Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Revinor" data-source="post: 4110305" data-attributes="member: 25037">1) Shift from single-big-monster fights to group-of-opponents fights. With single opponent, it is a lot easier to keep positioning in mind and describe it in terms of close/in-range/out-of-range2) A LOT of powers which are expressed in terms on board results. In previous editions, with exception of bull rush, powers were mostly defined by hp damage/special damage/conditions. In 4e, major part of powers is slight board position changes - if you cut this element, you will heavily unbalance the powers. In 3e, if you were in combat range with enemy, only important thing was if you are flanking it or not. With 4e, you suddenly have to be fully aware about who is next to each other in exact number of squares - richer rules, more detailed info you require.3) Powers defined by 'coolness' instead of 'simulation'. I have a strong feeling that in 3e, designers were thinking about character/monster concept, thought about powers in terms of descriptions and then tried to find mechanics for it (which was sometimes painful with limitations of the system). With 4e, it seems that first there is a general concept, then mechanics and only then trying to find out how/why the monster can do it. And if the last part fails, who cares - effect is still mechanically cool. With boardgame it is not a problem - you think in term of squares. With narrating combat, you will have to came up with a lot of cheesy explanations for various power effects.Basically it all comes to one point - more rules, harder are things to narrate. If, instead of entire fight, we would just flip the coin to see entire encounter result, narration could go really well. Depending on your style, you could involve the players inputs in it, or not. With small amount of abstract rules (like 2nd ed was), you roll few times and then describe entire outcome in the way you want, as long as the result is similar to one given by dice. With bit more rules (like 3e), it is already quite hard to follow everything in mind - but you can do few shortcuts, which have very small mechanical effect, to cut the complexity down (and shift the focus from rules to narration). With 4e, amount of boardgame relates rules seems to cross certain treshold, where streamlining combat by ignoring positioning details will completly kill the system.I agree, to play 3e _exactly_ you required a board. But with cutting just 5% of rule details during given combat, you could go without it, enriching your narration. With 4e, you will need to probably cut 50% of the rules to go without a board, to the point of being completly inconsistent mechanically. On top of that, you get the powers which are often hard to narrate due to gamist instead of simulationist design.</blockquote>

Verification