Sources of Tactical Depth

[wotmaniac]

I know that I've been fairly vocal and stubborn about this topic (though, more so on the latest WoF thread than here); but a couple of things were said that gave me pause:

And heres the disconnect. The military wants to reduce tactical depth. If they could answer every situation with 'air strikes until they surrender' they would do just that. Their objective is to complete an objective with minimum resource expenditure.

In game terms, those FRAGPLANS are an attempt to solve the game - what Frank refers to as scripting. And if that is possible, the solved part of the game disappears. It still has to rolled and calculated, but all the decisions are gone, only the work remains. And that is of course not desirable. So being able to script battles is bullshit and ruins combat. If you want battles to matter, you necessarily have to remove the scripting minigame, no matter how fun it might be.

I must admit that Lago and Frank probably covered this in depth, bashing me repeatedly over the head with as best they could; but for whatever reason, it just wasn't resonating with me. This resonates. As a matter of fact, it hit me so hard, that I've waited 2 weeks to respond just so that I could take the time to fully re-examine the issue from the bottom up.

Here's where I'm at so far:
This "tactical depth" is obviously in relation to the tactical miniatures game. As characters advance, it seems that the game should gradually shift from a tactical focus to a strategic focus. At level 3, you simply don't have enough options to implement any real strategy -- you are relying almost completely on tactics. This means that you can try to script all you want, and the game can still be as tactically deep as MC wants it to be. If you're still absorbed in the tactical portion at level 20, ...... well, a couple of things should be happening:

If you want to be able to play the same type of tactical game, just with bigger #'s and prettier scenery, then you have 2 options:
1) scale all your #s. If you want to maintain the tactical miniatures game, you can't just jump up the hit, damage, save, AC, etc.; you also need to scale the # of actual pieces on the board. This way leads to wargaming ;
2) puzzle encounters. the more cool stuff you have to play with, the more resistances/immunities the monsters need to have. now you have yourselves an arms race that takes place in all kinds of crazy cross-planar, multi-dimensional environments.

Alternatively, you can realize and accept that the game shifts from a tactical focus to a strategic focus. This means that you start playing a different game. As characters advance, strategy replaces tactics. Your strategic elements become your tactics. Sometimes this means wargaming; but sometimes this means that terraforming the moon effectively becomes a "tactic".

I'm still working on this, but it's what I've got so far.

[Archmage]

"Strategy" does not necessarily mean "bigger" things than "tactics." While it's true that strategy involves thinking about a situation in a larger context and with a longer scale of time, it does not necessarily mean that the actual actions being taken are "bigger." If you are playing pool with the solar system, blowing up the moon may be a suitable option given the current state of the "pool table." It's still tactical thinking, though--you are examining the situation right now and using that information to make a decision.

Strategy is all about long-term pre-game thinking. What you are suggesting is that at low levels you must decide what to do on a round-to-round basis during a battle, but that at high levels you will decide what you are doing before the battle ever starts.

"That guy moved next to the cliff ledge, so I'm going to bull rush him" is a tactical decision.

"Whenever I can, I'm going to try to maneuver my enemies so they're near a cliff and I can bull rush them" is strategic thinking.

[wotmaniac]

Oh, I get that. The point was twofold:
1) as you advance, the scale naturally goes up to match your relative power level ;
2) your capacity to effectively implement strategic planning increases as your character advances.

as your capacity for strategy increases, you will gradually be more inclined to play the strategy game (thus, gradually reducing the relevance of the tactical game).
at the same time, your power level also happens to be increasing -- which forces the scale of everything upwards.

I'm not making a point of causality; but, merely one of correlation, and that sometimes that correlation creates a synergistic relationship between the two.

[Murtak]

How so? Advancing can mean bigger numbers or new abilities. Bigger numbers generally don't change gameplay, other then allowing you to stomp your original enemies easier. And new abilities only change gameplay if powers with strategic relevance are reserved for higher levels of advancement. The only reason to switch the game from making tactical decision to making strategic decision is to mimic going from grunt work to commanding an army. If that is what you want, fine. But it is just as valid to keep doing the same stuff, just with higher numbers and differently colored effects, or to gain new abilities but never changing the scope of the game. And I would argue that this in fact more natural than the opposite. Anyone who actually enjoys the tactical aspects of a game is probably going to be pissed when you take it away from them, and rightfully so.

If you want both tactical and strategical decisions the game should just include both. Trading card games for example have distinct strategic and tactical parts. And in a sense, so do most RPGs in that they allow you to pick your character's abilities and to influence where and how combat happens. Adjust the ratio to your liking and then keep that ratio. Anything else is unfair to the players.

[Swordslinger]

That is basically a repackaged rollplayer-vs-roleplayer argument. I happen to believe that mechanics and story enhance each other, not detract from one another. Please come up with a better reason for disliking sound mechanics than "but I don't want to be forced to move like a chess piece".

There's plenty of good reasons. First, you're not going to get a game as deep as chess because you want your pieces to be different and unique. Chess is as good as it is because both sides are equal. Once you start throwing in different sides, you change everything and balancing the game becomes very difficult, if not impossible.

Second, if you set the bar of the game such that poor chess players can't survive combat, that's inherently bad. In a game like D&D, having tactics be too deep is not always good for the game. Given the playerbase for RPGs is already pretty small, creating a game that's overly tactical based and excludes people is a damn bad idea. Not everyone likes chess, some people in fact suck at it. And that's why they're playing D&D instead of chess.

[Murtak]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, or in what way it relates to mechanics. Let me repeat: I believe that sound mechanics enhance the roleplaying part of the game.

For example, if you actually get to protect the king's courier with your body, this opens up the basic concept of the bodyguard. This concept does not exist in many games, because it is not feasible to reliably stand in the way of attacks. Just look at 3E: it is generally hard to impossible to keep an opponent from attacking one of your friends, let alone forcing them to attack you. As a result, bodyguards are a joke and fights are deadly even if you can not personally kill someone in a single attack, because your entire party most assuredly can. And thus, being hard to kill is nearly useless. Say goodbye to dozens of fantasy staples.

If, on the other hand, mechanics for getting in the way of enemy attacks were part of the core rules there would be value in being hard to hurt, opening up more useful styles to play the game. Also you would gain in tactical depth, nameley deciding when to intercept attacks, when not to, and where to stand to make it possible in the first place.

Now, you seem to think that this is potentially detrimental, because it makes the game too hard, punishing those who are bad at playing complex games. I guess that is possible, but even if you do want to make the game less complex, this is merely an argument to remove parts of the game or to make them simpler - remember, DnD still has positioning, it just happens to not matter a lot of the time. Ripping out precise positioning and going to rooms instead of squares is an entirely sane proposition. Suggesting that a minigame that gets ignored by most characters is better than one that actually works is not.

[Swordslinger]

Now, you seem to think that this is potentially detrimental, because it makes the game too hard, punishing those who are bad at playing complex games. I guess that is possible, but even if you do want to make the game less complex, this is merely an argument to remove parts of the game or to make them simpler - remember, DnD still has positioning, it just happens to not matter a lot of the time. Ripping out precise positioning and going to rooms instead of squares is an entirely sane proposition. Suggesting that a minigame that gets ignored by most characters is better than one that actually works is not.

Nowhere did I say that.

In fact, I'm saying the opposite. It's imperative that every system you write works well. Thus you cannot afford to have tons of subsystems with the possibility that some of them may be broken.

You are flat out better having the DM adjudicate something based on a mathematically generated table, than you are to have a special rules subsystem that may be broken. The damage you cause by the second one could very well break the game, and if the only price to avoid that is slight inconsistency, then it's well worth it.

A non-rule can't destroy a game, but a bad rule can.

[Archmage]

A non-rule can't destroy a game, but a bad rule can.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin. A bad ruling resulting from a lack of an applicable rule to cover a situation can tear a game apart. And a lack of an applicable rule can cause gameplay to grind to a halt when two or more people at the table disagree about how the situation should be resolved.

It's easy to claim that the DM-as-final-adjudicator solves this problem, but you've clearly never experienced actual table discord. The rules exist to resolve disputes in a fair, impartial manner.

[K]

A non-rule can't destroy a game, but a bad rule can.

You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin. A bad ruling resulting from a lack of an applicable rule to cover a situation can tear a game apart. And a lack of an applicable rule can cause gameplay to grind to a halt when two or more people at the table disagree about how the situation should be resolved.

It's easy to claim that the DM-as-final-adjudicator solves this problem, but you've clearly never experienced actual table discord. The rules exist to resolve disputes in a fair, impartial manner.

This is why I don't think Swordslinger has ever played with live humans. This crap happens really frequently.

The reason game companies can sell books of rules to games that exist almost entirely in people's imaginations is because good rules prevent a breakdown at the table where people leave if in a huff and the campaign dissolves.

The 2e DMG used to have a whole section on "here are the perils of houseruling stuff and things you need to avoid." I'm surprised that this basic fact of DM craft has fallen to the wayside with the 4e crowd. It's like they are literally being forced to relearn the lessons of 20 years of DnD.

[Swordslinger]

It's easy to claim that the DM-as-final-adjudicator solves this problem, but you've clearly never experienced actual table discord. The rules exist to resolve disputes in a fair, impartial manner.

I have experienced some discord, but if there's a huge problem you just talk to the DM after the game and fix the problem. Unless the DM is totally off the wall (in which case he probably sucks anyway), he's likely going to listen to reason. And even if he doesn't, most of the time, so what?

If he makes dropping rocks do terrible damage, then just don't use that tactic. If he makes it overly powerful then spam that tactic until he changes it. The nice thing about DM rulings is they can be changed.

A printed rule can't be reasoned with, it exists only to be abused.

[tzor]

Somewhere between the two points is the happy medium. She currently has a sanctuary spell going because no one really likes to be struck.

The problem with DM-Fiat is that it can be inconsistent. Unless your DM is a bookkeeping god there is no reason why something last week will work the same way this week. If you like a universe of chaos, then fine. I generally don't.

Yes the problem with written rules is that it can be rules layered. But that was sort of the original intent of why Gagax generally didn't want non DM's reading the DMG. The idea is to present a series of rules that can be looked up but still leave the final decider to the DM. It's a lot easier for a DM to ignore a rule on a given page than to try to remember every ad hoc decision he made over the course of a campaign and to keep all those decisions somehow reasonable with each other.

[talozin]

A printed rule can't be reasoned with, it exists only to be abused.

A bad rule is the fault of the game designer.

A bad ruling is the fault of the MC.

Do you really think the former is more likely to cause discord in a gaming group than the latter? I mean, the game designer is a dude none of them has probably ever met, who may be venal, stupid, and mathematically illiterate but is almost certainly not out to get any of them specifically. Mister Cavern is sitting right there at the table with them and has personal relationships with each of them.

Maybe there are gaming groups out there composed entirely of Vulcans who don't take anything personally and are immune to the notion that MC might be out to get them for some real or imagined slight that they've dealt him in the past. But I really doubt it.

[Draco_Argentum]

A bad rule is the fault of the game designer.

A bad ruling is the fault of the MC.

Even when the MC isn't out to get the players and noone suspects it either the bad rule is still less disruptive. Laughing at Mearles' ineptitude won't hurt anyone at the table's feelings.

[wotmaniac]

How so? Advancing can mean bigger numbers or new abilities. Bigger numbers generally don't change gameplay, other then allowing you to stomp your original enemies easier. And new abilities only change gameplay if powers with strategic relevance are reserved for higher levels of advancement.

And this is my point. This does happen. And, as such, this means that the game will necessarily shift its focus from the tactical to the strategic, despite the fact that tactical powers also happen to be strengthening.

The only reason to switch the game from making tactical decision to making strategic decision is to mimic going from grunt work to commanding an army.

that's certainly a fine example, but it is far from exclusionary.

If that is what you want, fine. But it is just as valid to keep doing the same stuff, just with higher numbers and differently colored effects, or to gain new abilities but never changing the scope of the game.

Sure, but by doing so, you ignore a big chunk of the game.

And I would argue that this in fact more natural than the opposite. Anyone who actually enjoys the tactical aspects of a game is probably going to be pissed when you take it away from them, and rightfully so.

It's not a matter of "taking it away". If that's where a particular group of players wants to keep the game, then that's fine. But the way strategic options open up as characters advance, it's just a natural evolution of the game.

If you want both tactical and strategical decisions the game should just include both. Trading card games for example have distinct strategic and tactical parts. And in a sense, so do most RPGs in that they allow you to pick your character's abilities and to influence where and how combat happens. Adjust the ratio to your liking and then keep that ratio. Anything else is unfair to the players.

how did you reach that conclusion?
the bolded part is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. once you become readily able to reliably cheat death and manipulate the space-time continuum, it really busts out the strategic game.

I'll break this down even further.
the more reliable and sophisticated your capacity for tactical planning becomes (i.e., "scripting"), the more the tactical game gets overshadowed by the strategic game.

if you want to maintain "tactical depth", then stick to playing low level games. If you want to go slaying great wyrms, then expect the strategic game to become more of a factor ... either that, or you're gonna be ignoring that whole swath of the game.

[Murtak]

Look, we already agreed that being able to plan before the battle necessarily means that what you do during battle is less important. Your entire argument is reduced to "high levels = strategic abilities, therefore high level = tactics go away". But the very premise is already flawed. No game needs to reserve strategic powers for high levels.

