Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8705762" data-attributes="member: 18">Absolutely, this is extremely well-put, and yes I've seen both groups a ton.The second group are particularly interesting. In Indie RPGs right now we're seeing a few RPGs vaguely inspired by 4E (obviously Lancer being the biggest one), and I think from the whole 4E discourse, you'd have expected RPGs inspired by it to be serious, staid, combat-centric affairs, but that is very much not the case, these are very role-playing-heavy, narrative games, which just happen to have a very tactical combat design.Pretty much yes.Strategy is the overall plan and preparation and resource management. Stuff like how you're going to approach an encounter or dungeon beforehand is strategy, deciding what spells to memorize is strategy, even building your character is often strategy. Whereas tactics is stuff that's on the fly, particularly responding to unexpected stuff, improvising, acting outside any plan in a way that's genuinely effective (rather than Keystone Kops slapstick which is what most adventuring groups manage).Historically you often had commanders who were great at one but not the other. Like Caesar's invasion of Britain showed awful strategy, but amazing tactics in battle. His plan was outright dumb, he lost most of his ships and cavalry because he was an idiot who ignored well-known conditions he'd been advised of (almost by his own account), but the approaches he used when fighting the British (who he knew very little about) were very clever and he pulled out some victories that a lesser commander likely wouldn't have.</blockquote>

Verification