Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5835527" data-attributes="member: 82160">Good point.&nbsp; Even as I typed it I knew it needed clarification, elaboration or something more to that part of my post.&nbsp; For me, when a wizard reads a 3 paragraph spell that has mechanical as well as fluff mixed in, he is thinking about how that spell works in the world, and he is more likely to act in that way this strengthens &quot;roleplaying&quot; in my world.&nbsp; For me when a fighter has to describe what he wants to do to the DM and how it works in the situation and they discuss how it works, he is &quot;roleplaying&quot;.&nbsp; Or at least they are roleplaying in a way that &quot;using homogenous with little to no fluff power x&quot; is not.&nbsp; I could go on.&nbsp; I could stat professions, the ability to exchange combat power non combat or roleplaying power, the fact that rules for tactics combat were greatly expanded while non combat seemed at least to be removed allowing the players the &quot;freedom&quot; to roleplay however they like, or just not.&nbsp;&nbsp; I could reference the crappy combatcentric adventures with little to no plot but you might think that unfair because WOTC has always made crappy adventures, but then again previously they employed Paizo to make rich adventures with incredible plots.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or we could agree that a game that focuses MORE on tactics, by neccessity focusses LESS on roleplaying.&nbsp; You'll disagree with that I am sure.Or I could ammend my quote &quot;balanced, homogenous, tactical minis game with little to no support for non combat/roleplayin&quot; to &quot;balanced, homogenous, tactical minis game&quot; if you prefer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hanez, post: 5835527, member: 82160"] Good point. Even as I typed it I knew it needed clarification, elaboration or something more to that part of my post. For me, when a wizard reads a 3 paragraph spell that has mechanical as well as fluff mixed in, he is thinking about how that spell works in the world, and he is more likely to act in that way this strengthens "roleplaying" in my world. For me when a fighter has to describe what he wants to do to the DM and how it works in the situation and they discuss how it works, he is "roleplaying". Or at least they are roleplaying in a way that "using homogenous with little to no fluff power x" is not. I could go on. I could stat professions, the ability to exchange combat power non combat or roleplaying power, the fact that rules for tactics combat were greatly expanded while non combat seemed at least to be removed allowing the players the "freedom" to roleplay however they like, or just not. I could reference the crappy combatcentric adventures with little to no plot but you might think that unfair because WOTC has always made crappy adventures, but then again previously they employed Paizo to make rich adventures with incredible plots. Or we could agree that a game that focuses MORE on tactics, by neccessity focusses LESS on roleplaying. You'll disagree with that I am sure. Or I could ammend my quote "balanced, homogenous, tactical minis game with little to no support for non combat/roleplayin" to "balanced, homogenous, tactical minis game" if you prefer. [/QUOTE]

Verification