Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder BETA - Some Sizzle, Not Much Steak

[Wulf Ratbane]

For a German guy, you are pretty smart...

It's amazing what they can do when you channel their intellect into pursuits other than world domination.

 

[The Highway Man]

After a nonsensical statement like that I must request that you please give us a solid list of "real tactics" and really explain why, for example, something like falling back to a chokepoint to control the flow of opponents wouldn't constitute as a real tactic.

So, yeah, I'm asking you.

It's something that 3E is guilty of, to a lesser extent. When I say "playing the rules", it's tactics like "if I get up to this guy, spend three squares instead of one to avoid that guy and not suffer opportunity attacks, I'll be able to use this power, push this guy to that square, so that my budy can get up there and help the fighter."

That kind of pseudo-tactics.

Real tactics are in-game tactics, not metagame tactics. "Alright guys. I propose that you and you go there and start a fire in the bushes. At least a part of the hobgoblins will want to check it out. Meanwhile, you Shadowthief will sneak up the ladders, that way, and see if you can reach the captain and grab the key. Any questions?"

You sure can do that too in 4E, but experience shows that the former type of tactics, thet metagame tactics, are prevalent in these games. It's "playing the game" as opposed to immersing yourself in it.

 

[Rechan]

You sure can do that too in 4E, but experience shows that the former type of tactics, thet metagame tactics, are prevalent in these games. It's "playing the game" as opposed to immersing yourself in it.

And what you're calling "Real tactics" I'd call "Out-of-combat planning" or "Out-of-combat tactics". While in the middle of a fight, metagame tactics is certainly acceptable, and pretty much how I feel things go down in a real fight (boxers or martial artists, using move or tactic x to cancel out move y).

In the middle of a fight, you can't exactly say "You, go here, we will get the high ground" while your enemies are listening to you. By the very nature of it, you're limited to what you can do.

Outside of a fight, I don't see PCs talking of squares and OAs, I see them planning their attack, just as they plan their route of exploration. I see them coming up with how to infiltrate some place, and so on.

The only reason that the Metagaming tactics didn't come in significantly before is that there wasn't a whole lot of benefit for it, or some real effectiveness for it. However, I assure you I've played in 3.5 games where it was all about the metagame tactics and rule minutia, and none of the immersion.

 

[Hjorimir]

It's something that 3E is guilty of, to a lesser extent. When I say "playing the rules", it's tactics like "if I get up to this guy, spend three squares instead of one to avoid that guy and not suffer opportunity attacks, I'll be able to use this power, push this guy to that square, so that my budy can get up there and help the fighter."

That kind of pseudo-tactics.

Real tactics are in-game tactics, not metagame tactics. "Alright guys. I propose that you and you go there and start a fire in the bushes. At least a part of the hobgoblins will want to check it out. Meanwhile, you Shadowthief will sneak up the ladders, that way, and see if you can reach the captain and grab the key. Any questions?"

You sure can do that too in 4E, but experience shows that the former type of tactics, thet metagame tactics, are prevalent in these games. It's "playing the game" as opposed to immersing yourself in it.

I understand that may be your experience (mine happens to be quite different), but what you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics and is just as true irrespective of any version of D&D you might play.

I'm what you might call a killer-rat-bastard-DM and have been so for years and years. That has instilled a great amount of respect in my players for their opponents and has really encouraged the habit of thinking. Heck, my players have held side meetings to plot long-term strategies (complete with flowcharts) in response to my particular DMing style. I love it and I love their involvement.

 

[AllisterH]

Real tactics are in-game tactics, not metagame tactics. "Alright guys. I propose that you and you go there and start a fire in the bushes. At least a part of the hobgoblins will want to check it out. Meanwhile, you Shadowthief will sneak up the ladders, that way, and see if you can reach the captain and grab the key. Any questions?"

.

Um, that's NOT metagame thinking.

Metagame thinking is deciding NOT play a rogue because you know the DM likes using Ravenloft and undead.

Metagame tactics are using knowledge and information that's not available FROM the actual situation at the game table.

It's having a silver weapon "just in case" even though there's no werewolf ever been sighted in the campaign setting.

Deciding to use your powers to position the enemies in such a way that your compatriots can make best use of their own powers is a TEXTBOOK case of using proper tactics in battle....

