Tactical Boardgame?

[Incenjucar]

So, what other boardgames can you point at some logs and set them on fire, or one-shot a bunch of pigs for making sausages out of, or point at a warm beer and make it a frosty beer?

Because you'll be able to do that with those wizard spells.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Prior to 3e, tactical combat wasn't hard-wired into the rules. It was there in a low-key way, like distances being measured in inches in 1e, but those quirks were easily ignored. The old '83 Red Box Basic Set even stated on its boxcover that no board was required and the game was played entirely in the player's imagination.

I understand that a lot of players like tactical combat. I think there is, however, a sizable segment of the D&D fan base that doesn't like tactical combat. Prior to 3e, you could play either way- with or without minis. The rules supported both play styles. 3e made the game much more difficult to play without minis, but it could still be done in a kludgy kind of way. There are a lot of ideas in 4e that I like, but if running it without minis and a grid isn't feasible, that's a deal-breaker for me... and possibly quite a few others.

 

[Betote]

Personally, I don't think that D&D is a boardgame. Boardgames usually only have one kind of boad, which is reused over and over. D&D, when it does use a gridded map or whatnot, usually involves different environments every time. Of coures, Paizo does sell maps with specific environments on them, and WotC sells those tiles. Hmmm. Maybe it's not so clear cut....

So, by that definition... Are you saying Settlers of Catan is not a boardgame?

 

[Mephistopheles]

In some sense, I agree with you. But in another sense, people should have enough sense to realize that they're judging something about which they have incomplete knowledge. It's one thing to say "the 4E combat rules seem board-gamey to me", quite another to say "4E is a board game!" It's the second one that's unfair, not the first.

I'm seeing this argument very often in response to people expressing that they don't like what they're hearing about 4E. Not so much in response to people expressing that they like what they're hearing about 4E. It should be equally valid in both cases, no? And if so, then the argument leaves little point to discussing what we know of 4E at all until we know everything about it.

 

[Kishin]

D&D combat has always been boardgame-y. It has its roots in it, after all. Complaining about boardgame elements to D&D combat is like complaining that you have to use a Light Gun to play Duck Hunt, IMO. Certain things are part and parcel.

Also, mechanics and roleplaying are independent of one another. I've never, ever seen a case where the mechanics of a system impair the potential for roleplaying within it.

In short, I'm inclined to believe that 'D&D is too tactical wargame-y!' is, as many others have now said 'D&D is too anime!' or 'D&D is too videogame-y!'

 

[WheresMyD20]

D&D combat has always been boardgame-y. It has its roots in it, after all. Complaining about boardgame elements to D&D combat is like complaining that you have to use a Light Gun to play Duck Hunt, IMO. Certain things are part and parcel.

Also, mechanics and roleplaying are independent of one another. I've never, ever seen a case where the mechanics of a system impair the potential for roleplaying within it.

In short, I'm inclined to believe that 'D&D is too tactical wargame-y!' is, as many others have now said 'D&D is too anime!' or 'D&D is too videogame-y!'

Yes, D&D evolved from Chainmail, but prior to 3e, D&D combat wasn't boardgame-y unless you wanted it to be. The use of miniatures was not assumed by the rules. They were not "part and parcel". In fact, the old BECMI sets printed right on their cover that no board was necessary and all the action took place in the imagination of the player.

The Duck Hunt and lightgun analogy is completely incorrect. Many of the early editions of D&D were quite playable without miniatures and a grid. In fact, some of the old editions had no rules for miniatures at all.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Heh, as the originator of that anime thread, I'll accept the stroke to my ego.

It generally boils down to the same thing though. People find a buzzword for whatever they think is wrong, it gets beaten to death and then used more even when it's been repeatedly shown to be utterly without merit. It becomes a code word for, "I don't like this, it sucks." Which, in itself is a fallacy since it conflates quality with personal taste.

There are several reasons that D&D does not qualify as a boardgame.

• Even if the map was exactly the same for every encounter, the existence of an ongoing storyline removes it from a boardgame.
• The purpose of the battlemap, the board in D&D, is not to play the game. The purpose of the battlemap is simply to adjudicate the action which occurs in the imagination of the players.
• Board games always (or nearly always) begin from the same starting point every time you play. D&D never does.
• Even if combat is played out on a board, the purpose of the combat is not to play that game on the board, but to resolve the actions in the imagination space of the players. In a board game, the purpose of the board is to be played on. Without the board, the game ceases to exist.

