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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5520375" data-attributes="member: 43283">Ah. Here's where some of the disconnect may be occuring in the conversation...The current edition of 3.x/4E rules explicitly encode more combat rules into the book. Previous editions, it was much more dependent on the group and/or the GM. As such, there was a degree of arbitrariness in some respects; plenty of folks had homebrewed systems of one sort or another to increase the degree of tactical options in the movement of their miniatures.Now, here's where there's some interesting food for thought...There's an element of system mastery that occurs in a game. 3.x for example was explicitly built to partially screw you if you didn't achieve it. The hardcoded combat rules of D&D are something that people have gotten used to as well and they've sort of incorporated at least some aspects of them.While it's not really easy to get at, it'd be interesting to see to what extent long-term play or even starting under 3.x has as an influence on people, when they go "backwards" to either a previous D&D system, or perhaps something like C&C; something where all those explicitly hardcoded rules have been tossed out.This whole thing also sort of bumps up against the RAW (Rules As Written) mantra/obsession that's so popular these days. How far a group is willing to drift the rules (either new or old) I suspect also influences how acceptable the tactical miniature focus or lack thereof is.As with many things in life, there's actually a lot of little things that sort of add into the mixture and influence the push and pull of this kind of conversation. It puts me in mind of the whole additive/subtractive nature of color and how that influences a piece of art you're working on depending on the medium you're using.</blockquote>

Verification