|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 9:55PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
I'm going to have to disagree with the "tactics is in the story" posters. Tactics need mechanics, the only question is whether those mechanics are codified or up to the DM (or more precisely how much of them falls into either camp). Players that organize an elaborate ambush in unfavorable terrain will find there "tactics" wasted if there are no mechanical advantages to having surprise or to the brand of unfavorable terrain they've chosen. Now you can have a rule that says "extra standard action before combat begins" and "each square of movement costs 2" or you can just have the DM say "PCs get advantage on their first attack," but without some kind of mechanic there can be no tactics. Even if it's just that the monsters are crowded together and more vulnerable to the wizards' AoE, without an AoE mechanic it's meaningless (and no, that's not a stretch to put that down to mechanics, the point is that having different kinds of attacks adds tactical depth). Now DM fiat mechanics can be enough, but mechanics are necessary.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:15PM
#42
|
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with the "tactics is in the story" posters. Tactics need mechanics, the only question is whether those mechanics are codified or up to the DM (or more precisely how much of them falls into either camp). Players that organize an elaborate ambush in unfavorable terrain will find there "tactics" wasted if there are no mechanical advantages to having surprise or to the brand of unfavorable terrain they've chosen. Now you can have a rule that says "extra standard action before combat begins" and "each square of movement costs 2" or you can just have the DM say "PCs get advantage on their first attack," but without some kind of mechanic there can be no tactics. Even if it's just that the monsters are crowded together and more vulnerable to the wizards' AoE, without an AoE mechanic it's meaningless (and no, that's not a stretch to put that down to mechanics, the point is that having different kinds of attacks adds tactical depth). Now DM fiat mechanics can be enough, but mechanics are necessary.
The most tactical game I know, FATE, is one of the least mechanical. When tactics can cause a combat to be run without so much as a single die roll, it is hard to argue that the mechanics are codified or up to the DM.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:21PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I'm going to have to disagree with the "tactics is in the story" posters. Tactics need mechanics, the only question is whether those mechanics are codified or up to the DM (or more precisely how much of them falls into either camp). Players that organize an elaborate ambush in unfavorable terrain will find there "tactics" wasted if there are no mechanical advantages to having surprise or to the brand of unfavorable terrain they've chosen. Now you can have a rule that says "extra standard action before combat begins" and "each square of movement costs 2" or you can just have the DM say "PCs get advantage on their first attack," but without some kind of mechanic there can be no tactics. Even if it's just that the monsters are crowded together and more vulnerable to the wizards' AoE, without an AoE mechanic it's meaningless (and no, that's not a stretch to put that down to mechanics, the point is that having different kinds of attacks adds tactical depth). Now DM fiat mechanics can be enough, but mechanics are necessary.
The most tactical game I know, FATE, is one of the least mechanical. When tactics can cause a combat to be run without so much as a single die roll, it is hard to argue that the mechanics are codified or up to the DM.
I'd hesitate to call what you're talking about with FATE 'tactics' in the same sense. It could almost be called 'meta-gaming,' though that'd miss the point. FATE has some cool, plot-couponish mechanics that allow players to change how a scene goes down, and there can be a bit of game-play strategy in how you best utilize those mechanics. It's an intriguing system, but not a robust or 'tactical' one. More one of those indy systems that gives you some tools & structure with which to aproach what is essentially freestyle RP.
For the kind of tactics & mechanics PowerRPer is talking about, FATE would be leaing heavily on DM fiat, since the GM has to adjudicate some pretty vague mechanics.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:26PM
#44
|
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with the "tactics is in the story" posters. Tactics need mechanics, the only question is whether those mechanics are codified or up to the DM (or more precisely how much of them falls into either camp). Players that organize an elaborate ambush in unfavorable terrain will find there "tactics" wasted if there are no mechanical advantages to having surprise or to the brand of unfavorable terrain they've chosen. Now you can have a rule that says "extra standard action before combat begins" and "each square of movement costs 2" or you can just have the DM say "PCs get advantage on their first attack," but without some kind of mechanic there can be no tactics. Even if it's just that the monsters are crowded together and more vulnerable to the wizards' AoE, without an AoE mechanic it's meaningless (and no, that's not a stretch to put that down to mechanics, the point is that having different kinds of attacks adds tactical depth). Now DM fiat mechanics can be enough, but mechanics are necessary.
