Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5524243" data-attributes="member: 51942">You may have hit on something here.&nbsp; But then my point is that 4e's mechanics-heavy design has some responsibility for that.&nbsp; If the mechanics had less of a &quot;fluff is optional&quot; tinge to them, then this group of people (i.e. me) would not have any problems.&nbsp; So perhaps it's not a meaningful flaw to you - but it is to me.&nbsp; In principle that's nice, and standardization to some degree is a good thing.&nbsp; They don't get these details out of the way, however - combat takes long in 4e because even though the durations may be conceptually simple, they make for complex gameplay.&nbsp; The difference between start of your turn and end of your turn may be small in principle, but tactically it matters.&nbsp; 4e to me is a tactical skirmish game, with bits of roleplaying in between.&nbsp; Combat's long and generally fun, most rules concern themselves with combat, most powers+feats concern themselves with combat - really, outside of combat there's fairly minimal structure - the difference between 4e outside of combat and freeform RP isn't very large.Isn't that contradictory?&nbsp; If you can handle players doing oddball stuff, why not oddball uses of character abilities?&nbsp;My experience is the opposite.&nbsp; The same groups spend more time in combat (which is more interesting), and have less interesting interactions with their (out-of-combat) environment in 4e than in 3e - and I don't think 3e was really good at that either, and no it's not a huge difference.&nbsp; But it is there.&nbsp; And in any case, if the system doesn't matter to you, why not fix it for those that do care?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5524243, member: 51942"] You may have hit on something here. But then my point is that 4e's mechanics-heavy design has some responsibility for that. If the mechanics had less of a "fluff is optional" tinge to them, then this group of people (i.e. me) would not have any problems. So perhaps it's not a meaningful flaw to you - but it is to me. In principle that's nice, and standardization to some degree is a good thing. They don't get these details out of the way, however - combat takes long in 4e because even though the durations may be conceptually simple, they make for complex gameplay. The difference between start of your turn and end of your turn may be small in principle, but tactically it matters. 4e to me is a tactical skirmish game, with bits of roleplaying in between. Combat's long and generally fun, most rules concern themselves with combat, most powers+feats concern themselves with combat - really, outside of combat there's fairly minimal structure - the difference between 4e outside of combat and freeform RP isn't very large. Isn't that contradictory? If you can handle players doing oddball stuff, why not oddball uses of character abilities? My experience is the opposite. The same groups spend more time in combat (which is more interesting), and have less interesting interactions with their (out-of-combat) environment in 4e than in 3e - and I don't think 3e was really good at that either, and no it's not a huge difference. But it [I]is[/I] there. And in any case, if the system doesn't matter to you, why not fix it for those that do care? [/QUOTE]

Verification