el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
I'm going to assume that you aren't referencing the near complete removal of the tactical grid components from 5e is not the part you are talking about but in past editions that missing tactical component resulted in a lot of strategy planning between turns so players could coordinate things that took effort & risk to gain significant benefits like area denial/zone of control/extra accuracy/safety for an ally/etc.
<snipped a lot of stuff to save space>
All I can speak to us my experience running D&D from the Red Box set through 1E to 2E to 3E and now 5E (never ran 4E and only played in one trial game to try the rules) and in every single one of those (to varying degrees that have to do more with my players or my experience as DM than any given ruleset) strategy has been important, being worried about failure/death. has been a concern for PCs (not every fight's losing condition is death).
It might also be that terms like "area denial" and "zone of control" are not in my normal gaming vocabulary. I think about higher ground, clear shots, crowded conditions, ducking behind cover, environmental hazards - and while I know those overlap and the former is a way to describe some of that stuff in strategic game terms, me and my groups tend to examine things on an immersive level.
As I said in another thread (maybe even to you, tet) I lead by example, and the PCs see what their intelligent or crafty opponents do and emulate it. They see and hear the environment I describe and they try to make the best use of it (as do their canny opponents).
Last edited: