I don't understand Gridless combat. HELP!

[steeldragons]

Preface: I did not read through the pages of thread before this, just the OP. So, please, don't feel obligated to repeat yourself, I can go back and read after I'm done here.

I really need some help here.

I hope we can help!

Can someone give me insight into the reasoning for playing without a map and minis?

Because it has never been necessary...until a certain edition. Good marketing/idea on WotC part, of course...make you buy the game, buy the minis, buy the grids and the set pieces. Great marketing. But entirely, up til then, unnecessary.

I ask because I ran a playtest over the weekend and found that I absolutely hated the combat. I've been playing D&D for just about fifteen years now, and used visualizations for combat for all but maybe my first year.

By "visualizations" you mean minis and grids, I'm guessing. Did you ever try to run a combat without them? Also, "playing for 15 years" does not tell which of those were playing and which of them were DMing. You say you "ran a playtest" so are we to assume that you are predominantly a DM? Which editions? By "15 years" are we to assume 3 and 4e only?

Aside from a couple hitches here and there, I found that 4e's tactical combat was extremely enjoyable and exciting on both sides of the table.

Sooooo...play 4e then? *shrug* If that's what you like and that's what you're good at running...play that and have fun doing it!

Running playtest combat was hell, though. I don't see the appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head...

It's "freeform"...TotM? I'm not sure if that answers it. Ummm... using/training/expanding your imagination? I dunno. But it is appealing to many of us. I've never used a "grid" or "minis" and i don't expect I ever will. And I've never had any complaints about how things work/run. Just lucky, I guess.

especially when the monsters are so terribly bland to begin with.

So make them more interesting. You're the DM! Make them what you want! OR, again, play 4e...if that's what you're looking for in the stats.

It took all my attention and faculties to just keep track of the basics of what was going on, let alone breathe any kind of flavor or life into the encounters.

Sounds like a lil' practice with your imagination will take care of this.

The end result felt like an old Final Fantasy game instead of anything dynamic and fun.

OK! (Now I have something to work with If comparing your game to a video game is what happens then you DEFinitely need some more practice with TotM.

What's so bad about the grid?

Because, for many tens of years, we didn't need one...we mapped our own way...we envisioned the combats in our minds! And, somehow, we all had fun...and it didn't cause [m]any disruptions. The DM, among other things, is the story-teller...if there's something "unclear" about the personal visualization, then the Players should ask the DM to clarify the scene/situation. It's really not hard once you are used to it. I think, again, a lil' practice will to the mind good.

Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play?

I'mmmmm...not really understanding/sure what you're asking here. What "other aspects of play"? What "tools we have"? What "freedom", beyond the TotM, are you looking for?

Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game?

I can't really say. Are you? From everything I've read, the rules are adequately clear for pretty much any/everyone.

I really am just confused and concerned here... I want to be excited about the new version, but so far the playtest has me feeling more dread than excitement.

I am sorry to hear that. I really am. I have read everything from cautiously optimistic (with a few preferences/problems mentioned) to enthusiastic (no problems) reviews. This is the first I've read that lack of "the grid" has proven a desperate issue.

I am honestly...and I would LOVe to help you...but I am really at a loss. All I can say, again, is "give it a try"...practice...try it out more than once.

You're the DM, make the changes to the monsters fluff and flavor that you need to make it interesting for you! The DM is another player after all. A different level/type of player, to be sure, but you are still at the table to play D&D! The "rules" are guidelines! you are free to incorporate whatever you want/need to have yourself a good time.

If you find you really need a grid to have fun...I'm sure the "tactical module" is coming around in one of these rounds of playtesting...or will certainly be present (if WotC know what's good for them) in the released edition as an "optional/supplemental module." So, apply it and have a grand ole time!...or, again, go/keep playing 4e.

Think that's all I have. Again, apologies if I've repeated anyone.
--SD

 

[Balesir]

In a game where what you do is decided by the individiual and his/her imagination what should the rules say you should be doing? The less codified the process for this is, the less time will be spent perusing menus of pre-defined choices and the more time there is for just doing whatever seems most appropriate for the character and the situation.

OK, one more time - and watch my lips: you need to be clear what the players are expected to be doing. Not the characters (which don't actually exist) - the players. What are their objectives? What are they supposed to be here for? Listening to the GM's story? Thinking up character backstory? What?

 

[GSHamster]

Think of gridless combat more like directing a movie fight scene. "What" a character does becomes more important than "how" she does it. Actual positions are nebulous and change rapidly enough so that most actions work.

