Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6811447" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well, while it may have been a tad "weasel word"-y on my part, I did say "almost always" and not "always." So your personal example, while valid, doesn't truly contradict what I said. Quite right, however, on the fluidity of the definitions. People use the terms very blithely, assuming everyone uses the words exactly the way they do.I guess my problem, then, is that I don't think it is correct to assume that people who like 4e's mechanics consequently "leap into every fight because it's fun." For you, that may be entirely the case--and there is nothing wrong with approaching 4e in that way. What is wrong is the assumption that *because* 4e's designers really tried to make the..."process of combat" (for lack of a better term) enjoyable in itself, people *therefore* must inherently want to engage in combat in a specific way if they like 4e(-style games).That's one of the biggest problems with it, even. It assumes that people who play particular editions always approach a particular slice of the rules with a specific mindset--which strikes me as just a slightly more nuanced kind of "one true way"ism. (Nuanced in that it assumes there is one true way for each ruleset.) As you demonstrated, you enjoy engaging with 4e by leaping headlong into the fray, and you enjoy engaging with 5e by scrounging for every advantage, fair or unfair, that you can find. But asserting that the dichotomy "exists" is equivalent to asserting that there's a right way and a wrong way to play 4e or 5e or any other game, and that's going to run into some pretty heavy opposition. (Consider, for example, the entire "Fourthcore" subculture, which revelled in the precision math of 4e...while specifically gunning for all the qualities people seem to assign to the "combat as war" style.)This, at least, I can agree with on both counts. If the dichotomy has any validity at all--and I'm skeptical about how much it has--it's because it shows how the experience of the game is shaped by numerous factors, including but not limited to:- the actual text of the game in question- the general culture and norms (realistic or unrealistic) surrounding that game- the preferences and choices of the DM- the preferences and choices of the players- the format/tools used by the group"Real" risk is one possible example of DM and/or player preferences. "Pulling clever/powerful stunts" (I hesitate to say "doing cool things" since what is "cool" varies so greatly from person to person) is another, equally valid example--and that's just within that axis of variation.Similarly, some people may get a huge kick out of poring over their collection of miniatures, either to find inspiration (for a combat, an adventure, or potentially even an entire campaign) or to get *just* the right mini for a particular enemy to make it "come to life." Others may find it inconvenient or impossible to game in person, and thus only look for online games. Etc. All of these things can influence the experience of play, and make for a system much too rich and diverse to be summarized by even a highly robust dichotomy, let alone one as ill-defined as the alleged "war vs. sport" one.</blockquote>

Verification