Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[MerricB]

Yes, AD&D 1e used inches as a measurement of distance since some players chose to use minis and a measuring system.

I would think it more likely that AD&D 1e used inches as a measurement of distance since the rules were derived from a fantasy miniature game. It's far more a legacy item than a design decision.

Cheers!

 

[Jhaelen]

I mean, am I the only person who remembers when WotC considered selling randomized virtual minis for the Virtual Tabletop (RIP)? That's how much profit there is in it for WotC. And, had there not been such a backlash against that idea, I bet the VT would be a reality now.

I'd take the bet. There's no way you could ever win it

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd take the bet. There's no way you could ever win it

Hah! You just wish there was!

Really, the VT would have been cool, and had a lot of potential for allowing games to be run centrally. Could you imagine a gigantic shared world being run over the VT? Awesome with extra awesome sauce.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I think that's a good thing. I don't want a game that does a dozen different things in a half assed way. I want a game that is good at a small number of things. If I want miniless combat, I won't play 4e D&D. Not a problem, there's fifteen other games out there that will scratch my itch.

That's a great option for the big game geek with awesome players ( ), but I don't think that's really true for 90% of the potential D&D/Tabletop Game Market.

They don't have other games to choose from. They don't have time or patience to learn them, and even if they do, the players often don't.

So, for D&D, I think scalability is ideal. The casual DMs without time or money to map out the grid who just want some Beer & Pretzels games or some interactive storytelling, or those who simply don't like or can't afford minis, shouldn't be excluded. In order to maximize the game's market, you need to be able to hit both the DM who has a case for his collection of hundreds of dollars worth of pewter figurines, and the DM who plays a game of point-a to point-b narrative with dice rolling because she once remembered having fun playing the game in high school.

But scalability is tough. If a choice has to be made, D&D should, I think, err on the side of those more casual DM's, with the option to go deeper for those of us more likely to buy every book, or minis set, or whatever. The casual DM's are a broader segment of the market, even if the hardcore players generate more reliable revenue. If you make the combat system as exception-based as the rest of your game (rather than so tightly integrated with class, race, powers, advancement, pacing, and overall game design), you should be able to add a skirmish system without breaking the core system.

Those who want to use a grid and minis will always be a much smaller niche than those who want to play D&D. Serving the smaller niche in, say, the DMGII with a solid skirmish system, would probably provide a lower barrier to entry for the game, as opposed to serving them in the core game, and basically ignoring those fully grown adults and image-conscious teenagers who don't want to buy plastic toys as a prerequisite to pretend to be an elf wizard.

 

[pemerton]

The casual DMs without time or money to map out the grid who just want some Beer & Pretzels games or some interactive storytelling, or those who simply don't like or can't afford minis, shouldn't be excluded.

I draw out the battle maps for my game on photocopies of the DMG 8x10 square grid. Photocopying the grids isn't that expensive. Drawing them out takes time (maybe 15 minutes or so per the typical page) but helps me consolidate my sense of the location's design.

Minis, on the other hand, are something I don't have the money to buy or the space to store, even if I was otherwise inclined to get them (which I'm not). So my group doesn't use minis - we use plastic tokens that I've collected from board games over the years.

I wonder how much of a minority we're in, using grid + tokens?

 

[mach1.9pants]

There are also a lot of cool cheap/free PDF printable tokens with the monsters on them too.

 

[xechnao]

Think of descent journeys in the dark marketed as you describe.
Or warhammer 40k for that reason. Who the hell is going to buy that? Ok, some people will, but, by any means, not close enough to slightly match the sales these stuff do right now.

D&D traditionally is something that is supposed to market on the value of fantasy adventure simulation: it offers rules on fascinating fantasy adventure ideas with a toolset to handle and manage them. Minis used to be merchandising. Now the minis environment is core. I certainly get what KM is saying. For me, his frustration is totally on the spot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

* Prior to the advent of 3e, using minis was relatively uncommon. Over 40% of the gamers polled by WotC claimed to have never used minis at all. The remaining under 60% had used them, but we don't know how often.

No. At the end of 2e, using minis was relatively uncommon. D&D comes out of a skirmish wargame.

* I suspect that, as the marketing data indicated was likely, the minis sold very, very well. If the marketing data is correct, then the sale of books is 1/10th the sale of minis; the game becomes a means of selling minis, rather than the minis becoming an adjunct of the game.

Your logic doesn't follow. It is entirely possible that people who spend more money on minis than on books.

* 3.5 comes out, and references to real distances are replaced by references to the grid; the game is made to forward the use of minis more than 3.0 did.

A step towards older editions here - from memory, distances in 1e were in inches.

* 4.0 comes out, and all but requires minis. Scott Rouse: "With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work."

4e turns the battlemap from something to keep track into something to use.

Although I tend to agree with RC that the progression of the game has gone hand-in-hand with Wizards' success with mini's, there is a distinction to be made here, if it hasn't been made already. The game does not encourage the use of minis, so much as it encourages the use of a battle-mat.

