Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Hussar]

I'm going to go with Imaro on this one, just for the novelty of it.

Going gridless in 4e, and 3e as well IMO, is going to put a lot of pressure on the DM to track elements. In 3e it might be a bit easier since encounters were typically fairly small. 4e defaults to much larger encounters, which makes it that much more difficult to go gridless and still retain detail.

Now, if the DM is just ignoring the fiddly bits, fine, but, that doesn't make it easy to do 4e gridless. That means that a particular homebrew which ejects the fiddly bits is easier.

Kind of like ignoring space requirements for weapons to come up with either 6 or 8 opponents surrounding the human fighter (I'd still like to see the weapon breakdown of those numbers considering a two handed sword requires 10 feet of space IIRC - it's been a LONG time and OSRIC doesn't include this rule apparently.) Or ignoring the weapon vs armor table.

Sure, it speeds things up, of course it does. It also has a pretty serious knock on effect of making longswords absolutely king - far and away better than any other weapon in the game, and also tends to help out monsters since the PC's will generally be better armored than the bad guys.

As far as empowerment goes, I'd say that the grid has to empower the players rather than the DM. Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM. If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it. Otherwise you can't. Having the grid forces the DM to specifically place all the actors, removing the requirement for all player movement and space related decisions being filtered by the DM.

 

[M.L. Martin]

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.

Because the unconscious assumption of most EN World debates is that everyone must be either an Old School fan, a 3E/Pathfinder loyalist, or a 4E fan, with no overlap between the three and no one who does not fall into those categories?

 

[IronWolf]

Going gridless in 4e, and 3e as well IMO, is going to put a lot of pressure on the DM to track elements. In 3e it might be a bit easier since encounters were typically fairly small.

I can only speak to 3e, but it isn't just the DM tracking elements. The players pitch in and once the combat is underway it isn't like the battle field is redrawn from scratch every round, so the battle tends to unfold in a sequential way which makes it easy for everyone to keep up with where everyone is at. It all sort of just flows. Again, I don't play 4e, so I can't speak to it.

Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM. If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it. Otherwise you can't. Having the grid forces the DM to specifically place all the actors, removing the requirement for all player movement and space related decisions being filtered by the DM.

The scene unfolds sequentially once the combat is underway though. So it isn't solely the DM's responsibility to place everyone. Once it is underway the players know if their character is in position to do what they want to do. DM controlled critters aren't randomly moving about during the combat, so the way the scene was described initially is kept up with by the DM and players through narrative.

This might not work for everyone - it is quite possible this style of gridless play may not work for you or your players and I respect that. But for those of us that play this gridless, it really isn't difficult to do so.

 

[D'karr]

Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM. If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it. Otherwise you can't. Having the grid forces the DM to specifically place all the actors, removing the requirement for all player movement and space related decisions being filtered by the DM.

I tend to agree but how is that any different in ANY version of D&D? And if we are going to talk about number of combatants, have you seen the number of creatures that can appear in a 1e combat encounter? If I recall correctly even one of the examples on the PHB uses an encounter with a party of 4-5 characters against 20 orcs + an NPC illusionist. How did DMs handle that without a grid?

I agree if a heavily houseruled or devoid of fiddly bits game was used in 1e to handle gridless combat then why are we saying that the same can't be done in 4e save with great difficulty. If the DM simply kept a rough drawing of the combat behind the screen for 1e, why can't that be done in 4e? If he relied entirely on memory and description in 1e, why can't that be done in 4e?

In 1e a thief had to be "positioned" in the right location to backstab. In a gridless game that ability was ENTIRELY in the hands of the DM. Much like the use of the 3e Ranger's Favored Enemy was entirely in the hands of the DM. If a DM didn't give that "control" in some ways to the player those abilities were useless. So if a group could trust their DM to handle those things in 1e and 3e then why in the world would they not do the same in 4e?

Are we saying that the level of difficulty for a DM in handling a party of 5 against 20 orcs and an illusionist in 1e is going to be much elevated if he is handling a party of 5 against 5-8 orcs in 4e. Because I saw combats in 1e that had 20 orcs, but I've never seen 4e go much higher than about 8-10. With the inclusion of minions you can go to that level of "slaughter" without adding much complication. So if a 4e DM wanted to have 20 orcs against a party of 5 he can.

I believe this is arguing about the "perceived" difficulty, not the actual at the table dynamic.

