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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5565100" data-attributes="member: 83768">I think that's a false dichotomy and I don't think anyone here is arguing that D&D doesn't have a "tactical" combat foundation. But, there's a difference between combat rooted in what is happening in the fiction and combat that is rooted in what is happening on the table. The original D&D largely focused on fictional combat with the real world elements (like minis and grids) being used as a rough sketch of what was happening in the fiction. Now, with 4E, we've gotten to the point where most of the action happens at the table, the moving of minis, selecting power cards, etc. What happens in the fiction (in our imagination) is largely irrelevant. It's like playing Chess and then going back and "describing" what happened when I moved my Knight and took your Rook. "My knight charges and thrusts his lance into your rook!" But, really, I'm just moving my piece up 2 and 1 sideways. You can see this when people on 4E forums argue against basic fictional tactics (most recently, pulling a cloak off a vampire)... Wtf? What's largely missing (and I think what many people are actually referring to when they say 4E has no "soul" or that it's "not really D&D") is that aspect of creativity, imagination and fictional weight. And, that's what Mike Mearls is saying that tabletop RPGs excel at. It's why even though he was playing a Thief with 10% Open Locks he could still make an impact on the game.But, guess what? If everyone is rooted in the numbers, and the only thing that matters is the battlemat, minis and power cards... Well... You see where I am going, yeah?</blockquote>

Verification