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: 5744690" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Well, you hadn't really asked yet. I think of it closer to "significant opportunity of failure". That'll vary depending on the situation, but I'm not thinking a baked-in "X% probability of failure". That's too mechanical for what I'm talking about. I'm talking about players have a significant chance of failing at their goal, and that ratcheting up the tension and drama in the scenario. So, more than "opportunity for failure", but only really to the point of adding the word of "significant", I think.It's not so much about "winning D&D", it's about me engaging in the combat game. That is, if the engine is designed in such a way that I need to be clever in order to lower those odds, I'm going to be clever in order to lower those odds. As someone who can do the math on the fly very easily, and can handle many different variables simultaneously, and as someone excessively clever (as in, to a fault), I'll be able to engage the combat engine very well.If the system is designed in such a way that clever play within the combat mini-game will all but eliminate significant chance of failure or danger, then it stands that it will lower drama and tension significantly as well. It's not about me trying to "beat D&D" or any such related thought, it's about me engaging in the game as designed, which then leads to a less dramatic and tense combat.Well, I'd say that 4e cashed in on D&D's popularity, and I'd say that while the people that play truly do like its style, if another game made such a significant leap in mechanical chance, I'm not sure how many fans would keep playing. There's already deep divides between OWoD and NWoD, for example, and the system looks similar to me (but my roommate dislikes NWoD for the system, metaplot, and setting changes, so it definitely transcends system).I think chance of failure contributes to drama and tension, but even taking your statement into account, I don't see why not having baked-in combat roles would preclude what you're describing.Playing about 10 different systems, including more narrative or rules-lite games. The rest, though, is game theory and hypotheses.Engaging the fiction does not automatically lead to drama, at least from my experience. While being guaranteed success can still lead to drama, it greatly lessens the odds. In this scenario, the story implications must be important enough that it makes up for the lack of a chance of failure. And, to be honest, I think this holds true for any system, not just 4e, and not just with combat roles baked into classes.I'm positive what you're saying is true for some players. I'm also positive that many players of 4e don't do so for any greater story or drama in their games.That is, story is incredibly important in my games. Plot isn't, in it's usual meaning, but story is. What the PCs engage in, how their characters develop, PC interactions with NPCs and the setting at large, how things change, their successes and their failures... all these things are important. My players' PCs often establish families, even to the detriment of their characters' safety (or sanity). Why? Because they are invested in the character, in the setting, and in engaging the world.Now, they aren't invested in following a set story. That's true. They are, however, interesting in creating a story. Or, they're interested in experiencing a story. They don't know what it is yet, of course, but they have goals, and depending on how things turn out while they pursue them (and how the world evolves while they do so), they get to see what the story is.There's no "plot" to the game, sure. But, oh, there's story in spades. And with that story, and with a significant chance of failure, and with danger, there's also drama and tension in spades, too.I see a difference, yes. I don't see a compelling argument for combat roles being baked into classes. Sorry. 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