Gridless combat is not something everyone could do in 1e either. As a matter of fact I believe both the PHB and the DMG usually recommend the use of miniatures.

This is probably just a matter of taste.

 

[pemerton]

As far as empowerment goes, I'd say that the grid has to empower the players rather than the DM. Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM. If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it. Otherwise you can't.

A grid can be used to empower players. It is not the only way to do so, however, and a gridless system can be just as empowering as a grid system.

On this one, I think I agree with RC rather than Hussar.

Gridless doesn't have to empower the GM over the players. Players just as much as the GM can be a bit flexible and creative about where they are in the non-visually-represented gamespace. And as others have said, for number of foes in a fireball etc it's often a die roll rather than GM stipulation.

I think gridless may tend to empower the GM when players (as in 4e) have a lot of fiddly movement-related powers that are a big part of what their PCs can do. But that is pretty specific to a particular ruleset.

If I've been following RC correctly, he's making the same point I made upthread in relation to Rolemaster - in some RPGs, the tactical decision-making (and hence the player empowerment) is located in aspects of the game other than positioning. For RM, this is in allocation of combat bonuses on a round-by-round basis to defence, initiative, crit-shifting, multiple attacks etc. I gather than RC's homebrew uses comparable elements - players have to choose how their PC attacks, defends etc. At least in my experience, in this sort of game the grid gets replaced by running sheets on which players record their declared actions for the round - a canonical record of this becomes more important to play than a canonical visual representation of the combatants' locations.

A footnote: in a game where most combatants have movement rates comparable to typical weapon and spell ranges, positioning is likely to become less important. At least, this is my experience from RM: unlike D&D, it has 10 second rounds plus stat bonuses to speed and double movement rate at no penalty, leading to 100'+ per round movement rates. Whereas the most common spell range is 50'. And there are no attacks of opportunity. So typically you're either in melee or out of it, and if you're in and want to get out then you can, unless your opponent presses the attack after you.

 

[D'karr]

On this one, I think I agree with RC rather than Hussar.

I'll also agree with someone, I don't know who, but for the sake of having some agreement I'll agree...

The only premise I don't agree with is that going gridless in 4e is somehow much more difficult. If the group had done battlematless combat in 1e, 2e or 3e, then they already have the basics down. Doing the same in 4e is no leap at all.

A footnote: in a game where most combatants have movement rates comparable to typical weapon and spell ranges, positioning is likely to become less important. At least, this is my experience from RM

If this is the case then positioning in 4e should also not be much of an issue for gridless combat. Most creature and PC movement falls way within the range of most spells and ranged attacks. Except for the very "long" ranges of 20 squares most combatants are either in melee range or a charge away from being in melee range.

 

[Raven Crowking]

in some RPGs, the tactical decision-making (and hence the player empowerment) is located in aspects of the game other than positioning. For RM, this is in allocation of combat bonuses on a round-by-round basis to defence, initiative, crit-shifting, multiple attacks etc. I gather than RC's homebrew uses comparable elements - players have to choose how their PC attacks, defends etc.

Very much so, yes.

At least in my experience, in this sort of game the grid gets replaced by running sheets on which players record their declared actions for the round

I cannot speak for RM, but I do not find this necessary for RCFG. We are more than capable of playing the game on a verbal basis.

The only case where I might make a note is when a large group of opponents follows tactics that change their numbers significantly. In this case, I will make a quick reference note for myself. Otherwise, most of the tactics in RCFG play out as declared, with the numbers reverting after the action. I use dice to keep track of variable initiative counts, so that a 20-sider might be turned to "14" to remind me when certain monsters act. It then gets turned to "4" to remind me when their next action is. (However, even then it is my experience that the players keep track of these things pretty well themselves.) Most of the things you need to track are numbers on the character sheet.

The method of attack can affect a PC's attack roll modifier, damage modifier, armour class, and/or critical threat range. Different weapon skills allow for different types of modifiers. That, along with stats like weapon speed, damage, and normal critical threat range, makes it possible for characters to be created with very different fighting styles, based upon their equipment of choice. Fighters can also optimize for special combat manoeuvers, and can gain special bonuses (somewhat akin to limited feats).

It is actually possible to set up a duel, where each of the duellist spends his or her Actions on defending, or on trying to get a special opening, with all of the actual attacks occuring as Reactions. And, apart from jotting down what your new AC is, or what damage you've taken, there is no real bookkeeping needed.

