Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness

[AbdulAlhazred]

Moot point.

As a DM, I can say that the corner of the wall you just moved behind for "cover" is crumbled in despite the bold lines I drew on the grid and doesn't provide the bonus you expected.

As the DM, it's your duty to describe the world and fill in those details on the fly. As a player, it's your job to ask questions that help the DM fill in those gaps. "Would that corner provide me cover?" "Only slightly, it's not a full wall, but a crumbling ruin of one..."

Therefore, the real problem here is not "rigid battlemat play" versus "loose DM rulings". The real problem is description vs. real world cues (battlemats, minis, etc...); and it's something 4E fails completely at.

If Mearls wants to design the perfect 5E, that uses real world cues to segue into the shared fiction, he's going to need to design rules that allow and inspire that.

Part of that is giving DMs guidelines to make rulings based on what is going on in the fiction and the real world.

This is the challenge 4E faces currently, as the combat rules (which use the real world cues the most) poorly translate into a vivid fictional situation that the "loose" rulings favor.

So, the question Mike needs to be asking himself is, "How can I utilize those real world cues to efficiently and effectively translate a vivid fictional situation?"

I think this is false though. 4e never anywhere even hints at any resistance to the DM applying any kind of adjustments to the rules or alternate rulings in any situation where it is warranted. All it does is give you a solid basis for easily handling the 99% of walls that aren't crumbling. The crumbling wall doesn't give cover. Heck there's a default mechanic for that too, it isn't blocking terrain. You can add additional considerations as you like. Maybe the wall collapses if it is hit by an attack. The structured combat rules aren't designed at all to rule out things, they are simply designed to deal with the trivia in a simple fashion and leave you with the creative and interesting stuff. 'Real world cues' are for the DM to devise, no rule system can tell you what to do there. I mean did 1e tell you how to handle a crumbling wall? I don't recall that it did, but we were able to, except we also had to handle all the other walls and corners on our own as well...

 

[P1NBACK]

'Real world cues' are for the DM to devise, no rule system can tell you what to do there. I mean did 1e tell you how to handle a crumbling wall? I don't recall that it did, but we were able to, except we also had to handle all the other walls and corners on our own as well...

Really? No rule system can explain how real world cues contribute to fiction? Wow. Color me flabbergasted.

I've bolded the part of your post that interests me though. If you're able to handle crumbling walls in 4E, then why do you need rules for non-crumbling walls to be concrete?

Again, it doesn't matter what happens on the table - which is why this is a moot point.

What matters is what happens on the table that contributes to what is happening in the fiction.

If there is a rule for the table, that is completely worthless outside of the DM saying, "Yes, it's a solid wall there that I drew" then why are we trying to forge rules that try to focus on that aspect.

That's why I agree with Mike Mearls. Not because "DM rulings" > "Grid rulings" but because there's no such thing as "grid rulings" that don't include a DM ruling.

Yah dig?

TL;DNR version: again, moot point. Let's focus on designing rules that help the DM use real world cues to make DM rulings that they have to anyways.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really? No rule system can explain how real world cues contribute to fiction? Wow. Color me flabbergasted.

I've bolded the part of your post that interests me though. If you're able to handle crumbling walls in 4E, then why do you need rules for non-crumbling walls to be concrete?

Again, it doesn't matter what happens on the table - which is why this is a moot point.

What matters is what happens on the table that contributes to what is happening in the fiction.

If there is a rule for the table, that is completely worthless outside of the DM saying, "Yes, it's a solid wall there that I drew" then why are we trying to forge rules that try to focus on that aspect.

That's why I agree with Mike Mearls. Not because "DM rulings" > "Grid rulings" but because there's no such thing as "grid rulings" that don't include a DM ruling.

Yah dig?

TL;DNR version: again, moot point. Let's focus on designing rules that help the DM use real world cues to make DM rulings that they have to anyways.

Because there are an endless variety of possible situations, but SOME of them come up again and again and again. Why should not there be standard default sensible rules for those common cases? Obviously the rule system can't cover every situation. Your argument is reduced to the absurd by simply taking it to its extreme, why have any rules at all? Obviously because MOST of the time they help you, some of the time they are irrelevant, and now and then you want to toss this or that rule out for a specific situation and do something different. The value of the system is dealing with the common cases and establishing them as benchmarks for the unusual ones.

I mean maybe I'm not getting what you're saying somehow because it isn't actually making much sense to me. It sounds like it boils down to 'all rules just get in the way'.

 

[P1NBACK]

I mean maybe I'm not getting what you're saying somehow because it isn't actually making much sense to me. It sounds like it boils down to 'all rules just get in the way'.

This is probably the case. My comment goes deeper than: "Do we have a rule for cover or not?"

It extends to all rules (rulings) the DM will make over the course of a game session, the crumbling wall/normal wall scenario is simply an example of how this ideology can be distilled into one judgment call.

Or, in other words, the DM must make judgment calls, so give her the tools to do that and quit worrying about concrete rulings to very specific instances "This wall is crumbling vs. non-crumbling".

I hope that makes more sense.

p.s. Really? Most walls in your D&D game aren't crumbling? Your ruined castles and keeps are that well maintained? Right on!

Edited to add: So, I guess I agree with Mike Mearls, however, for different reasons.

 

[The Monster]

For me, a physical layout for a fight is crucial; a picture is worth several thousand words when trying to keep track of four to eight different PCs, plus several NPCs. It's too easy to stumble into misunderstandings about distance, cover, location, etc. That said, it doesn't have to be a rigid battle grid - many games I've played and run (though not 4e) have done fine with little more than a quick sketch.

