Sources of Tactical Depth

[Hieronymous Rex]

Probably the simplest possible rule for a dropped boulder is treat it as a weapon: Dropping it follows all of the normal rules for ranged attacks, and it does (off the top of my head) 1d6 per 10' dropped, +1 per die for every 5lbs the object weighs. The Tomes already have these rules, so we know how big of a rock a dragon can carry:

* You may not use a weapon that is a larger than yourself. A Large haracter can use a Large (or smaller) object as a weapon, but may not use a Huge (or larger) object as a weapon.
* You may not use an object that is too heavy for you to lift as a light load as a weapon.
* An object of your own size must be used in two hands.
* An object one size smaller than your size may be used in one hand or two hands.
* An object that is at least two sizes smaller than yourself counts as a Light Weapon.

The point is, this is better than merely having a guideline for damage by level, since it represents something within the game world, rather than being a metagame mathematical construct (like pg. 42).

[mean_liar]

How many pages has this boulder discussion reached?

[Smeelbo]

In games with Frank in ShadowRun, we experienced what I'd call "operational depth."

you're confusing tactics with strategy here

Actually, I'm quite aware of the difference, which is why I specified "operational depth." There really isn't much tactical depth available in most role playing games, but I really enjoyed the operational aspects of ShadowRun. They're similar, as they both ways to address the question, "How best do I beat them?"

In general, the best tactical games are designed as such, often very abstract, like Go or Shogi, or hex-based games, like Squad Leader or Battle Lore.

Smeelbo

[Ice9]

Probably the simplest possible rule for a dropped boulder is treat it as a weapon: Dropping it follows all of the normal rules for ranged attacks, and it does (off the top of my head) 1d6 per 10' dropped, +1 per die for every 5lbs the object weighs. The Tomes already have these rules, so we know how big of a rock a dragon can carry

The problem with that is that it makes "Able to carry a big boulder" into "Able to insta-gib anything". And for thematic reasons, I would prefer the first ability be available to characters significantly before the second one is.
I prefer my falling object damage to scale logarithmically (i.e. damage goes up slower than weight). This isn't as illogical as it first appears - a Titan's fist only does 1d8+16 (~6d6) after all. HERO does it this way, for good reason.

[Wrathzog]

To Smeelbo:
A lot of people don't understand what Operational Thinking is because it's in an awkward place between Strategy and Tactics. Also, for something like D&D, a group's strategy might seriously be something silly like, "Get more better." and that's it. So, when people discuss Strategy, they're actually talking about Operational Goals and they never even know.

Anyhow, to help explain the difference, using your ShadowRun story:
Strategy: You don't actually tell us what this was but I assume it was something like keep the Area "Stable."

Operational: Kill Scum Bag (Also, Don't leave any traces behind of our involvement. Maybe save the Armenians.)

Tactical: You don't give us too many details but let's just go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush.

[mean_liar]

Try this:

Strategy: character-building
Operations: plotting
Tactical: cover

[Swordslinger]

Probably the simplest possible rule for a dropped boulder is treat it as a weapon: Dropping it follows all of the normal rules for ranged attacks, and it does (off the top of my head) 1d6 per 10' dropped, +1 per die for every 5lbs the object weighs. The Tomes already have these rules, so we know how big of a rock a dragon can carry:

Only by making damage based off the height you drop it and the weight you're not treating it as a weapon. Instead it has its own set of rules which are easy to break. Kobolds dropping 5 lb. rocks from 60 ft cliffs are way more deadly than kobold archers. Stone giants are better off dropping the rocks than tossing them.

If you want to treat them like a weapon attack that any monster can use, then go by a table of guidelines that lists what that weapon attack should do for damage. Don't go making up your own system for damage that's totally unrelated to level and go calling it similar to a weapon attack, because it's not.

[Doom]

Accuracy will drop off really sharp with range (which will be pretty short). Kobolds can drop rocks off 60 ft cliffs well enough, but if you're 30' away from the cliff, you're probably safe, and if you're at the foot of the cliff, they probably still won't have good odds of hitting.

