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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 3560277" data-attributes="member: 10479">I already have it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />We do some combat and it works well enough. It's easy enough to draw a general room, and some furniture or obstacles on a white board and run the combat like laying out a football play, without any exact measurements.For a little background, I played wargames and minis games for a few years prior to D&D coming out in 1974.  When my friends and I started playing, we did it as a minis battle game for combat but jumped right in to the RPing aspects.  It has almost always been about a 50-50 mix, or close to it, except for a few games in the 80's that I played or ran without minis or some equivalent.  Now I am running a full on no-minis campaign, though I am cheating a bit by using a white board for mapping, layouts, record keeping and such.  I think it is a nice compromise and so far it is helped keep things moving at a good pace.  Three good hours of RPing the other night followed by a final hour with three combat encounters.  I wouldn't want ths for every type of campaign but for this one it is working well.   As far as the time divisions, some other campaigns where we focused on combat wound up with hour long combat encounters with a few minutes of RPing in between each.  For this campaign I feel that would not work out so well.I'm looking for some thoughts, though, on anything that might be particularly hard to convert from one method of running combat to the other.  Which combats do you feel were less fun or unnecessary?  (I could replace the lesser ones with other types of encounters.)</blockquote>

Verification