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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brown Jenkin" data-source="post: 4083092" data-attributes="member: 2572">It is not about them being engaged. It is about play style. With them it is not giving them more choices to make them more interested, there are classes now that give those choices and they don't want them. We also play HERO where there are choices out the wazoo, and with that system they also play characters that stand still and hit things and don't make use of the variety offered. With both 3E and HERO there are viable characters that can be made that these people can play, with 4e it seems that there isn't a viable character choice that doesn't require being hyper engaged.Yes we might remind them of certain feats every so often but for the most part everyone makes thier own tactical choices. The rest of us just know how thier characters will behaive in battle and we make our decisions with that in mind. Taking over thier characters would not be fun for either them or us. As I have said elsewhere I can apreciate the variety and tactical choices in 4e in its boardgame feel in one shots. But that style of play requires a certain type of player. I also like more simulationist play for long term campaigns and 4E is missing that for me. The other problem I saw with 4E I was pointing out here which is that there are certain players that just don't want options but want simplicity. Our group has 2 of these people and 3E allows for them to contribute with viable characters in tthe way they want. Making assumptions that they are just  not engaged because there are not enough options or that they would be happy not playing at all and letting others run thier characters just doesn't seem to me to give them enough credit for having fun the way they are.</blockquote>

Verification