So this comes off a lot like one true Wayism. “You didn’t play 4e the only one true way” and therefore your opinions about how it played are invalid.
I could just as easily claim my way of playing 4e was the only one true way of playing it and that just because you could hack it into something better makes your opinions of based on your modified version of it invalid. Doing so would get nowhere though would it?
So ultimately I think it’s necessary to recognize that RPGs have many valid ways of playing them and that your groups way isn’t the only one true way.
I don't think that's fair or reasonable.
I've described in detail how the game had a rigorous approach required for the tactical element to function. I'm not saying you have to play like that. I am saying you won't get the tactical stuff working strongly if you don't.
One True Way would be saying that this was literally the only way to play. I literally said the opposite to that in my first post that angered you so much. So you cannot claim that!
The question is - were both styles allowable by the rules and guidance provided in the game. I think so. And even as you noted - the guidelines are subjective enough that it doesn’t make sense that you would ‘die on that hill’ about the game so to speak.
Who is dying here lol?
I’m not particularly concerned with why tactics didn’t matter. Only that they didn’t. I think you are a bit overly concerned with why. I liked 4e at the time but it’s not a game I ever see myself returning to.
You described a pretty common issue people had with 4E, and I pointed out why that issue occurs, in some detail. To me, why things are the case is a really useful thing to understand. I dunno if you feel the same way, or indeed if you do generally, but just don't care re: 4E. That's fine, but you decided to take my discussion of why this issue commonly occurred as a personal affront. I literally said you didn't have to play that way - but if you want the tactical stuff to work you do.
It's much like the 6-8 encounter thing with 5E. If you don't follow that, 5E will be less balanced between classes, even less tactical, feel too "easy" and so on. But can you ignore it and have fun with 5E? Of course you can! It doesn't mean the design didn't
want you to do a specific thing though.
I agree. But I’ve not argued that 4e cannot be called more tactical. I’m saying that the tactics in it while perhaps needing more skill to master matter much less to outcome than the much easier to master tactics of 5e. We are talking about 2 separate axis. The skill needed to master the tactics, which I agree 4e has more of, and the magnitude of tactics on outcome, which I think we probably agree that 5e has more of.
I would broadly agree. I would say part of this is fight length. In 4E, you had to make tactical decisions round-after-round, and because of all the Interrupts/Immediate Actions/Reactions/etc. (which you sometimes had multiple of), and encounter-based limits to stuff, and more frequent bumping into meta-limits (Healing Surges etc.) during combat, and whilst one single ability was rarely as pivotal, you had to keep using them to control what was going on, so the number of meaningful decision-points was far higher. Which to me, is pretty much the definition of tactics in a game. But 5E yeah, one action is going to have a big impact - you've only got three or four rounds, and one action/bonus action/reaction in each round at most (broadly speaking). And the tactical moves are far more binary and not decision-oriented. Quite a number of 4E moves make a target make a decision, or put them in a pickle about what to do next. Whereas 5E it tends to be "Oh you're stuffed" or "you made your save" (Booming Blade and OAs are some of the only exceptions I can think of). 5E's approach is undeniably more accessible to most.
Weirdly 5E's approach is far less popular with the two most "casual" players in my regular group, who actually engaged hard with 4E's stuff. Whereas the charop-obsessives are totally down with it lol. But YMMV.
