Game Fundamentals - The Illusion of Accomplishment

[pemerton]

FifthElement, I can't give you XP at the moment (for your copyediting powers!).

 

[The Shaman]

I don't have the books in front of me, but the 'Attack of Oppurtunity' concept which forms the core of the argument you are advancing here is not a new concept. It has just been formalized better than in older editions, but in older editions taking a non-combat action while threatened did draw an attack from anyone threatening you.

Correct, as did attempting to withdraw from an engagement.

This was refuted here before, but citing the actual rules doesn't seem to dissuade some posters from repeating these readily disproved arguments. Same thing with, "1e AD&D offers no tactics except rolling a d20 to hit."

Moreover, older game systems actually in some ways did a much better job of handling simultaneous action than modern versions of D&D. Most elegantly, older versions of D&D maintained the wargame-like concept of 'phases' within the turn, so that for example, everyone made simultaneous movement during a movement phase, which was followed by everyone taking turns making attacks. In practice, this actually made the battle simulate real-time much better than 3e and post 3e's strictly turn based sequence where everyone completes a full set of actions and attacks in initiative order.

One of the very best simultaneous combat systems I've played is Snapshot for Traveller; each character has a number of initiative points and the character with a lower total can be interrupted at any time by a character with a higher total. Published in 1979, Snapshot remains an excellent system.

This seems like a false assertion backed up by a thin bit of evidence.

Ron "Brain Damage!" Edwards' pseudo-scientific claims and the "fifteen minutes of fun" myth are based on stilted, contrived views of gaming, in my opinion.

That's not to say that some gamers find some styles of play more enjoyable than others, but some of the solutions advanced take as their premises that the whole gaming experience is distilled down to interacting with the rules, which I think misses one of the best and more important differences of roleplaying games from other kinds of games.

 

[Garthanos]

That's not to say that some gamers find some styles of play more enjoyable than others, but some of the solutions advanced take as their premises that the whole gaming experience is distilled down to interacting with the rules, which I think misses one of the best and more important differences of roleplaying games from other kinds of games.

Extremism meet extremism.(The "whole" isnt whole)
If I wanted the "Game" part to be ALL DM "hand waving" and speculation or require him to have a degree in real world battle tactics ... I would also ditch the dice entirely... and recommend "Amber". --- > Then you get to tell me about a few more rules that might show tactics in AD&D and we can back and forth some more

Note that is a pretend rant with elements of truth in it.. so dont beat me up

However I have only ever had minor interest in war-gaming ever.... I do love fencing and heroic team work.

So newer D&D gives me ripostes and flourishes and cinematic fights with a small number of combatants fighting as a team (like the company of the ring not like the battle at helms deep) and in the arena which I like AD&D gave me nothing but a d20 to cover a whole minute, ie the choice density "in what I am interested in" is garbage... and would have been even with a great tactical DM... unless he just threw out the system....which is what I ended up doing.

 

[AllisterH]

I tend to disagree that NOT having codified rules for tactics means that the game is more open to the use of tactics....it's not what I found in my experience.

For example, say you use the classic "tactic" of cutting down the chandelier to trap/beat the bad guy(s). In ALL editions of D&D, this should be a valid tactic but 4e does give some idea to the DM (and by extension, the players) as to what the result is via its infamous pg. 42.

You know, as a player, what that outcome would be and as such can judge non- power based tactics in context with your OWN powers. Not so true in pre 4e since as a player, it's dependant on DM whim and experience.

Indeed, one of the reasons why I suspect so many games in 1e simply involved the pcs simply swinging away at each other was that the players only thught those were valid tactics based on their own experiences with trying non-traditional tactics.

 

[The Shaman]

Extremism meet extremism.(The "whole" isnt whole)

From a post on Big Purple:

The game is where the rules say that it is, not where the fluff says that it is or where the ad copy says that it is. No rules? Not part of the game.

Garthanos, I tend not to say something like that without being able to back it up. For future reference.

So newer D&D gives me ripostes and flourishes and cinematic fights with a small number of combatants fighting as a team (like the company of the ring not like the battle at helms deep) and in the arena which I like AD&D gave me nothing but a d20 to cover a whole minute, ie the choice density "in what I am interested in" is garbage... and would have been even with a great tactical DM... unless he just threw out the system....which is what I ended up doing.

Y'know, I haven't mentioned 4e at all - I know next to nothing about the game, so there would be no point.

