I Like The Simple Fighter [ducks]

[Campbell]

What is and is not smart play will always be dictated by the rules of the game* because rules dictate how players interact with the ongoing fiction of the game.

For instance when playing RuneQuest smart play is going to come from interacting with combat rules that are based on the designers experience with SCA combat as well as a desire to balance different forms of combat. For instance if faced with a scenario where a warrior character encounters enemies with access to missile weapons its smart play to use a shield and weapon combo over a two handed weapon because only shield users can parry ranged weapons. Likewise when faced with an opponent wielding two daggers its advantageous to wield a larger weapon so you can parry the full force of their blows.

In 3e its advantageous to attack over using specialized combat maneuvers against large creatures, because attacks are likely to have an effect whereas grappling is not.

In both cases it is the rules of the game which determine smart play. As a group you need to decide on a game that gels with what you envision to be smart play.

*Rules of the game may sometimes include DM rulings which are just less formal rules that vary from table to table and possibly situation to situation.

 

[Herschel]

The original idea was figuring out a way for Fighters to be better at maneuvers than other classes and avoid the 100% tradeoff between maneuvers and damage that often meant maneuvers went unused because doing straight damage ended the combat more quickly and thus were superior to the base maneuver.

It's also a way for the simple and complex fighter to be harmoniously designed together - the simple fighter is free to swing away if that's the gameplay the player prefers, without falling behind the tactical fighter because the simple fighter is doing more consistent damage.

Which is tricky because the tactically complex fighter must not equivocate with "Sucking with style". This is why 4E "pulling back the curtain of Oz" and codifying and puting things out front was such a strong idea. With implied roles actually out front, suddenly the math worked to make all characters fun.

The Defender Fighter still does good damage, but also mitigates damage depending on how the DM responds to the marking mechanic. The Slayer Fighter trades the potential damage boost or mitigation from marking for a consistent, simple damage rider. I find the Slayer rather dull personally, but it's there.

Well, this gets to my fears about the "simplicity" factor and DM fiat - unless each class has a simple and complex option, I worry about the "Tome of Battle" phenomenon, where complex Wizards and Clerics and Druids are taken as par for the course, but the Fighter depends on permission to be complex.

Bottom line, I'd want equal treatment across classes.

I'm not sure truly "simple" and "complex" characters can sit at the same table and make the game work for everyone. If someone is playing without Themes and Backgrounds and another is, there's really no way to make those characters play balanced and have the themes and backgrounds worthwhile.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The trouble with that way of thinking is that it only rewards the best tactician taking the complex fighter if that player is good at the way the designers think is best for their character to be a fighter. Frankly, these guys design games and might have some knowledge of true combat but they are making up powers and feats based on (let's be honest) often cliche maneuvers that are meant to be cinematic and/or epic, larger than life perhaps, but some player trained in real combat could easily feel more comfortable with the simple fighter, the narrative choice, since he isn't boxed into the supposed best tactics as envisioned by the designers. Your plan rewards the person who best does what the designers think they should do, not necessarily the best actual tactician.

I have no big issue with it, and there tends to be an overlap anyway. Some tactical decisions are sound because the mechanics support them, some simply because that's logically so. You can't really avoid that.

BTW, I only described one variant of complexity in regards to power. In another thread I wrote down two basic directions under this premise:
A more complex character has more decisions to make at any given time then the simple character.
Direction 1: While you have more options, they each have a little less effect than that of a simpler class with less decisions. That's kinda the Essentials model, I think. Slayers for example get a lot of passive bonuses they don't make choces about to apply, other than deciding who to attack. A regular "Weapon Master" Fighter makes decision when to use certain powers, and how to apply these power effects (sliding, pushing, pulling...)
Direction 2: You have more options and more decisions to make, and each have a similar impact on success or failure as the simple fighters missions. This gives you a big variance - if you take lots of bad decision (not necessarily the worst), you're more screwed than the Simple Fighter, but if you picked all the right decisions, you come out vastly ahead.

Both directions have their issues. 1 leads to the question "why bother with complexity if it serves no further purpose?", two the problem of balance between effectively played simple and complex fighters (with the risks of power creep in the long run and all that.)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think it's very possible for both the simple-fighter player and the tactical-fighter player to both feel that their character is optimal. The key is recognizing that their goals are different: the simple fighter is successful if he can kick butt and deal good damage in melee, whereas the tactical fighter is successful if he can influence the outcome of the battle through his melee.

It's like comparing a 3.5e wizard to a warlock. The wizard has access to dozens of different spells with a wide variety of tactical applications; the warlock, meanwhile, can nuke his enemies, every turn. Likewise, the tactical fighter is busy defending the casters, keeping enemies distracted or disabled, and so on, while the simple fighter is focused purely on making enemies be dead.

The simple-fighter player won't care that a tactical fighter has more overall impact on the battlefield, and the tactical-fighter player won't care that the simple fighter pulls slightly bigger damage numbers.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I think it's very possible for both the simple-fighter player and the tactical-fighter player to both feel that their character is optimal. The key is recognizing that their goals are different: the simple fighter is successful if he can kick butt and deal good damage in melee, whereas the tactical fighter is successful if he can influence the outcome of the battle through his melee.

It's like comparing a 3.5e wizard to a warlock. The wizard has access to dozens of different spells with a wide variety of tactical applications; the warlock, meanwhile, can nuke his enemies, every turn. Likewise, the tactical fighter is busy defending the casters, keeping enemies distracted or disabled, and so on, while the simple fighter is focused purely on making enemies be dead.

The simple-fighter player won't care that a tactical fighter has more overall impact on the battlefield, and the tactical-fighter player won't care that the simple fighter pulls slightly bigger damage numbers.

Herschel, this is what I was getting at in terms of how the two would balance against each other.

However, my understanding of how simple and complex options would work is that they'd be decisions made by the DM about all classes, similar to choosing between high and low magic settings. So the question is whether the simple fighter balances against the simple wizard and the like.

 

[Mark CMG]

A more complex character has more decisions to make at any given time then the simple character.

Not as such. See, we're not really talking about actual complexity so much as written complexity. The simple fighter's players still has all of the same options as the complex fighter's player, they just aren't spelled out. The simple fighter's player can still decide to do X, Y, and however many more letter you want to say there are, it's just that the adjudication of it falls to the DM and it is, hopefully, handled in a simpler manner, ALA Ability Score Checks and Opposed Rolls and the like. The complex fighter simply has a spelled out list of menu options from which to choose which allows the DM to shift some of the workload over to the player of the complex fighter (though, of course, the DM is always in charge and can still veto something if it doesn't make actual sense where the rubber hits the road). You seem to be implying that the simple fighter is actually the complex fighter with the workload shifted over to the DM while I am suggesting that the simple fighter is adjudicated in a different manner thereby making the simple fighter not just simpler for the player but also for the DM and the speed of the game. The simple fighter still has all of the same options but merely expresses them narratively in narrative terms that aren't directly attached to specific mechanics as they are with the complex fighter.

 

[Mark CMG]

How?

There seems to be this idea that the simple fighter is just the complex fighter with the workload shifted to the DM, which is not at all what I am saying the simple fighter should be. See my previous post for a bit further of an explanation, if you will please.

 

[Vikingkingq]

There seems to be this idea that the simple fighter is just the complex fighter with the workload shifted to the DM, which is not at all what I am saying the simple fighter should be. See my previous post for a bit further of an explanation, if you will please.

I don't think we actually differ about the simple fighter. As long as the math balances out between the two, there's no reason why the resolution mechanisms couldn't be simplified as well.

Although I don't think the resolution mechanisms for the complex fighter would be that complex - Maneuvers should be as close to Attack Rolls as possible, directed against the appropriate stat (I'd actually like to avoid Opposed Rolls if possible) as the defensive number to hit.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Not as such. The simple fighter's players still has all of the same options as the complex fighter's player, they just aren't spelled out. The simple fighter's player can still decide to do X, Y, and however many more letter you want to say there are, it's just that the adjudication of it falls to the DM and it is, hopefully, handled in a simpler manner, ALA Ability Score Checks and Opposed Rolls and the like. The complex fighter simply has a spelled out list of menu options from which to choose which allows the DM to shift some of the workload over to the player of the complex fighter (though, of course, the DM is always in charge and can still veto something if it doesn't make actual sense where the rubber hits the road).

I think what you're talking about is the difference between playing with the tactical module and without it, which will apply to every class; the distinction between the "simple" and "complex" fighter, as I understand it, is a separate point about how the fighter's class abilities are doled out.

WOTC people have already stated that whatever maneuvers the "complex" fighter has will NOT be restricted to games using the "tactical" module, which makes sense to me. It's perfectly possible to make up fighter maneuvers that don't depend on fiddly rules for forced movement, detailed grapple rules, facing, and so on.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think we actually differ about the simple fighter. As long as the math balances out between the two, there's no reason why the resolution mechanisms couldn't be simplified as well.

Although I don't think the resolution mechanisms for the complex fighter would be that complex - Maneuvers should be as close to Attack Rolls as possible, directed against the appropriate stat (I'd actually like to avoid Opposed Rolls if possible) as the defensive number to hit.

I think what you're talking about is the difference between playing with the tactical module and without it, which will apply to every class; the distinction between the "simple" and "complex" fighter, as I understand it, is a separate point about how the fighter's class abilities are doled out.

WOTC people have already stated that whatever maneuvers the "complex" fighter has will NOT be restricted to games using the "tactical" module, which makes sense to me. It's perfectly possible to make up fighter maneuvers that don't depend on fiddly rules for forced movement, detailed grapple rules, facing, and so on.

Okay, guys. Riddle me this, then. My idea of a simple fighter, without modules, would run something on the order of . . .

Player: I see by the way you sketched out the tavern that I am off to one side of a long table and my enemy is just on the far side. There's been a lot of drinking and spilling all night. Can I rugby slide under the table, grab his leg to stop me on the other side, then stab up into the small of his back with my dagger?

DM: Sure. Roll a Dex check to make sure the slide goes smoothly, then an opposed Dex check to see if he gets out of the way or not. If both of those are successful, you can roll to hit but at a minus for being down on the ground.

Does that jibe with your own ideas of a simple fighter and how such a scenario would be quickly adjudicated?