D&D 5E How I ran combat in AD&D - doable in 5e?

[shadowmane]

Well, as I said before, I've never played using minis. I've only ever played roleplaying games (no matter what game) theatre of mind. If I want miniatures, I play Star Fleet Battles (the table game, not the computer game). I just like my gaming with as few accessories as possible.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, as I said before, I've never played using minis. I've only ever played roleplaying games (no matter what game) theatre of mind. If I want miniatures, I play Star Fleet Battles (the table game, not the computer game). I just like my gaming with as few accessories as possible.

It's funny, because the first group I played in (2E, Ars Magica, dabbled in SW) never used minis for anything - I'm guessing mostly because we didn't have any!

My current group (3.XE, PF, Rolemaster, MERPS, etc.) always uses minis - for everything.

 

[Cybit]

When I DM-ed AD&D we didn't do combat with miniatures, usually either just a description or a really quick pencil drawing. I ran with facing, you could move to stop people from moving past you and all that fun stuff. It was more of a simulation than the tactical board game 4e is. A typical example would be if you played a Thief. You couldn't get behind somebody that where aware of you, they would just move back and/or turn.

Combat does get a lot more free-form and throwing a fireball when people where in melee range was not something you did with a light heart.

I am starting to wonder if it would be doable to run it a bit more like that in 5e? Instead of running it on a grid, just do it free-form and use push-backs and similar tactics to actually get behind mobs.

I forsee some problems trying to run it like this. For instance, we usually had some discussions about where peoples characters actually where - or where my monsters where.

On the other hand, you describe what you are trying to do the same way you would describe it when role playing, instead of counting squares and doing small 5' pushes.

Would you play in a game without miniatures where most of the combat is just described in words and sketched quickly on a piece of paper?
- Where mobs close ranks to intercept your run-by out of turn and you need to come up with a reason why you can move past your opponents?
- Where the DM's decision about what is actually happening probably probably weighs a bit more than the players?
- Where simulation takes a front seat to gamist approaches?

Yes. The games I played this weekend were all TotM, especially because we didn't have maps or miniatures.

Simulation vs Gamist; one of the core design tenets of 5E is that the system can be used for both. In previous editions, they've taken "sides" and gone with those sides as a design philosophy, in this edition, they are taking deliberate care to leave both sides completely open and the rules for both versions to be written, to be chosen by the players.

 

[slobo777]

Yes. The games I played this weekend were all TotM, especially because we didn't have maps or miniatures.

Simulation vs Gamist; one of the core design tenets of 5E is that the system can be used for both. In previous editions, they've taken "sides" and gone with those sides as a design philosophy, in this edition, they are taking deliberate care to leave both sides completely open and the rules for both versions to be written, to be chosen by the players.

Simulation vs Gamist is not the same as with or without miniatures. It's almost an entirely separate issue.

4E's grid combat is very gamist. 3.5E's is more simulationist. A simple difference which sums this up nicely is how they count diagonal movement. 3.5E approxiimates actual distances, and 4E doesn't care.

 

[nightwalker450]

Simulation vs Gamist is not the same as with or without miniatures. It's almost an entirely separate issue.

4E's grid combat is very gamist. 3.5E's is more simulationist. A simple difference which sums this up nicely is how they count diagonal movement. 3.5E approxiimates actual distances, and 4E doesn't care.

Along the same line of 3.5's is more gamist by having such rules for a grid, because you're just approximating distances, when you should pull out the ruler and get it correct.

-- Honestly though, I'm on your side here I didn't like how 4e handled squares. But it was a good excuse to get my group to use Hex for everything instead.

 

[D'karr]

Along the same line of 3.5's is more gamist by having such rules for a grid, because you're just approximating distances, when you should pull out the ruler and get it correct.

-- Honestly though, I'm on your side here I didn't like how 4e handled squares. But it was a good excuse to get my group to use Hex for everything instead.

I changed everything to "paces" so it didn't matter at all.

A pace in 1e and 2e was 1 inch indoors, 1 yard outdoors. That was a little weird but I understood the wargame origins so it didn't matter. In 3.x it was 5', and in 4e it was 1 square.

With that change I never had to bother what I used for measuring. It also allowed me disassociate the grid if I wanted to.




-