Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Umbran]

I am positive that a game can be designed where this does not happen.

Well, yes and no.

Battlemaps and battlemap positioning are not required for there to be tactical richness in a game. But, tactical positioning is not the same as battlemap positioning.

Tactical positioning is about pursuing a state to maximize your effectiveness within the rules. If the tactical rules are rich there are many meaningful choices, and there's a lot to consider. Any time there's many things to consider, the game will take time. The battlemap itself isn't slow - the process of making decisions may be slow, no matter what the representation.

This is not an issue of simulation vs game. Perhaps the most popular, successful, and famous games in human history - Go and Chess - are elegantly simple in their rules, contain no real simulation to speak of, have great tactical depth, and can still take days to play out.

 

[Shazman]

I would distinguish between the total amount of time that combat takes and the amount of time that each individual player takes for his turn.

I think that 4E changes such as reducing the number of options available to spellcasters and requiring PCs to share actions with their mounts, companions and summoned creatures was an attempt to reduce the time taken by individual players on their turn. I might have made an argument here that 4E could have increased the time taken by melee characters on their turns since the number of options they have been given has increased, but it has been pointed out that melee characters actually had more options in 3E since they are no longer able to trip, sunder, disarm or overrun in 4E without selecting specific powers. Hence, melee characters should also take less time on their turns than they did in 3E.

It sounds good in theory, but I don't think it bears out when actually playing
4E. In 3.0/3.5 melee types could do special manuevers, but rarely did unless they were built specifically to be good at them. They were ususally too suboptimal to bother with. The only time melee PC's ate up a lot of time was when they had a bunch of attacks via two-weapon fighting. Usually they would just full attack. In 4E, more classes than ever have more options to pick from which takes a decent amount of time for players to sort through to pick what they want to do. They have to decide on what power they want to use, whether to use an action point, how many enemies thaey can catch wiith a blast, etc. They also usually look to see if there is something to do with their minor action. If they have bursts, blasts, or multiple attacks (which quite a few 4E PC's do) they start to eat up as much time as two-weapon fighting specialists in 3.0/3.5 to resolve their attacks. They also have to deal with tracking more conditions than they did in 3.0/3.5. All of this adds up to rounds taking as long or longer than 3.0/3.5 rounds, but since it takes more rounds to kill the creatures (thanks to a hit point/damage ratio that heavily favors the monsters) the combat just ends up taking longer.

 

[Imaro]

It sounds good in theory, but I don't think it bears out when actually playing 4E.

In 3.0/3.5 melee types could do special manuevers, but rarely did unless they were built specifically to be good at them. They were ususally too suboptimal to bother with. The only time melee PC's ate up a lot of time was when they had a bunch of attacks via two-weapon fighting. Usually they would just full attack. In 4E, more classes than ever have more options to pick from which takes a decent amount of time for players to sort through to pick what they want to do. They have to decide on what power they want to use, whether to use an action point, how many enemies thaey can catch wiith a blast, etc. They also usually look to see if there is something to do with their minor action. If they have bursts, blasts, or multiple attacks (which quite a few 4E PC's do) they start to eat up as much time as two-weapon fighting specialists in 3.0/3.5 to resolve their attacks. They also have to deal with tracking more conditions than they did in 3.0/3.5. All of this adds up to rounds taking as long or longer than 3.0/3.5 rounds, but since it takes more rounds to kill the creatures (thanks to a hit point/damage ratio that heavily favors the monsters) the combat just ends up taking longer.

I agree with most of what you said, and would also point out that in 3.x it was perfectly viable at times for some melee characters to just attack...

though many claim classes like this are boring and lack tactical depth (which I agree with, but do not agree this was a bad or good thing in and of itself)... I am really starting to see the purpose classes like these serve as I struggle in 4e to find a class that can be operated by my young nephew as well as players who maybe aren't as interested or adept at grid-tactics but like roleplaying games without someone else having to basically coach them.

The problem is that 4e forces you to take part in the tactical nature of it's combat or punishes your party as a whole (unless the DM makes special allowances as far as his encounters go). Even supposedly "simple" classes like the Ranger are forced to make multiple decisions within a single round of combat...

Move or don't move (can you flank?), use or don't use Hunter's Quarry (figure out who you can use it on), Use an At-Will, Encounter or Daily, more than likely 2x attk then figure damage, did it cause conditions/movement/etc.? If so resolve those (or keep track of them) as well.... and so on. It just seems that there is no class that can be played effectively but in a simple fashion now... I guess whether this is a good thing or not depends on your preference but I would rather have the choice for a player to have a class like this if they want.

 

[wedgeski]

I am really starting to see the purpose classes like these serve as I struggle in 4e to find a class that can be operated by my young nephew as well as players who maybe aren't as interested or adept at grid-tactics but like roleplaying games without someone else having to basically coach them.

