Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 6095682" data-attributes="member: 98255">This is one of the things that I really liked about 4e, and it ties into another of the things I liked - that flavour is explicitly *not* tied to the mechanics. The mechanics suggest flavour, but don't define it. This leads to a situation where it can even suggest multiple different flavours/interpretations. This, to me, is a very desirable aspect of the game, and one which simply tacking on a &quot;tactical&quot; module won't be able to accomplish on its own.The very fact that most of the &quot;address a 4e playstyle&quot; commentary is usually summed up with &quot;add tactical support/complexity/minis&quot; just serves to illustrate for me just how much people are missing in the full spectrum of the 4e experience. I get that not everybody likes the element of fixed crunch/negotiable fluff that I named in the last paragraph, as there have been long and heated debates about the merits of that approach or lack thereof, but the fact remains that it's something that won't be easily recaptured for those of us who do actively want it (or require it, post-4e) simply by adding a &quot;tactical&quot; module. To me the tactical element is secondary to the rest of the design philosophy inherent to 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nemesis Destiny, post: 6095682, member: 98255"] This is one of the things that I really liked about 4e, and it ties into another of the things I liked - that flavour is explicitly *not* tied to the mechanics. The mechanics suggest flavour, but don't define it. This leads to a situation where it can even suggest multiple different flavours/interpretations. This, to me, is a very desirable aspect of the game, and one which simply tacking on a "tactical" module won't be able to accomplish on its own. The very fact that most of the "address a 4e playstyle" commentary is usually summed up with "add tactical support/complexity/minis" just serves to illustrate for me just how much people are missing in the full spectrum of the 4e experience. I get that not everybody likes the element of fixed crunch/negotiable fluff that I named in the last paragraph, as there have been long and heated debates about the merits of that approach or lack thereof, but the fact remains that it's something that won't be easily recaptured for those of us who do actively want it (or require it, post-4e) simply by adding a "tactical" module. To me the tactical element is secondary to the rest of the design philosophy inherent to 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification