Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seregil" data-source="post: 5883531" data-attributes="member: 38425">If all you want is tactical battle, why are you playing DND at all? I mean, aren't there miniature games, by WOTC even, that would fit better?Your approach doesn't take into account a basic problem with 4e's ruleset (and one I made earlier): not all spell effect can be described by math, bonuses or other quantitative descriptors. Even battle spells are more than just math. Fireball is more than a mere Xd6 20' ka-boom. There's the heat, the sound, heck even the smell should at least be mentioned in the spell. Not to mention how it's cast, how the spell appears etc.Ok, make spell cards that include only the crunch, but if there IS nothing else, then why in the hell do i even bother calling it a role-playing game? I might as well play Warhammer Fantasy battles with just independent characters and have done with it. Come up with some background, maybe make it a bit interactive and then have at it on the battle map. I do it all the time when I play 40K. Why are the Blood Angels fighting other Space Marines? Oh, because so-and-so was corrupted by the Warp and the SM are under the effect of Warp Powers.After this 30 second intro, we fight the battle and ignore the pretext we came up to justify two armies that are nominally on the same side fighting each other. We're playing a battle game and only really care about the crunch. In no way is 40K a roleplaying game.I said earlier, this approach where fluff is absent or sorely lacking is de-evolving the game back to its Chainmail roots: a tactical combat game devoid of any rpg elements and THAT is definitely not a direction Gygax/Arneson would approve of since the entire POINT of DND was to add storytelling to the experience, including the combat part.</blockquote>

Verification