D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[AbdulAlhazred]

Way back in the day, I DMed AD&D durig lunch break. There was time to punch through at least one combat (with a couple of notable exceptions like a large bunch of hill giants with wolves) after some basic exploration and set-up in 40 minutes.

Multiple mundanish opponents took the longest -- bandits, orcs, etc so those got shifted to weekend play. Dragons, liches, vampires, and other very scary solitary things took between 10-30 minutes at the combat table though the player planning might take an hour or more beforehand (typically out of game time).

Dragons tended to be really fast. With luck, every PC would get a single action and then the dragon would fail its subdual chance. With really bad luck, after the first round the survivng PCs would be more worried about how to get away alive than continuing the fight.

Yeah, you guys had a quite different experience than I did. We were always playing at a table, hours at a time, with battle mats and etc. Setting up a fight took 10 minutes, the wrap up at the end was always 10 minutes, even a 10 minute fight was 30 minutes, and a 10 minute fight was pretty trivial. Anything meaningful always ended burning an hour of table time.

The other thing I remember though is, especially at low levels, there were always TONS of "one skeleton in a closet" type encounters that were basically traps, the monster jumped out, did a few points of damage, and died, THAT took 5 minutes. A small number of goblins or a couple giant spiders, centipedes, rats, etc, that stuff was all pretty quick. OTOH most of those monsters are going to be minions in 4e, or else swarms or something similar if they really are supposed to be threatening. 4 decrepit skeletons jumping out and whacking at the guy who opened up their crypt will take 5 mins in ANY system.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, you guys had a quite different experience than I did. We were always playing at a table, hours at a time, with battle mats and etc.

One thing that people have to remember about AD&D is that every table was playing almost a different game. Part of that was due to the poor organization of the DMG, particularly in explaining things like initiative and surprise. Part of that was that some rules - like weapon speed - were not only obscure but unintuitive and poorly thought out. The vast majority of tables were playing a very lightweight version of the combat rules - not tracking segments, not tracking carefully the movement of figures, not paying much attention to the complex rules about facing of figures and the advantages obtained thereby, not worrying about the difference between a move and a charge therefore and generally rarely paying any attention to speed, not doing simultaneous resolution, not doing simultaneous declaration of intent, not paying attention to weapon reach and its effect on initiative, not paying attention to weapon vs. ac modifiers, and in general playing a very simple game were players took turns taking actions while at an abstract distance from foes. So, of course in this simplified version there wasn't a lot of tactics and things played fast. All the skirmish level rules were tossed out.

And then there was everything in the middle where different groups accepted different levels of complexity.

I can remember players that switched to my table:

...shocked by the impact of surprise with its potential for multiple rounds of free attacks
...shocked at how slow the tactical speed of a gnome in plate mail really was
...shocked when their fighter couldn't make all of thier iterative attacks in the same segment
...shocked when their spells didn't go off immediately upon declaring the casting
...shocked by how often you could arrange to set to recieve a charge or at least deter someone rushing up to you if you actually tracked distance and speed
...intrigued by the different utility of weapons when you started using weapon vs. ac modifiers. Dart specialization stopped seeming so attractive

And so forth. And the thing is, I know I wasn't playing RAW either. I was muddling through understanding the system and playing with what felt right as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One thing that people have to remember about AD&D is that every table was playing almost a different game. Part of that was due to the poor organization of the DMG, particularly in explaining things like initiative and surprise. Part of that was that some rules - like weapon speed - were not only obscure but unintuitive and poorly thought out. The vast majority of tables were playing a very lightweight version of the combat rules - not tracking segments, not tracking carefully the movement of figures, not paying much attention to the complex rules about facing of figures and the advantages obtained thereby, not worrying about the difference between a move and a charge therefore and generally rarely paying any attention to speed, not doing simultaneous resolution, not doing simultaneous declaration of intent, not paying attention to weapon reach and its effect on initiative, not paying attention to weapon vs. ac modifiers, and in general playing a very simple game were players took turns taking actions while at an abstract distance from foes. So, of course in this simplified version there wasn't a lot of tactics and things played fast. All the skirmish level rules were tossed out.

And then there was everything in the middle where different groups accepted different levels of complexity.

I can remember players that switched to my table:

...shocked by the impact of surprise with its potential for multiple rounds of free attacks
...shocked at how slow the tactical speed of a gnome in plate mail really was
...shocked when their fighter couldn't make all of thier iterative attacks in the same segment
...shocked when their spells didn't go off immediately upon declaring the casting
...shocked by how often you could arrange to set to recieve a charge or at least deter someone rushing up to you if you actually tracked distance and speed
...intrigued by the different utility of weapons when you started using weapon vs. ac modifiers. Dart specialization stopped seeming so attractive

And so forth. And the thing is, I know I wasn't playing RAW either. I was muddling through understanding the system and playing with what felt right as well.

