Tactical Boardgame?

[Kahuna Burger]

I seem to recall seeing a couple that mentioned a little roleplaying, but considering the players were given pregen characters with no background material to work with and the "Scalegloom Hall" scenario was just a series of combat encounters, it seems like there wasn't much space for roleplaying.

While this make sense, I don't see the point of criticizing people for judging the new edition based on an experience basically designed for them to judge the new edition... I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of the event was "Try out 4e! Play it now!" right? So if* the people didn't get to see the social resolution system, or make any customization decisions on their characters** or use their abilities in non combat ways, why shouldn't they judge the experience they were given to judge?

*big if on some of the points. I don't know if there was at least some "impassable terrain" to get around.

** I have found it easy in one shots to leave a few options for the players to customize, and I'm not being paid to design them or using them to sell a product, so I don't think letting the players do some of the pregen would have been impossible.

I guess the OP's criticism, while valid in some ways, bugs me the same way as the "you can't decide you wouldn't like [show X] just because every ad for it you see is completely unappealing - it's not really like that!" comments I used to get on some programs bugged me. If the ONLY info I have on something is coming from people whose goal is to get me to like it, and I don't like it, why should I put in the extra effort to sell their product for them? My philosophy is that you can judge a book by it's cover if the title and cover art were picked by the author, and you can judge 4e by an event billed as the chance to play 4e.

Edit : in another thread, someone tallied their experiences under 4 different DMs, So I would say there was room for a "social resolution heavy game" and a "non social / non combat challenge game" for folks to try if they are interested in that aspect and still get to try the combat from the perspective of at least two different classes.

 

[atom crash]

I've always been dissatisfied with the disconnect between combat and the rest of the game in 3E/3.5.

When we game, the DM (currently that's me for the D&D game) typically describes the scene and presents NPCs to interact with, which the players do, talking to NPCs and each other in character. Then we get into a combat situation, the maps and miniatures come out, we roll initiative, and for the next 30 to 45 minutes we're reduced to moving little miniatures around the map until combat is over. Roleplaying typically stops for us when combat begins, and that irks me.

From what I've seen, 4E doesn't do anything to alleviate this issue (except maybe to make combat go quicker, but from playtest reports this isn't necessarily true). In fact, it may exacerbate this phenomenon (I call it a problem, others might feel differently) of counting squares, shifting position, and basically playing chess rather than playing a character in an RPG.

But you know what? For the life of me, I can't think of an easy fix that could be hardwired into the rules. I know there's got to be a better way to marry up the non-combat portions of the game to the combat portions, but since I'm not a game designer I'm not seeing it. So it looks like it will continue to be a part of the game I suffer with.

 

[Cadfan]

It makes sense to judge the experience you had, not the experience you might have had if the Delve were otherwise. But give me a break. Concluding from a combat focused Delve that the entire edition is only about combat isn't judging the experience you had. Its concluding that an absence of a feature at an event where that particular feature was disclosed to be in absence is somehow proof that the feature doesn't exist.

Its like complaining that Little League isn't baseball because your kid's Little League group's first meeting was at some batting cages instead of a full baseball diamond. If you came home from that and announced that Little League wasn't about running bases anymore, your wife would give you such a look.

While this make sense, I don't see the point of criticizing people for judging the new edition based on an experience basically designed for them to judge the new edition... I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of the event was "Try out 4e! Play it now!" right? So if* the people didn't get to see the social resolution system, or make any customization decisions on their characters** or use their abilities in non combat ways, why shouldn't they judge the experience they were given to judge?

Gourmet Chef: "I am preparing for you a four course dinner. In advance, you may sample the fish."

ENWorlder Food Critic: "Gimme!" *munchmunchmunch*

Gourmet Chef: "Your thoughts on my humble offerings, sir?"

ENWorlder Food Critic: "What sort of idiot are you to create a four course meal entirely composed of fish? This really needs a wine, and some side dishes, and all you prepare is fish? I much preferred my meal of last Thursday, in which you prepared four courses, all different, only one of which was fish!"

Gourmet Chef: "But sir! That was only a sample. There are three courses to come, I assure you!"

ENWorlder Food Critic: "You can't expect me to judge the quality of your meal based on hypothetical dishes I've never even seen! From this sample, I know only the following information: that it is composed solely of fish. This is unsatisfying. I go now, to write on the INTERNET! Away!"

 

[Wolfspider]

Mmm...that's the first strawman argument I've ever read that's made me hungry.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I've always been dissatisfied with the disconnect between combat and the rest of the game in 3E/3.5.

I think this is an interesting point, but I don't want to totally derail the thread with discussion of it. My gut feeling is that the more tactical combat is, and the less forgiving of error, the more this disconnect will take place. 4e may be more tactical in the movement powers, but also more forgiving with the healing abilities and repeated saves, so my first guess is that it will be a wash.

 

[Walking Dad]

Mmm...that's the first strawman argument I've ever read that's made me hungry.

me, too. And I like sushi

 

[Spatula]

Kindly don't speculate on other peoples motives or how they are feeling, because you really don't know anything about them.

Isn't that this whole thread? or at least how it started off, with the 'keeping an open mind' in quotes comment and the OP subsequently admitting that he believed such people were lying about their motives...

Anyway, regarding the tactical wargame "charge" - D&D is a tactical wargame with story elements grafted on. Always has been - that's where RPGs come from, and D&D has always embraced its roots (though 2e downplayed the wargaming and emphasized the story elements). If some people think this is an insult, shrug and move on - different people want different experiences out of RPGs, and D&D cannot be all things to all people. That's why there's more than one RPG on the market.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Kindly don't speculate on other peoples motives or how they are feeling, because you really don't know anything about them.

The rest of your post is OK as it is expressing your opinions and observations - try to stick to that in future.

Thanks

Apologies. I tried to make it clear that I was not putting words in the OPs mouth. Just making an observation.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'll role-play Monopoly any day.

I noticed I was roleplaying the last time I played Monopoly. In terms of stuff I was saying at the table, not in terms of game decision making.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I am going to step in and give my take on why I think it is more boardgamey than previous editions. This is not to say this is wrong or it can't be played in a roleplay heavy way. What I am basing this on is that while I enjoy my weekly RPG sessions with a longtime group when it comes to Origins and Gen Con I can be found in the boardgame room full time running or helping to run dozens of different board and non-collectible card games. From what I have seen and heard so far I have no doubt that I could run a 8-10 player tactical combat game using 4E RAW with only a victory point condition tacked on. This game could be located in the boardgame room and I could draw players solely from boardgame enthusiasts and everyone would have fun. The difference between 4E and previous editions is that I don't think I could have done that before. Does this mean that 4E is a tactical war/board game? No, but I think it is allot closer than previous editions have been.

Is it the type of game I want to weekly play with my group? I am still on the fence and leaning no right now but I will see when the role playing parts are better understood. But having posted what I did above I am now at least going to look into learning more about the system because running tactical wargame scenarios in the boardgame room is something I am seriously contemplating now.