Miniatures/Grids/Tactics and In-Character Combat

[el-remmen]

If I have heard it once, I have heard it a thousand times on these boards, some people are turned off by the reliance on minis and the grid in 3E (and now the upcoming 4E). Common complaints are that during combat scenes the game is reduced to a tactical mini game where every possible option and optimal movement and positioning must be considered as the group takes on their foes and takes stock of their tactical position - essentially bogging the game down, and sometimes really annoying people when other players tell them what the "best" thing for their character to do is.

Personally, my group never has this problem and we have used minis and grid movement since 2E days. Essentially, we play that all tactical discussion has to be done in-character and speaking can only be done as a free action on your own turn (with a limit of about 5 to 10 words give or take, the DM being finally arbiter of how much you can say, as is the case with the number of any free actions that are allowed to a character).

This means there is no delay while people are polled about what should be done, and no one can start giving broad suggestions. On your action you do what your character would do, that's it. Part of that might include calling suggests (or orders) to others, but if there is any expectation about it being done, it is an in-character one. If you want to wait to hear what someone suggests then you delay (or ready an action if possible). However, this also means that intelligent opponents that understand your language might hear and react to the suggestions being yelled across the battlefield. In addition, when as DM the PCs are facing organized intelligent foes, I have to make sure I have them call out to each other for help and suggestions.

There are other rules we use to foster this. For example, any time you count a box for movement it means you character has moved there, no exceptions.* Also, you choose a target before counting the range, when it comes to missile weapons and spells. We call these our "fog of war rules." In other words, not only can people make mistakes, chances are that in any combat mistakes will be made on either side.

In our experience, this allows for a fun tactical aspect to the game (which I particularly like), but also adds to the drama and allows everyone to play their character as they see fit without the pressure of optimal tactical action. It also draws out the fights making them more interesting and dynamic.

Also, since everything is in-character, the grid and the minis seem to detract less from the inward visualization of the combat. The minis are there to mark characters' places, not to represent a playing piece infused with the powers of a D&D class.

Anyway, I was curious. Does anyone else play this way? I am not sure if in all the years I have been on these boards (8!) that I have seen anyone post that they played in the same fashion or similarly.


* Okay, I lied. The only exception to this is that the DM is immune to this rule. Since he often has to handle many more foes than the players (who generally only have to worry about themselves, or perhaps one or two hirelings or followers), he gets more leeway. However, in my own case, for the sake of expediency, I often just let the mini stand wherever I put it even if I do make a mistake. It is just when I know there is something specific I was going to have them do and I forgot because I had to run 10 other creatures before initiative cycled around again that I take it back and start counting over, or whatever.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I like this and I think I will use a slightly softer version next time I play (people are still learning how their powers work, so I don't want to get too strict on rules discussion yet.)

Fitz

 

[Oryan77]

In addition, when as DM the PCs are facing organized intelligent foes, I have to make sure I have them call out to each other for help and suggestions.

I had a guy who played a couple sessions with us mock me for doing this. I was trying to spice up the roleplaying during combat since they were tactical humanoids and the guy said something like, "Don't you love it when the enemy blurts out what they are going to do next." I think I just had an NPC tell another NPC to flank one of the PCs. This player was just trying to make me look like a dumb DM.

I like the house rules you guys use. I'd consider using the speak on your turn rule but some players aren't the best tacticians so I don't mind the out of game advice even if it's out of turn. But I like your idea.

I had a problem with certain players trying to tell other players what to do during combat. And they'd sit there for 10 minutes trying to figure out the best possible strategy. I don't know how many times I had to say "come on man, what are you gonna do". I went as far as implementing a rule where they can't take a spell template and reposition it until they figure out the perfect location to cast an area spell. Now they have to immediately point at a squares intersection to determine where they center a spell, then lay the template there to see what it hits. I like that so much more and it helped speed things up.

Although the first session I implemented this rule in, the same player that took 10 minutes perfecting his action decided to secretly use a clear area on the battlemat to make a mock floorplan of the current fight and figure out exactly where his area spell should go in order to perfectly hit every NPC & miss every PC. Which yes, it would help speed up combat, but I also wanted to avoid players doing the "perfectly laid out area spell" which he knew. I replaced him with a new player though. If combat still seems slow I might have to use some of your groups rules

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Those rules seem like they'd be too restrictive for my gaming group(s) to enjoy them.

I like to engender all sorts of strategizing, trash-talk, and kibbitzing at the table when I am running. I can often tell, based on the volume-level of said chatter, how much the players are enjoying (or not) the combat, and whether or not I should make some tweaks to make it last longer or go by faster.

Later
silver

 

[el-remmen]

Thankfully for my group everyone either prefers it or can live with and has fun with it. For the most part we all like table top mini games, but we are all also thespians, so even in admonishing each other for a bonehead move (or complimenting the other's tactics or luck), it in character and raises the level of banter.

Out of Character there is still plenty of jokey talk and we get a lot of chants going when the dice are hot, but in terms of saying stuff and making decisions it is all I.C.

 

[Delta]

I like the theory and I've tried to move in that direction in the past, unsuccessfully.

