D&D blog: goblin care only about your axe

[Crazy Jerome]

I think we have a difference in semantics here. To me "Theater of the Mind" refers to pure imagination, with mechanics that use real-world measurements. The way non-minis combat in DnD has traditionally worked.

Abstract positioning and zone systems are a very different matter, and I suspect, very foreign to most DnD players. If a zone system exists in 5E, I have to expect it'll be a module sitting next to the grid module.

Yes, that is a difference in semantics. To me, "TotM" means "In our heads, not on the table." Then either system can be relatively simple or complex, abstract or specific. That complexity in TotM or grid often take different paths is only because most game writers have some sense of what will work.

Setting that aside, consider this: "Push 1 square" is changed to "Knocked back 5 feet." That's a change to create an illusion geared towards TotM, but it doesn't really accomplish much outside of whatever the illusion itself does for people. It might appear marginally more precise to some people, but if the game does all such movement in 5' increments, it isn't even that in reality. As such, it's really a grid mechanic expressed as a TotM mechanic. This is because in 4E (and D&D in general), the advantage of getting someone to forcibly move is in whatever you move them into.

However, assume for a moment that we have a good mechanic that models something like "breathing space"--where a short retreat or pushing your foes out of immediate melee range gives you a second or two to reset your defenses and orient yourself to the situation. Nevermind exactly how it works, as I don't want to get bogged down in objections to the details. It's a valid concept, albeit one that D&D hasn't really supported before. Perhaps there is also another supporting bit where so moving someone is causing them to interfere with other attackers, when outnumbered--also a valid concept that D&D hasn't supported.

Now, regardless of how it is worded, "knocking someone back" is a useful concept--on the grid or off. If you happen to knock them back into a fire, that is helpful too, but not the main purpose. If knocking them off the edge of a building or cliff face is possible, it isn't that hard even in the TotM to establish that you and the opponent are so placed.

This is the kind of thing that I think they really mean by an agnostic mechanic. It has slightly different flavor and emphasis on grid or off, but it is roughly useful in both.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Yes, and precision makes all the difference. In a game where you have a "Damage: 2[W]" power, and a power that says "Damage: 1[W] + push target 2 squares", which one would you pick? In a game that uses no grids, the second power is less useful, because it relies solely on the subjectivity of the DM to decide it's utility, and the ability of the other players to remember to take advantage of it. If there's a grid and minis, the rogue sees this and says, "ooh, now I'm flanking that foe" and uses his sneak attack.

Okay, I kinda get that point and it would explain some of my disconnect, since I think we have a grand total of one power in play that has any kind of forced movement (and it's something like "Move everyone X squares away from the caster"). Do you know whether the number of forced movement powers were significantly culled in Essentials?

Although I wouldn't really consider some powers being more efficient in one style of play than the other to be a great concern. Them being more annoying without the grid, though, I get.

 

[dkyle]

Yes, that is a difference in semantics. To me, "TotM" means "In our heads, not on the table." Then either system can be relatively simple or complex, abstract or specific. That complexity in TotM or grid often take different paths is only because most game writers have some sense of what will work.

OK, then what do you call the traditional DnD Theater of the Mind combat, where you're given precise measurements, and you just do your best with imagining them? There's a huge variance in all those mechanics you're lumping together. In terms of 5E, I think the salient comparison is that kind of combat, vs grid-based minis combat. That indie RPG abstract/zone stuff is besides the point here. There's no way that's going to be the core.

Setting that aside, consider this: "Push 1 square" is changed to "Knocked back 5 feet." That's a change to create an illusion geared towards TotM, but it doesn't really accomplish much outside of whatever the illusion itself does for people. It might appear marginally more precise to some people, but if the game does all such movement in 5' increments, it isn't even that in reality. As such, it's really a grid mechanic expressed as a TotM mechanic. This is because in 4E (and D&D in general), the advantage of getting someone to forcibly move is in whatever you move them into.

Well, it's a precise distance-based mechanic. Which is what DnD has traditionally used, grid-based or not. Grids allow precise usage of those mechanics. ToM does not, which is why concrete distances are best de-emphasized when a grid isn't being used.

However, assume for a moment that we have a good mechanic that models something like "breathing space"--where a short retreat or pushing your foes out of immediate melee range gives you a second or two to reset your defenses and orient yourself to the situation. Nevermind exactly how it works, as I don't want to get bogged down in objections to the details. It's a valid concept, albeit one that D&D hasn't really supported before. Perhaps there is also another supporting bit where so moving someone is causing them to interfere with other attackers, when outnumbered--also a valid concept that D&D hasn't supported.

The simple fact that it isn't something that DnD has had before makes me highly doubtful that it'll be part of the core rules. There's a rather large contingent of DnD players who dislike adding new kinds of abstractions, and reject things like that as "not DnD".

Now, regardless of how it is worded, "knocking someone back" is a useful concept--on the grid or off. If you happen to knock them back into a fire, that is helpful too, but not the main purpose. If knocking them off the edge of a building or cliff face is possible, it isn't that hard even in the TotM to establish that you and the opponent are so placed.

This is the kind of thing that I think they really mean by an agnostic mechanic. It has slightly different flavor and emphasis on grid or off, but it is roughly useful in both.

But unless the mechanic is literally "knock someone into something that hurts them" (which would require a lot of abstraction to make sense), then it's just the same as "knock back 10 feet", but more vague, which I don't think solves anything.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think that pushes or pulls will vary in quantity. They will just push away or pull close (a fixed number of square, pretty sure just 1 square; for ToM then it's just getting pushed out or in melee or something like that).

Makes sense to me. That wouldn't be too bad, honestly.

If it's something kind of like that, I believe I'm good.

 

[P1NBACK]

I don't understand why people think just because there is no grid that there isn't a map.

Seriously. We draw maps like crazy, whether playing D&D or any other RPG.

That doesn't mean we want grid combat all the time with everything measured in squares. And, just because we don't want grid combat all the time doesn't mean we can't describe the scenario and use maps as tools to show positioning.

And, the weird argument about 2[W] vs. 1[W] + push 10 feet is sort of odd to me.

Why can't you just say, "Is the goblin within 10 feet of the acid slime? Yeah? Great. I move up to him and slam him with my hammer. If I hit, he's knocked back 10 feet into the slime."

Or, "Is the goblin within 10 feet of the slime? No? How far? 15 feet? Damn. Ok, I'll do my knock him back then slam him prone maneuver so that he's 5 ft next turn and has to use his movement to stand up if he wants to get away from the slime..."

 

[dkyle]

And, the weird argument about 2[W] vs. 1[W] + push 10 feet is sort of odd to me.

Why can't you just say, "Is the goblin within 10 feet of the acid slime? Yeah? Great. I move up to him and slam him with my hammer. If I hit, he's knocked back 10 feet into the slime."

Or, "Is the goblin within 10 feet of the slime? No? How far? 15 feet? Damn. Ok, I'll do my knock him back then slam him prone maneuver so that he's 5 ft next turn and has to use his movement to stand up if he wants to get away from the slime..."

Because unless the DM is actually tracking the combat on a mental grid (unlikely), the tactical situation is more a matter of DM fiat and whims, than mechanics.

What that all boils down to is "may I push the goblin into the acid slime?", and the DM deciding "yes or no". I do not find that style of RPG very satisfying. The higher the stakes that rest on such non-mechanical elements, the more dissatisfied I am. And combat tends to be pretty high stakes.

If my character dies because I couldn't push the goblin in the acid, because he was 15' away (as a result of previous, mechanically well defined actions) and I could only push 10', then fair enough. That's how it played out. If my character dies because the DM handwaved and decided that I couldn't push the goblin in the acid, then ultimately it was a DM whim that killed my character, not a real consequence of my own actions, and the mechanics of the world I'm playing in. I would not enjoy that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why can't you just say, "Is the goblin within 10 feet of the acid slime? Yeah? Great. I move up to him and slam him with my hammer. If I hit, he's knocked back 10 feet into the slime."

Or, "Is the goblin within 10 feet of the slime? No? How far? 15 feet? Damn. Ok, I'll do my knock him back then slam him prone maneuver so that he's 5 ft next turn and has to use his movement to stand up if he wants to get away from the slime..."

