Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5520763" data-attributes="member: 58416">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.</blockquote>

Verification