New Legends & Lore

[Thac0 the Barbarian]

You're not showing the proper independent spirit. The rules were to make up your own rules. It was our way of sticking it to the man

 

[LostSoul]

By removing all of those, Kamikaze, you remove a huge chunk of the game. I'm quite sure there are already games that play like that, but D&D is a different game. You can certainly use many ideas and themes from D&D, of course, but what you speak of is a completely different system.

I think that removing OAs and the other combat options that KM suggests would change the game; but Dausuul's idea for a skirmish set of rules, is, I think, to have two different options - one for encounters with low impact (wandering monsters, level -2 or level -1, possibly others) and keeping the regular rules for more important encounters.

The Shadow of Yesterday does something similar with Bringing Down the Pain. Burning Wheel has its Bloody Versus.

I would probably leave the choice of which sub-system to use up to the players, but that's just me.

 

[Incenjucar]

In the game I've been playing in, the DM has used various shortcuts such as a single roll for party initiative and abbreviated boardless combat. As a tactically-minded player playing a controller, I found them incredibly restricting and a general buzz kill. We fortunately do not use those anymore. So I would definitely agree that the players should agree on which sorts of rules to use, assuming you want to keep all of said players.

 

[I'm A Banana]

By removing all of those, Kamikaze, you remove a huge chunk of the game. I'm quite sure there are already games that play like that, but D&D is a different game. You can certainly use many ideas and themes from D&D, of course, but what you speak of is a completely different system.

I don't think that grid combat is as close to the heart of D&D as all that. It's been optional in most editions, and in 4e, I keep hearing about people who don't want it.

I'm pretty sure you can have a D&D game without having to stick minis on a grid. I'm pretty sure most of MY D&D games have been that way, from 1e to 3e.

In the game I've been playing in, the DM has used various shortcuts such as a single roll for party initiative and abbreviated boardless combat. As a tactically-minded player playing a controller, I found them incredibly restricting and a general buzz kill. We fortunately do not use those anymore. So I would definitely agree that the players should agree on which sorts of rules to use, assuming you want to keep all of said players.

I'm not entirely tactically minded. For me, I just need enough tactics to make the combat bits interesting.

But I believe there's plenty of room for tactics in a combat designed to be used without a grid. Pokemon's complex rock-paper-scissors cycle of weaknesses and resistances are very tactical, and that game doesn't use a grid. Magic: The Gathering's turns and phases and interrupts and mana management are quite tactical, and that doesn't use a grid. Even 1e's armor vs. weapon table was tactical, though of limited use and not great for actual play. Tactics are about having interesting options that provide certain strengths and weaknesses to characters depending on those options. Getting rid of the grid doesn't mean getting rid of tactics, it just means re-locating them in some other game element.

Again, it would mean largely abandoning 4e's grid based combat and the features thereof, but I personally think there is so much to be gained in ease of play and greater game exposure and even the flow of the game that it warrants looking at.

But, it is sort of the tension between a turn-based and a real-time game, and you do give up certain things whenever you choose the other one.

 

[Incenjucar]

But, it is sort of the tension between a turn-based and a real-time game, and you do give up certain things whenever you choose the other one.

You should really look into Story Games. They're much more along the lines of what you describe than D&D is, and you can still use all the D&D flavor.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not entirely tactically minded. For me, I just need enough tactics to make the combat bits interesting.

Then why use a set of rules that consist in large part of rules for tactical combat and the character powers etc. to be used in tactical engagements? As Incenjucar says, a system like PrimeTime Adventures or The Pool (or even Universalis) would fit what you describe far better than any edition of D&D.

 

[kaomera]

Then why use a set of rules that consist in large part of rules for tactical combat and the character powers etc. to be used in tactical engagements? As Incenjucar says, a system like PrimeTime Adventures or The Pool (or even Universalis) would fit what you describe far better than any edition of D&D.

I disagree. I don't find that PTA (the one game among those you mentioned that I've any experience with) offers much if anything in terms of tactical play. It's like saying that if I don't want to eat the entire pie, just a slice, then I should eat cake instead.

One of the reason that 4e appeals to me is that it's taken the tactical aspects of play and made them fun, where I found them to become more of a chore in some other systems I've played. That doesn't mean that I want the entire game to be nothing but pushing miniatures around the board and fiddling with rules minutiae. There's a middle ground, and IMO it can preserve what I find good about the 4e system.

I find it interesting that I've had a number of more story-games focused players suggest that (and I'd add "for them", although some of them make more generalized statements) 4e is only good for playing out a very advanced form of Descent or a similar dungeon-crawling boardgame. I disagree, and in fact playing it that way ignores the whole reason I come to the table and/or am willing to spend time and effort on the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then why use a set of rules that consist in large part of rules for tactical combat and the character powers etc. to be used in tactical engagements? As Incenjucar says, a system like PrimeTime Adventures or The Pool (or even Universalis) would fit what you describe far better than any edition of D&D.
[/QUOTE

Because for 3 editions, it hasn't been that bad.

I came to D&D in 2e, when it was all about the story. I followed it through to 3e, which, at my games, was STILL all about the story. When I played 1e, I played it without minis and grids, too.

D&D is not inherently a ruleset for tactical minis engagements.

D&D 4e is much more so than anything that has come before.

I don't think it has to be that way.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

For most fights, though, I want a bit more room for players to engage, and enough time for the combat to actually feel dynamic. And for that, the 20-30 minute fight is great. That, honestly, is the sweet spot I think is worth aiming for. And the 45 minute to 1 hour combat should be the rare exception for boss fights and truly cinematic encounters.

30 minutes is my target too. Anything less than that, and you're really getting down to strictly doing straight up damage, without any tactics. I'm not sure that's really all that fun myself. You still need some sort of tactics to deal with.

Torg handled it with the Drama Deck mechanic. D&D uses positioning, forced movement and conditions. Savage Worlds handles it via Bennies. Dragon Age uses stunts.

 

[mneme]

Because for 3 editions, it hasn't been that bad.

True. Original D&D was pretty decent. 3e had enough interesting stuff to do simulationist story oriented gaming if you were willing to swallow the crunch. And 4e is very nice if you're willing to keep track of conditions in combat as well as story.

1e and 2e were pretty terrible, though.

I came to D&D in 2e, when it was all about the story. I followed it through to 3e, which, at my games, was STILL all about the story. When I played 1e, I played it without minis and grids, too.

The railroading, you mean (as 2e D&D was pretty much the first RPG that mistook GM fiat for story-gaming)? Pass. (G,D,R)

Ok, in all seriousness, no version of D&D was much more than a set of rules for combat; all have been playable, and all have been flawed. The versions -have- varied in terms of how much and what else they gave you -- and while they have never really varied from their gamist core (2e was farthest, due to its treasure rules among other things), they've varied a lot in terms of what else they give you and what additudes they pushed.

OD&D was pretty much pure gamism, though if had enough lacunae that the GM could push whatever agenda she liked.

BEMC I can't really speak of.

AD&D1 was an incoherent mess, but most of its insane accumulation of rules were attempts at simulationism.

AD&D2 I mostly ignored, but again, it seems to have been a big push towards sim (while keeping far too much of the accretions of AD&D1)

D&D3 Was a big step forward towards sanity -- but kept the emphasis on simulationist rules from its forebears, with lots of rules and pseudo-balance regarding roleplaying, RP restrictions, and rules intended to simulate the game world in every detail (not to mention making every single creature in the universe use the same character creation rules). And, of course, it kepts a lot of the silliness inherent in the Gygaxian AD&D rules (and spells) while strenghtening the core of the game and getting rid of sacred cows like variant progression, negative armor class, etc.

D&D4, by contrast, is gamism with a side of nar and a second side of simulationist rules. Gone are the rules that force you to play your character a certain way (barring the "don't be evil" ignorable official rule). Gone is the pretense of the rules dictating every single aspect of reality from when the characters need to sleep to exactly what they do when they cast spells. Instead, the emphasis of the rules is on functional play in and out of combat -- in combat, letting the players act with confidence while still being able to try anything that makes sense; out of combat, letting the players contribute to telling the story they want to tell while continuing to give the GM tools to decide what the odds should be.

Of course, it's not going to scratch the itch of players for whom D&D3 (maybe barring really stupid spells; perhaps E6?) was the perfect system. And it's far from perfect even taking into account its goals; too many pointless feats and powers, all the incoherence regarding weapons/implements, etc. But more, in 4e the rules are supposed to define the ground rules and then let you layer story on top of them, not provide a foundation for story with various roleplaying restrictions and such as in earlier editions -- there's nothing stopping you from playing a 3e style paladin or as a GM making an issue of players deciding not to have their characters sleep for days (heh. Turn it into a skill challenge!) or whatnot. But in 4e, that's not what the rules are for.