To a great extent, I find it depends on the rules - some are well suited to a narrative-flow type of action, where it's all description and off-the-cuff - though I've had problems even with that on occasion (I remember the time I snuck up behind some bad guys with a rifle and started shooting, only to have one of them do a kung-fu leap and punch me in one round; to this day, it's never been settled whether the GM imagined me a *lot* closer than I intended, or the guy could just pull off superhuman leaps - I have a strong code against arguing with a GM during a game). The gains in communication, clarity, and consistency to me far outweigh the burden of drawing ind interpreting.

For something as rules-intensive as 4e, with bursts and zones and shifting and so on, I'd find it hard to deal with mere verbal description in any but the simplest of fights. I could see running it (and I've thought about doing this) without a grid, using old-fashioned mini rules: inches and circular bursts, with LOS determined by eyeball, string or laser pointer. Forcing everything into a strictly-defined square grid, with hard corners and the like, is a bit overboard, perhaps, and seems more fodder for rules lawyers/nitpickers than tools for players.

 

[GreyLord]

Here's irony. The ONLY system I ALWAYS use/used Minis with is 3.5 edition. I don't even use Minis all that much for 4e...when I do it's either because I have to at an officially sanctioned event...OR some player requests positioning because they can't do it in their heads or accept that no one's trying to cheat them. So, we do use tokens/minis occasionally in combat in regards to 4e...though typically it's more of reference than in the gameboard manner. They can move the minis or not...as long as they tell me where they moved and what they are doing I have it visualized.

I know...some are thinking bad way to play...but it works for us...has since...well decades.

It's only the 3.5 edition that we constantly always used Minis. Odd isn't it?

4e is off and on. As I said at official events we use minis, and as representations to remind people where they were at the start of a round or what they were doing...we also use them occasionally for 4e. We DO use them in 4e for a particularly big fight, but if it's a simple battle of something like the group vs. 2 or 3 creatures...it's easy enough to handle (and most times quicker) to handle it otherwise. They go in, do their stuff, fell the creature, and move on.

If it will take more than 2-3 rounds, then normally it's requisite that we get the minis out. DM fiat however...and it resolves many things in 4e...I ALWAYS rule in favor of a player as far as movement goes without a grid or minis out. They flank the enemy...I accept that the enemy is flanked. The Rogue repositioned to be behind another enemy or repositioned the enemy to be beside the fighter right before the fighter starts their turn...they did just that.

I suppose I'm more in favor of the DM having guidelines than hard and fast grids in that light.

 

[Ryujin]

Because there are an endless variety of possible situations, but SOME of them come up again and again and again. Why should not there be standard default sensible rules for those common cases? Obviously the rule system can't cover every situation. Your argument is reduced to the absurd by simply taking it to its extreme, why have any rules at all? Obviously because MOST of the time they help you, some of the time they are irrelevant, and now and then you want to toss this or that rule out for a specific situation and do something different. The value of the system is dealing with the common cases and establishing them as benchmarks for the unusual ones.

I mean maybe I'm not getting what you're saying somehow because it isn't actually making much sense to me. It sounds like it boils down to 'all rules just get in the way'.

BINGO!

The vast majority of cases fit a rather standardized scenario. Most walls aren't Swiss Cheese, where cover is concerned. Most times difficult terrain can be assessed as doubling movement cost. Etc., etc., etc.. When the norms don't apply, you can state such. When they do, you can just get on with it.

Having a solid framework, for how things are normally applied, in no way precludes the concept of varying from those norms. It simply creates a useful shorthand, that eliminates the need for questions in the vast majority of situations.

 

[delericho]

I prefer a rules system that can work with or without the grid.

IMO, 4e loses far too much without the grid. 3.5e loses a fair amount, but not quite as much. 3e loses less. (I don't play Pathfinder, so can't comment.)

However, the cover rule was improved from 3.0e to 3.5e, but not because of the "imaginary lines on the grid" - it was the simpliciation from five different levels of cover to two that made the difference.

The "imaginary lines on the grid" rules in 3.5e and 4e are actually really poor rules - although they are definitive, they are not entirely clear (does the creature have cover if I can draw a line through a barrier, or does it only have cover if every line I draw passes through the barrier?), and I don't think all the "imaginary line" rules work the same way (line of sight determination vs cover determination).

To be sure how these work, I would have to look them up every time I used them (sort of like... grapple), or do what I do anyway: handwave. Of course, the moment I handwave, any benefit of a definitive rule is lost.

I will not buy any 5th Edition that is as reliant on the grid as 4e (or even 3.5e).

 

[Jhaelen]

DM uses common sense. This rule alone would save us most discussions.

See The Little Raven's comment - common sense is a myth!

I say, shuck common sense - rule zero baby: The DM's always right!

 

[Balesir]

The "imaginary lines on the grid" rules in 3.5e and 4e are actually really poor rules - although they are definitive, they are not entirely clear (does the creature have cover if I can draw a line through a barrier, or does it only have cover if every line I draw passes through the barrier?), and I don't think all the "imaginary line" rules work the same way (line of sight determination vs cover determination).

FWIW I agree that the 3.5 rules had (at least) one major flaw, but the 4E ones fix that and I find very good indeed for the majority of cases. And, yes, line of sight and cover lines work differently - LoS is blocked by touching obstructions, lines to determine cover aren't. That's the trick that makes the flaws with the 3.5 version go away.

I think The Monster makes a great point; bandwidth by which a player can get the same view of the in-game situation as the DM/GM/other players is a critical advantage of using a grid. How can you plan if your base assumptions about what your character sees and hears may be wrong? Grids don't eliminate this entirely, of course - but they certainly help, in my experience.

On "common sense", hmmm...

"Everybody thinks himself so well supplied with common sense that even those most difficult to please never desire more of it than they already have."
Rene Descartes.