Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[D'karr]

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.

<snip>

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.

So what you are saying is that if PRECISE positioning is important then the game is much harder, and what several people on this thread have said is the if you have decided to go gridless you are foregoing precise positioning. PRECISION and GRIDLESS are mutually exclusive to a certain point.

IF I decide that I'm going to go gridless in 1e, then the precision of where the rogue is to do his backstab is entirely in the hands of the DM or it can be handled by "social contract." You have given away the need for precise positioning for the convenience or novelty of going gridless.

IF I decide that I'm going to go gridless in 4e, then the precision of when the rogue has combat advantage is entirely in the hands of the DM or it can be handled by "social contract." Once again you have decided that the need for precision is not important to your game.

By making the decision to go gridless you are by default consciously sacrificing your NEED for exact precision. However, you don't have to lose "perceived" precision. I can still push, pull, slide, etc. in a gridless environment. It just requires that I not be a slave to precision. Somebody upthread mentioned not to get "nitpicky about precision" and I'm paraphrasing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So what you are saying is that if PRECISE positioning is important then the game is much harder, and what several people on this thread have said is the if you have decided to go gridless you are foregoing precise positioning. PRECISION and GRIDLESS are mutually exclusive to a certain point.

"Precision of Position" and "Gridless", sure. "Precision" and "Precision of Position" are not the same thing, though. And, also, "at some point", not at all points.

In a game system where position can be handled "generally" without any loss of detail, for instance Codex Martialis, one can play without a grid with no loss of precision. Moreover, adding a grid is of no special value AFAICT.

Likewise, in 1e, a thief's backstab requires only "general" knowledge of where figures are located. In 1e, were you to use a grid, the grid could be 10-foot squares, or even 20-foot squares, with no effective loss of information or complexity 90 times out of 100.

So, yes, handwaving position in 4e is akin to handwaving position in 1e, but the amount of information that is being handwaved -- and the number of PC decisions that are based upon understanding the imagined space to a relatively precise degree -- is much higher.

Not outside the realm of human ability, by any means, but much higher....and consequently harder.

So:

(1) In some cases, foregoing the grid does not mean losing any precision in the game system.

(2) In other cases, foregoing the grid means losing minimal precision in the game system.

However,

(3) In the case of 4e, foregoing the grid means losing a large amount of precision in the game system, and large amounts of precision upon which tactical play/important PC decisions are predicated.

It should be obvious that foregoing the grid in the case of (1) or (2) is easier than in the case of (3).

IOW, IF (and only if) precise positioning is no more important in 4e than in previous editions, THEN it will be as easy to handwave precise positioning when going gridless. IF (and only if) precise positioning is more important in 4e than in previous editions, THEN it will be harder to handwave precise positioning when going gridless.

All one has to determine, IMHO, is which of those IFs is, in fact, the case.



RC

 

[Fanaelialae]

"Precision of Position" and "Gridless", sure. "Precision" and "Precision of Position" are not the same thing, though. And, also, "at some point", not at all points.

In a game system where position can be handled "generally" without any loss of detail, for instance Codex Martialis, one can play without a grid with no loss of precision. Moreover, adding a grid is of no special value AFAICT.

Likewise, in 1e, a thief's backstab requires only "general" knowledge of where figures are located. In 1e, were you to use a grid, the grid could be 10-foot squares, or even 20-foot squares, with no effective loss of information or complexity 90 times out of 100.

So, yes, handwaving position in 4e is akin to handwaving position in 1e, but the amount of information that is being handwaved -- and the number of PC decisions that are based upon understanding the imagined space to a relatively precise degree -- is much higher.

Not outside the realm of human ability, by any means, but much higher....and consequently harder.



RC

I agree that the complexity is higher, but I don't think it's much higher with regards to running without a grid.

In 1e, you typically had to know who was adjacent to whom, for the simple reason that you have to be in melee range to make a melee attack. 3e/4e have the added complication of flanking, but that's fairly easy to work out. If the fighter is adjacent to the orc, the rogue asks "Can I flank with the fighter?" The DM will probably respond "yes you can", "no you're too far away", or "yes but you'll take an OA." Not any more difficult, IMO, than determining whether the rogue could properly position himself for a backstab in 1e.

Opportunity attacks? Fairly simple to figure out considering that you should already know who's adjacent to whom (as above).

