In grubman's 4e D&D thread, I read this:

Quote from: Christmas ApeYou know something?

I hate minis too. The game-within-a-game of square-counting and path mapping is just as fuckstick awful for immersion, so far as my group is concerned, as personality mechanics are for some others. I'd like 4.0 to go the "minis optional" route, rather than the "minis strongly recommended!" approach of 3.5. I know it won't happen, but I'd like it.

It caused me to think again about something that's been rolling around in my brain cage for awhile now, and that's the tactical elements of roleplaying games.

Most times, combat in roleplaying games, leaving aside pure description, just bores me.  I like there to be a bit of meat on a game's bones, tactics-wise, but most games just boil down to a back-and-forth of "roll to hit, roll damage" with whatever extra steps or variants are in the way.

That shit is dull.  And even dressing it up with descriptions doesn't really save it.

I have, however, run across a few games that get around this problem.  Deadlands Classic (and its sister games) solved the dilemma by giving a variety of options and allowing players to manipulate action / initiative through the use of playing cards in a way very similar to poker, and in giving them tactical choices on the to-hit roll with meaningful results (called shots were a big part of the game, and each hit location had separate wound capacities).  In that way, it was tactically complex and rewarding, without being about movement.

D&D goes the other route.  Tactical choices have less to do with initiative and actions and more about maneuvering for position and manipulating the battlefield.  That's why miniatures are so important.  Yet again, D&D combat avoids being dull because there is real tactical depth to the combat game.

Weapons of the Gods has you tracking resources and playing yachtzee.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, other than to say that I really appreciate games with this sort of depth.  They give you something to do, gameplay wise when the roleplaying is interrupted by combat.  I think that's great and I wish more games would follow suit.

So far as tactical interest in the combat, RedFox, I'm with you 200%. I cannot abide "I attack him" "He attacks you" "I attack him" combat. If I don't have something to play with I'm absolutely uninterested in the events; however, I require it to be fast, fun to play with, and encourage variety in tactical thinking.

I find, personally, that D&D in its 3.5 incarnation does very little of that for me. I find the rules fiddly and riddled with exception-based sub-rules, and the general use of AoOs tends to prevent fun combat options rather than encourage them. Minis are yet worse for this; by the time you get the battle map out, find the minis you want or need, set up terrain, and arrange everything, half the group is pouring through a new sourcebook and the other half has forgotten precisely why (or who!) they're fighting. I consider it an excellent game that totally fails to work for me or my group as it was intended to be played.

Obviously, individual mileage will vary.

Indeed, and I didn't mean for the post to come off as a condemnation of your preference, Christmas Ape.  D&D combat doesn't work for a lotta folks, and I think that's perfectly valid.

It's not about particular solutions, but rather that there be something there aside from just hit/miss/damage.

Well, the combat scripting in Burning Wheel is certainly different, though I am as yet unconvinced it's better.  Well actually I think I will get onside with better but I'm not going to label it "great".  The "something to do" is the positioning tactics and the scripting.

Agon's positioning system is wonderful especially in the context of the player competition that's going on under the covers -- being able to use your tactical prowess to maneuver other players into danger so that you can save them and gather the glory is mighty cool, but narrowly constrained to a certain kind of game.  Pretty much to Agon really.  The "something to do" here is all in the positioning I think, and the meta-tactical game going on between players.

Fate v3 in the Spirit of the Century is also a nice variation and is easily used to increase or decrease crunch as needed.  We've never bothered with a map at all with it and stripped down the combat substantially for speed with the consequence that there's little difference mechanically between combat and anything else -- there's just a smooth ride with the same mechanics throughout.  With all combat rules in play, though, it does bog down into hit, damage, and hit points which was disappointing but easily side-stepped.  The "something to do" here is abstracted "zoned" positioning and the inherent play with the economy of fate points that is not constrained to combat but plays a big part there.

That's what we're playing right now and I'm not comfortable commenting on anything I can't back up with actual (and recent) play, but there are other examples as well.

Quote from: RedFoxIndeed, and I didn't mean for the post to come off as a condemnation of your preference, Christmas Ape.  D&D combat doesn't work for a lotta folks, and I think that's perfectly valid.

It's not about particular solutions, but rather that there be something there aside from just hit/miss/damage.

Didn't take it that way, chief. Just seemed like as good a place as any to explain myself in further detail.

I am in agreement with you, RedFox.

I like tactical combat but, for me, I do not think it's important. What I prefer to see in combat is a measurable progression that it is going somewhere on a round-by-round basis.

