What do you think of the tactical vs. narrative split of D&D-adjacent, non-OSR games?

To be clear, my definition of "D&D-adjacent game" is "an RPG that specializes in letting a sturdy warrior, an agile skirmisher, a wizardly or musical spellcaster, and a more priestly or knightly spellcaster fight humanoid and goblinoid bandits on the road, oozes and undead in trap- and treasure-filled dungeons, cultists and corrupt nobles in big cities, and maybe even demons and dragons, all in a fantasy world."

Since the start of last June, the one system I have been playing and GMing most often is Draw Steel. It is a grid-based tactical combat RPG heavily inspired by D&D 4e, though it shares elements with other 4e-adjacent games, such as the nominative initiative mechanic of ICON. I really like playing these games; I have playtested some indie titles along such lines, such as Tactiquest and Tacticians of Ahm. I like looking at a tactical grid, considering the distinct powers I have, and figuring out how to best apply them. I also like 13th Age 2e, even though it does not actually use a grid, because it still adheres to the same overall structure of tactical combat.

Then there are the narrative games. I have played Dungeon World, GMed Homebrew World (with the follower rules from Infinite Dungeons), played and GMed Fellowship 1e, played and GMed Fellowship 2e, and GMed Chasing Adventure, all of which are fantasy PbtA games. I also GMed the quickstart of Daggerheart, a very PbtA-inspired system; I went a little further by running an encounter against the 95-foot-tall colossus Ikeri (who was one-turn-killed), a spellblade leader, and an Abandoned Grove environment. Unfortunately, none of these games have quite suited my GMing style. I like having concrete rules, and I dislike having to constantly improvise and fiat up rulings on the spot. I thought Daggerheart would turn around my opinion, but it just was not enough.

What do you make of this split?

The first category you describe are basically board games to me, and not ones I like. The second category is actual RPGs, though not my favourites.
Have you considered playing some more trad systems like WoD, GURPS, D6 Star Wars, CoC, maybe Traveller, etc? Give yourself a broader base to work from.

>>96008919

>Have you considered playing some more trad systems like WoD, GURPS, D6 Star Wars, CoC, maybe Traveller, etc? Give yourself a broader base to work from.

Yes, I have tried several, though I would hardly call them "D&D-adjacent."

It's a fake dichotomy.

I think within the /osrg/ is a small group that's basically a sack of shit. They keep trying to push this idea that modern D&D is "Storyshit" or "Storygames" or "Storyfagging" when in the grand spectrum, every edition of D&D is pretty far from the extremes of narrative games.
The little /osr/ shits want to pretend clunky, outdated and frankly awful older editions are the true way to play, because they're stuck trying to figure out how to rationalize the insane idea that games can't be improved upon and that in a pure miracle Arneson and Gygax managed to get it perfectly right on the first try. The problem with most OSR games is simply that there's some many pointless details to keep track of that any "story" within the game tends to be a stunted, and the best tales that come out are usually just "my character died due to pure luck, isn't that hardcore?"

You can have good stories in an extremely tactical game, but because the people who play OSRs can't thanks to OSRs being burdened by outdated designs, they need to figure out how to justify their RPG stories being awful. How? By saying RPG stories are supposed to be awful, and anyone who wants a good story is, and here's the fun part, a sissy tranny leftoid theater kid who voted democrat.

Not everyone in the /osr/ is like this, thank god. But yes, there's definitely those who want to play the game of proxy-pol warfare, where on one side you have All White Male Human Parties in HARDCORE games that are nothing but counting down the amount of torches they have until they die, and on the other side you have Every Letter of the Rainbow Alphabet represented, ignoring the dice and rules and just talking about their feelings while their DM railroads them.

There's a middle ground. Hell, there's better than a middle ground, there's the frankly superior ground of not falling for this fake dichotomy.

>>96008468 (OP)
every time I try to read one of your threads my eyes glaze over.
the way you write gives so much extraneous context and detail than by the time you get to the point, I've forgotten half of the shit you've said, including why we're here in the first place.

>>96008468 (OP)
i dont like either, i prefer simulationist games

>>96008468 (OP)
Generally I don't find playing rpg skirmish games very enjoyable. They have clunky combat compared to actual wargames and the gm ends up fudging everything so the players win. There are people who enjoy that sort of staged challenge and story telling on the side but its not for me. I prefer either a wargame with narrative campaign or an actual story game.

>>96008468 (OP)
Narrative games dont work for tabletop games.

>tactics
I don't play tradshit
>narrative
I don't play Forgeshit
>>96009771
this

>>96008468 (OP)
Where would you put 2d20 Conan from Modiphius? It feels like kind of a middle ground. Momentum/Doom/Fate metacurrencies, range bands, encouragement for the GM and players to get creative with their actions, but also a solid skill list, solid combat mechanics, and other elements that are rarely found in more narrative games.

>>96009771
>thimulathionitht

>>96010610
Your fear of the vulnerability of revealing things about what you like and dislike unironically through creativity is very mature anon, everyone is impressed and the rules of TTRPGs are defined by your hangups.

>>96008468 (OP)
You can make a tactical game very narrative focused but you can't make a narrative game tactical. Players used to RP a lot in 4E and only locked in during combat

I avoid narrative games because they tend to cause more drama between players at the table than crunchy ones, instead of players trying to obtain system mastery they try to have mastery over the GM and form cliques
It's very hard appearing even-handed, some narrative are aware of this problem and try to solve it in novel non-math ways but they often fall flat for my tastes

In crunchy systems something bad happened to you not because GM daddy said so, but because the dice said so

>>96008468 (OP)
>Here is my fake and gay dichotomy, what do you think?
That you should ht the bottom of the bottle.

>>96010610
Guess I have to cancel game night, until my group and I can agree on a system that has been approved by you personally, anon.

>>96009889
>They have clunky combat compared to actual wargames and the gm ends up fudging everything so the players win.
Literally and objectively wrong on both counts. You did not spout an opinion, you spouted a lie or a misconception by someone who has not actually given these types of games a chance.

>>96021415
I don't think a plastic bottle will kill anyone, anon, even if you hit the bottom very hard.

this is a touhoufag thread, right?

>>96019053
dude, you destroyed him

>>96027591
Nou

>>96021415
It's sad that /tg/ is so full of anons who hate taxonomy and thinking about the underlying principles of the hobby. I'll never understand why some people are allergic to definitions.

>>96008468 (OP)
I severely dislike narrative fantasy games. Narrative needs to be more grounded. The most fantastical I can get is something closer to white wolf games.

>>96008919
>The firtht category you dethcribe are bathically board gameth to me, and not oneth I like. The thecond category ith actual RPGth, though not my favouriteth.
>Have you conthidered playing thome more trad thythtemth like WoD, GURPth, D6 thtar Warth, CoC, maybe Traveller, etc? Give yourthelf a broader bathe to work from.