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

[Parmandur]

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

Oh, absolutely by design, they were also pushing first party miniatures hard at the time (rather than letting WizKids assume all the risk and taking a cut like they do now). And nothing wrong with designing a highly granular tactical miniatures take on the rules, they did well at their intended purpose.

 

[Oofta]

Oh, absolutely by design, they were also pushing first party miniatures hard at the time (rather than letting WizKids assume all the risk and taking a cut like they do now). And nothing wrong with designing a highly granular tactical miniatures take on the rules, they did well at their intended purpose.

They also wanted an MMO-like virtual table top that sadly died. There were interviews at the time where they explicitly stated that they took ideas from MMOs and other video games, that it was part of the consideration of the evolution of games.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Same for me, multiple campaigns, including one to level 30, played a lot of it, and I don't think that people in this thread have been saying bad things about 4e just for the pleasure of it. It's just that there were some design choices made that turned mostly it into a very good tactical (board)game, and after that it's a matter of taste and the type of game that you like to run and play in, not a matter of understanding.

 

[Lyxen]

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

Note that Solasta is, in a sense closer to 4e than 5e in some respect, as although it's the 5e ruleset, it's played on a grid (including fairly clever use of 3d for climbing or flying creatures). The storyline is not fantastic, and it's a fairly low budget game, but still reasonnably enjoyable if you want something tactical.

 

[Oofta]

Note that Solasta is, in a sense closer to 4e than 5e in some respect, as although it's the 5e ruleset, it's played on a grid (including fairly clever use of 3d for climbing or flying creatures). The storyline is not fantastic, and it's a fairly low budget game, but still reasonnably enjoyable if you want something tactical.

Yep, it's a good implementation of dungeon crawls. I've been playing it more than I probably should, but it's a decently fun when I just want tactical challenges. That, and they did a really good job with open source tools to publish modules so even after the main campaign you can play mods others have created. Doesn't exactly scratch the same itch as playing a real game, still fun.

Note that it is not a full implementation, it's based on the basic rules so there's limits on races and they have custom versions of feats and so on.

 

[MwaO]

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.

The thing is that, for me, even Basic stated it very clearly: "The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination. The players and the DM share in creating adventures in fantastic lands where heroes abound and magic really works. In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination. The important thing is to enjoy the adventure." 4e allows you o tactically win fights, but it does not really allow you to really play a game that is not about winning.

4e excels at being the tactical boardgame version of D&D because of its precise set or rules, it's just that for me, that is not the intent of the game.

As someone who has played since 1e, 4e is by far the edition that tries to bring that concept into reality. 4e's DMG even gives advice about how to maintain that enjoyment and avoid the usual pitfalls in advance.

It literally tells the DM in the DMG that they can alter rules, it gives options for deciding how something a player does that isn't a set power might work, it asks both DM and players to try to work together to make a better campaign, and I routinely think about how someone can fail, but do interesting things when constructing challenges.

And I mean, I got an encounter into an LFR adventure that had literally zero about winning, but ended up as an outcome, influencing 2 years of LFR play based on roleplaying decisions the players made.

 

[Lyxen]

As someone who has played since 1e, 4e is by far the edition that tries to bring that concept into reality. 4e's DMG even gives advice about how to maintain that enjoyment and avoid the usual pitfalls in advance.

It literally tells the DM in the DMG that they can alter rules, it gives options for deciding how something a player does that isn't a set power might work, it asks both DM and players to try to work together to make a better campaign, and I routinely think about how someone can fail, but do interesting things when constructing challenges.

I'm sorry, but it does not read that way. It's the edition that is the most formal about rules, even going so far as advising to write house rules down before trying them out. It's the edition that sets the DM first and foremost as a referee, including comparing him first and foremost as the referee of a competitive sport : "A competitive sport has referees. It needs them. Someone impartial involved in the game needs to make sure
everyone’s playing by the rules." This is the first sentence in the DMG about what a DM is...

