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

[Dannager]

Except, of course, the part where the majority of people familiar with the system claim it's quite tactically rich.

I'm not interested in their opinion of how tactically rich it is. I'm looking for an actual illustration of the ways in which GURPS combat includes tactical thought and a level of decision-making on the same scale as 4e. People can claim anything, and (more importantly) they can also have no idea what tactical depth is. I am genuinely interested in finding out about a system that provides the same level of tactical depth and breadth as 4e while making combats significantly faster.

You're not just going by what other people said.

I'm going by what other people have described to me. "It has tactical depth," doesn't cut it. "It has tactical depth because
[list of decision points and opportunities during each player's turn in combat]," would cut it.

By the way, given that other people in this thread have posted about their GURPS experiences along the lines I describe (that it lacks the same level of tactical depth and breadth as 4e), there's really no argument to be had here.

You're being condescending and provocative, and I've seen enough of your posts to know it's no accident.

I am being provocative, yes. That's very purposeful. Condescending? pawsplay, out of the many discussions I've been in here on ENWorld, I have very rarely resorted to personal attack. I have far more often experienced it coming in the opposite direction, and it's a shame that some seem unable to carry on a discussion on a controversial topic without injecting vitriol.

You're saying whatever you feel like, then justifying it by claiming you have somehow misunderstood.

Nope.

Then you defend your feigned misunderstanding, as if you haven't just backpedalled.

Again, nope.

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.

I have not done this. But the fact that you accuse me of it does make me wonder at your own goals in this thread.

But please, pawsplay, continue to make this about me.

 

[Dannager]

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?

That's what we call a victory condition. If you imagine a combat encounter as a massive flowchart, with the top of the chart being the shared starting point of the initiative roll and the bottom of the chart being the shared ending point of the victory condition, its tactical depth and breadth can be measured by the height and width of this imaginary flowchart.

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.

I daresay that D&D has long been, at least in large part, a combat game. Exploration is in there, but I bet if you gave a random bunch of D&D players a survey and asked them to rank the "aspects" of the game they felt were the most important, or that received the most emphasis, combat would appear above exploration a majority of the time.

 

[Dannager]

From my experience, it's not the amount of options, it's the players themselves that make combat longer.

Agreed (with the understanding that, here, the DM counts as a player as well). 4e combat does not take forever. I've rarely had an encounter last more than an hour. An encounter with five kobolds? Probably 30 minutes. I've never used timers, I've never taken any bookkeeping away from the PCs, and I've never asked that they roll attack and damage rolls at the same time. All of the above are good ideas if your combats are taking forever, but they're not necessary. All you need are players who bother to familiarize themselves with the game and their character, and a DM who can keep the action moving along.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

The most obvious one to me being Parley: attempt to talk to an opponent. Heck, it doesn't even use a minor action.

The odd thing about your list is it identical to the what a 1st level 4e wizard can do. Yet the 1e 1st level fighter and 1st level magic-user would have very different lists.

I see no reason to make an actual list of these actions, though since, technically speaking, the player in 1e would be running not just his character, but his character's henchmen as well. The normal party could contain 25+ humanoids. I don't think you can argue that running a small squad in 1:1 scale is less tactically rich than running a single character at the same scale.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's what we call a victory condition. If you imagine a combat encounter as a massive flowchart, with the top of the chart being the shared starting point of the initiative roll and the bottom of the chart being the shared ending point of the victory condition, its tactical depth and breadth can be measured by the height and width of this imaginary flowchart.

IME such static victory conditions are best acheived using an abstract ruleset.

I daresay that D&D has long been, at least in large part, a combat game. Exploration is in there, but I bet if you gave a random bunch of D&D players a survey and asked them to rank the "aspects" of the game they felt were the most important, or that received the most emphasis, combat would appear above exploration a majority of the time.

Most likely, as that is what the rules have shaped the game into. Those who remember the game as originally envisioned will see things differently.

 

[Dannager]

Okay, I'll bite.

Sweet.

This is actually a more tactical decision in 1E. You must choose to move ahead of time, you don't have the luxury of simply reacting to your opponent.

Anticipating your opponent's action does add another layer.

You also cannot simply move where you wish, as you can't move and attack in the same round (sans charge).

This, however, takes one away. Having a smaller action pool available on each player's turn limits the breadth of their options and necessarily shortens the list of decisions they need to make on their average turn.

Double move is already factored into the 1E movement rate. The base speed is 12 which is the the 3e running speed for those without the run feat. It's 3 times that outdoors. If you REALLY need to doubletime it, you can use the fleeing rule which increases movement by a factor of 10.

So your options are move, or move really fast, yes?

I don't see how the edition matters in this respect. Any square can be trapped, enspelled, hazardous, etc.

Fair point. But given that 1e doesn't allow opportunity attacks except in rare cases, I'd argue that where you choose to stand in 4e matters more than where you choose to stand in 1e.

Unless you are fleeing, no. I'll grant this might have SOME tactical significance, but it's one I don't miss.

Alright.

This doesn't apply to 1E, so you win this one as well.

This isn't really a contest, here. I'm not 4e, and you're not 1e. I'm just looking to compare levels of tactical depth and breadth between editions/games.

Neither. You must make the tactical decision to either attack or move, which makes it a much bigger decision in 1E.

It gives that one decision more import, but it doesn't increase the tactical complexity of the game. By way of example, in Tic-Tac-Toe, you have a single decision to make each turn: where to place your tile. A single placement could decide the entire game. That makes the decision huge, but it doesn't mean that the game is tactically complex.

Again, this is no different in 1E, other than the aggro mechanic.

I agree.

I pity anyone limited by the "powers" on their character sheet regardless of edition.

That's your prerogative, but that's still a layer of tactical complexity. There's no accounting for making up things that aren't covered by the rules, and that can be done in any game, so it's not worth comparing.

This is no different than 4e, with the exception that aoe spells are much more dangerous. Fireballs fill to volume and lightning bolts bounce.

Here I grant you: area of effect attacks in some previous editions or other games may be handled in a manner that is much more complex than 4e, with more factors to consider.

In 1e, you are not limited to one action per round. You can drink a potion and still attack. You can do pretty much anything that is not an attack or move in addition to an attack or move. Each action takes time, so you may or may not finish it in one round. You can, for example, drink a potion and still attack.

Okay.

 

[Dannager]

I see no reason to make an actual list of these actions, though since, technically speaking, the player in 1e would be running not just his character, but his character's henchmen as well. The normal party could contain 25+ humanoids. I don't think you can argue that running a small squad in 1:1 scale is less tactically rich than running a single character at the same scale.

Ahhhh, interesting.

This is one hell of a point. In some previous editions of the game, a single player controlled more than one character. This is a huge boost to tactical complexity. If the game assumes such multi-character control as par for the course, then you have an excellent argument on your hands.

That said, I doubt quintupling the number of player-controlled characters would keep combat time down...

 

[billd91]

Fair point. But given that 1e doesn't allow opportunity attacks except in rare cases, I'd argue that where you choose to stand in 4e matters more than where you choose to stand in 1e.

I disagree with that one. With 1e facing rules, where you stand in relation to your target can matter quite a bit. It can mean the difference between facing an opponent with a shield bonus/dex bonus/without one/without both.

 

[Umbran]

I have not done this. But the fact that you accuse me of it does make me wonder at your own goals in this thread.

Don't you think that after a moderator has already asked folks not to make this discussion personal that continuing on this track might be, well... more than a tad unwise?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I'm informing you (and everyone else) that it *IS* unwise. Intentionally poking folks after a mod warning is pretty close to the definition of asking for trouble. So, please, stop asking.

 

[Dannager]

I disagree with that one. With 1e facing rules, where you stand in relation to your target can matter quite a bit. It can mean the difference between facing an opponent with a shield bonus/dex bonus/without one/without both.

I'm not familiar with facing rules in 1e. What do they entail?