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

[pawsplay]

Again, I'm just running off what I've had described to me about the system.

Except, of course, the part where the majority of people familiar with the system claim it's quite tactically rich. You're not just going by what other people said. You're being condescending and provocative, and I've seen enough of your posts to know it's no accident. You're saying whatever you feel like, then justifying it by claiming you have somehow misunderstood. Then you defend your feigned misunderstanding, as if you haven't just backpedalled.

If you wish to participate fully in this thread, I suggest you stop trying to claim you know better than others what they themselves have said.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Hey guys, let's keep it civil. No reason to ruin what could be a good discussion by making it into an argument instead.

 

[pawsplay]

Civility is not a problem. I just wanted to make it clear why I was devoting less and less energy to responding to Dannager's post.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

In my experience, GURPS is a fight to get the first decent hit in (unless you're playing 3E GURPS with a dex of 13 or 14 and a Str of 8). The shock rules deal with the rest.

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?

Tactical positioning and using the terrain (which yes yo do in GURPS but 4e with all its forced movement adds extra layers to). Heavy duty teamwork. Provoke-tactics and assessing not only probabilities but what level of risk you consider acceptable. Sussing out which attacks will work well on which monsters. Having played and run both GURPS and 4e, once you see the second order interactions 4e is far the better tactical game.

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.

That depends. When I run fights in 4e they last 3-5 rounds and are scary. MM3 and later have cut down the grind a lot.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I've read most of the thread, but it's become somewhat derailed, so I'll just respond to the OP...


Exellent point about the roleplaying versus combat number model. Long combats are not a problem when they are a culmination (our final combat in Age of Worms lasted about 8 hours and it was thrilling and a fun experience) of events, including story and roleplaying. Heck, had that combat lasted only one hour, I think our group might have felt cheated.

I do think that a bunch of better/good adventures for 3e and a few better/good adventures for 4e do what you suggest...that is, to only place combats where story oriented, where fighting is a major plot element rather than merely a lazy way of filling pages/adventuring time. The adventure is a story, it has plot points, characters, etc.


However, I think that long combats can be a problem in dungeon crawls, where apart from traps and exploring (unless its a REALLY well done dungeon crawl) there is minimal roleplaying. I DO like dungeon crawls, and I LOVE dungeon crawls that also have roleplaying components.


What makes me sad is when an adventure is built as a series of combats. We've seen that a lot recently, and even the review style has changed to fit this paradigm shift in adventure writing. When I read this official review, I thought to myself "Ok, but what's the story?" http://www.enworld.org/forum/en-wor...ew-hunting-deathcloud-sneak-attack-press.html (Note, I'm commenting on the review...the adventure could be great or it could be a series of encounters along with a skill challenge, I simply can't tell from the review.)


I think that a part of the problem is that it's much easier to write a series of encounters with a "sprinkling of plot" linking them together than it is to come up with vibrant characters, motivations, ideals, plot elements, tension, etc. I also think that many WotC adventures (of both 3e and 4e) are intentionally "generic" so as to be acceptable to larger audiences (like how Budweiser is an inoffensive beer, and a #1 seller, but it lacks the quality and character of microbrews).

Two problems for 4e regarding this phenomenon are: 1. the way it is written and 2. it is increasingly tactical.

The way it is written, it mentally pulls for tactics moreso than story (with the roles -leader, controller- being named, the names and categories of powers etc). It appears to a casual reader that it is a system developed specifically for combats, rather than both combats and story. Were they to have written the exact same rules with less of a "gamey/tactical" oriented feel to the wording, I think that it would mentally pull for less of a combat, combat, combat style of writing and/or playing. Here, I want to point out that this is a personal dislike of 4e, but it is not a dislike of the system...more a dislike of the way the system is presented, but also of the (perhaps unintentional) way that it may evoke play for some or many groups. Pemerton's posts here on ENworld on how his group plays make it very clear to me that if you can see beyond this, then, as I said, there is nothing about the system that requires combat, combat, combat and little plot.

4e is increasingly tactical. While hairs can be split as to how much more, and how tactical it is, I believe that the use of the battlemat, the integration of powers (both inter and intra-character), the way monster powers work, etc. make it so. This, in and of itself is neither an improvement nor a flaw. However, the fact that it is more tactical can draw writers to want to utilize opportunities for those tactics more. All I'm basically saying here is that the designers aimed to make combat more fun in 4e. Hence, writers seem drawn to add more combats to 4e adventures than prior editions. I think, though, as the OP mentions, that there can be too much of a good thing.


But I'm not attempting to criticize 4e here. I don't think that the system itself causes the problem of combat, combat, combat...as I hope I made clear above. I think that combat could potentially be more fun, and is more of a focus in the development of the 4e system, but there is no need to make it more of a focus in actual adventuring (whether the adventures are homemade or are modules). I do think that WotC, in both 3e and 4e tends to make "dungeon crawls" whether they're in the forest, underground, or on another plane. Too often, I feel, when playing their adventures, that our group will get to the BBEG and won't know much more about him than his name and that he's up to bad stuff (if we even know his name). The lack of 3pp adventures (or good adventures, moreso...but I gave up on WotC for good adventures apart from a few anomolies a while ago) has been a major factor in our group not switching to 4e. Apart from the WotBS adventure path conversion and a few Open Design projects, I can't think of a 4e adventure I want to buy. That's not the system, but it is a darn shame.

 

[amerigoV]

I'm finding it interesting that so many people are disagreeing with the notion that more strategy = longer combats. This should follow logically: the more decisions there are that need to be weighed against one another in determining the optimal course of action, the more strategic the game is. The more decisions that need to be weighed against one another, the more time any given activity takes. It therefore follows that increasing the amount of strategy or tactical decision-making in a game also increases the amount of time that game takes to play.

Responding to this with "I disagree, GURPS/WHFRPG/my homebrew system includes tons of strategy without increasing the time combat takes," makes me very skeptical, and leads me to ask, "How, exactly?"

I'm skipping over the GURPs war since it really is not pertinent to the question. But combat speed is more about resolution than choices. Players and GMs familiar with a rules can make it hum. It starts to slow down when a very unusual situation occurs (need a new tactic/strategy) or you have people unfamiliar with the ruleset playing (have to wade through the choices every time). So choices are a factor, but the "fight resolution" mechanic is likely a bigger one.

I've not played the other games listed above, but I play Savage Worlds. It has a very nice level of tactical options and it runs fast. Compared to 4e and even 3e, the resolution mechanic is more "swingy" than those systems, especially for the heroes (you can get through the extras/minions pretty cleanly, but you never know how the tough ones are going to go). Its set up allows for much quicker fights.

If you want a D&D example, just take a fight at 1st level between 1e and 4e. The 1e fight can easily be over in a round or two - Sleep spell and most in the fight go down in one hit (both sides). In 4e, that 1st level fight runs much more like a 4th or 5th level fight in the older versions. Its not because of the options, its because the starting hit point base is higher*. It simply takes longer to kill non-minions (which, from what I understand, there has been changes to address this but the 4e-ers will have to address that fact).

* I'm not saying this is a bad thing - many groups would start characters in older editions at higher level just to avoid the high swing factor at 1st level.

 

[Argyle King]

In my experience, GURPS is a fight to get the first decent hit in (unless you're playing 3E GURPS with a dex of 13 or 14 and a Str of 8). The shock rules deal with the rest.



Tactical positioning and using the terrain (which yes yo do in GURPS but 4e with all its forced movement adds extra layers to). Heavy duty teamwork. Provoke-tactics and assessing not only probabilities but what level of risk you consider acceptable. Sussing out which attacks will work well on which monsters. Having played and run both GURPS and 4e, once you see the second order interactions 4e is far the better tactical game.



That depends. When I run fights in 4e they last 3-5 rounds and are scary. MM3 and later have cut down the grind a lot.

I would agree that MM3 and later monsters have cut down the grind some, but I wouldn't say 'a lot.' While the later D&D 4E monsters have gotten better, this has been somewhat mitigated by the PCs in later books being given much better options (I don't think anyone could seriously argue that powers and feats haven't gotten more powerful.)

As for GURPS, I disagree that it's not tactical. I just think it's a different kind of tactical. In D&D many of your tactics are based on game mechanics (pulls, pushes, forced movement; etc - as has been said.) In GURPS my tactics are based on... well, based on tactics I would want to use in a situation; tactics matter quite a bit. It has nothing to do with 'outguessing the GM,' it's you playing your character against the characters being controlled by the GM.

I can't speak for anyone else, but no matter if I'm running D&D or GURPS, I think in terms of what the enemies (in my mind) would do, and base their decisions upon what they know. I play 'my characters' (for a lack of better words) against the player characters using in game information; I don't

One example I can give is a Supers game I was running in GURPS. One of the main enemy groups was a neo-Nazi paramilitary organization. I based their tactics on what I know of military tactics (if it matters, I've done deployments both under command of the US Army and the Marines.) I had them do things such as bounding* with cover; doing squad flanking movements; covering fire*, and other pretty standard tactics for engaging the enemy. Keep in mind that the PCs had super powers; none of their enemies in this example did; however, the PCs had a really rough time. Even though they were facing what were essentially mooks, the tactics used by the mooks forced them to flee due to fear of TPK. (They did succeed in their mission; however, they felt it was best to come back later instead of slugging it out.)