Compare to what I have cited above about the intent of the game in Basic, or statements that you find in 5e, right up front, about the fact that "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

Coming back to the subject of this thread, the reason for which it's such a good tactical board game is because the rules are strict, clear and complete, and the game is balanced. Yes, you can play 4e in a much looser fashion, and we tried it for years, but in the end, the rules build upon each other and introducing changes in one area messes up the others, for one, and it's also a bit of a shame to have such complete and restrictive rules to ignore and modify them. If you want looser rules easier to modify on the fly, any other edition is better than 4e, because when you touch a rule or do a local ruling, it does not come to bite you in the back with consequences on other effects and powers.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Well, I can see from this excerpt that 4e does, in fact, include tactics:

So, yeah. It's a tactical game. And a roleplaying game. And whatever else you want it to be, just like every other edition before and after. (FYI, this module is an interpretation of a classic 1e adventure series (Against the Giants). It appeared as pdf in Dungeon magazine. I use OneNote to make it more readable so I can access during play better than with a pdf.)

But consider this: Are any other editions of D&D considered "tactical" games? Because sometimes I played with grids and maps and tokens and minis during battles for every edition. But not always. I've enjoyed tactical sessions for years, regardless if the rules made it easy or not, but 4th Edition made it better. It just gave simpler, clear-cut rules and transparency to do so. I understand if it doesn't work for everyone else, but I make no apologies or excuses for enjoying something that still works great for me today.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

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.

Yeah I'm still finding new things about modern TTRPGs that owe a lot to 4e.

Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet in particular took their respective design experiences from 3e and 4e and comboned them to make 13th Age, which uses TOTM and a lot of 4e-style mechanics and monster design, and has been a consistent seller for Pelgrane Press.

While Tom Parkinson-Morgan and the team at Massif Press have carved out a niche by publishing tactical map-focused games like LANCER (for mecha sci-fi) and ICON (for JPRG-style fantasy).

Makapatag has designed a Filipino fantasy game that takes inspiration from both JRPGs and 4e-style grid combat, Gubat Banwa (Warring Nations).

I'm still finding new games to add to this list (you can tell I was a big 4e fan).

4e sold well. Not as well as 5e, but any small publisher capable of replicating some of the magic would find this quite a comfortable success on their own terms. And they have!

The 4e-influenced RPG thread:

Is there demand for a “tactical” RPG akin to 4e?

Curious about people’s thoughts on this. I always liked the tactical aspects of D&D 4e, though didn’t play much of it myself. I think in a lot of ways, 4e suffered due to marketing and the fact that it was so different from D&D 3.5e, yet had the same name. I’m sure there were many other issues...

www.enworld.org

 

[Oofta]

Well, I can see from this excerpt that 4e does, in fact, include tactics:

So, yeah. It's a tactical game. And a roleplaying game. And whatever else you want it to be, just like every other edition before and after. (FYI, this module is an interpretation of a classic 1e adventure series (Against the Giants). It appeared as pdf in Dungeon magazine. I use OneNote to make it more readable so I can access during play better than with a pdf.)

But consider this: Are any other editions of D&D considered "tactical" games? Because sometimes I played with grids and maps and tokens and minis during battles for every edition. But not always. I've enjoyed tactical sessions for years, regardless if the rules made it easy or not, but 4th Edition made it better. It just gave simpler, clear-cut rules and transparency to do so. I understand if it doesn't work for everyone else, but I make no apologies or excuses for enjoying something that still works great for me today.

I would say that 4E was more tactics oriented than other versions of the game. If OD&D was a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10, 4E was a 10. I'd say 3E was somewhere around an 8, 5E is in the ballpark of a 6. The tactical orientation even extended into skill challenges - their express purpose was to give a set structure to resolve out of combat scenarios using tactical thinking.

P.S. you don't have to apologize for anything. People like what they like.