|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 4:15AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 13, 2009
|
dnd has always been a boardgame. just with 4e they are supporting minis, mats, and grid rules a lot more than before rather than leaving them as vague options that most people tried to avoid because they were so convoluted.
in advanced dnd we played just by describing how far away players were from something, or used graph paper, or grids found in player kits they used to sell. i like that they are supporting this with their own pre-painted minis, dungeon tiles that you can fit together to make almost anything you want, and giving more solid rules for moving around in combat and making movement , facing, cover, positioning, etc more important and central to gameplay.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:08AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
So...it is interesting that most...almost all...of the responses have been along the lines of "4E does have a boardgamey feel , but I like that". I suppose I fit into the group that sees it more as a wargame than a boardgame, but that could just be a matter of semantics. Either way, the responses have been great. Thanks guys and gals.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:19AM
#23
|
|
|
I've used miniatures and dungeon tiles/mats/the like in all editions of the game and 4E has a strong boardgame feel to me. For me, a huge portion of this is due to the way powers act in the game. [EDIT] In fact, I've often referred to 4E as "Advanced Descent" or "Advanced Warhammer Quest" in jest.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:21AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2003
|
Go play chess, checkers, monopoly, risk, chutes and ladders, cranium; all are utterly different experiences from playing in 4th edition combat.
Go play HeroQuest, Warhammer Quest, Descent, Siege of the Citadel, the Dungeons and Dragons Adventure Game (not released in the US sadly) or something like those and I think you'll see what I mean by 'boardgamey'. Though the difference between 'wargame' and 'boardgame' is pretty subjective.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:27AM
#25
|
|
|
The combat The combat most definitely does not feel boardgamey. Go play chess, checkers, monopoly, risk, chutes and ladders, cranium; all are utterly different experiences from playing in 4th edition combat.
Go play Descent, Heroquest, Battlestations, or many others and your argument falls apart. D&D has always had board game aspects and was frequently described as a "board game without the board" as I was growing up.
4E definitely has a greater board game feel to it than previous editions but that's not a bad thing. It's actually obsoleted Descent for me. Other than the "DM as player too" aspect that Descent has (and there are RPGs that have that element as well) 4e can be used to run the exact same kind of game.
There are a lot of limitations in 4E but one of it's strengths is that it can be played anywhere in the spectrum from pure board game to pure RPG. That strength becomes even more important when you consider that most groups probably have a players who's comfort zone falls at different places along that spectrum.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:33AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
Go play Descent, Heroquest, Battlestations, or many others and your argument falls apart. D&D has always had board game aspects and was frequently described as a "board game without the board" as I was growing up.
If I'm not mistaken, some of the older PHBs even described D&D as such. Something along the lines of "Imagine you're playing a boardgame...now take away the board and tokens...", or something like that.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:34AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2007
|
I have seen a lot of threads on this issue and one thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that everyone has diffrent ways of processing information. Some people like myself are more visualy oriented and need to see where everything is in a scene in order to process it, particularly if there is a big encounter involving several combantants and terrain features. One of our DM's is very verbaly oriented and still just doesent get that if gives a 4 paragraph long desricption of an area that many of his players eyes are glazing over.
In a novel you can read long descriptions of a scene and visualize it in your head, and also long as you have the gist then you can follow the story fine. The author is setting a scene, it does not mater if you do not visulize it the exact same way. But in D&D it is often vitaly important to know where everyone and everything is right done the to each 5x5 ft area. Otherwise you get the arugmunts and misundersatnding about who is in range, who flanks who, who gets hit by the fireball.
I love to roleplay and I love tatical combat I don't see one interfering with the other. In fact I think maps and mini's adds to the roleplaying because if you see clearly where everything is it gives you more oppertunity to do dramatic things that are in keeping with the personality of your charecter.
Not liking the new forums.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:35AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
I suppose my question is: how many of you out there see 4E as "boardgamey", while other editions were not?
I certainly do not see it as one edition being "boardgamey" or "wargamey" while other editions are not. Certainly, they all combine elements.
However, with the rigidly defined abilities of 4E, I have certainly noticed an increased tendency among my players to mostly think in terms of what specific abilities their characters have written down on their sheets rather than thinking outside the box. To me, that is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:35AM
#29
|
|
|
So...it is interesting that most...almost all...of the responses have been along the lines of "4E does have a boardgamey feel , but I like that". I suppose I fit into the group that sees it more as a wargame than a boardgame, but that could just be a matter of semantics. Either way, the responses have been great. Thanks guys and gals.
You'd have to add into your data set the consideration that a significant portion of the respondents don't consider the difference between "boardgame" and "wargame" to be significant enough to care.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 03, 2009 - 6:43AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
You'd have to add into your data set the consideration that a significant portion of the respondents don't consider the difference between "boardgame" and "wargame" to be significant enough to care.
Would you agree with the following assumption:
Boardgame: a game played on a board with tokens/pieces with a defined beginning and end and a winner is the end result.
Wargame: Tactical game with a board and pieces that involve total player interaction in which a victor can be determined, but with a much more flexible time-frame.
Let's take chess for an example. Is it a boardgame? Yes. Is it a wargame? Yes. Is it tactical? Yes. Is it altogether different from DDM? Not really. Is it altogether different than D&D? Yes. D&D has too many free-form rules to be all-contained, started, and finished within a defined area and a strictly limited number of tokens/pieces...unless the DM and players agree to make it so.
For me, the biggest difference between D&D and other tactical wargames/boardgames is the human element. The rules are all-flexible, and the amount of alterable elements is limited strictly to the imagination of those playing. Chess is tactical, but the rules are hard and fast. Same with DDM. Same with 99% of boardgames. Sure, many people have a small number of house-rules with games like Monopoly, but nowhere near the degree of those with D&D.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
