prospero63
First Post
the Jester said:
Dunno. I want to say it was under 20 bux though (the DM at the time bought it).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Gridless combats - How do you do it?
- Thread starter Marcon
- Start date
Dunno. I want to say it was under 20 bux though (the DM at the time bought it).
Li Shenron
Legend
I think you can play successfully with any of these setups:
1- no visual aid: DM speaks, players imagine
2- narrative picture: DM shows an image of the locale, as in books (perspective, not 360degrees, no floor plan)
3- floor plan: DM shows a map of the locale without a grid
4- battlemat: DM shows a map of the locale with a grid
The most important thing is that all players realize that playing in ways less precise than 4 results in more randomness. Everyone should accept this added randomness as part of the game, much like they accept the dice results.
Some simplification ideas to help running the game...
Movement: Usually it only matters how many move actions you need to position yourself. If you know the approximate size of the locale, the DM can just tell a player "you can reach there in 1 move" or "you need a double move to reach there" and so on.
AoO from movement: You can just ignore them except in the following situations: character wants to get past a guarding enemy, character wants to retreat from a group of enemies, character wants to retreat from a single enemy that is cornering him.
Flanking: You could just require one or both the flanking characters to spend a move action to maintain a flanking position.
Ranged attacks/spells: Unless you are in a really large space, you can ignore them. When the situation looks close to the range limit, the DM can even toss a coin to decide.
1- no visual aid: DM speaks, players imagine
2- narrative picture: DM shows an image of the locale, as in books (perspective, not 360degrees, no floor plan)
3- floor plan: DM shows a map of the locale without a grid
4- battlemat: DM shows a map of the locale with a grid
The most important thing is that all players realize that playing in ways less precise than 4 results in more randomness. Everyone should accept this added randomness as part of the game, much like they accept the dice results.
Some simplification ideas to help running the game...
Movement: Usually it only matters how many move actions you need to position yourself. If you know the approximate size of the locale, the DM can just tell a player "you can reach there in 1 move" or "you need a double move to reach there" and so on.
AoO from movement: You can just ignore them except in the following situations: character wants to get past a guarding enemy, character wants to retreat from a group of enemies, character wants to retreat from a single enemy that is cornering him.
Flanking: You could just require one or both the flanking characters to spend a move action to maintain a flanking position.
Ranged attacks/spells: Unless you are in a really large space, you can ignore them. When the situation looks close to the range limit, the DM can even toss a coin to decide.
Orryn Emrys
Explorer
I take everything "off the grid". I even ran a 4th Edition CHAMPIONS game once without a battlemat. I just don't like the battlefield precision that occurs with tacticals, where everyone knows precisely where to place their fireball, or whether or not they could reach their opponent and still get an attack off in the same round. If the enemy is 5 feet too far...
I just don't feel that the chaos of combat should be so rigidly precise. I tend to keep track of things in my head, or on paper for myself if it's particularly complicated, and simply ask the players what they intend to do and tell them what they manage to accomplish round by round. Given the manner in which this could easily tilt against them, with characters constantly provoking Attacks of Opportunity or falling consistently short on their moves, and consequentially getting attacked before they have a chance to do so, I tend to "err" on the side of the PCs. I warn them if Attacks of Opportunity are likely, or assume that they will take steps to avoid them if it seems viable. I warn them when they are closing with an enemy but obviously won't get to attack before their opponent, so that they might alter their approach slightly.
The 4e proliferation of ranges and effects in "squares" is a little disconcerting, but I don't think I'll have any problems. The secret to my success is probably in the delivery, however. I don't necessarily describe the battlefield in a tactical sense, unless it seems very appropriate for one or more of the PCs to see things that way. I'll answer questions about distances and such in a fairly general way... "it's about forty feet..." But generally, the rest is a narrative. I like to keep the events limited to the perspectives of the individuals involved, so I'll describe what a character sees and hears and smells and such based on his actions and those of his comrades. This means that I will frequently describe a PC's actions by turning to one of the other players, whose character was in a position to see, and describe things from his/her perspective.
It's challenging, but habit-forming. And the players really respond to it.
I just don't feel that the chaos of combat should be so rigidly precise. I tend to keep track of things in my head, or on paper for myself if it's particularly complicated, and simply ask the players what they intend to do and tell them what they manage to accomplish round by round. Given the manner in which this could easily tilt against them, with characters constantly provoking Attacks of Opportunity or falling consistently short on their moves, and consequentially getting attacked before they have a chance to do so, I tend to "err" on the side of the PCs. I warn them if Attacks of Opportunity are likely, or assume that they will take steps to avoid them if it seems viable. I warn them when they are closing with an enemy but obviously won't get to attack before their opponent, so that they might alter their approach slightly.
The 4e proliferation of ranges and effects in "squares" is a little disconcerting, but I don't think I'll have any problems. The secret to my success is probably in the delivery, however. I don't necessarily describe the battlefield in a tactical sense, unless it seems very appropriate for one or more of the PCs to see things that way. I'll answer questions about distances and such in a fairly general way... "it's about forty feet..." But generally, the rest is a narrative. I like to keep the events limited to the perspectives of the individuals involved, so I'll describe what a character sees and hears and smells and such based on his actions and those of his comrades. This means that I will frequently describe a PC's actions by turning to one of the other players, whose character was in a position to see, and describe things from his/her perspective.
