Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Mephistopheles]

That to me is a key division in tracking mechanics. Even you have effects that are instantaneous they can provide diversity without largely increasing the brainpower required to implement them into the game. Its the ongoing effects that generally increase tracking.

This reminded me of the topic of user memory when operating user interfaces.

In short, there are only so many things a user can keep in active memory before information starts getting put into longer term storage to make room in active memory for new information. It's because of this that if an interface requires users to juggle too much information it's likely to result in user confusion. You've possibly experienced this when using applications or computer games or websites: you know what it is that you want to do but you can't immediately remember how to go about it within the interface. If you experience this frequently while working with an interface it's probably not you that's the problem, but a poorly designed interface.

Seems like a similar phenomenon is being discussed here, with the game rules standing in for the interface.

 

[Hussar]

Again, you hinge on "with the number of variables in D&D" or, perhaps more specifically, "with many location-dependent variables".

I would agree that there are times when it is useful to break out a grid; I would argue that the times when this is useful occur far less often than when it is not....assuming the use of a ruleset that is not intended to promote the purchase of minis.

And that can easily include multiple enemy combatants versus PCs, flanking, and opportunity attacks.



RC

Why do you have to go there? I mean, couldn't it be equally possible that someone might actually think that the use of minis and battlemaps adds to the enjoyment of the game, rather than simply as a vehicle to flog plastic toys? Why phrase this in such a derogatory manner?

To me, I've gone so far as to refuse to play without minis. Doesn't matter the system any more. If you want to have a combat, I break out minis. Heck, I use minis for my Sufficiently Advanced game and combat is 100% abstracted without ANY tactical considerations.

But all this aside, I'm still left very confused how you can have tactical choice AND speed of play AND no minis. I can see two of those, but, how do you get all three? Time is entirely dependent on tactical choice. It takes much more time to play a turn of Squad Leader than it does to play a turn of Risk.

All because ASL has considerably more tactical choices.

 

[pemerton]

I am convinced that Dm's (and WoTC printed adventures) using monsters several levels higher then the players.

I wonder about this too. My party has two defenders (dwarf fighter, tiefling paladin), a controller (human wizard), a striker (drow sorcerer), and a hybrid striker/leader (elf ranger/cleric). The PCs are not weak, but not particularly optimised. As GM, I rarely use monsters more than one level above the party, and have never used a monster more than 3 levels higher. I do use quite a few controllers (probably on average one or two per encounter) but I don't use many elites (probably on average one in every second or third encounter) and I use even fewer solos. And we have not had the grind issue come up.

Probably my favourite monster type is artillery: good attack and weak defences, and automatically bringing terrain and tactics into play. I tend to use brutes and skirmishers as my front line, but also use some soldiers. However, I have never used a soldier more than 2 levels above the party. And one thing I do before using a monster more than a level or two above the party is simply compare its AC to the PCs' attack bonuses. If they're going to need 15 or better to hit, then normally I won't use the creature.

But absence of grind is not the only respect in which my group seems atypical. For example, the wizard in my party has never hestitated to use rituals.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why do you have to go there? I mean, couldn't it be equally possible that someone might actually think that the use of minis and battlemaps adds to the enjoyment of the game, rather than simply as a vehicle to flog plastic toys? Why phrase this in such a derogatory manner?

People may enjoy minis as gamers; WotC enjoys minis as a seller.

Prior to the advent of 3e, WotC did a massive survey, including the spending habits of those who use minis vs. those who did not. Those who used minis were shown to spend something on the order of 10 times as much as those who did not, perhaps more.

3.0 was more mini-centric than 2e or 1e as a result. 3.5 was more mini-centric than 3.0. 4.0 is more mini-centric than 3.5. In fact, 4.0 is the most combat-focused version of D&D. And that combat all but requires minis. And the inclusion of minions requires more minis!

This was not an accident. WotC would have to have a poor business plan indeed if they were aware you would probably spend ten times times as much on a mini-centric game than on a non-mini-centric game, to not have actually planned to boost the miniatures aspect.

