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

[Dannager]

Unfortunately for you D&D isn't really that game and I don't really think it ever has been. Despite attack rolls and skill checks sharing the same dice mechanic they have totally different difficulty scales. There's special numbers a creature has that are only used in combat situations and then totally separate numbers used out of combat. Combat rolls are against defense scores that scale with an opponent's ability scores and level while skill checks vary only by the circumstances of their use (this is a generality in both cases).

Even more tellingly, D&D has a very clear delineating mechanic to separate combat from non-combat: the initiative roll. For much of the game of D&D, we recognize that a turn order is largely unnecessary and might hamper the experience of character interaction and exploration. When combat begins, this core assumption changes, and we suddenly recognize that a turn order is a necessity in order to make sure that combat flows smoothly and in a balanced fashion.

 

[Argyle King]

Unfortunately for you D&D isn't really that game and I don't really think it ever has been. Despite attack rolls and skill checks sharing the same dice mechanic they have totally different difficulty scales. There's special numbers a creature has that are only used in combat situations and then totally separate numbers used out of combat. Combat rolls are against defense scores that scale with an opponent's ability scores and level while skill checks vary only by the circumstances of their use (this is a generality in both cases).

Systems like D6 and GURPS make combat statistics just normal skills and don't really have special numbers in and out of combat. Even magic spells and other supernatural powers are often just different types of skills. Since D&D is class based it ties combat statistics and abilities to a character's class and level abstracting out the progression of those abilities. I think because of this abstraction D&D is always going to be a game with a wargamey combat mode and another out of combat mode. It's difficult to mix abilities from the different modes because each assumes they're running in their native mode.

That's actually what lead me to play GURPS in the first place. I've often made the comment elsewhere that I enjoyed having all of my character available at all times. I didn't feel as though I had one character for combat, one for skill challenges, and one for situations which were neither of those.

That being said, I do understand why D&D works the way it does. I am also someone who very much enjoys D&D. Thirdly, I am aware that D&D -to some extent (to my knowledge)- has always been like this. Fourthly, I'm lucky enough to game with a friend who is a good enough DM of D&D to blur those lines a lot of the time. ...however, for me, one of the downsides of that division is that I personally felt that there were stories I wanted to tell (both as a player and a GM,) that were difficulty for me to tell with more enforced artificial lines.

I would never say a GM can't ignore those lines. I would also never say it's impossible to use aspects of one mode while in another - I often do, and, as said, have played with people who blur the lines. That being said, I still do feel there are times when the way I would most prefer to play is hampered by the system.

Can I tinker with the system? yes
Can I change how the system works? yes
Can I use DM fiat and house rules? yep, sure can
Can I rewrite how skill challenges work? yep, and have

...but, really, if I'm going to do all that work anyway, why not just use a toolkit system? The main complain toward it being 'well, you have to build everything.' Yeah, so what? If I'm doing that anyway to get the result I want, I might as well use tools which are intended to be tools.

To clarify, this is in no way a slight against D&D. I will again say I highly enjoy D&D -when I'm in the mood for D&D. I'll even say there are things about 4th Edition which I love (I vastly prefer the new cosmology over The Great Wheel.) However, there are times when the system's ideas about the definitions of tactics & strategy as well as the system's ideas about story telling clash with my ideals about those things.

 

[billd91]

Even more tellingly, D&D has a very clear delineating mechanic to separate combat from non-combat: the initiative roll. For much of the game of D&D, we recognize that a turn order is largely unnecessary and might hamper the experience of character interaction and exploration. When combat begins, this core assumption changes, and we suddenly recognize that a turn order is a necessity in order to make sure that combat flows smoothly and in a balanced fashion.

I disagree it's clearly delineating. You can use the initiative mechanic absolutely anywhere in which timing is necessary. It may be often unnecessary out of combat because timing is usually not important, but I've certainly used initiative in non-combat situations in which the PCs may be trying to take actions that may be in competition with other PCs/NPCs.

Turn order is a necessity in combat, true, but it may also be a necessity in some non-combat situations.

 

[Mark CMG]

You can use the initiative mechanic absolutely anywhere in which timing is necessary.

I need to do this more often.

 

[haakon1]

I like options in combat, and I like playing martial characters that fight in a strategic way, so I like the modern RPG's that do this. I do agree that fights take longer than I would love, but it simply isn't possible to have a high level of strategy in combat and not have that combat take a significant amount of time.

What I find surprising is that most games have evolved their rules over the years to make combat more strategic (and therefore longer) but have kept the old adventure format where there is one combat strung up after another.

One of my pet peeves: people who says "strategic" without knowing what it means.

Unless you're talking at least Battle System scale of fights, it's not strategy.

The word you were looking for is "tactics".

 

[JamesonCourage]

One of my pet peeves: people who says "strategic" without knowing what it means.

Unless you're talking at least Battle System scale of fights, it's not strategy.

The word you were looking for is "tactics".

While that may be, the spirit and meaning of the thread should be obvious by page 10. I'd suggest we keep it productive, rather than quibble over semantics that do not actually speak about the subject of the thread.

I'm not telling you what to do. I can't. I'm just saying, let's have a nice conversation, rather than pointless argument

 

[giant.robot]

While that may be, the spirit and meaning of the thread should be obvious by page 10. I'd suggest we keep it productive, rather than quibble over semantics that do not actually speak about the subject of the thread.

I'm not telling you what to do. I can't. I'm just saying, let's have a nice conversation, rather than pointless argument

I agree with your sentiment but not the message. If we start confusing language we're going to end up with people having two different conversations. The word "tactics" is already overloaded in this conversation because we're using the same word to mean meta-tactics that take advantage of game mechanics and a more traditional meaning where you're taking advantage of the "reality" of the situation. If you start using the word "strategy" when you mean "tactics" you're going to make me think you're actually talking about high level strategy and not low level tactics. It's not safe to assume just because we've been talking of tactics for however many pages that we wouldn't think you wanted to move the discussion to speak of strategy if you start using that word.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One of my pet peeves: people who says "strategic" without knowing what it means.

