I don't understand Gridless combat. HELP!

[UngeheuerLich]

What we learn in this thread:

we want:

gridless combat possible
grid combat possible
rules light stunts
some cool special maneuvers

designers told us they want to make following things possible

gridless combat possible
grid combat possible
rules light stunts
some cool special maneuvers

seems like they are hitting the nail on the head

I like all kinds of combats, while I prefer gridless combat and creative use of your available tools, be it weapons, alchemic substances, gear you happen to have around (your oil lamp e.g.), enviroment (sand on the ground), spells (burning hands to ignite oil or burn a rope).

But sometimes, more codified actions, and actual positions help a lot (often in big battles or special situations, where positioning is crucial)

 

[Balesir]

What the players are expected to be doing:

1) Roleplaying the character in the gameworld. On the player side this means listening to the DM describe aspects of the environment, exploring said environment via imagination, and asking for more detail when needed to make decisions.

2) Chatting amongst themselves about how they are doing #1.

3) Rolling the dice when it is called for, cracking jokes, eating munchies and having a good time.

OK, thanks - that's getting warmer.

The question left dangling, though, concerns the decisions you speak about (that I have highlighted in bold). What is the purpose of those decisions? What aim(s) should motivate the decisions made?

Unless the rules are horribly written, that answer to that is deadly simple - the players will naturally focus upon the things that will have effect. In 3e and 4e, focusing on relative position had a strong effect on play.

Pretty much the same question as to ExploderWizard: what "effect" is it that is thought to be desirable? Why is that effect being sought?

ExploderWizard talks about "exploration" - and that is a fine aim and, to some extent, inevitable, but do/should things stop there? What other aims and goals should/can players drive toward in roleplaying games?

Far from being a "silly" concern, I think there is a deep vein of underlying motivation running here that is, currently, mostly a mystery (or, at least, deliberately ignored or handwaved away). And I think that understanding that vein better will tell us a lot about what types of roleplaying games we want and need.

 

[ExploderWizard]

OK, thanks - that's getting warmer.

The question left dangling, though, concerns the decisions you speak about (that I have highlighted in bold). What is the purpose of those decisions? What aim(s) should motivate the decisions made?

The purpose of those decisions in a nutshell is to inform the DM where the game is heading. In an open -ended sandbox type of game the players are the primary drivers of the action and largely in charge of what direction the game takes at any given point.

The motivation for these decisions also comes from the players. Do they enjoy kicking in doors and just killing stuff? Do they desire wealth and influence? Are they heroes in search of someone who needs their help?

Players have different favorite aspects of the game. This is why I believe the in-game rewards (mostly XP) should be flexible and the methods for earning such rewards decided by the individual group rather than the system.

Pretty much the same question as to ExploderWizard: what "effect" is it that is thought to be desirable? Why is that effect being sought?

ExploderWizard talks about "exploration" - and that is a fine aim and, to some extent, inevitable, but do/should things stop there? What other aims and goals should/can players drive toward in roleplaying games?

Exploration is the springboard that opens up other types of engagement with the world. Exploring the world yields information that can be used for other goals. The players begin by exploring some portion of the environment. While doing this they learn of people, places, events, and any number of going concerns that they might choose to get involved with.

 

[Li Shenron]

I really need some help here. Can someone give me insight into the reasoning for playing without a map and minis? I ask because I ran a playtest over the weekend and found that I absolutely hated the combat. I've been playing D&D for just about fifteen years now, and used visualizations for combat for all but maybe my first year. Aside from a couple hitches here and there, I found that 4e's tactical combat was extremely enjoyable and exciting on both sides of the table. Running playtest combat was hell, though. I don't see the appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head... especially when the monsters are so terribly bland to begin with. It took all my attention and faculties to just keep track of the basics of what was going on, let alone breathe any kind of flavor or life into the encounters. The end result felt like an old Final Fantasy game instead of anything dynamic and fun. What's so bad about the grid? Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play? Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game? I really am just confused and concerned here... I want to be excited about the new version, but so far the playtest has me feeling more dread than excitement.

You should have simply played the playtesting with a grid.

Nowhere in the playtest rules it is said that the combat is or should be gridless.

In fact, if you read the introduction of the playtesting adventures, it says that you should run the game in the style you like, and then let WotC know if the draft rules supported you well, or otherwise what did you have to change to achieve your favourite style & feel.

You made the mistake of running the game assuming you had to force yourself into another style!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I can already feel this conversation is starting to rattle apart. I'm really sorry if I caused any conflict. I'm not very good a forums stuff, and I know my concerns are silly. Thank you all anyway.

It's not a silly concern at all. It's actually a really good topic of discussion.

My own experience was starting in Basic and AD&D without a mat, playing that way for about 3 or 4 years then getting a Battlemat and playing that way ever since. I know we had a ton of fun and no particular problems without a mat, but I think I'd have a hard time remembering how to play that way today. Going from mat to mat-less without ever having done the latter sounds to me like it would be REALLY hard.

Suggestion #1: Play with a mat if that's what's fun for you.

