Game News NWN2: DnD redefined - I live ... again!

[Crichton]

There is a huge tactical element in wizardry games. Stratety is super important, but the EFFECTIVE way to play is not to blast with fireballs and hack away. Much better to use silence where appropriate, and sleep, and blind, and in some cases to summon monsters. What tactic you choose matters IMMENSELY.

Spell selection =/= tactics, KOTOR has spell selection (and jedi-stances, "feat attacks" and lord knows what else). Tactics is the art of combining forces through manuoevre against an enemy, which precludes any game without a manouevre element (i.e. party = blob games like EOB, KOTOR, wiz, fallout, arcanum, all the early final fantasy games or any game with "soloing")

A game where you have a blob that can cast x many spells a turn is simply magic the gathering, it's not a tactics game.

 

[Voss]

Well Voss, I think you misunderstood me abit there. if so then its my choice of words thats to blame. I would say that there are maybe 100 -200 highlevel characters in the Forgotten Realms, give or take a few. Now on an entire planet 200 isn`t much. So thats what I meant by there being a small amount of highlevel people roaming around.

If by high level you mean that epic level crap, then yeah, maybe 200 or so, in the main region.

But your original post you said there 'aren't that many characters in the world above level 4'. Well, flipping open a random FR book... Silver Marches. Citadel Feldbar, with a population of LESS THAN 7000. Lets see, roughly 30 people over level 10, and another 80 over level 5. Over 1.5% of the population level 5+. In a bigger city like Silverymoon, (about 37000 people) you'd have 150+ people over level 10... Ressurection might be hard to find, raise dead not so much.

To make it more relevant to Obsidian's attempt at Neverwinter- a population of ~23,000. Almost 100 characters over level 10. Probably at least 8-10 of those will be clerics or druids.

 

[Jim Kata]

There is a huge tactical element in wizardry games. Stratety is super important, but the EFFECTIVE way to play is not to blast with fireballs and hack away. Much better to use silence where appropriate, and sleep, and blind, and in some cases to summon monsters. What tactic you choose matters IMMENSELY.

Spell selection =/= tactics, KOTOR has spell selection (and jedi-stances, "feat attacks" and lord knows what else). Tactics is the art of combining forces through manuoevre against an enemy, which precludes any game without a manouevre element (i.e. party = blob games like EOB, KOTOR, wiz, fallout, arcanum, all the early final fantasy games or any game with "soloing")

A game where you have a blob that can cast x many spells a turn is simply magic the gathering, it's not a tactics game.

Its options are completely meaningless due to the nature of the opponents you face. tactics does NOT equate to physical maneuvering. Again, you are simply wrong.

Card games like magic the gathering DO use tactics and strategy.

Everything you have said in this thread is just ridiculous, and it's obvious you don't even undertsand what the word tactics means.

 

[Crichton]

Its options are completely meaningless due to the nature of the opponents you face. tactics does NOT equate to physical maneuvering. Again, you are simply wrong.

Card games like magic the gathering DO use tactics and strategy.

Everything you have said in this thread is just ridiculous, and it's obvious you don't even undertsand what the word tactics means.

Here's the definition I got from Defense Intelligence College,

"The ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other and/or to the enemy in order to use their full potentialities. (Army) The employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements. (FM 3-0)."

Feel free to keep using whatever bizzaro definition you've come up with, Magic the Gathering = / = tactics.

 

[Slylandro]

