Sources of Tactical Depth

[Winnah]

I did not say rulebook. I said Pile of books.

Lets see. PHB. DMG and Combat and Tactics should cover everything. Yes, 2e actually has rules for dragons dropping various shit on people. 2nd or 3rd topic in the warfare chapter of C&T. The rules for flying creatures dropping things are far more expansive than those in 3rd edition...But Dragons tend to have a better array of options in that game than in 2e.

The 4e DMG has an Actions The Rules Don't Cover. 1 page total on p42.

It says nothing about area effects, ongoing damage or even attacking NADs. The only guideline of relevance to your scenarion would be to use the high damage expression on the table, as it is likely a 1/encounter effect.

Compare to 2e. It has rules for dropping something directly on something. Indirectly dropping shrapnel or exploding material. Tells you to reference the DMG for rules for disease or setting things on fire. Even the size and relative mass of what a flying creature can carry and subsequently drop is addressed.

Guess what rules I think add more tactical depth to an encounter with a draconic bombadier.

[Plebian]

I did not say rulebook. I said Pile of books.

Lets see. PHB. DMG and Combat and Tactics should cover everything. Yes, 2e actually has rules for dragons dropping various shit on people. 2nd or 3rd topic in the warfare chapter of C&T. The rules for flying creatures dropping things are far more expansive than those in 3rd edition...But Dragons tend to have a better array of options in that game than in 2e.

The 4e DMG has an Actions The Rules Don't Cover. 1 page total on p42.

It says nothing about area effects, ongoing damage or even attacking NADs. The only guideline of relevance to your scenarion would be to use the high damage expression on the table, as it is likely a 1/encounter effect.

Compare to 2e. It has rules for dropping something directly on something. Indirectly dropping shrapnel or exploding material. Tells you to reference the DMG for rules for disease or setting things on fire. Even the size and relative mass of what a flying creature can carry and subsequently drop is addressed.

Guess what rules I think add more tactical depth to an encounter with a draconic bombadier.

I bet it's the one with rules you can actually be expected to know and not have to spend a bunch of extra time looking up just so you can have a more faux-accurate-physics encounter

[Winnah]

Extra time? Making consistant rules up on the fly is more time and thought intensive than referencing a book.

It still does not adress the point the the 4e "make shit up" rules are woefully deficient and lack the ability to reproduce the effects Swrordslinger stated.

I'm gonna make a stand here and state that 2e is superior to 4e in every possible way.

[Murtak]

The 4e DMG has an Actions The Rules Don't Cover. 1 page total on p42.

It says nothing about area effects, ongoing damage or even attacking NADs. The only guideline of relevance to your scenarion would be to use the high damage expression on the table, as it is likely a 1/encounter effect.

Compare to 2e. It has rules for dropping something directly on something. Indirectly dropping shrapnel or exploding material. Tells you to reference the DMG for rules for disease or setting things on fire. Even the size and relative mass of what a flying creature can carry and subsequently drop is addressed.

Guess what rules I think add more tactical depth to an encounter with a draconic bombadier.

And the answer is: neither does. Adding more and more rules does not necessarily make your game deeper, it just adds more rules to remember. Depth comes from the interaction of mechanics, not from having a lot of them. Chess has very few rules, but is tactically deep enough to require computers to script it. Adding different pieces to the game, or allowing different moves would not make chess deeper. At most it would require fractionally more resources to compute the optimal move, because less identical pieces mean less identical positions, hence less work a script can skip. As long as you have a couple of different pieces tow ork with the depth of chess will be pretty much the same. Adding more pieces does not add depth, it adds width.

Similarly, adding more options to a game does not make the game deeper. It is vital that you do have enough actions to make different tactical choices, but after that, more options are strictly, well, optional.

[Murtak]

I bet it's the one with rules you can actually be expected to know

And this is exactly while having rules is better than guidelines for creating rulings. Once your dragon gets to drop a boulder on someone for whatever amount of damage your game has a new rule. You are expected to know and remember that rule, to allow players, NPCs and future enemies to use it and to have it work with different objects, from different heights and so on.

I don't even know that 4E guideline, so I am going to have to use more or less random numbers. Lets assume some level 20 dragon picks up a boulder and hurls it at the fighter. You consult your guideline and decide that boulder is going to do 4d8+20 damage, reflex save to avoid. Now, two sessions later a level 1 character in a different campaign wants to drop stones from the top of a tower onto an unsuspecting guard below. Assuming the tower is built from stones of similar size, and the heights involved are similar, does he get to do that much damage to the guard? Does the guard get a reflex save, even though he is unaware? And if so, are you going to allow a high-level PC to attempt reflex saves for future dangers he might be unaware of?

That is the kind of stuff you have to think of when you make up your on the fly rulings. And remember, this is assuming everything ever dropped onto someone else gets dropped from the same height and is of equal weight. It does not get any easier than this example. And yet, it is rather alot to ask anyone to improvise in mid-battle.

Now, having said that, it may be fine to not have rules for dropping stuff onto people in your game. You have to weigh page count and time to write those rules against the benefit they bring to your game, and that is strictly a judgement call. But if and when you actually end up in that situation, having clear rules is strictly better than having guidelines, even if they have been written by the same person.

[Plebian]

I bet it's the one with rules you can actually be expected to know

And this is exactly while having rules is better than guidelines for creating rulings. Once your dragon gets to drop a boulder on someone for whatever amount of damage your game has a new rule. You are expected to know and remember that rule, to allow players, NPCs and future enemies to use it and to have it work with different objects, from different heights and so on.

I don't even know that 4E guideline, so I am going to have to use more or less random numbers. Lets assume some level 20 dragon picks up a boulder and hurls it at the fighter. You consult your guideline and decide that boulder is going to do 4d8+20 damage, reflex save to avoid. Now, two sessions later a level 1 character in a different campaign wants to drop stones from the top of a tower onto an unsuspecting guard below. Assuming the tower is built from stones of similar size, and the heights involved are similar, does he get to do that much damage to the guard? Does the guard get a reflex save, even though he is unaware? And if so, are you going to allow a high-level PC to attempt reflex saves for future dangers he might be unaware of?

oh look an easy one; unless the players are turning into big ass dragons then, no, they aren't going to do the same damage. this is the problem with trying to simulate reality; the distance the rocks fall may be the same but that tells only one part of how much velocity the boulder will have. unless you're assuming the dragon picks up the rock, flies to the target, comes to a dead stop, drops the rock, and flies off.

also saves in 4E aren't a reactive thing anymore, instead they're treated more like what they are; defenses. roll to hit against them, rather than the player effectively rolling to hit so they'll save. so, yes, you'd roll to hit the unaware guard's reflex and any miss could be easily explained; a few pebbles alerted him, he heard something, or he just got really damn lucky and dodged by picking up a copper piece a few steps over.

so, basically, you'll reuse the guidelines for the rock that just fell but future rock-dropping situations will likely never be identical so you really don't have to worry about it breaking verisimilitude. and who the hell actually asks "by the way how much, exactly, did that boulder the dragon just dropped on Phil weigh? because, you know, if it's not inside a certain range my verisimilitude will be broken."

the point being that any rock's weight will be assigned by the DM to suit the purposes of that situation; if he has to reverse-engineer it from a chart he will, but it really won't change the outcome of the DM doing things the way he wants them to be done.

Extra time? Making consistant rules up on the fly is more time and thought intensive than referencing a book.

it's funny how you keep interpreting "read the guidelines in the DMG and go from there" as just pulling rules out of your ass

It still does not adress the point the the 4e "make shit up" rules are woefully deficient and lack the ability to reproduce the effects Swrordslinger stated.

howso? they don't say "this can only attack AC" they simply state average damage values by level. hell it even splits it up between normal attacks and limited attacks and gives you low-medium-high damage values for each

also the indignation at "make shit up" rules is utterly hilarious because it's like you assume that no other edition, or indeed any other tabletop, has ever encouraged or even allowed DMs to make shit up. why, in my day we just play RAW with a robot DM! fuck yeah NWN singleplayer all day erry day! oh shit what about all the instances where the RAW tell the DM to make shit up oh goddamnit my point nooooooooooooo