If you want both tactical and strategical decisions the game should just include both. Trading card games for example have distinct strategic and tactical parts. And in a sense, so do most RPGs in that they allow you to pick your character's abilities and to influence where and how combat happens. Adjust the ratio to your liking and then keep that ratio. Anything else is unfair to the players.

how did you reach that conclusion?

I thought this was obvious. You are telling your players that if they want to continue to play chess, you are going to insist on slowly morphing it into Civilisation. And while both are fine games, that is bullshit. Introducing new pieces, different boards or point-buy armies would all keep the spirit of the game intact, while adding some sort of advancement. However adding "out of combat" abilities or fog of war is bullshit and runs contrary to the basic concept of chess.

[wotmaniac]

Look, we already agreed that being able to plan before the battle necessarily means that what you do during battle is less important.

Right. And as what you do during battle becomes less important, it also becomes less interesting. So, what can be done to keep the game interesting? Some have proposed to change the way things work in order to force them to stay "interesting" ..... I've proposed shifting the focus of a given game.

Your entire argument is reduced to "high levels = strategic abilities, therefore high level = tactics go away". But the very premise is already flawed. No game needs to reserve strategic powers for high levels.

The earlier you introduce meaningful strategic powers, the earlier you remove focus from the tactical game. Yes, strategy can happen at any level, but at the low level game, it's strictly a matter of RP; as characters progress, powers start to move in and plant themselves right smack in the middle of things.

I thought this was obvious. You are telling your players that if they want to continue to play chess, you are going to insist on slowly morphing it into Civilisation. And while both are fine games, that is bullshit. Introducing new pieces, different boards or point-buy armies would all keep the spirit of the game intact, while adding some sort of advancement. However adding "out of combat" abilities or fog of war is bullshit and runs contrary to the basic concept of chess.

Here's the thing -- games like D&D can handle that whole spectrum. This whole "adding fog of war to chess" bit is a strawman -- the basic design paradigm of D&D (at least in 3.x and earlier -- I really can't speak much for 4e) inherently shifts the focus of the game as you progress. If you want to ignore that shift, then that's fine -- just make sure that you admit that upfront.
The answer to this is for a given group to have a shared conceptualization of what the game is supposed to look like through the various levels of play, and adjust accordingly.

Okay, what am I missing now?

[Murtak]

Okay, what am I missing now?

The part where there is no need in the first place to alter the balance of strategical and tactical minigames from level to level. Doing so is entirely up to the designers of the game, and I can make a decent argument for it being a bad idea, period. Contrarily to what you seem to believe, such a shift is not inimical to games with advancement.

[wotmaniac]

Okay, I see what you're saying, now. I was under the impression that you were of the position that such a feature/flaw wasn't actually present.
my bad.

The part where there is no need in the first place to alter the balance of strategical and tactical minigames from level to level. Doing so is entirely up to the designers of the game, and I can make a decent argument for it being a bad idea, period.

and this is where you and I part ways; as I would argue why such a thing is a feature, not a flaw.

Contrarily to what you seem to believe, such a shift is not inimical to games with advancement.

???
do you mean "inherent" .... because, otherwise, this makes no sense to me.
if not, please explain; as I don't see how that applies.

[Swordslinger]

A bad rule is the fault of the game designer.

A bad ruling is the fault of the MC.

Do you really think the former is more likely to cause discord in a gaming group than the latter? I mean, the game designer is a dude none of them has probably ever met, who may be venal, stupid, and mathematically illiterate but is almost certainly not out to get any of them specifically. Mister Cavern is sitting right there at the table with them and has personal relationships with each of them.

Overruling a bad ruling is fine, so long as you have a DM who can admit he made a mistake. Granted with the personality of most of the people here, I can see why you'd think that was a problem though. But so long as your DM isn't an ego maniac, you can bring up reasonable arguments to him and show him that the ruling is bad for the game.

As far as holding bad blood against the DM for ruling that your dropped rock does "Low" damage instead of "High" like you thought, you really need to get a life. If you're doing crap like that, you're taking things way too personally and need to grow some thicker skin. Referees make bad calls sometime, it's not generally something personal. Stop being paranoid.

On the other hand, changing a hard rule of the designers actively requires some rules design skill on the person doing it. It's a lot harder to write a general rule than it is to do a ruling for a specific case. I can do it, but it's something a lot of DMs I gamed with specifically don't like to do. Though none of them seemed to ever have a problem with just making an ad hoc ruling.

Most of the time, house rules end badly, and a good rules set shouldn't encourage them. You're better relying on the DM as a referee to make rulings as opposed to relying on the DM as rules designer to make up for sloppy work by the designers.

