Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe. I don't really have a handle on what "CaW" is meant to be, if it's not Gygaxian skilled play or something in that general neighbourhood. The ToH example that [MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION] gave upthread, for instance - of methodically progressing through the tomb using orc henchmen - fits within the Gygaxian paradigm, but does not involve "quickly blowing through the foregone conclusion".

Maybe I'm overly cynical & suffering from Post-Traumatic-Edition-War-Disorder, (OK, there is no 'maybe'), but right in the original thread, Daztur came right out and said he was trying to explain the edition war divide. So, CaW is not a really style being analyzed, so much as one being created to require things perceived as absent from 4e, and be badly hampered by other things perceived to be present in it (and vice-versa for 3e).

Maybe, if approached from another angle, CaW /would/ have included the meticulous-execution phase of a plan (including dealing with the unexpected), rather than 'needing' to quickly blow through the forgone-conclusion combat at the end. But, to make it less 'supported by' 4e, it had to require 'fast combats.' Because 'slow combat' was one of the more-nearly-validcriticisms leveled against 4e at the time (that is, entirely valid only if you discounted the possibility of /ever/ stepping outside the encounter /guidelines/).

 

[Hussar]

I'm not really talking about numbers where using mobs works though. That's too large a unit. I'm talking about adding half a dozen NPC's to the group - exactly what hirelings were used for in AD&D. And, because the power curve in AD&D is much shallower, having a half a dozen 2nd level fighter hirelings with a 7th level group was an effective choice which didn't actually add a whole lot of table time.

3e is bad and 4e is a lot worse when you do this though. Even something as simple as a 2nd level fighter in 3e can have 3 or 4 feats, and all sorts of goodies going on. Imagine adding half a dozen trip monkey fighters to your group and you'll see what I mean. 4e gets even worse, since each of those fighters is now going to have at least two distinct options - basic melee and probably something else, and, lets be honest here, the focus on terrain and the tactical grid is going to eat up a lot of table time.

Add in the additional bit where it's often a choice for the controlling character - use up my standard action to have my cohort attack, and it gets really slow, really quickly. Adding a cohort to a character is a very complicated option. Far, far more complicated than it was in earlier editions.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it certainly can. But, I'd say that 4e certainly disincentivises the option. It's just far, far too much of a PITA to be a really good fit for a lot of groups.

 

[Iosue]

OK. Doesn't sound like CaW anymore, though, because CaW wants to quickly blow through the foregone conclusion at the end of the planning and prep, rather than 'methodically implement'/execute the plan in detail. And, 4e's handling of detailed tactical set-piece battles would be ideal for tactical execution portion of that 'skilled play.'

"Prep" includes "methodically implement/execute the plan".

Don't confuse quick resolution with "blowing through" the foregone conclusion. A group may come up with a plan involving two warring goblin tribes to take themselves out. Individual components of that plan may be methodically implemented -- roleplaying interactions with the goblin chiefs, planning the event that will instigate the fight, securing a escape route. None of which may take a very long time in real time, by themselves; "methodically" has nothing to do with speed. Then they light the fuse and watch the two sides go at it. That is quickly resolved, and then perhaps the PCs engage the remnants of the winning faction, now with the odds in their favor. Again quickly resolved, but methodically implemented.

 

[Campbell]

Warning: there is a distinct lack of game theory in my post. When I sit down to play a game I want engaging game play, first and foremost. I also want an emotionally engaging experience, but not at the cost of giving up game play. I don't like a lot of traditional RPGs*, but my two favorite ones are Basic D&D and 4e. I don't particularly care if resolution is scene based or adventure based, but fidelity to game play is paramount to me. Wherever the scope of game play exists I believe it is our job as referees to make sure we have informed players that can make decisions that have a meaningful impact on the play experience, and to bring consequences to bear for those decisions without any kid gloves.

I understand on an academic level that some people do not want that in an RPG, but at a certain level that doesn't really concern me. I started playing RPGs in the '90s, but I don't really have a desire to go back to GM mitigated decision making. I am concerned that the play style of Classic World of Darkness (and AD&D 2e) is being enshrined, rather than either of the play paradigms which I really enjoy.