I'm gonna make a stand here and state that 2e is superior to 4e in every possible way.

oooh go ahead and enumerate the ways 2e is superior to 4e but make sure those ways don't overlap with 3e (like most of 4e does) because then you'd just look like an idiot!


on-topic, tactical depth isn't something you can just lay down rules for but knowing your players is vital. know the players, know their character's powers, design plot hooks accordingly. this isn't to say that you should design perfect foils for their powers; excepting rare circumstances this is just going to be a punishment to that player more than an interesting obstacle. just make things more difficult for them but with a way to mitigate it either through being smart or teamwork. also try to avoid any solution with a single answer because this single answer is invariably not going to be intuitive to anyone but you.

[Hicks]

I have to agree with Winnah. Having thoroughly examined both 2e and 4e, 2e is is far and away the better game, and every individual subsystem in it, in whole or in part, is better. Hell, reading and understanding 1e as to 4e, is like being forced to eat a severed, flaccid, diseased cock as compared eating a barrel of severed, flaccid, diseased cocks . With time and supplements, 4e has become a barrel of rotting, severed, flaccid, diseased cocks.

4e is bad, and is the mechanical, technical, and storytelling inferior of 1e, while being just as ethically, morally, and mechanically disingenuous and pretentious; and that's saying something coming from me.

[Winnah]

Extra time? Making consistant rules up on the fly is more time and thought intensive than referencing a book.

it's funny how you keep interpreting "read the guidelines in the DMG and go from there" as just pulling rules out of your ass

Which is exactly what Swordlinger was doing. Pulling rules out of his ass.


[quote="plebian]

It still does not adress the point the the 4e "make shit up" rules are woefully deficient and lack the ability to reproduce the effects Swrordslinger stated.

howso? they don't say "this can only attack AC" they simply state average damage values by level. hell it even splits it up between normal attacks and limited attacks and gives you low-medium-high damage values for each[/quote]

Actually the rules state. "The improvised attack targets AC." If you had bothered to read the page I was talking about you may have noticed that. If you are going to fan-wank over a system, at least bother to learn the system. Stupid 4rrie.

also the indignation at "make shit up" rules is utterly hilarious because it's like you assume that no other edition, or indeed any other tabletop, has ever encouraged or even allowed DMs to make shit up. why, in my day we just play RAW with a robot DM! fuck yeah NWN singleplayer all day erry day! oh shit what about all the instances where the RAW tell the DM to make shit up oh goddamnit my point nooooooooooooo

Are you trying to make a connection between creating a story and creating new mechanics? I think you are.

I would like to see this RAW citation of "make shit up" you are on about though. Gimme a page number.

[quote="Plebian]

I'm gonna make a stand here and state that 2e is superior to 4e in every possible way.

oooh go ahead and enumerate the ways 2e is superior to 4e but make sure those ways don't overlap with 3e (like most of 4e does) because then you'd just look like an idiot!
[/quote]

I don't need to enumerate shit. Every possible way. How much clearer do I need to be? Edition Wars just got real bitch.

edit: I am putting Plebian on ignore. Fun as it has been, this is not constructive or even particularly useful. Sorry for the derail.

[Plebian]

Actually the rules state. "The improvised attack targets AC." If you had bothered to read the page I was talking about you may have noticed that. If you are going to fan-wank over a system, at least bother to learn the system. Stupid 4rrie.

Attacks: If the action is essentially an attack, use an
attack roll. It might involve a weapon and target AC, or
it might just be a Strength or Dexterity check against
any defense. For an attack, use the appropriate defense
of the target. Use an opposed check for anything that
involves a contest between two creatures.

daaaaamn, did you just tell me to read the page when you didn't even read the page?

Are you trying to make a connection between creating a story and creating new mechanics? I think you are.

actually when storycrafting involves mechanics such as monster appearances, loot, and other things that are discussed in the RAW but left to DM discretion? yeah it's directly linked to the argument about DM discretion on how to use a chart because they are direct analogues

I would like to see this RAW citation of "make shit up" you are on about though. Gimme a page number.

the DMG, try reading it

I don't need to enumerate shit. Every possible way. How much clearer do I need to be? Edition Wars just got real bitch.

so you admit that 4e is nearly identical to 3e mechanically awesome I love winning arguments

edit: I am putting Plebian on ignore. Fun as it has been, this is not constructive or even particularly useful. Sorry for the derail.

it's so hilarious that you have this long post of "prove me wrong I dare you" and then post "now I am ignoring you" because you know exactly how untenable your argument is and how stupid you are

[Swordslinger]

And this is exactly while having rules is better than guidelines for creating rulings. Once your dragon gets to drop a boulder on someone for whatever amount of damage your game has a new rule. You are expected to know and remember that rule, to allow players, NPCs and future enemies to use it and to have it work with different objects, from different heights and so on.

It may have a new guideline, but not a new rule. Remember when you have your dragon drop something, you're not producing a rule, you're producing a dice expression. "+18 vs AC, 3d8+12" is not a rule, it's a series of numbers, and more importantly, it's numbers your PCs don't even see.

Not to mention, damage is arbitrary in D&D anyway, I'd much rather have it be based on the level of the person dropping it than on physics. Hit Points aren't a measure of physical toughness, they're a measure of plot armor. If a bunch of mooks are dropping a heavy rock on the hero, it's probably not going to kill him. If the villain is dropping it, then it might kill him.

[Smeelbo]

In the real world, tactics arise primarily from three areas: terrain, opposed unit capabilities, and asymmetric information. As a DM, the greatest immediate tactical depth I have been able to offer players was when running my modifications for 4E D&D Encounters for the game store where I work. As written, the D&D Encounters were weak and uninteresting. Since I really had no choice about running these games (if the store did not host Encounters, we would have to wait ten days after "pre-release" to sell new 4E books), and I did not want to be seen refereeing crap, I heavily modified the encounters provided:

• Extended the size of the playable mapped terrain from roughly 10" by 15" to 36" by 48"
• Added extensive but simple terrain, mostly slowing movement, providing cover, and/or blocking line of sight
• Used the result of a Nature or Dungeoneering check to determine the initial disposition of the party and their foes
• Armed most humanoid foes with ranged weapons
• Doubled the XP budget for additional characters past the fifth, increasing the number of foes the players faced
• Mixed some foes with minionized versions of those same foes, increasing the number of foes the players faced
• Ignored the tactics provided, and instead have the NPCs use their capabilities more intelligently
• Gave foes more emotionally authentic reactions

Since Encounters was designed to be one fight per evening, I wanted to provided the best possible fight for the players. With these modifications, the encounters were more challenging, more interesting, and worth playing out for the 6 to 10 rounds I've found usual for low level 4th Edition combats.

While I am generally very disappointed in 4E, this style of encounter would not have worked nearly as well under 3.X. First, combats in 3.X are generally so much shorter, that the enlarged detailed terrain would be wasted effort. Second, 4th Edition is more sensitive to exact positioning, so again, extended terrain is more worth while. Finally, the mix of larger, more complex terrain, and greater numbers of more intelligent enemies provided the players the opportunity to consider what might be the best use of their encounter and daily powers, which they enjoyed. I had a much better time DMing under these circumstances, while it would have been much more work and less rewarding under 3.x.

There are good ideas in 4E, especially if you are interested in "battle chess." Unfortunately, the actual implementation falls far short of its potential. I do believe that 4E is fixable, although past experience suggests Wizards is not capable of it.

Smeelbo

[Murtak]

It may have a new guideline, but not a new rule. Remember when you have your dragon drop something, you're not producing a rule, you're producing a dice expression. "+18 vs AC, 3d8+12" is not a rule, it's a series of numbers, and more importantly, it's numbers your PCs don't even see.

