Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mengu" data-source="post: 5903473" data-attributes="member: 65726">There's another thread on this, but I disagree. Some players will be happy with that, and some players won't. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I have players who like to play different classes, but really are more interested in the combat aspect of the game than the exploration, and wait for me to say &quot;roll initiative&quot;. Rest of the time, they are observers, and though they are not bored, they are not too big into contributing either. As such, when that player plays a rogue, I need that character to contribute as much to the fight, as the fighter, or ranger, or what have you, instead of having to tell that player, sorry, you always have to play a fighter if you want to be good at fighting.I've been in games where we blow through the fluff, to get to the crunch combat.There are various styles of play. The system needs to be agnostic of, or able to service these various play styles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mengu, post: 5903473, member: 65726"] There's another thread on this, but I disagree. Some players will be happy with that, and some players won't. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I have players who like to play different classes, but really are more interested in the combat aspect of the game than the exploration, and wait for me to say "roll initiative". Rest of the time, they are observers, and though they are not bored, they are not too big into contributing either. As such, when that player plays a rogue, I need that character to contribute as much to the fight, as the fighter, or ranger, or what have you, instead of having to tell that player, sorry, you always have to play a fighter if you want to be good at fighting. I've been in games where we blow through the fluff, to get to the crunch combat. There are various styles of play. The system needs to be agnostic of, or able to service these various play styles. [/QUOTE]

Verification