Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5808319" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Hmmmmmm. </p><p></p><p>I think people underestimate the extent to which strategic planning can be advantageous in 4e. I think people also got REAL firmly used to leaning on casting as a planning crutch in earlier editions (probably more in 3.x than in AD&D, but I have limited experience with 3.x). AD&D worked reasonably well in at least some respects at low level. Casters had mostly 'tactical' and now and then 'plot' type spells (and there were some other classes like the paladin with plot relevant class features too). It really did start to break down though, and IMHO at least the sweet spot was pretty narrow. </p><p></p><p>I know as a player who made a point of exploiting my magic user's casting ability to the hilt that 7th level was about the limit. Once you had even one 4th level spell slot and the willingness to be ruthless and systematic about 'warring' on the opposition it was pretty much nuclear war. An enemy without similar resources was just SOL, even if it took some time and energy to deal with them. OTOH if the DM played the same game back with you then the whole thing rapidly broke down.</p><p></p><p>I'm also not really that confident that there were ever unbiased DMs. I KNOW better than to claim I ever was, and I think what really happened was a series of social contracts evolved where the DM would avoid exploiting the bad guys strengths overly and the players would play along with his willingness to not go too hard on them or rule too hard against them if they didn't push things to the ultimate limit.</p><p></p><p>I think 4e was simply designed to avoid this as much as possible. I don't think it was designed to be "Combat as Sport" explicitly, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a DM (or player) really explain their preferences in that sort of way. 4e was more intended to be flexible in allowing for all sorts of character archetypes to be useful. That virtually necessitated making 'strategic' magic more accessible, more costly, and less arbitrarily flexible.</p><p></p><p>I think the INTENT at least was that the players would use their abilities in creative ways, whether in or out of combat, but that those abilities would be more numerous but less open-ended. That SHOULD bring OOTB thinking to the front, you don't get a win button on your character sheet, you have to come up with it yourself. Page 42 certainly provided one set of ways to get there, but I don't see that the intent was ever to exclude others.</p><p></p><p>It is interesting to note that the presentation of 4e seems to have just killed the concept. Clearly people stopped thinking in terms of cleverness outside of combat as a possibility, yet 1e's books say not one word more about such cleverness than the 4e books do. I think 4e resource management also was intended to make thinking ahead MORE important, not less. Again, the reaction here is to things like 3e healsticks.</p><p></p><p>I think the real problem is there's a big danger of rejecting some very good concepts that 4e introduced in people's haste to have both a better presentation and familiar older mechanics. A LOT of things that exist in 4e will work not only perfectly well in a more classically presented format, but will actually work better than their AD&D equivalents IMHO. I think a lot of them will seem perfectly acceptable in the right context too.</p><p></p><p>Ideally 5e will provide that context and retain most of the mechanical improvements. Making them 'options' is fine, but in a sense that makes me uneasy as it tempts the designers to not really look at them deeply, and clearly there's been a lot of shallow analysis that has gone on in the last few years (well, always, lol). </p><p></p><p>Anyway, it is a good thread. Please do carry on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5808319, member: 82106"] Hmmmmmm. I think people underestimate the extent to which strategic planning can be advantageous in 4e. I think people also got REAL firmly used to leaning on casting as a planning crutch in earlier editions (probably more in 3.x than in AD&D, but I have limited experience with 3.x). AD&D worked reasonably well in at least some respects at low level. Casters had mostly 'tactical' and now and then 'plot' type spells (and there were some other classes like the paladin with plot relevant class features too). It really did start to break down though, and IMHO at least the sweet spot was pretty narrow. I know as a player who made a point of exploiting my magic user's casting ability to the hilt that 7th level was about the limit. Once you had even one 4th level spell slot and the willingness to be ruthless and systematic about 'warring' on the opposition it was pretty much nuclear war. An enemy without similar resources was just SOL, even if it took some time and energy to deal with them. OTOH if the DM played the same game back with you then the whole thing rapidly broke down. I'm also not really that confident that there were ever unbiased DMs. I KNOW better than to claim I ever was, and I think what really happened was a series of social contracts evolved where the DM would avoid exploiting the bad guys strengths overly and the players would play along with his willingness to not go too hard on them or rule too hard against them if they didn't push things to the ultimate limit. I think 4e was simply designed to avoid this as much as possible. I don't think it was designed to be "Combat as Sport" explicitly, and I'm not sure I've ever heard a DM (or player) really explain their preferences in that sort of way. 4e was more intended to be flexible in allowing for all sorts of character archetypes to be useful. That virtually necessitated making 'strategic' magic more accessible, more costly, and less arbitrarily flexible. I think the INTENT at least was that the players would use their abilities in creative ways, whether in or out of combat, but that those abilities would be more numerous but less open-ended. That SHOULD bring OOTB thinking to the front, you don't get a win button on your character sheet, you have to come up with it yourself. Page 42 certainly provided one set of ways to get there, but I don't see that the intent was ever to exclude others. It is interesting to note that the presentation of 4e seems to have just killed the concept. Clearly people stopped thinking in terms of cleverness outside of combat as a possibility, yet 1e's books say not one word more about such cleverness than the 4e books do. I think 4e resource management also was intended to make thinking ahead MORE important, not less. Again, the reaction here is to things like 3e healsticks. I think the real problem is there's a big danger of rejecting some very good concepts that 4e introduced in people's haste to have both a better presentation and familiar older mechanics. A LOT of things that exist in 4e will work not only perfectly well in a more classically presented format, but will actually work better than their AD&D equivalents IMHO. I think a lot of them will seem perfectly acceptable in the right context too. Ideally 5e will provide that context and retain most of the mechanical improvements. Making them 'options' is fine, but in a sense that makes me uneasy as it tempts the designers to not really look at them deeply, and clearly there's been a lot of shallow analysis that has gone on in the last few years (well, always, lol). Anyway, it is a good thread. Please do carry on. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
Top