Re: session re****t

In article <45bbd63f$0$8717$ed2619ec@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David Meadows <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"psychohist" wrote:
>> I have to say, your post reminded me of why I refuse to play AD&D as
>> written.  Optimal tactics are all about finding exploitative uses of
>> things like the uses of darkness and silence that you mention.  I don't
>> fault your player for them, but I'm really not interested in a system
>> that has so little use for real tactics.

>I find that an odd statement. In what way is making best use of your
>abilities not "real tactics"?

If--in the worst case, and I've seen this worst case from time to time--
you can find an exploit that always works, your tactical play is
reduced to "deploy the exploit again".  It is tactically correct to do
so, but not at all tactically interesting.  If you play for the
challenge, this is a botch.

We had some v3.0 games where, by mid-teens level, it seemed as though
all the fights were just the same.  The player had a memorized formula
and it always worked.  It was tactical in some sense, but since it
hardly had to take account of the foe at all, not tactically challenging.
I had the impression he could do it on autopilot.

v3.5 has been better so far, in our hands at least.  We did make
a rules fix against the darkness/see in magical darkness combo, though.
An entire adventure path of fights that all looked like that would get
quite dull for both player and GM, I think.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]