• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hussar

Legend
One of the big differences is a lot of the strategic "extra" time can be away from the table -- we can pack more situations into the increasingly rare table time and deal with special planning / bookkeeping / upkeep during the days in between.

Again, that's an excellent point.

I can see a problem here though, with designing the game with this assumption. There are players out there that have zero interest in homework. They want to come, play and outside of that time don't spend much, if any, time on the game. If you presume that strategic planning is done away from the table, but then no one does their homework, all that strategic planning time gets dumped back into table time.

And, since a lot of strategic planning is pretty individual, that's why it can be done away from the table, it means that the group isn't really interacting a whole lot while this is going on.

Not an insurmountable issue, just something to think of.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nagol

Unimportant
Again, that's an excellent point.

I can see a problem here though, with designing the game with this assumption. There are players out there that have zero interest in homework. They want to come, play and outside of that time don't spend much, if any, time on the game. If you presume that strategic planning is done away from the table, but then no one does their homework, all that strategic planning time gets dumped back into table time.

And, since a lot of strategic planning is pretty individual, that's why it can be done away from the table, it means that the group isn't really interacting a whole lot while this is going on.

Not an insurmountable issue, just something to think of.

Bookkeeping and administrivia is typically individual. Planning can be, but it is often group-based via email, IM, and such.

I agree it's not a consideration to which any designer should give much weight. It is just one of the things a table should consider.

It's certainly not the only reason I like strategic versus tactical play either. For me, strategic choices offer more potential long-term meaning in the campaign.
 

Bookkeeping and administrivia is typically individual. Planning can be, but it is often group-based via email, IM, and such.

I agree it's not a consideration to which any designer should give much weight. It is just one of the things a table should consider.

It's certainly not the only reason I like strategic versus tactical play either. For me, strategic choices offer more potential long-term meaning in the campaign.

yeah, I think the main point is the "concentrate play on the action" part is just not much of an advantage to the average group.

I think strategic means something different from the 'operational' level planning AD&D focused on. Strategic, as in things that shape whole campaigns? I'm not sure rules that relate to combat and exploration have much reach there. That would be more things like complicated item manufacture (like artifacts or something), or building castles and such things. 4e seems more happy to suggest than to build systems there. I kind of like that, though some very generalized frameworks aren't bad.
 

Hussar

Legend
I've always operated under the assumption that strategic elements refer to plans and actions taken before combat starts. Choice of armor/weapons, hiring help/getting pets, buying single use magic items, that sort of thing comes under the umbrella of strategic options. In 3e, Craft Wands is a strategic choice. You can craft a Wand of Cure Light Wounds and have access to, for all intents and purposes, unlimited healing outside of combat. Which has a huge impact on the pacing of the game.

Of course, at this point, the line between logistical and strategic choices gets a bit blurry, but, since both are out of actual combat choices, it's not really a big deal.

Tactical level choices though are what you decide to do after initiative is rolled. Do I attack target A or B is a tactical level choice.

Like I said, 4e is chock a block with tactical level choices, but has few strategic level ones. AD&D is almost the reverse where you have many strategic level choices but few tactical ones.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Like I said, 4e is chock a block with tactical level choices, but has few strategic level ones. AD&D is almost the reverse where you have many strategic level choices but few tactical ones.
And assuming you throw in some late-era books like Bo9S, 3e can actually support both decently well.
 

I've always operated under the assumption that strategic elements refer to plans and actions taken before combat starts. Choice of armor/weapons, hiring help/getting pets, buying single use magic items, that sort of thing comes under the umbrella of strategic options. In 3e, Craft Wands is a strategic choice. You can craft a Wand of Cure Light Wounds and have access to, for all intents and purposes, unlimited healing outside of combat. Which has a huge impact on the pacing of the game.

Of course, at this point, the line between logistical and strategic choices gets a bit blurry, but, since both are out of actual combat choices, it's not really a big deal.

Tactical level choices though are what you decide to do after initiative is rolled. Do I attack target A or B is a tactical level choice.

Like I said, 4e is chock a block with tactical level choices, but has few strategic level ones. AD&D is almost the reverse where you have many strategic level choices but few tactical ones.

Well, I'd divide it up into 3 types, as I said: Tactical being whatever you do in combat, or perhaps things you do before a specific fight as routine things, casting Bless before crashing through the door I would call tactical. Operational would be more things that you do during an adventure that relate directly to that adventure. Once you decide "we're raiding the Tomb of Horrors" then most of the things you do at that point are operational. Strategic would be things your character does that relate to general aims, like maybe hiring a henchman as opposed to a hireling so you can have a permanent sidekick, building a castle, etc.

4e obviously serves the tactical with heaps of options. Previous editions weren't exactly stingy here either, but they didn't have quite the same prevalence of minor options.

I don't really know why you dis 4e's operational options. It has the scrying and divination part quite well covered for instance. It has plenty of powers and rituals you would use for instance to remain undetected while traveling, teleport, fly, etc. There aren't a lot of long-term buffs, and if you stick with stock monsters and fairly ordinary situations there's perhaps not quite as much motive for some kinds of elaborate preparations. OTOH there are plenty of very nice potions, a few rituals, some powers, and a decent number of items, that can be used in an operational sense. 4e certainly doesn't stop you or discourage you from having hirelings, animals, etc. It doesn't really ENCOURAGE that much in the original core books though, which is about the only area that I think could legitimately take some criticism. I think it would be fun to add back in traditional Protection Scrolls as well, they were fun.