This is exactly the problem. You think that just because you are making shit up on the fly, you are excused from being consistent. You are wrong. The best thing you can do if you fuck up with your ad-hoc rule is to tell your players you are sorry, and prepare a real rule for the next session. But simply making up a new rule every time the same shit comes up again is flat-out bad DMing.

Bonus bullshit points for actually being in favor of not even telling your players how the world works. That is every bit as bad as the stereotypical gygaxian bullshit of earlier editions. Double extra bonus bullshit points for semantics. "it's not a rule, it's a dice expression" - are your fucking serious? Let me guess, if it does not involve dice it's a "word expression"? And BAB would be a "number expression"? In what bizarre universe are any of these not rules?

Not to mention, damage is arbitrary in D&D anyway, I'd much rather have it be based on the level of the person dropping it than on physics. Hit Points aren't a measure of physical toughness, they're a measure of plot armor. If a bunch of mooks are dropping a heavy rock on the hero, it's probably not going to kill him. If the villain is dropping it, then it might kill him.

That is fine. Your rule can certainly be based on level. The important thing is to be consistent.

[Murtak]

asymmetric information.

That is a good (and I think not previously mentioned) source of depth. It can be hard on the GM though, since he has to simulate the NPCs knowledge. And it pretty much falls apart in DnD, since character capabilities are very very arbitrary. In the right conditions though, not knowing what exactly to expect, can add depth.

While I am generally very disappointed in 4E, this style of encounter would not have worked nearly as well under 3.X. First, combats in 3.X are generally so much shorter, that the enlarged detailed terrain would be wasted effort.

Yes. 3E fights, especially high level fights, are often decided before initiative is rolled, and if not then, in the first round or two. It does not even lead to less decisions, but it does make many movement powers and quite a lot of terrain useless.

[Swordslinger]

This is exactly the problem. You think that just because you are making shit up on the fly, you are excused from being consistent. You are wrong. The best thing you can do if you fuck up with your ad-hoc rule is to tell your players you are sorry, and prepare a real rule for the next session. But simply making up a new rule every time the same shit comes up again is flat-out bad DMing.

You are using a rule, you're getting it from a table, but granted which box in the table you select it from is up to you, but given that "boulder" isn't a standard gameworld object anyway, I don't see an issue with it. Boulders come in all shapes and sizes anyway, so maybe the first boulder really does 2d10 damage and the second one does 3d10. The second one might be bigger than the first, or used by a more powerful monster.

It's bad DMing to get bogged down on pointless details. Keep the game flowing. Take a table of guidelines and go with it.

I'm not upset with a DM who just arbitrarily pulls a number from a table of guidelines. I'm more upset if he halts the game for 15 minutes looking up some crap that probably would have been better being just made up on the spot. The only issue with making shit up is that you want guidelines so that people don't make up something ridiculous, like declare the rock does 200 damage.

As for consistency, are you aware that falling rocks do more damage than rocks fired from a catapult in 3E?

Yeah I think I'll trust me DM to make rulings rather than rely on game designers planning out every little rule in the game. It's kinda silly you think that game designers who make errors in "simple" games like 4E are going to design this perfect set of 2000 pages of rules that cover everything that might happen.

Dude, come on. Lets wake up to reality.

[Smeelbo]

asymmetric information.

That is a good (and I think not previously mentioned) source of depth. It can be hard on the GM though, since he has to simulate the NPCs knowledge. And it pretty much falls apart in DnD, since character capabilities are very very arbitrary. In the right conditions though, not knowing what exactly to expect, can add depth.

This is where "emotional authenticity" comes into play. What do the NPCs want? What do they think of the PCs? How far are they willing to go? It allows for bluff, intimidation, and negotiation as well as force as solutions. And when their morale breaks, and the foes flee, it gives characters a chance to finish the fight with a series of opportunity attacks and so on.

While I am generally very disappointed in 4E, this style of encounter would not have worked nearly as well under 3.X. First, combats in 3.X are generally so much shorter, that the enlarged detailed terrain would be wasted effort.

