Character Actor, Power Gamer, Storyteller, and Thinker

[Tony Vargas]

What? 'combat focused' is a shameful thing?

 

[Argyle King]

I'm unsure how to answer this. I can easily relate to 3 of the 4 choices. Power Gamer is the one which seems I cannot relate to.


"If I had to apply the terms to myself, I'd say I'm somewhere around the following:

Simulationist 40%
Narrativist 40%
Gamist 20%

Reading the definitions linked to by the OP, I feel my interests would be evenly divided between S & N. While I'm not a huge fan of the gamist mindset, I am willing to accept some of it, and I understand that there are times when sacrifices have to be made in the name of playability."
- my post in the GNS thread


I voted for Johnny in the thread which used the MtG names.

 

[Argyle King]

Sorry for the double post, but I have a question which will help me decide.

How do you define 'tactics' and 'strategy'? I've found that in many D&D related conversations that I have an extremely different idea of what those terms mean. I think part of the problem comes from having a military background; my idea of what 'tactics' and 'strategy' are seems to be quite different from how the terms are used when talking about D&D.

 

[Mokona]

How do you define 'tactics' and 'strategy'?

The source material I referenced use the following explanation:

"Strategic" means "a perspective larger than the immediate future and surroundings". "Tactical" means "a perspective focused on the immediate future and the immediate surroundings."

"Invade the Normandy beaches on D-Day" is Strategic. "Take out that bunker before the machine gun kills us all!" is Tactical.

 

[Argyle King]

The source material I referenced use the following explanation:

"Strategic" means "a perspective larger than the immediate future and surroundings". "Tactical" means "a perspective focused on the immediate future and the immediate surroundings."

"Invade the Normandy beaches on D-Day" is Strategic. "Take out that bunker before the machine gun kills us all!" is Tactical.

I'd agree with those definitions.

 

[Libramarian]

The source material I referenced use the following explanation:

"Strategic" means "a perspective larger than the immediate future and surroundings". "Tactical" means "a perspective focused on the immediate future and the immediate surroundings."

"Invade the Normandy beaches on D-Day" is Strategic. "Take out that bunker before the machine gun kills us all!" is Tactical.

But why would someone like one over the other? We need to know, otherwise somebody could just be choosing one based on some very peripheral connotation.

I feel like I have an important point here but that's as best as I can express it at the moment.

 

[Argyle King]

But why would someone like one over the other? We need to know, otherwise somebody could just be choosing one based on some very peripheral connotation.

I feel like I have an important point here but that's as best as I can express it at the moment.

I think you have an important point too.

From my perspective, I'm not entirely sure how you can choose one over the other. While I agree that tactics and strategy are two different things, strategy requires tactics to be effective, and tactics requires strategy if it is to have purpose in a conflict. You can have tactics without strategy, but that's just fighting for the sake of fight (which is necessary sometimes.) You can also have strategy without tactics, but a grand strategy won't get anywhere without people on the ground who can put in the tactical work and accomplish the vision. That's my mindset.

Personally, I view strategy and tactics as being equally important, so I am unsure of how to answer the poll.

For me, I believe the ideal game would be able to flex back and forth between situations which challenge strategy and situations which challenge tactics. It would also have consistent rules which would allow a coherent relationship between both aspects of the game. I love skill challenges, but I dislike how they feel like a second game bolted onto D&D; I'd much prefer a game which uses more consistent rules for all aspects of play.

As far as story and combat goes, I suppose I would say I value story more. However, being that many D&D stories involve slaying monsters, combat is an integral part of many stories. Conflict is a tool with which to create drama, tension, story, and narrative.

 

[Stormonu]

Strategic and Tactical don't even come into thinking when I pick up D&D. For me, Storytelling is about all that I ponder - can I take this adventure and involved the players enough that we get a story out of it we'll want to recount years down the road?

 

[Hassassin]

Personally, I view strategy and tactics as being equally important, so I am unsure of how to answer the poll.

Maybe you should think about whether you want one to dominate the other in play time?

I know some people hate when the game "stalls" for half an hour when drawing plans for an assault, while some hate hour-long fights and would rather just find out if the plan worked.

I doubt anyone wants just one or the other thing, but I think quite many have a preference on the time shares, even if they want it 60/40 rather than 90/10.

 

[BryonD]

However, the problem with that is that I absolutely hate 'story-driven' games.

The story is what you tell after the game is over, not the path that the pcs are expected to follow, and unfortunately, most storyteller style games involve following a specific plotline (the story).

Nicely put.

I think I'll call myself a story "unfolder".