The most tactical game I know, FATE, is one of the least mechanical. When tactics can cause a combat to be run without so much as a single die roll, it is hard to argue that the mechanics are codified or up to the DM.
I'd hesitate to call what you're talking about with FATE 'tactics' in the same sense. It could almost be called 'meta-gaming,' though that'd miss the point. FATE has some cool, plot-couponish mechanics that allow players to change how a scene goes down, and there can be a bit of game-play strategy in how you best utilize those mechanics. It's an intriguing system, but not a robust or 'tactical' one. More one of those indy systems that gives you some tools & structure with which to aproach what is essentially freestyle RP.
For the kind of tactics & mechanics PowerRPer is talking about, FATE would be leaing heavily on DM fiat, since the GM has to adjudicate some pretty vague mechanics.
I think you're missing the point of both tactics and of FATE. Tactics are about using your knowledge and the environment to gain an advantage. FATE is about throwing out the mechanics (not using vague mechanics or DM Fiat) to tell a story. Dice rolls are not needed use a character's knowledge or the environment to gain an advantage. Mechanics are not needed to gain an advantage. When a story is a story, or roleplaying is roleplaying, an advantage can simply be. It needs no representation or translation. It is free to stand on its own, and live or die on its own merits.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:34PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
... It needs no representation or translation. It is free to stand on its own, and live or die on its own merits.
Couldn't that be considered a mechanic? It seems that is the core mechanic of the FATE system.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:59PM
#46
|
|
|
... It needs no representation or translation. It is free to stand on its own, and live or die on its own merits.
Couldn't that be considered a mechanic? It seems that is the core mechanic of the FATE system.
No, that is the opposite of a mechanic. The point of FATE is to tell a story as devoid of mechanics as possible. Mechanics get in the way of telling a story. In the same way, mechanics get in the way of tactics. To have a mechanic, you have to have codification of success or failure. Things can succeed or fail without codification. It is mechanics that have the need, not the tactics or the story. Mechanics are parasitic.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:19PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
I'm going to have to disagree with the "tactics is in the story" posters. Tactics need mechanics, the only question is whether those mechanics are codified or up to the DM (or more precisely how much of them falls into either camp). Players that organize an elaborate ambush in unfavorable terrain will find there "tactics" wasted if there are no mechanical advantages to having surprise or to the brand of unfavorable terrain they've chosen. Now you can have a rule that says "extra standard action before combat begins" and "each square of movement costs 2" or you can just have the DM say "PCs get advantage on their first attack," but without some kind of mechanic there can be no tactics. Even if it's just that the monsters are crowded together and more vulnerable to the wizards' AoE, without an AoE mechanic it's meaningless (and no, that's not a stretch to put that down to mechanics, the point is that having different kinds of attacks adds tactical depth). Now DM fiat mechanics can be enough, but mechanics are necessary.
Dungeons and Dragons is shared storytelling, first and foremost.
Young children 'play pretend' and elaborately interact through make believe warfare, playing house, and battling imaginary dragons. These experiences are organized and adjudicated through common agreement and have absolutely no codified rulesets to reference. -- Do they lack tactical choices as a result? Are options limited?
D&D exists within that collaborative world of entertainment and make believe.
There's a pervasive sentiment on these boards that the rules tell you what you are and are not capable of. That's not what they're for. The story and game progresses without the ruleset until there is discrepancy--until we are no longer in common agreement. This normally takes place when my character is trying to effect the DM's world in some way that he says isn't possible or isn't as easy as my version of the story dictates, at which point an obstacle exists that the numbers can be cited to help us overcome. The numbers and ruleset serve as a completely objective arbiter of outcome that we commonly agree on as the final say in terms of conflict resolution.
You do not need codified tactics to spin a yarn unless you play with contentious individuals who put your every action to the test of numbers. -- I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying it ain't my D&D. 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:38PM
#48
|
|
|
We know the system is still in development, but at this stage, what do you find add tactical depth to D&D Next ?
