Tactical Boardgame?

[Irda Ranger]

Dungeons and Dragons has always been a tactical wargame.

I think it's slightly more accurate to say that "Tactical combat has always been a mini-game within the larger game of Dungeons & Dragons." It's like FF8*, where you have the over-arching plot but also the mini-games of monster combat and that weird trading card game. Similarly 4E D&D is an RPG with mini-games of Social Encounters and Monster Encounters.

I do think, however, that 4th edition focuses more on these tactical elements than any other edition.

I really don't see that. We've had 10x10 rooms since day 1, and while the rules have come to rely on that a bit more since 1973, I haven't seen anything to make me think 4E is more tactical than 3.x

And keep in mind, I'm not sure that even if 4E is more tactical that this would be a bad thing. The tactical combat mini-game is fairly important part of D&D as a percentage of time spent at the table. I sure hope the 4E devs have spent a lot of time and effort making sure its done right.

I do find it interesting that none of the reports from D&D Experience that I have read mention anything about role-playing. Did any go on? Did people talk in character or plot with fellow part members or try to reason with the kobolds or dragons or whatnot?

I'd be really, really surprised if there was too much RP going on. As an honest question, have you ever gamed at a Con with a bunch of strangers and a pre-gen character? I've only done it a couple times, but when I did my own RP contributions probably dropped 80% from when I game with friends. I just don't know my character well, or anyone else's either, so the only way to interact "within the context of the game" is combat. There just isn't time to get to know people.



*Not a bad thing.

 

[Irda Ranger]

The difference is that in 4E, many more classes require the use of some sort of marking system.

In 1e/2E, you could play a non-spellcaster and ...

It's a lousy argument to say that 4E is more "boardgamey" because most classes need to look at the board, rather than just some. It's a group game. Either the group as a whole needs the a "board" or it doesn't. From experience I can say that AD&D 2E and D&D 3E were both a lot easier to adjudicate when using a board, so I don't see why 4E is any worse. As long as we've got Fireball and cone-shaped breath weapons, we've got a need for the board.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm guessing that WotC didn't make it explicitly obvious that this was just a demonstration of the new combat mechanisms and not the whole game.

Just how obvious did they have to make it? Wasn't the fact that the Social Encounters rules were not distributed enough of a clue? Maybe WotC figured that presenting an "adventure" that was nothing more than six combats in a direct row was enough of a hint that this was solely a preview of the combat section?

Could WotC have included the Social Encounter rules and a couple Social Encounter rules? Sure. But they didn't.

Here's the OP's point:

Valid Criticism: "Well, I've run through a couple playtest combats, and based on my experience the Ranger appears to be too powerful in all combat situations relative to the other PCs." This would be valid because the player has seen a variety of PCs and a variety of tactical situations; enough to form a tentative opinion.

Non-Valid Criticism: "Well, I've run through a couple playtest combats, and clearly there is too much focus on combat in 4E." This doesn't compute because the commenter has to direct experience with the non-combat parts of the game. It's not enough to know one thing to make a comparison; you have to know at least two things. It would be as invalid to say "Rituals just aren't good enough to replace the spell list's shortcomings." How could you possibly know that yet.

This seems to have opened them up to a great deal of possibly unwarranted criticism

Non-valid criticism, more like, for the reasons outlined above.

however it is not neccesarily the citics fault.

If you're commenting on things you have no information about, that's your fault.

IMHO it would have been best for WotC to be very clear that it was just the combat mechanic that they where showing not the whole game. Maybe a bit of a slip up marketing wise.

This could well be.


Relatedly ....

I guess the OP's criticism, while valid in some ways, bugs me the same way as the "you can't decide you wouldn't like [show X] just because every ad for it you see is completely unappealing - it's not really like that!" comments I used to get on some programs bugged me. If the ONLY info I have on something is coming from people whose goal is to get me to like it, and I don't like it, why should I put in the extra effort to sell their product for them?

That wasn't the OPs point at all. Forming opinions based on information you have is fine. It's forming opinions based on information you don't have that the OP is complaining about.

The Complaint: 4E overly focuses on tactical combat.

The Problem With The Complaint: Until you've seen the game as a whole, you can't know whether too much effort (or page count) has been spent on any one part. It's inherantly a holistic exercise to say "Too much was committed to X."

 

[Irda Ranger]

Heroquest has victory conditions.

And now D&D has Quest Cards with XP 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.

Any D&D DM could use and abuse omniscience too. It's all a question of the constraints you place on yourself.

I've never played Heroquest and frankly don't know anything about it, but you're gonna have to do better than that to distinguish it from D&D!

 

[thewok]

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.

I play in two groups in which the DMs do not use minis or grids for combat. When I DM, I save the battle mat for major encounters, and even then, the focus is less on the board and more on the game itself.

I've seen nothing in 4E that will force me to change my DMing ways. Flanking still works the same way, "Shifting" still works the same, and so on.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I've always been dissatisfied with the disconnect between combat and the rest of the game in 3E/3.5.

When we game, the DM (currently that's me for the D&D game) typically describes the scene and presents NPCs to interact with, which the players do, talking to NPCs and each other in character. Then we get into a combat situation, the maps and miniatures come out, we roll initiative, and for the next 30 to 45 minutes we're reduced to moving little miniatures around the map until combat is over.

This is a really astute comment. It probably deserves its own thread somewhere. But since you made the comment here ...

This is a problem I have noticed as well. The disconnect is jarring. Particularly if I haven't looked at the battlemap at all in the last 2-3 hours. It's really a lot like the transition from overland map mode in Final Fantasy to combat mode.

Roleplaying typically stops for us when combat begins, and that irks me.

Me too.

Part of it is connected to how well the combat is integrated into the story. In my current campaign there have been a lot of exciting combats, but the ones I remember the most vividly (and were totally non-jarring when they happened) were the ones that had the most plot relevance.

The least jarring fight of all, and one I remember the most fondly, was a fight where we all almost died and would have TPK'ed if we hadn't used our McGuffin to pull our bacon out of the fire. But that was OK, because we'd been carrying that McGuffin for months in game (and IRL) just in anticipation of that one fight. It was very satisfying to use it, and to see the BBEG get his what-for from the deus ex machina we called down on his ass.

So that's part of it. Don't spend too much time on random fights unless your players are explicitly looking for a Turn-Based Tactical Wargame.

But you know what? For the life of me, I can't think of an easy fix that could be hardwired into the rules. I know there's got to be a better way to marry up the non-combat portions of the game to the combat portions, but since I'm not a game designer I'm not seeing it. So it looks like it will continue to be a part of the game I suffer with.

Perhaps there needs to be a few table rules about keeping the RP alive in combat too.

• The PC's Rule 0: You don't have to fight. You can always try to put your hands up and talk, thus temporarily suspending combat and voiding the initiative roll.
• In combat, use Diplomacy as be a Minor Action to try and talk your way out of a fight.
• In combat, use Insight as a Move Action to determine your enemies "true" motives (Hint: Most people don't want to kill you as an end in itself, most want something else - which means you can then bargain). Success means the DM must give you a clue.
• Write down your plot-driven goals (Max: 5 for the group (e.g., rescue Dwarven hostages)). Anyone who achieves one of these goals while in combat can shout "Quest complete!"; everyone gets an immediate and free (morale driven) Healing Surge and Action Point.

 

[Spatula]

Could WotC have included the Social Encounter rules and a couple Social Encounter rules? Sure. But they didn't.

I thought that was the "Escape from Sembia" scenario at DDXP. Which we haven't heard a whole lot about... Perhaps most people were more interested in fighting a dragon.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'd be really, really surprised if there was too much RP going on. As an honest question, have you ever gamed at a Con with a bunch of strangers and a pre-gen character? I've only done it a couple times, but when I did my own RP contributions probably dropped 80% from when I game with friends. I just don't know my character well, or anyone else's either, so the only way to interact "within the context of the game" is combat. There just isn't time to get to know people.

I have gamed at a convention with a pregenerated character and a group of strangers. You are right that I did not roleplay as much as I would have if I had been with my friends, but I still did plenty of roleplaying. Of course, I wasn't trying out a nifty new set of rules, either.

Comfort fosters roleplaying. Brand new rules and brand new people probably didn't foster this kind of environment at all.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I play in two groups in which the DMs do not use minis or grids for combat. When I DM, I save the battle mat for major encounters, and even then, the focus is less on the board and more on the game itself.

I've seen nothing in 4E that will force me to change my DMing ways. Flanking still works the same way, "Shifting" still works the same, and so on.

This is why I have trouble taking the "4e has turned D&D into a tactical boardgame" argument seriously. Every element that requires a battle mat is already present in 3e. Now, if people were saying "3e turned D&D into a tactical boardgame", I'd have to at least partially agree. In the groups I play in, we never used miniatures before we started playing 3e.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Dungeons and Dragons has always been a tactical wargame. That doesn't make it any less of a role-playing game.

I do think, however, that 4th edition focuses more on these tactical elements than any other edition.

I do find it interesting that none of the reports from D&D Experience that I have read mention anything about role-playing. Did any go on? Did people talk in character or plot with fellow part members or try to reason with the kobolds or dragons or whatnot?

I guess most people were too caught up with the new mechanics to mention this in their reports. I'd very much like to hear about these aspects of the games, though.

But, does it really matter?

I have always said (since I started playing) that the only rules needed for any given rpg are the combat rules, and by extension, character creation rules... everything else can be handwaved and roleplayed by experienced players.

Now if 4th edition has a flexible-yet-straightforward combat system (as it seems to have), then I don't see why you cant have a few sessions filled with exciting combat, followed by a few other sessions chock-full of Machiavellian intrigue where the DM doesn't even roll out the battlemat...

I thought that was the "Escape from Sembia" scenario at DDXP. Which we haven't heard a whole lot about... Perhaps most people were more interested in fighting a dragon.

You mean there was more than one scenario? I hadn't even heard of that one!