Will the complexity pendulum swing back?

[jdrakeh]

laughs in Rolemaster Unified

 

[dbm]

I am curious what you consider the "modern mechanisms." I don't have Draw Steel, so I don't know how fundamentally different from, say, Savage Worlds its tactical play elements are.

I’m not the person you are asking, but I do have Draw Steel. The only particularly ‘modern’ element in my opinion is the use of an evolution of the PbtA tiered success mechanism. For example, in combat you will always do some / average / more damage. There is no ‘miss’ result. Skills are different in so much as there is a ‘fail’ result that can happen.

The narrative explanation of the combat mechanism is nice - you have Stamina rather than HP and this represents your ability to fight effectively. When you are out of stamina it becomes possible for an opponent to land a telling blow on you. And every attack takes some energy to defend yourself against, hence the constant attrition. It also narratively justifies quick healing in combat and the Tactician’s ability to boost moral and restore stamina.

Beyond that, on the player side most things are familiar but well done. It is most definitely an evolution of D&D 4e with most of the sacred cows now fully excised from it. Remember when a common lament was “4e would be a success if it was its own thing and not D&D”? Draw Steel is that game.

And turned up to 11. By second level a Void Elementalist can create portals across the battlefield every round for free…

 

[MichaelSomething]

How about we compare TTRPGs to formal dining??? If it's less complex then a formal dinner, we call it rules lite???

Fine Dining Etiquette: A Guide to Rules and Best Practices

Curious to learn more about fine dining etiquette? From basic manners to fine wine selection, discover the special rules and expectations of high-end restaurants!

www.escoffier.edu

 

[Campbell]

The games I consider modern tactical games share the following characteristics (though some might miss a point or two):

What Makes Them Tactical?

• An emphasis on in the moment execution over character building or logistics. Skill at playing the game is expressed in the moment and the feedback loop is pretty immediate.
• A decreased emphasis on attrition. The focus is on this encounter you are in right now.
• An emphasis on group synergy - both for player characters and their adversaries. In these games you build groups, not individual characters and individual abilities combo. Coordination is vital to success.
• There is often a flexible turn structure that allows characters to coordinate. Either side based or alternating.
• There is a specific emphasis that requires mastery of this game in particular. For Draw Steel this is its movement and collision mechanics, escalating heroic resources / malice as a fight goes on and the impact of victories. For Legend of the Five Rings this is managing your stances and impacts of wounds (and possibility of weapons breaking).

What makes them modern?

• Fights tend to be more set piece oriented and should each have a level of narrative importance.
• They have a specific premise they are reinforcing, both in and out of combat. Even in combat, often especially in combat there is an unfolding narrative and vibe to the game. L5R builds mounting Strife that makes saving face more difficult and might lead you to taking dishonorable actions. Warhammer - The Old World has a focus on routing the enemy and wounds that linger beyond today's fight (and also has a huge emphasis on social class).
• Outside of combat they often integrate indie tech (often from Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark). Stuff like progress clocks, success with consequences, etc. Conflict resolution is the norm.
• They usually have system support for social encounters that reinforce the premise of the game.
• Explicit downtime procedures is often a thing.
• They often have a focus on character motivations and often build the game around the player characters. Stormlight Archive has character motivation and goals. Fabula Ultima brings in Identity and Bonds. The Old World has characters under the shadow of a Grim Portent, a campaign long mystery that unites them in purpose.

I'd consider 4e a forefather of the genre. Most of the elements are there in protoform and it is often cited as an inspiration. I mean modern is relative - this medium is fairly slow moving in comparison to some others.

Modern here means inspired by other newer games. Not better.

 

[Campbell]

Note that I do not think grids are universal here. Some use square grids (Draw Steel, Cosmere). Some use hex grids (Lancer). Others use zones (Warhammer - The Old World), range bands (L5R) and some even use completely narrative positioning (Fabula Ultima).

The other unifying theme for me (on a tactical level) is the lack of simple options. You cannot opt out of playing the game and let other players carry the load alone. This often just as true on the narrative side of things as well. Everyone is expected to contribute in all conflict scenes and to play to their character's premise.

 

[Reynard]

Note that I do not think grids are universal here. Some use square grids (Draw Steel, Cosmere). Some use hex grids (Lancer). Others use zones (Warhammer - The Old World), range bands (L5R) and some even use completely narrative positioning (Fabula Ultima).

I don't think either zones or narrative positioning would be good choices for a X-Com like, since a big part (at least half) of that genre is explicit ranges, areas of effect, cover mechanics and the like. Zones do that stuff okay in "regualr" RPGs, but I think are too loose for something with a high focus on tactical scenarios.

The other unifying theme for me (on a tactical level) is the lack of simple options. You cannot opt out of playing the game and let other players carry the load alone. This often just as true on the narrative side of things as well. Everyone is expected to contribute in all conflict scenes and to play to their character's premise.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[Reynard]

You're right my bad, there have been no new rpg mechanisms since white box dnd.

Have it your way. But if you don't want to discuss it, why did you bring it up?

 

[Campbell]

@Reynard

I do not think a game needs to be structured like X-Com or Final Fantasy Tactics to be tactical. I consider a game tactical if it has a compelling combat system that can be played skillfully, requires coordination and skill at execution time is the determining factor in success.

I have not seen it at the table yet, but in theory I think Warhammer - The Old World uses zones brilliantly. When someone hits you, but does not do enough damage to cause a wound (or if you fail a roll when making a melee strike) you become staggered. If you would become staggered again you must give ground (move to an adjacent zone) or take a wound. If you give ground to a zone with any enemies your will is broken and you must make your way to an unoccupied zone.

L5R is different in that the skill of the game is built around your elemental stances. Each with specific benefits. You take wounds to your rings which reduce your effectiveness when in the corresponding stance so skill at the game involves using special abilities in different rings and adjusting to circumstances as you get wounded.

 

[Reynard]

@Reynard

I do not think a game needs to be structured like X-Com or Final Fantasy Tactics to be tactical.

Yeah, sorry, in my head I was in the specific X-Com thread when I responded.

I do think zones are great for a different style of tactical play. I am not so sure about "narrative" since I am not sure how that differs from "theater of the mind."

Of course, different games, campaigns and moods require different tools, tactical included. It is good that there are lots of options.

 

[Agamon]

Have it your way. But if you don't want to discuss it, why did you bring it up?

It was a joke that you decided to take seriously. Why did you do that?