Burst and blasts? They had those and other area effects in 1e. IMO, they're actually a bit easier to resolve considering you don't have volume based fireballs and bouncing lightning bolts to contend with.

Movement? At the end of any movement you should be able to determine a relative position based on other points. 'Next to the fireplace' or '10' from the fighter.' If you ever had an archer running around in a 1e game, you've almost certainly done this at some point. Unless the only reason you could run grid-less in earlier editions was because your combats were static, I can't see how this is a problem. More movement should not be a deal breaker for any DM experienced with dealing with movement.

I won't deny that running combat without a grid (in any edition) is a skill. However, I do think that if you could do so competently in 1e, then doing so in 4e ought to be a negligible complication.

 

[D'karr]

<snip>
So, yes, handwaving position in 4e is akin to handwaving position in 1e, but the amount of information that is being handwaved -- and the number of PC decisions that are based upon understanding the imagined space to a relatively precise degree -- is much higher.

Not outside the realm of human ability, by any means, but much higher....and consequently harder.

So we agree that handwaving is handwaving. What you are "arguing" is about degrees of handwaving. But if I've already decided to handwave and my group has decided to handwave how is the difficulty any greater? If I handwave one decision or 2,000 they are each handwaved in a discreet slice of time. I'm adjudicating each players turn in turn. I'm not processing them all at the same time. So I'm not processing more information for the purpose of handwaving.

I cannot type 80-100 words a minute. There are people that obviously can. I can hardly type and talk to someone at the same time. There are people that clearly can and do it very proficiently. So it is clearly harder and more difficult for me.

If someone can type 100 words a minute and talk at the same time, but I can't is that a fault of the keyboard, is that a fault of my vocal chords? If I get an ergonomic keyboard will it make it better? In my case obviously not.

I have no problem going gridless in 4e. Many people in this thread have confirmed that they don't have a problem either. We collectively don't find it any "harder" to do so because we understand that we sacrifice precision for convenience. According to your previous example of "degree" we don't find the 3' people taller. Maybe we are the 3' people. Will it be harder for some? Obviously or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but since harder in this case is entirely subjective, they are not wrong.

BTW, I run 4e in both modes, depending on how I'd like the combat to proceed. I've even posted a combat example in the other thread. The tricks that I learned by running 1e gridless still apply. I honestly don't make up additional rules to insert precision to cover gridless combat. If I want precision I use the grid. But like it has been said many times before if you go gridless be prepared to lose precision, why does that have to be harder?

I'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. Thanks.

 

[Shazman]

Well this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked and is now grid vs. no grid instead of "Why must I kludge combat?" The answer is if you want a quicker combat, and you want to play 4E, you are going to have to kludge it. 4E is definitely not designed for quick combat, even though it was originally supposed to be quicker and simpler than 3.5. If you want quick combat without kludges, you are probably going to have to settle for playing another system such as low level 3.5/Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy, Feng Shei, etc.

 

[D'karr]

Well this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked and is now grid vs. no grid instead of "Why must I kludge combat?"

Get off our gridless kludgeless LAWN!!! LOL

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree that the complexity is higher, but I don't think it's much higher with regards to running without a grid.

Fair enough. (Shrug) I fail to meet the bar of your skepticism.

So we agree that handwaving is handwaving.

True by definition.

What you are "arguing" is about degrees of handwaving. But if I've already decided to handwave and my group has decided to handwave how is the difficulty any greater? If I handwave one decision or 2,000 they are each handwaved in a discreet slice of time.

Please note that, in terms of handwaving, there are two factors I consider important:

(1) The degree to which information must be generated, and

(2) The degree to which PC decisions are based on comprehending that information.

EXAMPLE: In the case where "Bob is to the east" is good enough, and in the case were determining that "Bob is 21 feet to the east, at a 21 degree angle southward of you, slightly crouched, with his left foot forward of his right", is all required information, the GM must invent and track more information in the second case than in the first.

In the same case, if the PCs can act regardless of where Bob is, and Bob's position only affects the GM when determining what Bob will do, then there is no effort of communication. In the second case, if all of that information affects PC decisions, and the PCs should reasonably be aware of it, the GM has an obligation to communicate it.

One might, of course, argue that each bit of handwaving is nearly negligable in terms of effort, so that saying 2,000 bits of handwaving are not much harder than 1 bit. But even so, 2,000 > 1, and 2,000A > 1A, so long as A represents a positive number.

