Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yavathol" data-source="post: 4486939" data-attributes="member: 33284">Good post...thinking about it has helped me realise one reason why 4e feels more like a boardgame to me (and I don't like that!) In previous editions, we used minis, but the main uses where for area effects, cover from ranged attacks and charging. Now there are far more effects that need you to stay within range of another character or that key off shifting and opportunity attacks (which were less important in 3e and didn't exist before then.) Secondly, my group has taken to placing markers next to each miniature, to indicate marking, bloodied, etc. Now I realised, yes, that makes it far more obvious for everyone who is on fire, who has been cursed by the warlock, etc. That's what boardgames do. Previously, it may have been a pain to keep asking the DM "how badly injured is the orc?" "Has John put himself out yet?" However, that communication means a) the players have to pay attention to the DM, instead of looking through their powers during other people turns, and then having to study the mat. b) The atmosphere is better - instead of visually seeing the orc is bloodied marker, the DM can say "The second orc is staggering, with part of his chest caved in. The hate in his eyes says he won't give in, but he is struggling to hold his battleaxe!"  I hadn't realised 'til now, but that verbal description of the battlespace was what I had been missing. Also, in a narrative game, the battlespace can be shaped by suggestions from the players like "Can I use my spell to block off the area between the wall and the pit?" The DM may not have consciously thought about the distance between those two things, but he thinks it sounds cool, so he gives it the ok. In a miniatures game, the battlespace is preset from before initiative is rolled. There is no rule for allowing the players to modify the absolute positions of things, and I think in a subtle way this confirms the boardgame mentality "This is the situation, end of story." The actions your characters may take can affect things, as specified in the rules, but the players have no input on it. To answer your second question, the game Burning Wheel handles positioning in a very abstract manner, but I like the concept. Each character makes a statement of intent which includes a positioning manoeuvre (either close, maintain distance or withdraw). Then you all test your Agility. The highest roller gets his intent, then the second highest (unless it conflicts with the first), then the third, and so on.  So if A wants to close with B, and B wants to withdraw from A, whoever gets higher succeeds. It still doesn't answer the question of who gets caught within an area of effect, but GM adjudication is used for those cases. The important thing is not the absolute position but the relative position. Once you have closed with an enemy, you can be within lunging distance, optimal distance or inside (the enemies guard).  This gives you interesting tactical options which the D&D reach weapons don't quite match.</blockquote>

Verification