That last one isn't articulated very well. What I mean is, even though we break out the battle map and resolve the combat on that mat, the purpose of the combat in the context of the game isn't simply to engage in the mini-game of combat, but to further the ongoing plot of the RPG. Now, that plot could be as simple as, "explore the dungeon and kill everything you meet" that's true, but, I think, many times there is a larger narrative informing the action.

I don't mean to pick on you, but you've got that nice list which which is easy to point to. I think at least some people on both sides are misunderstanding what was originally meant by "board game", Chris Pramas, one of the people who really started this, refered to Descent: Journeys in the Dark, which, while I haven't played it is I believe very similar to games like Heroquest (which I believe was mentioned by someone else) and Warhammer Quest, which, for people who don't know, are essentially like a miniatures game, except everyone controls one character who advances over time going into different different dungeons represented by a different board setup with an ongoing plot with (occasionaly) recurring bad guys.

The difference between this and pretty much all early D&D modules is 99% perspective, of how you think about and approach what everything represents. The difference between one of these games and most actual D&D games is the existence of a world outside of a dungeon for the players to interact with, not any details to do with combat rules.

Or to put it another way, "4e is a boardgame" is "4e is a minatures combat" except the things it's being compared to were much closer to D&D in the first place.

 

[Enoch]

I don't mean to pick on you, but you've got that nice list which which is easy to point to. I think at least some people on both sides are misunderstanding what was originally meant by "board game", Chris Pramas, one of the people who really started this, refered to Descent: Journeys in the Dark, which, while I haven't played it is I believe very similar to games like Heroquest (which I believe was mentioned by someone else) and Warhammer Quest, which, for people who don't know, are essentially like a miniatures game, except everyone controls one character who advances over time going into different different dungeons represented by a different board setup with an ongoing plot with (occasionaly) recurring bad guys.

I disagree entirely. There is a huge difference between games like Heroquest and D&D. Heroquest has victory conditions. I as the GM (or whatever it was called, maybe Zoltan or something) could maneuver my enemies in an entirely unrealistic manner. If one of the players 'activates' a monster I can send that monster after a character that the monster hasn't even 'seen'. There is no role playing in anyway other than moving my game piece.

 

[Imban]

I disagree entirely. There is a huge difference between games like Heroquest and D&D. Heroquest has victory conditions. I as the GM (or whatever it was called, maybe Zoltan or something) could maneuver my enemies in an entirely unrealistic manner. If one of the players 'activates' a monster I can send that monster after a character that the monster hasn't even 'seen'. There is no role playing in anyway other than moving my game piece.

As a former avid player of HeroQuest and a former but less avid player of TSR's own DragonStrike, I can tell you that there's not much difference at all between HeroQuest, DragonStrike, and certain ways of playing D&D.

I'm not sure what you mean by maneuvering enemies in an entirely unrealistic manner - you mean the Zargon / (I forget what he's called in DragonStrike) player deciding to use metagame information, or disregard that monsters placed on the board may not have seen all of the heroes? Er, you can do that in D&D too, and not do that in HeroQuest, and I'd be surprised if 3.5e or the upcoming 4e really reinforced that you shouldn't.

And roleplaying? Conversing with NPCs - "social" encounters, of a sort - was part of DragonStrike. I've also seen it in a few fanmade HeroQuest quest packs.

EDIT: As far as victory conditions go, they're pretty compatible with D&D, especially in HeroQuest - victory for the PCs is clearing out the dungeon level, victory for the DM is killing the PCs.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I disagree entirely. There is a huge difference between games like Heroquest and D&D. Heroquest has victory conditions. I as the GM (or whatever it was called, maybe Zoltan or something) could maneuver my enemies in an entirely unrealistic manner. If one of the players 'activates' a monster I can send that monster after a character that the monster hasn't even 'seen'. There is no role playing in anyway other than moving my game piece.

The victory conditions are for specific dungeons, they grant extra gold, which in heroquest are "advancement points" in D&D those would be goals or quests, which grant gold and xp or "advancement points". You can certainly "beat" certainly a dungeon or a storyline, just like you can "beat" a module after achieving certain conditions. You cannot "beat" the game heroquest, however (admittedly, you can get to point where advancement points no longer help you, but this, again, is much the same as D&D).

Admittedly, the idea that monsters can go after characters they don't know about is a large difference, that would be matter of perception I was talking about, the perception that monsters do not "represent" anything, they are just pieces on a board.