Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Tactics are an Important Part of D&D" (a poll)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8705728" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Is this really a pattern? It was 3e and 3.5e (due to full attacks, and the lack of inter-character synergy), and IMO it's true of 5e, but not 4e. 4e required teamwork, support, careful use of your resources. I have plenty of first-hand experience, much to my chagrin, with "once we got coordinated, and tactical, <em>we started winning</em>."</p><p></p><p>Separately, I'd argue TSR D&D wasn't "tactical." It was logistical--what is usually called <em>strategic</em>, not <em>tactical</em>. It leaned into the word "campaign"; each combat was a <em>battle</em>, one step in the whole <em>war</em>. WotC D&D is far more tight-focused. This has been a trend in D&D since before there was "D&D." D&D grew out of wargaming: "hit points" once measured how many "hits" a <em>squad</em> could take before being no longer fighting fit, but Chainmail turned it into a single person's ability to continue fighting. Early D&D retained that wargame ethos/conceit, hence the "FFV" epithet. But D&D has steadily done more and more of that "from an individual, low-level perspective" shift over time. In jumps and starts, to be sure, but it's a clear trend across the decades.</p><p></p><p>Old-school D&D was strategic. Note, for example, your own description here: speaking negatively about being allowed "...to blindly charge into combat." That's VERY much a strategic/logistical judgment, annoyed by a game that doesn't have strategic consequences for (claimed) unnecessary combats. Meanwhile, new-school D&D is <em>can be</em> tactical...but it often isn't. Because tactics aren't rewarded, ruthless <em>personal optimization</em> is rewarded.</p><p></p><p>I find a significant portion of the problems with D&D can be traced back to the fact that many DMs do not realize how the official rules and their personal house-rules/rulings/tweaks <em>create perverse incentives</em>. 3e/3.5e was CHOCK-FULL of perverse incentives that dragged the game away from its intended goal--which is the bigger reason why I say 3e/3.5e is a "badly designed game," beyond the implementation issues (which are a matter of <em>balance</em>, not whether the <em>design</em> is good.) A well-designed game makes it so the <em>effective</em> play choices are also (a) the <em>fun</em> play choices, and (b) the experience <em>intended</em> by the designer. Both 3e and 5e have some very big problems with rewarding players who do things that <em>are not</em> the intended design experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8705728, member: 6790260"] Is this really a pattern? It was 3e and 3.5e (due to full attacks, and the lack of inter-character synergy), and IMO it's true of 5e, but not 4e. 4e required teamwork, support, careful use of your resources. I have plenty of first-hand experience, much to my chagrin, with "once we got coordinated, and tactical, [I]we started winning[/I]." Separately, I'd argue TSR D&D wasn't "tactical." It was logistical--what is usually called [I]strategic[/I], not [I]tactical[/I]. It leaned into the word "campaign"; each combat was a [I]battle[/I], one step in the whole [I]war[/I]. WotC D&D is far more tight-focused. This has been a trend in D&D since before there was "D&D." D&D grew out of wargaming: "hit points" once measured how many "hits" a [I]squad[/I] could take before being no longer fighting fit, but Chainmail turned it into a single person's ability to continue fighting. Early D&D retained that wargame ethos/conceit, hence the "FFV" epithet. But D&D has steadily done more and more of that "from an individual, low-level perspective" shift over time. In jumps and starts, to be sure, but it's a clear trend across the decades. Old-school D&D was strategic. Note, for example, your own description here: speaking negatively about being allowed "...to blindly charge into combat." That's VERY much a strategic/logistical judgment, annoyed by a game that doesn't have strategic consequences for (claimed) unnecessary combats. Meanwhile, new-school D&D is [I]can be[/I] tactical...but it often isn't. Because tactics aren't rewarded, ruthless [I]personal optimization[/I] is rewarded. I find a significant portion of the problems with D&D can be traced back to the fact that many DMs do not realize how the official rules and their personal house-rules/rulings/tweaks [I]create perverse incentives[/I]. 3e/3.5e was CHOCK-FULL of perverse incentives that dragged the game away from its intended goal--which is the bigger reason why I say 3e/3.5e is a "badly designed game," beyond the implementation issues (which are a matter of [I]balance[/I], not whether the [I]design[/I] is good.) A well-designed game makes it so the [I]effective[/I] play choices are also (a) the [I]fun[/I] play choices, and (b) the experience [I]intended[/I] by the designer. Both 3e and 5e have some very big problems with rewarding players who do things that [I]are not[/I] the intended design experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Tactics are an Important Part of D&D" (a poll)
Top