NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7035665" data-attributes="member: 6704184">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.</blockquote>

Verification