Crichton, your definition is unfair because you've chosen a narrow version which is meant to apply only to war and war simulations which must have physical maneuvers by their nature. Conventionally tactics are defined as the way in which a strategy or overall plan is executed. See the first Webster definition which is more standard. The Final Fantasy series, the KOTOR series, and Fallout and so on lacked tactics because there were no meaningful tactical options and the strategy was always the same. If you want to use the KOTOR series as a prominent example, the fact was that whatever you did you could win, therefore there were no tactics. It was just an easy, imbalanced game. I used one stance throughout and never switched. Didn't have to. I never had to retreat because inventory had no weight so I could carry a hundred different kinds of medpacks. I never used anything other than Force Storm once I got it. Why kill less when you can kill more? I never used grenades, never switched from a lightsaber. I'd just end up doing less damage. The problems of the KOTOR series went well beyond "lacking maneuvers." Physical maneuver has nothing to do with tactics and strategy in the conventional sense. Would you say that political campaigns or competitive economic simulations for instance have no "tactics?" Not if you're using the standard definition as opposed to the military one. I'm confused why you would think Magic: The Gathering has no tactics. Have you played the game? I can think of many scenarios off the top of my head with tactics.

 

[Jim Kata]

The us army handbook also used to define democracy as 'mob rule'.

 

[Drakron]

That is indid correct.

 

[Volourn]

"That is indid correct."

No. Definitely not in any modern demcoracy.

 

[kingcomrade]

I think he was referring to the fact that the US Army handbook defined the word as such (I don't know if it's true). Of course, this is Drakron, who tries ever so hard to be cynical.

 

[Crichton]

Crichton, your definition is unfair because you've chosen a narrow version which is meant to apply only to war and war simulations which must have physical maneuvers by their nature. Conventionally tactics are defined as the way in which a strategy or overall plan is executed.

By this definition, Diablo 1+2 and System shock are tactical games (put points into skill X, use skill X), but playing a historical scenerio in Medieval: Total War is not because there is no strategic element; you might want to think this one through a little further. One's strategy limits one's tactical options, but tactics is no more an implementation of strategy than an American Football team's playbook is an implementation of it's hiring policy, the force one has to use limits the options one has, but you can have people pursuing identical strategies using very different tactics (The French in 1812 are mounting both strategic and tactical offensives, the British in 1812 are mounting a strategic offensive, but are on the defensive tactically).

The problems of the KOTOR series went well beyond "lacking maneuvers." Physical maneuver has nothing to do with tactics and strategy in the conventional sense. Would you say that political campaigns or competitive economic simulations for instance have no "tactics?" Not if you're using the standard definition as opposed to the military one. I'm confused why you would think Magic: The Gathering has no tactics. Have you played the game? I can think of many scenarios off the top of my head with tactics.

If you edit the variables controlling enemy HP, level, BAB and so on in KOTOR, you can make the game more difficult, but that doesn't make it a tactical game any more than playing diablo II on a higher difficulty level turns it into one. I use Magic: the Gathering as an example of a game with a lot of thinking, but no tactical element, if you like, substitute Blackjack, Railroad Tycoon, Contract Bridge or Fizbin, they all involve lots of thinking, none are games of tactics.

 

[AlanC9]

Isn't debating the meaning of the word "tactical" pointless, even by Codex standards? It's perfectly clear what Crichton means by the word, since he kindly provided an exact definition.

Having said that, I'll play a little.

Conventionally tactics are defined as the way in which a strategy or overall plan is executed.

By this definition, Diablo 1+2 and System shock are tactical games (put points into skill X, use skill X), but playing a historical scenerio in Medieval: Total War is not because there is no strategic element; you might want to think this one through a little further.

But one of the other senses of "tactical" -- "of or occurring at the battlefront" -- would cover the M:TW scenario, and any other game featuring small-unit combat. Including Diablo and Magic: The Gathering. Edit: I'm not implying that Slylandro was correct; just that you could still call the game tactical.

One's strategy limits one's tactical options, but tactics is no more an implementation of strategy than an American Football team's playbook is an implementation of it's hiring policy, the force one has to use limits the options one has, but you can have people pursuing identical strategies using very different tactics

I don't see the argument here. While the strategy chosen doesn't absolutely determine the tactics used, surely the tactics used are chosen in an attempt to fulfill the strategy. Unless the commander is completely irrational, that is.