I think you're right, players do have to buy in to a certain level of complexity at the start. I think that anyone in the recommended age-group for the game is more than capable of doing that, but for younger peeps...

I recommend simply re-skinning one of the many 1st-level monsters as a PC, with a basic melee, basic ranged, and one or two attack powers. Later, when he's familiar and adept with the rules, he can "graduate" to a full-fledged PC. Otherwise, maybe 4E isn't the entry game it used to be.

 

[ST]

There are also, oh, about several hundred different RPGs out there with fairly simple and fast-paced combat, if having that is a priority over either using a RPG with "D&D" in the title or making some simple house rules to speed things up.

The OP did a pretty good job of establishing a "crisis" by carving away potential solutions, to the point that I don't really buy that it's a legitimate question.

 

[xechnao]

Well, yes and no.

Battlemaps and battlemap positioning are not required for there to be tactical richness in a game. But, tactical positioning is not the same as battlemap positioning.

Tactical positioning is about pursuing a state to maximize your effectiveness within the rules. If the tactical rules are rich there are many meaningful choices, and there's a lot to consider. Any time there's many things to consider, the game will take time. The battlemap itself isn't slow - the process of making decisions may be slow, no matter what the representation.

This is not an issue of simulation vs game. Perhaps the most popular, successful, and famous games in human history - Go and Chess - are elegantly simple in their rules, contain no real simulation to speak of, have great tactical depth, and can still take days to play out.

Hmmm. I believe your point confuses matters. Go and Chess are games that are exactly about this: a tactical analysis exercise.
Rpgs OTOH need to use tactics as a means to make things interesting within their own roleplaying environment: "If I do this I am risking this - if I do that I am risking that other thing: now what do I want to risk?" RPG tactics should not ruin this kind of roleplaying immersion. For this reason rpg tactics should pay respect to verisimilitude. Now does the battlemap really helps with this or is it in the end more hassle than worth? Yes, it is a technical matter regarding rpg design. Another question: should the monsters really make dice rolls as players do? This is another technical question that does matter though regarding how combat will work out. If you really think about it, you will find out that it is obvious it is technically better for tabletop rpgs that monsters should not roll as PCs do (it takes up unnecessary time): the fact though that rpgs sprang out of wargames and gained most of their popularity at their very initial and original stage explains the evolution of their technicalities.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think you're right, players do have to buy in to a certain level of complexity at the start. I think that anyone in the recommended age-group for the game is more than capable of doing that, but for younger peeps...

I recommend simply re-skinning one of the many 1st-level monsters as a PC, with a basic melee, basic ranged, and one or two attack powers. Later, when he's familiar and adept with the rules, he can "graduate" to a full-fledged PC. Otherwise, maybe 4E isn't the entry game it used to be.

A companion character (DMG2) could also work well, I think.

 

[Imaro]

There are also, oh, about several hundred different RPGs out there with fairly simple and fast-paced combat, if having that is a priority over either using a RPG with "D&D" in the title or making some simple house rules to speed things up.

The OP did a pretty good job of establishing a "crisis" by carving away potential solutions, to the point that I don't really buy that it's a legitimate question.

Or maybe... we just want to discuss the game system as it is, since the OP isn't necessarily asking for a solution... but instead seeking answers to the question of "why" these solutions had to come about for some people.

The "Find another game." suggestion popped up on page 1, but it doesn't really address the OP's question or add anything to the discussion... does it?

 

[Imaro]

I think you're right, players do have to buy in to a certain level of complexity at the start. I think that anyone in the recommended age-group for the game is more than capable of doing that, but for younger peeps...

I recommend simply re-skinning one of the many 1st-level monsters as a PC, with a basic melee, basic ranged, and one or two attack powers. Later, when he's familiar and adept with the rules, he can "graduate" to a full-fledged PC. Otherwise, maybe 4E isn't the entry game it used to be.

A companion character (DMG2) could also work well, I think.

These are both good suggestions, and I wish I had DMG 2 when we started our game, but I didn't... and I don't want to take his character away now, but I wish from the outset 4e had been a little more friendly towards younger or more casual players.

 

[Obryn]

The "Find another game." suggestion popped up on page 1, but it doesn't really address the OP's question or add anything to the discussion... does it?

Sure it does.

The OP boiled down to "I am unhappy with how this game is working, and I do not think I should have to make house-rules or change how we play to make it work better."

If you've eliminated house-rules and changes in play-style, there's nothing (well, very little - like changing the kinds of monsters in a fight) else left to suggest, assuming that the OP was looking for a way to a more enjoyable gaming session. If 4e's not meeting his needs, and he doesn't want to try and change 4e to make it meet his needs better, playing another game is really the only solution left. That or, "suck it up and deal," but I don't think that's very helpful, either.

-O