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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5570219" data-attributes="member: 18280">Another false dilemma, and one that is quite common (not only here, but elsewhere on the InterWeb).  We have all seen far too many threads that amount to:Do not use Term X because it is ill-defined. No, we cannot supply a better-defined term that means the same. No, we do not acknowledge that Term X is as well-defined as other terms that we agree may be used. No, we refuse to accept that other people understand the term. No, we refuse to accept that we should ask for clarity when we are confused. No, we refuse to say exactly what about the term we find confusing.and, by far most importantly,No, despite the above, we are not trying to shut down conversation which used terminology that might demonstrate that it is reasonable for someone else to not like whatever it is that the discussion is about.They were not strongly assumed.  They were not even assumed.  Really read the rules.  In fact, that the preponderance of time would be spent in combat, or that combats would take a long time to resolve, was not assumed, either.Oddly enough, I play without a grid every week, and yet never spend an inordinate amount of time resolving those questions.  Indeed, I have found that putting "some markers on a grid" vastly increases the amount of time spent on those inordinate questions.Or, to put it another way, 3e, 4e, and 2e Combat & Tactics combats all take far, far longer to resolve than 1e combats or 2e combats without a grid.  And much of that extra time is spent focusing on the grid, focusing on those questions, and not "engaging in a world of imagination".The focus becomes the physical grid, rather than the imagined space.  The less abstract the grid, the more that this is true.  Likewise, the more the rules focus on the grid, the more that this is true.Strongly disagree.Indeed, I don't think it possible for me to disagree any more strongly!Some methods of rules/fiction interaction tend to encourage role-playing more than others. I.e., the more the board becomes the fictional space (rather than the less it is a representative, if even used, of a shared fictional space), the more removed the characters become.Not only does the 4e ruleset seem to focus on the board more than any previous version of the game (unless you count 2e's Combat & Tactics, which I would claim has the same problem), but the arguments related to 4e consistently centre around the idea that the rules should take primacy over the fiction.When the statement of a character's action is intended to be both (a) what is occurring in the rules and (b) what is occurring in the fiction, as is the case with "I attack" or "I attempt to disarm", role-playing identification is reinforced.When the statement of a character's action is decoupled from what is occurring in the fiction, role-playing identification is to some degree disengaged as well. "I use power X. I miss, doing Y damage. Well, it isn't really a miss, or isn't really damage, is it?" or "I use power Z. The snake takes W damage and is knocked prone. How can it be knocked prone? Well, what I really did was flip it on it's back....."Role-playing, IMHO, is not simply about whether or not each system can "produce colorful descriptions".  If you define role-playing as producing colourful descriptions then, sure, there is no difference.  However, if this is the case, I am "role-playing" when I write a short story.  Heck, perhaps I am "role-playing" more when writing than I am at the table!Sorry, but that is not at all what I mean by the term!Okay, but then one must look at how a game is devised.  How long do combats take?  What happens between combats?  Is the game devised so that combats are sprinkled among other factors, or are those other factors merely intended as a vehicle to go from combat to combat?If you say, "Outside of combat they are the same", the obvious response is "Then they are not the same, as you spend far, far longer in (far fewer) combats than in previous editions."(And, no, you don't have to play the game that way.  And, yes, you can role-play Monopoly.  But if you aren't playing the game that way, you aren't playing it the strengths it is designed for.....and if you can role-play Monopoly as well, then cool! as it is both cheaper and comes with minis!)And "is tailored to groups of players who enjoy solving tactical puzzles, optimizing characters, and using rules to their advantage" are not my words; I am quoting a WotC press release about their new organized play program.RC</blockquote>

Verification