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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5630035" data-attributes="member: 42582">My inclination is slightly different. In some ways, I'm closer to what KM says here, but take a less negative view:As designed - particularly on the character build side, and to an extent on the action resolution side (I don't agree with KM completely, but I agree with him that skill challenges to an extent, and rituals definitely, are subordinated to conflict as a mode of progressing the game) - combat is central to 4e.What I think would improve the game is more discussion of how to make a game in which combat is the central method of conflict resolution more than just a series of tactical skirmishes.Beowulf, Arthurian legends, the X-Men, Conan, etc are all works of fiction in which combat is a principal mode of conflict resolution. But they're not about combat, and most people who enjoy them wouldn't regard them as just recounts of a series of tactical skirmishes.The only 4e book that tackles this issue from the point of view of using fictional elements in the right way in encounter design is Worlds and Monsters, which was a "preview" but should have been included in the core. (Perhaps by dumping some dross from the DMG, like random dungeons and the tedious discussion of adventure site personality.)This wouldn't be the game KM is asking for. I think it would be mechanically much closer to existing 4e, but with better support for encounter design. In my view 4e needs this more than it needs new mechanics. (Although better ways of handling certain aspects of skill challenges would also be good.)</blockquote>

Verification