You also ignore tracking those handwaves; as described earlier, if a handwave has pervasive effects, it must be tracked in some way. Not unlike pemerton keeping a record of RoleMaster actions, as descibed upthread. The grid is an artifact (in 4e, at least, and in many other systems as well) of keeping track not only of precise positioning, but also pervasive effects of precise positioning.

Re: Typing: I can draw reasonably well. As a result, I do not find it difficult to draw a simple figure reasonably well. This does not prevent me from understanding that, in general, it is harder to draw reasonably well than it is to draw a stick figure. IOW, my personal talents do not enter into what is the general case. It would be irrational of me to say, for example, "I can draw reasonably well, and therefore it is reasonably easy to draw a simple figure to the degree I can do so fairly easily."

BTW, I run 4e in both modes, depending on how I'd like the combat to proceed. I've even posted a combat example in the other thread.

No one I know of has ever claimed it to be impossible.

I'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. Thanks.

Always a reasonable decision.

We cannot always meet the bar of each others' skepticism, and it would be foolish to throw away the benefit of your own experience unless you see a clear reason to believe that it may be misleading you!

Cheers!


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked and is now grid vs. no grid instead of "Why must I kludge combat?" The answer is if you want a quicker combat, and you want to play 4E, you are going to have to kludge it. 4E is definitely not designed for quick combat, even though it was originally supposed to be quicker and simpler than 3.5. If you want quick combat without kludges, you are probably going to have to settle for playing another system such as low level 3.5/Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy, Feng Shei, etc.

(Shrug)

The properties of a combat system determine, to a large degree, what it does well, and what it does poorly. The balance is made up of the particular strengths and weaknesses of the GM and group. AFAICT, the properties of the combat system are easier to discuss in this context, and most likely to provide either insight or solutions.

YMMV.


RC

 

[D'karr]

Re: Typing: I can draw reasonably well. As a result, I do not find it difficult to draw a simple figure reasonably well. This does not prevent me from understanding that, in general, it is harder to draw reasonably well than it is to draw a stick figure. IOW, my personal talents do not enter into what is the general case. It would be irrational of me to say, for example, "I can draw reasonably well, and therefore it is reasonably easy to draw a simple figure to the degree I can do so fairly easily."

Ah, but we now get into the esoterical. Is the game good because of the game or is it good because of the DM.

Typing is a skill that can be learned and with practice, mastered and even perfected. Drawing is a skill/talent that with practice and probably with instruction can be perfected, though true mastery, IMO, is probably more in the realm of talent.

DMing is as both of those. Some people have a natural talent for it, and can become very good at it, should we say masters of it through practice and talent. There are others that are completely intimidated by the mere concept and would call it difficult or harder than something else.

Like I said before, gridless combat is a skill that a lot of people find hard. So there is no argument there. With practice people get better at it and it ceases to be so intimidating. The leap from people finding it hard at first glance and then determining that it MUST be hard is where I don't agree.

My children started swimming proficiently about a year ago. Was the swimming difficult to them before because of the water? No, but because of inexperience. But for them to get comfortable, experienced and proficient in swimming they had to get in the water... There is no amount of theory that was going to change that.

Some see the complexities of the systems as 2000>1 so from that experience deduce that it MUST be hard or harder. Some have the experience with the system and have found the complexities are more in line with about 2>1 with a give or take of about 5. Its that threshold that differentiates the hard/harder bit. The threshold is defined by experience.

A very good example, IME, was the rules as they read. When I first read the rules I was confused. The game seemed interesting, but the rules were dry and not very exciting. When I started playing I noticed that the game plays a lot different than how it reads. I had read the rules for the warlord and found the class to be boring and uninteresting, a "missed opportunity" is what I said at the time. I got to play a warlord, and man was that experience different. The class was nothing like what I had imagined based solely on my cursory read.

IME, gridless combat is like that. It can fool you into thinking that it is much more difficult than what it really is in practice. And with a skilled DM it is even easier and exciting...

My 2 pence.

 

[Umbran]

The answer is if you want a quicker combat, and you want to play 4E, you are going to have to kludge it. 4E is definitely not designed for quick combat, even though it was originally supposed to be quicker and simpler than 3.5.

Well, maybe you have to kludge it. Or maybe you can learn some from the folks around who do find it to be faster and simpler than the 3.x line. Find how they differ in who they are and what they're doing, and maybe you can learn things that speed matters up that don't have to do with changing the rules.