Is it actually fun for people to play D&D and GURPS using all the tactical rules and options, played out on a battlemat with squares and hexes, using minatures, having to get out templates for blast radius and rulers for line of sight?

I played in a session of rules-heavy D&D (as compared to normal, fun D&D) last night and I'm just drained of fun at this point.

I guess it's a bad sign when the GM doesn't comprehend a player's intentions to do something that is more interesting from a narrative point of view than from a "use your five foot step to maximum advantage to flank your opponent, avoid the attack of opportunity, and use the other guy as cover from the conical area of effect" point of view. When the GM consistently points out a better move for you than what you "suggested" your character should do, it's a bad sign.

I've run lots of D&D myself, kept it fast and loose and made sure everyone had fun. There are a ton of rules in the PHB covering many facets of combat, and it can be fun to use them from time to time. Dropping down a map with squares and minis for a certain encounter can add variety and provide change of pace, but please, when fighting a small group of goblins along an open road, spare me.

I've played in one other game like this before, it was a local Living Greyhawk game. Every single battle was played out on a battlemat with minis and well defined 5 foot squares and 90 degree angles. I hoped that was just a unique experience but apparently there are quite a few GMs out there who like more wargaming in their RPGs.

I may give it another try but I have a strong suspicion this new group and I have remarkably different tastes.

I can understand that people like different things in their games, but sometimes too much is too much. How about you? Are you a tactics heavy style player or GM, or do you prefer a more loose interpretation?

I play Castles and Crusades, no minis for me!

I prefer my games highly tactical and hard ruled on the points where it matters. Reliable and hardwired rules give safety, are neutral and bias no-one except the skilled one.
Of course there must be some degrees of freedom to provide more than a computer game could and let the strengths of the table-top gaming shine (clever bluffs, evaluation of social interaction and so on), but where it's really and directly a question of life and death, the rule book should answer all questions without any need of interpretation or fiat. (If you don't like hard rules you can still fiat them away, but things don't work the other way around as its hard to fill in hard and working rules where only a gap of fiat is.)

Shadowrun 3rd met my style pretty good (although there were some hyperfluid creep-ins of so-called "realism" and other design fumbles, and don't get me started on computer and vehicle rules).

Quote from: GoOrangeI've run lots of D&D myself, kept it fast and loose and made sure everyone had fun. There are a ton of rules in the PHB covering many facets of combat, and it can be fun to use them from time to time. Dropping down a map with squares and minis for a certain encounter can add variety and provide change of pace, but please, when fighting a small group of goblins along an open road, spare me.

This is me. I see minis and mat as a GM facilitator, not the defining entity when it comes to combat. To this end, I was miffed when 3.5 rules replaced the old cover rule (that relied on the GM translating HIS intentions into the game rules... just my speed) with rules that counted crossing of grid-corners (which make the mat and rules the authority.)

Now, I've discovered there are downfalls when it comes to shucking off the mat. Occasionally, my wife will play with us to humor me. Being into board games, she gets the game with minis and battlemats. She totally doesn't handle the transition to the "imaginary space" when we aren't using the battlemat. This gets to the point that when she plays, I always have the minis on the mat, even when shopping or exploring.

That's a different thing that the "rules authority" types that you seem to be referring to, though I thought I'd bring that up. In that vein, there are a bunch of people who get rather bent out of shape when a monster description is missing a plus or minus. Considering that the designer selects things like natural armor bonus arbitrarily, this sort of thing didn't bother me. But no, for some folks they feel that once a decision is made, that's de facto "law of reality" and that's the way it should be.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNow, I've discovered there are downfalls when it comes to shucking off the mat. Occasionally, my wife will play with us to humor me. Being into board games, she gets the game with minis and battlemats. She totally doesn't handle the transition to the "imaginary space" when we aren't using the battlemat. This gets to the point that when she plays, I always have the minis on the mat, even when shopping or exploring.

I don't mind having a whiteboard to sketch things out and even to put minis on it. Usually, though, I make the stipulation that this is just a generalization of where people and things are. What I don't like is restricting people to squares, or measuring exact distances between things on the map.

I don't mind the visual cues to reinforce the imaginary space, but I can do with out the strict mapping detail in a lot of instances.

Quote from: SkyrockI prefer my games highly tactical and hard ruled on the points where it matters. Reliable and hardwired rules give safety, are neutral and bias no-one except the skilled one.

OK, cool. I guess this is just another example of someone having different tastes than myself.

When it comes to tactical rules, I like having them available, but don't feel the need to constantly invoke them. I don't like to "break" the rules, but I don't always like to "use" the rules. (Yes, I know, semantically incorrect, but you probably get the point).

Still, this is just another illustration of how people's tastes vary in RPGs.

