Post by klamath on Aug 24, 2009 12:46:49 GMT -6
Sorry if this is in the wrong forum--maybe it should be in 'Philosophy and D&D' or some such.
One very positive thing I’ve heard about D&D 4e, from people whose opinions I respect, is that the range of tactical options in it makes combat very exciting and gripping—more so, indeed, than in most other games. I don’t know if that’s the case or not, since I haven’t played 4e, and I don’t particularly care, one way or another. It did start me thinking about the combat systems in many traditional rpgs, though. As an overgeneralization, they often produce what I call vanilla combat, in which players do little beyond say ‘I attack’ and roll the dice. Some, like OD&D, do not have much in the way of explicit options beyond this spelled out in the combat rules.
That doesn’t mean tactical choices are entirely absent in such systems, of course. The use of spells or even missile weapons can insert a tactical element into combat, regardless of system; so can intelligent use of terrain. Clash Bowley has a very interesting blog post iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/07/abstract-tactics.html on using tactics without a battleboard, and I’ve seen similar sorts of things done at a lot of tables, even if the game’s system did not explicitly offer mechanical support. And just because there are no explicit rules for specific tactics doesn’t mean they can’t be used—in fact, it may give you more leeway to invent your own on the spot.
Nonetheless, my experience has been that in many traditional games, at least for melee-oriented characters, a good deal of fighting comes down to vanilla combat. Your character stands there, toe-to-toe with the opposition and slugs it out. Few decisions, except perhaps whom to strike or when to give up and run for it. Your main way of affecting the situation is what you roll.
On the face of it, this seems like it would be boring, and I’m sure that many people find it so. But I think there are some attractions to this sort of combat, otherwise it would not have endured so long. So what are the attractions? Three things occur to me:
1. The gambling analogy. Saying ‘I attack’ and rolling the dice is a lot like pulling the handle of a slot machine. No decisions being made, beyond the choice to pull the handle or walk away, no tactics or way to influence the outcome. Just the thrill of putting things up to chance and seeing how the dice fall (or the wheels spin). It’s something that can be enjoyable in itself.
2. The spectator-sports analogy. Spectators in the stands can get very emotionally caught up, even though they are making no decisions and have no direct effect on the outcome of the contest they are watching. Could it be that players during vanilla combat have the same sort of identification with their characters that spectators do with athletes—a different form of identification than you have when you are actively choosing precisely what your character does? Further, there’s the advantage that the player does not have to have a detailed knowledge of tactics—either real-world or game-system—to play a character who is a great warrior.
3. The Three Musketeers analogy. I was surprised, when I reread this book a couple of years ago, at how brief and undetailed the accounts of combat in it tend to be. Most swordfights in it are dispatched in a paragraph or less; it’s very different from swashbuckling films, which tend to long action setpieces. Instead, the book emphasizes derring-do and plot. Perhaps vanilla combat is an indication of games that work basically the same way—combat in them is an occasional spice, but not really the main focus of attention. Certainly vanilla combat systems, which tend to be abstract, can let you get through a fight faster than ones with more tactical choice.
How would you explain the attractions of vanilla combat?
One very positive thing I’ve heard about D&D 4e, from people whose opinions I respect, is that the range of tactical options in it makes combat very exciting and gripping—more so, indeed, than in most other games. I don’t know if that’s the case or not, since I haven’t played 4e, and I don’t particularly care, one way or another. It did start me thinking about the combat systems in many traditional rpgs, though. As an overgeneralization, they often produce what I call vanilla combat, in which players do little beyond say ‘I attack’ and roll the dice. Some, like OD&D, do not have much in the way of explicit options beyond this spelled out in the combat rules.
That doesn’t mean tactical choices are entirely absent in such systems, of course. The use of spells or even missile weapons can insert a tactical element into combat, regardless of system; so can intelligent use of terrain. Clash Bowley has a very interesting blog post iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/07/abstract-tactics.html on using tactics without a battleboard, and I’ve seen similar sorts of things done at a lot of tables, even if the game’s system did not explicitly offer mechanical support. And just because there are no explicit rules for specific tactics doesn’t mean they can’t be used—in fact, it may give you more leeway to invent your own on the spot.
Nonetheless, my experience has been that in many traditional games, at least for melee-oriented characters, a good deal of fighting comes down to vanilla combat. Your character stands there, toe-to-toe with the opposition and slugs it out. Few decisions, except perhaps whom to strike or when to give up and run for it. Your main way of affecting the situation is what you roll.
On the face of it, this seems like it would be boring, and I’m sure that many people find it so. But I think there are some attractions to this sort of combat, otherwise it would not have endured so long. So what are the attractions? Three things occur to me:
1. The gambling analogy. Saying ‘I attack’ and rolling the dice is a lot like pulling the handle of a slot machine. No decisions being made, beyond the choice to pull the handle or walk away, no tactics or way to influence the outcome. Just the thrill of putting things up to chance and seeing how the dice fall (or the wheels spin). It’s something that can be enjoyable in itself.
2. The spectator-sports analogy. Spectators in the stands can get very emotionally caught up, even though they are making no decisions and have no direct effect on the outcome of the contest they are watching. Could it be that players during vanilla combat have the same sort of identification with their characters that spectators do with athletes—a different form of identification than you have when you are actively choosing precisely what your character does? Further, there’s the advantage that the player does not have to have a detailed knowledge of tactics—either real-world or game-system—to play a character who is a great warrior.
3. The Three Musketeers analogy. I was surprised, when I reread this book a couple of years ago, at how brief and undetailed the accounts of combat in it tend to be. Most swordfights in it are dispatched in a paragraph or less; it’s very different from swashbuckling films, which tend to long action setpieces. Instead, the book emphasizes derring-do and plot. Perhaps vanilla combat is an indication of games that work basically the same way—combat in them is an occasional spice, but not really the main focus of attention. Certainly vanilla combat systems, which tend to be abstract, can let you get through a fight faster than ones with more tactical choice.
How would you explain the attractions of vanilla combat?
