Search results

If the intent is to secure a strategic resource, the goal is certainly strategic. Realistically, everything you do is going to be (or should be) a step in furthering a strategic plan. What you actually do, on a small unit level, while in contact with enemy, or while advancing to contact, or...

For a long, long time, all I really wanted was a movie that focused on the Resistance, and gave us more of what we saw in the flashbacks (forwards?) in the original movie. I was not at all happy when I got what I wanted. The first two movies are excellent. I don't really remember the third...

I found it hard to DM because I came to detest many of the core underlying assumptions and the whole thing was a personal fun-sink. However, that's a matter of mismatched requirements, and doesn't mean there's an inherent flaw with 4e, as much as it might have felt otherwise to me. Had I found...

No, tactical manoeuvres are a subset of tactics, and not the other way around. However, basically anything a small group of soldiers is doing within the engagement range of the enemy is definitionally tactical (and, as @aramis erak has pointed out, this would include positional manoeuvre in...

Yes, that's kind of what I was trying to get at with the brackets after the bit you quoted, but the way you've stated it here is much clearer. (y)

OK, lets assume that's more-or-less correct. What point are you actually trying to make? This conversation started when I stated that: If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition. And you replied directly to that...

Interesting, thanks. By that definition, it still wouldn't apply in my "20 people in the face of the enemy" scenario (or, if it did, it would fall into the narrow band of tactical scenarios).

I've probably already made this point multiple times, but just chiming in again to say I agree this is absolutely the case.

If you are twenty or less people manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are absolutely employing tactical manoeuvres. This manoeuvre may be part of some larger strategic plan, but those people on the ground doing the manoeuvring are engaged in tactics (in a modern setting, we'd call it...

I voted 5+, but my group is a roleplaying group, not a "D&D" group. We have played 1e, 3e and 4e D&D, as well as ACKS (a B/X derivative) and some other d20-era games, but lots of non-D&D games as well. (Edit: oh, and we're playing Dark Sun at the moment, which might half count, but we're not...

I was confused as well. However, where "tactical" has been put in scare-quotes, I assume they're referring to gamey, grid-based, careful positioning and power-combo tactics. With a generous interpretation, @borringman is thus saying that, in the real world, you don't want to engage the enemy on...

If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition. Your outfitting, logistics and expedition goals might be strategic.

OK, that's a little easier to understand. It's still completely outside my experience, as I've had stable groups throughout my roleplaying career (current group has been around for over two decades, with only occasional personnel changes), but if you're regularly playing with different people, I...

OK, I get it. Some people have to deal with players who will argue with everything they can any time they think it will provide them with additional advantage, and it clearly disrupts their games. That, to me, makes it a plyer issue, and I don't know why people are OK in groups like that, but...

They absolutely don't call on authorities outside our group in order to try and browbeat me into making rulings in their characters' favour, no. Nor would they stop the game to argue a point until they get their way. Or any other, similar, immature, antisocial behaviour. Yes, my players do...

shrug An ongoing sequence of short arguments that disrupt the game is no less alien to me, and I remain unable to understand how or why anyone would play like that. I would not game with the sort of people who go to Sage Advice (or Reddit, or whatever) seeking ammunition to win an argument at...

I wouldn't define the sort of thing we're talking about as vaguely or poorly written rules, I consider them written in an open-ended fashion, leaving room for interesting interpretations and GM adjudication on edge cases. This is a good thing, in my opinion, not a problem. But yes, I do consider...

Just another reason to be happy with my group, I guess, and glad that I've never felt any need to gather a bunch of "typical D&D players" from the wider community.

I have one player who is particularly likely to try this kind of thing. But he will find as many edge cases and interesting uses for his character's powers and abilities as he possibly can prior to play, so we can have the discussion when there is no time pressure. If he comes up with something...

As I mentioned earlier, I just don't understand how these things are an issue if you have a reasonable group, capable of having a reasonable conversation, and a process for arriving at a ruling or decision. That said I have no problem with people who want tighter wording -- while it's not my...