That's pretty much how we play 4E when we play without the grid (which is about two thirds of the time). Except that it doesn't take much play like that before the player says, on the turn before that one, "I move up close enough to the slime so that if any of those goblins get near me, I can knock them into it." We don't even need to specify exact distances, because we know who can knock, and if for some reason it became important, we'd ask then.

 

[steeldragons]

Indeed...a way to do both is the the way 5e must try to present itself (hopefully it works.).

But to those who feel they need a grid to play D&D...I do feel sorry for you.

Theatre of the Mind RULZ!

--SD

 

[P1NBACK]

Because unless the DM is actually tracking the combat on a mental grid (unlikely), the tactical situation is more a matter of DM fiat and whims, than mechanics.

No. It's not. It's a matter of what fictional facts we've established. If I tell the DM, "I move to within 50' if the goblin."

That is a tactical move, and now a fictional fact. The DM can't suddenly change that.

What that all boils down to is "may I push the goblin into the acid slime?", and the DM deciding "yes or no". I do not find that style of RPG very satisfying. The higher the stakes that rest on such non-mechanical elements, the more dissatisfied I am. And combat tends to be pretty high stakes.

Again. Wrong. It's up to, "Did you describe yourself getting in position to push the goblin into the acid slime? Yes? Ok you do if you hit. No? Then describe how you set that up."

If my character dies because I couldn't push the goblin in the acid, because he was 15' away (as a result of previous, mechanically well defined actions) and I could only push 10', then fair enough. That's how it played out. If my character dies because the DM handwaved and decided that I couldn't push the goblin in the acid, then ultimately it was a DM whim that killed my character, not a real consequence of my own actions, and the mechanics of the world I'm playing in. I would not enjoy that.

I wouldn't enjoy that either... That's why we roleplay it out.

"Ok, you see the goblin coming down the hallway."
"How far is he?"
"About 60', just at the edge of the dimness of your torchlight. He sees you and starts reaching for his club."
"Great. My movement is 20', but if I charge I can move 60'. Is there anything that might hamper my movement in the hallway? Like, rough terrain or something?"
"Nope. Just a dungeon corridor with flagstones for flooring."
"Great. I charge."

I mean, where in that is the DM fiat? Nowhere. It's the player's prerogative to use questions to clarify the environment. The same must occur with grids... "What's the wavy line you drew? It's red is that a wall of fire?" "Oh, no, that's just a curtain."

The DM's answers establish facts, that we can make decisions based upon.

Sure, if you're playing with a 5 year old, those facts might change randomly. But, we're like, adults right?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

OK, then what do you call the traditional DnD Theater of the Mind combat, where you're given precise measurements, and you just do your best with imagining them? There's a huge variance in all those mechanics you're lumping together. In terms of 5E, I think the salient comparison is that kind of combat, vs grid-based minis combat. That indie RPG abstract/zone stuff is besides the point here. There's no way that's going to be the core.

I call traditional D&D TotM of the type you are discussing a particular implementation of TotM. Traditional D&D grid play is also a particular implementation. Or rather, each version has a had a particular implementation that favored one or the other. Your question to me is the same as, "Now that we've narrowed you down to cars and trucks, which will it be, a Toyota Corrola or a Ford Ranger, since those are your choices?"

The simple fact that it isn't something that DnD has had before makes me highly doubtful that it'll be part of the core rules. There's a rather large contingent of DnD players who dislike adding new kinds of abstractions, and reject things like that as "not DnD".
...

But unless the mechanic is literally "knock someone into something that hurts them" (which would require a lot of abstraction to make sense), then it's just the same as "knock back 10 feet", but more vague, which I don't think solves anything.

It's an example of an agnostic mechanic, between grid and TotM. How precise or abstract you want to make it, and similar mechanics, is another question entirely. On that last part of your quote, I'm not sure you got the import of the example, though. The example is that you don't get so zoned into knocking people into things, that you leave out room for the possiblity that getting people away from you is useful. Find a way to model that in the game, and the problem of grid/TotM translation goes away. You can still knock people into things for even more fun when available, but it is no longer the main focus.

But it's only an example. Name me another place where grid/TotM doesn't translate back and forth very well, and I'll give you another one.