Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Monster" data-source="post: 5473315" data-attributes="member: 69516">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.</blockquote>

Verification