[sabs]

FFS Sword, just go play pretend with my 8 year old. I mean, really. What you're proposing isn't RPG. It's playing pretend with your friends. Now, that CAN be fun. But if you're going to do that, you don't actually NEED a game system at all.

OH AND:

Most of the time, house rules end badly, and a good rules set shouldn't encourage them. You're better relying on the DM as a referee to make rulings as opposed to relying on the DM as rules designer to make up for sloppy work by the designers.

WHAT THE HELL. You're basically saying, Letting the GM just make shit up is better, than letting the GM make shit up. House Rules are bad, but not having a rule and letting the GM wing it is good? are you fucking kidding me? Do you not see the complete idiocy in that statement.

[Swordslinger]

FFS Sword, just go play pretend with my 8 year old. I mean, really. What you're proposing isn't RPG. It's playing pretend with your friends. Now, that CAN be fun. But if you're going to do that, you don't actually NEED a game system at all.

I'm not saying you don't have rules for combat and the basics. I'm just saying you don't need little subsystems to try to cover everything from swinging on chandeliers to dropping rocks, because I really don't give a shit how in depth your rules system is, at some point the DM is going to have make a ruling eventually.

You're better off creating guidelines for making rulings than trying to create a (usually poorly written) rule for every contingency.

It's the old saying: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for the rest of his life.

Improvisation and judgment calls are something every DM needs to learn. You're much better off with a rules set that teaches him how to do that instead of trying to predict every possible player action that may ever happen.

[talozin]

Granted with the personality of most of the people here, I can see why you'd think that was a problem though.

As far as holding bad blood against the DM for ruling that your dropped rock does "Low" damage instead of "High" like you thought, you really need to get a life.

If you're doing crap like that, you're taking things way too personally and need to grow some thicker skin.

Stop being paranoid.

What's funny is that you think it's the rest of us who are socially maladroit.

Whatever. People have feelings, feelings get hurt, it causes problems for games in the real world. If you want to pretend all the people you game with are Vulcans, it's your call. I sincerely and not sarcastically hope it works out for you.

[Swordslinger]

What's funny is that you think it's the rest of us who are socially maladroit.

Whatever. People have feelings, feelings get hurt, it causes problems for games in the real world. If you want to pretend all the people you game with are Vulcans, it's your call. I sincerely and not sarcastically hope it works out for you.

Funny that you guys totally ignore the fact that there's more hurt feelings when the DM actively house rules an existing rule to nerf someone.

Making a bad ruling or reversing a bad ruling are generally way more acceptable, since whatever, the DM is only human. When you get to overruling game designers because of a bad rule they made, now it starts to look more personal.

If your goal is to avoid hurt feelings, you're not doing anyone any favors by writing bad rules that the DM has to trump.

[Murtak]

do you mean "inherent" .... because, otherwise, this makes no sense to me.

Yes. In hindsight I have no clue why I wrote inimical instead.



But let me give you a reason why changing the tactics/strategy ratio is a bad idea. Either your group was happy with the existing ratio, in which case tinkering with it is a bad idea, or the group would prefer a different ratio, in which case that different ratio should have been used to begin with. A sliding ratio is useful in exactly two cases. Firstly, if the group likes both ratios and needs a little change. And secondly so you can have groups with different preferences play the same game, at different levels. And while these are valid niches, they are incredibly narrow. The former, because your ratio adjustment needs to be at a pace the group is comfortable with (and remember, for many that pace is zero). And the latter because you basically preclude advancement.

You are basically proposing to slowly shift from playing soldiers and sergeants mucking around on the battlefield to captains and generals merely observing it or even to emperors and gods who get to read a summary of the battle results. But this will only work if everyone you play with enjoys each of these different aspects. And I'd wager that most only enjoy one of them.

[Murtak]

I'm not saying you don't have rules for combat and the basics. I'm just saying you don't need little subsystems to try to cover everything from swinging on chandeliers to dropping rocks, because I really don't give a shit how in depth your rules system is, at some point the DM is going to have make a ruling eventually.

This is a given and I don't see anyone disputing it. Let me repeat (again) something I stated several pages back: Your rules should cover anything important to your game. Guidelines should cover anything not as important that you still expect to come up. Rules are straight out better at facilitating a smooth game, but are harder to write and take up more room.

I think everyone understands that you can not have rules for everything. But rules are better that guidelines. Guidelines are a cop-out. They are necessary, not wanted. The only reasons to use guidelines instead of rules, is because the designers don't have enough time to write solid rules or because you don't want your rule book to reach encyclopedial lengths.