Miniless combat - share your approach here

[Mercurius]

There are a few threads on this already, but I was hoping to start a new one that brought together as many different approaches to miniless combat for 4E as we could come up with.

By way of explanation, I'm trying to speed up the game a bit and get to the point where using minis is optional, yet without losing the tactical elements of 4E (streamlining them is ok, just not at the expense of the wealth of options). I wouldn't mind using minis on occasion, but most of our sessions include three combat encounters and I'd like to save the minis for the larger, more intricate situations.

Why, you ask? I suppose I don't like the sense of cognitive displacement that occurs when you leave the collaborative imaginative space and "come down to earth," that is, come down to the battle map or dungeon tiles. I find that it is difficult (for me at least) to retain full immersion in the imaginative realm, or at least I forget to and my focus is largely on the little metal dudes. This is fine for some, but is where I feel D&D becomes too wargamish for me. To put it another way, it seems that both 3E and 4E have become bifurcated experiences: you have the storytelling aspect--the "collaborative imaginative space"--and then you have the wargame. When initiative is rolled, the game turns from one aspect to the other. I don't have a problem with the twofoldness, I just don't like it when they are completely separate. I would rather that the former "enfold" the latter, so that the combat situations arise within the context of the imaginative space, not outside of it.

I honestly can't tell if earlier editions relied on the use of miniatures as much as 4E or 3E; they may have been just as necessary if you wanted to play the RAW (rules as written), but I just didn't do so, especially in my formative years of 1E when we played the RAU ("rules as understood").

OK, for starters, here is Mike Mearls on 4E without miniatures.

My general take, which I've used a few times in quicker combats, is, very simply, to just use my own judgment as DM (imagine that!). This means that we focus on the imaginative space and I, the DM, have to be especially good and diligent about visualizing things. But it really means that I, the DM, have to make judgment calls and they, the players, have to trust my judgment; furthermore I, the DM, have to be open to discussion and be willing to change my mind if a player has a reasoned, intelligent argument; and then then, the players, have to be OK with the DM's final ruling.

So it becomes more a matter of collaborative storytelling with a lead storyteller (the DM), thus requiring a healthy degree of trust and respect.

What about you?

 

[Mercurius]

I'll bump this once and then let if die in no one bites.

 

[Scribble]

I'm trying to think... In truth I have a hard time remembering how we managed in 2e even... I guess there was less of an issue with things like OAs and what not...

 

[LostSoul]

I'm trying to build something that won't require minis (but will still benefit from their use). Actually, it seems like I'm building a big supplement/hack to 4E that will require more attention to game-world details.

It's proving more difficult than I thought!

 

[Mercurius]

I'm trying to build something that won't require minis (but will still benefit from their use). Actually, it seems like I'm building a big supplement/hack to 4E that will require more attention to game-world details.

It's proving more difficult than I thought!

Well unfortunately to do it really well probably involves getting rid of the power system altogether, or at least drastically altering it. I've been dabbling with numerous ideas, mainly of a hybrid D&D that tries to combine the best of all possible worlds (editions) and gets rid of the worst. It has been on the backburner for a few weeks, but I hope to revisit it soon.

But for now, I'm working on a miniless option. I've actually run a few quick combats without minis and felt that nothing was lacking. But this may be due to said combats being tactically quite simple.

 

[LostSoul]

Right now what I'm working on has everyone saying what they're going to do at the start of the round; initiative each round; each round split into segments where certain actions take place (initiative determining the order during those segments); and totally abstracting damage/GP into a handful based on level plus a few modifiers.

(I think combats last a long time for two reasons: NPCs are designed to last through a number of rounds, and players have so many options to consider it takes a long time to decide what to do. Making them all decide at once collapses the decision time into one block, and abstracting HP and damage obviously lowers that.)

What's not working is figuring out how to deal with the simultaneous aspect of actions during each segment.

For example, one PC says "I am charging the orc" and the DM says* "The orc is running away". If the PC wins init does he reach the orc? Where? Does speed and distance matter, and if so, how? What if the DM says, "This other orc is moving to block your charge?" Is he able to? How to figure that out?

I can see a possible way through this morass... conflict resolution. I need to work on it.

* - The DM doesn't actually have to declare actions openly, not unless the PCs do something to read the NPC's intents, but he does scribble them down before the players declare. That's not really needed, but I think it works as a ritual to remind everyone that the DM is not playing favourites.

I did run through a combat the other night by myself. The abstract damage and HP worked well, the combat was over in short order, and the combat was insane and chaotic with characters losing their actions based on what other characters were doing - a constantly shifting situation with powers interacting in unexpected ways. It was pretty neat, though it needs work before it's even ready for play testing.

 

[juboke]

You might find this of interest - 4e Without Miniatures.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Full disclosure before I start: I prefer minis in almost any game I play (Vampire really being the one exception), and used them back when I first started playing my first RPG game, before I even knew about minis (we used dice).

Now, on with my play experience.

I played a 4E game via Skype that did not use minis or a map. What I found was that we, the players, used powers with push/pull/slide less often, and relied on the GM to tell us if other players where in range of things like burst/blast powers (and then moaned aloud when bad guys never seemingly were grouped up despite all attacking the fighter ;p). Sometimes the DM would forget, and we'd have to remind him where certain monsters where just the turn before.

I was frustrated, but not to the point where I would quit playing. I'm not sure I would play this way with strangers, but with friends it is workable because of the trust factor and the fact I could bust the DMs chops every once in awhile about his battle placements.

 

[vagabundo]

If you break it down there are a few reasons why mini/tokens help with combat:

• Interactions with terrain/dungeon dressing
• Reaching and attacking monsters
• Blast/area attacks
• Flanking, and forced movement affects.

That list was pull out of my a.. head. But it should be possibly work up an abstract system, similar to that link above.

EDIT: I've be working on refactoring 4th edition for a more B-DND sytle of play and mini-less combat was to be a part of it. I wanted it for one-shots and the like.