Tired of hearing people hate on longer battle times in strategic RPG's

[cignus_pfaccari]

GURPS combat is deadly and often doesn't last too long in terms of the number of rounds but as I've said before there's tons of options. In 4E there's no real mechanics for crippling an opponents limb or just going for a head shot. You hope for your 5% chance to score a critical hit which gets hand waved as "a strong blow to the head". In GURPS you can just make a called shot on someone's neck and go all Highlander on them. Cutting damage is doubled on a neck attack and it's rarely armored.

You know, this almost sounds like Whoever Hits First Usually Wins. Is that correct? Maybe better-put as Whoever Is Hit Last Wins?

(Kind of reminds me of SR2, with its Speed Is Life mantra. Hell, my first GM applied the wound penalties to resisting damage, which was remarkably mean.)

Brad

 

[Argyle King]

You know, this almost sounds like Whoever Hits First Usually Wins. Is that correct? Maybe better-put as Whoever Is Hit Last Wins?

(Kind of reminds me of SR2, with its Speed Is Life mantra. Hell, my first GM applied the wound penalties to resisting damage, which was remarkably mean.)

Brad

One big thing to point out is that GURPS does not assume you get hit. The defender doesn't just stand there and get hit, he has the opportunity to dodge, parry, or block.

This is where tactics come into play. Do I go for the knockout punch right away? Do I take a chance on the harder to hit, but lesser armored target? Do I instead go for the sure thing and wait for an opening? A lot of things come into play. Robot's previous example used two foes who had similar weapons and armor; things change even more if (arbitrary made up example ahead...) we have one of the warriors using a rapier and the other is using a flail.

 

[pawsplay]

You know, this almost sounds like Whoever Hits First Usually Wins. Is that correct? Maybe better-put as Whoever Is Hit Last Wins?

That really depends. You could take a hit, then respond (at -4 to hit) with an All-Out Attack and make two strikes; with a decent skill, you may hit twice, putting your opponent out of commission. Also, at 150+ points, some characters can take hits. Armor makes a difference, but then tactics versus armor makes a difference, too.

So, no. But hitting first is usually a very strong opener. Especially without armor (I hope that goes without saying).

 

[giant.robot]

One big thing to point out is that GURPS does not assume you get hit. The defender doesn't just stand there and get hit, he has the opportunity to dodge, parry, or block.

This is where tactics come into play. Do I go for the knockout punch right away? Do I take a chance on the harder to hit, but lesser armored target? Do I instead go for the sure thing and wait for an opening? A lot of things come into play. Robot's previous example used two foes who had similar weapons and armor; things change even more if (arbitrary made up example ahead...) we have one of the warriors using a rapier and the other is using a flail.

This is it exactly. My example was completely contrived but events could have taken a totally different turn had the dice rolled differently (I did roll to see how things would go). The impaler in my example might have been able to turn things around had he parried the crippler's attack or the attack not done enough damage to stun him. Even if the die rolls are against you superior tactics or strategy can still win the day. Other times your superior tactics are no match for bad luck.

I think active defenses also a lot to the tactical aspect of the game. Instead of hand waving defense as a single AC score a character can take different defensive reactions. Dodging an attack from a flail makes sense if you've got a rapier but maybe a parry puts you in a better counterattack position if you have a shield. Different weapons also offer advantages over different armor types rather than just having a different die code.

D&D for a lot of reasons has abstracted a lot of details into static scores or simplified die rolls. There's nothing wrong with this form of game design and I certainly enjoy playing D&D. At the same time it's not the most tactically fulfilling game in the way most people would define tactics. D&D tactics are valid tactics in the context of the D&D rules but sometimes don't make complete sense if you're thinking about those actions "in the real world". Tactics in GURPS tend to look like tactics two real sword fighters would use in combat.

D&D isn't meant to model reality but there's times when it can be hard to visualize what a game concept because it's so abstract. How do you describe a Defender's Aura or a mark to somebody? What exactly is a second wind? How does an attack with an arrow slide a targe 2 squares (10 feet)? These are abstract game concepts that make sense on a map grid but require some mental gymnastics to visualize or describe. This is where a system with more explicit models and less abstractions can be very attractive.

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D for a lot of reasons has abstracted a lot of details into static scores or simplified die rolls. There's nothing wrong with this form of game design and I certainly enjoy playing D&D. At the same time it's not the most tactically fulfilling game in the way most people would define tactics. D&D tactics are valid tactics in the context of the D&D rules but sometimes don't make complete sense if you're thinking about those actions "in the real world". Tactics in GURPS tend to look like tactics two real sword fighters would use in combat.

D&D isn't meant to model reality but there's times when it can be hard to visualize what a game concept because it's so abstract. How do you describe a Defender's Aura or a mark to somebody? What exactly is a second wind? How does an attack with an arrow slide a targe 2 squares (10 feet)? These are abstract game concepts that make sense on a map grid but require some mental gymnastics to visualize or describe. This is where a system with more explicit models and less abstractions can be very attractive.

