Tactical vs. Roleplaying
This weekend I watched several videos on YouTube about Tactical vs. Roleplaying, a subject apparently currently being a hot topic in the D&D YouTube community. First of all I have to say that I found the format cumbersome. Video clearly is not my medium. I much prefer the written word and comments as form of discussion than everybody putting his opinion video on YouTube, leaving the watcher to figure out the order in which the discussion took place.
On the subject itself, I'm clearly on the side favoring tactical combat over a "fast" style of combat which plays "in the theater of the mind". The reason for that is very simple: Tactical combat rules avoid conflict between players and Dungeon Master. Roleplaying, as done by little children naturally, often involves sequences of "Bang, bang, you're dead!" - "No, I'm not!". Having only simple combat rules provides you for rules to determine whether you are dead, but still leaves a lot of things open. The example that was (badly) discussed in the YouTube videos was the players believing themselves in bowshot range of their enemy, while the DM believed otherwise. The exchange "I shoot the enemy with my bow." - "You are out of range!" isn't actually much more intelligent than what the roleplaying children did. If you have miniatures on a battle-grid, the situation is easily resolved by counting the number of squares between shooter and target, and comparing it with the range of the weapon. In the theater of the mind it is perfectly possible that the players *believe* to be in range, while the DM *believes* they are not. That always leads to some sort of conflict or resentment, even if the players ultimately have to accept the DMs word on it.
What I was somewhat surprised about was how often in comparison between 4th edition and previous editions (or D&D Next in the current playtest version) it is said that the length of combat in 4E is a disadvantage. Sure, it is true that I can do two or three D&D Next fights in the time it takes for one 4th edition combat encounter. So what? The D&D Next sample adventure has 60 combat encounters and a typical 4E published adventure has 20. The total amount of time spent in combat is the same. Only in 4E you get to spend the time in tactical combat, making tactical decisions, while in D&D Next the combat is faster because it is much more simplistic and has a lot less options.
Compared to computer games, a 4E combat is like combat in a tactical roleplaying game like Disgaea or Final Fantasy Tactics. D&D Next is more like Diablo. There is nothing wrong with either. But the rules system by itself does not address the far more fundamental question of which percentage of time should be spent doing combat, and which percentage doing other activities like exploration or dialogue. If you just put in more fights, having a faster combat system does not imply having more time for roleplaying. And, while it isn't typical for published adventures, you could perfectly well make a 4th edition adventure in which combat only takes up 10% of the overall time for the adventure.
The clear disadvantage of fast combat, expressed in the language of a MMORPG players, is that it leads to fighting lots of trash mobs. It is *because* each combat encounter in 4th edition is longer, far more complex, and more tactical, that each fight feels more like a boss fight, and is more memorable. And if once in a while you want a fast fight, you can always use mobs with very simple powers, and minions, to create that trash mob feeling if it is necessary for the story.
In the end you need to know what you and your players want. There are lots of people who like tactical miniature combat, and 4th edition is a great game to provide it. If you find combat not interesting in general, and are mostly concerned about evolving the story through roleplaying dialogue, you might do well with a system that has short combat. But then you need a different sort of adventure than the one WotC is offering, because there really is no point of having faster combat just to have more of them, each one more forgettable than the previous. If you're hoping that great roleplaying will evolve if only you throw yet another bunch of kobolds on your party, you're in for a disappointment.
On the subject itself, I'm clearly on the side favoring tactical combat over a "fast" style of combat which plays "in the theater of the mind". The reason for that is very simple: Tactical combat rules avoid conflict between players and Dungeon Master. Roleplaying, as done by little children naturally, often involves sequences of "Bang, bang, you're dead!" - "No, I'm not!". Having only simple combat rules provides you for rules to determine whether you are dead, but still leaves a lot of things open. The example that was (badly) discussed in the YouTube videos was the players believing themselves in bowshot range of their enemy, while the DM believed otherwise. The exchange "I shoot the enemy with my bow." - "You are out of range!" isn't actually much more intelligent than what the roleplaying children did. If you have miniatures on a battle-grid, the situation is easily resolved by counting the number of squares between shooter and target, and comparing it with the range of the weapon. In the theater of the mind it is perfectly possible that the players *believe* to be in range, while the DM *believes* they are not. That always leads to some sort of conflict or resentment, even if the players ultimately have to accept the DMs word on it.
What I was somewhat surprised about was how often in comparison between 4th edition and previous editions (or D&D Next in the current playtest version) it is said that the length of combat in 4E is a disadvantage. Sure, it is true that I can do two or three D&D Next fights in the time it takes for one 4th edition combat encounter. So what? The D&D Next sample adventure has 60 combat encounters and a typical 4E published adventure has 20. The total amount of time spent in combat is the same. Only in 4E you get to spend the time in tactical combat, making tactical decisions, while in D&D Next the combat is faster because it is much more simplistic and has a lot less options.
Compared to computer games, a 4E combat is like combat in a tactical roleplaying game like Disgaea or Final Fantasy Tactics. D&D Next is more like Diablo. There is nothing wrong with either. But the rules system by itself does not address the far more fundamental question of which percentage of time should be spent doing combat, and which percentage doing other activities like exploration or dialogue. If you just put in more fights, having a faster combat system does not imply having more time for roleplaying. And, while it isn't typical for published adventures, you could perfectly well make a 4th edition adventure in which combat only takes up 10% of the overall time for the adventure.
The clear disadvantage of fast combat, expressed in the language of a MMORPG players, is that it leads to fighting lots of trash mobs. It is *because* each combat encounter in 4th edition is longer, far more complex, and more tactical, that each fight feels more like a boss fight, and is more memorable. And if once in a while you want a fast fight, you can always use mobs with very simple powers, and minions, to create that trash mob feeling if it is necessary for the story.
In the end you need to know what you and your players want. There are lots of people who like tactical miniature combat, and 4th edition is a great game to provide it. If you find combat not interesting in general, and are mostly concerned about evolving the story through roleplaying dialogue, you might do well with a system that has short combat. But then you need a different sort of adventure than the one WotC is offering, because there really is no point of having faster combat just to have more of them, each one more forgettable than the previous. If you're hoping that great roleplaying will evolve if only you throw yet another bunch of kobolds on your party, you're in for a disappointment.
Comments
Post a Comment