Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5496115" data-attributes="member: 94022">I would be hesitant in the least to say that the kinect is less complex than the standard controller.  There are far more possible inputs with the kinect than with the controller (even if there are not many, if any, games out that actually take advantage of this).  Pretty much everything your body does is mapped by the system and translated to your avatar (unlike the Wii -- not sure about PS Move).  If for example, you spread your legs when you jump, your avatar will also spread its legs.  What kinect is though, is far more intuitive despite its greater number of options.  Want to jump?  Then jump rather than hit A.  Want to throw an uppercut?  Then throw an uppercut rather than hitting X + Y while pulling the left trigger, etc.   If D&D could achieve this mix of complexity and intuitiveness, I think it would make for a huge success.  Different options are great in my opinion, but taking 5 minutes to figure out exactly what just happened when the die roll said 12 is not.  I personally love being able to make a character that doesn't feel exactly like every other member of its class but you'll always need some sort of degree of options or depth in order to do that.  I'm not sure exactly how to make one fighter feel different than another without providing options.   I agree that the biggest problem with 4e is the fiddly bits but I'm also not certain how to distinguish one build from another without some degree of fiddlyness.  After all, the different conditions (dazed, stun, weakened, slowed, etc.) are a big part of what makes different powers feel different.  If there were no fiddly bits, then its just a question of damage, which doesn't really make for a choice imho.  I mean sure, you could choose to deal less damage, but how many players really would if there wasn't some other trade off involved?  I love the fact that I've played in three different games with bards now, and each bard felt truly different from the others.  Back in the day though, the only real question for fighters (frex) was sword and board or two hander?  Oh I suppose you could choose axe or hammer instead of sword, but it still didn't really feel any different. Of course, I also think that they should continue to provide simpler choices as well for those who prefer that style.  Perhaps that's the way to make them feel different.  As it stands though, one sentinel is likely to feel the same as the next.  It doesn't make it a bad class, it just makes it a class short on options.  Sure, p. 42 can be used to cover things not in the rules -- and it should -- but I think the game kind of fails (imho) if players are forced to think outside the box, and to act based on p. 42, in order to make their character feel different.</blockquote>

Verification