Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8342146" data-attributes="member: 12731">Sorry tried it found it unplayable. Either the fight was of manageable size, and then it was trivial to win for the players, or the fight was actually challenging, and it would take all the available time with nothing left for story and roleplaying. I don't agree with those lazily saying 4E played like a boardgame. But for us the feeling really was of playing a boardgame, since combats needed to take many hours to be tactically interesting and challenging. It matters that 4E really invites you to play it like chess, really planning each move. (Playing it hard and fast never appealed to us given all the little bonuses and modifiers).In the end it was really fun, except sessions consisted almost exclusively of looking at a board and methodically winning a combat. It didn't give us the balance between fighting, and talking, and fighting, and role-playing. Sure some fights in 3E or 5E take forever too (particularly at high level). 4E was doomed because EVERY fight had to be just about the only thing you did that session. Otherwise we got the feeling of a party of level 10 characters meeting three goblins. Playing out such a lopsided fight just isn't done, you simply narrate the death/capture/etc of the low-level foes and move on.In other to have the familiar rhythm all fights would have had to be like that. Fights you don't want to waste time on because the outcome is a given.So no Captain Reynolds, we gave it a serious try but had to drop it as basically incompatible with our D&amp;D campaigns. Let's just say in hindsight I have never struggled to understand how the edition could fail.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8342146, member: 12731"] Sorry tried it found it unplayable. Either the fight was of manageable size, and then it was trivial to win for the players, or the fight was actually challenging, and it would take all the available time with nothing left for story and roleplaying. I don't agree with those lazily saying 4E played like a boardgame. But for us the feeling really was of playing a boardgame, since combats needed to take many hours to be tactically interesting and challenging. It matters that 4E really invites you to play it like chess, really planning each move. (Playing it hard and fast never appealed to us given all the little bonuses and modifiers). In the end it was really fun, except sessions consisted almost exclusively of looking at a board and methodically winning a combat. It didn't give us the balance between fighting, and talking, and fighting, and role-playing. Sure some fights in 3E or 5E take forever too (particularly at high level). 4E was doomed because EVERY fight had to be just about the only thing you did that session. Otherwise we got the feeling of a party of level 10 characters meeting three goblins. Playing out such a lopsided fight just isn't done, you simply narrate the death/capture/etc of the low-level foes and move on. In other to have the familiar rhythm all fights would have had to be like that. Fights you don't want to waste time on because the outcome is a given. So no Captain Reynolds, we gave it a serious try but had to drop it as basically incompatible with our D&D campaigns. Let's just say in hindsight I have never struggled to understand how the edition could fail. [/QUOTE]

Verification