Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4782177" data-attributes="member: 80487">The observation that D&D is generally a game not of one-on-one duels but of small unit tactics is very sound. Actually, that is rather to the point of the default level of abstraction in the old TSR editions. It plays out much like a skirmish level war game, and at a similarly brisk pace (very quickly per engagement with few figures deployed).The basic interaction of hit dice / level, armor class and hit points is meant really to answer the questions of (A) who won and (B) at what cost. As characters gain levels there tend to be increasingly more decision points between initial engagement and death. However, no more than an adequate number of those is wanted; as hit points mount, so generally (but more slowly) does the frequency of hits.As combat in itself is an obstacle on the way to the object of treasure, and wandering monsters (lacking treasure) are by design a waste of time to fight, speedy resolution -- providing for more fights per session, and more of other activities -- is highly desirable. The outcome is what is important in the shaping of subsequent strategic decisions, among which that of whether to advance, stand, retreat or flee ranks high. The central question is whether an expedition should press on with remaining resources or fall back.Micro-tactics, in the greater context of the game, are trivial. The same tactics of terrain and formation apply as in a historical game. Morale has its key place. The choice of whether to cast a spell is significant, as is the decision to use any other telling but keenly limited resource. To get down to individual lunges, ripostes and so on would in most cases just be a drag."Zooming in" on fine details of a few seconds is only occasional, and in my experience nearly always dealt with using ad hoc adjustments to the basic mechanics based on an assessment of the immediate particulars. Stratagems such as tripping, blinding or disarming tend to be regarded as gambles in the first instance and thereafter -- as opponents will be wary for the signs "telegraphing" the move -- as most unlikely of success. Effects that seem applicable for long periods, on par with having the low sun in one's eyes, are likely to produce small (e.g., +/-1 to hit) modifiers.With 3E and 4E, there has been a sort of feedback loop between the resource-allocation game of "character builds" and the combat game -- resulting in great prolongation of both, but most tellingly (because it arises repeatedly) of the latter.Perhaps that started with a desire to focus more on each fight, but again the reshaping of mechanics further reshapes priorities ... and that goes around and back again.Considering the products, I am afraid that claims that "realism is too complex and time consuming" must fall on deaf ears where I am concerned.</blockquote>

Verification