Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2314527" data-attributes="member: 32164">I agree. It is a matter of taste and mindset. But it's not as simple as a preference for "immersive" vs. "tactical" roleplaying. It's a matter of whether you want rules that allow your character to get "better" at things.I can choose to "describe" an action any way I want. But there's no sense of accomplishment beyond what I get from telling or writing a story. As a player (and speaking strictly as a player), a large part of the enjoyment of D&D is the vicarious thrill of "accomplishing" something. Simply deciding that I, in story form, complete my attack by bounding over a table may be satisfying from a storytelling standpoint, but from a "vicarious thrills" standpoint, it's exactly the same as "I swing my sword. I hit." There's no reason to come up with the descriptive language. However, if I know that by tumbling past the guy I might get a bonus on the attack, I'll do it.I guess to me, it's a matter of risk versus reward. In rules-light, description-heavy systems, the risk-reward is in your head (combat is obviously abstract enough to allow it to all be description). In more tactical games, there is a tangible effect of risk vs. reward. While this obviously isn't necessary (or even "realistic" in such an abstract system), it's much more satisfying to me as a player to accomplish something cool because I took a risk and succeeded, rather than simply deciding it happened.Like you said, it's a matter of taste, but it's not as simple as immersive vs. tactical. I'd say it's more about emphasizing "collective storytelling" vs. "vicarious thrills."Obviously, there's elements of both in both. If the one side was just interested in collective storytelling, you wouldn't need a resolution mechanic at all, but then it's just improvisational theatre. And if the other was just about "vicarious thrills," we'd just gamble. So the happy medium is somewhere in the middle. Some systems lean one way, others lean others. As an example, the Hero system is TOO tactical even for me. And Palladium (with its "resolve every strike, parry, and dodge") is too. On the other hand, Amber Diceless roleplaying with its utter lack of a resolution mechanic is way too far the other way. C&C, Warhammer, and D&D 3e fall between these extremes.I stand by my broader point about C&C. Without feats, spellcasters have more tactical options (that actually have RULES implications) than the combat-focused classes. Note that "you can do this but it has substantial penalties with no measurable reward" is not an option any sane person would take. Ergo, it's not a "real" option. Nor is "you can do this, but it has no penalties and makes no difference" because that's not an option with any rules implications either.Just my personal take on "descriptive" combat.If the CKG adds feats, skills and such back into C&C, I don't see how it's any less complicated than 3e. Although I freely admit that statting up and equipping a mid-high-level 3e character is a pain in the A. A system that solves this issue ALWAYS gets my attention (at least for a short time).</blockquote>

Verification