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

[Aus_Snow]

It puts me in mind of the whole additive/subtractive nature of color and how that influences a piece of art you're working on depending on the medium you're using.

Hm?

As usual, I find myself in agreement with at the very least much of what you are saying, but for the quoted text, I have no frame of reference.

/ too lazy to google...

 

[Dannager]

GURPS combat tends to be over quickly but has a great deal of tactical depth. It's often over quickly because attacks do a lot of damage relative to characters' total hit points. To make things even deadlier characters face penalties when they take significant amounts of damage. In GURPS HP is a less abstract value than it is in D&D. In D&D it's an approximation of a character's ability to roll with punches where in GURPS it's actually the amount of physical abuse a character can endure.

A character's success in combat is as much about their planned actions and reactions to their opponents. There are a handful of actual actions a character can take on their turn and the only take one per round, GURPS rounds are one second of game tme. The combinations of those actions are important though. A character can make an All Out Attack to get a bonus to the roll or damage but then can't make an active defense that round. They better hope they land the attack or they've just opened themselves up for a counterattack they can't avoid. Thanks to the lethality of attacks if they land their attack the fight is over and if the miss and the defender counterattacks the fight is still over.

Right, so this is a straightforward but relatively simple combat resolution system. It has very little tactical depth - in fact, from your description, it seems scarcely more complex than Rock, Paper, Scissors in combat form. There are few decision points, and you only have one or two opportunities to react to your opponent's decisions. Contrast this with games like chess or 4e, and you can see that there is a massive gulf of tactical complexity between the two.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Regarding the original topic, and thread title in particular, I don't even see (for example) 4e as a notably strategic game in the first place. I'm sure some 4e players go about their strategising just fine, regardless of whether the system/setting/adventure/group/DM prompts them to, supports them in it, or whatever.

As for tactics, well, that's a different beast altogether. Games like 4e follow a proscriptive model, that is nonetheless often viewed as an "enabling" model. Some others do not. There is a fundamental disconnect between the two camps, much of the time.

 

[kaomera]

There are just as many meaningful choices that there aren't mechanical definitions (i.e. rules) for in 4e as there are in 1e. The only decision points that differ are going to be those covered by the rules, so that's what we're discussing.

I disagree, in that those mechanically-enabled choices where still choices in 1e, so there's that many less non-mechanical ones to deal with. 4e also groups a lot of what could be meaningful choices in 1e into individual skills, etc., but I don't think that's actually significant since each such grouping would probably have ended up handled in a single fashion in 1e.

What is significant, I think, is that the ability to resolve these issues with a die roll means that the description, and the choices that entails, are no longer required. I've found that when that happens there tends to be a pressure not to add more description or thought to your actions than any other player - if you do you're seen (and / or expect to be seen) as either wheedling for an unfair advantage or hogging the spotlight. And that tends to lead to an overall decline in description and roleplay over time, IME.

I guess that's not really a tactical issue anymore, and I don't expect my experiences to be universal, but for me that's a real issue in combat length. The game bogs for me not so much when we're down to at-wills but when we're down to reading off power names instead of describing actions.

 

[pawsplay]

The multi-round structure of 4e combat (typically 6 to 10 rounds) is tactical depth. For the same reason that a game like chess is resolved over the course of multiple turns, a game like D&D has its encounter structure resolved over multiple rounds. Telling me that Game System X has highly lethal combats resolved in only a handful of turns (much less rounds), tells me that it has little tactical depth.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun-Tzu

 

[pawsplay]

Right, so this is a straightforward but relatively simple combat resolution system. It has very little tactical depth - in fact, from your description, it seems scarcely more complex than Rock, Paper, Scissors in combat form. There are few decision points, and you only have one or two opportunities to react to your opponent's decisions. Contrast this with games like chess or 4e, and you can see that there is a massive gulf of tactical complexity between the two.

"Chess or 4e?" Seriously, chess has never been described as "grindy." 4e is tactical tiddlywinks compared to chess.

Name another game system, besides GURPS, that has a sourcebook called Tactical Shooting, or some equally daunting title. The way you describe GURPS is the way people describe poker, that I want to play poker with, for cash.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but you clearly have no idea of the magnitude of your misunderstanding. You have called the wise man a fool.

 

[kaomera]

I'm not trying to be harsh, but you clearly have no idea of the magnitude of your misunderstanding. You have called the wise man a fool.