Unless you're talking at least Battle System scale of fights, it's not strategy.

The word you were looking for is "tactics".

Not exactly. Strategy figures into the game as well so long as the PCs have a say in what their goals are and how to achieve them.

Deciding to use force to achieve objectives is a strategy. The specifics employed in combat to win are tactics.

The strategic part of the game seems to be what many modern adventures are missing.

 

[steeldragons]

Sorry, EW, I've "given too much XP in the last 24 hours". Catch ya on the rebound.

But my thanks for specifying "strategy" vs. "tactics"....Saving me the trouble.

For my two coppers, it is a question of what does each individual playing group like to play...what is "fun" for them. This is a game, after all.

If you (and/or your "group" for the GMs out there) like to use strategy, then great. If tactics are your "win" then bully for you.

Neither is a reason to ignore the RP of the RP-G and some systems, as well as individual groups, tend to lean towards one or the other...that's what wargaming is for...and why the RPG is distinctly different, and was created to be so, from wargames.

IMHO, there are several systems (and this is NOT intended to induce an edition war), including the latest edition of the "world's first/best RPG", that seem to attribute (the BULK of) play of an RPG to "strategy" and/or "tactics"...If that floats your boat, then happily float! It is, again, a game.

FUN is the ultimate goal.

Whether one wants to crunch numbers, plot maneuvers or speak in "put on voices" or any...naye...EVERything in between.

Play the game you like...play the game you WANT...and HAVE FUN doing so! Otherwise what, exactly, is the point?

There is someone on ENworld (and my sincerest apologies for not recalling the profile name at the moment, I think it might be "Shaman") who says regularly, "Life is too short for bad gaming."

As someone who is an international news junky and has gone through multiple family tragedies in the past two years, I can not stress the validity of this point enough. Life IS too short.

Play the game you like...no...play the game you LOVE! However/in whatever "style" of gaming you love it! If it's multiple different games (or editions of the same game to feed different interests) then "have at thee!!!!" Go for it!

But no one in the RPG gaming community (and yes I consider us all, here on ENworld, to be a part of the same community) has the "right" way or game or edition or genre to play.

Play what makes you happy...and let others play, free of consternation, what is fun for them.

I, personally, am tired of the "Tired of" threads...no offense, intended...but the point is valid.

All for one and ONE FOR RPGS!

Enjoy it. Have fun with it. And let others do the same. Share your experiences...Share your ideas...Share your JOY in the playing.

Arguments...which are nothing more than matters of opinion and personal preferences, when you boil it all down...have no place in the "fun" or "enjoyment" of a gaming group...or, by extension, the community.

Life is too short.

Ok...I think that's all I have for the moment...Have fun and HAPPY gaming (whatever "style" of gaming that may be.)
--Steel Dragons

I think that's all I have on this.

 

[Hussar]

Too often I think discussions of this nature revolve around 'can I do something?' In a game of the imagination, you can do anything - as has been argued by others.

However, it is my opinion that the better question is 'is the system capable of rewarding me for this in a way which satisfied me?'

While I enjoy D&D quite a bit, one of the things which grinds against my grain is that there are many things I want to do in game -which I can do- but my reward for doing them often isn't worth it. Getting a situational +2 bonus on diplomacy isn't exactly what I expect out of building a castle. There are other examples as well, but that's the easiest arbitrary one to express.

On that note, I believe tactics extend outside of combat. Too often people talk about a split between combat and non-combat. I prefer the lines to be blurred (and more often prefer they be erased) between modes of play. Mentally I subscribe to this because it matches how I envision things working out in a living breathing world. A well placed use of diplomacy today can become a tactical tool in a battle later.

I think this bears repeating.

The cost for trying anything other than a straight up attack in many games is higher than the reward thus doing anything other than a straight up attack is almost always a poor choice. Presuming a rational actor, most of the time, simply making a straight up attack is the way to go.

Take a 3e D&D example. If you throw a pot of boiling water on someone, how much damage would it do? d6? D10? It shouldn't hurt much more than a flaming bottle of oil, so, that sounds about right.

So, who in their right mind is ever going to give up their regular attacks just to throw a pot of boiling water on someone? Improvised weapon gives attack penalties and it's going to do a fraction of the damage you would normally do.

People are quick to claim that earlier editions let you do anything you could think of. The problem with that is that earlier editions based damage on a relative scale. Dropping an anvil on someone's head does X damage regardless of who is doing the dropping or who it's being dropped on. Most RPG's, particularly mainstream ones, work this way.

So, while you certainly can do anything you can think of, the vast majority of the time, those things at best the same as what you normally do. If I swing from the chandelier and attack someone, how much more damage do I have to do in order to make it worth it?

I'm taking a penalty to the attack (most of the time in most systems) for trying this, so, in order to make it worth it, I have to do signficantly more damage and/or gain significant effects. Maybe when I swing from the chandelier, I get to attack everyone in my path.

That's what the 4e D&D solution would be. The damage and/or effects of your stunt would be commensurate with your level. You wouldn't just get +2 to damage because it wouldn't be worth it. You'd get a Burst 1 attack Dex vs AC attack for swinging from the chandelier.

Until your system actively rewards doing things other than standard attacks, it could be as wide open as you want it to be, but, no one's going to take advantage of that because it would be a bad idea to try. Hrm, give up mostly guaranteed lesser damage to try something that has a significantly reduced chance of success and only a moderate improvement over my regular attack.

Most people can do that math pretty well.