Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Crothian]

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?

Are you talking about the post with the example of how 2 combatants is less difficult then 4 which is less difficult then 10? I did not ignore that I said

"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. "

I wasn't ignoring it, it was a statement that was true for all combats with or with out a grid.

 

[IronWolf]

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?

I knew I should have edited the post to explicitly state my initial comment was stated in a joking manner. I was hoping the laughing smiley would be enough to indicate as such.

 

[D'karr]

I knew I should have edited the post to explicitly state my initial comment was stated in a joking manner. I was hoping the laughing smiley would be enough to indicate as such.

Put that can of gasoline away... You're only pouring it on the fire.

 

[Imaro]

Are you talking about the post with the example of how 2 combatants is less difficult then 4 which is less difficult then 10? I did not ignore that I said

"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. "

I wasn't ignoring it, it was a statement that was true for all combats with or with out a grid.

Is that really all the post said? Or was there something about combatants and their movement as well? Oh, yeah and also a reference to combatants affecting other comabatants movement making it more difficult as well... but you keepreading the parts you want to in my posts.

 

[D'karr]

but you keepreading the parts you want to in my posts.

lol

 

[Crothian]

Is that really all the post said? Or was there something about combatants and their movement as well? Oh, yeah and also a reference to combatants affecting other comabatants movement making it more difficult as well... but you keepreading the parts you want to in my posts.

Quoting large blocks of text for little to no gain is something I try not to do. It just wastes space and annoys readers. Just because it wasn't quoted does not mean it was ignored. Also, how is it you think you know what I'm reading?

To me it doesn't matter what makes 4 foes easier to run then 10 foes. It could be because of movement, because of tracking that many more sets of hit point and different effects on them, or just knowing what each one is doing. But it is more difficult to do with a grid or without a grid; so the grid being there or not doesn't have any bearing on it being more difficult.

 

[Imaro]

Quoting large blocks of text for little to no gain is something I try not to do. It just wastes space and annoys readers. Just because it wasn't quoted does not mean it was ignored. Also, how is it you think you know what I'm reading?

To me it doesn't matter what makes 4 foes easier to run then 10 foes. It could be because of movement, because of tracking that many more sets of hit point and different effects on them, or just knowing what each one is doing. But it is more difficult to do with a grid or without a grid; so the grid being there or not doesn't have any bearing on it being more difficult.

Yes it does, less brainpower spent keeping track of where everyone is in one's mind and thus more brainpower to focus elsewhere... in fact with a grid, I don't even have to think about keeping track of any movement or positioning at all.

 

[Imaro]

Quoting large blocks of text for little to no gain is something I try not to do. It just wastes space and annoys readers. Just because it wasn't quoted does not mean it was ignored. Also, how is it you think you know what I'm reading?

To me it doesn't matter what makes 4 foes easier to run then 10 foes. It could be because of movement, because of tracking that many more sets of hit point and different effects on them, or just knowing what each one is doing. But it is more difficult to do with a grid or without a grid; so the grid being there or not doesn't have any bearing on it being more difficult.

Yes it does, less brainpower spent keeping track of where everyone is in one's mind and thus more brainpower to focus elsewhere... in fact with a grid, I don't even have to think about keeping track of any movement or positioning at all.

 

[Crothian]

Yes it does, less brainpower spent keeping track of where everyone is in one's mind and thus more brainpower to focus elsewhere... in fact with a grid, I don't even have to think about keeping track of any movement or positioning at all.

Based on my own experience I disagree. I ran Dragon Mountain a week and a half ago and if you are not familiar with it basically the PCs run into hoards and hordes of kobolds. I did it without grids and minis and I think it was easier to just describe what the 80 or more kobolds they were fighting at a time were doing then trying to position all of that on a grid with that many figures. I'm not saying everyone would have been better off doing it this way but it was easiest for me and the group.

That is the basic disagreement we have; you based on your comments seem like a DM that would have a harder time with that without a grid. But different DMs have different skills and some like myself find it easier to not use a grid even for complex encounters.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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?

No, you were quite clear. I wasn't, however, talking about pointing out that someone's reasoning is faulty. I was referring to the fact that doing so by taking it to an absurd extreme often leads to a less, not more, rational conversation.

Let me clarify my point.

-We are discussing the difficulty of grid vs gridless, and the complexity of combat in 4e as compared with earlier editions.

-Since several people have claimed they possess the capacity for running without a grid in both 4e and earlier editions, we can reasonably assume that at least some people are capable of running D&D without a grid regardless of edition.

-It's also been claimed that running D&D without a grid is a skill that can be learned. This matches my experience as well, and I think it's reasonable to say that there is at least some truth to it.

-Therefore, comparing running 4e gridless to trying to swim in a raging river that would sweep an elephant away actually misdirects the conversation, because it suggests that doing so is either impossible, or at the very least superhuman, which doesn't seem like a very reasonable conclusion based on the above.

The marathon analogy (running 5 vs 10 miles) is better, though it still suffers from faults that most analogies suffer. That being, it's only the rough sketch of the point you're making, and nothing more. In other words, if I can only run 5 miles competently, then running 10 miles is either impossible for me or at least a serious physical strain. Remembering the relative positions of 5 vs 10 minis doesn't compare on any serious level.

Both 4e and 1e have their respective complexities. While it isn't unreasonable to assume that different people might have an easier time with one than the other, it is unreasonable (IMO) to assume that one could not learn to run either.