Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)

Hussar

Legend
Daztur said:
Knights vs. bandits works well except it still doesn’t really capture the tactics vs. strategy/logistics focus.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...illment-(from-Pulsipher)/page23#ixzz38vbaVA4b

Well, at least now I know I was fairly on point with my discussions of strategy vs tactics. Honestly, I think that is the best way to describe it, rather than getting mired down in pointless semantics. CaW focuses on strategy and CaS focuses on tactics.

Only problem is, a lot of people don't know the difference between the two. And, it does leave out logistics, which is the third pillar combat can be built on, but, it's not completely necessary.

Some people want to focus strongly on strategy - the planning part before combat starts. This would include all sorts of actions ranging from stuff away from the table (character optimising is a strategic element) to information gathering methods, to coming up with various plans and possibly contingency plans before an encounter starts. And, let's be fair here, virtually every group on the planet does this to some degree or other. It's a range, not an on/off switch.

Other people want to focus on tactics - what you do after initiative is rolled. It's largely reactive, rarely proactive. You get in the fight with the baddies, now you start working together as a team to focus fire, synergize activities, whatever. Again, virtually every group will do this to some degree or other. And again, it's a range, not an on/off switch.

Now, I do believe different editions emphasise different approaches. 4e certainly has a tactical focus. Strategy is a lot less focused on since there is so much at the tactical level. You simply don't have the strategic options that you have in 3e. Conversely, 3e is a lot less tactically inclined than 4e. Again, you just have less options once initiative is rolled, but, outside of initiative, you have all sorts of things you can do in 3e that you cannot easily do in 4e. 1e, IMO, is the weakest of the three for both focuses. There is a lack of tactical or strategic options in 1e and 2e. But, OTOH, there is a much much stronger focus on logistical elements, which fits with AD&D's war-game roots where logistical considerations can be easily as important as anything else in combat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aenghus

Explorer
I do think tactics, strategy and logistics are good terms. The planning I referred to in previous points pertains mostly to the latter two.

I think the earliest editions of the game had a mish mash of mechanics that often resulted in poor odds for the players when used, the rules were of variable quality. This encourages players to evade or bypass the rules to achieve their goals, and if the DM wants the players to make progress she has an incentive to accept at least some of these bypass events.

The incredible subjectivity of this, combined with the deadliness of the early game, meant that one DM's amazing out-of the-box ploy from a player was to another DM a dumb stunt that got your PC killed. This stuff was minimaly transferrable between different DMs and highly idiosyncratic, you had to learn your DM's biases and what they liked and disliked in the game.

The functionality of the mechanics have improved though the editions, not always but often, so there is much less incentive for goal-oriented players to evade the rules to obtain success when they are able to do so more reliably through the rules.

I suspect the communication failures that occurring here over means and ends is at least partially due to unstated and disparate goals - e.g. generally a dungeon in D&D is something to be explored, not flooded and destroyed. Whether the latter course is to be permitted and encouraged is a matter for all the participants to decide on as a metagame issue, as it's a matter of "what the game is about", something everyone should have a say on.

(Incidentally I have rarely seen water pumps in dungeons, and without them or magic most dungeons should be flooded on the lower levels. But mostly they are not. Interesting)
 

Hussar

Legend
Heh. It's so rare to find dungeon maps with verticality at all, that flooding isn't an issue anyway. Very, very few dungeon maps have enough levels to matter. Which is something I do dislike. I want more verticality. :D
 

Now, I do believe different editions emphasise different approaches. 4e certainly has a tactical focus. Strategy is a lot less focused on since there is so much at the tactical level. You simply don't have the strategic options that you have in 3e. Conversely, 3e is a lot less tactically inclined than 4e. Again, you just have less options once initiative is rolled, but, outside of initiative, you have all sorts of things you can do in 3e that you cannot easily do in 4e. 1e, IMO, is the weakest of the three for both focuses. There is a lack of tactical or strategic options in 1e and 2e. But, OTOH, there is a much much stronger focus on logistical elements, which fits with AD&D's war-game roots where logistical considerations can be easily as important as anything else in combat.

Thinking about my games, this seems largely true, but one might note that Wizards (specifically) and their close relatives, and to a much lesser extent other spellcasters (such as Clerics, Druids, SPs, etc.), in 2E (won't speak for 1E) have some fairly serious logistical, strategic and tactical options hard-coded into the rules via spells.

Whenever I think about this kind of thing, a particular incident from 2E comes up for me, the still-infamous in my games "Giant Funeral Ambush", wherein 3 PCs killed the vast majority of male giants of fighting age in The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief (as well as their orcs etc.), in a horrifying couple of dozen rounds, if that (most of which were "mop-up", morale rapidly having been broken).

It was a serious victory of logistics over strategy or tactics. The PCs had elaborately but partially accidentally created a situation where the Hill Giants were holding a funeral for one high-up giant (looooooong story) and the PCs knew about it (part of long story!).

I assumed, as a foolish, naive, decent, non-hair-raising human being, thought they'd just use this to count giant numbers and/or get in, steal treasure and/or set fire to the steading. I reckoned without the Elf Wizard's ambition, or the Dwarf Ftr/SP of Clangeddin's divinely-mandated hatred of giants.

Instead, they planned an ambush.

Virtually a full-frontal assault. The Wizard memorized every buff that could meaningfully buff the Ftr/SP and Rogue, and the rest was all AE damage/CC spells. The Cleric found every self/group buff he could (he had a lot, he was practically CoDzilla before there was CoDzilla). They dug up every long-hoarded buff potion, magic weapon oil, and applicable scroll. The entire portable hole was virtually turned inside-out. They carefully worked out how they were going to buff themselves into the sky.

They did not, at this point, even know how many giants or others there were in their, precisely (the Rogue did a recce whilst Invisible but his PLAYER got freaked out by how scary it was to be alone in a giant-house half-way through and had his PC leave the building!). So they had no real "strategy" - just "We will hit them with everything we have!".

The day came, the buff-ladder was climbed (I tried to find problems, but they were thorough, and the potion miscibility table loved them - also they didn't push it too far, potion-wise). I was in a kind of shock. I couldn't believe an LG, LN, and CG PC were going to attack a funeral. They waited for everyone to get into their funeral positions, watching the giants set up the pyre, file out to pay their respects and conduct the ceremony and so on, then unleashed hell. The Wizard dropped AEs, Walls etc. from max range (possibly whilst Improved Invisible, I forget), causing chaos (he did avoid the women, children and infirm, at least, I guess there's that :p ), whilst the others charged across the field, invisible, before emerging, 20+ft tall (Enlarge and other spells/potions stacked up), buffed to the nines, among the giant leadership (because they were closest, not for, like, a good reason!), and really putting them in a blender. I seem to recall that the orcs etc. weren't deployed initially, but when they came out, a couple of good AEs from the Wizard killed about 90% of them.

It was practically a warcrime, I guess just barely on the right side of that, but oh god was it a victory for logistics and planning of resource-usage. They sent ME (ME!) out of the room at one point so they could discuss it!

But generally I've seen every kind of play in every edition... that just sticks with me from 2E.
 
Last edited:


A great example. And demonstrative that just because you personally don't favor a particular style of play doesn't mean you aren't well aware of it.

Hahaha!

I think that might be WHY I don't favour logistical play any more! :heh:

Both because I was so traumatised by it (I mean, that's kind of hyperbole but also kind of not!) and because honestly, it seemed like the apex of that play-mode, like, they'd never fly any higher, logistics-wise, than that (might be wrong, but it felt that way).
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
The reason I chose CaS in the first place was:
-The idea that the decisions made DURING combat mostly determine the outcome which is rather like a sporting match (each game starts fresh)
-A desire to play out combat according to rules known as all parties rather than trying to cheat and subvert the rules to get an advantage.
-The focus on combat being a fun activity in and of itself

Wasn’t trying to go with “hur hur we like real WAR because I’m a REAL MAN but those others are playing silly easy SPORTS.” This whole thing is completely unrelated to difficulty level or skill needed.
What you intended may reflect well on you (or not, it's a matter of opinion, I suppose), but what you actually communicated to a lot of us was the "hur hur..." line. The us/them structure of the idea, alone, makes that almost inevitable, the biased language and presentation - which, I absolutely take you at your word, was unintentional - and, of course, the context of the edition war, merely clinched it.

“Cheating” rather than “war” captures most of the intended meaning, but not really the emphasis on strategy/logistics over tactics.

Knights vs. bandits works well except it still doesn’t really capture the tactics vs. strategy/logistics focus.
I don't think you're really going to find anything that captures the tactics vs strategy dichotomy, since the two are really complementary rather than antithetical things. Any military operation is going to be concerned with an overarching strategy or doctrine, logistics to support it, and tactics to execute it. Sports aren't that different in that regard, they're just played by different rules.


I think, ultimately, you were searching for a justification of the edition war. There may not be one.
 


What is the fallacy for focusing on nitpicking examples instead of addressing the argument?

In this case "Not ignoring the elephant in the room." Putting that elephant in the room no less than three times on this thread alone means that whether or not you want to talk about it it's a very definite part of your conception of Combat as War.

P.S. Did you stop watching Star Wars because of the civilian contractors killed when the Death Star blew up?

No. Had the Deathstar not blown up a planet and been a clear and present danger to others things would be different. There was, at a Watsonian level, no option that would lead to less collateral damage than blowing up the Deathstar. (Leaving it standing would have lead to the destruction of more planets). If the goal had been to take out Darth Vader and they'd chosen to do it by blowing up the Deathstar that was itself stationary, that would have been a big problem.

The reason I chose CaS in the first place was:

As I have said repeatedly, I absolutely do not believe there was any bad faith in your choice of terms. I believe they were mischosen for the reasons I've indicated but expecting perfection of people is far too much.

At the time I remember a player complaining about how munchkin it was for PCs to try to sneak a ballista into a dungeon and sneak attack a dragon with it literally hours after reading the Black Company staging an ambush that involved sneak attacking a powerful critter with a ballista at point blank range.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with that. If you can get the ballista there in the first place and the dragon doesn't spot it.

Heh. It's so rare to find dungeon maps with verticality at all, that flooding isn't an issue anyway. Very, very few dungeon maps have enough levels to matter. Which is something I do dislike. I want more verticality. :D

This is one of many reasons I love Caverns of Thracia as a dungeon. From memory there's even a magical swamp at the bottom.
 

In this case "Not ignoring the elephant in the room." Putting that elephant in the room no less than three times on this thread alone means that whether or not you want to talk about it it's a very definite part of your conception of Combat as War.

Ignoring the clear implication that you think I support such behavior -

How does the idea that Combat as War includes the possibility of "terroristic" behavior invalidate it as a label of a particular playstyle? I understand it perfectly as why you dislike that style - but are you claiming that it doesn't exist? That there aren't players that play that way?

I don't see it as a useful argument for "Combat as War is a bad name" because War as a broad category includes that behavior.
I don't see it as a useful argument for "CaW/CaS is not a useful dichotomy" because it's not relevant to that discussion.

I understand if you feel that D&D should support, and encourage, heroic action-y behavior over callous-disregard-for-life behavior. But that's not the way everyone plays, and we're talking about a continuum of play behavior here.

Combat as War is not defined by "terroristic" actions. But the playspace it defines includes the possibility. Just as the playspace for Combat as Sport includes "you see an orc guarding a pie; roll initiative". It's not the end-all, be-all of the category.
 

Remove ads

Top