D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[Umbran]

No, that can't be right, that clashes with my prior assumptions.

Mod Note:
Can we cut the snark, please? It isn't helping.

 

[Aldarc]

IMHO, while 4e kept getting compared to MMORPGs and WoW - as that game in particular was the big scary newness that some felt was zapping away players or whatever - the design philosophy was far less influenced by WoW (and @EzekielRaiden touched on the reasons for that), but, rather, it was more akin to JRPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, including the turn-based tactical grid play. (Nowadays, I would also compare 4E to CRPGs like Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2, but neither of these games had been released at this point.) As discussed in another thread in the General Subforum on tactical RPGs in the wake of 4e, there are a fair number of more tactically-minded TTRPGs that have taken direct inspiration from 4e and JRPGs.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

IMHO, while 4e kept getting compared to MMORPGs and WoW - as that game in particular was the big scary newness that some felt was zapping away players or whatever - the design philosophy was far less influenced by WoW (and @EzekielRaiden touched on the reasons for that), but, rather, it was more akin to JRPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, including the turn-based tactical grid play. (Nowadays, I would also compare 4E to CRPGs like Divinity: Original Sin 1 and 2, but neither of these games had been released at this point.) As discussed in another thread in the General Subforum on tactical RPGs in the wake of 4e, there are a fair number of more tactically-minded TTRPGs that have taken direct inspiration from 4e and JRPGs.

When I started playing 3.5 I had already been playing tactical video game RPGs like Disgaea and Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. The D&D Beginner's Box I got had tile maps with features such as a magic circle that granted a +1 bonus to AC for anyone standing in it, too, so I was primed for much of how 4E did things. I've since gravitated to other tactical video game RPGs such as the excellent Banner Saga trilogy.

I also really love forced movement for some reason in a way that I cannot describe. I know that in 5E there is less use for forced movement abilities, but having the ability to push enemies away or pull them closer is just very fun for me in any game.

EDIT: Come to think of it, Baldur's Gate 3 is kind of a how-to on accomodating more 4E-style gameplay in 5E without changing much about 5E itself. There's multiple consumables for creating hazardous terrain (slick terrain that knocks enemies prone, fields of flame, etc), weapons have limited-use abilities with various effects, there's varying elevation to make forced movement more useful, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

My group always used They're of the Mind with 3E, but 4E made it untenable to continue, so there is something to that. The rules really encouraged grid play in a big way.

I believe this was by design, to encourage the adoption of the VTT.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Can we ever have a 4E discussion without edition wars with accusations of people making "sweeping accusations" that are just opinion?

Remove the parts I crossed out, and this can be said for all discussions/arguments for millennia. Maybe in debate club with a rule against it; otherwise - it's human nature I think to expand one's own experience to a broader group.

 

[Aldarc]

When I started playing 3.5 I had already been playing tactical video game RPGs like Disgaea and Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. The D&D Beginner's Box I got had tile maps with features such as a magic circle that granted a +1 bonus to AC for anyone standing in it, too, so I was primed for much of how 4E did things. I've since gravitated to other tactical video game RPGs such as the excellent Banner Saga trilogy.

Thinking about it further, either 3e or 5e probably operate much closer to the spirit of WoW than 4e did. WoW, IMHO, isn't a particularly tactical game. A lot of fights involved standing still in front of the enemy and face-rolling the keyboard. It used to be a far more static game, in that regard, than how we may think of the game now.

I also really love forced movement for some reason in a way that I cannot describe. I know that in 5E there is less use for forced movement abilities, but having the ability to push enemies away or pull them closer is just very fun for me in any game.

There is certainly a cinematic quality to it.

EDIT: Come to think of it, Baldur's Gate 3 is kind of a how-to on accomodating more 4E-style gameplay in 5E without changing much about 5E itself. There's multiple consumables for creating hazardous terrain (slick terrain that knocks enemies prone, fields of flame, etc), weapons have limited-use abilities with various effects, there's varying elevation to make forced movement more useful, etc.

No surprises there. Baldur's Gate 3 is made by Larian Studios, who made Divinity: Original Sin.

 

[Staffan]

Amd the problem is that, for me, ever since early editions, D&D is not a game that is meant to be won. 4e made it a game where you certainly can tactically win fights because all of this is tactically organised like a boardgame (or some wargames, but most wargames deal with units rather than individuals), with precise rules, a board to push your miniatures on and cards (powers) to play when tactically advantageous, using combos, etc.

You might not be able to win the game of D&D, but you can certainly win fights. And in 3e, the decisions that win fights are mostly made in advance (chargen and/or preparation), while in 4e they're made in the actual fight.

And the "mark" corresponds to nothing in real or simulated life, it's just a way for the tactical boardgame to replicate the aggro mechanism of MMORPG, otherwise (barring roleplay) the role of tank does not really exist (which is more or less the case in 5e except using enchantment magic such as compel duel.

Marking and the various defender mechanics are ways to compensate for combat being turn-based. In real life, if someone nearby does a thing, I can react to that more or less immediately. I don't have to wait for that person to run 30 feet away and hit my friend in the face before reacting or intercepting. Some corner cases don't really match that (like the example you had about missing an ooze with an arrow), but that's the idea behind marking/punishing.

 

[Lyxen]

You might not be able to win the game of D&D, but you can certainly win fights.

And my point is that the game, for me, is about much more than winning fights. 4e's design decisions which made it a very efficient and appreciated combat boardgame also made fights and winning them too much of an objective (linked with the DM being first considered a referee of a competitive sport, for example), I just pointed out that 5e, going back to even Basic D&D's design intent was for me rectifying that drift.

Marking and the various defender mechanics are ways to compensate for combat being turn-based. In real life, if someone nearby does a thing, I can react to that more or less immediately. I don't have to wait for that person to run 30 feet away and hit my friend in the face before reacting or intercepting.

That is a very, very weak explanation for a power that does not make sense at all. D&D has always been turn-based and most of the other edition powers make at least some sort of sense, however, the parallel with the MMORPG influence of 4e (which is unmistakable for example with the classes design with sub-builds per role) is also unmistakable, it's a marking/aggro mechanic with not even the slightest veneer of description (notice how powers have it, no matter how absurd sometimes, but marking does not).

 

[Scribe]

I don’t think it would be too complicated for a computer.

I'd be very surprised if it couldnt be done in a turn based CRPG.

I'm putting in way too much time to Wrath of the Righteous (and I know I've sung its praises before, I think) but if there was a 4e module that could translate well into a solo RPG, I'm sure it could be done.

 

[Oofta]

Remove the parts I crossed out, and this can be said for all discussions/arguments for millennia. Maybe in debate club with a rule against it; otherwise - it's human nature I think to expand one's own experience to a broader group.

People like what they like. For example, I don't really get OSR games, but hey, it's just not my gig. If you like a different game or edition more than I do, cool. What bugs me is the hyperbolic "you're wrong, you probably didn't even play the game, there was a conspiracy against it" that always goes around. I simply don't see the point of repeating the same "people unfamiliar with the game misrepresent it", because that's not always true.

I played a lot of 4E. From 4E's release to the release of 5E I played or DMed a couple times a month, ran a campaign to level 30 played to level 30 in two separate games (long story). I liked certain aspects of it, other parts I did not. Eventually I burned out on it, but if you still enjoy it that's great. Just don't tell me that the only reason people don't like it is because they don't understand it.