Sources of Tactical Depth

[Maxus]

except tactical depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied, so balance among the actors is key to consistent tactical depth.

Complete and utter bullshit. Defence strategists that try and turn tactics into a managable equation get laughed at by people with field experience. Would you like a current, real world example? The changing variables required for true tactical depth make any semblance of balance impossible.

Remove those variables...balance the equation...You may as well be playing tic-tac-toe.

Start in the upper-left corner.

[RobbyPants]

Remove those variables...balance the equation...You may as well be playing tic-tac-toe.

Start in the upper-left corner.

And if the other guy starts there, go in the middle!

[Plebian]

except tactical depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied, so balance among the actors is key to consistent tactical depth.

Complete and utter bullshit. Defence strategists that try and turn tactics into a managable equation get laughed at by people with field experience. Would you like a current, real world example? The changing variables required for true tactical depth make any semblance of balance impossible.

Remove those variables...balance the equation...You may as well be playing tic-tac-toe.

yet again with this "in the REAL world" bullshit that seems to be a go-to excuse for idiocy.

gonna blow your mind here. tabletops aren't the real world and don't actually try to emulate the real world!

in some limited ways they have superficial resemblances to the real world but at the core they are games and more specifically cooperative games. the point of a game is to provide entertainment for the people playing it. in the case of tabletops actually trying to accurately simulate the real world would make for the driest, largest, and least-played game in history or a patchwork application of some accurate-in-some-circumstances 'real-world' physics. now, for cooperative games, providing entertainment means, ideally, providing a balanced experience where everyone is capable of contributing on similar levels. and, since tabletops are generally party-focused cooperative games, giving a single player more power only makes it more difficult for the DM to actually provide a decent tactical experience; either he panders to the overpowered class to provide a tactical challenge for not everyone or he throws meaninglessly easy encounters at the party. in the case of groups made entirely of overpowered classes the 'tactical depth' is simply a question of if you have the right spells for the job. and the answer is probably yes.

also your example of "but but tacticians in the REAL world can't account for all the variables" is funny because D&D would be more analogous to a training exercise where nearly all the variables would be controlled by the person setting up the exercise so as to provide the trainees with the right kind of training. this doesn't mean you'll always win, it means that you know the variables introduced will not be analogous to the real world because human beings aren't capable of replicating the vast complexity of the real world. it's only ever an imitation.

but simulationism taken too seriously is just silly. at what point do you decide what appeases you? will you let the slightest aspect of non-simulationism ruin a game for you? because if so you're probably never going to find a tabletop you like.
unless, of course, you apply your desire for simulationism unevenly as a wafer-thin justification for dislike. but that'd just be silly!

[Maxus]

More seriously, true tactical depth should be available to everyone. Everyone should be able to contribute something (besides being a roadblock).

And actually having tactics available means that if you pull out the stops and manage to give yourself every conceivable advantage, you will have assured victory. Sun Tzu, baby.

So the cleric casts Summon Monster IV to summon as many low-level critters he can, and the sorceror uses Major Image to make the illusion of a whole cloud of Lantern Archons or something. The Barbarian or Fighter (or Warblade if you're not using Tome) hits the enemy like a concussion grenade and makes a threat too big to ignore without getting your face axed off and the rogue bluffs someone into believing he's defenseless and then shivs 'em as soon as their back's turned.

And that's off the top of my head, without even going into the many, many possibilities involved with things like Entangle or Grease or, say, a spiked-chain tripping AoO machine.

[echoVanguard]

yet again with this "in the REAL world" bullshit that seems to be a go-to excuse for idiocy.

gonna blow your mind here. tabletops aren't the real world and don't actually try to emulate the real world! the point of a game is to provide entertainment for the people playing it. in the case of tabletops actually trying to accurately simulate the real world would make for the driest, largest, and least-played game in history or a patchwork application of some accurate-in-some-circumstances 'real-world' physics.

