Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8151696" data-attributes="member: 12731">I played 4E. It did not work for us because in order to be fun, combat needed to be challenging. Only very large and long combats fulfil this criteria. We like to play making good moves, not just making quick moves just to get on with it. Everything about 4E rewards tactical play, group cooperation and exact play. Easier combats, in contrast, still takes a lot of time to play out even when the outcome is totally obvious. We quickly learned to skip those, since just making the moves with no thrill or challenge felt like a waste of time. But this lead to a much worse problem: We found there was not enough time left in the session when having a combat of this type. The combat itself was very fun, but in the end the experience felt much more like a tactical skirmish boardgame with vestigial roleplay squeezed in.This is the source for calling 4E a board game lacking roleplay. Saying that isn't wrong, even though it is a simplification. The lesson is: it's no use creating fun and engaging combats if they can't be resolved quickly enough.In contrast PF2 manages to provide also-very-fun combats but in a much quicker package. It dares make wilder swings, meaning that even fights you are exceedingly likely to win can still feel exciting (because of a stray critical messing up your plans).So, no, the claim that &quot;many&quot; made claims that were &quot;wrong&quot; isn't true. I clearly see why 4E failed as a commercial product, even though it featured fantastically engaging skirmishes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8151696, member: 12731"] I played 4E. It did not work for us because in order to be fun, combat needed to be challenging. Only very large and long combats fulfil this criteria. We like to play making good moves, not just making quick moves just to get on with it. Everything about 4E rewards tactical play, group cooperation and exact play. Easier combats, in contrast, still takes a lot of time to play out even when the outcome is totally obvious. We quickly learned to skip those, since just making the moves with no thrill or challenge felt like a waste of time. But this lead to a much worse problem: We found there was not enough time left in the session when having a combat of this type. The combat itself was very fun, but in the end the experience felt much more like a tactical skirmish boardgame with vestigial roleplay squeezed in. This is the source for calling 4E a board game lacking roleplay. Saying that isn't wrong, even though it is a simplification. The lesson is: it's no use creating fun and engaging combats if they can't be resolved quickly enough. In contrast PF2 manages to provide also-very-fun combats but in a much quicker package. It dares make wilder swings, meaning that even fights you are exceedingly likely to win can still feel exciting (because of a stray critical messing up your plans). So, no, the claim that "many" made claims that were "wrong" isn't true. I clearly see why 4E failed as a commercial product, even though it featured fantastically engaging skirmishes. [/QUOTE]

Verification