Tactical Boardgame?

[Cadfan]

What is so bad about to say, that the combat (a very big piece of D&D) is a tactical board game?

Nothing. But when you then move from that to say "4e is a boardgame" as if that were the entirety of the game, or even worse "4e is so much a boardgame that I think it discourages roleplaying," then you're... [not perhaps being entirely objective or sincere in your criticism.]

 

[Puggins]

The true irony is that, in my estimation, it's LESS of a boardgame than 3.5e. Some of the most fiddly rules, insituted because we have to play it on a square grid, were tossed out the window. No more diagonal movement adjudication. No more weird reach vs. burst oddness. If anything, 4e is more adaptable to boardless play than 3.5e. Not one power in any of the six sheets that I can remember are absolutely dependent on a board. Replace "square" with "5 feet" or "1.5 meters" and you're good to go.

 

[Storminator]

My signature says it all. I think of it as a board game because you need a board to play it (at least the combats). This started in 3.0 and was one of the reasons people flock around true20.

Note I'm not negative about 4e! It is just something I noticed. Wargame(board) -> RPG (board)

Um, I think it started quite a bit earlier than 3.0.... something like the Chainmail days.

PS

 

[Engilbrand]

While it doesn't NEED to be, a lot of the fights are set up as a board game. I'll agree with that idea. The problem that the OP is stating is that people are moving outside of that and saying that the ENTIRE GAME is a board game, which is not true. This is the same flawed idea as has been stated before that 4E is a computer game and that you NEED the internet to play. The game is made so that you can have extra things and potentially more fun with a board and the internet, but they are not necessary. I like using a board for combat, but I've also been in a number of games where you just kick back and use your imagination. There's a lot of stuff that facilitates play without being required. A board and the internet are just extras, not mandatory.

 

[Hussar]

"Tactical board game" is just the new version of "videogamey" or "anime" or whatever. At least it's new.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

At least it's new.

Somehow this quiets my mind. Man, I've got issues with 4e too but I hate seeing wild memes.

 

[Benimoto]

I definitely agree with the OP. One of the main aspects making a game a roleplaying game is the character building aspect. Since we didn't get to make the characters at XP, nor play enough to level them up, we're missing a major component of the roleplaying equation.

 

[MaelStorm]

Which thread? Just curious to see your take.

I think the thread has been closed, I can't find it anymore.

I used the term wargame not boardgame and I stated that DDXP was a beta testing for combat rules, that it was not a multi-session campaign, there was no rituals, no social encounter, etc. And that it was no wonder people think 4E has become a wargame.

 

[MaelStorm]

But thanks for bringing the subject back up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you missed OP's point. The point is, of course it looks like a tactical boardgame now. They've only shown us the tactical boardgame bits. We're passing judgment on something we have not seen the entirety of.

It's a good point, but then Wizards has invited this meme upon themselves by not showing us any aspects that break it out of the tactical boardgame model.

We're going to judge what we see, after all. If all we see is slash-bang-zoom-pow, that's what we're going to judge.

Of course, there's still legitimate criticisms there. The idea that the abilities work like building a deck, the fact that some of them create weird silos or break some sense of realism, the hints we've received about the social resolution rules that imply it's going to be up to DM fiat either way, that the game isn't really less complex, just equally complex in a different way...

Take the 'tactical boardgame' with a grain of salt, but don't mistake that for a categorical dismissal of the criticisms.