Quote from: GoOrangeWhen it comes to tactical rules, I like having them available, but don't feel the need to constantly invoke them. I don't like to "break" the rules, but I don't always like to "use" the rules. (Yes, I know, semantically incorrect, but you probably get the point).

Pardonez moi, but I don't get the point. Could you give me an example where a rule isn't "used" without being "broken"? (D&D, although not my main game, would be a good common ground if you need a concrete system for the sake of an example.)

When I DM My first choice of systems is the Mentzer Basic D&D set, its solid, simple, and can easily be expanded upward to AD&D when we are ready to ramp things up. I also like WEG d6 for Sc-Fi, and I often DM other systems if whenever the group wants something new or different, so I'm not a total grognard .

Quote from: GoOrangeIs it actually fun for people to play D&D and GURPS using all the tactical rules and options, played out on a battlemat with squares and hexes, using minatures, having to get out templates for blast radius and rulers for line of sight?

This is the only way we play D&D combats, except for the blast radius templates. We just count squares for those. And it's exceedingly rare that we have to use a ruler (thread is good too) to check line of sight. Usually if it's that much trouble the person will just move over a square so the call is obvious.

On the flip side, we very rarely use minis for Shadowrun, and never use them for Exalted. But D&D has all those wonderful mini rules in place, so we have fun with them.

Quote from: SkyrockPardonez moi, but I don't get the point. Could you give me an example where a rule isn't "used" without being "broken"? (D&D, although not my main game, would be a good common ground if you need a concrete system for the sake of an example.)

Rule Zero AKA The Golden Rule: The GM may ignore or change any game rule.

That rule is codified - in various forms - in many rulebooks. Not using it does not break it, and using it alows one to not use other rules without breaking them, since Rule Zero supercedes all other rules.

-clash

Quote from: SkyrockPardonez moi, but I don't get the point. Could you give me an example where a rule isn't "used" without being "broken"? (D&D, although not my main game, would be a good common ground if you need a concrete system for the sake of an example.)

I think I get the idea.  If it's not the focus of an action, you don't need the detailed version of the rules.  Suppose a character is trying to grab and hold someone running by.  You could invoke the grappling rules, or just make up a quick substitute like DC15 dex check.  But that doesn't mean you would never use the grappling rules for something like a wrestling match.
 
I can play highly tactical but it's not my top choice and I don't want it all the time.  Also, if people are using tons of additional books, I find it hard to keep all the rules variations straight.  I prefer a mix of tactical and simple - if a rule is not something that's basic and constant, I'm not going to look it up or take the time to use it unless it's vital to the scene.  This attitude will really rub some people the wrong way, because it's not playing by the rules.

Quote from: GoOrangeIs it actually fun for people to play D&D and GURPS using all the tactical rules and options, played out on a battlemat with squares and hexes, using minatures, having to get out templates for blast radius and rulers for line of sight?

Yes. You'd be hard pressed to find any numbers on what percentage of D&D players like to do this, but from my personal experience - a lot.

Quote from: GoOrangeI played in a session of rules-heavy D&D (as compared to normal, fun D&D) last night and I'm just drained of fun at this point.

Nice comparison - it's either rules heavy or not normal not fun. Come on, man, leave that stuff for Story Games posts.

Quote from: GoOrangeI guess it's a bad sign when the GM doesn't comprehend a player's intentions to do something that is more interesting from a narrative point of view than from a "use your five foot step to maximum advantage to flank your opponent, avoid the attack of opportunity, and use the other guy as cover from the conical area of effect" point of view. When the GM consistently points out a better move for you than what you "suggested" your character should do, it's a bad sign.

Hey man, that's not the rules, that's the GM. If you don't like the move, no matter how much better it might be tactically, you are under no obligation to do it. Your character is yours to control - even if it's for the "more interesting froma narrative point of view" goal.

Quote from: GoOrangeI've run lots of D&D myself, kept it fast and loose and made sure everyone had fun. There are a ton of rules in the PHB covering many facets of combat, and it can be fun to use them from time to time. Dropping down a map with squares and minis for a certain encounter can add variety and provide change of pace, but please, when fighting a small group of goblins along an open road, spare me.

Many of the players I know and have gamed with, the moment the encounter turns critical (usually the point at which the DM says "Roll for initiative") want the detail of what's happening.  Now whether the choice you make is based on the normal, fun, tactical challenge, or the infantile look-at-me-I'm-a-story-teller approach (see how easy that is to do?) is not a function of the rules.

Quote from: GoOrangeI've played in one other game like this before, it was a local Living Greyhawk game. Every single battle was played out on a battlemat with minis and well defined 5 foot squares and 90 degree angles. I hoped that was just a unique experience but apparently there are quite a few GMs out there who like more wargaming in their RPGs.

