D&D 5E What D&D should learn from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

[Ruin Explorer]

My answer comes on two levels.

Level one: Not, it isn't. FATE does not give me a tactical combat minigame in which there's fine details, and minis can play a big part of resolution. At all. It is not there in the rules. These rules do not to tactical combat even poorly.

Level two: I say that is a quibble like retreating to the word "technically". As in, "Technically, the rules can do that." Which is always followed by, "But...."

Technically, I can drive a screw into wood using a hammer. Is this something anyone would want to do? Is this a selling point for hammers? No.

RPG rules are, in the end, a tool. And for any tool, practical use matters. If your tool performs a particular job badly enough in practical use, it is equivalent to not doing it at all.

Moreover, with RPGs, there is a point where the rules accomplish a job by pushing the job to the GM - FATE has *loads* of GM adjudication involved, for example. D&D has its Rule Zero. In such cases, it is not really true that the rules accomplish the job.

I'd agree strongly with all of this, but I think your final comparison is rather off. DM adjudication which has a very clear pattern, is planned for and has boundaries and so on, as in the case of FATE, isn't, imo, of course, really the same "act" at all as "Oh crap, rules failed, just make something up!" or "Just override the rules when you don't like 'em!". As a DM I feel very different when I have clear guidelines and suggested limits to my adjudication, even if I'm adjudicating frequently, to when I'm being chucked hot potatoes with no real guidelines.

 

[sidonunspa]

My answer comes on two levels.

Level one: Not, it isn't. FATE does not give me a tactical combat minigame in which there's fine details, and minis can play a big part of resolution. At all. It is not there in the rules. These rules do not to tactical combat even poorly.

Level two: I say that is a quibble like retreating to the word "technically". As in, "Technically, the rules can do that." Which is always followed by, "But...."

Technically, I can drive a screw into wood using a hammer. Is this something anyone would want to do? Is this a selling point for hammers? No.

RPG rules are, in the end, a tool. And for any tool, practical use matters. If your tool performs a particular job badly enough in practical use, it is equivalent to not doing it at all.

Moreover, with RPGs, there is a point where the rules accomplish a job by pushing the job to the GM - FATE has *loads* of GM adjudication involved, for example. D&D has its Rule Zero. In such cases, it is not really true that the rules accomplish the job.

I think players have come to expect "tactical combat" as some kind of rules necessity,

just last night my group had a dynamic, cinematic battle which had everyone on their feet, standing around the table (you know it's good when players sit up and others stand)

by the end of it one of the players said "<expletive> bad ass"

We, players and GM, were free to describe what we did without being tied to the battlemat...

the combat ended with the halfling fighter/Rouge sliding between the legs of an ogre slicing at it's knees , forcing the ogre to fall, right into the upwards swing of the Ranger's great sword..

we are playing 5e, and the players know the cooler stuff they describe the better the game is.. after combats epic combats I grant the heroes an inspiration die (you may only have 1 at a time, so you have it, spend it)

I use to be a HUGE Tactical player and gm, hell look at the Arcanis RPG system I helped create! But, over the last year I have started to realize that we... GMs and Players.. have lost some of the "art" of the game with the reliance upon tactical rules, which seems to stem from a player distrust of the GM. D&D is a story telling game, we are there to tell a story and have fun telling it, Players and GMs, together.

Sorry.. off topic rant I guess

edit: grammar/misspelling

 

[Umbran]

I think players have come to expect "tactical combat" as some kind of rules necessity,

I think that may depend upon what players you are talking about. If you're talking about folks who play D&D, and have little or no experience with other games, you might be correct. But that is kind of like saying that someone who has only had chocolate ice cream would say that cocoa is required to make ice cream. Once you expand to players who have experience with other games, the expectation drops off considerably.

I also think it depends on what you call "tactical combat". What, is "tactical combat" anyway? And what other forms of combat are there?

I would say, for example, that FATE does dramatic (or maybe "cinematic") combat, rather than tactical. But someone else might disagree with my definitions.

 

[sidonunspa]

I think that may depend upon what players you are talking about. If you're talking about folks who play D&D, and have little or no experience with other games, you might be correct. But that is kind of like saying that someone who has only had chocolate ice cream would say that cocoa is required to make ice cream. Once you expand to players who have experience with other games, the expectation drops off considerably.

I also think it depends on what you call "tactical combat". What, is "tactical combat" anyway? And what other forms of combat are there?