This is the basic truth of the tactical issue right here. D&D features an abstract combat system that was originally designed to be simple and fast. Adding more detail and complexity to that simple framework chips away at all the benefits that an abstract system provides and still doesn't provide tactical options that have any traction outside the metagame definitions.

A combat system featuring good tactical support needs to be designed that way from the ground up. The AC/HP system was never designed to simulate a tactical blow by blow form of combat. Attempts to do so over the years have just made the system heavier and more cumbersome.

In a tactical encounter I like to have options with meaningful differences. When a mad berserker is charging an ally I want the opportunity to put an arrow in his eye to stop him dead in his tracks. If I am fighting a faster opponent then I want to try and cripple his leg in case he runs.

HP attrition vs static defense is what it is. At its core the abstaction remains.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Oh? Let's test that. List all the choices a 1e character has to make during a typical turn. For simplicity's sake, let's use 1st level Fighters.

In 4e, the tactical choices a 1st level Fighter must make are as follows:

Moving on your turn?
Double moving on your turn?
Are you running?
Where are you moving to? (bearing in mind that every individual square bears tactical significance, something that is not true of most previous editions of the game)
Will your movement provoke opportunity attacks?
Are you shifting?
Is your movement occurring before or after your standard action, if you are taking one?
Will you be attacking?
If so, attacking whom? (bearing in mind that your average 4e encounter includes roughly 5 monsters, sometimes more, sometimes less, and you need to consider not only the damage you will be dealing, but additional effects and how your mark will affect things)
With which of your attack powers (of which you will typically have between 4 and 6 to choose between)?
If this is a Close or Area power, how will you place the area of effect?
Will your attack provoke an opportunity attack?
If there is an additional decision to be made as part of your attack power (forced movement, for example), how will you handle that? (again, bearing in mind that each individual square on the battlefield has tactical significance)
If you are not attacking, will you be using your Second Wind?
Will you be taking a minor action?
If so, at what point during your turn will you be using it?
What will your minor action be? A potion? A racial power? Some other action?

I'm sure I'm forgetting quite a few.

4e is a tactically deep game. It easily gives you double the number of meaningful decision points that early editions did, especially for classes that were typically more "mindless".

I respectfully disagree that 4e gives double the meaningful decision points. Just because there was no specific rule for an action or situation in early editions of the game, doesn't mean characters couldn't do that action or create/respond to that situation, or that the DM couldn't effectively adjudicate the same.

So while you can list dozens of actions and situations that 4e has a specific rule for, my list would only be limited by what I could think up, given my character's motivation and equipment, the terrain, and anything else in play.

And yes, this is true even of the fighters I played.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I respectfully disagree that 4e gives double the meaningful decision points. Just because there was no specific rule for an action or situation in early editions of the game, doesn't mean characters couldn't do that action or create/respond to that situation, or that the DM couldn't effectively adjudicate the same.

So while you can list dozens of actions and situations that 4e has a specific rule for, my list would only be limited by what I could think up, given my character's motivation and equipment, the terrain, and anything else in play.

And yes, this is true even of the fighters I played.

Well I believe McGrenadine was listing all the actions you have listed in the game rules. Obviously, 4E gives you more game actions to work with.

If you're going into the whole stunting thing, 4E can do that too. The infamous page 42 provides guidelines for that. You can also use all the different powers as a guide to stunt whatever you want to do.

If you feel 4E discourages stunting more then earlier editions, then you're free to think that.

 

[Dannager]

I respectfully disagree that 4e gives double the meaningful decision points. Just because there was no specific rule for an action or situation in early editions of the game, doesn't mean characters couldn't do that action or create/respond to that situation, or that the DM couldn't effectively adjudicate the same.

So while you can list dozens of actions and situations that 4e has a specific rule for, my list would only be limited by what I could think up, given my character's motivation and equipment, the terrain, and anything else in play.

And yes, this is true even of the fighters I played.

If you just want to include making stuff up, then every game suddenly becomes tactically identical, because you're free to try and make stuff up in any game. Except, of course, we know that's not true. My whole argument was that the system of 4e, and the game of 4e was designed to be more tactical, and as a result it typically plays in a more tactical fashion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well I believe McGrenadine was listing all the actions you have listed in the game rules. Obviously, 4E gives you more game actions to work with.

If you're going into the whole stunting thing, 4E can do that too. The infamous page 42 provides guidelines for that. You can also use all the different powers as a guide to stunt whatever you want to do.

If you feel 4E discourages stunting more then earlier editions, then you're free to think that.

More game actions but all leading to the same and only conclusion-beat on the wall of hit points and reduce them to zero.

 

[Dannager]

More game actions but all leading to the same and only conclusion-beat on the wall of hit points and reduce them to zero.

Presumably, this will be followed by you explaining that, in earlier editions of D&D, things were different, yes?

Besides, a single victory condition doesn't necessarily mean a less tactical game. Chess has a single victory condition.