You're splitting some pretty fine hairs here, arguing that games "simulate" but do not "emulate" and then trying to use that as a leg-up to an argument that games don't always have to follow the rules. This is a double strawman, because no one was arguing that TTRPGs do emulate; nor was anyone arguing that games always have to follow the same rules as the real world. The point in question is a discussion of the underlying mechanics of tactical depth vis-a-vis game theory, with a general focus on class balance. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that any discussion of player utility in this thread is actually a derail (which I admit to, and apologize for, contributing to - I plead temporary insanity caused by Swordslinger's post).

a bunch of irrelevant drivel

You make a lot of noise about knowledge of variables, but that's the whole point of this thread - analyzing what variables do or do not contribute to tactical depth. Saying that "there is no depth if you know all the variables" is both pointless and incorrect (since you can add depth with randomization).

As to the spellcasting point, I think we can all safely agree that "overpowered spells" diminish tactical depth, so you're preaching to the choir on that one.

except tactical depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied, so balance among the actors is key to consistent tactical depth.

False. If player A has options of tactical depth O(log n) and player B has options of tactical depth O(n), they both have meaningful depth which drives their decision-making process. The fact that one has more complex decisions to make than the other doesn't render the entire concept of choice meaningless, any more than the existence of apple juice suddenly makes orange juice nutritionally unviable.

echo

[wotmaniac]

Okay, real quick here (or maybe not):
what exactly are we talking about here when referring to "tactical depth"?

Here's why I ask:
as per the OP, some of the things that are called out as anti-depth seems to potentially have some implications pertaining to sophistication.
Since we're talking combat encounters, let's talk combat:
It is very common practice for units to develop SOPs and FRAGPLANs -- hell, each combat-arms branch in the US Army each have a whole book centered around "battle drills", which lays out basic principles for how to react to various types of combat events. These are practiced to the point of making them instinctive (this not only establishes combat and control protocol, but keeps "option paralysis" from happening, so to speak).
Encounter assessment can be handled by a simple (or even simplified) SALUTE Report.

The point is, all this is done so that by the time the shit hits the fan, everybody knows their roles and what to do in particular circumstances without having to think about it too much (which increases combat effectiveness).
However, steps taken towards this direction seems to detract from this thread's/forum's definition of "tactical depth".
And I'm not necessarily gonna argue with that. What it does do, however, is add a layer of sophistication in the RP, and perhaps a certain level of strategic depth .... which, in my experience, can add to the story immersion (which, of course, has its own set of rewards).

If I'm having to sacrifice strategic depth and sophistication for the sake of some concept of "tactical depth", then that discourages prior planning, and inhibits story immersion. If I'm playing an intelligent (or even semi-intelligent) character (especially one whose job it is to search out baddies and kill them), then I'm gonna recognize the value of FRAGPLANs and SOPs; I'm gonna value the principles encompassed in a SPOT Report (even if done hastily in the moment -- as SPOT reports are continually "updated" even as you actively engage the enemy). If I have to forgo that in order to satisfy some concept of what makes an "interesting" encounter, then my work and planning is not being rewarded -- which necessarily detracts of story immersion.


I'm sure that there was a larger point that I was trying to make; but, being tired and distracted, I seem to have forgotten what it was.

[Lago PARANOIA]

To answer a question that got buried in Darwinism's shilling:

To transform a monster from a bag of hit points and special attacks to something interesting 'all' you need to do is apply a system of internal consistency so that it can exist outside of the narrow parameters of combat or whatever it was defined for.

That's it. While it's often not necessary to know what happens when a troll decides to copy his ogre magi body and take up wizarding or what happens when a dragon decides to try his hand at goldsmithing, it's important to know what would happen if the situation came up.

It's acceptable for videogame characters like Bowser and Ganon to only live in non-interactive cutscenes and combat because the parameters of the videogame are narrowly defined anyway, but it is vitally important that if you transferred them to a tabletop RPG that they can handle situations as simple as 'what if you gave Ganon a lightsaber' or 'what if you decided to gank Bowser in his sleep' in a way that makes sense (preferably external and internal sense but internal sense alone is acceptable if you don't violate WSoD too much) AND with as little on-the-spot arbitration as possible.

