When the system gets in the way

[RFisher]

It's a term someone invented up-thread. They decided that since 2e was tactical, but 3e was MORE tactical in their opinion, they describe it as 'sub-tactical'. Which I guess is the same as 'more detailed tactical than just tactical'.

Well, I certainly wasn't the first person to use the word subtactical--just the first person to use it in this thread.

I'll try to explain what I mean by it: Any decision that goes beyond "what" the character does to "how" he does it is a subtactical decision. (& I'm going to say up front that that is just an attempt, so don't go taking each syllable too seriously. (^_^))

"Bob is going to close & attack the nearest goblin." "Tom going to flank & attack the same goblin Bob engaged." "We're going to concentrate our attacks on the wizard." "I'm going to stay between the bugbear & George the mage." "Run away!" These are tactical decisions.

"I hit it in the nose with my sword pommel." "I fient." These are subtactical decisions. (Or just roleplaying color, if they aren't backed up by mechanics.)

The more I think about it though, I start to wonder if 3e isn't as guilty of the subtactical thing as I have accussed it. At least the core rules. But it has been a while since I played it. So, I'll concede that point & save it to use against Gurps.

But...my point remains that you don't need the complexity of the 3e combat system to have a tactical game. When you stop thinking that classic D&D only gives you four options each round (move, shoot, swing, cast) & start thinking about how to use those options to increase your chance of surviving the battle, then it isn't just trading blows to see who runs out of hp first. (Although, it may be: trading blows after having done everything to ensure that the monsters will run out of hp first.)

The complexity just obscures things so that the couple of people at the table who actually like mastering the rules have an extra advantage.

Not the case, since the GM is the one who has the last word when it comes to adjudication outside the rules. By definition, a rules-light system has less rules. Which leaves more room for adjudication. So more final words from the GM.

Well, if you're really thinking about it in terms of power, then you probably shouldn't be playing a light game. While the DM may have ultimate say, he must be a benevolent dictator. You've got to be thinking about fun, be friends, & be willing to forgive each other's shortcomings. (Some lessons about gaming that I learned the hard way.)

...but that's just an observation, not an argument. It's certainly worthwhile to discuss the power dynamics.

 

[Odhanan]

Well, if you're really thinking about it in terms of power, then you probably shouldn't be playing a light game.

If you're referring to my personal tastes, no. I don't think of RPGs in terms of power at the table, but I don't negate the influence of group dynamics on the game either. You're taking a discussion on a very precise point and overgeneralize it to deduct my own inclinations, which, to be frank, I didn't specifically state. But since you ask: I like all kinds of rules systems. I choose a system according to the kind of game we want to run, what we want to get out of the game and the kind of entertainment we're searching for, which varies from one campaign to another.

 

[RFisher]

If you're referring to my personal tastes

I put that last bit in to try to specifically say that I was not overgeneralizing your (or anyone else's) inclinations. Just bouncing off your comment to make an observation.

 

[Odhanan]

Oh alright. I guess my answer was preventive.

 

[buzz]

That's true, but then the rules in games like that don't cover what your character can do in the "Can she jump this ten-foot gap?" or "Can she stab this zombie in the brain?" sense. They help answer other questions, like "What do you have to put on the line to make this guy leave town?"

Well, although it would be lame, in Dogs, if you really wanted a conflict over jumping the 10-foot gap, you'd roll the Demonic Influence against the PC.

Right. That's why I don't use the term "lite" to refer to games like DitV. DitV has all the rules you need, because it focuses on conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Jumping the 10' gap doesn't become a GM call; either it's inconsequential so you "say yes", or you're rolling dice in a conflict. The GM can never just say "no, you can't do that" (within reason, of course; the GM, likely backed by the other players, can say "no" if someone is doing someting disruptive).

DitV is a game that you can play 100% by the book and have it work.

 

[Hussar]

But...my point remains that you don't need the complexity of the 3e combat system to have a tactical game. When you stop thinking that classic D&D only gives you four options each round (move, shoot, swing, cast) & start thinking about how to use those options to increase your chance of surviving the battle, then it isn't just trading blows to see who runs out of hp first. (Although, it may be: trading blows after having done everything to ensure that the monsters will run out of hp first.)

But, that's the problem. There are only four options. One of those options gives you no advantage - move. Swing/shoot/cast is effectively one option for each PC. A guy with a sword swings, the wizzy casts. That has nothing to do with tactics and everything to do with the fact that each class has only a few limited options.

In other words, 2e combat became a HP race. Could you drop the monster before it dropped you?

While I agree that you do not need incredible complexity to make a game tactical in nature (after all, Checkers isn't exactly complex), you do need methods of conflict resolution which give advantages to different actions. If all actions lead to the same result, then, there are no tactical options.

 

[buzz]

The complexity just obscures things so that the couple of people at the table who actually like mastering the rules have an extra advantage.

A tactical challenge has to involve resoruce management, positioning, and meaningful decision points. These aspects don't need to be inherrently complex, but they need to exist in order for tactics to be invovled.

Both 3e and 1e (the previous edition I have the most experience with) provide these elements, especially if you're actually playing 1e as-written, which was a rare thing, IME. 3e, arguably, provides a more robust—and more clearly executed—tactical experience; the three elements I listed above are more important in 3e than 1e.

So, rather than obscuring, the system is providing the tactical experience.

I can't argue, though, that the player with system mastery is at an advantage against the player without. Granted, a DM that can translate plain-English intents into adjudication can mitigate this. I also think that 3e works pretty well with real-world logic; players can use basic tactical logic and it'll translate more often than not.

The "subtactical" thing sounds to me mostly like "color". I.e., it's combat based on "cool" rather than tactics. This kind of play is great when the system rewards it. Feng Shui, iirc, allowed you to earn bonuses in combat for really over-the-top descriptions and stunts.

Unfortunately, a lot of "lite" systems I've seen expect the reward of description to be enough; no matter how you describe it, you're still, say, rolling your sword skill vs. the target's defense. IMO, this is pretty unappealing. It's also very much what most of the 1e combats I played were like, since we rarely used the RAW (becasue it confused the heck out of us, at least when I was a kid).

 

[buzz]

While I agree that you do not need incredible complexity to make a game tactical in nature (after all, Checkers isn't exactly complex), you do need methods of conflict resolution which give advantages to different actions. If all actions lead to the same result, then, there are no tactical options.

Once again, Hussar says what I was trying to say, but better.

 

[The Shaman]

While I agree that you do not need incredible complexity to make a game tactical in nature (after all, Checkers isn't exactly complex), you do need methods of conflict resolution which give advantages to different actions. If all actions lead to the same result, then, there are no tactical options.

Do you mean things like attacking an opponent from the flank or rear to gain a to-hit bonus, or getting a free attack on a disengaging opponent, or backstabbing for extra damage, or emphasizing ranged attack bonuses over melee attack bonuses in ability score placement, or fighting with two weapons, or shield rushes, or choosing light armor and a high movement rate over heavy armor and a low movement rate, or charging with a polearm in order to strike before an opponent, or setting polearms to receive charges, or striking to subdue, or grappling an opponent, or selecting lighter faster weapons in order to strike before an opponent, or choosing between party buffing spells versus attack spells versus healing spells versus defensive spells versus divination spells? Those kinds of options? The kind that were all available in 1e AD&D?

 

[buzz]

The kind that were all available in 1e AD&D?

You know, they were there, but I'll be danged if I can remember a session in the 10+ years I played 1e where they ever really came up. It may be that I'm finally old enough to actually understand big rule texts, but my 3e games make way more use of the rules than my 1e ones. Or, it may be that the rules are just easier to understand and implement.

At some point, I think I'm going to re-read my 1e books and prep a game for Gameday; see how that old warhorse was really supposed to be played.