"Railroading" is just a pejorative term for...

[The Shaman]

So, what rules in AD&D would this engage?

Since I'm being told that older editions contained all sorts of rules for tactical play, let's see an example.

Oh, Hussar, do I really have to do this again?

Flashing Blades: twelve-second combat round. 1e AD&D: one minute combat round. Flashing Blades: Early Modern fencing. 1e AD&D: Medieval melee. Different rules, different emulation goals. Why not ask me about the suppressing fire rules for automatic weapons in 1e?

Now, rather than derail this thread any further, a more detailed answer to your question is here, starting with the fourth paragraph.

 

[Hussar]

See, this is where things break down. You list armor choice as one tactical consideration, for example. That's logistics, not tactics. Armor=good is about the only consideration you have, and, once that choice has been made, it never realistically changes.

You also list situational issues, like the hit dice of the enemies, over which the players have no control. Again, that's not a tactical choice the players can make.

You also list parrying an attack. What parry rules exist in AD&D?

Moving to flank? Without any spacial representations, how exactly do you "move to flank" away from a shield. Of course this also ignores the fact that almost no monsters USE a shield, nor do they have a dex modifier.

So, IMO, there are pretty much no tactical considerations in the AD&D rules set.

 

[The Shaman]

See, this is where things break down. You list armor choice as one tactical consideration, for example.

Which is why I wrote, ". . . starting with the fourth paragraph," beginning with, "Once I encounter an opponent . . . ."

You also list situational issues, like the hit dice of the enemies, over which the players have no control. Again, that's not a tactical choice the players can make.

Your 4th level fighter is facing a hobgoblin and three goblins, or a fighter and three men-at-arms, or a giant lizard and three kobolds - now you have a choice to make, based on what your character can do.

You also list parrying an attack. What parry rules exist in AD&D?

1e AD&D PHB, p. 104, under "Melee Combat."

Moving to flank? Without any spacial [sic] representations, how exactly do you "move to flank" away from a shield.

Are you really arguing that the only way one can manage movement in combat is by using minis?

The 1e AD&D DMG includes grids for position for minis or tokens, but as referees have done since the game began, you can also simply rely on description if you're so inclined.

Of course this also ignores the fact that almost no monsters USE a shield, nor do they have a dex modifier.

And you're ignoring the fact that "monsters" aren't the only opponents the adventurers face - brigands, the town watch, other adventurers, a knight and his squires, caravan guards, a pair of assassins, a gang of thieves, and so on and so forth.

So, IMO, there are pretty much no tactical considerations in the AD&D rules set.

I can lead you to water; taking a drink is on you.

 

[Hussar]

Which is why I wrote, ". . . starting with the fourth paragraph," beginning with, "Once I encounter an opponent . . . .

So, how exactly do you choose your armor AFTER you encounter an opponent?

"Your 4th level fighter is facing a hobgoblin and three goblins, or a fighter and three men-at-arms, or a giant lizard and three kobolds - now you have a choice to make, based on what your character can do.

Yup, and those choices consist of, for non-casters anyway, move up and attack or use a ranged weapon. After you've made that choice, you're going to pretty much do exactly the same thing round after round until the bad guys fall down.

1e AD&D PHB, p. 104, under "Melee Combat."

And what do those rules actually say?

Are you really arguing that the only way one can manage movement in combat is by using minis?

The 1e AD&D DMG includes grids for position for minis or tokens, but as referees have done since the game began, you can also simply rely on description if you're so inclined.

Fair enough.

And you're ignoring the fact that "monsters" aren't the only opponents the adventurers face - brigands, the town watch, other adventurers, a knight and his squires, caravan guards, a pair of assassins, a gang of thieves, and so on and so forth.

I can lead you to water; taking a drink is on you.

Umm no, I'm not ignoring anything. Look in the Monster Manual under every single entry you just listed. What is their Dex modifier? Oh, right, they don't have one.

Sure, if you ignore the monster manual and build every encounter with NPC's, then, yes, they will have Dex scores. Completely at odds with the DMG wandering monster tables, for example, which include only a small percentage of NPC's, but, quite possible.

You list a number of options, few of which actually apply AFTER an encounter begins and then claim a shopping list of tactical options for a system that is pretty much entirely abstract.

