Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4759847" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yet another forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4758795" target="_blank"> GTS 2009 D&amp;D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&amp;D </a>I see this come up quite a bit and, to be frank, I don't get it. How would creating a more &quot;robust system that handles things outside of combat&quot; make 4E less of a &quot;tactical combat centric&quot; game? I don't mean to pick on Imaro, but his view seems to advocate 4E being more tactical in all aspects of the game, not just combat; the problem being that to apply a tactical approach (&quot;a robust system&quot;) to non-combat situations just makes D&amp;D even more based upon rolling dice and less on roling characters.4E already puts a huge emphasis on rules for role-playing situations; take certain skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy...while these are nothing new they still put the &quot;weight of decision&quot; of the role-playing interaction on a dice roll. I suppose it comes down to the specific DM, and I would hope that bad or good role-playing will influence the roll when it comes down to it.But again, I disagree that 4E is overly tactically oriented in terms of combat at the expense of non-combat aspects of the game. I think there is an argument to be made that Powers in particular are too combat-focused, that Utility Powers just don't cut it and the casting times of Rituals make it difficult to integrate them into game-play. But I would find it unnecessary to add more game mechanics for role-playing (and other non-combat) situations; if anything, I would like to see variant rules for a &quot;Tactics Lite&quot; approach to combat that doesn't require miniatures.Back to the main point of discussion: How would more rules for non-combat situations better support role-playing and other non-combat oriented aspects of play? I would say that they wouldn't, that the rules exist for that which cannot be role-played not as a replacement for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 4759847, member: 59082"] Yet another forked from: [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4758795"] GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D [/URL] I see this come up quite a bit and, to be frank, I don't get it. How would creating a more "robust system that handles things outside of combat" make 4E less of a "tactical combat centric" game? I don't mean to pick on Imaro, but his view seems to advocate 4E being more tactical in all aspects of the game, not just combat; the problem being that to apply a tactical approach ("a robust system") to non-combat situations just makes D&D even more based upon rolling dice and less on roling characters. 4E already puts a huge emphasis on rules for role-playing situations; take certain skills like Intimidate or Diplomacy...while these are nothing new they still put the "weight of decision" of the role-playing interaction on a dice roll. I suppose it comes down to the specific DM, and I would hope that bad or good role-playing will influence the roll when it comes down to it. But again, I disagree that 4E is overly tactically oriented in terms of combat at the expense of non-combat aspects of the game. I think there is an argument to be made that Powers in particular are too combat-focused, that Utility Powers just don't cut it and the casting times of Rituals make it difficult to integrate them into game-play. But I would find it unnecessary to add more game mechanics for role-playing (and other non-combat) situations; if anything, I would like to see variant rules for a "Tactics Lite" approach to combat that doesn't require miniatures. Back to the main point of discussion: How would more rules for non-combat situations better support role-playing and other non-combat oriented aspects of play? I would say that they wouldn't, that the rules exist for that which cannot be role-played not as a replacement for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification