Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Parmandur]

I just wanna say that I really appreciate the way you have been breaking this stuff down in such a clear and organized way.

I also want to make clear that most fans of 4e didn't exactly examine the game at this level, but rather just played it and enjoyed it.

Yes, our games got even better when we finally read page 42 of the DMG, and even better still when we expanded on the rules there to include improvisation using your existing powers, but just changing some aspect of them. But the game was really fun for us even when we had too new an understanding of it to really start tweaking things. (A couple folks in our group are staunch proponents of the "don't houserules or homebrew until you know the game as written pretty well" philosophy)

But anyway, it's like the tactical thing. Yeah, 4e combat powers tend to have "tactical" elements, insofar as "tactical" can simply mean "more complex choices and consequences in combat than simple attacks and damage", but what we like about those powers isn't that they support tactical combat. It is everything you said in that other post that mentioned me, except we never examined it in those terms or that much detail. We just talk about how nice it is to know about how a given choice will go if it succeeds, how cool it is to have so many options both when building a character and leveling them, and in a given encounter (combat or not), etc. we don't even play tactically that often.

I do DM tactically, but that has been true since 2e, and has nothing to do with mechanics. I don't like the "glom onto a single target till it's dead, then move to the next" gameplay, so as a DM I discourage it by running monsters more tactically than the players are running their character, to push them to engage with the entire enemy force.

OK, so y'all are tactical players; nothing wrong with that, if that's your thing, but some do prefer bags of HP, kill 'em one by one style.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK, so y'all are tactical players; nothing wrong with that, if that's your thing, but some do prefer bags of HP, kill 'em one by one style.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

I think its more a matter of 'how many different viable tactical choices are there?' than anything else. You always have a bunch of possible choices in 4e. You could expend your encounter power and slow down that skirmisher, or you could flank the brute so the rogue will get SA/CA on it when he goes next, or you could move next to the wizard and discourage said brute from trying to get to him. Those are all choices, and might reasonably represent viable tactical decisions in a character's turn in 4e.

Now, in 5e you might have choices too, for example, but they might be less in number, or they might simply be less in terms of difference in effect. MOSTLY though, because the game is not being played out (presumably, though it could be) on a 'grid' there's no easy way to measure the effect of a tactical choice like 'move to flank' or 'move to block', so choices tend to devolve down to 'do the most possible damage', or 'utilize some class feature/spell that has an explicit effect, or one you can predict how the DM will play it out'.

To many of us it wasn't the specific tactics of 4e that were really important. I didn't find the exact tactical problems any more or less engaging than in other editions. It was just that there was a much greater certainty of resolution at a baseline level. So you'd be able to analyze your choices and weigh them. In at least some other editions of D&D, and depending on the way the game was played, that might not be true.

 

[Parmandur]

I think its more a matter of 'how many different viable tactical choices are there?' than anything else. You always have a bunch of possible choices in 4e. You could expend your encounter power and slow down that skirmisher, or you could flank the brute so the rogue will get SA/CA on it when he goes next, or you could move next to the wizard and discourage said brute from trying to get to him. Those are all choices, and might reasonably represent viable tactical decisions in a character's turn in 4e.

Now, in 5e you might have choices too, for example, but they might be less in number, or they might simply be less in terms of difference in effect. MOSTLY though, because the game is not being played out (presumably, though it could be) on a 'grid' there's no easy way to measure the effect of a tactical choice like 'move to flank' or 'move to block', so choices tend to devolve down to 'do the most possible damage', or 'utilize some class feature/spell that has an explicit effect, or one you can predict how the DM will play it out'.

To many of us it wasn't the specific tactics of 4e that were really important. I didn't find the exact tactical problems any more or less engaging than in other editions. It was just that there was a much greater certainty of resolution at a baseline level. So you'd be able to analyze your choices and weigh them. In at least some other editions of D&D, and depending on the way the game was played, that might not be true.

Yeah, I can see that being fun for some people; the choices in 5E, which you describe accurately, is about all I care for evaluating in play. More than that, would be rather involved for our fun.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK, so y'all are tactical players; nothing wrong with that, if that's your thing, but some do prefer bags of HP, kill 'em one by one style.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Stop putting words in my mouth. Seriously, its gotten old. Knock it off.

 

[Parmandur]

Stop putting words in my mouth. Seriously, its gotten old. Knock it off.

OK, trying to understand what you are saying, not "put words in your mouth;" and, not to put words in your mouth, I read what you just said about being a "tactical DM" and liking options with "consequences in combat" and not liking "kill one target and moving on to another" as being preference for tactical play: what do you understand by the term "tactical play?"

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I can see that being fun for some people; the choices in 5E, which you describe accurately, is about all I care for evaluating in play. More than that, would be rather involved for our fun.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

I think its also quite possible to play 4e without really engaging with the tactical depth. The GM might need to stick to encounters that emphasize other elements of the game, so maybe not unleashing a level + 5 boss with some very tactically challenging encounter design, but instead putting more emphasis on story elements and letting the challenge level find a comfortable point.

I found this to be the case with my original group of players that they didn't care to be super tactically minded players or really try to optimize their characters overly much. They did discover it was fun to engage tactics to some extent and could be rewarding, and they didn't ignore the better combat options. It was just that they would take some good combat feat because "being a bad-ass" was part of the character concept, or maybe they'd take one that was sub-optimal for the same reason. This party rarely fought the most extremely challenging possible encounters that a bunch of optimizers might need to face to be challenged. It didn't matter to the story. I mean there's ALWAYS a tougher monster you could have thrown at any party.

The point is, combats didn't have to be strictly about flanking and putting on the right buff at the right instant, etc. It could be more about "we gotta get past the orc before the rope breaks!" or something like that.

 

[Parmandur]

I think its also quite possible to play 4e without really engaging with the tactical depth. The GM might need to stick to encounters that emphasize other elements of the game, so maybe not unleashing a level + 5 boss with some very tactically challenging encounter design, but instead putting more emphasis on story elements and letting the challenge level find a comfortable point.

I found this to be the case with my original group of players that they didn't care to be super tactically minded players or really try to optimize their characters overly much. They did discover it was fun to engage tactics to some extent and could be rewarding, and they didn't ignore the better combat options. It was just that they would take some good combat feat because "being a bad-ass" was part of the character concept, or maybe they'd take one that was sub-optimal for the same reason. This party rarely fought the most extremely challenging possible encounters that a bunch of optimizers might need to face to be challenged. It didn't matter to the story. I mean there's ALWAYS a tougher monster you could have thrown at any party.

The point is, combats didn't have to be strictly about flanking and putting on the right buff at the right instant, etc. It could be more about "we gotta get past the orc before the rope breaks!" or something like that.

Yeah, and with good DMing that can be the case with any game (let alone edition), I wager.

For my circle, my brother-in-law and myself are currently the only non-newbs; and the new players find the choices in play in 5E to be option rich, and rather complex; perspective can be very different...

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, and with good DMing that can be the case with any game (let alone edition), I wager.

For my circle, my brother-in-law and myself are currently the only non-newbs; and the new players find the choices in play in 5E to be option rich, and rather complex; perspective can be very different...

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

Its hard to go in the opposite direction. With 4e you can reduce the importance of tactics, of combat generally if you wish, you could even play a version of the game where you used abstract rules for combat, treat it like an SC. I don't see a way to do the opposite with 5e. I suspect this is exactly why WotC has never even tried to fulfill the early promises of 'tactical module' and whatnot. Its not something you graft on. Not that I doubt you could create a game based on 5e that had a high emphasis on tactics, but it would be a near-total rewrite in many respects. It would have to define rules more clearly, provide some sort of objective situational representation (IE not ToTM as such), and then adjust other existing elements as needed to produce the actual interesting tactics (IE you might need to remove or modify spells, class features, etc. to produce characters that would have the interesting tactical options, and/or make changes to monsters, encounter design, etc.).

I think this is a point that lead to a lot of disappointment with 5e, that it wasn't designed with this in mind from the start and thus simply can't do it.

 

[Parmandur]

Its hard to go in the opposite direction. With 4e you can reduce the importance of tactics, of combat generally if you wish, you could even play a version of the game where you used abstract rules for combat, treat it like an SC. I don't see a way to do the opposite with 5e. I suspect this is exactly why WotC has never even tried to fulfill the early promises of 'tactical module' and whatnot. Its not something you graft on. Not that I doubt you could create a game based on 5e that had a high emphasis on tactics, but it would be a near-total rewrite in many respects. It would have to define rules more clearly, provide some sort of objective situational representation (IE not ToTM as such), and then adjust other existing elements as needed to produce the actual interesting tactics (IE you might need to remove or modify spells, class features, etc. to produce characters that would have the interesting tactical options, and/or make changes to monsters, encounter design, etc.).

I think this is a point that lead to a lot of disappointment with 5e, that it wasn't designed with this in mind from the start and thus simply can't do it.

Yeah, and I think that disappointment is fair, though I don't share it; it's still early days, who knows if a more in depth tactical approach is in the offering?

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK, trying to understand what you are saying, not "put words in your mouth;" and, not to put words in your mouth, I read what you just said about being a "tactical DM" and liking options with "consequences in combat" and not liking "kill one target and moving on to another" as being preference for tactical play: what so you understand by the term "tactical play?"

I'm not convinced that you really are trying to understand, but I'm in a lobby waiting for an appointment, so I'll bite.

As I said, I am more interested in tactics as a DM than as a player, because as the DM I believe I have a responsibility to maximize player engagement and fun, and tactical DMING is one of many tools that facilitates that *without* necessarily requiring the players to think tactically.

None of us like to focus on tactics as players. Strategy can be fun, but we find that a focus on tactics mostly just bogs things down for us.

So, what do I mean by those specific terms?

Strategy: this covers things like setting up an ambush, preparing a water trap for the fire elemental, luring the flying enemy into an area that limits flight, etc.

Tactics: in DnD, I understand tactics to refer to that sort of metagamey thing people do where you collectively organize the whole party's turns to best exploit every tactical advantage, in a style of play that is somewhat divorced from roleplaying during combat. Alternatively, it can mean that you are examining every option through the lense of "birds eye view" tactical advantage, rather than from the perspective of your character, insofar as those two are separate.

Now, tactically minded characters are a somewhat different beast, and 4e does the best job in DnD history of modeling such characters in a mechanically satisfying way. Ie, a way that makes the gameplay feel like what it is thematically representing, rather than relying entirely on player imagination to model the thematics.

I say that we are not tactical because we do not think tactically about the game while playing. We just play. that does interact with the "tactical" elements of powers, just like it always has with DnD character abilities. Bull rushing an enemy into a wall of fire in 3.5 isn't any different from using a power with forced movement to push an enemy into a wall of fire in 4e, it just has some different terminology, and the rules governing it are clearer, more reliable in terms of whether they will work without extra adjudication, etc.

The thing I don't understand is, how does that last part translate into tactics, for you? How is "the rules work more reliably without DM intervention" and "the rules and clear and consistent", etc about tactics? Bc for us, it isn't. It's just better game design, for us. Doesn't matter if that clarity is regarding complex player options or super simple ones, the clarity is a thing we like in games.