NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheAuldGrump" data-source="post: 5724947" data-attributes="member: 6957">I am not certain that 'shallowness' is quite what he meant, but since I can't know what he meant, I will instead answer for myself, with the acknowledgement that your experiences are quite likely different from my own.It seems to me that 4e is built more around the encounter than the day, and that further the game wants everybody to share in every aspect of those encounters. Not being relegated to healing, not being just a glass cannon, not just being a buffer, etc.. In part a response to the 15 MAD that some folks experienced. As a result the mechanics of play is built more around the encounters than the scenario.For those of us that have had little or no experience with the 15 MAD it is a fix for something that we do not think is broken. We like more of a focus on resource management, and less on risk management. (Neither game is wholly one or the other - a 3.X player has to gauge risk, while a 4e player does have to monitor some resources.) We like the scenario more than the encounter.It can also make the classes seem very samey, that which class you play does not matter in a number of significant ways.WoW is also more about risk management, with resources also being marked by time rather than by expenditure, potions and the like aside. (WoW is likewise not entirely about risk management.) Likewise, a typical quest is either built around a specific encounter, or a bunny hunt. (Praise the gods and little fishes, I don't think that much of anyone bases their 4e games around 'Kill 15 foozles, and bring me their ears. I am making foozle ear soup!')For those of us who prefer the passage of time being the measure of resources the encounter based measuring of resources feels artificial. It feels like the world is being built around the encounters, rather than the encounters taking place in the world. We want adventures that are based around a scenario, not scenarios that are based around a series of encounters.It is also that same encounter based usage of resources that makes it feel like a boardgame to us, and WotC encourages that viewpoint with the way the Encounters program functions - often treating the game as a tactical boardgame.Now, I am not saying that is the only way the game can be run - looking at the 4e version of Zeitgeist shows little of that mode of thought. But, if you play the game as WotC frequently demonstrates it then it can very much seem that way. (A quick hint - well designed scenarios can likely eliminate this problem, as can encounters that reward more than tactical thinking.)This is more of a problem with WotC's presentation than with the game itself - they demonstrate it as a boardgame, and those that don't run it like a boardgame are left arguing against public experience.Hell, when 4e first came out there were 4e supporters that were touting its boardgame aspect. It made the game a heck of a lot easier to run and to prepare for. The problem was that thisboardgame aspect was equally true for the detractors.Hopefully I have explained my point of view without denigrating 4e.The Auld Grump*EDIT* I see that I am not the only one answering a question posed to Bryon for myself...</blockquote>

Verification