3E D&D honestly wasn't very good at even that simple task. It often produced nonsensical results like a shepherd getting his ass kicked by two of his sheep, unbalanced results like deconstructing scenery for magical items, inconsistent results like meeting the future Angel Knight (she's a level 13 paladin now, but if you go back in time when she was a callow youth she's a level 3 commoner), and just plain nonexistent results like what happens if you go for too long without any sleep.

Ideally a game should eliminate the first three. It'd be nice to eliminate the fourth as well, but games have space and complexity considerations. The fourth is a gray area of how much versimilitude you can sacrifice for playability and is different for each campaign, let alone setting or system and we'll probably never get an answer for that.

[Swordslinger]

The purpose of rules is to 1) Define Results. 2) Resolve conflicts.

In an RPG you're always going to be able to try something uncovered by the rules. I don't care how detailed your rules system is, there's always going to be potential situations that are going to require referee judgment calls where the players can try anything. It's why you have a DM.

The attempt to write rules to cover everything is not only impossible, but also stupid, because the more rules you write, the more balance problems you can potentially create.

I point out 4E because it does things right in a lot of areas. The damage guidelines and monster/NPC creation system are a great idea, and 3E should really have those.

With 3E's falling object rules, I can calculate the damage of falling objects, and that's it. If I want the damage of spiked pits, or spear traps, or a section of floor covered with burning oil, I have to look up a separate rule for each. If I have no rule for something, I'm on my own.

In 4E, it's just one table that lists suggested damage. And I can apply that for monsters, terrain hazards, or special actions. Potentially almost anything damaging I might want to use can be covered with those guidelines, making it more flexible.

[sabs]

The thing is, that you think that 4E's 1 table of suggested damage is a good thing is the disconnect. Most of us disagree. Having a table of suggested damage based on CR/LE/Level of Party isn't neat, or cool, it's ugly and makes us unhappy.

[Swordslinger]

That's it. While it's often not necessary to know what happens when a troll decides to copy his ogre magi body and take up wizarding or what happens when a dragon decides to try his hand at goldsmithing, it's important to know what would happen if the situation came up.

Is it really? If you have a polymorph spell PCs can use, then it's important to define what that does. Though keep in mind the spell doesn't have to reference the creature you're copying, it can just apply numerical modifiers.

The nice thing about D&D is that most of it is arbitrary. A high level human with a sword really can do more damage than a dragon's claw, so obeying things like realism isn't really all that important. Just being big doesn't mean you'll necessarily be a tougher combatant in a fantasy game. Making a swashbuckler bigger may in fact screw him over.

As for a dragon trying to goldsmithing, that's the sort of things that you might as well just let the DM decide when it becomes relevant. It becomes important to note that in the DM notes about that particular dragon after you've decided, but it's not something you probably even want to worry about when you're writing up the dragon initially, unless for whatever reason it'd be a plot point.

[Swordslinger]

The thing is, that you think that 4E's 1 table of suggested damage is a good thing is the disconnect. Most of us disagree. Having a table of suggested damage based on CR/LE/Level of Party isn't neat, or cool, it's ugly and makes us unhappy.

That's because for whatever reason you guys are bolted to the idea that you can't ever use any line of the table other than the line that equals the party's current level.

Other than that, I can't imagine why you'd be against having guidelines as to what's a high or low amount of damage for any given level. That's an excellent resource for a DM, and absolutely should be something in every rules set.

[Plebian]

To transform a monster from a bag of hit points and special attacks to something interesting 'all' you need to do is apply a system of internal consistency so that it can exist outside of the narrow parameters of combat or whatever it was defined for.

this is literally incorrect in every imaginable way. "well if you just have a system of rules then creatures automatically become interesting" is one of the dumbest statements I've seen you make. a great many tabletops have internally consistent rules. this means fuck all when it comes to translating creatures from a few lines of text to an interesting encounter. actually making that text interesting requires input on both sides of the screen, it's nothing the rules can or ever will enforce because it's subjective.