 

[Aenghus]

"Prep" includes "methodically implement/execute the plan".

Don't confuse quick resolution with "blowing through" the foregone conclusion. A group may come up with a plan involving two warring goblin tribes to take themselves out. Individual components of that plan may be methodically implemented -- roleplaying interactions with the goblin chiefs, planning the event that will instigate the fight, securing a escape route. None of which may take a very long time in real time, by themselves; "methodically" has nothing to do with speed. Then they light the fuse and watch the two sides go at it. That is quickly resolved, and then perhaps the PCs engage the remnants of the winning faction, now with the odds in their favor. Again quickly resolved, but methodically implemented.

I feel this argument is a bit of a red herring as entirely-NPC faction fights using the combat rules will be slow regardless of the ruleset used. In fact there is no obligation for the DM to use the full RPG combat rules to resolve inter-NPC fighting, effectively impractical past a certain battle size, and as most versions of D&D didn't have mass combat rules , the fallback was to guesstimate the result, which may be informed by but not used the system and can be fast regardless of the system (as the system isn't being used).

PC ambush combat resolution is faster than normal for the system if the ambush is successful, as the PCs focus fire and efficiently roll up their enemies.My experience with DMs that permit planning to victory is that they often insist on formal resolution of everything to do with the PCs, waiting for the PCs to make a mistake or fail a subtask, at which point they can introduce complications or may rule that the plan has failed (to themselves and/or the players).

Systems do differ on how much they reward successful ambushes, the problem for me being systems that highly reward successful ambushes place the DM in a catch 22 concerning ambushes on the PCs - competent enemies performing a successful ambush on the PCs will likely wipe them out with no chance for PC victory and their best option being running away, which means most enemies need to be passive, incompetent or unstealthy.

 

[Iosue]

I feel this argument is a bit of a red herring as entirely-NPC faction fights using the combat rules will be slow regardless of the ruleset used. In fact there is no obligation for the DM to use the full RPG combat rules to resolve inter-NPC fighting, effectively impractical past a certain battle size, and as most versions of D&D didn't have mass combat rules , the fallback was to guesstimate the result, which may be informed by but not used the system and can be fast regardless of the system (as the system isn't being used).

Slow will be entirely relative. There's no strict time limit. The NPC faction fight might be slower than, say, a PC party vs. wandering monster fight, but still fast enough to keep players engaged. And bear in mind that this is an example; my point is not that some systems handle NPC fights better than others. It's that you can have a play style that really abstracts the blow-by-blow out so that combat is resolved quickly and the meat of play is in the actions taken before or after that, versus one that really gets down into the blow-by-blow, and prioritizes decision making within combat. System can be relevant to that, but it's not critical.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Prep" includes "methodically implement/execute the plan".

By definition, preparation does not include execution.

Don't confuse quick resolution with "blowing through" the foregone conclusion.

No confusion involved. The latter is what CaW has been characterized as 'wanting,' the former is one way of delivering it.

A group may come up with a plan involving two warring goblin tribes to take themselves out. Individual components of that plan may be methodically implemented -- roleplaying interactions with the goblin chiefs, planning the event that will instigate the fight, securing a escape route. None of which may take a very long time in real time, by themselves; "methodically" has nothing to do with speed. Then they light the fuse and watch the two sides go at it. That is quickly resolved,

Well, it's either narrated by the DM (seems like the most reasonable option in any system, since no players are involved with the resolution, both sides are under the DMs control), handled with an ancillary wargamey sub-system, or it takes quite a lot of pointless dice-rolling to resolve.

and then perhaps the PCs engage the remnants of the winning faction, now with the odds in their favor. Again quickly resolved, but methodically implemented....
NPC fights better than others. It's that you can have a play style that really abstracts the blow-by-blow out so that combat is resolved quickly and the meat of play is in the actions taken before or after that, versus one that really gets down into the blow-by-blow, and prioritizes decision making within combat. System can be relevant to that, but it's not critical.

