Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6347707" data-attributes="member: 22779">I think there are similarities here though.&nbsp; Strategic level planning often requires the players to be able to reframe the scenario through their own efforts.&nbsp; By the time you are in tactical level combat, there really isn't a whole lot of reframing that you can do - there just isn't enough time.&nbsp; That's an important point to remember too.&nbsp; Strategic level planning requires a much slower approach to the scenario.&nbsp; After all, it takes time to gather information, question prisoners, choose spells, whatnot.&nbsp; These are all elements that are largely fixed once initiative is rolled.Permertonian scene framing is largely at the strategic level, from what I understand, typically through things like Skill Challenges, which are at a much longer (typically anyway) time scale than combat.&nbsp; I mean, even a 20 round combat is still only two minutes of real time.&nbsp; There really isn't a huge amount of changing the scenario you can do in that time.Strategic level play is all about setting the initial conditions of the encounter.&nbsp; If you've done things right, the actual encounter is largely already resolved before initiative is rolled.&nbsp; You've ambushed the bad guys, cast your buffs, gotten into position, etc, and combat is largely a foregone conclusion.&nbsp; Which is where 4e has problems because 4e doesn't really do well with that style of game - the point of play is at the tactical level, where you are making choices round by round and reacting to the scenario as it plays out.&nbsp; Because 4e lacks a lot of the choices, particularly magic, at the strategic level, I can see why people who want strategic play would be turned off by 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6347707, member: 22779"] I think there are similarities here though. Strategic level planning often requires the players to be able to reframe the scenario through their own efforts. By the time you are in tactical level combat, there really isn't a whole lot of reframing that you can do - there just isn't enough time. That's an important point to remember too. Strategic level planning requires a much slower approach to the scenario. After all, it takes time to gather information, question prisoners, choose spells, whatnot. These are all elements that are largely fixed once initiative is rolled. Permertonian scene framing is largely at the strategic level, from what I understand, typically through things like Skill Challenges, which are at a much longer (typically anyway) time scale than combat. I mean, even a 20 round combat is still only two minutes of real time. There really isn't a huge amount of changing the scenario you can do in that time. Strategic level play is all about setting the initial conditions of the encounter. If you've done things right, the actual encounter is largely already resolved before initiative is rolled. You've ambushed the bad guys, cast your buffs, gotten into position, etc, and combat is largely a foregone conclusion. Which is where 4e has problems because 4e doesn't really do well with that style of game - the point of play is at the tactical level, where you are making choices round by round and reacting to the scenario as it plays out. Because 4e lacks a lot of the choices, particularly magic, at the strategic level, I can see why people who want strategic play would be turned off by 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification