Quote from: cmagounYes, no, maybe... It is an interesting question.

Personally, I think the joy of RPGs to the 30 year old hardcore tactical players is that they are wargames with which the players identify. I remember Brian Gleichman posting once that he wants his RPG to provide context and meaning to his battles. That makes perfect sense. RPGs win over wargames because they give us a reason to give a crap.

And yet the wargamers I know say that it's history that gives the battles meaning - the knowledge that the games are about real people and real events. They look at fantasy RPGs and boardgames and say 'why should I give a shit about what some made-up elves do?" They find it easier to put themselves in the shoes of Alexander the Great or Napoleon than Elandor the Elf Knight.

This topic reminded me of one thing that I really liked about GURPS. Sure it had crunchy combat if you used all of the options, but they were just that - options. I liked the basic combat - advanced combat split with clearly defined optional rules.

You can do that with D&D, but for some reason, a lot of people (myself included) like to play by the book and if it's not clearly listed as optional, it must be used. It's easier to pick and choose from various rules labeled as optional than it is to sort out canon rules and designate some as optional in my experiences.

There have been a few other games with basic and advanced combat, and I always liked it and felt it made the game more accessible to beginners and more flexible for veterans. Sure after a while I usually ended up using all of the advanced rules, but it felt good having them clearly labeled optional.

It's more of a perception thing than anything else, but I liked it.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd yet the wargamers I know say that it's history that gives the battles meaning - the knowledge that the games are about real people and real events. They look at fantasy RPGs and boardgames and say 'why should I give a shit about what some made-up elves do?" They find it easier to put themselves in the shoes of Alexander the Great or Napoleon than Elandor the Elf Knight.

Well sure, I understand that. A big allure of wargaming is that it allows the players to experience (and maybe rewrite) history. That's cool and I figure that if that is the main reason you play tabletop games, you are still an avid wargamer. I am not still an avid wargamer, because experiencing history is not that big a deal in my mind.

I am more interested in the tactical experience and the close association with "my guy" in relation to that experience. So, I want my guy to persist game to game. I want him to get better as the game goes on. I want to have a strong context for the battle. These are all things that RPGs bring to the table, in exchange (usually) for a watered down tactical experience.

So, though I still like wargames, I rarely play them because for me, the "my guy" factor beats the "history" factor. For others, I am sure that is not the case.

Quote from: GoOrangeThis topic reminded me of one thing that I really liked about GURPS. Sure it had crunchy combat if you used all of the options, but they were just that - options. I liked the basic combat - advanced combat split with clearly defined optional rules.

You can do that with D&D, but for some reason, a lot of people (myself included) like to play by the book and if it's not clearly listed as optional, it must be used. It's easier to pick and choose from various rules labeled as optional than it is to sort out canon rules and designate some as optional in my experiences.

I would argue that it is harder to separate out the advanced rules in D&D.  Things like AoO are hardwired into many of the feats and special abilities.  Same for line of sight and spells.  Some things you can just strip out, but there is always that option for the player with the deeper rules knowledge to take advantage of and they feel ripped off if they can't use it.  

GURPS was designed as modular from the ground up and though there is a rather massive leap in complexity from the (not totally satisfying) GURPS lite to advanced combat, the basic system still runs fine without all the complications.  You can play with or without Powers for instance and they are very different levels of gameplay complexity, but the system runs fine either way.

There's a large difference between AoO and line -of-sight, IMHO.

With spells, range weapons, etc., there will always be questions about line of sight/ability to target. One of the most basic questions during any kind of encounter, combat or otherwise, is what can my senses tell me - can I hear, that?  Can I see that?

AoO, though it is hardwired, is not a necessary aspect of any encounter.  So I agree that it was a bad choice to not set this up as an optional rule, and mark everything that goes along with it (provoking rules, feats to avoid, etc.) as optional tactical grist for the mill.

Most of these things come up because there is no rule.  Then the question comes up in play - "Hey, if he's running right in front of me, why can't I attack him when he goes by?" Sooner or later someone claims GM Fiat when the yes/no doesn't come back the way they want, and someone makes up a rule to make resolution "objective." The point being that it's all layers of necessity. Line-of-sight rules = very necessary; AoO = not so much.

Quote from: walkerpI would argue that it is harder to separate out the advanced rules in D&D.

You wouldn't have to argue. I agree that it's easier to do in a game like GURPS than in D&D. All I was saying was that it could be done, but I'm with you that it wouldn't be a simple task due to a lot of the interdependency of various feats and abilities with many of the combat rules.

I'd like to see more games designed with this modular approach like GURPS, to facilitate different styles of play.

Quote from: cmagounI am more interested in the tactical experience and the close association with "my guy" in relation to that experience. So, I want my guy to persist game to game. I want him to get better as the game goes on. I want to have a strong context for the battle. These are all things that RPGs bring to the table, in exchange (usually) for a watered down tactical experience.

So, though I still like wargames, I rarely play them because for me, the "my guy" factor beats the "history" factor. For others, I am sure that is not the case.

I have some of the same sentiments, but for some reason I can't quite scratch this itch with RPGs, and boardgames don't cut it for me either. With RPGs, I feel like some of my character should be devoted toward the story aspect, with interesting background hooks, social skills, and other things not necessarily related to tactical combat. With most board/wargames, there is no "my guy" and carryover from session to session. Something in between would be good.

I've thought about writing a tactical combat RPG, minus the 'R' part. Something where you had scenarios played out on a very tactical level, with a persistent character that could be improved over the course of the game, much like a character in a CRPG. I suppose you could do this with an existing RPG, like GURPS or D&D, but it's hard for me to shuck away the roleplaying aspects.

Now, you may be thinking that this it totally in opposition to my first post/rant, and to an extent you are correct. The difference lies in my expectations. When I sit down to play an RPG, I expect there to be roleplaying, some combat, but not too much of the wargaming aspect. What I wouldn't mind is sitting down to a boardgame and having a little RPG to it, in the sense of a persistent "my guy" who could be carried over from session to session. There's a fine line but basically it boils down to "I don't mind D&D in my Battletech, but I don't want Battletech in my D&D".

I usually run D&D games with mini (actually just counters) and a battlemat to hand, but I don't use them in every situation. A very quick encounter, or something using ranged weapons is easier to run in head space. When the fight gets more complicated, or either side wants to employ serious tactics, then a battlemat makes life easier and more fun.

That's not to say that their aren't some problems. One of my group is almost impossibly slow at deciding what actions to take and will often waste time weighing up his choices ("should I take a 5' step and fire a crossbow, or charge while drawing a sword to make a melee attack?") but I wouldn't say that this is a flaw with a battlemat as other players are much quicker (they usually plan in advance) and the slow guy is just as slow deciding what to do when we don't use a mat.

Mats and minis make some things much easier. I honestly can't understand why people find AoOs difficult when using a mat, but at the same time they make very little sense without one. I've also noticed that fighting on a mat incourages the players to work together a lot more - if you can see a friend surrounded by enemies within easy reach then it's more common to intervene, and if it takes effort to reach him then everyone can see it and appreciate that effort. Teamwork is, IME, a frequent result of using a battlemat.

But I don't tend to use mats for games without the same positional tactical element. I also run Exalted and would never use a battlemat, although we do use a battlewheel for 2E combat and enjoy the tactical minigame that 2E combat entails. At the far end of the scale, I run Amber without any props whatsoever.

Quote from: GoOrangeI have some of the same sentiments, but for some reason I can't quite scratch this itch with RPGs, and boardgames don't cut it for me either.

I could see that. As I said, I think the RPG tactical experience is watered down in most games and thus can be a poor substitute for that wargaming itch.

Quote from: GoOrangeWith RPGs, I feel like some of my character should be devoted toward the story aspect, with interesting background hooks, social skills, and other things not necessarily related to tactical combat.

Well, don't we all? Maybe I have overstated my case here.

I love "background hooks, social skills, and other things not necessarily related to tactical combat". I love cool stories about jealousy and bastard sons and good intentions gone too far and religious fanatics and heresy and the nature of magic and lost love and... you get the idea. The great thing about cool stories is that they provide a wonderful context for conflict.

In our current game, the players are soon to head north into a brewing civil war because one of the PC's former bosses got involved in a failed rebellion and is now imprisoned by the PC's jealous half-brother who is a vassal of the "evil" Lord Vincent. It isn't Shakespeare, but I think it counts as a background hook

And yes, our conflict is very often physical, but it's not all about combat. Sometimes a clever plan wins the day, or intimidation, or diplomacy, or stealth. It's all good! (And in fact, the game does not really support the "combat encounter after  combat encounter" model, because combat is too darn dangerous and healing is too darn hard to come by.)

It's just that when we do get into combat (which since my players enjoy combat, we do a lot), we want it to "scratch that itch."

Quote from: GoOrangeI've thought about writing a tactical combat RPG, minus the 'R' part. Something where you had scenarios played out on a very tactical level, with a persistent character that could be improved over the course of the game, much like a character in a CRPG.

Well, there are games like this, but they do nothing for me because they lack context. The character is "my guy", but my guy has no reason to be in the combat other than the scenario designer said so. I have no attachment to the plot and thus, I have no investment in the combat. Also, such games never support the non-combatant well at all. You know, the barmaid who spend the fight standing on the table, putting buckets on peoples' heads and knocking guys out with the ale mug. It takes a good GM to integrate the "hardcore" tactical and the "fast-and-loose" styles of play.

Quote from: GoOrangeI suppose you could do this with an existing RPG, like GURPS or D&D, but it's hard for me to shuck away the roleplaying aspects.

You don't need to shuck away the roleplaying aspects. You can, in fact, have your cake and eat it too. It just takes the right game, the right group and the right GM.

Quote from: GoOrange...

I've thought about writing a tactical combat RPG, minus the 'R' part. Something where you had scenarios played out on a very tactical level, with a persistent character that could be improved over the course of the game, much like a character in a CRPG. I suppose you could do this with an existing RPG, like GURPS or D&D, but it's hard for me to shuck away the roleplaying aspects.

Now, you may be thinking that this it totally in opposition to my first post/rant, and to an extent you are correct. The difference lies in my expectations. When I sit down to play an RPG, I expect there to be roleplaying, some combat, but not too much of the wargaming aspect. What I wouldn't mind is sitting down to a boardgame and having a little RPG to it, in the sense of a persistent "my guy" who could be carried over from session to session. There's a fine line but basically it boils down to "I don't mind D&D in my Battletech, but I don't want Battletech in my D&D".

Have you seen Mordheim or considered Car Wars?  Completely different genres and games, but both have a very lite RPG element on top of mostly a tactical miniature game.  You could also consider Melee or Wizard as well, both games suited to low RPG high minitature combat play.

Quote from: XantherYou could also consider Melee or Wizard as well, both games suited to low RPG high minitature combat play.

This reminded me of the Brasky boys little cool copy cat game 'Animalball Melee'.

I do mean to try it. And it could maybe help a couple of things in this thread, it is a simpler D&D combat but not as simple as minis, and it is a good d20 copy of Melee.

http://www.animalball.com/games.html

http://www.animalball.com/Content/Downloads/AnimalballMelee.pdf