Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nomad4life" data-source="post: 2859344" data-attributes="member: 28645">I’m going to interpret this question as “Do you prefer abstract combat systems over tactical ones in role playing games.”In which case, my answer would be “YES” a billion times over.  In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone else who loathes tactical combat within RPGs as much as I do.  (If I wanted to play a boardgame, I’d fire up RISK or Battletech- But when I play an RPG game, I just want to take part in an interactive story, with combat simply being one component of that story.)My biggest problem with the combat rules in 3.X isn’t just that they are too wargamey for my taste (for certainly there are consumers of D&D who specifically enjoy that aspect of the game.)  My problem is that these wargamey aspects are far too integrated into the core rules themselves.  In other words, I wish that the “minis” element of the game had been presented as a separate set of optional additional rules.  That way, the gamers who need such conventions would still have them, while I would be able to gleefully rip them from my core books. Not that it makes much difference anymore, as I’ve moved on from D&D to systems such as M&M, True20, and C&C...  All of which handle combat in a manner far more in line with my specific vision of what combat should be in a role playing game.</blockquote>