Anyway, it's a correct usage according to Merriam-Webster; see (1) below. Note that alternative meaning (2) implies that there can be tactics with no strategy. Ah, the wonders of English:

(1) : of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose (2) : made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view

 

[Slylandro]

Crichton, your definition is unfair because you've chosen a narrow version which is meant to apply only to war and war simulations which must have physical maneuvers by their nature. Conventionally tactics are defined as the way in which a strategy or overall plan is executed.

By this definition, Diablo 1+2 and System shock are tactical games (put points into skill X, use skill X), but playing a historical scenerio in Medieval: Total War is not because there is no strategic element.

Since when was M:TW classified as having no strategic element? I haven't played it yet but most people who have claim there is strategy involved, for example Wikipedia describes it as being both a strategic and tactical game. Diablo 1+2 could've been described as tactics games in multiplayer but in practicality the focus on frenetic real-time action turns both games into being based on reflex rather than tactics. That and the correct thing to do is usually too obvious. No meaninful choices => no tactics. System Shock 2's actual main gameplay is totally reflex based. There isn't enough depth to SS2's skill selection screen to consider it a metagame that requires tactics/strategy. I suppose you'll tell me next I need a strategy for tying my shoes and that the tactics are using my hands? Please. In contrast with deck building in Magic: The Gathering's Type I format, players can draw off of a ridiculous number of different cards (I forget how many there are, but it's at the very least 15,000+) which require different strategies and analyzing how cards pair off together, eg synergy. There is no comparison.

I use Magic: the Gathering as an example of a game with a lot of thinking, but no tactical element, if you like, substitute Blackjack, Railroad Tycoon, Contract Bridge or Fizbin, they all involve lots of thinking, none are games of tactics.

Well if you go by the purely military definition, sure, but otherwise if you're using a standard definition (which is obviously better suited for nonmilitary games) you're just not correct and there's no point more in arguing unless you think Webster is wrong.

Btw in my personal opinion all the best strategy/tactical games boil down to subtle trading simulations, for instance in Magic: The Gathering, using life, mana, card advantage (both quantity and quality), fielded monsters, tempo, etc and making beneficial exchanges with the opponent and yourself in these resources. A war simulation such as chess uses different resources-- space, time, piece mobility, king safety, control of the center, initiative, prophylactic restraint, and so on. You intelligently trade one or more resources for others and hope you come out on top with the better deal.

Isn't debating the meaning of the word "tactical" pointless, even by Codex standards? It's perfectly clear what Crichton means by the word, since he kindly provided an exact definition.

Yep. I just disagree with the application of this narrow version since not all games are war sims and to suggest non-war sims have no tactics is contrary to Webster and to common sense.

 

[Crichton]

Since when was M:TW classified as having no strategic element? I haven't played it yet but most people who have claim there is strategy involved, for example Wikipedia describes it as being both a strategic and tactical game.

In a campaign game, it has both a strategic and a tactical portion, that's why I said playing one of the historical scenerios (you simply play out a battle, all forces are chosen for you, so there is no strategic element whatsoever)

Btw in my personal opinion all the best strategy/tactical games boil down to subtle trading simulations, for instance in Magic: The Gathering, using life, mana, card advantage (both quantity and quality), fielded monsters, tempo, etc and making beneficial exchanges with the opponent and yourself in these resources. A war simulation such as chess uses different resources-- space, time, piece mobility, king safety, control of the center, initiative, prophylactic restraint, and so on. You intelligently trade one or more resources for others and hope you come out on top with the better deal.

By this definition, everything from Trailer-Park Tycoon to Poker is a "game of tactics", a definition that broad is useless.

I don't see the argument here. While the strategy chosen doesn't absolutely determine the tactics used, surely the tactics used are chosen in an attempt to fulfill the strategy. Unless the commander is completely irrational, that is.

Tactical goals are presumably determined at least in part by strategic goals (if you want to keep an army in the feild, you can't sacrifice the whole army to win a single battle), but tactics aren't an implementation of strategy at all, if we return to the example of the napoleonic wars, different members of the Marshallate would be pursuing a common strategy (since it was determined above their heads by Nappy) but would use very different tactics (some favored column tactics, some liked linear tactics, some liked light cavalry migrations, some liked battles that were little more than artilery duels).

