Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 2902723" data-attributes="member: 3608">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 &quot;what&quot; the character does to &quot;how&quot; he does it is a subtactical decision. (&amp; I'm going to say up front that that is just an attempt, so don't go taking each syllable too seriously. (^_^))&quot;Bob is going to close &amp; attack the nearest goblin.&quot; &quot;Tom going to flank &amp; attack the same goblin Bob engaged.&quot; &quot;We're going to concentrate our attacks on the wizard.&quot; &quot;I'm going to stay between the bugbear &amp; George the mage.&quot; &quot;Run away!&quot; These are tactical decisions.&quot;I hit it in the nose with my sword pommel.&quot; &quot;I fient.&quot; 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 &amp; 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&amp;D only gives you four options each round (move, shoot, swing, cast) &amp; 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.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, &amp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 2902723, member: 3608"] 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 [i]as[/i] 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. [i]But[/i]...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. Well, if you're really thinking about it in terms of [i]power[/i], 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification