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

[nedjer]

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?

The tactically rich 'RPGs' market are moving, with massive investment, in the direction of the proposed definition. COD 14 and Kipper 17 will carry on shooting people, but Gotham City, AC3, I Am Alive, Noire, Mass Effect, . . . have all begun to move from bolt on RPG elements to games offering an increasing variety of roleplaying elements/ styles.

AC2 seems a decent example of this transition, as the planning, the virtual environment and the parkour are central to play. The kill itself is possibly part of the game rather than the game?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Presumably, this will be followed by you explaining that, in earlier editions of D&D, things were different, yes?

Quite the opposite actually. D&D began as an abstract system and it remains an abstract system. All the whizzbang sparklepop of powers didn't change this. The difference is that earlier edition abstraction was kept simple and faster paced.

Early D&D wasn't any sort of masterpiece of tactics either. It was then what it is now, attacks vs static defenses in a HP attrition race. It was slick, speedy and resolved in a timely fashion so that the rest of the game could continue.

4E just took that base abstract system and introduced enough bells and whistles to convice some folks that it was a tactical combat game worthy of all the time it took to play out. For some they were successful, but others see the pig under all the lipstick.

 

[Dannager]

Early D&D wasn't any sort of masterpiece of tactics either. It was then what it is now, attacks vs static defenses in a HP attrition race. It was slick, speedy and resolved in a timely fashion so that the rest of the game could continue.

It sounds like you're saying that D&D is based on a fundamentally simplistic tactical system that isn't much fun past a certain point (and, presumably, for certain people), no matter how much you try to dress it up with interesting tactical elements?

Is this correct?

 

[kaomera]

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.

The fact that all games are not played in a tactically identical fashion is not system-related, though. You can have a very tactically rich game of 1e, and you can have a not at all tactically rich game of 4e. What 4e offers is the option of handling tactical issues via the system. You can make generalizations about how that option is accepted, but the decision to make use of powers or page 42 is not a tactical decision. It is certainly true that 4e has more tactical options on a theoretical level than 1e, as all of the same non-mechanical options exist in each and 4e has more specifically mechanical options. However in practical terms both contain "more options than a group could ever use", as does any (tabletop) RPG.

So I know that all RPGs that include the inherent ability of people to make things up are equivalent in terms of tactical options. Ultimately the mechanical options of 4e do overlap / cancel out some of the non-mechanical options, because a given group of players has a limit on how tactical they will actually get. The key issue here for me (in reference to the OP) is that this limit seems IME to get lower as real-time spent on a situation increases. In other words, the longer the fight goes on, the fewer options the players see and can really reach. However, at the same time, interest in the situation can not only reduce but actually reverse this effect to some extent.

More game actions but all leading to the same and only conclusion-beat on the wall of hit points and reduce them to zero.

And I think that this perception (which IME ExploderWizard shares with a lot of 4e players) is the big issue facing a DM who wants to maintain enough interest to avoid having the mechanical options of 4e overwhelm roleplaying and (at least in some cases) fun. Any system can fall prey to too much of an expectation that all fights are all-or-nothing deathmatches, and I think that in D&D that expectation has taken on a life of it's own. Without a specific tactical goal, that the players feel is important and worth trying to achieve, that's basically what you're left with. 4e actually includes a (slight) attempt to deal with this in the Intimidate rules, which amusingly are generally considered "cheesy"...

 

[Argyle King]

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It sounds like you're saying that D&D is based on a fundamentally simplistic tactical system that isn't much fun past a certain point (and, presumably, for certain people), no matter how much you try to dress it up with interesting tactical elements?

Is this correct?

Not exactly. What Im saying is that D&D combat is abstract and simple and designed to be resolved quickly. That being the case, endless combat wasn't the main focus of play. There are those who do make combat the main focus of play and the abstract nature of the basic system drives players to implement hordes of rules to stave off boredom.

I can still have as much fun fighting 4 orc guards using Basic D&D now as I did 30 years ago. My enjoyment from the game comes from playing a character, and exploring a fictional world. The mechanics used to resolve combat can be as plain and simple as anything.

I also love gritty tactical combat for its own sake. When I want this, an abstract system with added complexity and options just doesn't cut it. When tactical combat is called for I like to control my actions in more detail. I want to be able to actively defend, make called shots that can produce specific effects, etc. I don't mind the combat taking a while to run either. After all, if the focus is on the detailed combat, why not spend more time on it.

 

[The Shaman]

D&D began as an abstract system and it remains an abstract system. All the whizzbang sparklepop of powers didn't change this. The difference is that earlier edition abstraction was kept simple and faster paced.

Early D&D wasn't any sort of masterpiece of tactics either. It was then what it is now, attacks vs static defenses in a HP attrition race. It was slick, speedy and resolved in a timely fashion so that the rest of the game could continue.

4E just took that base abstract system and introduced enough bells and whistles to convice some folks that it was a tactical combat game worthy of all the time it took to play out. For some they were successful, but others see the pig under all the lipstick.

Worth repeating.

 

[nedjer]

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.

Which seems good with RPG combat is about roleplaying combat alongside other forms of roleplaying. Rather than running roleplaying, switching to wargaming, switching back to roleplaying . . .

This, however, seems to lead to sharp intakes of breath, as the mechanical (wargamey) is 'meant' to be somehow separate from and above the mere roleplaying - presumably because the combat supposedly becomes arbitrary the moment you start to roleplay it?

Makes about as much sense to me as serving Arctic Roll at a Hawaiian wedding.

 

[Argyle King]

Which seems good with RPG combat is about roleplaying combat alongside other forms of roleplaying. Rather than running roleplaying, switching to wargaming, switching back to roleplaying . . .

This, however, seems to lead to sharp intakes of breath, as the mechanical (wargamey) is 'meant' to be somehow separate from and above the mere roleplaying - presumably because the combat supposedly becomes arbitrary the moment you start to roleplay it?

Makes about as much sense to me as serving Arctic Roll at a Hawaiian wedding.

For me, I'd prefer there not be 'switching.' I think there should just be a smooth transition between types of play. Both should enhance each other and work together to create a greater experience rather than seeming to work against each other and/or seeming to be two separate modes of play.

 

[giant.robot]

For me, I'd prefer there not be 'switching.' I think there should just be a smooth transition between types of play. Both should enhance each other and work together to create a greater experience rather than seeming to work against each other and/or seeming to be two separate modes of play.

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.