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

[Dannager]

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.

And, again, for the third time in the last two pages, this argument makes every game tactically identical because you can make things up in every game. We know, however, that all games are not tactically identical, and that all games are not played in a tactically identical fashion. Therefore, the argument that all games are made tactically identical by the inherent ability of people to make things up does not hold water.

 

[Dannager]

In a RPG tactical play is maybe a subset of or subordinate to roleplaying rather than a parallel?

I don't think that the term "RPG" is well enough defined (anywhere, really) to be able to say something like that.

 

[nedjer]

I don't think that the term "RPG" is well enough defined (anywhere, really) to be able to say something like that.

In that case may I offer a starting point:

Originally Posted by nedjer
In a RPG tactical play is maybe a subset of or subordinate to roleplaying rather than a parallel?


According to this formative definition tactical play is the equal of exploration, mystery, shared storytelling, intrigue, discovery and challenge-focused play. You could, therefore, play a RPG for years without ever using tactical play. But you could not play a RPG without roleplaying?

 

[MrGrenadine]

And, again, for the third time in the last two pages, this argument makes every game tactically identical because you can make things up in every game. We know, however, that all games are not tactically identical, and that all games are not played in a tactically identical fashion. Therefore, the argument that all games are made tactically identical by the inherent ability of people to make things up does not hold water.

Um, yes, and for the third time in the last two pages...I'm not talking about all games. Allow me to reiterate my point:

You compared 1e and 4e, and stated that the power system in 4e makes it richer tactically.

My point is that characters in 1e can do whatever characters can do in 4e, so the two systems are tactically similar. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that in some cases, NOT leaning on the crutch of a set of defined powers allows players to have more of a big picture view of the combat leading to a tactically richer experience.

I understand that you disagree, though, so no need to repeat yourself.

 

[Dannager]

In that case may I offer a starting point:

Originally Posted by nedjer
In a RPG tactical play is maybe a subset of or subordinate to roleplaying rather than a parallel?


According to this formative definition tactical play is the equal of exploration, mystery, shared storytelling, intrigue, discovery and challenge-focused play. You could, therefore, play a RPG for years without ever using tactical play. But you could not play a RPG without roleplaying?

This definition, however, does not fit the connotation that the term currently has. Many console-based RPGs have far more tactical gameplay than they have what you would call "roleplaying" (here, meaning character development, character interaction, etc.). Using the definition you've created, these are not RPGs. I don't think you'll have a lot of luck trying to establish a definition that ignores the widely-accepted connotation the term already has.

 

[nedjer]

This definition, however, does not fit the connotation that the term currently has. Many console-based RPGs have far more tactical gameplay than they have what you would call "roleplaying" (here, meaning character development, character interaction, etc.). Using the definition you've created, these are not RPGs. I don't think you'll have a lot of luck trying to establish a definition that ignores the widely-accepted connotation the term already has.

Arkham Asylum, Dante's Inferno, Darksiders, AC 2, Alan Wake, L.A. Noire . . . all major franchises integrating mystery, discovery, forensics, stunt points, advancement, rich environments, psychology, more open-ended environments, multiple outcomes and layered characterisation into the increasingly tired fps videogame RPG format.

Definition's looking good so far?

 

[Dannager]

Arkham Asylum, Dante's Inferno, Darksiders, AC 2, Alan Wake, L.A. Noire . . . all major franchises integrating mystery, discovery, forensics, stunt points, advancement, rich environments, psychology, more open-ended environments, multiple outcomes and layered characterisation into the increasingly tired fps videogame RPG format.

Definition's looking good so far?

How does any of that reconcile tactically-rich console RPGs with your definition?

EDIT: Also, are you implying that a game like AC 2 is foremost about roleplaying, as opposed to be foremost about stabbing people and jumping across rooftops?

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Sorry about going back 2 pages, but this caught my attention.

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.

Technically both of your proposed actions are mechanically possible in 4e.

If you don't force the arrow to berserker's eye to be an instant kill, an immediate interrupt/reaction power that stuns, trips or pushes would do what you want.

As for your leg crippling, I think fighters have a few powers that inflict the slow (set speed to 2 squares) status.

One of 4e's major weaknesses I have identified comes from it limiting tactical options(status effects) by tying them to strategic choices(level gained powers).

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

A resolution mechanic same as Gurps' active defense resolution system.

 

[Dannager]

Interestingly, today's front page post on Penny Arcade touches on the very topic of what RPGs are, nowadays:

RPG as a genre is practically a sauce, now: it's something you stew other genres in, imparting an addictive progression arc in terms of equipment or capability. Mass Effect couldn't be a more perfect example. But the flavor was too strong, they determined, too piquant, and ME2 was the result. Most people seemed to prefer the taste. The thing that people are never trying to impart from the conception of an RPG is micro-managerial combat. I say this as someone who likes that and would start a foundation to preserve it. That's what Dragon Age is about, essentially. They have a challenge ahead of them; generally speaking, people don't make games like this anymore, not at this tier of development, and there is a reason.

We have expectations about what an RPG is that are deeply, deeply at odds with the way the industry currently works. It is our expectation that we will purchase a forty hour game, or a sixty hour game, or a hundred hour game for the same price that we purchase a game that lasts four to six hours. BioWare has tried to chart a course for the franchise that is remotely [bleep] possible in the current environment. They're up to their elbows in some pretty sacred zones, and the result has been confusion and rage. It's full of experiments, though, some brilliant and some less so, but I'm wired to think of even failed experiments as progress.

 

[Mark CMG]

How does any of that reconcile tactically-rich console RPGs with your definition?

EDIT: Also, are you implying that a game like AC 2 is foremost about roleplaying, as opposed to be foremost about stabbing people and jumping across rooftops?

Interestingly, today's front page post on Penny Arcade touches on the very topic of what RPGs are, nowadays:

I think you want to stick with discussion of the definition of tabletop RPGs since console and computer games tend to misuse the term by (many, certainly my own) tabletop standards, and particularly in regard to the 1E vs 4E comparison discussion tangents.