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

[BigZebra]

And it's not what was said, what was said, and this is a fact, was that the design, to protect their boardgame, pushed everything that they could not control in terms of combat effects out of the combat, creating a disjointed game with a boardgame mini-game inside it, actually a maxi-game considering the time it takes and the importance of it since even most of the so-called "utility" powers are actually only combat powers. Other magic such as rituals were forcefully pushed into a different part of the game and forcefully controlled as well, using long durations and costs.

Again you say "it is a fact". But it is not a fact that it is a "boardgame". It is not a fact that it is a "disjointed game". I know this is how you feel, and your experiences and all. And that is cool and all, but stop presenting your experiences as facts.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And then moved away, maybe they were scared of you ? See, I don't have a problem with tanking in your face, but a fighter's mark persisting from across the battlefield just does not cut it with me.

I'm okay with it? It's abstracting a complicated idea with a simpler mechanic that adds to the tactical depth.

Except, once more, it has no validity of the fighter hit you with a sword and then moved away and does not have any ranged attack. And has no validity if you have cover or a much more dangerous adversary in your face.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for tanking, I think it's cool, it's just that the 4e mechanics are just that for me, mechanics, designed for a boardgame.

Moving away doesn't mean you can't move back in. And maybe you have a more dangerous enemy ahead of you, but the point of the Fighter is to attract attention to himself; again, it's treated somewhat abstractly to avoid a whole bunch of dice-rolling, but I think it works.

Also, I don't get why that specifically comes off as designed for a "board game".

This should not be the aim, and honestly it's one of the major problem of player-centricity introduced by 3e and unfortunately not stamped on properly by 4e, which is still only about refereeing and arbitrating written rules. 5e went back the right way, the DM decides what is happening and for whatever reason he thinks are the right ones, and the players like that because the DM is just playing alongside them, as a partner, not as an adversary and not even as a referee.

I mean, it absolutely should be, in my opinion. I say this as one of the consistent GMs in my group, too: it's nice for the players to have things they can do without me telling them they can. I think one of the biggest problems out there is choice paralysis via "GM Adjudication", that a player is hesitant to make a certain choice because they know they'll have to ask a GM if they can do it and there's a chance that they'll say "No" or try to sabotage it in some way. I say this as someone who is an incredibly lenient GM who wants to see my players do awesome things, and I still see this sort of thing.

Like, you say that it's the "DM is just playing alongside them", but we have to recognize that the DM has much more power, and even more under a "rulings, not rules" scheme of things. What 4E does is give the players more confidence in their powers and sureness in what they can do. From there they can find new and inventive ways of doing things, but they start from a better position initially because what they can do and how they can do it are better codified and they can have more confidence in how things work.

I'm speaking about 5e here, which is deliberately fuzzy in its rules, and using natural language rather than a specific technical jargon. And I'm certainly not applying a simulationist perspective, I'm trying to focus on telling a story about what's happening in the game world, not in a rule-based simulation of it. As for roleplaying, seeing that it's defined as a roleplaying game, I'll take any possible way to RP as a bonus.

Then I don't see where this disconnect with 4E and RP is coming from? All it does is show you the mechanics, but you can RP and flavor them however you like. There's nothing stopping you from telling a story with those powers, and really a lot more that empower you to tell a story since your characters have a variety of interesting abilities to use right off the bat. I suppose that's why I assumed you were looking at this as a simulationist. But if you aren't, then I think I'm more confused.

 

[Lyxen]

3%? That is simply not true, I'm sorry.

Just count the pages. After that, yes, of course, a non-negligible percentage of class/races powers and spells are obviously combat-related, but it's still extremely different from a game where almost all the classes description are purely about combat, plus everything combat related in the rules themselves (which is, from the pure combat section 10% of the rules, so basically three times more than in 5e).

 

[Lyxen]

Again you say "it is a fact". But it is not a fact that it is a "boardgame".

Yes, it is. It's the only edition that mandatorily requires a board in the form of a grid to use any of your class powers. It's the only one where you must use tokens to represent your characters so that you can move them around the grid, pushing and pulling other tokens around using your powers. It's the only one that has cards representing those powers, that you can use a number of times for each of your mini-games in combat.

In AD&D or 5e (3e is a bit more muddy just because of the grid but it's doable), there is nothing that reminds me of any boardgame, it's by default Theater of the Mind and storytelling, no board, no tokens, no cards.

It is not a fact that it is a "disjointed game".

Once more, it's the only edition where what you can do in combat and out of combat are so clearly separated from each other that there is no cross-utilisation possible. Even @EzekielRaiden recognised it.

It's not a question of valor, it's actually something that please some players, to have the combat side of the game so codified and complete, and therefore so balanced. It's just that everything in life is a question of compromise, and the compromise that they made for that edition of the game has consequences in the way the game is played. Some like it, some don't, and that's the end of the story.

I know this is how you feel, and your experiences and all. And that is cool and all, but stop presenting your experiences as facts.

