's these differences of opinion that make game design really tricky.[edit]Uh, I lost track of what I was saying there.The point is that it's logical for a fighter to push his opponent off a cliff. It's not logical for that same fighter to 'run out' of push powers, and then use other powers that make no use of the terrain just because he has those powers left in his hand. Say he has a push 5 power and uses it, why would he use a 3[W] damage power instead of pushing 5 again?[/edit][MENTION=52073]Eldritch_Lord[/MENTION] Your rant was excellent, and I'd like to summarize:Page 42 is nice, but it's not a good substitute for fundamental combat rules that should have existed in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification