4e rules will make some games much harder to run

[Hussar]

My apologies if a thread like this exists and I didnt see it. After reading the new class powers, warlords in particular, it struck me that these rules will be much harder to accommodate in some games. Mine in particular.

Any groups which don't use a playmat/whiteboard/graph paper to chart out exactly where will have a hard time using rules like "slide opponent two squares" and such. I know its easy to say "just tell your players to imagine the kobold was knocked ten feet to the left", but I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.

normally I'd say something like "you enter the door, two kobolds see you enter and charge at you from the left, while their large and unfriendly looking gnoll taskmaster sweeps in from the right with his spear leading the way" no need to describe exactly how many feet or anything and the players get a feel for whats happening and use their imagination to fill in minor details, and if they want specifics they can ask for them.

but now, if a player is using a warlord most of his skills lose their value since no one really knows or cares about the precise positioning of opponents. At first i thought a couple easy houserules, but it looks like it would affect almost all of the warlords skills...

I could go on with more specific examples but I imagine my point has come across... this is not a gripe by the way, I'm feeling a little worried is all because I'd hate to warn players "dont pick the warlord because most of his skills will be of little use in our games"

if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!

Honestly, my first thought is perhaps 4e is not for you. 3.5 was very heavy on the tactical aspect, which I see from your latest post that you worked around. I think that you will likely be able to work around this as well.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

This is a very valid concern. When I switched to a battlemat for 3E I at first found myself remembering the mat & figures, and not the first-person viewpoint I experienced with other games. But it soon went back to normal. All it takes is a little bit of time and familiarity with the system.

Having DMed and played several years both ways this is not my experience. Mat-based play has continued to result in inferior first-person perspective immersive experience and memory for me despite complete familiarity and comfort with grid use.

One specific suggestion: keep your eyes on the eyes of the other players, and not the battlemat. This will focus you on the story/narrative/description, and you'll see the battlemat for what it is--just a reference, to be briefly glanced at only when needed.

This sounds like good advice. As another poster mentioned, I think it is also good for a DM to describe the room verbally, including details on appearance (not just dimensions) before revealing a mat, so that an image can form in the players' minds before settling down to mat-mode. The DM can also continue referring to details not shown on the mat to maintain awareness of the unique context during combat.

It's more automatic without a mat, however, since the DM then relies on such details to provide spatial cues. I also like the flexibility afforded by a mat-free combat in terms of those details. Cover, for instance, will usually be readily apparent and fixed on the mat, whereas without a mat, a player can ask about nearby cover and the DM can decide whether/where there is some in a way that facilitates an exciting fight, and/or that allows a little fudge-work to help the players or opponents if things are going too easy/hard in an unsatisfying way.

 

[Mercule]

Recycled concern from 3E. If your 3E game didn't suffer from not using a mat, I don't see how your 4E game will suffer.

This.

I didn't know an echo could take eight years to bounce.

 

[Plane Sailing]

There was an interesting discussion on this issue back in 2003 here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=59508

You might be interested in my post http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1052818&postcount=13 where I link to a pdf for a "simple narrative action" for 3e - I've not looked at it in years, but it might prove interesting in terms of a 4e discussion.

Cheers

 

[Khaalis]

Personally, I've been using 3D representations for combat since AD&D. I started with using Dice and Coins as PCs and Monsters and hand drawn "terrain" on paper in days before I could afford the fancy lead minis and other fun accoutrements. I've always had problems with a highly detailed combat encounter (or even some basic adventuring style encounters such as opening doors) not being visualized. There are always those players that try to "bend" a scene to their advantage when things don't go the way they want (e.g. "No i wasn't standing there, I was over here. If no one heard me its not my fault. I'm over here not there." or "I heal the warrior. But the warrior is over fighting the dragon... if you were next to him you would have been hit with its breath weapon. So which is is it? Are you still in back by the wizard like you said, or next to the fighter?"). Battle maps did away with all that. It also clarified ranges, line of sight, etc.

As for the more tactical aspects such as actually 5' grids, I can give or take it. It adds a level of strategy to the game that myself and our group of gamers enjoy (lots of Mech players and strategy Board game players) so it doesn't bother us. Overall though, I have seen 3E run without minis and maps, and it works IF you have a DM AND Players that aren't at all about following rules and willing to "fudge" powers, skills, spells etc. to make it seem more cinematic, such as going on faith that the wizard's fireball doesn't actually hit any party members, the ranger firing into melee without concern for possibly hitting an ally, etc. Personally, I think that if you want this style of combat you shouldn't be using D&D in the first place. There are better storyteller systems for that style of game. JMHO.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've always had problems with a highly detailed combat encounter (or even some basic adventuring style encounters such as opening doors) not being visualized. There are always those players that try to "bend" a scene to their advantage when things don't go the way they want (e.g. "No i wasn't standing there, I was over here. If no one heard me its not my fault. I'm over here not there." or "I heal the warrior. But the warrior is over fighting the dragon... if you were next to him you would have been hit with its breath weapon. So which is is it? Are you still in back by the wizard like you said, or next to the fighter?"). Battle maps did away with all that. It also clarified ranges, line of sight, etc.

This! QFT. Finally someone who made exactly the same experience I did.