And with that in mind, I do think the gamers who blast other editions of D&D should have at least some idea of what they're talking about when they do so. Like suggesting that the 'choice density' in 1e consists of nothing more than rolling a d20 to hit, which is simply wrong, and which has been demonstrated over and over again here and elsewhere. That may have been how you played it, but that's not what the game offered to those who learned the rules. Later editions have added added granularity to those choices, in my experience, and increased optimization of some of those choices considerably. But that's very different from saying they were never there at all.

And for what it's worth, when I express my agreement with Celebrim, it's based on my experiences with other games. I see the same behavior described in players playing games which are not 4e.

 

[Mark]

I tend to disagree that NOT having codified rules for tactics means that the game is more open to the use of tactics....it's not what I found in my experience.

(. . .)

Indeed, one of the reasons why I suspect so many games in 1e simply involved the pcs simply swinging away at each other was that the players only thught those were valid tactics based on their own experiences with trying non-traditional tactics.

Your experiences might well be echoed by any number of players with DMs who lacked the ability to handle such examples as you might hold up as typical but I hasten to mention that I found little support for your position in my thirty-five plus years of playing and DMing. Granted there are such DMs, but they tend to make up the minority in my experience. I can only suggest that, barring the ability to locate a DM of sufficient talent, perhaps it is wise that you play in a game where codification ensures that certain specific tactics will be allowed if no DM of adequate ability can be found. It is good that such a set of rules covers your needs and a shame that it took this long for you to find such a game.

 

[pemerton]

That's not to say that some gamers find some styles of play more enjoyable than others, but some of the solutions advanced take as their premises that the whole gaming experience is distilled down to interacting with the rules, which I think misses one of the best and more important differences of roleplaying games from other kinds of games.

I agree with what comes before the first comma. But I disagree with the "but" - for some players it is true that the game involves engaging with the rules, and I don't think that this necessarily misses what is best about RPGs. Of course it depends on preference, but my preference for RPGs is that playing by the rules deliver a compelling situation of conflict which, via its resolution, will produce a compelling story (compelling for the participants, that is - I don't think my RPG play produces stories that would be very compelling for spectators).

I would add to this - the "rules first" approach tends to take a broader view of what counts as rules than many posts on ENworld. For example, in D&D play, I would count the encounter building guidelines, the treasure placement guidelines, etc as part of the rules.

 

[pemerton]

Your experiences might well be echoed by any number of players with DMs who lacked the ability to handle such examples

<snip>

barring the ability to locate a DM of sufficient talent, perhaps it is wise that you play in a game where codification ensures that certain specific tactics will be allowed if no DM of adequate ability can be found.

I tend to agree with Shaman, that it is an issue of preferences. I don't think it is about the talent of GMs.

When it comes to adjudicating chandelier-dropping, for example, the issue is more about predictability than about talent. A system that relies heavily on GM intervention for such cases makes the outcome of chandelier-dropping less predictable for the player. Whether or not this sort of mechanical predictability is a good thing is itself a matter of playstyle preference. Mechanical predictability is not such a big part of AD&D play, for example (at least when I think about modules like White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors).

 

[Garthanos]

. Like suggesting that the 'choice density' in 1e consists of nothing more than rolling a d20 to hit, which is simply wrong, .

Sorry not exactly what I meant... I wasnt being precise... hyperbole carry over.

Choice density how often in "game world time" do I get to choose the actions of my character its almost 1 round = 1 minute... so any choices or options or die rolls I make covers the whole of that one minute for the character. That is choice density in action. (pretend I said a to hit and whatever choices are appropriate to cover the actions of a whole minute)

The larger the time the more vague and hand wavy you have to be otherwise the choices later tend to depend to much on activity earlier in the span and get invalidated for instance exact position in the battle field over the course of a minute is appropriately vague. I am intrinsically deprived of choices about little things by long melee rounds but the inverse isnt true.

In various other games those choices I make apply to 12 seconds or 6 seconds or even 1 second of game world time. (1 second is 2x faster than real world fencers attribute the time to decide and carry out a single attack sequence by relatively normal reflexes/minds so its a bit insane)

The inverse isnt true however any choices I might make for a 1 minute round are still makable within the context of shorter 12 second round.

At some point the really short rounds get hung up on more detail than you are interested in... just as at some point overly long rounds make the action more vague than you are interested in... but the determining factor is a matter of taste because it affects the nature of the things you get to choose about and the nature of the things you have an influence on the description of.

 

[Mark]

I don't think it is about the talent of GMs.

You're purposefully ignoring that AllisterH chalks it up to "DM whim and experience" and that my post expresses having found that lack of experience (and talent) more rare than he. Please try to keep my posts in context since I am disallowed by PC to request you refrain from quoting me.