And a lot of players! When you consider that Living Greyhawk, from what can be garnered (the RPGA doesn't give actual numbers - imagine that in this hobby!) is the largest single campaign.

Quote from: GoOrangeI may give it another try but I have a strong suspicion this new group and I have remarkably different tastes.

Yeah - that's the place to focus.  It's clear that if this is the style of D&D you play, you are probably looking at the wrong group.

Quote from: GoOrangeI can understand that people like different things in their games, but sometimes too much is too much. How about you? Are you a tactics heavy style player or GM, or do you prefer a more loose interpretation?

Guess - go on, guess.

You know, I went back and read that first line again.  I have to tell you - that's damn close to Forge-speak.  "Can they really be having fun?"  And then you follow up with the rules-heavy versus normal-fun...man...do you need a link to The Forge?

Quote from: GoOrangeIs it actually fun for people to play D&D and GURPS using all the tactical rules and options, played out on a battlemat with squares and hexes, using minatures, having to get out templates for blast radius and rulers for line of sight?

Well, sure it is. In fact, that is pretty much exactly what I want in a ruleset: a good man-to-man wargame wrapped with a set of skill resolution and role-playing rules. I want the rules to provide me with a wargame and the role-playing to provide me with the context and meaning for the battles.

Quote from: GoOrangeI played in a session of rules-heavy D&D (as compared to normal, fun D&D) last night and I'm just drained of fun at this point.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have seen tons of combats gone wrong. Just this week, I was watching a game in which the GM laid out the miniatures for what was meant to be the awesome, climactic combat of the module. Two and a half mind-numbing hours later and everyone left unsatisfied and bored. I don't necessarily think this is an issue with tactical rules, or with a specific game, but often with the way the GMs (and players) approach the combat portion of the game. In this case, the GM was woefully underprepared to run the fight. He took forever to choose actions and spells for his bad guys, kept forgetting the initiative order, and stopped describing any of the combat. It stunk, but it certainly shouldn't have gone that way.

Quote from: GoOrangeI guess it's a bad sign when the GM doesn't comprehend a player's intentions to do something that is more interesting from a narrative point of view than from a "use your five foot step to maximum advantage to flank your opponent, avoid the attack of opportunity, and use the other guy as cover from the conical area of effect" point of view. When the GM consistently points out a better move for you than what you "suggested" your character should do, it's a bad sign.

This is a GMing problem then. The GM should be ready to judge any action and apply appropriate chances of success, modifiers, results, etc.  Now, this does bring up an interesting point: do the children of a more "tactically complete" D&D have trouble adjudicating out of the box than those of us that grew up without the hexes and minis?

Also, the fact that the GM feels the need to point out moves to the players and constantly belittle their decisions is a warning sign. I am not sure that this GM would be any better if you took his mat and minis away.

Quote from: GoOrangeI can understand that people like different things in their games, but sometimes too much is too much. How about you? Are you a tactics heavy style player or GM, or do you prefer a more loose interpretation?

I don't run D&D, but I run a tactically heavy game and yes, pretty much every combat, from the goblins on the road, to the final battle with the evil wizard is on the mat. Still, the combats are almost always fast-paced and fun. I say almost always, because there are always times when things just don't go well... but that can happen whether you use the tactical rules or not.

Anyway, different strokes, I guess... though an article on keeping your tactical combats short might be interesting and useful for some GMs.

Quote from: GoOrangeIs it actually fun for people to play D&D and GURPS using all the tactical rules and options, played out on a battlemat with squares and hexes, using minatures, having to get out templates for blast radius and rulers for line of sight?

The trick is the DM. A DM who knows his rules cold can be make a rules heavy system very fun. The more you go diving for the books the more likely it isn't fun. In addition having player charts helps a lot too. Harnmaster by Columbia Games is a perfect example of how a chart can render an otherwise complex combat ruleset into something that is simple to play.

http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/4001/harnmaster-combattables.pdf

The same for using battlemats and minis. There is a tradeoff between detailed setups and quick play. Over the years I gathered a variety of props, and organized my minis in such a way I am able to layout a encounter within a minute. About the same amount of time to verbal describe it and far less confusing. (Which is the point of doing battlemats in the first place).

Note that for battlemat and minis the stuff you do for your Warhammer setup isn't the same you would to in a tabletop RPG. You just don't have the time for setup. So the props you use should be easily thrown out onto the table.

Remember this whole dichotomy arises because of RPGs origins in wargames. As the hobby grew beyond its original wargame roots the appeal of rules light systems grew as well with non-wargamers becoming a dominant part of the market. However there is a ton of old and new grognards (thanks to rule heavy stuff like Magic the Gathering) who keep the flame of the rules are king alive.