 

[Slylandro]

Btw in my personal opinion all the best strategy/tactical games boil down to subtle trading simulations, for instance in Magic: The Gathering, using life, mana, card advantage (both quantity and quality), fielded monsters, tempo, etc and making beneficial exchanges with the opponent and yourself in these resources. A war simulation such as chess uses different resources-- space, time, piece mobility, king safety, control of the center, initiative, prophylactic restraint, and so on. You intelligently trade one or more resources for others and hope you come out on top with the better deal.

By this definition, everything from Trailer-Park Tycoon to Poker is a "game of tactics", a definition that broad is useless.

Not really. Space Rangers 2 has an arcade-style FPS mode for the RTS warfare but that doesn't make it a game of FPS battles. Games can contain tactics without focusing on them, eg without being strictly labeled a "game of tactics." So the definition of tactics is not overly broad, only your choice in extending "games that contain tactics" to being "games of tactics" (or "tactical games"), which are not the same thing.

Edit: I can see why you're confused after re-reading your post with respect to mine. My personal opinion is that the best tactics and strategy games can be boiled down to trading sims. Stated in logic, If P (best tactics/strat games) then Q (trading sim at some level). You've assumed that I also think "If Q (trading sim at some level), then P (tactical game)" which isn't true.

A broad definition makes more sense in this case since we are talking about competitive games like Wizardry or Magic: The Gathering, not necessarily war sims. What it really comes down to is you insisting on using a very specific definition developed for war and applying it to non-war sims, and other people using a more common definition as portrayed in Webster and most other dictionaries.

tactics aren't an implementation of strategy at all [...] different members of the Marshallate would be pursuing a common strategy [...] but would use very different tactics.

The only thing you proved here is that a strategy can have multiple tactical implementations, which is nothing really new.

 

[Crichton]

The only thing you proved here is that a strategy can have multiple tactical implementations, which is nothing really new.

Tactics can exist in the complete absence of strategy, in a game like Chess, or the previous example, a one-off historical scenerio in M:TW, there is no strategic element at all, there is simply a tactical goal for a tactical game. By the same token, it's possible to play a game of strategy (risk, EU2, whatever) that has no tactical component at all, would you say then that no strategy is being implemented?

A broad definition makes more sense in this case since we are talking about competitive games like Wizardry or Magic: The Gathering, not necessarily war sims. What it really comes down to is you insisting on using a very specific definition developed for war and applying it to non-war sims, and other people using a more common definition as portrayed in Webster and most other dictionaries.

It's a definition developed for war because the word was developed for war (litterally the emplyment of an army), using the word tactics to describe someone deciding to fold in poker makes every bit as much sense as using it to describe someone favoring the rocket launcher over the railgun in quake, they're both descision-making, neither is tactics.

 

[kingcomrade]

Why does the intarweb hate me so much that I have to re-read this argument over and over and over no matter where I go or how useless and unresolved the outcome.

 

[Slylandro]

The only thing you proved here is that a strategy can have multiple tactical implementations, which is nothing really new.

Tactics can exist in the complete absence of strategy, in a game like Chess

No it can't. Even trying to win a chess game by playing without strategy IS a strategy. It's the same reasoning along the lines of doubting the existence of your mind proves its existence. Of course if you play to lose, it's not a strategy because it does not fulfill the goal of the game, namely to win. And heck, all of the above is relevant only if the player is irrational (and stupid). Any rational experienced player uses many different strategies all the time in chess with very different tactical motifs. Even a total chess n00b would at least recognize the hypermodernism pioneered by Nimzowitsch and the classical approach adopted by players like Capablanca to be two different strategies.

It's a definition developed for war because the word was developed for war (litterally the emplyment of an army), using the word tactics to describe someone deciding to fold in poker makes every bit as much sense as using it to describe someone favoring the rocket launcher over the railgun in quake, they're both descision-making, neither is tactics.