I would say, for example, that FATE does dramatic (or maybe "cinematic") combat, rather than tactical. But someone else might disagree with my definitions.

well D&D didn't start out tactical (well at least for me, as I started with Basic D&D when I was like 9), and 1st edition had ::shutter:: segments, but 2nd edition was a lot better in that respect and allowed for free form play (you never "needed" a battle map)

so it depends on what version of D&D you what kind of GM you had...

tactical combat (I feel) is when the game starts to worry about exact positioning and movement, you have to move the right way not to trigger X or Y... kind of like playing chess where your planing out movements and attacks... it's kind of when the game is really a miniature combat game with a layer of RPG over it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

well D&D didn't start out tactical (well at least for me, as I started with Basic D&D when I was like 9), and 1st edition had ::shutter:: segments, but 2nd edition was a lot better in that respect and allowed for free form play (you never "needed" a battle map)

so it depends on what version of D&D you what kind of GM you had...

tactical combat (I feel) is when the game starts to worry about exact positioning and movement, you have to move the right way not to trigger X or Y... kind of like playing chess where your planing out movements and attacks... it's kind of when the game is really a miniature combat game with a layer of RPG over it.

Is this post intended as a joke? That's an honest question, because your last line here, the bolded one, that is a perfect description of what D&D originally was...

 

[GMMichael]

Take what GoT does and do the opposite.

You need to keep the plot moving.

I can imagine a D&D game Game of Thrones style. Three gaming sessions spent talking to the exact same guy. 3 minutes of dice rolling and excitement. Then three more sessions of talking to a second guy about the first guy.

GoT doesn't keep the plot moving? More like, doesn't keep the action moving. A lack of combat scenes is actually pretty important for a show that wants to have some realism (swords actually hurt) and still keep characters around for a few episodes. A realistic fantasy game should do the same.

So how could D&D do the same, and keep things interesting?

Raise the stakes: you don't want to put lives on the line, but you can put status, treasure, and followers on the line.
Create relationships: say the "king" wants your heroes to go hunt down the "orcs." That's D&D. SoIaF has a "king" who is actually paying the "orcs," while the orcs have used some of that money to hire (indirectly) a PC to gather info on the princess, so the orcs have a fallback plan, if necessary.

It's definitely fast combat. Faster than 3e or 4e at least. What have you seen that makes you think it is not fast?

Last combat I saw in 5e was Mines of Madness. And a battle grid was used. So we still had the - take movement, count squares, roll to attack, roll damage, cast spell, check rules for attack roll, or saving throw, or both!? - which were about the same speed as 3e.

 

[Lanefan]

You need to keep the plot moving.

I can imagine a D&D game Game of Thrones style. Three gaming sessions spent talking to the exact same guy. 3 minutes of dice rolling and excitement. Then three more sessions of talking to a second guy about the first guy.

Er...frequently the talking *is* what keeps the plot moving.

Think about it. You could have a session or two where all you do is bash heads - lots of dice rolling, tactics galore, derring-do all round - but after it all have you actually advanced the plot or story any? Probably not.

About 98% of the real plot advancement comes from the exploration, information gathering, and - yes - talking that happens before and after the fightin' and killin'.

Lan-"and this is a Fighter saying this"-efan

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What I would do if I were playing in GoT/SoIaF is

1) come with 2 dozen characters premade... 2-3 in the north 2-3 in the south at least 1 per kingdom and the rest at kings landing...

2) trust no one... I mean my own dear sainted mom is a threat...make spy movies look naive

3) never go to weddings... just send my regards and a gift.

4) all characters are evil aligned... bad things happen to good people...

 

[sidonunspa]

Is this post intended as a joke? That's an honest question, because your last line here, the bolded one, that is a perfect description of what D&D originally was...

true chainmail was in fact a miniature war game (totally forgot that)

I started with the basic box set (where the elf was a class) and the combat system was not where near as tactical, heck 1st edition with segments is not as tactical as 3.X

the point I was attempting to make is that, maybe, we need to take a step away from the battle map for a few games, trust the GM, and have fun with it.

do a bit of descriptive combat, try cool stuff we always wanted to try but where limited by a bloated system which required a feat for every cool maneuver... ya the GM may as for a skill check or an attribute check, but that's part of the fun...

Force your opponent to fight you around columns, ducking behind and between them as you swig at each other, use a whip to force your opponent off balance so your rouge friend can finish him off...

yes I know there are rules in 3.X for many of these eventualities, but you lose the impact of doing those cool moves as soon as you stop the narrative and put out the battle map.... stop braking up story and combat... make them one.

 

[Hussar]

I largely agree with you Sidoninspa. I think a big reason 3e went in so strong for the battle map was to stop games where the DM frequently made the player's sword 4'11" long and the monster 5 feet away.