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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4255055" data-attributes="member: 4937">Goonalan: D&D over the years had done a very good job of not really establishing what its core gameplay was.  To some people, this was a horrendous sin.  But in practice, what it meant was that gamers of all different stripes could share a table together.  It meant that whether you were 100% tactician or 0% tactician, 100% method actor or 0% method actor, you could play D&D.  It was probably noones perfect game, but it was often many groups perfect game because you could take some friends with different ideas of what fun was and find something for all of them.4e is NOT like that as far as I can tell.  It's a game that decides how you should play and makes the game fit that.  If you don't play that way or don't want to play that way, then tough.I've played with groups that would find the tactics no challenge whatsoever.  I've player with individuals that would eat that stuff up.  I've also played with other groups that find combat boring and combat where you have to do alot of thinking doubly so.I don't think I'd have much problem with the tactics.  I've been a RBDM known for his cunning and ruthlessness for about 20 years now.  But I do think that I would be bored by the relentless invasion of tactical gaming into combat.  Much as I enjoy strategy games, I don't want to be playing chess in the middle of my RPG.  Like I said months ago, I can accept 4e as a minatures combat game, but I have a hard time accepting it as an RPG.  It doesn't care about my job as a narrator at all.  It doesn't care about emersiveness at all.   I can play it and I might can enjoy it, but only by not caring about the things that make RPG a special joy.</blockquote>

Verification