Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7005700" data-attributes="member: 6778044">My response specifically said in partbecause I wasn't describing all of the feature. As you point out, an older approach at finality was "no retry" rules, which we also didn't like. We developed our own system that does what it needs, that we like, and feel is simpler. That's it. I just didn't like the 4e approach over the one we have. The 5e approach sparked some new ideas and we've tweaked some more. Just like some posts here (including many of yours), on The Alexandrian, and elsewhere.Simpler combat resolution. Yes, they would like it if the the goblins would do that, but they don't. At least not in my world. I understand exactly where a player who wants combat to be more interesting. But not all people engaging in a D&D leisure activity want combat to be more interesting, or at least not that way. The combat system in 4e, or to a large degree 3.5e as written is not what we find interesting.AD&D did have basic hit location. If you aren't wearing a helmet, for example, 1 in 6 hits the AC 10 head. Shields worked against the front and left, and can be used to strike or push as well. The AD&D combat system was improved in 2e, and then Combat & Tactics started the progression to 4e where a battle mat and minis are more important, if not required.And we have systems that we are happy with that provide the opportunity, are difficult, but not too difficult, etc. Yes, but there are different approaches and different ways to get to "fun" and we didn't find changing fun. And I have mentioned it several times, that this is my perspective, and that of our table. I don't expect that everybody will agree with me. But we find rules that seem to invade too much into the fiction of the world to be distasteful. One of the big ones for us is the turn-based combat system, and even more so the battle mat approach with counting squares, one person moving 30 feet and taking several actions while everybody else stands still, etc. Yes, I understand it is a methodology for resolution, and it is an approach that gives the illusion of certain types of tactics (like flanking, for example), but we just have a very hard time not seeing it as a stop-motion game that separates us from the characters and their in world perspective.It's not an attack on game design. I have also said that I think from a design standpoint it's really well done considering their apparent goals. If you want a complex combat-oriented game, where you can account for lots of variables, abilities, and conditions, and you want to invest in the minis or some facsimile of them, and spending sometimes an hour or more on combat is what you consider fun, then this is a great option.You may not find an in game perspective helpful. I do. Neither of us are right or wrong, just a different approach. My players will be in the midst of combat and try to do things they see in movies or read in books. "Can I hit him in the solar plexus to disable him?" "Can I pull his cloak over his head so I can run past him and out the door and get a head start? Oh, and push him over on the way to trip his companions?"I'm not saying you can't do this in 4e, or earlier editions for that matter. But because of years of these sort of questions coming up, we developed our own resolution approaches (again, greatly simplified by 5e) so they can do things like that. When 4e came along, it changed all the math, and...it really doesn't matter what it changed. What matters is it didn't fit our game.Really I think what it comes down to is that turn-by-turn based resolution has certain benefits and failures. So we have a sort of hybrid, I guess it's really more round-based with some of action economy added in. Part of it is the feel of the combat, trying to make the overlay of the rules as transparent as possible. I've played storyteller games, and other games that have simpler combat resolution and they didn't quite work either. So there's a mix. Rolemaster or Runequest didn't quite work for us either (although I probably should re-read them now post 5e). The system in 4e was a stumbling point for us because it was too different from what we were doing, and we couldn't just tweak our tweaks, it amounted to almost starting over.In your view it's neither here nor there. In our view, or more specifically in our world, the dragons that we used 25 years ago should match the dragons that we use today. Once again, I will say that from a game system, there isn't a huge issue with it. I can ignore it. The approach in 5e doesn't have to be restricted by the past, although I think it's wise to consider the past heavily since this is an iteration of the same game. But I don't have to like those changes, even while recognizing the design or business sense behind them.</blockquote>

Verification