Rule of Three: March 13

[Sunseeker]

If a combat lasts for 15 minutes, why did we bother in the first place? It obviously wasn't a challenge to the PC's, there were virtually no tactics being used. It was an excercise in dice fapping. No thanks. Very much to my taste.

Granted, I have no problems with an abstract, streamlined combat system being put into a module. That's fine for those who want it. But, I want the baseline to be nice and crunchy thanks. If I wanted to play a game where combat takes 10 minutes, I'd go back and play AD&D. Since I enjoy the tactical elements of the game, then I'll stick with later editions.

Indeed, combat should run smoothly, but there shouldn't be any rules-based expectations for it to be "fast" or "slow". It should go precisely at the pace and in the style that a group enjoys the most.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As far as the speed of combat is concerned... don't forget the other reason why 2E and earlier combats are much faster than 3E/4E combat.

Most fights do not start with all PCs back up at full hit points.

With the ease and low cost of making Cure Light Wounds wands in 3E, and the Healing Surge mechanics of 4E... after every battle, the party could spend a few minutes and get everybody practically back to full hit points at minimum cost. In earlier editions that didn't happen, because for the most part the only healing a party had was just the healing spells of the cleric or druid. So maybe one or two PCs might get a healing spell tossed their way between fights... but not always, and especially not as more encounters went on in the day. Thus all the PCs were usually down from full in hit points, sometimes by quite a margin.

What this did was that it did not require as much for the DM to throw at the party to create a challenge (either in monster power or monster numbers). With fewer monsters at less power, each fight could be gotten through faster. Whereas in 3E/4E... DMs are still forced to use higher numbers of more powerful monsters in most encounters just to give the impression to the PCs that they are being presented with a challenge-- since they usually will start at full HP.

If you reduce the amount of times PCs can get back to full HP after a fight, the more likely the DM won't need to keep "throwing the kitchen sink" at the party to make subsequent fights appear challenging.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ok, there's two things here.

Firstly, my 4e combat does not take significantly longer than my 3e combat. Although, to be fair, that is longer than AD&D combat. But, the thing is I LIKE 3e and 4e combat. I like the fact that there are actual tactics going on. That position, movement and the like actually matter during combat.

Actual tactics? Where? There are no more actual tactics available then there are in OD&D.

If a combat lasts for 15 minutes, why did we bother in the first place? It obviously wasn't a challenge to the PC's, there were virtually no tactics being used. It was an excercise in dice fapping. No thanks. Very much to my taste.

Who says there are no tactics? Ambushing is a tactic. Preparing an area and luring the enemy into a kill zone is an actual tactic. Tactics have been in use in rpgs long before they became prepackaged modules on a character sheet.

Challenge level has little to do with resolution time. Suppose the party is TPK'd in 15 minutes. I would say that the combat was far from not being a challenge. Shorter combat is actually ANTI dice fapping.

Granted, I have no problems with an abstract, streamlined combat system being put into a module. That's fine for those who want it. But, I want the baseline to be nice and crunchy thanks. If I wanted to play a game where combat takes 10 minutes, I'd go back and play AD&D. Since I enjoy the tactical elements of the game, then I'll stick with later editions.

I take the opposite. I think the default core should be simple with a tactical module to ramp up the complexity as desired. Its easier to add than to remove such elements.

 

[Dausuul]

Granted, I have no problems with an abstract, streamlined combat system being put into a module. That's fine for those who want it. But, I want the baseline to be nice and crunchy thanks. If I wanted to play a game where combat takes 10 minutes, I'd go back and play AD&D. Since I enjoy the tactical elements of the game, then I'll stick with later editions.

This seems exactly backward to me. If simple, stripped-down combat is the core of the system, then complex material can be layered on top of it with minimal fuss. If complex material is the core, trying to create an "add-on" that hides all that complexity is going to be a major cluster****.

Keep in mind that "in a module" does not mean "not in the Player's Handbook." The impression I get is that the PHB is going to include both the core system and the most popular modular elements, in order to support fans of all editions out of the box.

 

[Mattachine]

This seems exactly backward to me. If simple, stripped-down combat is the core of the system, then complex material can be layered on top of it with minimal fuss. If complex material is the core, trying to create an "add-on" that hides all that complexity is going to be a major cluster****.

If both the simple core and the tactical combat system are created together, and are compatible with each other, then either one can be introduced first. I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Ratskinner]

Granted, I have no problems with an abstract, streamlined combat system being put into a module. That's fine for those who want it. But, I want the baseline to be nice and crunchy thanks. If I wanted to play a game where combat takes 10 minutes, I'd go back and play AD&D. Since I enjoy the tactical elements of the game, then I'll stick with later editions.

Sounds to me like it will go the other way:

• Combat: Gridded combat in core rulebook.
  • But as an optional module.
  • Additional tactical rules modules.

-from the info page.

Although, I'd be very surprised not to see some very 4e-ish combat modules in the big three books, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a bigger "tactical options" book come out in addition to that.

 

[Dausuul]

If both the simple core and the tactical combat system are created together, and are compatible with each other, then either one can be introduced first. I don't see a problem with that.

You can't introduce the add-ons before the core. That'd be like having the Book of Nine Swords without the Player's Handbook. You can introduce them both simultaneously, and I expect that's what will happen.

Whatever system is core will be assumed present in all modules--that's the whole point of having a core. If the simple system is core and tactical is a module, later modules can be developed with no problem. The designers can build their SpecialNewModule on the assumption that there will be basic attacks, and in most cases it won't be an issue if there are also daily powers and immediate interrupts. SpecialNewModule will be compatible with both systems.

But if the tactical system is core and the simple system is a module, it's a huge problem, because SpecialNewModule is then built on the assumption that there will be daily powers and immediate interrupts and SpecialNewModule can build other mechanics on top of those. If you use the simple system module, you can't use any other combat-related module.

Finally, there's the question of what kind of tactical system you want. You may like daily powers and immediate interrupts. I hate 'em. I'd rather see a tactical system built along the lines of Iron Heroes, with class-specific tokens rather than quasi-Vancian powers as the key resource. If simple is the core, we can both have what we want.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You can't introduce the add-ons before the core. That'd be like having the Book of Nine Swords without the Player's Handbook. You can introduce them both simultaneously, and I expect that's what will happen.

I think you have the right of it.

I think it's about time we stopped using "core" and "module" as our ways of defining what we want the base game to be, and instead use "first book" and "extra books". Because truth be told, if everything you need to mimic the feel of any past edition ALL appear in the "first book"... will any of us really care which parts get the "white space", and which parts appear in the "sidebars" or "appendices"? I know I wouldn't.

If the section on combat starts off talking about imagining in my head an attack of swinging a weapon or casting a spell and causing "damage" against some monster... and that's it... fine! Works beautifully. And then if, as I read along, I also come across sidebars that talk about how you could possibly make special attacks as an added part of the fight in addition to that basic attack (like charging, bull rushing, grabbing, knocking prone, aiding another etc.), great! Rules are right there, and they tell me how to do it if I want! And then if the combat section goes on to say that if I want to better visualize the combat in front of me by using miniatures on a gridded map (rather than in my head) I can go to Appendix A for additional rules on movement, line of sight, opportunity attacks etc., perfect! Everything I need to run varying complexity combats are right there in the "first book".

And it no longer matters which parts are considered "core" or "module".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You can't introduce the add-ons before the core. That'd be like having the Book of Nine Swords without the Player's Handbook. You can introduce them both simultaneously, and I expect that's what will happen.

If the section on combat starts off talking about imagining in my head an attack of swinging a weapon or casting a spell and causing "damage" against some monster... and that's it... fine! Works beautifully. And then if, as I read along, I also come across sidebars that talk about how you could possibly make special attacks as an added part of the fight in addition to that basic attack (like charging, bull rushing, grabbing, knocking prone, aiding another etc.), great! ...

I think that is almost right, but where I side with the thrust of Mattachine's remarks is that I'd say that they must be developed simultaneously, but can then be introduced together or as core first or as core + some options first. Or at least, there must be enough options developed with the core to make sure that the options work. Otherwise, it will be 2E kits and specialty priests again--all over the place in quality, with frequent, lousy kludges to make up for the fact that concept X wasn't even considered in the "core".

Einstein's dictum: Make things as simple as possible no simpler--seems to be something that D&D design tries to do but gets really free with the "no simpler". "Hey, we've got this mechanic that works just fine, with A, B, C, and D, and covers a lot of cases. But look, if you kind of merge B and C, you can cut out D to just a footnote by these particular parts of A. Then all the players have to do is combine A and the B/C hybrid to get what they want. What could be simpler?"

Would have been a lot better to kept the clean A, B, C, D version, and had a brief sidebar saying that if you used no options, D is largely irrelevant. In practice, we'll never get that unless there are valid options on the table to keep D in play.

I know both of you already know that, as we've talked about it before. I'm just ranting and clarifying on a pet peeve of mine, for the interest of anyone that hasn't consided what makes options actually work.

 

[Mattachine]

I contend that "simpler combat" could be the optional system. I don't see each module or system as an add-on. There can be different ways to do something-- that doesn't necessarily mean more complex.

For instance, the gridded tactical system could be the default, and a simplified system could be described as an option. Both could easily be presented in the same PHB or DMG, and the game could use one or the other, or even both, depending on the combat.

Burning Wheel does this--two combat systems are described. One is very simple, and one is very complex (think hit-locations and damage to armor). One or the other can be used in the game, or even both (one for run-of-the-mill combat and one for BBEG fights, for instance).

Again, an option or a module does not, by default, have to present "more" or "complex"; it could just as well present "less" or "different". See past the idea of a rules module as an addition. It can be a transformation, instead.