We've had loads of problems with pcs teleporting all over the place including long arguments and terrible rollbacks that destroyed the mood and got on everybodys nerves or even made people angry and bear lasting grudges.

Still, it's nice if you don't HAVE to use minis for every encounter. What I wouldn't like to do is play D&D like Heroquest, where every single action has to be done on the board.
Since I am quite fond of wilderness encounters I often have to deal with very long distances. For these it's sufficient to indicate general directions and approximate distances - no need to count squares.
But I really don't expect any changes in that regard in 4E.

 

[Zinovia]

We've had loads of problems with pcs teleporting all over the place...

Just make everyone play Eladrin in 4E and they can teleport all over the place while still following the rules.

I hadn't considered that using a mat might impact the players' ability to have a memorable combat because it forces them out of the first person experience, and into viewing minis on the table. My husband or I always wound up being the GM for whatever game we ended up playing. We've used a mat since Rolemaster about 20 years ago, and when we adopted 3E, we naturally continued to use it. Personally I have trouble remembering where everyone is without props of some sort. Even without a grid, we used minis and dice to show relative positioning in our AD&D days.

I found that without using minis (or dice) you do have arguments with players about where they said they were, and where you thought they were, and retroactive movement that happens only after a described consequence of positioning. In general I like using minis, and our hex map (long live hexes!!!). Still, it might be fun to try some small combats without them to see if they feel more immersive.

 

[Kaisoku]

I have, and still, play without a mat or grid in most situations. This is done as both a timesaver for playing the game (we only have a couple hours per session usually) and for the DM prep (we lead busy lives).

I've never been in a situation where there was an argument over peoples positions. Yes, there are moments where the DM forgets where you moved to, and has to change his NPCs actions accordingly... or a player had a different picture in his mind and didn't realize his limits. However, these situations never lead to arguments. What happens is either the DM or Players let them know the correction, and play moves on. It helps if the players are honest.

One trick I've found works is explaining the repercussions of what you are doing along with the action itself. Like... "I move past the enemy, keeping out of it's reach, and try to flank". And the DM responds saying if it's possible with your movement or not. Combat movement and ranges tend to be a bit more freeform... if anything, the actual feet could be taken out and you could replace them with "short, mid, long" for ranges and run with it.. but saying "feet" gives a more solid impression on our mind's eye for visualizing the events.


Ultimately, the time spent on clarifying position, range and movement is so minimal, that it is hardly noticeable and doesn't detract from the experience at all. Grids and Minis create a jarring disconnect, and in and of themselves take up a lot more time (in my experience).

Quite frankly... our sessions have been bogged down more by people (DMs and Players alike) being unclear on rule calls and ability limitations, and nitpicking bonuses from round to round while multiple effects are being applied. It doesn't sound like 4e will reduce the bonus tallying aspect much (if anything it sounds like it may get to be a bigger issue). Honestly, I'm not sure how to resolve this part without making the game too simplistic, so I can't really fault 4e for not being the cure-all for that.

What would be stunning is if the DMG had a section on playing the game without a Mat, and the obstacles involved, and tricks to get around them. That would impress me greatly.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Personally, I've been using 3D representations for combat since AD&D. I started with using Dice and Coins as PCs and Monsters and hand drawn "terrain" on paper in days before I could afford the fancy lead minis and other fun accoutrements.

I think most people, even in OD&D, at some point broke out some counters (even scraps of paper) or sketched out a scene on graph paper to denote relative positions of combatants.

Maybe part of the problem is that the quality of those representations has steadily gotten *better*. If you use a button or bottlecap to keep track of your character's position, everyone knows that it's just a counter. It's not your character. But as minis have gotten better, it may have gotten easier to think of the mini itself as your character.

Magus Coeruleus, I encourage you to give it a try next time you play on a battlemat. Use M&Ms, spare dice, or pennies to represent your characters--anything other than miniatures. Since the playing pieces don't look *anything* like what they represent, your mind will have to visualize the characters themselves.

 

[Dausuul]

At the risk of sounding confrontational, why does the OP still think that he should continue to play D&D? It's hardly the only fantasy game on the market and there are plenty of other games which feature non-tactical combat. There are likely many familiar D&D elements that the OP wishes to hold onto (such as fireballs, chromatic dragons, spontaneous healing, or what-have-you). I just wonder if the effort required to adapt 4e to the OP's needs is greater than adapting the cherished D&D concepts to a new, non-tactical system?

Because D&D is much better supported than most other RPGs? Because it's infinitely easier to find players? Because there looks like being a whole lot of good stuff in 4E, much of which won't appear in other systems, and it seems better to try to tweak 4E than try to find some other game?

I've played with and without battlemats. Each has its advantages and its drawbacks. I would really like to be able to do both with 4E, without having to learn a whole different game.

Use minatures. No, seriously. 3.x was designed to be used with minatures and plays better with them. 4th looks to be even further down the path back to the roots of D&D.

Uh, no. 3.x was indeed designed to be used with minis, but I would not say that it plays better with them. My experience has been that with minis, it's a tactical wargame (when combat breaks out, at least); without minis, it's an immersive story. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strategy gamer from away back and I enjoy the wargame, but I also enjoy the ability to go "story-first," as the Forge people might say.

And as for the "roots of D&D," I would never dream of playing Classic or AD&D with minis. Way too much hassle and loss of immersion, for too little reward.