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: 5949488" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think they are saying that I can have tactical combat for its own sake - with exciting manoeuvres and funky battlefield features.I don't see them saying anything about expressing the story via such things. The contrast with what Worlds and Monsters promised (which 4e delivered on) is pretty marked, at least as I read it.Here's an analogy, that for a change won't be a food analogy.Law and Order is a cop show. Castle superficially presents as a cop show - but in fact is a screwball comedy (at least in the earlier series - it's morphed into soap opera under the pressure of its characters and plotline).The AD&D's tactical combat rules - facing, flanking, shield rules, etc - are a tactical combat chassis, designed to produce a tactical combat experience. 4e presents as a tactical combat engine - but this is just the vehicle for something else, namely, high (if you prefer, gonzo) fantasy storytelling. This is achieved by integrating the mythic stakes at crucial points of PC and NPC/monster design, as well as by giving the players a high degree of control over how their PCs confront those stakes (both in build and in action resolution, via powers, surges, action points etc).I don't doubt the ability of the 5e designers to deliver a mechanically elegant tactical combat engine, complete with facing. But I am not seeing those other things that make the 4e experience what it is. In fact, I'm seeing things that push in the opposite direction (more like Runequest than Rolemaster, let along Burning Wheel or The Riddle of Steel).</blockquote>

Verification