Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4293526" data-attributes="member: 66434">While I do not feel that 4E totally fails as an RPG it is an example of a weak one. Nothing prevents roleplaying in nearly any rulest, D&amp;D or otherwise but there are fundemental design priorites in any given system that promote or detract from it.To me, a roleplaying game centers around the DM and the players each having fun with the primary goal being to entertain themselves and everyone else at the table with the events that take place in the game.A wargame (again to ME) centers around the players having fun trying to defeat opponents with an ultimate goal of winning.The fact that the majority of development in 4E rules centers around combat balance indicates that it leans more towards a wargame. You can roleplay in a wargame but the design handles it less well than a roleplaying game. In reverse it would be something like 80% of the Flames of War rulebook dealing with roleplaying your commanders with the remainder devoted to a cursory discussion about how to handwave the rules of combat.In a roleplaying game there is no real NEED to have perfectly balanced combat rules. If a particular gaming group finds that they do actually NEED balanced rules then there would seem to be a conflict within the group as the reason. If player A is jealous of the damage output of player B then there is a competitive conflict within the party. If the DM is out to kill the PC's, again there is a conflict that no set of rules will resolve. A lot of arguements that disguise themselves as edition wars are actually about gaming groups with vastly conflicting styles. All it takes to screw up a group is 1 person who is trying to WIN during a roleplaying game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 4293526, member: 66434"] While I do not feel that 4E totally fails as an RPG it is an example of a weak one. Nothing prevents roleplaying in nearly any rulest, D&D or otherwise but there are fundemental design priorites in any given system that promote or detract from it. To me, a roleplaying game centers around the DM and the players each having fun with the primary goal being to entertain themselves and everyone else at the table with the events that take place in the game. A wargame (again to ME) centers around the players having fun trying to defeat opponents with an ultimate goal of winning. The fact that the majority of development in 4E rules centers around combat balance indicates that it leans more towards a wargame. You can roleplay in a wargame but the design handles it less well than a roleplaying game. In reverse it would be something like 80% of the Flames of War rulebook dealing with roleplaying your commanders with the remainder devoted to a cursory discussion about how to handwave the rules of combat. In a roleplaying game there is no real NEED to have perfectly balanced combat rules. If a particular gaming group finds that they do actually NEED balanced rules then there would seem to be a conflict within the group as the reason. If player A is jealous of the damage output of player B then there is a competitive conflict within the party. If the DM is out to kill the PC's, again there is a conflict that no set of rules will resolve. A lot of arguements that disguise themselves as edition wars are actually about gaming groups with vastly conflicting styles. All it takes to screw up a group is 1 person who is trying to WIN during a roleplaying game. [/QUOTE]

Verification