See above, there are clear facts about the way the game has been designed compared to other editions.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm okay with it? It's abstracting a complicated idea with a simpler mechanic that adds to the tactical depth.

And my problem with it that it's not been designed that way (as a proof, once more, there is nothing that describes how it works other than purely technically), it's a pure technical mechanic - indeed adding to the tactical game - that is never explained in terms of the game world, with interpretations that are purely personal and that I find extremely weak as they don't model anything in the genre except a lineage in MMOs.

Moving away doesn't mean you can't move back in. And maybe you have a more dangerous enemy ahead of you, but the point of the Fighter is to attract attention to himself; again, it's treated somewhat abstractly to avoid a whole bunch of dice-rolling, but I think it works.

Technically and tactically only.

I mean, it absolutely should be, in my opinion. I say this as one of the consistent GMs in my group, too: it's nice for the players to have things they can do without me telling them they can. I think one of the biggest problems out there is choice paralysis via "GM Adjudication", that a player is hesitant to make a certain choice because they know they'll have to ask a GM if they can do it and there's a chance that they'll say "No" or try to sabotage it in some way.

And that is the problem of attitude generated by thinking that the DM is not only there to tell a great story with you, that's all I'm saying. Why would the DM sabotage you ? Why would the player be afraid of being sabotaged ?

Like, you say that it's the "DM is just playing alongside them", but we have to recognize that the DM has much more power, and even more under a "rulings, not rules" scheme of things.

You are confusing power with the way it is used.

What 4E does is give the players more confidence in their powers and sureness in what they can do. From there they can find new and inventive ways of doing things, but they start from a better position initially because what they can do and how they can do it are better codified and they can have more confidence in how things work.

It's the old (and unsolvable) debate as to whether constraints foster creativity or strangle it. For me (and for the 5e designers, as clearly written in the SAC), the very strict codification is contrary to the principle of an open game where you are only limited by the shared imagination of what can happen in the game world.

Then I don't see where this disconnect with 4E and RP is coming from? All it does is show you the mechanics, but you can RP and flavor them however you like. There's nothing stopping you from telling a story with those powers, and really a lot more that empower you to tell a story since your characters have a variety of interesting abilities to use right off the bat. I suppose that's why I assumed you were looking at this as a simulationist. But if you aren't, then I think I'm more confused.

Because the codification of 4e is so strong, and the limitations so blatant, it creates a restricted environment, and one which is not restricted by the game world but by the way the rules restrict it. Again, the SAC: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."

On the good side (and for some people), these restrictions allow a very tactical and balanced combat, a very structured resolution of situations. On the other side (and for other people), these restrictions prevent them from telling the story that they want. And some mix and match while others prefer to use the edition that better matches what they want to play. It's not a question of value, just personal preferences.

 

[BigZebra]

Yes, it is. It's the only edition that mandatorily requires a board in the form of a grid to use any of your class powers. It's the only one where you must use tokens to represent your characters so that you can move them around the grid, pushing and pulling other tokens around using your powers. It's the only one that has cards representing those powers, that you can use a number of times for each of your mini-games in combat.

Sorry, it is not a board game.
D&D 4e is a role-playing game that pretty much requires the use of miniatures and battle maps. That is true. But that does not in any way preclude the role-playing part. At all. There are even better support for role-playing IMO than e.g 5e, since 4e gives better information on how to use e.g. skills and so forth. Yes, there are more combat-related rules in 4e, but no less RPG-related rules compared to 5e. I would even say on the contrary.

Just because an RPG uses maps and miniatures does not mean it is not an RPG, and you consistently insisting on it seems weird, and counter factual. You may not like that version of D&D, and that is fine. But saying that people playing 4e is not playing a role-playing game seems extremely insulting and gate-keeping. I play an RPG, and that RPG is called D&D 4e.

 

[Justice and Rule]

And my problem with it that it's not been designed that way (as a proof, once more, there is nothing that describes how it works other than purely technically), it's a pure technical mechanic - indeed adding to the tactical game - that is never explained in terms of the game world, with interpretations that are purely personal and that I find extremely weak as they don't model anything in the genre except a lineage in MMOs.

But it's modeling an actual tactical consideration. I feel like it's obvious as to what it's meant to be, just as it is with the Bear Totem power. But also by not being explicit, it allows other people to flavor it as they like. Also you don't answer why that makes it like a board game.

Technically and tactically only.

But really, "technically and tactically only" compared to...?

And that is the problem of attitude generated by thinking that the DM is not only there to tell a great story with you, that's all I'm saying. Why would the DM sabotage you ? Why would the player be afraid of being sabotaged ?

Because not every GM they played with is like me, just as I suspect your players will have played with other GMs who are not like you. Having ways the players can have agency beyond what the GM grants them is nice when they have a GM who is less kind, or perhaps just not as experienced.

You are confusing power with the way it is used.

I'm not, the two are related and I'm talking on both subjects. Giving the players more power and agency makes arbitrary power usage by the GM less of a concern. The two are linked, which is my point.