Stone giants can drop rocks, sure...but they're not going to be more accurate than tossing. They'll do more damage, but realize the usual 'tossing' rules assume giants/targets are at roughly the same height. The DM can modify the damage well enough.

[Plebian]

Accuracy will drop off really sharp with range (which will be pretty short). Kobolds can drop rocks off 60 ft cliffs well enough, but if you're 30' away from the cliff, you're probably safe, and if you're at the foot of the cliff, they probably still won't have good odds of hitting.

I have never seen any range modifiers on to-hit with dropped objects, though, so while this sounds good it introduces something people have been vehemently arguing against; made-up rules the DM has to remember verbatim for future situations.

hell I can't even find an example of what the attack should look like for a dropped object in 3e, it looks like you'd have to wing it on everything but damage. of course it's probably included in some supplement or possibly in an unrelated section of one of the core books, but that just seems needlessly complex for what should just be treated as an attack against reflex. probably with a penalty to hit, sure, but all in all it seems a lot easier to remember "okay I'm giving these guys -2/4 to hit with their boulders" than "okay here are my rules for how the attack works, here are my rules for penalty to hit, here are my rules for how far the party needs to be away from a cliff to obviate the rocks..."


also haha at a 5-pound object only doing damage after it falls 70 feet in 3e. it seems that every time I look back at 3e's attempts to codify reality all it actually is is some silly chart locking things down into a horribly unreal interpretation of reality.

[violence in the media]

Only by making damage based off the height you drop it and the weight you're not treating it as a weapon. Instead it has its own set of rules which are easy to break. Kobolds dropping 5 lb. rocks from 60 ft cliffs are way more deadly than kobold archers. Stone giants are better off dropping the rocks than tossing them.

Having not sieged a castle or scaled a cliff under fire any time recently, and rules arguments aside, which would actually be the more dangerous scenario? A kobold is about the size of what, an 7-8 year old child? Would that child be better off defending their treehouse with a bow and arrows, or shoving bowling balls down on attackers?

[Plebian]

Having not sieged a castle or scaled a cliff under fire any time recently, and rules arguments aside, which would actually be the more dangerous scenario? A kobold is about the size of what, an 7-8 year old child? Would that child be better off defending their treehouse with a bow and arrows, or shoving bowling balls down on attackers?

by your impeccable logic a human child is exactly the same as a halfling, too, because they're roughly the same size! everyone knows that's all you need to know, because it's not like physical maturity influences muscle mass.

[tzor]

Only by making damage based off the height you drop it and the weight you're not treating it as a weapon. Instead it has its own set of rules which are easy to break. Kobolds dropping 5 lb. rocks from 60 ft cliffs are way more deadly than kobold archers. Stone giants are better off dropping the rocks than tossing them.

Seriously, Swordslinger, they are not. They need that 60 ft cliff, it's not like they can take that with it everywhere they go. Most smart people don't stand under 60 ft cliffs and wait for a rock to hit them on the head. The kobold archers can arch (as it were) anywhere they go; they can even arch whenever they want to.

Actually, stone giants really should be working on bowling.

"Whoopie! I got a strike! All the adventurer's fell down!"

[tzor]

by your impeccable logic a human child is exactly the same as a halfling, too, because they're roughly the same size! everyone knows that's all you need to know, because it's not like physical maturity influences muscle mass.

Depends on the edition.

Still, you don't really want to encounter a kid with a few levels of thief. Have you ever heard of the "wet kid" maneuver? A kid either clearly dirty or soaking wet runs towards you. You push them back with one arm, leaving the other arm which (if you are a lady) holds the purse vulnerable. In one move the kid opens the purse, grabs whatever is inside and takes off.

[tzor]

A kobold is about the size of what, an 7-8 year old child? Would that child be better off defending their treehouse with a bow and arrows, or shoving bowling balls down on attackers?