What you just pointed out is pre-battle strategy and 4E has as much as that of any edition....

 

[The Highway Man]

And what you're calling "Real tactics" I'd call "Out-of-combat planning" or "Out-of-combat tactics". While in the middle of a fight, metagame tactics is certainly acceptable, and pretty much how I feel things go down in a real fight (boxers or martial artists, using move or tactic x to cancel out move y).

In the middle of a fight, you can't exactly say "You, go here, we will get the high ground" while your enemies are listening to you. By the very nature of it, you're limited to what you can do.

Outside of a fight, I don't see PCs talking of squares and OAs, I see them planning their attack. I see them coming up with how to infiltrate some place, and so on.

I disagree. Personally, when playing, I think in terms of in-character tactics. The metagame application of these tactics (i.e. use of feats, placing of the mini etc) is the consequence of this reasoning. My previous example was just that, an example. In-character tactics don't necessitate dialog between characters to exist.

It is something that is easier to do with older editions of the game than 4E, because the way powers work have a higher level of abstraction ("if I hit this guy I can allow my mates to spend healing surges. If I use this power I pull this guy, while using that one I would block his movement"). You pretty much need to think in terms of rules applications first to then apply it in-game to have winning strategies. Or at least, you need to do that more than any previous edition of the game, precisely because of the higher level of abstraction of 4E's rules.

Now, you might not experience it that way at your game table. Fine by me. More power to you, really. But please don't think I'm delusional in saying it. I have no way to prove it unless someone else chimes in here, but I'm far from being the only one to have witnessed this issue with 4E.

Edit - I did not see your other posts while writing this one, guys. This post addresses your points indirectly. I define "metagame" as anything that is not considered in-character. Thinking in terms of rules is definitely "metagame", by this definition. It's just a word. Try to understand what I mean instead of redefining the term to suit your arguments. As for this issue existing in other editions of the game, it surely can and will happen depending on the players around the table, no question about it. My point is that 4E is built for playing the rules, and that one has basically to think in terms of rules to do anything constructive in combat.

I absolutely acknowledge, by the way, that your mileage may vary.

 

[Rechan]

Now, you might not experience it that way at your game table. Fine by me. More power to you, really. But please don't think I'm delusional in saying it. I have no way to prove it unless someone else chimes in here, but I'm far from being the only one to have witnessed this issue with 4E.

Your observations are anecdotal, just like mine, no matter if you're not the only one who claims it.

It doesn't stop me from disagreeing with your claim, and strongly at that.

 

[The Highway Man]

It doesn't stop me from disagreeing with your claim, and strongly at that.

Fine by me, mate. We have to agree to disagree, then.

 

[AllisterH]

Edit - I did not see your other posts while writing this one, guys. This post addresses your points indirectly. I define "metagame" as anything that is not considered in-character. Thinking in terms of rules is definitely "metagame", by this definition. It's just a word. Try to understand what I mean instead of redefining the term to suit your arguments. As for this issue existing in other editions of the game, it surely can and will happen depending on the players around the table, no question about it. My point is that 4E is built for playing the rules, and that one has basically to think in terms of rules to do anything constructive in combat.

I absolutely acknowledge, by the way, that your mileage may vary.

BUT you're the one redefining the term METAGAME. I take issue with the implication that we're twisting your words. You're the one using words that makes no sense (as also shown by your use of the word "tactics")

Coming from a M:TG background, I think I know what the term means and how you're using it is definitely NOT what it means.

Metagame is explicitly using out of character knowledge to best effect in game.

By your definition, a player that doesn't use a fireball against a single foe but waits until they bunch up, is metagame thinking. Which basically makes the words worthless.

 

[The Highway Man]

BUT you're the one redefining the term METAGAME. (...)

I don't discuss that you know what the word means to you. I am also not a complete Bozo in terms of semantics. We both know that the definitions of words will vary from person to person based on their experiences and their understanding of the memes behind them. Ergo, to have a constructive conversation, it's actually more helpful to understand what someone means instead of analyzing the words they use to convey this meaning.

Also, from experience, any conversation that starts defining terms and pulls off dictionaries to frame the debate is, in effect, over. We won't get anywhere from there if we persist in debating what words mean instead of what the posts actually try to convey.

I won't be debating words further, personally.