There's some truth to that of course. Honestly the way we played was pretty simple mostly, we didn't bother with a lot of the fancier rules like segments and blah blah unless it got critical to something. We did like to use maps and fairly precise positioning, but again we weren't slaved to it. I think different groups just played different styles of play, some where slow and methodical, some weren't, etc. on top of the thing with just different rules. All if it fed into different experiences. The point is, I don't think you can make a game where everyone gets 10 minute fights. Not everyone WANTS 10 minute fights. I don't think that should be a goal of DDN that it tries to guarantee that. It should go as quick as it can consistent with being able to give people as much tactical depth as they need, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

The point is, I don't think you can make a game where everyone gets 10 minute fights. Not everyone WANTS 10 minute fights. I don't think that should be a goal of DDN that it tries to guarantee that. It should go as quick as it can consistent with being able to give people as much tactical depth as they need, etc.

Agreed.

Although, I'm going to be increasingly surprised if DDN ever even goes to press.

 

[TwoSix]

The tactical/strategic depth of play occurred before engagement rather than during engagement. The actual engagements tended to be quite short for 'show piece' fights like a solitary dragon.

And it's probably one of the bigger differences between two of the camps of D&D players. Where should the focus be, the strategy of setting up the combat or the tactics during the combat?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And it's probably one of the bigger differences between two of the camps of D&D players. Where should the focus be, the strategy of setting up the combat or the tactics during the combat?

I want to see what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has to say about that in the context of scene-framing. I guess it is SIMPLER for the DM to not have to deal with prep and just be able to throw scenes out there, OTOH its a dimension that should be usable or not as desired.

 

[D'karr]

I want to see what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has to say about that in the context of scene-framing. I guess it is SIMPLER for the DM to not have to deal with prep and just be able to throw scenes out there, OTOH its a dimension that should be usable or not as desired.

I find that as a DM I do both. I don't think that scene framing is completely prep-less it's just a different type of prep. If my players are going with a lot of preparations on their side to get into a particular environment/combat, I want to reward that, not stifle it. So their preparations should pay off that's part of my scene-framing. They have shown a desire to engage in that combat and have prepared for it, therefore I make sure there is a pay off to it.

It doesn't mean that the particular combat is a cake-walk, but their work should be rewarded. If not, then why prepare at all. I've had DMs that went in the opposite direction everytime we prepared they would simply nullify it with something else.

 

[pemerton]

Where should the focus be, the strategy of setting up the combat or the tactics during the combat?

I want to see what pemerton has to say about that in the context of scene-framing.

I've done a lot of GMing of a system which generates a very heavy emphasis on pre-encounter planning, buffing etc - namely, Rolemaster. It has less SoD than D&D, but crit rolls play a similar function, so getting the first strike, and hence the first chances at taking out enemies on crits, is pretty important.

These days I prefer the 4e approach, of reducing the importance of strategic prep, and making decisions in the course of action resolution count for more. I think it increases the dramatic tension, and also makes things more dynamic - for instance, there is an interplay between the tactical choices made by the players and the framing and reframing by the GM.

If my players are going with a lot of preparations on their side to get into a particular environment/combat, I want to reward that, not stifle it. So their preparations should pay off

When the players have their PCs prep, I don't necessarily treat it as a cue to make things easier - though sometimes it might be - but to make the prep colour the way the encounter unfolds. This also relates to the common suggestion in WotC adventures that a succesful skill challenge should make the next encounter easier. My worry about this is that sometimes easier = more boring, and I don't want clever play to lead to things being more boring!

 

[Hussar]

And it's probably one of the bigger differences between two of the camps of D&D players. Where should the focus be, the strategy of setting up the combat or the tactics during the combat?

Y'know, I think that's a very, very good point.

Taken to an extreme, you have things like 3e/3.5 D&D where you have players using spreadsheet programs just to track the buffs their party is layering on before combat. 3e possibly had something for both camps (or the worst of both worlds, depending on how you want to spin things) in that you could spend ridiculous amounts of time on the strategic level, planning out combat effects and whatnot beforehand, (scry and fry probably being the most extreme example I can think of) while still having a larger number of tactical, in combat choices than AD&D.

AD&D vs 4e swing to both sides of the pendulum. AD&D mostly focused on the strategic end of things. Hirelings and henchmen being one big example of this. But, it doesn't have a lot of in-combat tactical level choices. 4e, OTOH, goes a long way the other way. Few if any pre-combat buffs, de-emphasis on things like hirelings and whatnot, even pets aren't really a thing in 4e. I can't be the only one who thought dogs were the cat's ass in AD&D. OTOH, 4e has TONS of mechanically supported tactical choices. In any given round, players are not only making tactical choices on their own turn, but, with immediate actions and interrupts, making tactical level choices on everyone's turn.

Which, in turn, makes combat much, much longer to resolve.

But, I wonder, if you were to compare total times, if it really is that different. How much time is spent at the table maintaining henchmen and hirelings? Pets of various stripes? How much time did that 3e table spend on buffs? Yes, once initiative is rolled, 3e and AD&D take less table time than 4e (typically), but, if you count everything in, I wonder if the times would be closer than it first appears.

 

[Nagol]

One of the big differences is a lot of the strategic "extra" time can be away from the table -- we can pack more situations into the increasingly rare table time and deal with special planning / bookkeeping / upkeep during the days in between.