I would prefer something with burning oil or melted lead.

[LR]

Kobolds dropping 5 lb. rocks from 60 ft cliffs are way more deadly than kobold archers.

A 5 pound rock deals 0d6 damage after a 60 foot drop, so I'd venture to guess that they'd be better off with shortbows.

[Plebian]

Kobolds dropping 5 lb. rocks from 60 ft cliffs are way more deadly than kobold archers.

A 5 pound rock deals 0d6 damage after a 60 foot drop, so I'd venture to guess that they'd be better off with shortbows.

that breaks my verisimilitude

[Murtak]

Well, thank you all for showing why guidelines are problematic and writing rules is hard better than I ever could. Now, if we could step away from writing rules about dropping boulders on people for a second .... tactical depth:

If tactical shallowness is being able to spot "the best move" or, more generally, to be able to enumerate and calculate the effectiveness of all possible moves, then tactical depth requires that we be unable to enumerate all moves or be unable to calculate the effectiveness of a given move, or both. Note that when I say "be unable to" I should really say "be unable to easily" and when I say "being able to" I mean to say "being easily able to". Obviously you will always be able to enumerate and calculate all moves in a game with fixed rules, but there is a clear difference between tic-tac-toe and chess.

Ok, we have moved from "we want tactical depth" to "we want it to be unfeasible to calculate the best move in many or even most situations". As already outlined, this requires many possible moves or for the effectiveness of a move to hard to calculate, or both. But since we also want a playable game, having too many moves to keep in mind at a time is right out. And that means we want it to be hard to figure out what exactly moving to square X3 and performing a Swooping Strike is going to do your tactical situation. At the same time, since we want this to be a game we can not simply use difficult equations and big numbers, and even if we could, it would not guarantee the outcome we want.

So our new and refined goal is "we want moves that are easy to calculate in a numerical sense but have implications beyond simple calculations". I can see only one solution to this goal: we need moves that matter on multiple levels. We need movement, positioning and turn order and all of these need to be in some way critical to what you and your opponents can and can not do. Consider chess: moving any given piece is dead simple. Considering what piece can capture a given enemy piece is easy. Figuring out which of your pieces can capture an enemy piece without being captured in return is hard. And figuring out when losing a piece for positional advantage is harder still. This is what we want.

So why is DnD not like chess? Well, apart from dice ruining otherwise perfect plans, DnD really has very little interacting parts. You have less pieces to move around, positioning hardly matters and it is very hard to defend against attacks. DnD is basically reduced to very effective attacks against very deadly opponents, and thus the only tactical choices are who to take out first and who (or how or whether) to delay. There is no tactically important position to be gained, and if there is, there are no sacrifices to be made to gain it. You can not guard your archer, not even by threatening to kill anyone who goes near him - after all your archer already to kill anyone on the battlefield he pleases. You can not hide your healer behind a mook or meatshield - even hiding behind solid walls does not make you safe.

Even without taking broken spells into account, even ignoring how encounters can be decided in the ambuish round - DnD does not have a functioning positioning minigame and the only defense that works is battlefield control. Those two factors alone are enough to turn a potentially complex game into a simple exercise of divide-and-conquer.

[tzor]

So why is DnD not like chess? Well, apart from dice ruining otherwise perfect plans, DnD really has very little interacting parts. You have less pieces to move around, positioning hardly matters and it is very hard to defend against attacks.

This was one of the reasons why I thought I saw a glimmer of hope when 4E was introduced (although it was pittfully easy to destroy that glimmer). When you started having abilities that acted like a King's Castle, where you could literally put yourself between an enemy and the person who is in danger. The potential for real combat choices seemed to be possible. It still is possible, only not with 4E. This was especially promising when 4E was presented as a kind of 3D chess where not only did you move the pieces, you also moved parts of the board around.

Another point: In chess everyone has infinite attack and zero defense. Your only defense is the ability of some other piece to take revenge. The strongest piece can be killed by the weakest. In D&D, the pawn ain't going to even scratch the queen.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I wouldn't describe it as 'infinite', but rather 'enough'.
Perhaps they're all minions?