Problem #1 -- I get pushback from at least half my players. "But those aren't actual D&D rules," they'll say. "If that was part of the gameplay they'd be written in the ruleback like Warhammer," (specifically with regard to no-measurement rules, etc.) So, in other words, they demand any table-management restrictions to actually be explicated in the rulebook, and get real negative if I try to enforce other stuff to make it move faster.

Problem #2 -- There's the problem of out-of-character perception questions to the DM. Something like, "Is there a stalactite I can throw a rope around?" or "Are any of the remaining goblins injured?" or "Has my temporary blindness worn off yet?". When I tried to enforce in-character only conversation -- and time limits for actions -- this stuff kept popping up, and I had to ditch those requirements, because here I was spending extra time on OOC chat with the player myself. As soon as that happens, its a whole can of worms aboit what OOC chat is prohibited and what isn't. I honestly could not make it work with my playgroup as long as a battlemap and minis were in front of us.

I must admit that a battlemap and minis drags me down emotionally. I simply could not stop players from counting squares and preplanning movements second-by-second. Even the setting up the battlemap is a big drag. "Surprise! You're ambushed by six wights grabbing at your throat!" .... And now 15 minutes go by with everyone rolling initiative, putting them in order, drawing the playing surface, placing minis, calling Bob back from the kitchen or bathroom, etc

 

[el-remmen]

Problem #2 -- There's the problem of out-of-character perception questions to the DM. Something like, "Is there a stalactite I can throw a rope around?" or "Are any of the remaining goblins injured?" or "Has my temporary blindness worn off yet?". When I tried to enforce in-character only conversation -- and time limits for actions -- this stuff kept popping up, and I had to ditch those requirements, because here I was spending extra time on OOC chat with the player myself. As soon as that happens, its a whole can of worms aboit what OOC chat is prohibited and what isn't. I honestly could not make it work with my playgroup as long as a battlemap and minis were in front of us.

I get asked these kinds of questions as DM whether there is OOC tactical discussion or not, so no matter what time is being save and the sense of immersion in the scene is maintained as much as possible. And also, we are all there around the table looking at the same thing. It is pretty clear when someone is asking an OOC logistical question. No one in my group is trying to get around these rules or anything like that by trying to push at the edges of them or whatever. . . So I never worry about it if there is a slip (or give a friendly reminder - Hell, usually the players are the ones who will say, "Don't say that to me if you don't say it in character" to each other).

I must admit that a battlemap and minis drags me down emotionally. I simply could not stop players from counting squares and preplanning movements second-by-second. Even the setting up the battlemap is a big drag. "Surprise! You're ambushed by six wights grabbing at your throat!" .... And now 15 minutes go by with everyone rolling initiative, putting them in order, drawing the playing surface, placing minis, calling Bob back from the kitchen or bathroom, etc

Yeah, we don't have that problem either. The tactiles are set up on the table before hand and sometimes they are used and sometimes they are not, and I try to have the minis I plan to use for opponents set aside the night before or all placed in the same box, whenever possible.

 

[Lanefan]

First off, to Oryan77: if you don't want spell placement to always be precise to the millimeter, let them declare their target point and then make them roll to aim to hit it.

As for the main topic, my problem is much larger in scope: I don't like the rigid and unrealistic feel of strictly-in-order turn-based combat. I want things such as movement and spellcasting to take measureable time, during which other people can do other things. I want initiative to be rechecked each round, or at least far more often than just once per combat. People should be able to talk in character whenever they want (unless the DM asks them to stop, or they're in Silence). And so on.

An example of one big annoyance I have with a strict turn-based system: say two characters are standing together at position A, and want to move *together* to position C and then attack the enemy from there whenever an opening arises (in game terms, a move-and-attack sequence for each). The higher-init. character holds until the lower init. arrives but the dictates of turn-based rules say they still have to move one at a time! If one is relying on the other for guidance or light to cross the space, say, it can't happen; and no matter what, one character has completed her move and attack sequence before the other has taken a step - even though they both want to move (and maybe attack, but that doesn't matter here) together.

Allowing people to talk only on their own turns only makes this problem worse.

Lanefan

 

[el-remmen]

An example of one big annoyance I have with a strict turn-based system: say two characters are standing together at position A, and want to move *together* to position C and then attack the enemy from there whenever an opening arises (in game terms, a move-and-attack sequence for each). The higher-init. character holds until the lower init. arrives but the dictates of turn-based rules say they still have to move one at a time! If one is relying on the other for guidance or light to cross the space, say, it can't happen; and no matter what, one character has completed her move and attack sequence before the other has taken a step - even though they both want to move (and maybe attack, but that doesn't matter here) together.

But that's why we're human, so we can know when there are instances when the rules need to be fudged to let something that makes sense happen, like two people attacking or moving at the same time.

 

[Woas]

I try really hard to promote rules like the OP uses. Even though it is a free action, speaking should be done on your own turn and in character, not sweating the movement (never tried the "once it's moved, it's moved" though). But in the end its 4 against 1 and if people start talking when not their turn I can only catch them so many times and tell them to stop so many times.
So I say the heck with all these little men on this grid. Just explain to me what you are doing and I'll communicate whats going on. Maybe I'll sketch out the scene on a piece of scratch paper.