Strategic options have always been less the subject of rules than others. Some types are well-supported, others were ignored due I guess to a theory that the game was more about parties going adventuring than stuff like empire building. Honestly, while many players enjoy building things, etc, the majority of groups really do just adventure. Usually with a rare side shot of "we build a tower" or some sporadic henchman development, etc. There are rules now for those things, though it would be hard to say they were very high priority in 4e.

Still, there are great rules if you were to say want to create some mighty ritual, some fantastic item, etc. and you certainly COULD have used skills and SCs to build castles and gain followers, etc. In a way I like the less structured approach. It always felt hokey in AD&D where everything was built into some formula where no matter what your PC did he got XYZ followers from a chart at Nth level, and mysteriously 7th level fighters aren't bad assed enough (or something) to make a castle, but 9th level ones are. Still, once you decide to do something, are some guidelines useful? Yeah, probably. I think the ones for construction and hiring that are in MME and Dragon aren't bad. They do work. I think they could have afforded to be in DMG1 instead of say a useless random dungeon generator and that NPC building rules that WotC never even used, etc.
 

Nemesis Destiny

Adventurer
I don't really know why you dis 4e's operational options. It has the scrying and divination part quite well covered for instance. It has plenty of powers and rituals you would use for instance to remain undetected while traveling, teleport, fly, etc. There aren't a lot of long-term buffs, and if you stick with stock monsters and fairly ordinary situations there's perhaps not quite as much motive for some kinds of elaborate preparations. OTOH there are plenty of very nice potions, a few rituals, some powers, and a decent number of items, that can be used in an operational sense. 4e certainly doesn't stop you or discourage you from having hirelings, animals, etc. It doesn't really ENCOURAGE that much in the original core books though, which is about the only area that I think could legitimately take some criticism. I think it would be fun to add back in traditional Protection Scrolls as well, they were fun.
While this is true, a lot of the rituals were quite a bit higher in level than they previously were (which I tend to agree with), but as-written, rituals didn't see much use at a lot of tables, as I understand it. They didn't in my games at first either (I've houseruled some fixes, and now they see use).

Still, there are great rules if you were to say want to create some mighty ritual, some fantastic item, etc. and you certainly COULD have used skills and SCs to build castles and gain followers, etc. In a way I like the less structured approach.
I also prefer this, but I think the books could/should have offered better advice about the kinds of things that could be done; talk about empire building, ritual creation, quests to forge special items, etc. To old-schoolers who cut their teeth on OD&D or AD&D, it doesn't need saying, but many of the gamers at my table started with 3.5 or are completely new to RPGs.

It always felt hokey in AD&D where everything was built into some formula where no matter what your PC did he got XYZ followers from a chart at Nth level, and mysteriously 7th level fighters aren't bad assed enough (or something) to make a castle, but 9th level ones are. Still, once you decide to do something, are some guidelines useful? Yeah, probably. I think the ones for construction and hiring that are in MME and Dragon aren't bad. They do work. I think they could have afforded to be in DMG1 instead of say a useless random dungeon generator and that NPC building rules that WotC never even used, etc.
I think, in 2e at least, they tried to explain away the followers at 9th level thing by saying that you could build a fortress at any time you could afford it (or clear one out), but that it was your reputation that would become so widespread at the key level that people would just start flocking to your banner. It was, at least to me, only marginally less hokey, but perhaps it would have made more sense in the context of "named" levels from earlier editions, and what those names implied about the setting and its conceits regarding character socio-political power.
 

While this is true, a lot of the rituals were quite a bit higher in level than they previously were (which I tend to agree with), but as-written, rituals didn't see much use at a lot of tables, as I understand it. They didn't in my games at first either (I've houseruled some fixes, and now they see use).
Eh, I found that some gentle encouragement, giving away some components, some rituals as treasure, having NPCs demonstrate their usefulness, etc. worked fine. If you really look hard at the prices most rituals are VERY cost-effective. There are a few outliers, but not many.
I also prefer this, but I think the books could/should have offered better advice about the kinds of things that could be done; talk about empire building, ritual creation, quests to forge special items, etc. To old-schoolers who cut their teeth on OD&D or AD&D, it doesn't need saying, but many of the gamers at my table started with 3.5 or are completely new to RPGs.
I think they could have presented more concrete ideas as opposed to a lot of 4e where the rules clearly can be used to do things, but its left unstated. I mean a reasonably obvious castle building exercise might be to just decide what a given 'level' of castle represents, assume it costs as much as that level of magic item, and then let the PCs do one or more skill challenges to accomplish different things related to construction. The results could decrease the price/time trade speed for quality, add unusual features, deal with problems the DM comes up with, etc. Obviously some page in the DMG which talked about that stuff would be welcome. I am a bit mystified as to why 4e didn't do this in pretty much any cases and relegated it to either BoVD and/or the back appendix of MME.

I think, in 2e at least, they tried to explain away the followers at 9th level thing by saying that you could build a fortress at any time you could afford it (or clear one out), but that it was your reputation that would become so widespread at the key level that people would just start flocking to your banner. It was, at least to me, only marginally less hokey, but perhaps it would have made more sense in the context of "named" levels from earlier editions, and what those names implied about the setting and its conceits regarding character socio-political power.

Eh, any way you cut it it is the "Epic Destiny Problem" in another form. All of a sudden at a certain level the rules of the game change for you. Its in many ways unavoidable, but I'd have thought a more cool way to handle it would be to gradually add in those benefits. This would work well with building a freehold or whatever. Instead of "poof you're name level" have something like a "gain a follower" feat, and let you take it numerous times if you want. You could have a 'treasure' that is "you're allowed to build a castle of level X" etc. In other words work it more organically.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top