[Plebian]

This was one of the reasons why I thought I saw a glimmer of hope when 4E was introduced (although it was pittfully easy to destroy that glimmer). When you started having abilities that acted like a King's Castle, where you could literally put yourself between an enemy and the person who is in danger. The potential for real combat choices seemed to be possible. It still is possible, only not with 4E. This was especially promising when 4E was presented as a kind of 3D chess where not only did you move the pieces, you also moved parts of the board around..

hey this is awesome another attack on 4e without a single shred of evidence to back it up and mountains of evidence against it!

truly you are a master of logical thought

edit: what happened to the fatty-tar? it made me laugh

[Dr_Noface]

You can't diss someone who has you on ignore, Plebian.

[Plebian]

You can't diss someone who has you on ignore, Plebian.

and why not? the only purpose ignore seems to serve here is to avoid having to actually give reasons for irrational dislikes, so I can feel free to insult the idiots all I like. twenty bucks says they look at the posts anyway and just don't respond because otherwise they'd lose the assumed moral superior position of "lalala I am not listening lalalalalala"

[Swordslinger]

So why is DnD not like chess?

It's not adversarial for one. The DM isn't trying to kill the PCs, you're trying to make fun encounters.

Also you're trying to tell a story. When I'm playing chess I don't worry about each of my knight's motivations and wonder if maybe one of them may decide to retreat instead of being sacrificed. I'd also have to wonder if my warrior in D&D could only move diagonally for an arbitrary reason.

Chess is a strategy game made to be a good competitive game and solely for that. It's not about RPGs or storytelling and if you want a chess-like experience you're better off just playing chess.

[Murtak]

So why is DnD not like chess?

It's not adversarial for one. The DM isn't trying to kill the PCs, you're trying to make fun encounters.

Also you're trying to tell a story. When I'm playing chess I don't worry about each of my knight's motivations and wonder if maybe one of them may decide to retreat instead of being sacrificed. I'd also have to wonder if my warrior in D&D could only move diagonally for an arbitrary reason.

Chess is a strategy game made to be a good competitive game and solely for that. It's not about RPGs or storytelling and if you want a chess-like experience you're better off just playing chess.

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".

[tenuki]

Tactical depth in an RPG is limited by the fact that the fight environment is never completely defined. Imagine, in round 8 of a bar brawl, the party's elven archer is wrestling on the seedy floor with a big-ass drunken sailor with rotting teeth who is getting ready to give our pesky sniper a good taste of his ground and pound game. The elf's player asks the GM whether there is a mug/bottle/whatever within reach to clobber the brute over the head with.

At this point, the GM is necessarily pulling things out of his ass. Even if he'd had a complete list of all the eligible objects that were in the common room before the fight (not on my list of things a sensible GM should do), he has no way of keeping track of the whereabouts of all these objects during the fight.

So the best he can do is assign a certain base probability of finding such an object within reach, slap on a few situational/stat modifiers as deemed appropriate, and let the player Roll Some Dice (TM). At this level of detail, plannability and thus tactical depth simply goes out the window.

Contrast this with games like backgammon, Twilight Imperium, chess, Dominions or World of Warcraft that actually itemize all the available objects in the game environment in any given situation. If such a game pretends to be an RPG or any other kind of simulation, this is at the cost of detail and plausibility: The player simply has no way of asking whether some object that should plausibly be available is actually there, and there is no GM to put it there as a response to an intelligent player's question.

The 'tactical' shit that TTRPG players sometimes pull off is kinda tongue-in-cheek/make-believe compared with what's going on in actual tactical games. A tactical game consists of and emerges from its rules, while a TTRPG necessarily goes beyond the rules from time to time, and the best you can hope for is tactical plausibility.

In a nutshell, what I am arguing is that we should not use the term tactical depth as if it meant the same thing independently of the context of the game.