False. If player A has options of tactical depth O(log n) and player B has options of tactical depth O(n), they both have meaningful depth which drives their decision-making process. The fact that one has more complex decisions to make than the other doesn't render the entire concept of choice meaningless, any more than the existence of apple juice suddenly makes orange juice nutritionally unviable.

echo

that's one horribly flawed comparison; both players exist in the same world and are faced with the same situations. it's not a matter of complexity of choice, it's a matter of effectiveness of choice. and saying that a pure fighter has meaningful choice next to a pure wizard is ignorance; one has choices that will influence the flow of the encounter, one has choices that may speed up the encounter slightly but will very likely not influence the outcome.

it's not apple juice to orange juice, it's having the choice between fresh-squeezed orange juice and shitty Welch's concentrate and saying that both are every bit as good as the other because they're both called orange juice.

[Winnah]

Tactics without strategy is not sustainable. You're firing blind. You may have a few acheivements or successes, but you are out of options once those achaivements are made.

Strategy without tactics means that you have a plan or desired outcome, but no means of carrying out that plan or acheiving that goal.

A role playing game should cater to the desires of the players to a large extent. Some players like play-acting and interacting with an imaginary world. Some like combat simulations. Others like hanging out with their friends.

As a game, an RPG should also have rules. Those rules should facilitate in meeting the expectations of players. Obviously, all possible expectations can't be catered to. In addition to this, a certain framework needs to be in place in order to facilitate the over-arching strategy of the game. For the RPG's I have experience with, this meant the players were protagonists in an interactive story.

This is where shit gets tricky. Some players are happy to have their characters simply follow a narrative. I don't give a fuck about them (in the context of this discussion). Other players like to have some degree of influence on the narrative. Within the meta-strategy established by the game system, they have goals or desires they wish to see fulfilled. Tactical depth, as I see it, caters to the desires of these players. It provides the means to acheive all kinds of random shit that a disturbed mind like mine can come up with.

[echoVanguard]

that's one horribly flawed comparison; both players exist in the same world and are faced with the same situations. it's not a matter of complexity of choice, it's a matter of effectiveness of choice. and saying that a pure fighter has meaningful choice next to a pure wizard is ignorance; one has choices that will influence the flow of the encounter, one has choices that may speed up the encounter slightly but will very likely not influence the outcome.

it's not apple juice to orange juice, it's having the choice between fresh-squeezed orange juice and shitty Welch's concentrate and saying that both are every bit as good as the other because they're both called orange juice.

I never posited either of those things. You stated "Tactical Depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied", which I refuted. If what you meant to say was "tactical depth is dependent upon effectiveness of options", I would have agreed with you, because it's not only true, but explicitly stated in the first post of this thread.

echo

[Neurosis]

I don't have time to read all ten pages now, but did this thread ever produce an itemized list of actual Sources of Tactical Depth as opposed to just a list of what happens when it's not there? I feel like after Frank's initial post I know all the things that tactical depth ISN'T, so I'm good on that.

Designing yet another RPG (the rules system, at least. This is at least my twentieth, lol) and I am pretty fascinated by this topic. Time constraints prevent me from separating the ideas from the bickering though.

[wotmaniac]

but did this thread ever produce an itemized list of actual Sources of Tactical Depth as opposed to just a list of what happens when it's not there?

within the scope of this thread, it's just a made-up concept that is impossible to define.
this was just something that was started by Frank so that he could masturbate to his disdain for what he considers boring players.

I've tried to actually engage the concept; but to no avail.

[echoVanguard]

I don't have time to read all ten pages now, but did this thread ever produce an itemized list of actual Sources of Tactical Depth as opposed to just a list of what happens when it's not there? I feel like after Frank's initial post I know all the things that tactical depth ISN'T, so I'm good on that.

Designing yet another RPG (the rules system, at least. This is at least my twentieth, lol) and I am pretty fascinated by this topic. Time constraints prevent me from separating the ideas from the bickering though.