During the TSR days, minis production was licensed out; it is doubtful that TSR made any more on the basis of whether or not Joe Gamer used minis. WotC, on the other hand, has a clear vested interest in Joe Gamer using minis. If WotC can get you to refuse to play without minis, to break out minis every time you want to have a combat, marketing has done its job.

Even if you are playing another system -- even if you are playing Pathfinder -- WotC stands to make a significant profit if you can simply be convinced that buying their minis is the way to go.

(And, frankly, I am tired of the double standard that goes: If WotC does something that would be questionable were it a person doing it, it is defensible on the basis of their being a corporation required to make a profit. BUT, should you assume that their motivations are those of a corporation seeking to make a profit, shame on you for your derogatory statements! )



RC

 

[renau1g]

Typically in my games I try to avoid the whole 10 combat encounters/level and trade that for 3-4 (at most) combats that are tactically interesting, story-advancing and player challenging. I'm not good enough of a combat designer to do that 10 times/level, or around 100 times/tier. I feel I can do a decent enough job though at 1/3 that amount. I award more quest xp and RP xp for the group and we have a fair amount of roleplaying sessions where combat doesn't break out, nor an actual "skill challenge".

 

[billd91]

People may enjoy minis as gamers; WotC enjoys minis as a seller.

Prior to the advent of 3e, WotC did a massive survey, including the spending habits of those who use minis vs. those who did not. Those who used minis were shown to spend something on the order of 10 times as much as those who did not, perhaps more.

3.0 was more mini-centric than 2e or 1e as a result. 3.5 was more mini-centric than 3.0.

I believe this is wrong. 3e is miniatures heavy because its direct precursor, Player's Option: Combat and Tactics, was designed to be played on a grid. That's a 1995 release, 4 years before WotC's survey.

There may have been some recognition that minis sell well and a game heavily using them would do well, but 3e's grid focus isn't the result of WotC's market survey. It's the result of other ongoing and well-established trends with TSR's and then WotC's designers.

That and I'd have a hard time saying 3.5 was any more mini-centric than 3.0. That's a bit baffling.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, having a hard time finding the June 2009 Scott Rouse post which makes this far more explicit.


RC

 

[Obryn]

That and I'd have a hard time saying 3.5 was any more mini-centric than 3.0. That's a bit baffling.

I can see it.

The change in base sizes from 3.0 to 3.5 was mostly designed to make grid combat easier and more sensible. (I personally never liked the implied facing of long miniatures, but that's neither here nor there.) It also made miniature production easier; standardized round bases of a few set sizes are a lot easier to produce than a wide variety of ovals.

-O

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wonder about this too. My party has two defenders (dwarf fighter, tiefling paladin), a controller (human wizard), a striker (drow sorcerer), and a hybrid striker/leader (elf ranger/cleric). The PCs are not weak, but not particularly optimised. As GM, I rarely use monsters more than one level above the party, and have never used a monster more than 3 levels higher. I do use quite a few controllers (probably on average one or two per encounter) but I don't use many elites (probably on average one in every second or third encounter) and I use even fewer solos. And we have not had the grind issue come up.

What has the threat level been like using these levels of monsters? Most encounters with opposition of roughly the same level have been fairly easy for my players.

I consider an encounter that stands less than a 50% chance of dropping at least one party member to be a speed bump.

 

[Mallus]

Some semi-random thoughts...

... I've never played in a D&D campaign which sported 10 minute combats. My experience is that particular figure is being low-balled significantly. Now I started with AD&D... is OD&D much different?

... I think the difficulty of playing 4e without a map and minis is being exaggerated. A lot. While complete accuracy would be tough, it's also unnecessary. In practice, positioning breaks down to 'is it in range/inside the effect area', 'can I engage', 'can I get away', 'can I get I bonus', 'can I push/pull them into an advantageous/disadvantageous location'. Focus on the intended results, not precise recreation, and you're golden. I mean, technically you were supposed to measure ranges and calculate spell effect volumes in AD&D... which would have required not only maps but rulers... and ummm, math. Never saw it done in practice. Estimates and ass-pulled figures sufficed.

... I agree w/pem... frequent use of artillery monsters is a great way of playing to the strengths of 4e's combat engine while avoiding the pitfalls ie grind.