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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5744174" data-attributes="member: 6668292">And yet, as interesting as your personal views on your home game are, I'm speaking within the context or what people might like in general. Generally speaking, in this discussion, I'm more interested in what you think gamers might like, not what you might like.You might be confusing "chance of failing" with "danger". That is, they aren't the same. If the PCs are escorting a diplomat, then the diplomat being killed would mean the PCs failed. If they're on a timed mission, then being stalled long enough that the time lapses would mean they failed. Sometimes failure means PC death, yes, but I associate that more with danger than chance of failure.With all of this in mind, I'd much rather have a system that allows chance of failure be a constant than danger, though I like both in my games. I like each combat being dramatic and filled with tension, and I think most people would agree. That means I'd rather most (and only most) combats have as many of those three characteristics as possible, chance of failure and danger included.I'll have to say my mileage has varied on this statement. While it's a fun mental exercise, it's not really going to generate drama with me, because I'm savvy enough to win if the encounter is designed in such a way that my mechanical cleverness will consistently allow me to win. It's a fun game, for sure, and it might produce tension (with die rolls), but it probably won't add drama inherently.Again, that will happen by having a chance of failure, and/or by being in danger, and/or by being important to the story.If you think that the 4e system alone makes for a more dramatic and tension filled combat without those three characteristics, as compared to a "first lucky strike" system that involves all three characteristics, all I can say is I deeply, deeply disagree. And I think most players would, too, but I can't know for sure. We're both just using anecdotal evidence, but at least I have Imaro on my side <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />At any rate, we're going to have to agree to disagree, here, because what you've expressed seems so far from my feeling on the matter that I doubt we'll reconcile it in this discussion. That's not to say that system isn't important in contributing to the tension and drama -I've indicated that it is- but I do believe that it's secondary to story, chance of failure, and danger.This seems to lead to the same place I was pointing to: chance of failure. "Mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail" is a comment on the mechanics shaping the "chance of failure" characteristic I've mentioned. You're thoughts, above, about "mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success" seem to align with my point. It leads back to "chance of failure", with some systems helping or hurting more than others.With 4e, I see no way in which combat roles particularly strengthen this. I've yet to see a compelling argument to indicate that they contribute to the chance of failure for a group, thus adding to the drama or tension of the combat.And I'm positing that this will happen just as often without combat roles.Only if everyone had every power. If we assume four characters, each with one role, we can assume that most of the ability to access healing surges is tied to one character. However, if we allowed PCs to access pools of powers, and even if it's evenly split (each PC has a power accessing healing surges), then drama and tension will still play out depending on how those resources are used. Each PC will have to contribute to healing whoever needs it as it arises, but can only do so at specific points (because they have one-fourth the healing potential of a regular combat role PC).While this takes away a dimension of the game (combat roles), this adds a dimension to the game, with each PC having to time their healing abilities to help the group at large. Each PC has less "heals" to give out, and thus the decision to use that ability individually might carry more weight to the individual.And, this is assuming everyone takes a healing power, which I doubt will be the case. I just don't find your assertion that "the force of a range of decision points is blunted" to be accurate, at least from where I'm standing. It makes more PCs have access to similar powers, yes, but players will still feel drama and tension when rolling damage, even though everyone gets that ability. I do not feel that watering down or eliminating roles in any way diminishes drama or tension.Yes, but we can safely assume that not everyone will be able to fulfill all four combat roles. Because of that assumption, I think it's fair to assume that you'll still have something similar to what you have now: someone who is best at defending, or controlling, or being a leader, or the like. Or, you'll have a couple hybrid-style PCs, like a warlock or melee-controller (polearm Fighter with push/pull, etc.).You won't have everyone be able to swap out interchangeably with one another on the battlefield, because while power choices might be robust, you have the same number of power slots to fill. I steadfastly dismiss the assertion that giving power pools to choose from would lower drama or tension based on what's been presented thus far. If that means we have to agree to disagree, I'm okay with that. It's not like I'm in this to "win" the discussion, and I do appreciate your thoughts. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification