Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7021962" data-attributes="member: 996">I have to admire the fortitude you display in taking on such a fraught subject....&nbsp;I don't dispute that if you use say 2e (which was getting very storytellerish in some ways), ignoring C&amp;T, as the baseline, 4e is radically more 'tactical' (as well as better balanced, clearer, and more player-oriented, etc).&nbsp; But, IMHO, the tactical aspect was very much there in 1e (and I suspect 0D&amp;D, wargame that it professed to be), area and positioning mattered /a lot/ in 1e, when spell AEs were tightly defined and dangerous to allies, for instance.&nbsp;&nbsp; Furthermore, that difference was one of evolutionary change.&nbsp; 2e pulled away from wargaming and dungeoncrawling roots and hedged a bit towards storytelling and setting-first.&nbsp; In spite of that 2e C&amp;T brought in and re-emphasized tactics.&nbsp; 3e went 'back to the dungeon' and gave us more &amp; better tactical aspects in combat, building on C&amp;T.&nbsp; 4e further built on that.&nbsp; Also, 4e wasn't more focused on combat (tactical or otherwise) than past editions, in fact, it was the first edition to try to handle non-combat in a more whole-party-involvement, complex/interesting way.Finally, strategy could come into 4e, it just didn't consist of winning chargen or presciently choosing the to memorize the right 'I win button' that morning.&nbsp; That is an interesting insight, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7021962, member: 996"] I have to admire the fortitude you display in taking on such a fraught subject.... I don't dispute that if you use say 2e (which was getting very storytellerish in some ways), ignoring C&T, as the baseline, 4e is radically more 'tactical' (as well as better balanced, clearer, and more player-oriented, etc). But, IMHO, the tactical aspect was very much there in 1e (and I suspect 0D&D, wargame that it professed to be), area and positioning mattered /a lot/ in 1e, when spell AEs were tightly defined and dangerous to allies, for instance. Furthermore, that difference was one of evolutionary change. 2e pulled away from wargaming and dungeoncrawling roots and hedged a bit towards storytelling and setting-first. In spite of that 2e C&T brought in and re-emphasized tactics. 3e went 'back to the dungeon' and gave us more & better tactical aspects in combat, building on C&T. 4e further built on that. Also, 4e wasn't more focused on combat (tactical or otherwise) than past editions, in fact, it was the first edition to try to handle non-combat in a more whole-party-involvement, complex/interesting way. Finally, strategy could come into 4e, it just didn't consist of winning chargen or presciently choosing the to memorize the right 'I win button' that morning. That is an interesting insight, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification