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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5781376" data-attributes="member: 6957">In honesty, I do not think that it can, but I will hope otherwise.I will expand what I said saying to include that the game has roleplaying elements, but that roleplaying, as semi-pseudo-sorta stated by one of the designers, was not the main point in some regards at least. ('D&D is a game about combat, not about traipsing through the faerie rings to interact with the little people...' gods above and below I hate that line... <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/rant.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rant:" title="Rant    :rant:" data-shortname=":rant:" />)Much of what follows is not addressing your quote, but other posters above:Heroquest was a boardgame with RPG elements, Warhammer Quest was a boardgame with RPG elements. 4e is, in my opinion, almost evenly a mix of boardgame, tactical combat wargame, and RPG, with the focus on how combat works making it more of a boardgame/tactical combat game.That is an opinion, an honest one, but only an opinion. While 4e is not to my taste these elements do not make it a bad game - simply one that I do not like.It is entirely possible that Essentials, while using the same rules, brought the focus back towards RPG.It is also possible that the focus was primarily caused by the PoV of one of the writers that pushed his direction more vocally than others. That the focus on the boardgame/tactical elements was more narrative than rules.Either way, it was enough to make me give up on 4e as an RPG.And there seem to be enough 4e players and enthusiasts that acknowledge that it plays, in some ways at least, like a boardgame that I am unlikely to be swayed in that opinion.The Auld Grump</blockquote>

Verification