Yes. 3E fights, especially high level fights, are often decided before initiative is rolled, and if not then, in the first round or two. It does not even lead to less decisions, but it does make many movement powers and quite a lot of terrain useless.

In games with Frank in ShadowRun, we experienced what I'd call "operational depth." By the time the party had ambushed our lucky victim, a multitude of scheme set in motion during hours of preparation come to a heady fruition.

For example, we had set our sights on one of the less likely contenders to the soon to be vacant throne of the Ottoman Empire, a despicable scum bag who worked Armenian slave laborers to death in his unventilated paint factory. We had carefully chosen as our patsies a turko-supremacist punk rock band, who themselves appeared to be covering for the Kurdo-Armenic Cooperation Council, itself an exchange market for terrorist groups. Long story short, anyone who successfully followed the money would have traced the band to Tehran, where they were killed in a riot instigated by religious police (we tipped them off). Not only did we get away with the money, but we relocated the Armenians, providing them with jobs and a save haven disguised as Albanian refugees in Firenze. Total Victory. The combat itself was very few rounds, but the preparation and follow up took days.

Smeelbo

[Plebian]

In games with Frank in ShadowRun, we experienced what I'd call "operational depth." By the time the party had ambushed our lucky victim, a multitude of scheme set in motion during hours of preparation come to a heady fruition.

For example, we had set our sights on one of the less likely contenders to the soon to be vacant throne of the Ottoman Empire, a despicable scum bag who worked Armenian slave laborers to death in his unventilated paint factory. We had carefully chosen as our patsies a turko-supremacist punk rock band, who themselves appeared to be covering for the Kurdo-Armenic Cooperation Council, itself an exchange market for terrorist groups. Long story short, anyone who successfully followed the money would have traced the band to Tehran, where they were killed in a riot instigated by religious police (we tipped them off). Not only did we get away with the money, but we relocated the Armenians, providing them with jobs and a save haven disguised as Albanian refugees in Firenze. Total Victory. The combat itself was very few rounds, but the preparation and follow up took days.

Smeelbo

you're confusing tactics with strategy here; Shadowrun is usually 95% strategy and 5% your strategy falling apart and winging it because you're a small group of people up against megacorps or nations, that last 5% is the tactical bit. where you need to make a fight interesting for the cybered-out street samurai with three initiative passes and enough firepower to down an APC while also giving the rigger some effective options while the mage summons a spirit or whatnot

[Murtak]

You are using a rule, you're getting it from a table, but granted which box in the table you select it from is up to you, but given that "boulder" isn't a standard gameworld object anyway, I don't see an issue with it. Boulders come in all shapes and sizes anyway, so maybe the first boulder really does 2d10 damage and the second one does 3d10. The second one might be bigger than the first, or used by a more powerful monster.

It's bad DMing to get bogged down on pointless details. Keep the game flowing. Take a table of guidelines and go with it.

So, wing it, and fuck consistency? Hey, if that's better than having actual rules, lets do the same for attack rolls! Or hit points! Hey, what about telling a player he can't use his daily at a point where it would impede the flow of the game? Wait, no, those are terrible ideas.

I'm not upset with a DM who just arbitrarily pulls a number from a table of guidelines. I'm more upset if he halts the game for 15 minutes looking up some crap that probably would have been better being just made up on the spot. [snip] It's kinda silly you think that game designers who make errors in "simple" games like 4E are going to design this perfect set of 2000 pages of rules that cover everything that might happen.

Read my posts again: I clearly and repeatedly state that guidelines are fine, if, and only if, the part of the rules they are covering for is deemed unimportant to your game. Not having rules for falling objects can be ok. But that doesn't mean the guidelines are better. It means they are shorter and easier to write.

[Swordslinger]

Read my posts again: I clearly and repeatedly state that guidelines are fine, if, and only if, the part of the rules they are covering for is deemed unimportant to your game. Not having rules for falling objects can be ok. But that doesn't mean the guidelines are better. It means they are shorter and easier to write.