I'll pass on whatever it is you're drinking thanks.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Yup, and those choices consist of, for non-casters anyway, move up and attack or use a ranged weapon. After you've made that choice, you're going to pretty much do exactly the same thing round after round until the bad guys fall down.

That is very different from how combats played out in 1st Edition, for us. Tactical considerations include, but are not limited to, scouting, setting up ambushes, creating obstacles, setting up defensive positions and choke points, use of terrain, positioning on the battlefield, etc.

Considering that the authors of the game -- Arneson and Gygax -- were wargamers and that the game developed from tactical wargames, I think you would be hard-pressed to claim that the game does not include tactical considerations.

Sure, if you ignore the monster manual and build every encounter with NPC's, then, yes, they will have Dex scores. Completely at odds with the DMG wandering monster tables, for example, which include only a small percentage of NPC's, but, quite possible.

And the World of Greyhawk box setting contains random encounter tables that in many cases are upwards of 50%-60% Demi-Humans and Humans. It is amusing to think that Gary Gygax's setting was "completely at odds" with Gary Gygax's rules.

 

[The Shaman]

So, how exactly do you choose your armor AFTER you encounter an opponent?

Didn't you just argue in your previous post that armor considerations were logistics, not tactics?

Please, make up your mind.

Yup, and those choices consist of, for non-casters anyway, move up and attack or use a ranged weapon. After you've made that choice, you're going to pretty much do exactly the same thing round after round until the bad guys fall down.

No, those are the things you're going to do round after round - I'm going to grapple, overbear, parry, move to flank, gain the high ground, set a weapon against a charge, et cetera, et cetera, just like it says in the rules of the game.

And with its mind-bogglingly vast array of feats and class abilities, guess how 3.x resolves all those tactical decisions the players make on behalf of their characters? (Hint: it involves throwing a d20 and reading the number. Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil.)

And what do those rules actually say?

They say what's written in my post on theRPGsite: "Do I parry an attack, applying my strength bonus as a penalty to my opponent's roll?"

Umm no, I'm not ignoring anything. Look in the Monster Manual under every single entry you just listed.

Only two of those encounters - brigands and caravan guards - come from the Monster Manual; the rest are non-player characters made using the rules for classes in the PHB or the rules for zero-level humans in the DMG.

What is their Dex modifier? Oh, right, they don't have one.

In the examples which come from the MM, either they don't have one or it's rolled into their armor classes.

Sure, if you ignore the monster manual and build every encounter with NPC's, then, yes, they will have Dex scores. Completely at odds with the DMG wandering monster tables, for example, which include only a small percentage of NPC's, but, quite possible.

Because the only encounters anyone should ever have must come from the wandering monster tables in the DMG? Could you please tell me where I would find that rule?

You list a number of options, few of which actually apply AFTER an encounter begins and then claim a shopping list of tactical options for a system that is pretty much entirely abstract.

Six or seven paragraphs of that post describe actions which may be taken during combat.

And please, could you point me to a roleplaying game that doesn't abstract the physics of the game-world? I'm starting to feel deprived that Flashing Blades only gives me the option to parry, instead of giving me the choice between a lateral parry from quarte to sixte versus a circular parry counter-sixte.

Hussar, for years now I've literally quoted chapter and verse to you on the rules of 1e AD&D in post after post after post after post after post after post, citing and explaining rules that you appeared to misunderstand or perhaps never learned, and now here we are again.

Here's something else I wrote in reply to you almost exactly four years ago.

"Look, you didn't enjoy playing what you think of as 1e AD&D - I think we all get that - but the game you played, under a bit of scrutiny, bears little relationship to the game set out in the rules or the possibilities inherent in the adventures that you so vehemently and consistently deride.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you repeatedly blur the line between your extremely negative opinion and objective fact, and you commit the common fallacy of conflating your own experience into some kind of universal experience shared by all.

Do you think it might be time - past time, really - to dial back the 1e hate a little bit? To recognize that while you didn't enjoy the game you played as a kid, there was a lot - an awful lot, boatloads in fact - about the game that you never knew, or never took the time to learn?

Hussar, if you wrote something to the effect that you didn't care for the tactical options presented in 1e AD&D, that you prefer the more abundant, more intricate tactical options of later editions to 1e, I wouldn't bat any eye - I might even agree with you. When I decided I wanted to run a swashbuckling game, I toyed around with ideas for a number of systems; I considered AD&D with the 2e supplement A Mighty Fortress, but I rejected it because it didn't add anything which gave it the feel of swashbuckling - it still felt like the same medieval melee, but conducted with rapiers and matchlock pistols instead of bastard swords and battle axes.

I don't care if you like or dislike 1e or any other game; I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that 1e is the 'best' edition of D&D, because I simply don't have a dog in that hunt; D&D is something I play once a year for a laugh with some gamer friends. I have no stake in the edition wars; I simply get tired of reading stuff that is proveably incorrect.

What I don't understand is why you repeatedly rip the game based on stuff that is just objectively, demonstrably wrong. If you wrote something to the effect of, "I think the tactical options in 1e are too close to their wargame roots and not fantastic enough for a fantasy roleplaying game," instead of, "There are no tactical options in 1e AD&D unless the DM says so," then you're on a factual basis with which no one can dispute.

And to everyone else, I sincerely apologize for this lengthy threadjack - it won't happen again.

 

[pemerton]

For anyone interested, I posted here my actual play experience of running an exploration scenario in my 4e game last week.

 

[Hussar]

/edit

No, I had a lengthy post to try to rebut The Shaman, but, I will agree with him here. This is pointless. We're not even talking the same language anymore.

I would point something out though. The Shaman is trying to paint this as some sort of edition warring edition bashing. Sorry, simply not true. I know that criticising the Edition That SHALT NOT be Questioned is just not going to lead anywhere. I'm terribly sorry for bringing up various editions as this was completely not my intent. I was simply pointing out in my original point, which got lost, that there is a happy medium between fifteen minute combats where there simply isn't enough time for there to be any real tactical considerations, and four hour snooze fests where every single tactical consideration is debated ad nauseum.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, Hussar....It is simply that you are objectively wrong here. Saying that there are no tactical options in 1e, when they are provided for in the rulebooks, is similar to saying that there are no skill challenges in 4e. It is just wrong.

You have, yourself, admitted in times past that your knowledge of 1e is shaky. Why would you want to argue the rules of a game you don't really know with someone who knows them?

The Shaman's rebuttal doesn't have anything to do with edition warring.

 

[Hussar]

No, Hussar....It is simply that you are objectively wrong here. Saying that there are no tactical options in 1e, when they are provided for in the rulebooks, is similar to saying that there are no skill challenges in 4e. It is just wrong.

You have, yourself, admitted in times past that your knowledge of 1e is shaky. Why would you want to argue the rules of a game you don't really know with someone who knows them?

The Shaman's rebuttal doesn't have anything to do with edition warring.

Let's look at the actual post that started all this shall we?

Meh, the whole "4e is a dice rolling exercise" is overblown. I mean, back in the day, when tactics had no mechanical benefit unless your DM gave them to you, all we ever did was throw d20's at the monster until it fell down. Zero description, zero narration. I rolled a 15, I do 7 damange, next! was pretty much how it played out around our tables.

Personally, I love the fact that mechanics are divorced from narration. It means I can describe things however the heck I want to, rather than be shoehorned in based on mechanics.

I mean, someone here, and I forget who, mentioned in one of these threads running something like 14 combats in 4 hours. Assuming an hour of non-combat play, that's 14 combats in 180 minutes, or just about 15 minutes per combat.

How much color are you actually going to get when combat is paced that fast? And, after the fifth combat, who's actually going to bother when every combat has to play out with pretty much zero tactics. The reason I say you can't have tactics is because, well, how much tactical play are you going to get in a 15 minute combat?

There really is a happy medium between fifteen minutes of dice wanking and 4 hour grind fests.

Now, you show me where I said that 1e has no tactical considerations. At worst, I said that the tactical considerations were the purview of the DM. I mean, heck, The Shaman lists choosing a target as a major tactical consideration in 1e. And that's not even mechanically relevant. Choosing one target over another has zero mechanical impact.

You guys can jump up and down about how much I'm defaming 1ed, but, please, at least read what I wrote first. Heck I SPECIFICALLY STATED "was pretty much how it played out around our tables."

So, how am I painting in broad strokes or talking about YOUR game, when I specifically state that I'm talking about how it played out at MY table?

Sheesh.