I adore tactical combat, I love it. When I say tactical combat, I mean meaningful choices during combat*. Lately I've been playing Aquelarre, and although I like it a lot (if you don't know it, the system is a flavor of BRP), I wasn't having as much fun during combats as I had with, for example, combats in Rolemaster or Capitán Alatriste. And this is the reason, I missed the meaningful choices during combat.

By the way, that the reason why I fell in love with The Riddle of Steel. On tuesday we're going to play for the first time, wish me luck! :haw:

*=I love tactical combat, but I dislike boards and minis. Well, I like minis, but not when you use rules that apply to them.

Quote from: ClaudiusI adore tactical combat, I love it. When I say tactical combat, I mean meaningful choices during combat*. Lately I've been playing Aquelarre, and although I like it a lot (if you don't know it, the system is a flavor of BRP), I wasn't having as much fun during combats as I had with, for example, combats in Rolemaster or Capitán Alatriste. And this is the reason, I missed the meaningful choices during combat.

By the way, that the reason why I fell in love with The Riddle of Steel. On tuesday we're going to play for the first time, wish me luck! :haw:

*=I love tactical combat, but I dislike boards and minis. Well, I like minis, but not when you use rules that apply to them.

Good luck with that! What's your weapon of choice? I ran about 2000 combats on their simulator, I may have vague wisdom to offer.

Quote from: HalfjackWell, the combat scripting in Burning Wheel is certainly different, though I am as yet unconvinced it's better.  Well actually I think I will get onside with better but I'm not going to label it "great".  The "something to do" is the positioning tactics and the scripting.

I'd like to try Burning Wheel someday. I would GM it now if I didn't like The Riddle of Steel and GURPS more.

Quote from: Christmas ApeGood luck with that! What's your weapon of choice? I ran about 2000 combats on their simulator, I may have vague wisdom to offer.

Thank you!

You won't believe me, but I didn't try the combat simulator, ever. Me and the players are complete TROS virgins.  If I make mistakes during combats, it doesn't matter, they'll hack my NPCs to pieces and that's OK, what I'm worried about is killing too many NPCs. I plan to be VERY generous with drama points.

Going back to tactical combat, I didn't have a problem with lack of options during combat before, but lately I can't live without them.

Do I have to bust out the details of actual play with D&D 3.5 to show how you can do deeply tactical and role-play in combat?

I mean, there I was lying on the ground, reaching out to the character next to me to heal him with my lest breath because that's what St. Cuthbert would want me to do...

We lost Narfink in that fight, sadly... He fell to the dire wolves, but not without a fight...

Quote from: James J SkachDo I have to bust out the details of actual play with D&D 3.5 to show how you can do deeply tactical and role-play in combat?

I mean, there I was lying on the ground, reaching out to the character next to me to heal him with my lest breath because that's what St. Cuthbert would want me to do...

We lost Narfink in that fight, sadly... He fell to the dire wolves, but not without a fight...

Word, dawg.  

I've had some wicked cool scenes play out in D&D3 fights, like getting caught in between a vamp-werewolf war in the middle of a run down old church.

In fact, I find that the detail that D&D affords to combat encounters actually makes them more exciting, because the level of decisions being made gives me a better mental picture of what's really happening.

Hey, that shit obviously works for tons of people, right? It's D and fucking D. As I said, I consider it an excellent game that totally fails to work for me or my group as it was intended to be played.

I've played D&D. I've had a lot of fun with it, combat included. My speed monkey shank & plank half-elf was a blast to play - one my few really enjoyable melee fighters. But I've never had fun when the minis come out, and we only got to fun in tabletop by skipping big portions of the rules.

But you know, this thread - unlike many, many others here - has not a lot of reason to end up being about D&D. Let's generalize. If you'll permit, I'll use my ape-like strength to haul this back on track.

J, tell me about this "level of decision" thing you speak of. How would you describe that level, and why does it help you?

It's hard for me to explain precisely, Ape, as it's kind of one of those feel things.  I guess I just feel like the more things I can do in a fight, and the mroe detail presented, the better idea I get in my head as to what is going on in the combat.

Whereas your typical abstract RPG combat like you get in, say, Storyteller games like Vampire, doesn't give me that feeling, because all I'm really given on a system level is "I roll to hit, roll to damage, rinse, repeat".  

Perhaps when it comes to combat sequences, I'm just not imaginative enough, to want to have to come up with ALL the detail of what's happening in a fight, whereas with a more detailed game like D&D, I've already got a pretty good head start given me by the system.