(* these are tactics which are supported by the rules)


I think both games are tactical. However, they are tactical in different ways. Though, as someone who also plays both games, I would say that (IMO) it's easier to achieve victory in a 4E fight with less tactics overall. This is mainly because I feel D&D PCs are -by default- stronger than the foes they face. Being a D&D 4E PC is partially defined by being head and shoulders above the rest of the world rather than living as part of world around you.


As for as the topic, I'll just say what I've already said. I don't mind longer combat time if my choices are meaningful. What bothers me is when I feel as though I've won the fight from the beginning and then we spend hours hacking away at hitpoints (Orcus, I'm looking at you.)



On the other hand, I'll also add that it bothers me when game mechanics cause a fight to be anticlimactic due to tactics working better than I think they should. This ties into what I said in the other thread not long ago.

Do I believe destroying a gondola should be possible? Yes, yes I do, and I feel that is a smart tactical move. However, being able to do it with one or two minor attacks because of how the rules interact with the 'physics engine' (again, for a lack of better words) of the game world is kinda lame.

No game system is perfect, but there's a certain ballpark area in which I expect things to be. Too far outside of that area, and I start to feel unsatisfied with how things work out.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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".

Yes 4E provides more pre-set action options with specific rules support for them than earlier editions.

When everything is said and done though, all those choices boil down to this: Can I wear down my opponents HP through hitting their static defenses before they can do it to me?

In a fantasy roleplaying game of exploration the time and pages upon pages of rules to determine exactly how that happens in minute detail are simply not worth the effort.

Was there a fight? Did we win? If so, at what cost? Move along.

If I were playing a game of tactical combat then the particulars of the fight would be more important, heck its the entire focus of the game so I want it to be as cool as possible.

So for me, a game of long combats, even if they are exciting to play out, is only fun if I am looking for a combat game.

 

[Umbran]

Hey guys, let's keep it civil. No reason to ruin what could be a good discussion by making it into an argument instead.

Yes, please.

Specifically, don't get personal. Please avoid ascribing motives to other posters. The internet is a lousy medium for mind-reading - you may feel you've got it right, when you don't.

And, even if you do have it right, if what you've got to say about the other person's motivations and mindset aren't complimentary, everyone is probably better off if you just stop responding to the problematic posts. It isn't like the conversation's going to be made better by two folks getting under each other's skin, right?

This is the internet - you don't generally owe anyone a response, there's nothing to win, you don't score points, you don't lose anything if you just walk away.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I would agree that MM3 and later monsters have cut down the grind some, but I wouldn't say 'a lot.' While the later D&D 4E monsters have gotten better, this has been somewhat mitigated by the PCs in later books being given much better options (I don't think anyone could seriously argue that powers and feats haven't gotten more powerful.)

Depends - are you looking at top tier or lower tier. Because the strongest characters when the PHB came out are stronger than anything walking around now. Orbizards? Pre-errata Stormwardens with Infinite Blade Cascade? Even fighters have taken a few nerfs. The top tier has actually been pushed back, with the goal of getting as wide a second tier as possible.

As for GURPS, I disagree that it's not tactical. I just think it's a different kind of tactical.

What you describe is one level out from where I'm talking. GURPS Tactics generally are in setting up the fight rather than within the fight itself. And my 4E group is doing that quite nicely to my bandit fort - they are terrorizing rather than attacking it (38 on Intimidate at the end of a long RP setup really helped).

In D&D many of your tactics are based on game mechanics (pulls, pushes, forced movement; etc - as has been said.) In GURPS my tactics are based on... well, based on tactics I would want to use in a situation;

Which is what the 4e forced movement is meant to represent in a larger than life manner. Hell, Tide of Iron is how I fight with large shield. Covering fire isn't so strong in 4e - gun tactics aren't included.

I think both games are tactical. However, they are tactical in different ways. Though, as someone who also plays both games, I would say that (IMO) it's easier to achieve victory in a 4E fight with less tactics overall. This is mainly because I feel D&D PCs are -by default- stronger than the foes they face.

Agreed. And on both Orcus and Gondolas.

In a fantasy roleplaying game of exploration the time and pages upon pages of rules to determine exactly how that happens in minute detail are simply not worth the effort.

Was there a fight? Did we win? If so, at what cost? Move along.

And I dislike this. Because it leads to "Knuckles-23 just got arbitrarily killed. Oh well. Here's Knuckles-24". If I've invested into a character, I don't like them getting wiped out at random. It makes me feel robbed - whereas if I fell because things broke badly despite being significantly in my control I don't mind it. AD&D fights feel too much like Russian Roulette to me.