From 2012 into 2017, there was a pretty cool Thread here, talking about Gary Gygax's 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery. Those Steps are contained in his 1987 book, Role-Playing Mastery.
Folks jumped in and out, and it grew to over 650 posts before I finally let it dwindle out. We moved outside just the 17 Steps along the way, and there's some great discussion. You can find the whole thing here:
Gary Gygax & Role-Playing Mastery
In one chapter of the book, he lists 11 Tactical Mastery Tips. I had broached the first two near the end of the Thread. I figured I'd start up a new Thread here, to talk about his take on Tactical Mastery. I'll follow the same format I did for the Role-Playing Mastery thread. I'll kick it off with the Intro I used for that one. Then the next post, I'll cover Tip One. Hopefully some folks will jump on board.
Only rule is to be civil. We had a great discussion and no one was ever a problem. You really should click over and check it out, if you've got some time.
Gary Gygax's 11 Tactical Mastery Tips
If you're reading this post, you probably know that Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson co-created Dungeons and Dragons circa 1973-1974. Unfortunately it was not a long-lasting partnership and lawsuits would ensue. While both were instrumental in creating D&D, it is Gygax who is remembered as the Father of Role Playing.
In 1987, Gary Gygax put out a book entitled Role-Playing Mastery, which gave instructions on how to excel as a player in role-playing games. At that time, there were essentially two versions of Dungeons and Dragons. The Original, or ‘Basic’ game, had evolved under Tom Moldvay’s rules development. Gygax, meanwhile, was focused on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, or ’AD&D’. They were marketed as separate rules systems and 2nd Edition AD&D would not be released until 1989.
Gygax had been pushed completely out of TSR (the company he cofounded to print the first set of D&D rules) by December 31, 1986, so he was no longer associated with D&D when this book came out.
In an interview not long before he died, Gygax was asked how he’d like to be remembered and replied:
“I would like the world to remember me as the guy who really enjoyed playing games and sharing his knowledge and his fun pastimes with everybody else.”
This book, which he wrote about twenty years before his death, reflects that philosophy. On a side note, he wrote a companion book that came out in 1989, Master of the Game, which focused on the Dungeon Master/Game Master side of role-playing.
They are both interesting reads; partly because he takes the subject so seriously. And bear in mind that PC gaming consisted of titles like Ultima IV, Wizardry, and Bard’s Tale. Pool of Radiance, the first of the gold box series, was a year away. MMORPGs weren’t even conceived of yet (yes, I know MUDs existed). But computer gaming was a very different world. People RPGd by sitting around a table together. And Gary Gygax suggested how they could be very good at it.
So, next post will begin a look a Gary Gygax's 11 Tactical Mastery Tips.
Chapter 7 of Role-Playing Mastery is Tactical Mastery, but Gygax does not actually define tactics. Nor is it included in Appendix E (Glossary of Terms). So, we're going to borrow Merriam Webster for that:
Tactics - the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end.
Goal - the overall reason for playing a given role-playing game (entertainment) as well as the reason(s) specified within the game for playing it.
That definition of 'Goal' is included in Appendix E. And it gives a definition both for the player, and for the character.
Merriam Webster defines it as, the end toward which effort is directed.
So, in looking at Gygax' Tactical Tips, we can look at tactics as the methods used to achieve the goal. We'll get into Strategy as well.
IMO, "tactics" in RPGs are mostly dependent on the system mechanics and how they relate to the specific encounter/scenario. These are the "good choices" for actions by the characters and can incorporate teamwork, battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, etc. Depending on the system and the characters, some of the options available can be either less or more effective than others; choosing the more effective options for the specific encounter/scenario is tactics.
"Strategy" can also depend on the system mechanics, but is more general. This is where the players prepare their characters to be able to use or be better at the tactics they plan to use. This includes the "character build" (I dislike the term, but it's one that most will understand), equipment acquisition (to include making magic items, if allowed by the system), information gathering on the upcoming encounters/scenarios (if appropriate), and planning sessions by the players based on the expected encounters/scenarios.