This has nothing to do with the definition I'm using. A tactic is an action, bias is not an action. Folding in poker is equivalent to losing a battle and beating a hasty retreat, it's not a tactic, it's just "ZOMG I suck." Surely if this is the best your argument has, it's not a good one.

Why does the intarweb hate me so much that I have to re-read this argument over and over and over no matter where I go or how useless and unresolved the outcome.

It's amusing that this is the poster who keeps spamming the general forums with astoundingly astute comments about race, religion, and politics that were never answered to satisfaction elsewhere but somehow will be brought to closure here at our very own humble Codex. I present to you Kingcomrade, the little intrepid boy-hero who dared to disregard emo conventions and turn forums everywhere into myspace.com

 

[RGE]

I see tactics as "how to fight a battle" while strategy is "how to fight the war". And when the words "battle" and "war" are used for other things than actual battles and wars, "tactics" and "strategy" take on new meanings as well. And then those meanings live on, even when "battle" and "war" are no longer used for things like games, politics and sports. It's truly horrible how a language can change and how context would have to be accounted for. Well, unless one wishes to argue about the meaning of words. Then context should be ignored at all costs.

In NWN2 I'd consider the fights to use tactics, while managing the stronghold would be strategy. I don't think I'd have a problem with a non-challenging game since I don't play RPGs for the challenge, but it does seem to end up offering less freedom, which is unfortunate. Well, less freedom than I'd like, not necessarily less freedom than NWN1.

 

[Drakron]

I think he was referring to the fact that the US Army handbook defined the word as such (I don't know if it's true). Of course, this is Drakron, who tries ever so hard to be cynical.

Why its wrong?

My impression of mankind is it acts like a mob, democracy is mob rule ... perhaps several mobs but pretty much there is not much of what the goverment can do without the people it supposed to represent (in a democracy) to support it.

I do find the definition right on the spot ... perhaps its being "cynical" but I hold very little illusions of what "democracy" stands for most so-called democratic goverments.

 

[Jim Kata]

I think my head will explode. Crichton becomes sillier with every post. Tactical chess? Wha??

Sorry, but chess is purely strategic. Why, because every move has to be carefully balanced into the greater scheme of things. The actual battle would be the part where the pieces capture each other. Chess is purely planning, whereas tactics are for discrete 'battles' where each move in and of itself only affects that 'battle'.

So please, just smarten up a bit and let this nonsense drop.

It is semihumorous, but I feel embarassed for you, especially since as kc has pointed out this argument has played out here pretty much endlessly with the conclusion that everything you are saying is crazy talk.

 

[RGE]

My impression of mankind is it acts like a mob, democracy is mob rule ... perhaps several mobs but pretty much there is not much of what the goverment can do without the people it supposed to represent (in a democracy) to support it.

I do find the definition right on the spot ... perhaps its being "cynical" but I hold very little illusions of what "democracy" stands for most so-called democratic goverments.

I'd say that there's a difference between a representative democracy and a mob. The former has elected leaders that hopefully has at least a little more sense than the lowest common denominator in a mob. Though I suppose that in some cases one can only wish that was true.

The way I see it, democracy promotes stability, which is beneficial to people who want to make long term plans. Other forms of government may be better for swift action, but those who can't or won't go along with that action would lose stability. I guess that it's the forced delays in the democratic process that create the stability, something which a mob rule doesn't have.

 

[Drakron]

My impression is mobs are not unruly.

Mob mentality is what prevails when humans act as a group, most of the time its not unruly as it achives a consense.

Politicians aim at the mob mentality, they aim at that mentality to be elected and even when certainly have their own agenda they try to keep the mob pleased (at election times).

I view the failure of democracy in the party system that by itself is a mob, you can have a very intelligent politician that is simply grabbed by the party mob mentality.

Democracy by itself does not offers stability, you seen several countries with democractic systems that are/were very unstable.

I can offer the failure of the first portuguese republic as a example of that, it was so unstable people eventually prefered a dicatorship over it.

