Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 5434668" data-attributes="member: 99817">I like the way 4e does collaborative combat. It works nicely, gives every player opportunities to make a meaningful contribution to combat, and (I can't speak for higher levels) often gets good and tense.But the game design out of combat - irrespective of how 'good GMs' or 'good players' make it work - is turgid. In by view 4e is an excellent skirmish boardgame with a few skills bolted on to your combat stats to move you between fights. That's how the game design looks to me.I think 'depth' comes from social mechanics, and here RPG design has moved on. Lots of games have found mechanical ways of creating tension in social situations - whether it's the duel of wits in Burning Wheel, escalation in Dogs in the Vineyard or the GM's fronts, threats and moves in Apocalypse World.I think D&amp;D 5e would benefit from giving the 'layer' of gameplay above tactical combat more interesting, more subtle and more rounded mechanical support. I'd like negotiations with a local warlord about releasing my imprisoned cousin to have the same tension, the same ebb and flow and the same drama as a&nbsp; fight with his guards in the the jail block. I'd like to see the game move away from pass/fail task resolution to 'gains and losses' conflict resolution.If I was WotC, I'd be getting my team to streamline all the combat powers and magic item bloat and hiring Robin Laws to write me a new D20 conflict system of skills, goals, beliefs and relationships.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chaochou, post: 5434668, member: 99817"] I like the way 4e does collaborative combat. It works nicely, gives every player opportunities to make a meaningful contribution to combat, and (I can't speak for higher levels) often gets good and tense. But the game design out of combat - irrespective of how 'good GMs' or 'good players' make it work - is turgid. In by view 4e is an excellent skirmish boardgame with a few skills bolted on to your combat stats to move you between fights. That's how the game design looks to me. I think 'depth' comes from social mechanics, and here RPG design has moved on. Lots of games have found mechanical ways of creating tension in social situations - whether it's the duel of wits in Burning Wheel, escalation in Dogs in the Vineyard or the GM's fronts, threats and moves in Apocalypse World. I think D&D 5e would benefit from giving the 'layer' of gameplay above tactical combat more interesting, more subtle and more rounded mechanical support. I'd like negotiations with a local warlord about releasing my imprisoned cousin to have the same tension, the same ebb and flow and the same drama as a fight with his guards in the the jail block. I'd like to see the game move away from pass/fail task resolution to 'gains and losses' conflict resolution. If I was WotC, I'd be getting my team to streamline all the combat powers and magic item bloat and hiring Robin Laws to write me a new D20 conflict system of skills, goals, beliefs and relationships. [/QUOTE]

Verification