Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5188943" data-attributes="member: 42582">That wasn't quite what I said. I referred to its support for tactical combat in a fantasy RPG. And I meant &quot;RPG&quot; when I said it. Not only does 4e support tactics of the sort that might be fun in a minis game, but it does in my experience it does so in a way that supports roleplaying. And this is not only an issue of colour (eg the mobility of sorcerers and wraiths has a different flavour from the mobility of fighters and goblilns) but of theme - different tactical options for monsters open up thematic questions for the players to address - such as cowardice vs courage, cooperation vs self-aggrandisement, caution vs risk, and so on.Until 4e, the game I spent most of my RPG time on was Rolemaster. Rolemaster has tactical considerations with thematic consequences (the main one being choice of OB/DB split from round to round) which were a huge part of what I and my players enjoyed about RM. Part of the reason for moving to 4e is that it provides the same sort of roleplaying experience in a package that has many other virtues that RM lacks, while introducing comparatively few flaws (RM characters are thematically richer than 4e characters, but not by much, espcecially as those 4e characters gain levels).What I would like to see for 4e is a better development of the skill challenge rules, so that they better supported the integration of those thematic aspects of combat into non-combat encounters (eg what difference should it make to an Intimidate in a skill challenge that an NPC has seen a PC fight a combat using a certain set of powers and abilities? - of course I can wing this stuff, but some guidelines written by professional designers, who have more time than me to think hard about mechanical balance, efficiency and coherence, would help).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5188943, member: 42582"] That wasn't quite what I said. I referred to its support for tactical combat in a fantasy RPG. And I meant "RPG" when I said it. Not only does 4e support tactics of the sort that might be fun in a minis game, but it does in my experience it does so in a way that supports roleplaying. And this is not only an issue of colour (eg the mobility of sorcerers and wraiths has a different flavour from the mobility of fighters and goblilns) but of theme - different tactical options for monsters open up thematic questions for the players to address - such as cowardice vs courage, cooperation vs self-aggrandisement, caution vs risk, and so on. Until 4e, the game I spent most of my RPG time on was Rolemaster. Rolemaster has tactical considerations with thematic consequences (the main one being choice of OB/DB split from round to round) which were a huge part of what I and my players enjoyed about RM. Part of the reason for moving to 4e is that it provides the same sort of roleplaying experience in a package that has many other virtues that RM lacks, while introducing comparatively few flaws (RM characters are thematically richer than 4e characters, but not by much, espcecially as those 4e characters gain levels). What I would like to see for 4e is a better development of the skill challenge rules, so that they better supported the integration of those thematic aspects of combat into non-combat encounters (eg what difference should it make to an Intimidate in a skill challenge that an NPC has seen a PC fight a combat using a certain set of powers and abilities? - of course I can wing this stuff, but some guidelines written by professional designers, who have more time than me to think hard about mechanical balance, efficiency and coherence, would help). [/QUOTE]

Verification