D&D has always been pretty abstract that way, particularly the 1-minute rounds of 0e/1e and 'action economy' of 4e. Even 3e itterative and 5e multiple attacks arguably don't get down to individual blows - it's still not entirely plausible that 5 or 6 attack rolls represent /every/ blow in a six-second battle. You'd have to go to a system like GURPS to get that kind of granularity.

So it's not really much of an issue for D&D - besides, if pre-battle machinations reduce the actual combat to a trivial one, it'll naturally be pretty quick to resolve.

Systems do differ on how much they reward successful ambushes, the problem for me being systems that highly reward successful ambushes place the DM in a catch 22 concerning ambushes on the PCs - competent enemies performing a successful ambush on the PCs will likely wipe them out with no chance for PC victory and their best option being running away, which means most enemies need to be passive, incompetent or unstealthy.

The system needn't always use the exact same system for both PCs and their adversaries. For instance, in classic D&D, PC parties virtually always included casters able to heal or otherwise help a party come back from the devastating first moments of an ambush, while generic 'monsters' are less likely to have such resources (or have so many of them).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not really talking about numbers where using mobs works though. That's too large a unit. I'm talking about adding half a dozen NPC's to the group - exactly what hirelings were used for in AD&D. And, because the power curve in AD&D is much shallower, having a half a dozen 2nd level fighter hirelings with a 7th level group was an effective choice which didn't actually add a whole lot of table time.

I guess that's on the assumption that rolling to hit six times, tracking hps for them, and tracking their movement and positioning while they lived was not that big a deal. That's really a fairly high tolerance for added 'table time' and complexity in resolving combats - double the number of figures to track on the PC side is not trivial.

3e is bad and 4e is a lot worse when you do this though. Even something as simple as a 2nd level fighter in 3e can have 3 or 4 feats, and all sorts of goodies going on. Imagine adding half a dozen trip monkey fighters to your group and you'll see what I mean. 4e gets even worse, since each of those fighters is now going to have at least two distinct options - basic melee and probably something else, and, lets be honest here, the focus on terrain and the tactical grid is going to eat up a lot of table time.

While 3e is notorious for giving monsters and NPC class levels and making them as complicated as PCs, it /did/ give you the Warrior class, which'd be ideal for that kind of things (and reduces them to 1 feat each at 2nd level). Similarly, Companion characters can be pretty darn simple, and 5-levels-behind creatures are flirting with minionization, which means nothing to track but attack rolls.

I'm not saying it can't be done, it certainly can. But, I'd say that 4e certainly disincentives the option. It's just far, far too much of a PITA to be a really good fit for a lot of groups.

There's a lot of disincentives to using too many NPCs. Not just purely mechanical ones like siphoning off exp or consuming resources or whatever. NPC allies can be inconvenient on a number of levels - their loyalty can be subverted, for instance (or they could be double-agents from the get-go), they can balk at duties, give away information, make group stealth that much harder, and so forth. Some players may even allow their character's a twinge of conscience for bringing much less capable people into such dangerous situations...

 

[Hussar]

As I recall, hirelings in AD&D didn't actually eat into xp at all. They simply gained xp at a much slower rate. Or am I misremembering that from another edition. Someone with better rules fu than me can look that up. The Leadership feat in 3e did the same thing, where your followers didn't actually gain or detract from xp at all.

And, as far as NPC's stabbing you in the back, well, that would run fairly counter to a group that wants strategic play. If the party is interested in that style of play, but the DM starts screwing them over for it, they'll pretty quickly abandon the idea. As I recall, AD&D had a loyalty rating for hirelings based on your Cha score and different activities you could perform. Not a bad system as I remember it.

 

[Iosue]

As I recall, hirelings in AD&D didn't actually eat into xp at all. They simply gained xp at a much slower rate. Or am I misremembering that from another edition. Someone with better rules fu than me can look that up. The Leadership feat in 3e did the same thing, where your followers didn't actually gain or detract from xp at all.

In AD&D, hirelings didn't cost you XP, but that's because they didn't go into danger with you. Henchman, OTOH, did cost you XP, because they would go with into danger, as would Expert D&D retainers. It was one of the built in decision points of the game. The more henchmen/retainers you had, the better your chances to survive, but also the slower your advancement would be. Risk vs reward pops up in many facets of play.