Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Robtheman" data-source="post: 5445975" data-attributes="member: 89625">So to sum up the mechanical aspects: - Gridless combat enabled us to describe highly cinematic fights in a few minutes. it didn't matter much if they hit hard as they were dealing with minions anyhow. The party played to it's strengths. The warlord and paladin used athletics to lead the alerted orcs away from the camp and ambush them. They then tried to hide, despite their lack of skill in that area. They failed and had to take out one final guard with a risky toss of a javelin. Crit! Javelin through the neck and one Orc fed to strange creatures beneath the surface of the swamp. Note this could not have happened if i had neglected to place a section of water next to the Orc. Gridless encounter wins.Also, only having a basic map of the camp let me hand wave lots of stuff that didn't really matter. Example: an attack would have required multiple rounds to get in to position. If the assassin wanted to shadow step and slay a minion, but was 50 feet away, i was able to suggest that he could toss his luckblade dagger (converted into a ki focus). 10 seconds to deal with it and he was satisfied with that option. I was surprised that the gridless style allowed me to participate in the combat as a narrator in a more constructive way. I play the monsters hard, but I usually find myself wanting to interfere with the players choices when they are on a battle mat. I just love the tactics too much to let the assassin routinely ignore combat advantage. This style removed the option to interject. I think a lot of delay was coming from that.  Ultimately it felt like collaborative story telling was being interjected into combat. It usually feels like a GM vs. The players situation. Gridless combat wins.One observation about meta-gaming. it is a lot harder to argue about the mechanics or advise other party members on tactics if you can't see the stuff on the table. The chase in the forest was a series of opposed athletics checks. they lost some of the guards then set an ambush. The two guys running away just described their actions and that was it. their rolls were high and they managed to smash the orcs as they charged out of the bushes. Also, the warlord used his powers to grant an additional attack to the paladin, thus implementing tactics that might not have worked out on a battle mat because of where i randomly chose to position the orcs. The result was cinematic and satisfying for the players and it made perfect sense. with a mat i'm sure the two players (who are the most "mechanically minded") would have discussed solid tactical positioning for a few minutes. Instead it was over in exactly the amount of time it took to describe their acts of heroism (and roll well of course).Another benefit of gridless combat was that it forced all involved to describe more. Actions became more animated. Nobody read the descriptive text on the power card. They just said what they did and how it effected the bad guy. No "I push the orc 1 square granting the paladin an extra attack." Instead it was, "I slash the orc's hamstring and slam the haft of my halbard into his other knee. The paladin is perfectly positioned to take his head off." Awesome visuals abounded.Interestingly, when we had the tough combat at the end of the session, the party completed their turns faster than ever, but still made solid use of game mechanics and the grid. I wonder now if it was because of how fast we were playing earlier on. Everyone knew what they wanted to do, and they were thinking more creatively than I'd seen in weeks. I also found myself being more flexible. This was partly because I had not thought out the fight before hand. Move into a square with a low table? You kick it over as a free action and the space next to it is now difficult terrain.I don't know if this style of play will suit everyone. I do believe it allowed me to play to my strengths as a GM. I like to offer vivid descriptions and let the players do amazing things in tough situations. The bad guys are brutal and vicious and pose a very real threat - but as noted, too many hard threats slow down the players and can stymie creative thinking and role playing. Taking out the battle map for some fights helps off set that by making the bad guys exactly as tough or easy as I think works best in that scene.The mat, or tiles, are great tools, but they define too much some times. 2D devices can only go so far. That also stymies creative thinking and role playing if used too much.We never really used the "skirmish" rules to full effect, because they were only fighting minions. Any attack would kill them anyhow. I look forward to trying it in the future though. I have a specific fight in mind very soon.Count me as a convert. I have read a few posts where DMs say they only roll out the mat for special fights. Until now it sounded less exciting to me, and more arbitrary. In practice though it allows the 4e system to become a more organic and exciting platform for role playing.Orc Camp - Sketched by bard with help from invisible scout NPC.<a href="https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0ByUT0d7dlxwqYTU4NTBlNTgtMTBhNC00YjJlLTkyZjctZDM2NDk2NjcyODEz&sort=name&layout=list&num=50" target="_blank">Image Hoted on Goggle Docs</a></blockquote>

Verification