Me, I find Breaking Up Movement add tactical depth and i like how it allow one to move any increment of 5 feet, stop to perform an action and resolve movement. Its makes movement more fluid than ever!
And you ?
I definitely dig the movement freedom! 
For me, it's the open-endedness of definition. During the course of vast 4E public play, I observed tons of players spending entire combats staring at their character sheets and considering the map as a game board. It appeared to most that your ability to impact the story was clearly and solely defined by what was written on your character sheet. I now see colorful, imaginative battles, with players only referencing their character sheets when asked for numbers (and that happens less and less often as players are more apt to know their numbers off the top of their head).
Combat has become more dynamic by virtue of one's ability to shape it through storytelling, with much less definitive consequence being enforced by the coded rules.
Strange I see colorful, imaginative battles, with players only referencing their character sheets when asked for numbers (and that happens less and less often as players are more apt to know their numbers off the top of their head). Combat has become more dynamic by virtue of one's ability to shape it through storytelling, with much less definitive consequences being enforced the the coded rules in 4E. So I'm not exactly seeing your problem... Maybe you weren't playing it like an RPG and instead were playing it like a board game?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:41PM
#49
|
|
|
Imaginitive stories is not the same as tactical depth. Not that they have to be at odds, but i have yet to see a poetry of math, or creative calculus class.
"The union of the mathematician with the poet, fervor with measure, passion with correctness, this surely is the ideal." - William James
There is a collegiate textbook entitled 'Creative Mathematics' written by H.S. Hall that addresses the concepts of imagination and mathematical discovery. -- You should peruse the course catalogs of the Ivy Leagues, private/respected science and engineering schools, as well as those made available through organizations such as the Mathematical Society of America. Connecting words, art, and math in various ways, and considering the inputs, outputs, results and deeper meaning is definitely a thing.
I, personally, find tactical depth in my ability to do whatever the hell I want through narrative, without needing the specific outline of capability written on my character sheet. DDN gives me what I need to resolve discrepancy, serving as a basis of comparison when my story attempts to impact the DM's world. It stays out of my way, and doesn't present a sandbox of options that curtail my output by virtue of its explicitly limiting mechanical ruleset. The tactical complexity thereof is endless.
4E DMG page 42...you should read it sometime...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:51PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
We know the system is still in development, but at this stage, what do you find add tactical depth to D&D Next ?
Me, I find Breaking Up Movement add tactical depth and i like how it allow one to move any increment of 5 feet, stop to perform an action and resolve movement. Its makes movement more fluid than ever!
And you ?
I definitely dig the movement freedom!
For me, it's the open-endedness of definition. During the course of vast 4E public play, I observed tons of players spending entire combats staring at their character sheets and considering the map as a game board. It appeared to most that your ability to impact the story was clearly and solely defined by what was written on your character sheet. I now see colorful, imaginative battles, with players only referencing their character sheets when asked for numbers (and that happens less and less often as players are more apt to know their numbers off the top of their head).
Combat has become more dynamic by virtue of one's ability to shape it through storytelling, with much less definitive consequence being enforced by the coded rules.
Strange I see colorful, imaginative battles, with players only referencing their character sheets when asked for numbers (and that happens less and less often as players are more apt to know their numbers off the top of their head). Combat has become more dynamic by virtue of one's ability to shape it through storytelling, with much less definitive consequences being enforced the the coded rules in 4E. So I'm not exactly seeing your problem... Maybe you weren't playing it like an RPG and instead were playing it like a board game?
I've organized 5 Seasons of Encounters for a store that boasts 70 unique players, 2 Seasons at a store that boasts 30 unique players, and presided over games at numerous conventions (only citing 4E experiences; there are years more in this regard in other formats). I'm not talking about the people I play with in private settings, that are intimately acquainted with their characters. I'm specifically referencing my observation of players interacting with characters they are unfamiliar with, rules they are just learning, and engaging with a game they have a desire to learn. My observation of players in the organized playtests we've run (weekly, in the same public forum containing 70 unique players, since the beginning of the playtest) is night-and-day different from the struggles I observe happening with 4E. DDN nurtures an immediate connect, maintains player engagement, and is very welcome to new members of the hobby with its simplicity.
Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