One thing you might want to try is using 2E's method of announcing actions before rolling initiative in each round. Basically, you go around the table and each person says what they are going to do in this round. Then you all roll initiative and actions occur in the order rolled. What this means is that when your turn comes around the grid situation might have completely changed, but you're still committed to your action.

 

[ExploderWizard]

OK, one more time - and watch my lips: you need to be clear what the players are expected to be doing. Not the characters (which don't actually exist) - the players. What are their objectives? What are they supposed to be here for? Listening to the GM's story? Thinking up character backstory? What?

What the players are expected to be doing:

1) Roleplaying the character in the gameworld. On the player side this means listening to the DM describe aspects of the environment, exploring said environment via imagination, and asking for more detail when needed to make decisions.

2) Chatting amongst themselves about how they are doing #1.

3) Rolling the dice when it is called for, cracking jokes, eating munchies and having a good time.

 

[Umbran]

This is crucial, I think. If you are going to go "gridless", you need the players to be focussing on something other than how their character's position relative to the other combatants helps or hinders them.

Unless the rules are horribly written, that answer to that is deadly simple - the players will naturally focus upon the things that will have effect. In 3e and 4e, focusing on relative position had a strong effect on play.

But do remember, prior to the AoO and the 5' step (so, 2e and before), you could spend much, much less attention to positioning - the rules didn't strongly impose such granularity most of the time, and players figured out pretty darned quickly what mattered, and focused upon it.

 

[whearp]

I can already feel this conversation is starting to rattle apart. I'm really sorry if I caused any conflict. I'm not very good a forums stuff, and I know my concerns are silly. Thank you all anyway.

 

[Umbran]

I know my concerns are silly.

No, they aren't silly.

 

[Melkor]

For instance: the wizard in my game declared he readied sleep for when the horde of 20 goblins came around the corner. He wanted to hit as many goblins as he could but cast before their attacks hit the fighter and cleric in the front rank. With a grid following the 4e rules strictly...each goblin takes its turn as an individual, spending its minor, move and standard actions. So they come at the party one by one. With 'theater of the mind' style of play the dm describes the action a bit more realistically..."the first of the goblin horde appears around the corner, hesitate at the sight of the dwarves but then the weightt of the others behind them drive them forward to attack...just before the first blow lands the wizard, who has been chanting a spell brings his incantations to their apex and unleashes his power...twelve goblins are caght by the spell [rolls saves]. 8 fall to the floor in a peaceful slumber. 4 others slow down and yawn. Only one of these makes it far enough to attack..."

Great example.

 

[lfeder]

whearp,

There WILL be a tactical module added to DnD Next. It's not out yet, but, to quote Mike Mearls, the senior manager for the D&D team, "There are quite a few core 4e changes that are in the game - at will magic, the hit die mechanic, the clarity of the combat rules. These are all trend lines that started with 4e and have moved forward. In terms of powers, we're working on a combat maneuver system right now and will show that off as part the ongoing playtest. Also, I did some work over the weekend on the tactical rules options. In many ways, the depth of 4e's approach to combat and options will sit atop the system you've seen so far as rules modules. "

What this means is that they just haven't gotten to it yet.

As a very veteran DM, tactical maps didn't come into play for me until the late 80's. I consider the maps a great improvement over the original rules.

 

[whearp]

whearp,

There WILL be a tactical module added to DnD Next. It's not out yet, but, to quote Mike Mearls, the senior manager for the D&D team, "There are quite a few core 4e changes that are in the game - at will magic, the hit die mechanic, the clarity of the combat rules. These are all trend lines that started with 4e and have moved forward. In terms of powers, we're working on a combat maneuver system right now and will show that off as part the ongoing playtest. Also, I did some work over the weekend on the tactical rules options. In many ways, the depth of 4e's approach to combat and options will sit atop the system you've seen so far as rules modules. "

What this means is that they just haven't gotten to it yet.

As a very veteran DM, tactical maps didn't come into play for me until the late 80's. I consider the maps a great improvement over the original rules.

I read that too... I'm just stressing out a little. It's what I do. You all have been a great help to me. I feel a lot better about the coming version. From what I'm reading, I already run a very old school game even from my mat and tokens. If Next turns out to be a further blending of philosophies, then I'm going to be just fine. I'm already in love with the ability check system and advantage/disadvantage mechanic. Thanks much!