Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4524997" data-attributes="member: 40961">I'll agree that someone who enjoys tactical miniature games is more likely than not to enjoy 4e, and that someone who dislikes tactical miniature games is more likely than not to dislike 4e.&nbsp; I do believe that an intentional decision was made to make combat more like a tactical miniatures game.&nbsp; I've written elsewhere on this decision, but the short version of my longer rant is that I believe that all RPGs have to make a serious decision about what their combat will be.&nbsp; RPGs that fail to do so are like automobiles powered by gerbils on a wheel.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how snazzy the exterior, because the interior won't make the thing move.Where I get off the bus is all the rest of the stuff people add to the &quot;combat is like a boardgame&quot; line, stuff about 4e not having roleplaying anymore, or any of the other alarmist junk that floats around this place.Suppose I made an RPG where all combat was handled through a card game.&nbsp; I could do it in about half an hour, I bet- I'd make it a western and have combat resolution work through a poker-like game, themed in-game as a gunfighter duel.&nbsp; The bluffing element of a gunfighter's duel would be built right into the game.&nbsp; And maybe, as your character leveled up, your deck could customize- replace all your 2s with Aces or something when you learn the Quickdraw power or whatever.That would be a legitimate way to handle combat in an RPG.&nbsp; All it needs now is some fine tuning, a setting, character building rules, and some plot hooks, and I've got an Indie release already designed.&nbsp; Never thought it would be that easy!Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG.&nbsp; I would not feel offended if you said, &quot;I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me.&quot;&nbsp; If, however, you said &quot;Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all,&quot; I would be angry, and I think justifiably so.&nbsp; And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to &quot;its not a real RPG to me,&quot; because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4524997, member: 40961"] I'll agree that someone who enjoys tactical miniature games is more likely than not to enjoy 4e, and that someone who dislikes tactical miniature games is more likely than not to dislike 4e. I do believe that an intentional decision was made to make combat more like a tactical miniatures game. I've written elsewhere on this decision, but the short version of my longer rant is that I believe that all RPGs have to make a [I]serious decision[/I] about what their combat will be. RPGs that fail to do so are like automobiles powered by gerbils on a wheel. It doesn't matter how snazzy the exterior, because the interior won't make the thing move. Where I get off the bus is all the rest of the stuff people add to the "combat is like a boardgame" line, stuff about 4e not having roleplaying anymore, or any of the other alarmist junk that floats around this place. Suppose I made an RPG where all combat was handled through a card game. I could do it in about half an hour, I bet- I'd make it a western and have combat resolution work through a poker-like game, themed in-game as a gunfighter duel. The bluffing element of a gunfighter's duel would be built right into the game. And maybe, as your character leveled up, your deck could customize- replace all your 2s with Aces or something when you learn the Quickdraw power or whatever. That would be a legitimate way to handle combat in an RPG. All it needs now is some fine tuning, a setting, character building rules, and some plot hooks, and I've got an Indie release already designed. Never thought it would be that easy! Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG. I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me." If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so. And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG [I]to me[/I]," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words. [/QUOTE]

Verification