And battle mats look better with minis... (Also remember WoTC sells dungeon tiles).

So the ranger decided to engage in mortal combat with real weapons to try and make a quick buck? It seems the player decided on a risky endeavor based on metagame factors.

Going down a dungeon when you are expecting a dragon is a risky endeavour, arguably based on metagame factors. Risky endeavours based on metagame factors are par for the course for adventurers.

Already refuted upthread.

I see nothing that could qualify as a refutation. Merely assertion.

I can look at a battlemap and see where a dozen fighters are in relation to each other - and from this have a clear idea what they are trying to do. It is more or less impossible to keep that in your head at once (seven plus or minus two being the normal rule for the number of things someone can remember at one time).

On the other hand, if two fighters are having a duel then the battlemap's not going to add much. (And if you're running a system with mooks, such as Feng Shui, who cares where they actually are? There's always one where you need him.)

Oh, but it is the position of the weapon that is important. Oh, but it is weapon style that is important. Oh, but it is the position of the shield that is important. Oh, but you cannot be accurate without facing.

Oh, but accuracy is defined by your preferences, not by a large range of factors to be considered, by which no game existing can be considered accurate or complex unless you prune the tree to the definition you prefer.

So. You're saying that a 6" difference in the position of a shield matters as much as a 10' difference in where someone's physical body is.

Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.

On the other hand, negotiating is a lot more arbitrary. And for all the people who ran mapless AD&D, D&D at its roots was a minatures skirmish game. Fireballs with 20' radius (or worse yet, based on volume) are weird without a grid - and as for Lightning Bolt...

This isn't to say gridless is a bad thing. I wouldn't even think of running Spirit of the Century or Feng Shui with a grid. Just that AD&D was designed with minis in mind - and the drop in their use seems to have been 2e, with 3e being a return to rule. (With 4e actually mechanically using the grid).

Agreed. You can have all this without a grid. If you can't, I can design a way for you to do it if you so wish. Hell, we could do it even together.

Show me?

Agreed but the grid is not the only referent you can have. We can design other referents -perhaps even more intuitive than the grid.

Again, show me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Going down a dungeon when you are expecting a dragon is a risky endeavour, arguably based on metagame factors. Risky endeavours based on metagame factors are par for the course for adventurers.

If the inhabitants of the game world know anything about the potential deadliness of dragons then the propositiion is risky both on the metagame level and within the game world. The player knows that dragons are tougher than some other monsters because the statblocks say so. The character (unless he/she has never heard of dragons) knows that dragons are frightening beasts that can destroy whole villages.

Assuming the situation with the ranger was purely metagame driven, lets look at that knowledge. The player knew that he was fighting a strong looking half orc wielding a greataxe.

A) The greataxe has the potential to do horrendous damage on a crit, especially if the wielder has a STR bonus.

B) Worst case odds of getting critted are 5% per hit assuming the weapon wasn't special with a nastier crit range.

C) A half orc is merely a racial type. He could have had fighter levels, nasty feats, or other templates which could make him tougher than he appeared.

Knowing all this at the metagame level, the player elected to enter single combat simply to earn some coin. Sometimes, making decisions purely on metagaming factors is unwise and thinking as the character would, can avert disaster.

A long time ago in a 1E AD&D game far away, a situation like this came up in my campaign. The PC's found themselves surrounded by a hobgoblin war band. The hobgoblins were honorable (though evil) warriors and offered the PC's free passage if their chosen champion could best the hobgoblin war captain. One of the players playing a 3rd level fighter double specialized in the bastard sword accepted the challenge. The player was very cocky having rolled an actual 18/00 strength. (the only person I have ever seen do this in front of me).

What the player didn't know was that the hobgoblin was a 7th level fighter, double specialized in the flail with an 18/77 STR.

The combat was touch and go. When the hobgoblin didn't drop after 4 solid hits the player began to get nervous. His dice were on fire and he dropped the war chief, having only 3 HP left himself. After the battle, the party was allowed to pass unharmed as the hobgoblins were honorable.

I congratulated the player on defeating a 7th level fighter single-handedly and he turned almost as white as a sheet! He had no idea the war captain was anywhere near that level. He said that had he known what he was fighting then he wouldn't have volunteered.

In this case it was a lack of metagame knowledge and simply roleplaying his overly cocky fighter that saved the day.

 

[Umbran]

I don't want a game that does a dozen different things in a half assed way. I want a game that is good at a small number of things. If I want miniless combat, I won't play 4e D&D. Not a problem, there's fifteen other games out there that will scratch my itch.

There is much wisdom in this. You can't please everybody all of the time, and no finite/usable rule set does everything well. It just isn't a practical possibility. It is not unreasonable for a designer to choose what the game will and won't do.

I'm not a fan of certain foods. That doesn't make a restaurant that serves those foods a bad restaurant, poorly conceived, or with a sub-standard chef.