Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7022335" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Heh, I gave him XP just for sheer chutzpah, but I think his point was pretty well argued. I'm not really up on 'Tactical RPGs' at all, but it is plausible, certainly as one of the many perceptions of 4e that fed into how it sat with players.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is one of those areas... 1e's combat rules are actually SO VAGUE that you can't say if they're tactical or not, if they are map-n-minis or ToTM, etc. You really cannot say ANYTHING about 1e's combat system, its just not coherent at all. It lacks any actual description of its own basic process, except one or two brief examples that ignore half the rules that were just laid out! </p><p></p><p>That being said, the 1e WE played, was very tactical. It involved minis, gridded maps, strictly measuring things, and many extra conventions which evolved to make it a workable tactical wargame in essence (though one can argue if it was a GOOD one or not). We, in fact, followed all the rules in the DMG and PHB pretty religiously, except weapons vs armor, but you could do that and play a very abstract game too.</p><p></p><p>2e actually has CLEARER rules, but it still never quite spells out every detail in terms of "this is how you lay out a combat on the table and play it" per-se. Its pretty clear, but you can definitely still just play it ToTM and its not like you can point to a rule that is broken by doing that (not to even get into 'rules are just guidelines' statements that AD&D made right next to its 'this is the one way to play' statements, lol). Honestly we played 2e just as '1e with some clarifications', but others maybe played differently!</p><p></p><p>I agree, 3e, 3.5e, 4e all introduced more tactical process and rules certainty to combat.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I dunno, 4e is BOTH less and more focused on combat. It sharply segments the two, and then tackles each of them with a slightly different and somewhat overlapping set of mechanics. A LOT of people apparently just never even bothered with anything but combat. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I think there WAS well-developed tactics in 1e (our 1e anyway) but strategically it was a lot too much like "just bring the right stuff to the fight and you can't lose". At least it got that way by 9th level. I think 4e could have been a little kinder to that sort of strategy, it really isn't rewarded much at all, but there certainly is a brand of strategy in 4e.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7022335, member: 82106"] Heh, I gave him XP just for sheer chutzpah, but I think his point was pretty well argued. I'm not really up on 'Tactical RPGs' at all, but it is plausible, certainly as one of the many perceptions of 4e that fed into how it sat with players. This is one of those areas... 1e's combat rules are actually SO VAGUE that you can't say if they're tactical or not, if they are map-n-minis or ToTM, etc. You really cannot say ANYTHING about 1e's combat system, its just not coherent at all. It lacks any actual description of its own basic process, except one or two brief examples that ignore half the rules that were just laid out! That being said, the 1e WE played, was very tactical. It involved minis, gridded maps, strictly measuring things, and many extra conventions which evolved to make it a workable tactical wargame in essence (though one can argue if it was a GOOD one or not). We, in fact, followed all the rules in the DMG and PHB pretty religiously, except weapons vs armor, but you could do that and play a very abstract game too. 2e actually has CLEARER rules, but it still never quite spells out every detail in terms of "this is how you lay out a combat on the table and play it" per-se. Its pretty clear, but you can definitely still just play it ToTM and its not like you can point to a rule that is broken by doing that (not to even get into 'rules are just guidelines' statements that AD&D made right next to its 'this is the one way to play' statements, lol). Honestly we played 2e just as '1e with some clarifications', but others maybe played differently! I agree, 3e, 3.5e, 4e all introduced more tactical process and rules certainty to combat. I dunno, 4e is BOTH less and more focused on combat. It sharply segments the two, and then tackles each of them with a slightly different and somewhat overlapping set of mechanics. A LOT of people apparently just never even bothered with anything but combat. Yeah, I think there WAS well-developed tactics in 1e (our 1e anyway) but strategically it was a lot too much like "just bring the right stuff to the fight and you can't lose". At least it got that way by 9th level. I think 4e could have been a little kinder to that sort of strategy, it really isn't rewarded much at all, but there certainly is a brand of strategy in 4e. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition
Top