Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7600434" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think that there is an overlap between your perspective here and the perspective I've had on the problem.My take on this has always been that the fight can continue to be interesting if the fiction is evolving each round.&nbsp; That is to say, in each new round, the player is considering something new - reinforcements, changed distance of engagement, altered terrain elements, allies needing aid, innocents in need of protection, or whatever.Your take is that combat can continue to be interesting if the player is considering new choices each round, and that in general, after about 3 rounds you've generally run out of choices to make.&nbsp; The amount of time you take doesn't bother you so long as the choices which are made during that time were sufficiently interesting.&nbsp; So 4e can take longer than 1e, and yet the experience is roughly equivalent, because the choices made in 4e were more interesting than the choices made in 1e.&nbsp;&nbsp; Payoff is roughly equal.So there is a potential overlap here, that as long as the combat kept offering up legitimately new choices and options, the combat could continue to be interesting.&nbsp; You would have a reason to continue, because you haven't stopped making decisions.In 4e, that clock was normally set by the number of encounter and daily powers you'd typically have available in a combat.&nbsp; After that, you were reduced to your at will powers, and you no longer had interesting enough of choices to justify spending all that time.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise, in 1e AD&amp;D, you didn't have many choices to begin with, and typically after the closing and charge rounds, it was all a slog after that.&nbsp;&nbsp; So even if the time to perform that slog was short, it got dull because, no choices.There is an interesting parallel to the rule in chess that if a board position repeats itself three times, it's a stalemate and the game is over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7600434, member: 4937"] I think that there is an overlap between your perspective here and the perspective I've had on the problem. My take on this has always been that the fight can continue to be interesting if the fiction is evolving each round. That is to say, in each new round, the player is considering something new - reinforcements, changed distance of engagement, altered terrain elements, allies needing aid, innocents in need of protection, or whatever. Your take is that combat can continue to be interesting if the player is considering new choices each round, and that in general, after about 3 rounds you've generally run out of choices to make. The amount of time you take doesn't bother you so long as the choices which are made during that time were sufficiently interesting. So 4e can take longer than 1e, and yet the experience is roughly equivalent, because the choices made in 4e were more interesting than the choices made in 1e. Payoff is roughly equal. So there is a potential overlap here, that as long as the combat kept offering up legitimately new choices and options, the combat could continue to be interesting. You would have a reason to continue, because you haven't stopped making decisions. In 4e, that clock was normally set by the number of encounter and daily powers you'd typically have available in a combat. After that, you were reduced to your at will powers, and you no longer had interesting enough of choices to justify spending all that time. Likewise, in 1e AD&D, you didn't have many choices to begin with, and typically after the closing and charge rounds, it was all a slog after that. So even if the time to perform that slog was short, it got dull because, no choices. There is an interesting parallel to the rule in chess that if a board position repeats itself three times, it's a stalemate and the game is over. [/QUOTE]

Verification