It's challenging, but habit-forming. And the players really respond to it.
Ed_Laprade
Adventurer
Actually, I found this rather amusing. True, real battlefield conditions are quite chaotic, but there aren't any turns!Orryn Emrys said:
(Besides, I've been of the opinion that the vinal topped battlemat is the greatest invention in gaming since OD&D. Sure, things become more tactical, but as I said before, the characters can see the whole situation... with sufficient lighting. And since the characters don't know from 'turns', they will have a very good idea of ranges. At least, if they've been in more than a few battles, anyway.)
frankthedm
First Post
I have been playing with and without the grid in 3E and I very much prefer playing gridless for your reasons exactly.
So my advice is:
- Drop flanking completely - If you feel that a specific situation should allow an attack bonus or a sneak attack, just say it to the player. Don't be afraid, the rogue will not suffer.
- Do not drop AoO, because it would require too many changes to the system. Instead, make it a DM call, as someone already suggested above.
- Explain clearly all the details of the battle. If required (say, too many creatures fighting at the same time), sketch it on a piece of paper. Just watch out: if you do this every round, you had better use those minis for this fight!
- When a caster needs measures, I usually let them roll a Spellcraft check. For example, if a player says he wants to fireball some evil guy so that the fighter is just one step out of the fireball area, he rolls Spellcraft. If he succeeds, fine. If he fails, the fighter is roasted.
- When anyone else needs measures (as for ranged attacks, or to tell whether that jump can be made), you eyeball it, as they said above, and if you feel that it's needed, you can always let them roll a Spot check.
- cover: eyeball it.
Ze
So my advice is:
- Drop flanking completely - If you feel that a specific situation should allow an attack bonus or a sneak attack, just say it to the player. Don't be afraid, the rogue will not suffer.
- Do not drop AoO, because it would require too many changes to the system. Instead, make it a DM call, as someone already suggested above.
- Explain clearly all the details of the battle. If required (say, too many creatures fighting at the same time), sketch it on a piece of paper. Just watch out: if you do this every round, you had better use those minis for this fight!
- When a caster needs measures, I usually let them roll a Spellcraft check. For example, if a player says he wants to fireball some evil guy so that the fighter is just one step out of the fireball area, he rolls Spellcraft. If he succeeds, fine. If he fails, the fighter is roasted.
- When anyone else needs measures (as for ranged attacks, or to tell whether that jump can be made), you eyeball it, as they said above, and if you feel that it's needed, you can always let them roll a Spot check.
- cover: eyeball it.
Ze
Orryn Emrys
Explorer
*grins* Touche!Ed_Laprade said:
I suppose it's actually the combination of precision tactical displays and turn-based combat that irks me, but the latter is an inescapable element in combat-oriented roleplaying games. In any case, it's not about the simulation elements to me... it's about the narrative, the feel of the battle in the minds of the participants, and I feel that tactical combat detracts from it. Players busy studying the map and the minis or counters or whatever are less invested in the scene I'm attempting to paint in our collective imagination. I've used tacticals of varying degrees of complexity over the years, and I enjoy the level of excitement that seems to grip my players when they are encouraged to rely on the image within their heads. Sometimes it's not as accurate, but it's a fair trade as long as you make the effort to pick up the slack and treat the combatants fairly.
To be honest, due to my own proclivities, I interpreted the OP's question as a request for advice on running combat without a visual representation... but I could have been mistaken, and I've noted a number of really cool ideas for implementing gridless tacticals. Interestingly enough, despite the occasional Warhammer game, I've never considered trying this with D&D... and I'm intrigued. Enough to try it sometime.
Lockridge
First Post
You need excellent communication as has been mentioned.
You need mature players who are willing to accept your ruling in situations where someone says, "if I'd known that I would have done this..."
You may also want to look at playing another system for the kind of (almost)non-combat horror game you describe. I've been slowly going from D&D to Savage Worlds because of the need to continue the pace of a tense game instead of having everyone switch from their imaginations to focus on a battlemat for an hour to resolve a combat. I'm sure others may have other game system suggestions for this.
You need mature players who are willing to accept your ruling in situations where someone says, "if I'd known that I would have done this..."
You may also want to look at playing another system for the kind of (almost)non-combat horror game you describe. I've been slowly going from D&D to Savage Worlds because of the need to continue the pace of a tense game instead of having everyone switch from their imaginations to focus on a battlemat for an hour to resolve a combat. I'm sure others may have other game system suggestions for this.
Siberys
Adventurer
I don't use a mat, but I do use a grid. I hold the map with my notes, draw foes on it, and show it to the players when they ask. I do like using Minis, though, so I've got a laminated grid, just in case I feel the itch to use it - especially for bbeg battles.
On 4e talking in 'squares' - just change mentions of squares to inches or multiples of 5 feet or 1.5 M or something. Simple.
On 4e talking in 'squares' - just change mentions of squares to inches or multiples of 5 feet or 1.5 M or something. Simple.
Similar Threads
