Tactical Boardgame?

[Harkun]

Qustions:
How many reach weapons are used in your group?
How many AoO specialists are in your group?
How did you determine if somebody has cover from another ceature to ranged attacks?
How did you determine how many players are in the area of a spell effect (burst, cone, ...)?

Well said, bravo...

This is the problem...one, getting players like this who take advantage of rules (the aforementioned AoO specialist) and two a system that practically begs them to take advantage of it.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Yes. Absolutely. Characters with mechanically interesting tactics are bad role-playing crutches. Choices? For a fighter? Bad idea - roll to hit - no choice for you! Don't you know only spellcasters get choices?!?!?!

 

[LEHaskell]

Oh but it did my friend, it did indeed and those were grand, grand days and nights filled with times of high adventure.

Will those days of great storytelling exist again? Yes, for sure they will but just not under 4th ed. I'm afraid, not in a system where you roll dice to govern a social interaction.

I have no doubt that you have played such a game, but it wasn't the D&D published by TSR or WotC. And I don't mean you weren't playing D&D -- you were. But it was a system that developed, probably organically between your DM and the other players.

In an earlier post, you seemed to suggest that Gygax and Arneson developed the rules of D&D to completely remove the game from the table top. I agree that they intended to move the game beyond the table top, but they also held true to its miniatures roots, realizing that a tactical combat system would be useful for resolving conflict. In the 1e books, spell ranges and movement rates are given in inches -- a clear indication of the games was not intended to be divorced from the table top.

I don't have much experience trying to translate D&D to a "table-less" game, though I certainly don't find it necessary to draw out ab-so-lute-ly ev-ery-thing, I agree that it will be difficult if not impossible to translate 4e to your style of play. I'm sorry that you won't be joining us. I think I'd enjoy a game on your table.

 

[Xethreau]

Even if battle is more like a board game, that is fine with me. I am a huge fan of Fire Emblem, so needless to say a lot of these changes are ones I will enjoy.

 

[Andor]

Even if battle is more like a board game, that is fine with me. I am a huge fan of Fire Emblem, so needless to say a lot of these changes are ones I will enjoy.

*snicker* I doubt most of the 4e fans on this thread will thank you for holding up an anime styled, board game like, video game as a positive analouge for 4e.

 

[smetzger]

When I started playing back in 80-81? we used MINIATURES (random capialization! yay!) and a battlemat (a big sheet of plexiglass taped over a giant page of graph paper, that we drew on with wax pencils) to tell our STORY. But I guess you win and get to speak for how things really were "back in the day," since you beat me by a year or two.

There are other RPGs out there, you know... some don't even use dice.

I started around then also. But I didn't use miniatures. I used lead figures
I also didn't buy adventures I bought modules.

 

[Spatula]

Or were they called lead figurines? Hmmm, it's been a while.

 

[Walking Dad]

Question: Is it OK to say that D&D is a Wargame that uses miniatures (and this means counting distances like in Warhammer or using a board)

Yes:
Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns
Playable with Paper annd Pencils and Miniature Figures

4e IS D&D

 

[Halivar]

Question: Is it OK to say that D&D is a Wargame that uses miniatures (and this means counting distances like in Warhammer or using a board)

Yes:
Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns
Playable with Paper annd Pencils and Miniature Figures

4e IS D&D

Beat me to it! I had a jpeg with red circles and arrows and everything...

Or were they called lead figurines? Hmmm, it's been a while.

We called them "figs" in historical miniature wargaming. The "mini's" nomenclature when I started playing 3E threw me off. Conversely, my terms threw everyone else off.

 

[Hussar]

Wow did you ever miss the point. In order to be a strawman arguement I would need actually be claiming that to be the case.

Again, WOW did you ever miss the point.
There have been tons of criticisms of 4e that have all kinds of reasons attached to them. It is the pro-4e side that is attempting to discard those reasons and sweep them all under a single label and then attack the label instead of addressing the concerns.

Why are you ignoring the fair number of counter arguments to this specific issue brought up in this thread? I mean, we're specifically talking about the idea of D&D 4e as boardgame are we not? I posted a fairly lengthy list of why I feel that this appellation is inaccurate. Yet, you focus on nomenclature and ignore the meat of the issue.

You are still making the exact same mistake.
You are cherry picking select examples and then painting everything as falling under those cases, when that is not remotely accurate. Even if 6 people call names and only 1 makes the detailed criticism, you can not pretend that the criticism offered is invalid due to the words of someone else. And I'd say the 6 to 1 is giving your side a great benefit of the doubt.

If you can't address the real criticisms then perhaps they are a whole lot more valid than you are willing to admit.

No, I have not cherry picked anything. I brought up a list of reasons, and others have as well, as to why calling 4e a board game isn't valid. No one has come close to refuting that, least of all you who hasn't even bothered actually attempting to address the topic.

Look at another issue. The 1-2-1 issue that has made rounds. Now here, we have a very valid criticism of 4e. The criticism, as far as I can make out, goes something like this, "4e changes the geometry of the battlemap and introduces a much larger margin of error into the game."

Now, that's true. That's a valid criticism. It really does do that. The question then remains, is that margin of error acceptable or not and now we're into the realm of opinion and it gets all sorts of messy. But, it most certainly does not invalidate the original criticism.

But, and now we return to the issue at hand, what does 4e looks like a boardgame mean? Does it mean that we're going to have heaps of fun for hours at a time playing a game that can be replayed for years to come? Because, that describes a lot of board games to me. Or, does it mean that we're going to be lockstepped down into meaningless choices, mindlessly circling a board where nothing ever really changes?

Neither interpretation really fits.

So, what do people actually mean when they say that 4e is board gamey? Instead of using vague language that just leads off into mindless grandstanding, why not make actually, specific criticisms and leave off the hot buttoning?

Why are people actually defending vague language? It's intellectually lazy at best and down right inflamatory at worst. Why do it? Why not actually saw what you mean?