Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="[OMENRPG]Ben" data-source="post: 5636480" data-attributes="member: 6677983">This is a very interesting concept, although the problem then still becomes economy of actions, relevance to the encounter or obstacle, and the amount of involvement of that obstacle. If everybody is incredibly varied in their scope as well as iterative focus in different areas, the GM will tailor specific encounters to the specific skillsets that the characters possess. This works great if everyone picks a combat heavy, role-play light scenario, but that is still doable given the current situation.A system that provides elegance as well as speed to any situation will allow for everyone to keep engaged, even if it is something as simple as "I swing my sword." Even though 4e isn't perfect, there are ample examples where this kind of scenario crop up. For instance, I'm currently playing a 4e Knight in one of my friend's games, which is an Essentials class, and basically all he can do is a couple of different stance changes and do a basic melee attack. Compare this to my Wizard buddy or my TWF Ranger friend, and the amount of complexity that they have to choose from is far greater than what the Knight presents, although my character is consistently valuable to the group and I still have fun playing it. I think the real problem is that if one player hates complex combat, and "opts out" of all of the combat tactics, but the rest of the group "opts in", then that player still has to sit there for twenty minutes while the table goes around deciding all of the tactics of the battle, while he basically contributes nothing to the interesting discussion at hand and just swings his sword.This is basically very similar to what happens in 3.x/PF d20 games, the spellcasters after about 6th level get all of the fun stuff while the martial characters are essentially one or two trick ponies (I know this is less true in PF, but still is true, sadly). This might not be intentional, or it might be, but what it still creates is a dichotomy in certain circumstances, and instead of trying to flatten it out, actually accentuates it. Otherwise, I think the idea is something worth pursuing, and I think is accomplished already in decent form in a few systems.</blockquote>

Verification