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

[Raven Crowking]

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

Bigger wall, though.

Well, except for minions.

 

[Stormonu]

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.

Considering over half the point of RPGs is making stuff up (otherwise, we'd all run pregen characters and there wouldn't be things like monster creation rules or page 42), I think you are unfairly discounting it as being a tactical decision.

 

[The Shaman]

Considering over half the point of RPGs is making stuff up (otherwise, we'd all run pregen characters and there wouldn't be things like monster creation rules or page 42), I think you are unfairly discounting it as being a tactical decision.

There's also an argument to be made that one approach encourages players to think in terms of what's on their character sheets and the other encourages players to think in terms of what they want to their characters to do.

I run into this with new players sometime, either people new to gaming or gamers learning a different system - rather than looking at their character sheets, I'll say, "Just tell me what you want you character to do, and we'll figure out how to make it work."

I am Page Forty-two.

 

[invokethehojo]

I am Page Forty-two.

There is no spoon.

 

[Stormonu]

An example to expound on my last statement.

A rogue uses a power (forgive me, I don't the 4E powers by name) to hit a target and move it, say, two spaces back.

The fighter then tells the DM he wants to shoulder charge the nearby pillar and drop it on the moved opponent's head.

Are you going to count the rogue's power as a tactical decision but not the fighters action because it wasn't encapsulated in a prepackaged power? I'm sure we'd all call shennaigans if you did.

 

[Dannager]

Considering over half the point of RPGs is making stuff up (otherwise, we'd all run pregen characters and there wouldn't be things like monster creation rules or page 42), I think you are unfairly discounting it as being a tactical decision.

I'm not discounting it as a tactical decision. I'm saying that, because you can make stuff up in any game, including make stuff up in our comparison is not worthwhile. It gives the model the impression that all games are suddenly tactically equivalent when we know that this is not the case because some games are quite obviously played more tactically than others. Because comparing the system design is the only concrete way of distinguishing tactical complexity between games without comparing actual play (which is prohibitively difficult anyway), that's what we're basing our comparisons off of.

An example to expound on my last statement.

A rogue uses a power (forgive me, I don't the 4E powers by name) to hit a target and move it, say, two spaces back.

The fighter then tells the DM he wants to shoulder charge the nearby pillar and drop it on the moved opponent's head.

Are you going to count the rogue's power as a tactical decision but not the fighters action because it wasn't encapsulated in a prepackaged power? I'm sure we'd all call shennaigans if you did.

No, I'm going to say both are tactical decisions. The fighter's action, however, should not be considered part of the tactical complexity of the game and the game system, however, because you can make stuff up in any edition of the game (now, arguably, it's easier to make stuff up in 4e because of the versatility of page 42 and the DC vs. damage charts, so even if we were to include this it would probably work in favor of 4e facilitating tactical play better anyway).

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm not discounting it as a tactical decision. I'm saying that, because you can make stuff up in any game, including make stuff up in our comparison is not worthwhile. It gives the model the impression that all games are suddenly tactically equivalent when we know that this is not the case because some games are quite obviously played more tactically than others. Because comparing the system design is the only concrete way of distinguishing tactical complexity between games without comparing actual play (which is prohibitively difficult anyway), that's what we're basing our comparisons off of.

Do you feel this argument also applies to the depth of RPing engendered by a rule system also?

 

[Dannager]

Do you feel this argument also applies to the depth of RPing engendered by a rule system also?

I believe that you can certainly compare the codified rules for roleplaying that various systems contain in order to determine which places a stronger emphasis on roleplaying in its design. I think it's probably much easier to figure out which rules encourage tactical play than it is to identify rules that encourage roleplaying, though.

 

[nedjer]

I believe that you can certainly compare the codified rules for roleplaying that various systems contain in order to determine which places a stronger emphasis on roleplaying in its design. I think it's probably much easier to figure out which rules encourage tactical play than it is to identify rules that encourage roleplaying, though.

In a RPG tactical play is maybe a subset of or subordinate to roleplaying rather than a parallel? Just as in an Airfix wargame any 'I'm Napoleon' roleplaying is subordinate to the tactical play.

 

[MrGrenadine]

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.

But thats a good point isn't it? Your contention was that having specific powers that do specific things makes the game more tactical. However, if my character from an early edition game can do everything that your character can do with specific powers can do, (just by deciding to), and the ability to decide what I want to do is intrinsic to the design of the system, then the systems are nearly identically tactical, right?

Depending on how tactically the players approach the early edition game, of course.