It's the old (and unsolvable) debate as to whether constraints foster creativity or strangle it. For me (and for the 5e designers, as clearly written in the SAC), the very strict codification is contrary to the principle of an open game where you are only limited by the shared imagination of what can happen in the game world.

Yeah, I thought that for a while, too... and honestly I've come around to the other side of it. Watching my players self-limit because they aren't sure what they can do with skills got me to write up a whole list of skill usages (taken directly from 4E, in fact) so that they had a real idea of what each of their skills could do, building a foundation for them to try and expand on it. I feel like giving structure to the player experience helps foster choice with the player because they feel more empowered rather than playing the "May I" game (something I'm fairly sure @EzekielRaiden has mentioned to me before, if on another board).

Because the codification of 4e is so strong, and the limitations so blatant, it creates a restricted environment, and one which is not restricted by the game world but by the way the rules restrict it. Again, the SAC: "An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D."

On the good side (and for some people), these restrictions allow a very tactical and balanced combat, a very structured resolution of situations. On the other side (and for other people), these restrictions prevent them from telling the story that they want. And some mix and match while others prefer to use the edition that better matches what they want to play. It's not a question of value, just personal preferences.

I don't think they really limit anything, to be honest. Like, the rulebook has rules for improvising things and such. SAC can talk about how things would "severely limit what the characters can do", but be a starting fighter with only one attack and tell me how that's better than what 4E allows. Note that any sort of improvisation with the environment can also be done in 4E, and that there are more guidelines to integrate such things.

I think the problem here is that, like a lot of people, you think codified rules limit people. I disagree: to me, they give people an outline of how to do things within the system rather than only having a vague idea of what they can or can't do. 4E is a "Yes and..." system, but the difference is they give you a better idea of how to structure and design the "and" part of that phrase. An example would be improvised checks: 4E gives a chart that covers 30 character levels, with example DCs for Easy, Medium, and Hard along with corresponding damage rates. That's great and limits no one, instead acting to inform the GM of how to set a difficulty and damage that will be challenging. 5E... does not do any of that. It's haphazard and you gotta eyeball that stuff. That's fine if that's your deal, but I don't think not being informed of what the designers think the proper damage progression is somehow gives one more freedom. To me, it's just more work.

 

[Lyxen]

Sorry, it is not a board game.

I'm not claiming that, overall, it's only a boardgame. What I'm saying is that, out of all the editions, it's the one where combat is the most disjointed from the rest of the game, and where it feels the most like a boardgame, which it has most of the trappings of (a board, token and "cards"). That, in turn, also allows it to be the most tactical of the editions for that combat part of the game.

It's also the edition where the game insists the most on the DM being a referee, compared to a storyteller. That does not prevent it from being a roleplaying game, there are an incredible number of those and ways to play them anyway.

 

[Nefermandias]

A few points to add to the excellent points made above:
1) The forced movement aspect cannot be overstated - push, pull, slide ... all made terrain and positioning significant. Push that enemy into the lave pit or over the cliff edge, pull this enemy that's vulnerable to fire into the zone the warden just created around himself and into the reach of the fighter with a reaction that can hit them when they move into range ... it placed a lot more emphasis on that kind of thing than any other edition of the game.

2) Player involvement - you really had to pay attention all the time as every class had reaction abilities that could be triggered by enemy movement or other actions. Also some classes had the ability to give other characters a chance to act on their turn, Leader roles generally, and the Warlord class in particular, could hand out actions pretty regularly.

"Tactical" doesn't just mean a map and mini's - it mainly means what you can do in the course of a combat. Lots of interesting choices to be made with a solid party of 4E characters. Watching people discover it as they played was pretty entertaining.

Also, encounter design focused heavily on hazards, traps and side objectives that required a lot of movement and environmental interaction during the fights. Both 4e Dungeon Master's Guides made a point of teaching DMs how to build encounters with movement in mind.

 

[BigZebra]

I'm not claiming that, overall, it's only a boardgame. What I'm saying is that, out of all the editions, it's the one where combat is the most disjointed from the rest of the game, and where it feels the most like a boardgame, which it has most of the trappings of (a board, token and "cards"). That, in turn, also allows it to be the most tactical of the editions for that combat part of the game.

It's also the edition where the game insists the most on the DM being a referee, compared to a storyteller. That does not prevent it from being a roleplaying game, there are an incredible number of those and ways to play them anyway.

On this I mostly agree. The feel is markedly different than other editions. And different players would like different editions.
My group just started a 4e campaign after 3 years on 5e (with great success).

I still need more play time to pass judgment. But I think my group is extremely suited for 4e. We all loved 5e, but my players are very much tactically inclined. So far they love the whole 4e powers set up, they feel very powerful, and able to do some crazy naughty word. Also what seem to happen is that since there are a bit more rules to hang their hats on (without going overboard), it's as if I am able to pull out some more role playing. E.g. Skill Challenges seems to help in this regards.

I can totally see why one group might find it restraining and not inducing to role playing, but for another group it might be exactly that - is my point I guess.