Correct, as did attempting to withdraw from an engagement.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.
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.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.
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.This seems like a false assertion backed up by a thin bit of evidence.
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.
From a post on Big Purple:Extremism meet extremism.(The "whole" isnt whole)
Garthanos, I tend not to say something like that without being able to back it up. For future reference.Bradford C. Walker said: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.
Y'know, I haven't mentioned 4e at all - I know next to nothing about the game, so there would be no point.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.
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.
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).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 tend to agree with Shaman, that it is an issue of preferences. I don't think it is about the talent of GMs.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.
. Like suggesting that the 'choice density' in 1e consists of nothing more than rolling a d20 to hit, which is simply wrong, .
I don't think it is about the talent of GMs.