Quote from: Casey777Granted that reflects my playing style and choice of games but even in something like Exalted or a supers game good strategy & tactics would come into play for me. Avoid combat until you choose to fight or have to. I do think a player who knows more when to fight and when not to is a superior player.

You do realize that Exalted combat is all about tactics and resource management, right?

Quote from: RedFoxWhat, you want a cogent argument against that drivel?

Prove that games focused on combat are less sophisticated than those that focus on something else.

In the fact D&D does not support other forms of action as valid game strategy, when even in the genre it emulates (high fantasy) has plenty of Social, Mental, Physical, Emotional and Metaphysical conflicts and resolutions.
 

Any role-playing game that limits Logical Player-Character choice (either through risk-reward or the complete lack of choice being available) is an inferior role-playing game. A role-playing game where a logical strategy(like discussion, social networking, complete intimidation and even avoidance) is made unavailable by lack of support by the ruleset.

A superior role-playing game has equal support for the Physical, Mental, Social, and Metaphysical engineering of a characters surroundings actually in play rather than just a construct of a GM as guideposts to a tactical combat encounter.

All this applies of course if the roles are reversed too, if a RPG has no support for combat as a viable resolution, if it is a logical strategy, is an inferior game to a game where all Physical, Social, Mental, Emotional and Metaphysical strategies are given equal say.

A focused RPG is a coloring book compared to an open canvas. A connect the dots to a Sparks workstation. RPG's in and of themselves are not very sophisticated, but if they do not provide the tools for sophisticated play, than they are not sophisticated games.

Quote from: jrientsI deeply believe that combat in games is an unsophisticated solution often incorrectly applied to subtle problems.








That's what makes combat so awesome.

Damn straight.

Quote from: WilYou do realize that Exalted combat is all about tactics and resource management, right?

(smacks self) I was thinking more on the power level and forgot about that despite having played Dawn caste. Insert high powered game with combat not about tactics and resource management here.

It all depends on the game. D&D in almost all it's incarnations is all about beating creatures up and taking their stuff. Shadowrun however, is often played as a game about sneaking past people and taking their stuff.

Quote from: Casey777(smacks self) I was thinking more on the power level and forgot about that despite being an ex-Dawn caste player. Insert high powered game not about tactics and resource management here.

In Ex2e the resource management is even more important, especially with the initiative ticks and whatnot.

I've heard this rant before.

I run all sorts of games. I can honestly say, the games I have run that involve minimal combat are just as exciting as the combat filled ones. It's all about a change of pace. I disagree that all non-combat games are about talking to resolve conflict. It simply isn't true in my experience. If fact most of them are in a sense highly tactical.

My current OtE campaign -The Day Of Living Dangerously - has so far had no combat - we're into the third hour (third game) of the twenty four time frame, and my players have said it is probably one of my more intense campaigns...

Regards,
David R

What Balbinus said.  'Cause you know, god fucking forbid that we might want to do something different once in a while instead of the exact same thing we've been doing since 1983...

KoOS

It all depends on the genre/setting. I tend to run action oriented campaigns so combat comes up a fair bit. But it doesnt have to be the focus. The game I'm running this monday is very loosely based on the movie "Smokin Aces". Everyone is going to play an assassin. Their should be a fair amount of combat. If not Quentin Tarantino/Sam Peckinpah ultra violence. The last campaign I ran the players were a crew of thieves. They avoided combat. They decided that just because they were criminals didnt mean they had to murder. This was a choice made by the players. I truely could have cared less. True be told I was ready for a more violent game. Like the movie "Heat" or "3000 miles to graceland". But it was more like the "Italian job" or "Oceans eleven". So I guess what the players want out of it is going to help determine the level and importance of combat in any game.

For all of you who are equating D&D with combat heavy dungeon crawls, perhaps you could ask John Morrow about it - or just take a look at this thread.  Seems to me he's doing some pretty heavy character stuff in D&D - imagine that!

It's also interesting that "combat and tactics" are always conflated.  Seems to me that there are games like, dare I say DitV, where tactics aren't the issue at all - at least not in the sense of traditional games.

Combat is one solution to bring to bear on a situation.  Sometimes you talk, sometimes you fight.  The detail, tactics, crunch that ensues if you happen to choose the comabt option is specific to system.

If you refuse to use combat as one of the solutions, you are no better or worse off than if you refuse to use diplomacy - in either case you are arbitrarily removing an option.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's also interesting that "combat and tactics" are always conflated.  Seems to me that there are games like, dare I say DitV, where tactics aren't the issue at all - at least not in the sense of traditional games.

Could you define tactics. I think I get where you're going with this, but...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KrakaJakStuff.

I read this, but seriously, it doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: David RCould you define tactics. I think I get where you're going with this, but...

Well, I'm using it in the more traditional sense; like in Gleichman's Elements of Tactics essay.

I understand how something like DitV could be fit into this model; hence the reason many are ready to crown it a "traditional RPG." But there is something different about the feel, from what I've read in explanations and limited actual play readings perused. Perhaps it's just me.

And I'm honestly not going anywhere with it.  It just seems to me that if you go into a situation and you've removed combat as a possible options, you're limiting yourself in no less a way than if you removed diplomacy.  It seems kind of common sense.

I'm not making a value judgement on either approach, I'm just saying that for either to turn up noses at the other is kind of ironic because you're doing the same thing in both cases - limiting yourself, even if by choice.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, I'm using it in the more traditional sense; like in Gleichman's Elements of Tactics essay.

I understand how something like DitV could be fit into this model; hence the reason many are ready to crown it a "traditional RPG." But there is something different about the feel, from what I've read in explanations and limited actual play readings perused. Perhaps it's just me.

And I'm honestly not going anywhere with it.  It just seems to me that if you go into a situation and you've removed combat as a possible options, you're limiting yourself in no less a way than if you removed diplomacy.  It seems kind of common sense.

I'm not making a value judgement on either approach, I'm just saying that for either to turn up noses at the other is kind of ironic because you're doing the same thing in both cases - limiting yourself, even if by choice.

Yeah, I thought it was something like this. I was thinking of something else.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah, I thought it was something like this. I was thinking of something else.

Care to share?