sinecure said:
Just wanted to pop in and say yeah, that is pretty much me and my group as I understand it. No offense taken.
I've pretty much stopped coming here as there's a moratorium on badmouthing the new edition and I get that.
As to why 2E works is because it requires a DM. And the potential faults you listed with it are pretty much only there when you got a sucky DM. If they are mean or unfair, they're not fit to be in the DM's chair. It's a place of honor, right?
The other problem is one of communication, but that is learned through time. It's not like you leave your players hanging if they don't understand something you've been trying to make clear. Not everything is smoke and mirrors.
And I think it's easier to understand the world when it's more like our own. We all share a pretty big chunk of common knowledge about how the world works, so why not use that? The whole part of "getting it" is the same as the exploration half of the game the Forgies talk about. It's part of the game, why get rid of it? Behaving like you're an elf is more fun in a world that knows you're an elf.
And yes, I know roleplaying isn't for everyone. But combat system isn't a substitution. Or an either/or proposition. There's a good one in 2E.
Subsystems are there to help you make a believable world. Like I said earlier, not everything on earth relates on a direct 1-20 relationship. It's boring. At least they kept the damage rolls for you guys. Think how dull a flat #'d damage score would be for weapons.
Yeah, the simulation of the world is a battlegrid thing just makes sense. When you "go have fun stormin' the castle", do you just kick in the door and expect everything to be honky dory? It takes some actual skill to figure out how to beat it. If you could just go in the front door and be assured you won't die, then the castle guard is pretty dumb. And I'd argue so was the author of the adventure.
Can you see how slicing things up into perfectly proportioned battles gets dull pretty quick? Especially when there's little to nothing else going on in that castle? The whole game depends upon varying tactics to hold the players attention, so they don't notice nothing else is really that interesting. That nothing is going on for the DM to actually PLAY. They only run combat tactics. That's how KotS looks to me. Like no one will think twice about actually running headlong into the front door and slaughtering every evil monster to a man. No one left standing. How many 4E gaming groups will win the module that way? I disagree these are multiple playstyle rules.
I don't know if it was just pemertons post, or your reaction to it, but I somehow "get" your posts a lot better now! I begin to understand your play style and what you prefer from a game now. I can't say I share everything, but that's about to be expected.
But anyway, a hooray for "meta-talk".
So, back to the real topic:
Reading your post reminded me of an older, several pages long discussion pemerton, Raven Crowkring, I and a few others (sorry for forgetting your screen names, guys
) on the shift to "per encounter" balance and what it meant to the game.
3E began, and 4E might complete the shift from "operational" play (long-term resource management, strategic planning) to "encounter-based" play (in-encounter resource management, tactical planning). Your comments on "beating a module" and "kicking the door in" might actually be an example of this.
With the Vancian/Daily resource scheme of AD&D and 3E, operational planning was very important. It wasn't enough to use good tactisc, you needed forward planning on how to approach a given situation. The situation was not a single combat, but the entire scenario - the castle to be stormed, the cult to be stopped, or whatever.
3E kept this, but also introduced a lot more "per encounter" tactics. The inter-combat action resolution system got a lot more complex, and it became more important to maintain. The 15 minute adventuring day is probably the "worst-case" scenario - if the scenario allows a lot of rest, operational planning is greatly simplified (we rest if we need to), and tactical thinking becomes the most important (we fight extremely dangerous foes and have to use the available resources with maximum effect in this encounter, or we won't see another one).
4E is moving even further toward the "per encounter" scheme. Strategic planning is reduced, but tactical planning is enforced. All resources available in every given encounter must be used with care and with best teamwork, or there won't be another one. Strategic planning is relegated to the question "Is this the encounter I need to put out some dailies?"
The "intellectual" complexity didn't really change, but it shifted from strategic to tactical planning. As a consequence, different play styles are better supported by different editions.
In AD&D, "storming" the castle might have meant to find the best entrance, coming up with a tactic to not alert the guards, or take them out quickly by creating a situation where they can be put down easily (attacking at night, waiting for shift changes).
In 4E, storming the castle might look similar, but it would also be very viable to just run up to the entrance and to fight effectively in every encounter. (There are still some risks - if you alert too many guards, you still end up with an over-powering encounter leading to the dreaded TPK, but your changes are probably still better as in a game with DM fiat. And, more importantly maybe, this approach would probably be fun, because it's actually not mindless hack & slash - you have to use your available encounter resources wisely, after all...
One could also say that the AD&D approach meant that the game design assured that people interested in a "fun" experience would always go the planning route, since the other was just boring (possibly also deadly, but possibly not). And one could probably also say that the planning-stuff sounds a little more like role-playing then the combat tactics stuff.
Personally, (but I am a f4nboy, I have to say this) I think both are just different kinds of roleplaying.
Or they can be none at all.
If my Int 8 Half-Orc Barbarian comes up with a good attack plan, is that good role-playing? If my Lawful Good Knight is constantly moving into flanking position and helping the Rogue to get his sneak attacks off, is that good role-playing? Or is both just playing the game?
(The interesting question might be: Is it true that people that prefer the "operational play" won't find "tactical play" fun, and vice versa, or is it just that in the times where operation play was standard, tactical play was less important or complex, or vice versa?)
