Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3881144" data-attributes="member: 32164">From what they've said, one of the designers' and developers' expressly stated goals was to &quot;make the mechanics of 4e reflect conceptual differences.&quot; So, in other words, there will be mechanics to back up the notion of goblins being sneaky little buggers, or that a group of gnolls fights like a hyena pack. I assume that applies to characters as well.You can have conceptual differences all you want, but if there's a conceptual difference that isn't reflected mechanically, its very existence is an illusion. As an example, people often say that in Castles &amp; Crusades, you can choose to imagine your character doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers in combat. But if there's no mechanical difference between a straight-forward attack and a flashy one, what's the point?I want the game rules to reflect meaningful choices I make. Fighting with a mace and shield should &quot;feel different&quot; at the table than fighting with a sword and shield. If that's not a meaningful choice, it shouldn't be a choice at all. At that point, they should go the Warhammer route and let each PC choose a &quot;hand weapon,&quot; and have them all do the same damage and cost the same. Because if there's no meaningful difference, why do we have game statistics for two weapons?Choices should matter and be reflected in mechanics. Choices that aren't mechanically significant are relevant to characterization and roleplay, but not much else. And you don't need rules for imagining things.Hopefully, 4e will make it easier to follow the line from concept through to mechanical execution. That would definitely be an improvement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 3881144, member: 32164"] From what they've said, one of the designers' and developers' expressly stated goals was to "make the mechanics of 4e reflect conceptual differences." So, in other words, there will be mechanics to back up the notion of goblins being sneaky little buggers, or that a group of gnolls fights like a hyena pack. I assume that applies to characters as well. You can have conceptual differences all you want, but if there's a conceptual difference that isn't reflected mechanically, its very existence is an illusion. As an example, people often say that in [i]Castles & Crusades[/i], you can choose to imagine your character doing all kinds of fancy maneuvers in combat. But if there's no mechanical difference between a straight-forward attack and a flashy one, what's the point? I want the game rules to reflect meaningful choices I make. Fighting with a mace and shield should "feel different" at the table than fighting with a sword and shield. If that's not a meaningful choice, it shouldn't be a choice at all. At that point, they should go the Warhammer route and let each PC choose a "hand weapon," and have them all do the same damage and cost the same. Because if there's no meaningful difference, why do we have game statistics for two weapons? Choices should matter and be reflected in mechanics. Choices that aren't mechanically significant are relevant to characterization and roleplay, but not much else. And you don't need rules for imagining things. Hopefully, 4e will make it easier to follow the line from concept through to mechanical execution. That would definitely be an improvement. [/QUOTE]

Verification