Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Imaro]

Nope, most DMs I've played with, and players too, have had the ability to talk, drink, chew gum and walk at the same time.

If they are doing it now with any version of the rules there is really no BIG LEAP, as you seem to think, between one and the other.

This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Being able to do something does not speak to it's objective difficulty when compared to something else. Many people can talk on a cellphone and drive... I don't think talking on a cellphone and driving takes a "gigantic leap" of ability to do... I don't however believe it is just as easy as driving alone, because these people can accomplish it.

 

[IronWolf]

We are actually diuscussing whether there are higher or lower difficulty levels when using different editions to go grid-less/mini-less. Personally I believe so... I think 4e is harder than 3.5 and I believe 3.5 & 4e are both magnitudes harder than BECMI... but others are arguing there is no change in the diffculty of going miniless in different editions.

It would appear that at least one group of us do not think going mini-less is difficult. I know I don't think its difficult to go mini-less for 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition. So for me to try to make a distinction between the difficulty of going mini-less by edition doesn't work out because I didn't think any of them were what I would call difficult. So trying to make the case that one edition is harder than another doesn't go well when one doesn't think its difficult to go mini-less to begin with.

Now you think there was difficulty in going mini-less from the earlier editions to 3rd edition and then to 4th edition. And that is certainly fair, one just has to realize not everyone feels the same.

It looks like this would be a better discussion between people who did feel there was difficulty going mini-less in 3rd edition and in 4th edition to have a better conversation about which edition was more difficult. Right now it looks more like a group of people that didn't think going mini-less in various editions was difficult versus a group of people who did feel mini-less play was difficult. I find it quite unlikely that either of these two groups would agree on the scaling of difficulty.

 

[pemerton]

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.

RC, when you say "no grid" do you mean no visual representation of any kind, or a visual representation but not one used as a classic gridded battlemat?

I ran an encounter a few weeks ago involving a pit with exits at multiple levels. As it was 4e, I was using a grid - multiple sheets for the different levels, and relying on memory for elevation of people climbing up and down the pit walls.

It worked OK, and I don't think the grid made it harder than it would otherwise have been, but it's certainly not the sort of encounter that a game reliant on 2D visual representation is going to default to.

 

[pemerton]

The trick is to separate the ability to keep track of accurate positions from the ability to adjudicate the effect of movement powers on the fly. Doing the former makes the latter unnecessary, but without doing the former, the DM could do the latter by simply saying, "Yes," "Yes, but..." "No," or "Roll a die."

<snip>

This means that the effect of movement abilities will need to be filtered through DM judgement and become less precise and objective than they would if there was a battlemat. To be frank, this has shades of "Mother may I?" which I'm not too happy with, but I could live with it if I feel I can trust the DM to be fair (if not always accurate).

Until our group started playing 4e I ran combat like this - occasionally drawing up a quick sketch of the situation on a piece of paper if necessary.

In Rolemaster, most of the tactical decision-making is not in positioning but in deciding how to allocate one's skills to various possible purposes each round. For this stuff my group never fudged it - as a result, the declaration phase for a big combat at high levels could sometimes take as much as half-an-hour to resolve!

Now that we're playing 4e, we've taken to using a battlemap and tokens to make sure we have precision in the aspect of the game that 4e focuses on (namely, movement and positioning). I personally don't think I would be that keen to play 4e without this sort of preision, but I can understand that others might be quite happy to do so. Especially if playing out tactically engaging combats isn't, for them, such a big part of the RPG experience.

 

[Crothian]

Why doesn't someone step up and give him some examples or even blow by blow instructions on running 4e without mins or a grid. I know I'd be interested in reading it... instead of the vagueness this topic always gets.

It's the same as doing it with a grid but there is no grid. Players still move and attack and roll dice. The only difference is no one has to bother with moving minis and drawing out a map. I don't see it as complicated or know what offering a blow by blow instructions will do. there is not a lot of difference between the two.

 

[Crothian]

and a vague post about trust and communication...

Communication is important because it's the backbone of the game. If players and DMs can't communicate with each other then neither will understand what the other is doing. Without proper communication DMs won't know what the PC is trying to accomplish and the player won't understand the scene or what the NPCs and monsters are doing.

Trust is important because the DM acts as referee and makes the calls with how many bad guys are in a certain abilities area of effect, where terrain is in relationship to everyone, and other similar judgment calls. If players don't trust a DM and argue with him it will hinder the game and might even cause it to end.

 

[Imaro]

It's the same as doing it with a grid but there is no grid. Players still move and attack and roll dice. The only difference is no one has to bother with moving minis and drawing out a map. I don't see it as complicated or know what offering a blow by blow instructions will do. there is not a lot of difference between the two.

Here's an actual system for playing 4e grid-less/mini-less... Fluid 4e: Gridless Combat. (It does seem a little complex from my quick read through but seems viable as well)... This is what I'm talking about when I ask people to please explain or give examples of how they play grid-less or mini-less. "I just do"... "It's just easy"... and "Just take away the grid" are not exactly what I'm looking for as an answer.

 

[Imaro]

Communication is important because it's the backbone of the game. If players and DMs can't communicate with each other then neither will understand what the other is doing. Without proper communication DMs won't know what the PC is trying to accomplish and the player won't understand the scene or what the NPCs and monsters are doing.

Trust is important because the DM acts as referee and makes the calls with how many bad guys are in a certain abilities area of effect, where terrain is in relationship to everyone, and other similar judgment calls. If players don't trust a DM and argue with him it will hinder the game and might even cause it to end.

That's great in a "high level" discussion sort of way... but what is the system that should be implemented to account for grid-less combat in 4e is what I am more interested in hearing about.

 

[Umbran]

It's the same as doing it with a grid but there is no grid.

When there's a grid, you move your mini and everyone knows where you are without having to speak. Can't do that without the grid. Ergo, it isn't really the same.

The saw of a picture being worth a thousand words isn't so glib in this context. Managing the thousands words is not trivial, or nobody'd ever think the grid was called for. If it isn't trivial, how does one do it?

 

[Crothian]

We just do it. I've never used minis except in rtare instances when the players really wanted them. I find it harder to use minis since it is something I'm not used to. Peopel say what they are doing. People ask what the battle goround is like and were the bad guys are. We don't do anything unique and there is no secret of success that I'm holding back. I guess maybe if people say what issues they have going gridless that might help. If I just gave an example of our gridless combat it would just be like any other game that doesn't use minis. We don't do it differently just becasue it is D&D.