Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9887557" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I'll be honest, I've never found the games that get put into the CaS category satisfying on a strict mechanical interaction level, precisely because they tend to be relatively solvable or completely unsolvable: do you have enough time/context to understand what the enemies do and how to make good choices to counter it? If not, then you generally fall back on whatever is the most effective SoP your set of character abilities can muster. My experience usually is "I wish this was a single player tactics game, having four brains doing this is more complicated than helpful." Once you get over the communication problem, the gameplay is often not that interactive; you're more likely to be trying to execute whatever set of build choices the party has collectively made than focusing on interaction with the board. If there is a strong mechanical element to the board (usually terrain, but maybe if you have enough information to know what moves the enemy can bring to bear) there's a tendency for them to be relatively simple minigames that you either give up on your build execution to do completely, or you might ignore entirely if the benefit is notably lesser.The whole tactics/strategy question feels off to me. Ultimately, you're just talking about the timeframe in which player decision making matters to combat outcomes. Either you're isolating 5-25 decisions a player makes in a combat, or you're setting a larger scope tied to all the choices a player makes between "rests" or whatever the unit of recovery is. A sufficiently procedural dungeon crawl and a tactical engagement are more different because of their length than any real difference in the decision making texture.I think there is maybe something to do with the scope of effectiveness per action? CaW might be more defined by setting the potential impact of an action or an executed plan compromising several actions than CaS does. CaS is much more about repeated demonstration of the same skill in a given timeframe (say one dungeon), while CaW has more sweeping board changes over the same period? Something like that feels closer to what's going on. Lots of smaller impact decisions vs. fewer higher impact decisions.</blockquote>

Verification