Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chzbro" data-source="post: 5372351" data-attributes="member: 83964">First let me say to the OP that I appreciate that you actually tried the game despite your misgivings and found things about it that you like.Like the OP, I have played D&D for years. I started with Redbox, had my hiatus during 2E, and came back for 3.5 and 4E. However, unlike the OP, I don't feel any particular love for Vancian magic, wandering monsters, or non-tactical combat. While all of these things were part of the games I played, none of them defined D&D for me.Having said that, I can certainly see why certain issues with the current game might become sticking points for players who have a different view than I about what D&D "is." I don't want at all to try to convince anyone that my way of seeing the game is the "right way," but since I think the OP is asking why those points he expressed don't bother me the same way they do him, I'll try to explain.To me, D&D has never been about the ruleset. My games have always been an imperfect attempt to recreate the kind of heroic (sometimes dark) fantasy that my friends and I read in novels, watched in movies, and daydreamed about on summer afternoons. In some ways, I find that 4E facilitates this more easily than earlier rulesets because it allows me (as either a player or DM) do things appropriate to the story even if there are no rules to explicitly allow it. An encounter can revolve around 2 powerful wizards engaged in a magical duel, for example, and I don't have to worry at all about what spells they are casting or how they're maintaining the shield the PCs are trying to batter through. They just are, because it's cinematic and awesome.And that brings us to the "time bubble" issue with encounters. This doesn't bother me, because I try to think of encounters as cinematic fights rather than old school, sweeping-out-the-dungeon fights. I've never read a fantasy novel (nor do I think I'd care to) where the heroes march from room to room in a dungeon killing whatever they find (please note that I am NOT saying this is how the OP runs his game). This, for some, is an age-old trope of D&D, but to me not a very satisfying one. I don't care about wandering monsters and yard trash; those were never anything more than resource drains. When I have a fight in D&D, I want it to be because it's important, it's dramatic, and it's memorable. To me, this means the "time bubble" as opposed to spending 3 rounds outside the door buffing or beating the snot out of yet another group of wandering bugbears. I don't mind the "time bubble" because to me planning an encounter like that means the encounter is *important.*There's not much to be said about the tactical combat, except maybe this: not all combats have to be tactical. If you're burning out from combat after combat, remember that there are other ways to beat the snot out of those wandering bugbears. Skill challenges can really shine in situations like this, especially if you get creative with them. Why not throw some skill challenges in now and again that simulate things like running combats or killing guards without any minis on the board? Make the players describe what they're doing, how they're fighting. I did this once to simulate a running battle WITH minis, only no one did any moving around. Each success with different skills removed 1 or 2 enemy minis from the board until none were left and the PCs escaped. They had to imagine the fight (mostly flight, actually), but we did it all with no tactical combat at all...and it went great. So again, I think heavily tactical combats are a wonderful addition to the game, but that doesn't mean every "combat" has to be tactical.And then there are powers. Also tricky in that it's all about your perception. If you MUST think of powers in a literal sense ("why can't I use this encounter/daily all the time") it's problematic. If, however, you think of them in a "literary" way, they make much more sense. In stories and movies, the hero doesn't knock his opponent down every time he swings his sword. It only happens once, usually when he needs it most. In 4E, we let the player decide when that "I need it most" moment is. It's one of the things that I think is strongest about 4E: shared storytelling. You can't think of powers as mechanics of the game; you have to think about them as part of the story...they are the way that players are able to influence the story in combat in much the same way that they influence the story outside of combat through role-play (and sometimes utility powers/rituals).I'm sure I could go on, but that pretty fairly sums up how I think of the game and how I "adjusted" to the peculiarities of 4E. For me the adjustment wasn't hard because I like a cinematic game and 4E is a very cinematic edition. I have to say, I still kind of bristle when I hear people describe it as "video gamey;" if anything it's "storybook-y," and I don't hear a whole lot of people complaining about their D&D game feeling too much like their Eberron novels. I mean, isn't it supposed to?</blockquote>

Verification