And, while RCFG has attacks of opportunity, they are not grid-based attacks of opportunity. Rather, it is assumed that combatants will generally avoid giving their foes those opportunities unless some triggering event occurs. For example, a natural "1" on an attack roll provokes an AoO for the creature attacked. This is true even if a missile weapon is used -- you linger to long over your fouled sling/uncooperative arrow/whatever -- but the creature you attacked must have a ranged attack to make good on it.

There are a lot of ways to set up a tactically rich game without minis, and without needing to keep copious notes each round. RCFG's way is just one of them.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only premise I don't agree with is that going gridless in 4e is somehow much more difficult. If the group had done battlematless combat in 1e, 2e or 3e, then they already have the basics down. Doing the same in 4e is no leap at all.

Then Scott Rouse didn't know what he's talking about when he wrote otherwise. That's cool, actually. Things like that happen.

Upthread there was a challenge to post in one or more of the "How do I play 4e miniless?" threads. I hope that you have jumped in there and explained how to do so. I am sure that there are posters who will appreciate the advice.



RC

 

[D'karr]

Then Scott Rouse didn't know what he's talking about when he wrote otherwise. That's cool, actually. Things like that happen.

Upthread there was a challenge to post in one or more of the "How do I play 4e miniless?" threads. I hope that you have jumped in there and explained how to do so. I am sure that there are posters who will appreciate the advice.



RC

I don't know if the snarkiness was intended so I'll just reply this way. I had mentioned before that gridless combat in ANY edition is not something that can be done by everyone or is preferred by all. Even the rulebooks in previous editions recommend the use of miniatures. Maybe Scott and his group fell into that category and saw it as more expedient to use miniatures or his group preferred to use minis anyway, so not using them was not an easy option for them. So he's not WRONG, it just didn't work out for them or they didn't see a way to do so. My group and some others have obviously not had that problem.

What I've seen here are a lot of assumptions and assertions that gridless combat in 4e MUST be more difficult because of positioning. I disagree. If the group has never done gridless, going gridless in ANY edition is not an easy startup proposition, but once it is started it becomes easier. If the group has already been doing gridless with ANY edition, then the "leap" to 4e is mostly elementary.

And yes, I posted in the other thread, not because it was a challenge from those that disagree with the premise, which was the case on this thread, but because the OP in the other thread seemed sincere in his search for a way to do it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I've seen here are a lot of assumptions and assertions that gridless combat in 4e MUST be more difficult because of positioning.

What I've seen are assertations that, if positioning is important, and if it is difficult to pinpoint positioning without a grid, the degree to which positioning is important is going to have a direct affect on how difficult it is to play without a grid.

If positioning is important:

* The greater the number of game effects that exist that rely on positioning, the more important positioning will be.

* The more precisely game effects rely on positioning, the more important positioning will be.

* Some have claimined that positioning is necessary for tactical play; this has been refuted (to what degree of success it has been refuted, I leave up to you).

If it is difficult to pinpoint positioning without a grid:

* The more pieces in play, the more difficult it is to know where those pieces are.

* The more precisely you need to know the location of pieces, the more difficult it is to know where those pieces are.

The general idea is that it is harder to play without using a grid when a game uses a great number of effects that rely on precise positioning, while using a large number of pieces whose precise position must be known to adjudicate those effects, than it is to do so with a system that does not rely on precise postioning, or that rarely does so.

And "harder" is like "taller" -- it doesn't tell you how difficult (or big) something is, except in comparison to something else. You might not think that 3 feet is tall, but 3 feet is tall in a room full of 2-foot-tall people.

Likewise, the only people I am aware of who are making the specific claim that 4e is hard to play without the grid are Scott Rouse (whose statement seems to indicate that this was by design, and who only said it would be hard for him), and other people in linked threads who apparently like 4e, but are having difficulty in using the game without a grid.

Everyone else, AFAICT, is talking about relative difficulty.

And, if you disagree that that it is harder to play without using a grid when a game uses a great number of effects that rely on precise positioning, while using a large number of pieces whose precise position must be known to adjudicate those effects, than it is to do so with a system that does not rely on precise postioning, or that rarely does so, then I honestly don't think that anyone or anything is likely to change your opinion.



RC