|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 3:14AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
A DM saying "You see this, and this, and this. What do you do?" is very different from looking at a gameboard full of playing pieces. One requires you to imagine a scene, and make a decision. The other requires you to look at a gameboard, and make a decision. They're two very different mental processes. One is roleplaying. One is boardgaming.
The problem comes in when there are six different imagined scenarios going on around the table. The DM has his version, while the fighter has his, the wizard has his, the cleric has his, and so on. This happens a lot in my group. In fact, any time that would be saved by not dealing with minis and a grid is taken up by people (including me) repeatedly asking things like "So, how many goblins are around me?", "How far away is the BBEG?", "What do you mean he's out of range now?" and so on. The grid puts everyone on the same page, which makes combat much smoother.
It's all roleplaying. Tactical considerations do not preclude roleplaying at all.
Roleplaying is making decisions in response to an imagined scenario. I've never seen a 4E player, even when I DM'd it, actually make decisions in response to an imagined scenario when we were in combat. They made decisions in response to the board - because the board is what matters. They occasionally imagined the scene - but such mental pictures were entirely irrelevant to the game, rather than being vital to their decision-making process.
The imagined scenario and the game mat should be the same. You've never experienced it, but I experience it every Saturday. The grid is the visual representation of what is happening. It helps smooth combat for my group and others like us, but it is not the be-all end-all of what is going on, just as powers are not the be-all end-all of conflict resolution.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 3:23AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
I think Kaldric has got my feelings pretty much sumed up, less square counting more in character action.
In my experience, TotM replaces square counting with, "So, how far away is [monster]? Wait, I thought he went [direction] to take a pot shot at the wizard? Oh, there's two of them? And there's a [monster] between them? Huh."
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 3:26AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
In my experience, TotM replaces square counting with, "So, how far away is [monster]? Wait, I thought he went [direction] to take a pot shot at the wizard? Oh, there's two of them? And there's a [monster] between them? Huh."
Exactly my experience playing 3E and pretty much every other RPG. Luckily, with Shadowrun, all I need to worry about is how far away the target is, and whether or not he's in cover. I rarely play melee characters.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 3:36AM
#54
|
|
|
@erleni: Not something that got in the way, so much as something that simpy replaced roleplaying for an hour at a time with a well-designed tactical miniatures skirmish game. I hope that they include another such game in DDN, for those who enjoy that style.
@Ogiwan and thewok: If your DM has trouble describing things clearly, correctly, and concisely, then that's a problem. Most people I know find a rough diagram of position a sufficient crutch, if they should get overwhelmed. Resorting to a full-on tactical miniatures skirmish boardgame seems a bit of an overkill to solve that particular issue. If you like that sort of game, using that game to resolve combat is probably best for you, and I imagine you'll have that opportunity.
edit: By the way, that's just my definition of roleplaying. Others differ. By my definition, when you're getting information from a god's eye view, and making decisions based on that 3rd-person perspective, the moment you're doing that, you're not roleplaying. But, as I said, others differ.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 04, 2012 - 12:03PM
#55
|
|
|
I think Kaldric has got my feelings pretty much sumed up, less square counting more in character action.
In my experience, TotM replaces square counting with, "So, how far away is [monster]? Wait, I thought he went [direction] to take a pot shot at the wizard? Oh, there's two of them? And there's a [monster] between them? Huh."
And the funny thing is that it still takes twice as long to count out the squares.
Almost as if talking to the DM is helping you to imagine the situation that your character is in.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 10:29AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
May 31, 2012
|
ToTM is not for competitive/tactical gamers.
In fact - ToTM is not so much for the "gamers".
People who want to crunch numbers should concentrate on the 4th Edition style.
That is why we're going to have both now. So we can all say we "Play D&D" - even if that game looks nothing alike at our respective tables.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 12:00PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
May 10, 2009
|
I very much enjoy playing with a proper battlemap, miniatures and properties. It makes for a clear game. (Also I can go pee, come back in and look at the map to see what happened.)
However the theatre of the mind is very useful for playing in situations wherein a map is much less practical, such as on Google+ or in the park under a tree or on a long bus trip.
I can still crunch numbers without a map. I can still roleplay and goof around with a map.
Member of Grognards for 4th Edition
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 12:47PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jan 18, 2012
|
What exactly do you want out of the combat system that's so hard to build on top of the current combat system?
Class balance?
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 3:47PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
What exactly do you want out of the combat system that's so hard to build on top of the current combat system?
Class balance?
 
I think Kaldric has got my feelings pretty much sumed up, less square counting more in character action.
In my experience, TotM replaces square counting with, "So, how far away is [monster]? Wait, I thought he went [direction] to take a pot shot at the wizard? Oh, there's two of them? And there's a [monster] between them? Huh."
And the funny thing is that it still takes twice as long to count out the squares.
Almost as if talking to the DM is helping you to imagine the situation that your character is in.
Seriously, Shash, if your players are having that much trouble counting, should they really be playing D&D? I mean, I may still count on my fingers, but I can count from one to six a lot quicker than a "Wait, so where is [X] again?" conversation.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 5:12PM
#60
|
|
|
Seriously, why can't you have as much roleplaying in 4e as 1e? ....
I like 4e and I don't buy the argument that 4e somehow doesn't support roleplaying. I roleplay my characters the same way in 4e that I do in any game as a player and as a DM I describe scenes and combat much the same way.
That being said I do think combat in 4e takes way too long. My two 4e groups each spend about 80% of our sessions in combat, whereas in other editions the amount of time spent in combat is closer to 50%. In the 4e games we typically have time to do one fight a night, whereas in other editions we typically had enough time to do at least two or three combats and have more roleplaying between the combats. So for me, since my favorite part of roleplaying games is the out-of-combat roleplaying, I find the combats do take away from the time I'd rather spend doing other things.
Again I like 4e overall, I think the notion that it doesn't support roleplaying is bogus, but my one main gripe with 4e is the time it takes to resolve combats is a bit long for my tastes.
+1. I like 4e, but the way that 4e hurt roleplaying is by extending combat. The long combats make it difficult to make time for the roleplaying during the traditional length of a gaming session. The complexity of combat made it difficult and time consuming to end and start a new session in the middle of combat (although smart phone pictures of the game mat help a lot).
|
|
|
