Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Crothian]

You may be correct, but again there can be an inherent difficulty to something that, irregardless of skill level, exists. It is harder to run a 5 min mile than it is to run a 10min mile... though one's skill level may allow him to do either one... it takes a greater exertion, greater fitness, greater training, etc. to achieve a 5 min mile than it does a 10min mile. This is what some seem unwilling to admit, instead focusing on the minutae in my examples instead of the point I am making.

The problem is the analogy doesn't work. To run a 10 minute mile first one has to be able to run a five minute mile. To run gridless D&D though does not mean one first has to be able to run gridded D&D and vice versa. They are not exactly the same skill set both being just a subset of DMing skills. One can have the ability to do one and not the other, to do both, or not be able to do either. Being able to do one may make it easier or harder to do the other.

Analogies rarely seem to work to make these matters clearer.

 

[Imaro]

The problem is the analogy doesn't work. To run a 10 minute mile first one has to be able to run a five minute mile. To run gridless D&D though does not mean one first has to be able to run gridded D&D and vice versa. They are not exactly the same skill set both being just a subset of DMing skills. One can have the ability to do one and not the other, to do both, or not be able to do either. Being able to do one may make it easier or harder to do the other.

Analogies rarely seem to work to make these matters clearer.

I never said you have to be able to run grid-based combat in order to run gridless.

How's this as an example... In order to run gridless combat one must (as a DM) be able to estimate and track positioning in one's head. Doing this for two combatants who stand still is easier than doing this for two combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for four combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for 10 combatants who can move every round and can affect others movement every round... and so on. No one is saying it is impossible, only that there are varying levels of difficulty in running gridless combats dependent upon the amount and frequency of changing positioning, number of combatants and their ability to affect positioning, and so on.

 

[IronWolf]

How's this as an example... In order to run gridless combat one must (as a DM) be able to estimate and track positioning in one's head. Doing this for two combatants who stand still is easier than doing this for two combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for four combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for 10 combatants who can move every round and can affect others movement every round... and so on.

Except for folks practiced at running gridless combat this is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water!

 

[Imaro]

Except for folks practiced at running gridless combat this is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water!

Which one is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water? Again, it takes more cognitive power period to keep track of more things mentally, whether you personally classify it as easy or not is irrelevant... there is a measurable factor for difficulty of tracking these things that grows as more variables are introduced.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks RC, but seeing as I was a Philosophy major for a time, I've studied logic. Despite that it's been a while, and despite my disgust with modern philosophy in general, I still retain much of it.

That is excellent. And I can understand the bias against (at least some) modern philosophies!

While you aren't incorrect, you do seem to be overlooking the fact that any logical comparison can be taken to absurdity. When seeking to debunk another's logic via extreme examples, one is best served avoiding absurd examples.

One can learn to swim in a pool.
There are bodies of water that are too difficult to swim regardless of one's skill.
Therefore, learning to swim is pointless.​

Sorry, but I can't agree with that logic.

Nor should you agree with that. It is an example of a faulty syllogism, just as the example I made was. What Imaro demonstrated, AFAICT and IMHO, is that D'karr's reasoning relied upon a similar faulty syllogism.

And, as you did above, pointing out that a line of reasoning relies upon a faulty syllogism is not "cheap verbal prestidigitation". It is, instead, one of the most important means by which discussion can be rendered rational.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in demarking the example you quote as being a false syllogism?

And if running 4e gridless was the equivalent of jumping a DC 40 chasm or swimming across a raging river that would carry an elephant away, I might even give consideration to the premise.

It doesn't have to be for the point to carry.

The point is not that 4e is a raging river or a deep chasm; such a point would obviously be ludicrous. If that is what you are understanding from what I am writing, I am obviously not writing well enough.

The point is that, while individual skill modifies the difficulty one has in approaching a situation, this does not mean that one situation is not inherently more difficult than another.

If you are a good swimmer, you can swim 100 yards almost as easily as you can swim 50 yards. Yet it takes more effort to swim 100 yards than 50 yards regardless of how good a swimmer you are. The extra effort may just seem, to you, negligible.

It is factual to say that training to swim will make it easier to swim 100 yards. It is not factual to say that, therefore, it is no more difficult to swim 100 yards than 50 yards.

Or another way of looking at it: Driving up a grade requires a car to fight gravity. The steeper the grade, the more it has to fight gravity, and the more energy the car expends. However, we as drivers may not be aware of this extra effort. We might conclude that it is as easy (energy-wise) for a vehicle to move uphill as it is to move on a level surface.

It is only when we are on bicycles that we suddenly become aware of the difference......and even then, a trained cyclist might not be as aware of the difference as you or I.

However, in all of these cases, the actual degree of extra effort needed is static, and determined by physical laws. Our perception of how difficult a thing is does not necessarily equate how difficult a thing is.

It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that some folks are perceiving running 4e gridless to be more difficult than it actually is. It is not reasonable, therefore, to conclude that there is no difference in difficulty.



RC

 

[Crothian]

I never said you have to be able to run grid-based combat in order to run gridless.

The analogy did but like I said I wouldn't use them.

No one is saying it is impossible, only that there are varying levels of difficulty in running gridless combats dependent upon the amount and frequency of changing positioning, number of combatants and their ability to affect positioning, and so on.

We were originally discussing grid verse gridless gaming. I will agree that running a combat with more combatants does increase the difficulty, this is true if one is using a grid or not though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Maybe this would be easier to grok:

People use grids in various game systems because there are factors in those systems which using a grid aids in dealing with. The more of these factors, the more useful a grid is in the system.

The more useful a grid is in the system, the more not using a grid is felt when trying to deal with these factors. I.e., the harder it is to use the system as written without a grid.

Identify which factors the grid aids you with, and by comparing the degrees to which those factors are important in a system, you can determine how comparatively difficult it is to run gridless between two systems.

EDIT: And, as an aside, I note that the claim that it is no more difficult to use 4e than 1e w/o a grid could be rephrased, "A grid is no more helpful to 4e players than to 1e players".


RC

 

[Crothian]

And, as an aside, I note that the claim that it is no more difficult to use 4e than 1e w/o a grid could be rephrased, "A grid is no more helpful to 4e players than to 1e players".

Difficult and helpful though are not the same thing. Throughout this discussion people have wanted to substitute words for difficult that just do not fit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Difficult and helpful though are not the same thing. Throughout this discussion people have wanted to substitute words for difficult that just do not fit.

No; they oppose one another. Which is exactly the way in which I used them.

If something is helpful, doing without it is more difficult than doing with.

The degree to which an aid is helpful determines the degree to which doing without that aid is more difficult than using it is.

EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both. One can be true, or the other can be true. Both cannot be true.


RC

 

[Imaro]

The analogy did but like I said I wouldn't use them.

No it didn't... swimming=gridless combat in the example. Now if I had made a comparison to being able to jog first before one could swim, you might have a point... but I didn't.

We were originally discussing grid verse gridless gaming. I will agree that running a combat with more combatants does increase the difficulty, this is true if one is using a grid or not though.

Wow, you totally disregarded the other factors I listed as too try and make your point... so what do you think of the other things I listed that could make running a grid-less combat more difficult?