 

[Crichton]

And heck, all of the above is relevant only if the player is irrational (and stupid). Any rational experienced player uses many different strategies all the time in chess with very different tactical motifs.

Everything in chess takes place in the face of the enemy, it combines various unit types and their combination is the key to success. It's every bit as much of a tactical engagement as what it models, a battle, not a war. A game like Go is a lot closer to strategy than tactics.

Folding in poker is equivalent to losing a battle and beating a hasty retreat, it's not a tactic, it's just "ZOMG I suck." Surely if this is the best your argument has, it's not a good one.

I presumed that if you considered Magic the Gathering a tactical game, poker would also qualify, if you like, subsitute "playing the SUPA BLACK MAGIC ULTRA MEGA RARE (mint condition) TROLL OF XERXES" in a game of magic.

I think my head will explode. Crichton becomes sillier with every post. Tactical chess? Wha??

Sorry, but chess is purely strategic. Why, because every move has to be carefully balanced into the greater scheme of things. The actual battle would be the part where the pieces capture each other. Chess is purely planning, whereas tactics are for discrete 'battles' where each move in and of itself only affects that 'battle'.

So if you take a single manoevre unit (a bishop or a unit of cavalry) and charge into antother (a unit of infantry or a pawn), that consitute's a "tactical engagement" (a whole "battle" in a single cavalry charge!) and the battle (or chess game) is a demonstration of "strategy" because whether or not to comit that cavalry to charging that infantry has to be weighed considering the disposition of all the other units in the field? What do you call an actual matter of strategy then like deploying different armies? Strategery?

It is semihumorous, but I feel embarassed for you, especially since as kc has pointed out this argument has played out here pretty much endlessly with the conclusion that everything you are saying is crazy talk.

Well if KC said it.....

 

[Jim Kata]

No, that is a battle, because chess is a WAR not a battle!

 

[Slylandro]

Everything in chess takes place in the face of the enemy, it combines various unit types and their combination is the key to success. It's every bit as much of a tactical engagement as what it models, a battle, not a war. A game like Go is a lot closer to strategy than tactics.

Why don't you stick to commenting about games you actually know? I wonder if you've played Wizardry, Chess, MT:G, etc to any significant degree or if you're just bluffing. Chess involves quite a bit of strategy unless you're an irrational beginner, aka an idiot. Read below.

I presumed that if you considered Magic the Gathering a tactical game, poker would also qualify, if you like, subsitute "playing the SUPA BLACK MAGIC ULTRA MEGA RARE (mint condition) TROLL OF XERXES" in a game of magic.

What on earth are you trying to say here anyway? Tell me, have you played Magic? You avoided this question earlier.

Tactics within the context of Magic exploit short term opportunities that could be (if you really want a military analogy) characterized as discrete battles, eg different groups of competing spells and creatures each turn. See games between two creature heavy deck types like U/G madness. Strategy is also integral-- try piloting a classic Necropotence deck against Sligh or a Keeper deck v.s. Stax. If you're a beginner you'll almost definitely be roasted.

So if you take a single manoevre unit (a bishop or a unit of cavalry) and charge into antother (a unit of infantry or a pawn), that consitute's a "tactical engagement" (a whole "battle" in a single cavalry charge!) and the battle (or chess game) is a demonstration of "strategy" because whether or not to comit that cavalry to charging that infantry has to be weighed considering the disposition of all the other units in the field?

Yes, that is in fact very close to the spirit of the actual definition of strategy and tactics in chess. If you are incredulous at this, you can't be anything more than a beginner (assuming you even know the rules). There are many chess books and online sources out there that use the word tactics and strategy in this regard, read for instance Winning Chess Tactics by Seirawan (for novices) or Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by Watson (advanced theory). Online sources are simply too numerous for me to even bother giving examples. Try googling "chess tactics." There has only been one major chess player (Teichmann) who considered chess to be almost purely a tactical game and his reasons are quite different from yours.