Suggestion #2: If you want to try mat-less, start doing it with very simple combats - few combatants, short durations, few position based powers. Once you're comfortable with that move on to more complex cases.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I really need some help here. Can someone give me insight into the reasoning for playing without a map and minis? I ask because I ran a playtest over the weekend and found that I absolutely hated the combat. I've been playing D&D for just about fifteen years now, and used visualizations for combat for all but maybe my first year. Aside from a couple hitches here and there, I found that 4e's tactical combat was extremely enjoyable and exciting on both sides of the table. Running playtest combat was hell, though. I don't see the appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head... especially when the monsters are so terribly bland to begin with. It took all my attention and faculties to just keep track of the basics of what was going on, let alone breathe any kind of flavor or life into the encounters. The end result felt like an old Final Fantasy game instead of anything dynamic and fun. What's so bad about the grid? Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play? Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game? I really am just confused and concerned here... I want to be excited about the new version, but so far the playtest has me feeling more dread than excitement.

You can still use the grid. It is a matter of preference. I am glad they are designing the game so it can be played either way. Personally, i like playing without miniatures except when there are too many comvatants to keep tracl of.

 

[Balesir]

You can still use the grid. It is a matter of preference. I am glad they are designing the game so it can be played either way. Personally, i like playing without miniatures except when there are too many comvatants to keep tracl of.

Actually, that reminds me of something that, while it is a fairly recent edition "thing", I think would help with TotM play and was omitted in the playtest materials: swarms. I use swarms a fair bit in 4e to represent lots of low level critters - and it's useful to keep them "relevant" when the party are higher level - but it strikes me that treating some things as such could aid gridless play by reducing the number of "combatants" the GM needs to track.

 

[LordBill]

I really need some help here. Can someone give me insight into the reasoning for playing without a map and minis? I ask because I ran a playtest over the weekend and found that I absolutely hated the combat. I've been playing D&D for just about fifteen years now, and used visualizations for combat for all but maybe my first year. Aside from a couple hitches here and there, I found that 4e's tactical combat was extremely enjoyable and exciting on both sides of the table. Running playtest combat was hell, though. I don't see the appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head... especially when the monsters are so terribly bland to begin with. It took all my attention and faculties to just keep track of the basics of what was going on, let alone breathe any kind of flavor or life into the encounters. The end result felt like an old Final Fantasy game instead of anything dynamic and fun. What's so bad about the grid? Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play? Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game? I really am just confused and concerned here... I want to be excited about the new version, but so far the playtest has me feeling more dread than excitement.

I am comfortable with or without a grid.

I feel however, that it is easier to breathe life into a gridless encounter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I really need some help here. Can someone give me insight into the reasoning for playing without a map and minis? I ask because I ran a playtest over the weekend and found that I absolutely hated the combat. I've been playing D&D for just about fifteen years now, and used visualizations for combat for all but maybe my first year. Aside from a couple hitches here and there, I found that 4e's tactical combat was extremely enjoyable and exciting on both sides of the table. Running playtest combat was hell, though. I don't see the appeal of keeping track of sometimes dozens of creatures in my head... especially when the monsters are so terribly bland to begin with. It took all my attention and faculties to just keep track of the basics of what was going on, let alone breathe any kind of flavor or life into the encounters. The end result felt like an old Final Fantasy game instead of anything dynamic and fun. What's so bad about the grid? Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play? Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game? I really am just confused and concerned here... I want to be excited about the new version, but so far the playtest has me feeling more dread than excitement.

Great news! You're trying something new, and learning. You may learn a new playstyle, and find that once you internalize the rules, the lack of grid is no longer distracting, and the world of gaming combat has opened up. Conversely, you may find that combat is complex, your working memory is limited, and you may build back in the elements that you need (including a grid) to run a combat. Grids aren't forbidden, just an option to be used as needed. Either way you're learning how to run the game better.

 

[Balesir]

The purpose of those decisions in a nutshell is to inform the DM where the game is heading.

So the decisions should be purely strategic level - no smaller-scale decision making?

The motivation for these decisions also comes from the players. Do they enjoy kicking in doors and just killing stuff? Do they desire wealth and influence? Are they heroes in search of someone who needs their help?

OK, suppose they decide they desire wealth and influence - is that it? Or do they decide how the characters go about acquiring such things? Assuming that they do, how do they make those decisions - what are their aims in deciding their characters' approach to achieving those aims?

Players have different favorite aspects of the game. This is why I believe the in-game rewards (mostly XP) should be flexible and the methods for earning such rewards decided by the individual group rather than the system.

Is this based on a presumption that acquiring XP should be an aim and focus for the players?

Exploration is the springboard that opens up other types of engagement with the world. Exploring the world yields information that can be used for other goals. The players begin by exploring some portion of the environment. While doing this they learn of people, places, events, and any number of going concerns that they might choose to get involved with.

That seems to describe exploration leading to more exploration - finding out about other things to explore. But the earlier part of your post spoke about deciding on (what seem to me) more interesting goals; seeking wealth and influence, seeking to help others and so on. I'm interested in what decisions they should (in your view) make in pursuit of these other goals - how much control over the pursuit of such goals should they have?