Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4761729" data-attributes="member: 80487">I pretty much agree with Korgoth, except that I have come to appreciate the abstraction of the 4E "combat" board game for what it is. A sufficiently interesting board is a big help, and I am inclined to think the force composition should significantly favor the DM side. (If the players have to work harder, they have more brains to do the work.) "Almost killed" characters (and used-up healing surges) in preliminary rounds seem -- in my limited experience -- to bode well for an exciting final match. A morale break point for the "bad guys" can cut back remaining "grind" potential.The amount of time and energy devoted in play to fights (especially per fight), and the amount devoted to creating good combat scenarios, is the main thing I see as cramping other aspects of traditional D&D play.All that additional rules (i.e., skill challenges) have done for me so far is further reduce the scope and increase boring "roll-playing".On the other hand, the situation in those terms does not seem very much different to me now than in 3E. If big 3E fans are complaining, then something surely has hit them!RuneQuest (1978-80 editions especially) remains one of my favorite games. It has a pretty detailed combat system, and was the first major "skill-based" RPG after Traveller (another of my favorites). Yet, I've never known anyone acquainted with it (as opposed to "class system" purists, speaking on principle and in ignorance) to claim that it somehow hinders role-playing. Quite the opposite: It seems generally reputed as a game that puts special emphasis on the persona's character and relationships.When it comes to D&D, I'm one of the traditionalists who see as features things that appear as flaws in light of an approach like Imaro's. However, I do not consider access to fantastic powers of any sort a measure of role-playing potential!It seems to me a pretty central problem that WotC's design has become so complex, and complexly integrated, by default. Based on my own experience designing games, I'll say that it's easier to add complications to a simple one than to simplify a systematically complicated one. Starting with a principle of modularity makes the latter much easier than starting with a concept of holistic "balance". (Even with that start, I have ended up at least once with a tangled snarl.)What I see at every turn is the 4E designers deciding what's "fun" and then constructing devices to enforce that subset of possibilities. That is especially problematic at this juncture because in so many cases the paradigms they impose are so nearly the opposite of those on which the D&D brand was built. People who are already vegetarians might not take much interest in Hormel® brand tofu, and Spam® eaters might prefer some other maker's genuine meat product to a soy-based replacement.</blockquote>

Verification