Do you think it could maybe be a difference in experiences or expectations instead?

I've played GURPS, and I didn't really find it tactically rewarding, or even what I would describe as "tactical". But you brought up poker, and others have brought up rock-paper-scissors. Poker has tactical elements (ok, an understatement), but it also has a large element of bluffing, right? Well I don't find bluffing a fun element in my roleplaying. And I guess you could call it tactical, but I generally wouldn't.

And that was the problem with GURPS, at least when I played it. All of your decision-making really just amounted to a guessing game. Trying to figure out what the GM is thinking I don't care for - I'd rather focus on what my character is doing in the fictional world than what the guy who's on the other side of the table is up to. And trying to guess what the dice are going to do is even worse - I'd much prefer to figure out how "my guy" is going to react to the waxing and waning of his fictional fortunes. And I do like a more gritty game, but when you're constantly unconscious there isn't much reacting you can do...

But I do understand that some people dig all that stuff. I'm just suggesting that maybe it's not that someone doesn't know how cool the game is, maybe it's just that it's not really that cool for them.

 

[Dannager]

"Chess or 4e?" Seriously, chess has never been described as "grindy." 4e is tactical tiddlywinks compared to chess.

And, yet, from that description of GURPS, both are veritable war rooms by comparison.

Name another game system, besides GURPS, that has a sourcebook called Tactical Shooting, or some equally daunting title. The way you describe GURPS is the way people describe poker, that I want to play poker with, for cash.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but you clearly have no idea of the magnitude of your misunderstanding. You have called the wise man a fool.

Again, I'm just running off what I've had described to me about the system. I went through the effort of compiling a list of decision points in a single player's turn in 4e.

 

[S'mon]

On Sunday I expect to take 3 hours or so running the second half of an enormous 4e battle (post short rest intermission), with nearly 200 combatants on the field - mostly minions. Then on Monday I'll be running a game with hopefully plenty of non-combat RP and several short fights, for that I'm halving monster hp so battles go faster. I think different approaches work best for different aims, variety is the spice of life, etc.

 

[pawsplay]

Do you think it could maybe be a difference in experiences or expectations instead?

No, not really. There certainly are differences that can arise as a result of experiences or expectations, but intrinsically, GURPS is a tactical game. Even the Basic Combat System has more than a few options and tactics to consider.

I've played GURPS, and I didn't really find it tactically rewarding, or even what I would describe as "tactical". But you brought up poker, and others have brought up rock-paper-scissors. Poker has tactical elements (ok, an understatement), but it also has a large element of bluffing, right? Well I don't find bluffing a fun element in my roleplaying. And I guess you could call it tactical, but I generally wouldn't.

I wasn't characterizing Poker as a quintessential game of tactics. I was making a comparison between people who summarize poker in a ridiculous way (e.g. "It's just luck," "It's just guessing") to making the same mistake with GURPS (e.g. "you guess what to do and roll some dice").

And that was the problem with GURPS, at least when I played it. All of your decision-making really just amounted to a guessing game. Trying to figure out what the GM is thinking I don't care for - I'd rather focus on what my character is doing in the fictional world than what the guy who's on the other side of the table is up to. And trying to guess what the dice are going to do is even worse - I'd much prefer to figure out how "my guy" is going to react to the waxing and waning of his fictional fortunes.

Ok, so help me out here. Once you've removed outguessing the GM, and assessing probabilities, what is there left to do tactically? Is there some other level of play D&D 4e presents of which I am unaware?

There is less fiddling around, true, but that's my point. Fiddling does not equal tactics. A lot of 4e combat is not trying to "win" but simply going through motions that must be gone through to get to the end. More elegant combat systems remove unnecessary fiddling and skip right to the meaningful decisions.

And I do like a more gritty game, but when you're constantly unconscious there isn't much reacting you can do...

I'm not sure what makes GURPS the game of being constantly unconscious. It would be pretty hard to run a game with that premise. By default, GURPS combat tends to be a little more dangerous, but it also tends to be less frequent. If you want it to be more frequent, you can crank up the PC capabilities and it can be so.

But I do understand that some people dig all that stuff. I'm just suggesting that maybe it's not that someone doesn't know how cool the game is, maybe it's just that it's not really that cool for them.

In general, I can agree with that. Different strokes for different folks. But we're not arguing about whether GURPS is cool, we're discussing whether it's tactical.