And I'm saying shorter and easier to write is precisely what makes them superior to writing full blown rules that are rarely, if ever used in game. The guidelines cover more situations, are easier to balance, less abusable and can be put on a DM screen for quick reference.

[LR]

And I'm saying shorter and easier to write is precisely what makes them superior to writing full blown rules that are rarely, if ever used in game. The guidelines cover more situations, are easier to balance, less abusable and can be put on a DM screen for quick reference.

And such guidelines are tactically shallow, thematically flavorless, and contribute to lazy design and a failure to fully comprehend rules interactions.

If you like lazy devs (like the current 4e team), then I can understand why you would prefer lazy design. But you have to understand that other people don't, or we're not going to get anywhere.

[Swordslinger]

And such guidelines are tactically shallow, thematically flavorless, and contribute to lazy design and a failure to fully comprehend rules interactions.

I'm not even sure what you mean by tactically shallow. Dropping an object in either case simply does damage, whether you're using guidelines or a specialized rule. You drop something, it has a chance of hitting and a damage value. That's regardless of how you're getting those numbers, there's an end result. I fail to see how one option is more tactically shallow and thematically flavorless than another.

If anything thematically guidelines fit better because they stick more closer to the intent of a level based system so mooks with boulders aren't more powerful than wyverns.

[Archmage]

If you have no way to judge how much damage a dropped boulder will do versus your other attack options, how can you evaluate its worth tactically?

[RadiantPhoenix]

And I'm saying shorter and easier to write is precisely what makes them superior to writing full blown rules that are rarely, if ever used in game.

Even if your premise, namely that they will almost never be used in a game, is true, they are still merely more efficient use of time and paper, not actually superior.[/i]

[Swordslinger]

If you have no way to judge how much damage a dropped boulder will do versus your other attack options, how can you evaluate its worth tactically?

You could just ask the DM something like, "based on my knowledge of these monsters, do I think dropping a boulder on them would be more effective than using my sword?"

[Plebian]

Even if your premise, namely that they will almost never be used in a game, is true, they are still merely more efficient use of time and paper, not actually superior.[/i]

but a more efficient use of time is exactly what makes them superior; the less time spent crunching numbers, the more time spent thinking about tactical options, story, and other things that make the game more enjoyable than a few lines of text in a book would suggest.

[Murtak]

but a more efficient use of time is exactly what makes them superior; the less time spent crunching numbers, the more time spent thinking about tactical options, story, and other things that make the game more enjoyable than a few lines of text in a book would suggest.

Guidelines ensure you spend more time with calculations. When you make up something new instead of having a fixed rule, you have to do every calculation all over again. You seem to be assuming that rules are nexessarily complex and guidelines are necessarily simple. This is false. Let me walk you through it:

You can decide to handle any given situation in a simple or in a complex manner. In our example - dropping stuff on people - that might mean handling velocity, weight, range and target location or just having damage be level dependant. If you choose the simple route you can make it a guideline - "about 1d6 per level, add a couple of dice for especially deadly missiles. probably needs a targeting roll". Or you can make it a rule "1d6 per level. Common modifiers given in table below. Roll ranged touch to hit". The hard rule takes up more space, mostly due to the table, but is faster to resolve, again, mostly because of the table - anything it covers the DM has to make up on the spot without it.

Now, if you want to factor in more stuff your calculations necessarily get more complex, probably complex enough that you won't even consider making it a guideline. But this is voluntary - you are doing it because you think that this will make for a better game than going with a simpler mechanic.

So, if your mechanics are too complex to stuff into a rough guideline you are only doing it because guideliens can't handle what you are trying to do, meaning actual rules are superior for your needs. And if your mechanics are simple enough to represent them with guidelines you are trading rulebook space for resolution speed. In both cases, rules are strictly superior, except if you want to spend less time and space on writing stuff into your rulebook.

Again: This does not mean guidelines are a bad thing. Saving space is important. But for anything important to your game, actual rules will always be better, for the reasons outlined above.