Thanks for joining in, Dragonchess.
Gygax does talk about Tactics being different in different situations:
"The game you play is specific, has its own rules, and is certainly unique. Each game campaign - each scenario with in the campaign - is different, and so too, are the tactics that apply...
...Variables such as the number of PCs in a group, watch character's attributes, and the class or skills attached to each PC make it a virtual impossiblity to treat tactics on a specific level."
Nice look at strategy.
More to come. Look forward to your input.
...This includes the "character build" (I dislike the term, but it's one that most will understand...
Curious why you don't like the term.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...This includes the "character build" (I dislike the term, but it's one that most will understand...Curious why you don't like the term.
Because it emphasizes the mechanics a bit too much, IMO.
I'll admit it's probably lingering distaste from the hardcore CharOps types during 3.x chasing after the "one optimal build" for a given class that "must" be used or else the character is "gimped." :-/
In relation to the thread topic, the "optimal builds" tended to eschew tactics in favor of piling numbers as high as possible on one action or type of action that was performed in every situation. Basically, using "build mastery" (often copied from someone else) to obviate any effort at tactical mastery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...This includes the "character build" (I dislike the term, but it's one that most will understand...Curious why you don't like the term.Because it emphasizes the mechanics a bit too much, IMO.
I'll admit it's probably lingering distaste from the hardcore CharOps types during 3.x chasing after the "one optimal build" for a given class that "must" be used or else the character is "gimped." :-/
In relation to the thread topic, the "optimal builds" tended to eschew tactics in favor of piling numbers as high as possible on one action or type of action that was performed in every situation. Basically, using "build mastery" (often copied from someone else) to obviate any effort at tactical mastery.
Yes.
Yes.
Some sanity, finally.
To be fair, the 3.x system constraints on character advancement did make it increasingly difficult to remain effective with multiple tactics as characters gained higher levels, apart from caster spell selection. This limitation on strategic choices was a driver for some of the more extreme attitudes, IMO.
For example, a 3.x arcane archer that could be an effective caster required jumping through some very specific hoops. One way was using the Unearthed Arcana battle sorcerer variant (+3/4 BAB for one less spell slot and spell known per spell level) and taking just two levels in arcane archer for Imbue Arrow. For a wizard, you needed other hoops (e.g., 3.5 abjurant champion, eldritch knight, and/or a one level dip in spellsword) to increase BAB without severely impacting spell progression; other than abjurant champion, IIRC, a wizard arcane archer (again, just two levels for Imbue Arrow) would most likely end up missing 9th level spells (unless the campaign progressed to epic [21st+ level]).
PF1 did make it easier to maintain effective tactical versatility for non-casters (example, focusing mainly on tripping [with reach] and damage [crit fishing]), although there were still often hoops to jump through that made the narrow "optimal builds" easier to achieve. Or people continued to play "casters with benefits" through multiclassing, archetypes, and/or prestige classes; just using the PF1 Core Rulebook allows fighter 1/wizard 6/eldritch knight 2/arcane archer 3/eldritch knight +8 for +17 BAB and spell progression as a 17th level wizard.
However, the emphasis in PF2 is much more on the tactical side. The "build" provides marginal benefits, as long as the character meets some very low bar optimization, compared to the actions of the characters during a given encounter. One of the issues that people encountered when moving to PF2 from PF1 or versions of D&D was that a character doing the same thing over and over was ineffective compared to using a tactical approach tailored to the encounter and the rest of the party's abilities. I'm trying to keep it general here, because you really have to get into the weeds with PF2 when it comes to tactics and teamwork.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just remembered this. To provide some examples on tactics that were/could be used in AD&D 1st Ed, a discussion about Tucker's Kobolds from 2011 might be a good starting point.
Not all of them will transfer to other systems, but the mindset behind them can be relevant.