Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6657027" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Some good points above, especially the point about AD&amp;D campaigns running out of steam at 10th level instead of moving to strategic challenges. And I agree especially with your last two paragraphs: I have said nothing at all about 4E because I have no experience with it, and (Fixed DCs) -&gt; (Scope changes are encouraged) does not in any way shape or form imply that (Relative DCs) -&gt; (Scope changes are discouraged).In all of the above, the only thing I really would disagree with is that Phantom Steeds and flying towers are strategic resources. To me they still seem essentially operational, maybe even tactical. When I say &quot;strategic challenges&quot; I'm thinking of challenges that you basically can't fight tactically, e.g. your nation is starving because food imports are blockaded by enemy ships and you have no navy. Churchill didn't win WWII by killing Hitler with a machine gun; he won by getting Russia and the US on his side. (I'm not a WWII expert, so there may be better ways to frame this including &quot;Hitler lost by attacking Russia in the winter.&quot;) Most official D&amp;D modules that I've seen handle strategic threats by converting them back into tactical threats (see: the awfulness that is Rise of Tiamat in 5E, where the whole campaign culminates in a simple slugfest with Tiamat regardless of any diplomatic results with Szass Tam or the good dragons), or just by ending the campaign as you observed above. In short, D&amp;D doesn't come with rules by default for strategic play. Conjecture: when tactical and operational play becomes infeasible and unfun, strategic rules[1] must therefore be created, or play ceases. Relative DCs solve this problem by just making tactical and operational play continue ad infinitum.-Max[1] Strategic rules could be formal, &quot;If X then deplete Y,&quot; or informal table conventions. The key thing is that players must feel they are able in principle to predict the consequences of their choices instead of being subject to DM whim. At my table this means giving them some simple 4X rules for what kind of income they can get from interplanetary trade and colonization.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6657027, member: 6787650"] Some good points above, especially the point about AD&D campaigns running out of steam at 10th level instead of moving to strategic challenges. And I agree especially with your last two paragraphs: I have said nothing at all about 4E because I have no experience with it, and (Fixed DCs) -> (Scope changes are encouraged) does not in any way shape or form imply that (Relative DCs) -> (Scope changes are discouraged). In all of the above, the only thing I really would disagree with is that Phantom Steeds and flying towers are strategic resources. To me they still seem essentially operational, maybe even tactical. When I say "strategic challenges" I'm thinking of challenges that you basically can't fight tactically, e.g. your nation is starving because food imports are blockaded by enemy ships and you have no navy. Churchill didn't win WWII by killing Hitler with a machine gun; he won by getting Russia and the US on his side. (I'm not a WWII expert, so there may be better ways to frame this including "Hitler [I]lost[/I] by attacking Russia in the winter.") Most official D&D modules that I've seen handle strategic threats by converting them back into tactical threats (see: the awfulness that is Rise of Tiamat in 5E, where the whole campaign culminates in a simple slugfest with Tiamat regardless of any diplomatic results with Szass Tam or the good dragons), or just by ending the campaign as you observed above. In short, D&D doesn't come with rules by default for strategic play. Conjecture: when tactical and operational play becomes infeasible and unfun, strategic rules[1] must therefore be created, or play ceases. Relative DCs solve this problem by just making tactical and operational play continue ad infinitum. -Max [1] Strategic rules could be formal, "If X then deplete Y," or informal table conventions. The key thing is that players must feel they are able in principle to predict the consequences of their choices instead of being subject to DM whim. At my table this means giving them some simple 4X rules for what kind of income they can get from interplanetary trade and colonization. [/QUOTE]

Verification