Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2903496" data-attributes="member: 6777">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 &quot;subtactical&quot; thing sounds to me mostly like &quot;color&quot;. I.e., it's combat based on &quot;cool&quot; 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 &quot;lite&quot; 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).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 2903496, member: 6777"] 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 [i]providing[/i] 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. [i]Feng Shui[/i], 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification