Community

Hocus-Smokus wrote:

Battletech was an awesome game...

I take issue with that, sir. Battletech is still an awesome game.

Well, if you want a relative newbie's perspective, I think it feels very boardgamey. However, I find pretty much any game where you move pieces around a grid to feel boardgamey. I don't feel this is a bad thing. Of course, I've also been known to roleplay during Monopoly.

I've only played two sessions of 4e, and both times it felt alternately like chess and Clue. I'm not even sure why I was reminded of Clue; probably something about moving the pieces around on a board that actually has walls, while trying to solve mental puzzles. But anyway, yes, it felt like a board game where you empathize with the pieces, and I loved every minute of it.

Some of you are saying it doesn't feel like a board game because (previous edition of your choice) had just as much moving pieces around a grid. But I haven't used miniatures in any previous editions; I really haven't played a lot of PnP at all, and when I did it was always the type where we imagined pretty much everything, so this was my first exposure to mini-based combat.

It's a roleplaying game. When there are purely non-combat events going on you can feel free to roleplay to your hearts content.

It's a board game. When there is some kind of combat or encounter it has to play out with a board. You can call it a wargame, but that's only because there's "fighting." The very fact that distances are written as "squares" in the rules has board game all over it. There is also the fact that a turn is no longer 10 combat rounds, 10 minutes, or whatever other unit of time that was previously used, but a single player's turn also lends to it being a board game.

I agree that the combat aspect of 4E has a definite board game feel to it. Personally, I like it a lot. I like exploring the 4E combat strategies. Some players are not so into learning the intricate moves you can make in any combat situation.

Combat is not the only aspect of 4E and RPG's in general. The non-combat aspect of D&D is something that appeals to players, too. The non-combat part of 4E does not feel like a board game at all.

One thing that I have observed so far is that when combat happens, it seems like the game kinda switches modes. You are taken a bit out of the story and/or charcter, and onto a game grid. I have had discussions with my group about this and part of the issue is that everyone is new to 4E. When combat occurs, there are rather strict rules on how you do almost anything. It's like learning how to drive a car. At first, you have to think, "turn the wheel" in order to move the car in that direction. When I became more experienced in driving, I no longer think about turning the wheel, I think that I need to drive in that direction and it happens. As players become more experienced with the rules, the will not feel as though they are taken out of character and onto some board game.

Another thing that I observed is that players who are not into tactical combat games can still enjoy 4E combat. I find that one such player can stay in character partly because he just isn't interested in figuring out the best square to move to. The way it ends up working is that he says in general what he wants to do and I (being into the tactical side of combat) will suggest how he should move. I find that I get to do the tactical stuff on his behalf and he gets to stay in character and not have to worry about tactical combat which he is not that good at anyway. It may seem like I am helping him cheat, but in the end, we both get what we want to out of the game and we both have fun.