Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manchu" data-source="post: 6552473" data-attributes="member: 6791825">Using mat + minis was indeed the default assumption of 4E ... just like using the board is the default assumption of Monopoly. I guess people could just memorize where all the properties are in Monopoly. If they can't, does that make them idiots? In all seriousness, relative position in 4E is not a matter of rough estimates. Not using a mat + minis in 4E is playing on nightmare mode.Moving on to the word &quot;tactics.&quot; There is a difference between &quot;tactics,&quot; by which we mean a method of tackling a threat in combat, and &quot;Tactics,&quot; which is a word you staple onto the end of a video game title to indicate it is played by moving around combat units on a grid, e.g., Final Fantasy Tactics.The latter meaning, which applies to the combat systems of 3E and 4E (IMO 4E just does it better), necessarily entails more complicated encounter design for reasons stated above. To wit, &quot;A 4E encounter is perforce a miniatures skirmish scenario. You need to know not only what monsters are present but also how their abilities synergize. That in turn means relative starting location is important, as between the monsters themselves as well as between the monsters and the PCs. Then there's terrain. If you want a really memorable set-piece, terrain should also be interactive or at least dynamic. All of this entails a lot discrete design decision points. Considering and &quot;solving for&quot; each of them creates value, even if the conclusion turns out to be generic. 5E, at least in its default form, doesn't assume any of this stuff.&quot;Which brings us back to my initial point about published modules: Why would anybody want them and complain about not enough of them being published? Well, for 4E DMs, they represent a lot of the work (and it is work) of encounter design being already done so the DM can instead focus on preparing to actually run the encounters. There's lots and lost of &quot;value added&quot; there IMO. With 5E, this is far less important. The published adventures just don't have the same value because the nature of the game itself is less complicated. But what you do get is setting info and a plot arc (also available in 4E modules).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manchu, post: 6552473, member: 6791825"] Using mat + minis was indeed the default assumption of 4E ... just like using the board is the default assumption of Monopoly. I guess people could just memorize where all the properties are in Monopoly. If they can't, does that make them idiots? In all seriousness, relative position in 4E is not a matter of rough estimates. Not using a mat + minis in 4E is playing on nightmare mode. Moving on to the word "tactics." There is a difference between "tactics," by which we mean a method of tackling a threat in combat, and "Tactics," which is a word you staple onto the end of a video game title to indicate it is played by moving around combat units on a grid, e.g., Final Fantasy Tactics. The latter meaning, which applies to the combat systems of 3E and 4E (IMO 4E just does it better), necessarily entails more complicated encounter design for reasons stated above. To wit, "A 4E encounter is perforce a miniatures skirmish scenario. You need to know not only what monsters are present but also how their abilities synergize. That in turn means relative starting location is important, as between the monsters themselves as well as between the monsters and the PCs. Then there's terrain. If you want a really memorable set-piece, terrain should also be interactive or at least dynamic. All of this entails a lot discrete design decision points. Considering and "solving for" each of them creates value, even if the conclusion turns out to be generic. 5E, at least in its default form, doesn't assume any of this stuff." Which brings us back to my initial point about published modules: Why would anybody want them and complain about not enough of them being published? Well, for 4E DMs, they represent a lot of the work (and it is work) of encounter design being already done so the DM can instead focus on preparing to actually run the encounters. There's lots and lost of "value added" there IMO. With 5E, this is far less important. The published adventures just don't have the same value because the nature of the game itself is less complicated. But what you do get is setting info and a plot arc (also available in 4E modules). [/QUOTE]

Verification