Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6097185" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I think the two of these can be answered in the same way (and hopefully it provides some optimism <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; But perhaps not).&nbsp; Conflict resolution being primarily resolved via combat is not presage for the exclusion of conflict resolution via other means.&nbsp; Even if its 75/25, a clear majority, you're still having 1 &quot;other means&quot; (parlay, chase, investigation, hunt, mediated dispute, interrogation, etc) for every combat.&nbsp; I think you'll find that most 4e advocates have no problem with the above statement.&nbsp; What they have a problem with is the indictment that 4e is a &quot;tactical skirmish game linked by freeform roleplay&quot;, &quot;not D&amp;D&quot;, &quot;not an RPG&quot; or any derivative thereof.&nbsp; Especially when you consider that 4e is the first version of D&amp;D to have a dedicated mechanical system of non-combat resolution.&nbsp; It may be abstract and it may have had poor initial instructions such that those that weren't exposed to story-gaming struggled with it conceptually (a fair commentary), but it was there and it was robust enough to do the job.Personally, while combat is still the majority, my 4e games are probably a lot closer to 2 &quot;other means&quot; for every 3 combats so &quot;other means&quot; are probably closer to 40 % of my total conflict resolution.&nbsp; I suspect others are in that vicinity.&nbsp; Does 25 - 40 % of mechanical resolution as non-combat still make you cringe?&nbsp; D&amp;D can pull that off just fine I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6097185, member: 6696971"] I think the two of these can be answered in the same way (and hopefully it provides some optimism :) But perhaps not). Conflict resolution being [I]primarily [/I]resolved via combat is not presage for the [I]exclusion[/I] of conflict resolution via other means. Even if its 75/25, a clear majority, you're still having 1 "other means" (parlay, chase, investigation, hunt, mediated dispute, interrogation, etc) for every combat. I think you'll find that most 4e advocates have no problem with the above statement. What they have a problem with is the indictment that 4e is a "tactical skirmish game linked by freeform roleplay", "not D&D", "not an RPG" or any derivative thereof. Especially when you consider that 4e is the first version of D&D to have a dedicated mechanical system of non-combat resolution. It may be abstract and it may have had poor initial instructions such that those that weren't exposed to story-gaming struggled with it conceptually (a fair commentary), but it was there and it was robust enough to do the job. Personally, while combat is still the majority, my 4e games are probably a lot closer to 2 "other means" for every 3 combats so "other means" are probably closer to 40 % of my total conflict resolution. I suspect others are in that vicinity. Does 25 - 40 % of mechanical resolution as non-combat still make you cringe? D&D can pull that off just fine I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification