Tactical Boardgame?

[Hussar]

Well, that's why we need threads that discuss these issues in depth. I think that the thread on the D&D anime art issue from a couple months back was actually pretty darn interesting and enlightening.

Let's talk about what a boardgame is and isn't, what tactical means, and so forth.

Personally, I don't think that D&D is a boardgame. Boardgames usually only have one kind of boad, which is reused over and over. D&D, when it does use a gridded map or whatnot, usually involves different environments every time. Of coures, Paizo does sell maps with specific environments on them, and WotC sells those tiles. Hmmm. Maybe it's not so clear cut....

Heh, as the originator of that anime thread, I'll accept the stroke to my ego.

It generally boils down to the same thing though. People find a buzzword for whatever they think is wrong, it gets beaten to death and then used more even when it's been repeatedly shown to be utterly without merit. It becomes a code word for, "I don't like this, it sucks." Which, in itself is a fallacy since it conflates quality with personal taste.

There are several reasons that D&D does not qualify as a boardgame.

• Even if the map was exactly the same for every encounter, the existence of an ongoing storyline removes it from a boardgame.
• The purpose of the battlemap, the board in D&D, is not to play the game. The purpose of the battlemap is simply to adjudicate the action which occurs in the imagination of the players.
• Board games always (or nearly always) begin from the same starting point every time you play. D&D never does.
• Even if combat is played out on a board, the purpose of the combat is not to play that game on the board, but to resolve the actions in the imagination space of the players. In a board game, the purpose of the board is to be played on. Without the board, the game ceases to exist.

That last one isn't articulated very well. What I mean is, even though we break out the battle map and resolve the combat on that mat, the purpose of the combat in the context of the game isn't simply to engage in the mini-game of combat, but to further the ongoing plot of the RPG. Now, that plot could be as simple as, "explore the dungeon and kill everything you meet" that's true, but, I think, many times there is a larger narrative informing the action.

 

[Sadrik]

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17804

I think that the idea of D&D being a board game holds a lot of water. The various editions are more board-game-like than others. Being board-game-like is very good. 3e was very interested in maintaining balance between characters and monsters that you fight. Spell management, to balance the overuse of certain spells. In essence, these are all resource management tricks put in place to help maintain game balance.

3e also married the game to the game board (battle mat) and 4e appears to have maintained that tradition. The interesting thing is that having board game elements is what a lot of people want from D&D. They want to go into a dungeon and tactically knock out monsters and take their stuff. Tied to the board it does several things that WoTC wants from the brand, it sells miniatures, and it makes it very easily adapted to video games. Both of which are good. However the drawback is that it makes it difficult to free-form-role-play like we did back in 1st and 2nd edition.

So, no it is not "just" a board game, it is more than that, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it is definitely not one.

Charicteristics :
Action Point Allowance System
Area Movement
Co-operative Play
Dice Rolling
Hex-and-Counter
Modular Board
Paper-and-Pencil
Partnerships
Point to Point Movement
Role Playing
Storytelling
Variable Phase Order
Variable Player Powers

 

[FickleGM]

The difference is that in 4E, many more classes require the use of some sort of marking system.

In 1e/2E, you could play a non-spellcaster and not worry about placement other than general terms "Is he in melee range/ can I get into melee range with him" and since for non-spellcasters they focused on one enemy, this wasn't a problem to visualize.

Spellcasters though (especially the wizard), that's an entirely different story (how else can you drop a fireball so that it just catches enemy A whose fighting against your fighter buddy or bounce a lightning bolt down a corridor to hit multiple enemies WITHOUT the use of a mini/marker system?).

Of the 8 classes listed in the 2E PHB, I'd say that only the wizard (and to a smaller extent, the druid) REQUIRED using some form of visual placement system. Of the other classes, you pretty much could visualize the scenery from the DM's words and take actions based on that visualization (the thief might've been the only one depending on how stringent your DM was with the backstab requirement).

4E has changed this though in that I'd say of the 7 classes we've seen (the 6 from DDXP and the Rogue) I'd say the following definitely benefit players to have some form of mini system to visualize, Warlock, Rogue, Wizard.

The Fighter, Ranger and Paladin all can be done without the use of mini since they're abilities tend to either focus on 1 enemy or that themselves *stick* to one spot.

Cleric could go either way depending on the power chosen IMO.

That's probably why people think 4E is a boardgame in that this version of D&D, we have at least 3 classes that focus on either enemy placement or on their movement across the battlefield.

So, the lack of any 3.x defense tells me that you already knew that this is not a 4e issue, since 3.x has the same problems. Cool.

Also, I played 3.x with and without a grid and I will do the same with 4e.

 

[hexgrid]

What is so bad about to say, that the combat (a very big piece of D&D) is a tactical board game?

Because it doesn't make much sense. Despite strong support for miniatures and tactical combat, the game is fundamentally different from a board game in so many ways that a comparison is meaningless. All of the defining characteristic of a role-playing game have remained intact.

And anyway, why are we jumping right to board games and skipping over miniature games? An accusation that 4e is a miniature war game that happens to have character creation and advancement would more sense than the claim that 4e is a board game.

 

[3d6]

Given that D&D started off as what was essentially a supplement for the Chainmail tactical miniatures game, "a miniature war game that happens to have character creation and advancement" would be a pretty accurate (if simplified) description of the game and it's history.

 

[Gryffyn]

A lot of this reaction comes from the different way that 4e is being previewed at conventions, as opposed to 3e. In the runup to 3.0's release, I got to play in 3.0 preview events at Dundracon and ConQuest in the Bay Area. These events were actual role-playing events, with plots and everything. They were designed to demonstrate not just combat, but skills (including Bluff and Diplomacy) and role-playing. Apparently, that's not the case this time.

I wonder if this is just another misstep in the way the new edition has been presented thus far.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I do find it interesting that none of the reports from D&D Experience that I have read mention anything about role-playing. Did any go on? Did people talk in character or plot with fellow part members or try to reason with the kobolds or dragons or whatnot?

I guess most people were too caught up with the new mechanics to mention this in their reports. I'd very much like to hear about these aspects of the games, though.

I seem to recall seeing a couple that mentioned a little roleplaying, but considering the players were given pregen characters with no background material to work with and the "Scalegloom Hall" scenario was just a series of combat encounters, it seems like there wasn't much space for roleplaying.

My assumption is that you are mostly correct about people being too caught up in the new mechanics. On top of that, from what I've read and previous convention experience, people might not have been willing to put themselves out there and start some heavier roleplaying unless they got some good cues from the DM and other players.

If it were me in these games, I would not spend a lot of time trying to create a persona around the pregen character so I could do some roleplaying that might accomplish little except take time away from the mechanics showcase and possible irritate others who played primarily to get a chance to preview those mechanics.

 

[Sadrik]

Given that D&D started off as what was essentially a supplement for the Chainmail tactical miniatures game, "a miniature war game that happens to have character creation and advancement" would be a pretty accurate (if simplified) description of the game and it's history.

Most people consider miniature wargames part of the boardgame classification. And are rated on BGG.

 

[Wolfspider]

And anyway, why are we jumping right to board games and skipping over miniature games? An accusation that 4e is a miniature war game that happens to have character creation and advancement would more sense than the claim that 4e is a board game.

I agree. That's why I called it a tactical wargame earlier in the thread. I don't really see it as much of a boardgame.

 

[cheddar bearer]

I do think that a lot of this criticism may come from WotC not showing the role play side of 4e at D&D. I'm guessing that WotC didn't make it explicitly obvious that this was just a demonstration of the new combat mechanisms and not the whole game. This seems to have opened them up to a great deal of possibly unwarranted criticism however it is not neccesarily the citics fault. IMHO it would have been best for WotC to be very clear that it was just the combat mechanic that they where showing not the whole game. Maybe a bit of a slip up marketing wise.