I can at least take a shot at it. For the purposes of tihs thread as defined by its original intent, tactical depth is a measurement of how many options a player has at any given time which:
A) can meaningfully affect the game, and
B) do not have a clear heirarchy of optimization.

echo

[Username17]

I don't have time to read all ten pages now, but did this thread ever produce an itemized list of actual Sources of Tactical Depth as opposed to just a list of what happens when it's not there? I feel like after Frank's initial post I know all the things that tactical depth ISN'T, so I'm good on that.

Designing yet another RPG (the rules system, at least. This is at least my twentieth, lol) and I am pretty fascinated by this topic. Time constraints prevent me from separating the ideas from the bickering though.

I can at least take a shot at it. For the purposes of tihs thread as defined by its original intent, tactical depth is a measurement of how many options a player has at any given time which:
A) can meaningfully affect the game, and
B) do not have a clear heirarchy of optimization.

echo

Yes. I would add to A) that the options must meaningfully and differently affect play.

-Username17

[echoVanguard]

concur.

echo

[Archmage]

I'll add to that:

If at any point you could've written a decision tree for your character and then walked away from the game, allowing someone else to run your character based on the "script," there's no reason for you to be there.

If writing a decision tree would take months or years to puzzle out, that's about as good as not being able to write one.

But any set of rules where your flowchart takes fifteen minutes or less to write can't possibly be all that interesting to play.

[Shiritai]

I never posited either of those things. You stated "Tactical Depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied", which I refuted. If what you meant to say was "tactical depth is dependent upon effectiveness of options", I would have agreed with you, because it's not only true, but explicitly stated in the first post of this thread.

echo

Plebian consistently argues against strawmen, as I hope you're beginning to realize. It's one reason why the majority of people here have him on ignore.

[Plebian]

I never posited either of those things. You stated "Tactical Depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied", which I refuted. If what you meant to say was "tactical depth is dependent upon effectiveness of options", I would have agreed with you, because it's not only true, but explicitly stated in the first post of this thread.

echo

but it is pointless when it's unevenly applied, and you refuted nothing. your argument was "well people still can make choices" but when those choices don't contribute meaningfully then there's no depth for a portion of the group.

so basically part of the group has the ability to make choices that influence the tactical flow of the battle and part of the group can poke things with a stick. one of these parts has tactical depth where the other does not.

[echoVanguard]

I never posited either of those things. You stated "Tactical Depth is pointless when it's unevenly applied", which I refuted. If what you meant to say was "tactical depth is dependent upon effectiveness of options", I would have agreed with you, because it's not only true, but explicitly stated in the first post of this thread.

echo

but it is pointless when it's unevenly applied, and you refuted nothing. your argument was "well people still can make choices" but when those choices don't contribute meaningfully then there's no depth for a portion of the group.

so basically part of the group has the ability to make choices that influence the tactical flow of the battle and part of the group can poke things with a stick. one of these parts has tactical depth where the other does not.

Except that "uneven application" doesn't imply that one person's choice is meaningful and the other's isn't. I've already stated I agree with your actual point, which is that choices have to be meaningful.

echo

[Swordslinger]

Except that "uneven application" doesn't imply that one person's choice is meaningful and the other's isn't. I've already stated I agree with your actual point, which is that choices have to be meaningful.

Actually it usually does, depending on how uneven it is. If you've got a wizard who can win the entire encounter with one spell and a fighter who can kill one guy if he chooses correctly or kill no one if he chooses poorly, the fighters actions hardly matter. The encounter is still decided when the wizard's turn comes up whether the fighter kills that one guy or not.

[sabs]

You do realize that Fighter has 5 attack a round, magical armor and weapons, and a laundry list of feats that let him do some crazy shit right?

And if that fighter can't kill 1 guy in his action, but the Wizard can kill every one.. there's somethign wrong. A guy with enough HD that a fighter can't chew threw them with his 5 20+ damage attacks, is a guy that the wizard is unlikely to get to kill in 1 spell.

High Level D&D fighters aren't supposed to be Conan, they're Iron Man.