A group of 6 PC's (2 fighters, 1 ranger, a cleric, a wizard and a thief - all level 4) are wandering through a dungeon and meet a random encounter with a group of 12 hobgoblin mercenaries led by a drow cleric (level 2). Range is set at 60 feet. Combat ensues.
Determine surprise, roll initiative, and run the combat by 1e rules, all within 15 minutes or less.
Stipulation 1: This is a combat encounter. No weaseling out by claiming you bribe the enemy.
Stipulation 2: The PC's and the enemy choose to fight. No weaseling out by running away.
Stipulation 3: All actors must have at least two tactical options every round unless they are dead or incapacitated.
Stipulation 4: No substitutions. THIS is the scenario.
Stipulation 5: ALL RAW rules must be adhered to. No house rules, no ignoring rules, no DM Fiat.
Once again, we have no reference for the battleground other than "dungeon". encounter distance 60'? Ok is that due to a sighting or a hearing? Is there LOS. If visual the drow would get the drop on the PC's with 90' infravision. From there it would depend on a lot of things. Does the wizard have sleep prepped? If so, the whole affair could be a done deal in 5 minutes or less.
And this is where I am amused by the criticism. What sort of game does AD&D do well other than D&D (which is a genre in its own right)? 4e at least works well across a cinematic range (it just doesn't do grit). AD&D in particular was full of Gygaxian prose, weird levels of detail (count the number of polearms), random and inconsistent modifiers, and other things that would have caused trouble for people who aren't plugged in.
It's not just a question of cinematic range. You could ask "Are most game players out there with little scope of the hobby beyond the D&D brand served by a game based on miniatures and battlemats?"
But, are these issues issues with the system or the user of the system?
I honestly don't have enough experience with the game to know. So far, I've played exactly one scenario (Raiders at Oakhurst) to completion, so, I can't say if your claims are accurate or not.
I do know that in that scenario with a new DM who had never DM'ed anything previously, had never played 4e D&D previously, we did not experience grind, the solo fight was brutal both times (we had to run away the first time as it kicked our asses royally) and the one skill challenge I recall ran smoothly and with no problems. So, in my very limited experience, all your concerns are things I have not run into. I'm not saying they're not true, just that they're not things I've experienced.
Then I turn to the, now, 4 WOTC gaming podcasts - 3 with Penny Arcade and 1 with Robot Chicken, in which they run 5 or 6 encounters in a 3-4 hour session, with LOADS of role play AND skill challenges, noting that the latest one was run by Tycho (IIRC) and not by anyone at WOTC.
So, the evidence that I can see certainly doesn't support your assertions. The only counter assertions I ever seem to see are by people who have disliked the system since it was released. Which is pretty similar to how things were in 3e days as well.
I will address your other points (the one's that actually try to refute my claims at least) in a moment. First however I want to examine your claims about Raiders at Oakhurst... Here is the stat block of the solo in question...
Nightscale Young Black Dragon Level 4 Solo Lurker Large natural magical beast (aquatic, dragon) XP 875 Initiative: +11 Senses: Perception +9; darkvision HP 280; Bloodied 140 See also bloodied breath AC 24; Fort 19, Ref 21, Will 18 Resist: 15 Acid Saving Throws +5 Speed 7, fly 7 (clumsy), overland flight 10, swim 7
Action points 2
Bite (standard; at will) * Acid Reach 2: +10 vs. AC; 1d6 + 3 damage, and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends)
Claw (standard; at will) Reach 2: +8 vs. AC; 1d4 +3 damage
Double attack (standard; at will) The dragon makes 2 claw attacks
Tail slash (immediate reaction, when a melee attack misses the dragon; at will) The dragon uses its tail to attack the enemy that missed it; reach 2: +8 vs AC; 1d6 + 4 damage and the target is pushed 1 square
Breath Weapon (standard; recharge 5 6) * Acid Close blast 5; +7 vs Reflex; 1d12 + 3 acid damage and the target takes ongoing 5 acid damage and takes a -4 penalty to AC (save ends both).
Bloodied Breath (Immediate reaction, when first bloodied; encounter) * Acid The dragon's breath weapon recharges automatically, and the dragon uses it immediately.
Cloud of Darkness (standard; sustain minor; recharge 3 4 5 6) * Zone Close burst 2: this power creates a zone of darkness that remains in place until the end of the dragon's next turn. The zone blocks line of sight for all creatures except the dragon. Any creature entirely within the area (except the dragon) is blinded.
Frightful presence (standard, encounter) * Fear Close burst 5; targets enemies: +5 vs. Will; the target is stunned until the end of the dragon's nest turn. Aftereffect: the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls (save ends).
Alignment: Evil Languages: Draconic Skills: Nature +9, Stealth +17 Str 16 (+5) Dex 20 (+7) Wis 15 (+4) Con 16 (+5) Int 12 (+3) Cha 10 (+2)
...Now, according to my MM1 Yng Blk Dragon...his AC should be 22 not 24, his Fort should be 18 not 19, his Ref should be 20 and Will should be 17.. His defenses are all better or equal to the Young Green Dragon which is a level 5 solo monster
HP's are increased by 56 (again more than the Young Green Dragon)... Cloud of Darkness recharges on a 3,4,5,6 instead of 4,5,6...
This is definitely a more powerful monster than a level 4 solo lurker, so I wouldn't necessarily base your refutation of my argument on this encounter. ... I would say as a solo it falls in the level 5 to level 6 range which, as the DMG suggests +2 to +3 levels for a difficult encounter ( a level 3-4 solo is difficult for (5)1st level PC's), and as this was an encounter for level 1 PC's... it should have been almost certain death against a bunch of absolute new players. The fact that you're party as new players still beat it kind of supports my point
So, the evidence that I can see certainly doesn't support your assertions. The only counter assertions I ever seem to see are by people who have disliked the system since it was released. Which is pretty similar to how things were in 3e days as well.
That Raiders game didn't have any real grind. Though I do think spending essentially two sessions whittling down a dragon is probably a bit excessive, it was fun the whole time. Whether that's the game, the DM, or the group...I'm inclined to go with the latter two.
I've also seen real grind.
And I'm fairly 4e agnostic (I think of 4e like I think of most Apple products: neat, can be a lot of fun, but I do have some serious, deep concerns).
Grind isn't just a symptom of the Edition Wars.
Fortunately, WotC seems to realize and be actively combating it, so we'll see what happens in the future.
The problem is that you are conflating the original claim with specific locations on a grid (which are not, themselves, actually specific). Neither complexity nor tactics require specific locationing of the type the grid allows.
And, when you claim that "to run D&D mapless you need to eviscerate a lot of the detail in D&D", you are reliant upon the base assumption that only certain types of detail matter -- specifically those that rely upon the grid.
No. I'm saying that certain types of detail matter. Not that only certain types of detail matter. Using a battlemat doesn't prevent you using your weapon speed rules or different types of attack. (And god knows, 4e isn't short of different types of attack and maneuver). Maps encourage some but the only time they are at the expense of others, it's simply because players have limited brain space.
As another example, in 3.0, I ran an encounter where the PCs were travelling along a cave tunnel angled between 30-40 degrees downward, when a cave fisher attacked a PC from a tunnel that intersected the PC's tunnel at a 45-degree angle, adjoining from the ceiling. The need to use a grid would make such a set-up almost impossible, removing a tense and exciting encounter from the game.
Similarly, I ran an encounter where a grick attacked PCs climbing a rope down a cliff, from a cave that was bored into the cliff, that could not be seen from above. You could use a grid for that encounter, but the encounter was much better for not using a grid.
These kinds of "non-standard" fights are discouraged by a grid system, meaning that, for many games, you need to eviscerate a lot of the potential detail in the campaign milieu.
I have no problem running mapless. I just have a problem running mapless for a game with fireballs measured by volume, distances measured in inches, and a lot of the other AD&D tropes. I go mapless for much more free-form games.
There is certainly nothing wrong with using a grid when it is appropriate; in a combat where the space is sufficiently complex, and where the fight is essentially a "set piece", it can be cool and fun to break out the minis and even a premade "battlefield" if you have one.....A map, a grid, or a three-dimensional model.
But neither are these things always necessary, or always desireable.
I think part of the difference here is that I barely believe in the random encounter for D&D after about first level (AD&D scales). PCs are guys who routinely walk round in packs, all either packing spells or armed to the teeth. Sensible single monsters are going to take one look at the average party and either run or hide.
This means that where there is combat it's either going to be the PCs tackling the bad guys in their lairs, attempts to ambush PCs, accidental meetings in the midst of chaos, or hunting hunters. Or the occasional bar brawl.
I think you have to keep in mind the ability to set a weapon against a charge. A pike is a wonderful weapon when the enemy is coming at you; it is less useful when the enemy is in your face.
Pikes and long rapiers, granted. But not for halberds, scimitars, greatswords, etc. Daggers hit last.
But there is also nothing "evil" in paying attention to that desire to make a buck, and trying to see how it influences the end product, for better or worse.
What do other editions of D&D have to do with this? I love how 4e is compared to past editions when it's faults are brought up instead of with modern games that are currently available. It was like that or worse in the past isn't a valid reason it should be like that currently... is basically all I'll say on this matter as to avoid devolving into an edition war.
How is the 4e fight going to be less interesting than the AD&D equivalent? Other than no games of win-roulette. A single solo fight in 4e is little different from one in previous edition.
Again see above... if all your replies boil down to... it was like that before so why complain... well then my answer is why spend the money for the new edition if it doesn't do better.
Because it can progress or change the narrative. That's great you want to use skill challenges in that way, I don't enjoy substituting them for what should, IMO, be a quick & simple combat. I didn't have to do it in previous editions... see what I did there.
By the end of Heroic, there are two types of opponents. Skilled and powerful and darwin awards. 4e can cope with both. (What it doesn't do well is real grit - but my PCs were run ragged by a gang of thugs in the first couple of levels using no especially complex terrain).
Yeah I never said it couldn't... my gripe is with the way it copes with both... fighting skilled and powerful enemies takes as much time as fighting the darwin awards... In fact depending upon the roles you have in your group it could take longer to fight off all the darwin awards.
It's not just a question of cinematic range. You could ask "Are most game players out there with little scope of the hobby beyond the D&D brand served by a game based on miniatures and battlemats?"
And all I can say here is that they are better served by battlemats than they are by gygaxian prose and speciesist assumptions or a system massively weighed down by itself and with the rule that wizards overwhelm everyone. (If I had the choice, I'd go for a split between GURPS and FATE as the generic systems everyone had heard of, but given the choice of editions of D&D, 4th beats the rest (although there's an argument for a simple retroclone)).
And all I can say here is that they are better served by battlemats than they are by gygaxian prose and speciesist assumptions or a system massively weighed down by itself and with the rule that wizards overwhelm everyone. (If I had the choice, I'd go for a split between GURPS and FATE as the generic systems everyone had heard of, but given the choice of editions of D&D, 4th beats the rest (although there's an argument for a simple retroclone)).
And, I am saying that which types of detail matter is based upon situation and preference. For some of us, for most combats, the grid doesn't provide enough bonus to outweight the negative (in terms of time cost). For others, it does.
There is a "some cavern encounters" thread here somewhere, and a "faerie encounters" thread. There is a thread with a ruined mausoleum that could probably be converted to 4e without too much difficulty -- the main villians are
swarms of dread ghoul mice
. I think some of the faerie encounter stuff in particular would be cool if reworked into the skill challenge format; feel free to post to that thread if you want to do so!
And if, as in the case of 4e, it's for better, what's there to complain about?
Not everyone agrees that it is to the better. I think that depends, very much, on what you want out of a frpg. Clearly, though, there are a lot of people who do think it is to the better. AFAICT, they are not complaining.
(But I would like to see what a 3pp could do with the system, if it was under the OGL, to make a version ammenable to faster play without a grid.)
As an aside, I will also agree that "slower combats" =/= "grind". If the combats aren't boring to the players, then there is no grind, no matter how long they take. It is only when the players feel that the combat is taking "too long" that "grind" sets in.
The problem with long combats, IMHO, is that they reduce the number of encounters per session, so that each encounter must bear more of the weight of the session's success. Longer encounters means each encounter is load-bearing to a greater degree, and a single "meh" encounter can seem as though it sucks to a disproportionate degree.
I encountered a good example of this when running the WLD under 3.x. In the early part of WLD there are
lots of fiendish darkmantles to worry about
. This should have been cool (and is cool when run under a faster system!), but it took up too much of the game time under the 3.x ruleset for my group.
It's fun to have the players groan "Oh no!" when they see the monsters coming because they are concerned about how the encounter will play out in-game (Will they win? Will they lose? Will precious resources be used up?); it is not so much fun when the players groan "Oh no!" because they are concerned about how much of the session the encounter will suck up, thus preventing them from getting more done.
In yesterday's game session, I had a ghoul rogue paralyze 2 out of 3 PCs, before being slain by the final PC. It was fast, and tense. I had a running encounter that took place in two complicated three-dimensional spaces. I drew a small map to give the players a general idea of the layout because the space was very complicated. A picture, or a photograph, would have worked just as well. No grid was needed.
OTOH, for some battles (set pieces), minis are definitely useful (or fun). PCs in a fortified position against hordes of goblins; multi-level cave complex with cultists, extra rooms, prisoners, and a sacrificial pit; a room filled with moving gears and complex parts. Things like this are sometimes fun to use minis with. I can run them without, but, for me, the use of minis in these cases adds something greater to the presentation than the time cost of using them.
I want to use minis only when I wish to use them, because an encounter is truly worth lingering over. I don't want to use minis for every encounter, nor do I want to eliminate minor encounters because they take too much time to resolve.
YMMV.
Different strokes for different folks and all that.
What do other editions of D&D have to do with this? I love how 4e is compared to past editions when it's faults are brought up instead of with modern games that are currently available. It was like that or worse in the past isn't a valid reason it should be like that currently... is basically all I'll say on this matter as to avoid devolving into an edition war.
D&D has always been behind the curve here. Mostly because it was the first.
Again see above... if all your replies boil down to... it was like that before so why complain... well then my answer is why spend the money for the new edition if it doesn't do better.
Because it can progress or change the narrative.[/quoet]
Only under rare circumstances. In which case it's effectively a set piece.
Yeah I never said it couldn't... my gripe is with the way it copes with both... fighting skilled and powerful enemies takes as much time as fighting the darwin awards...
