D&D 4E Playing 4E without miniatures and the battle grid.

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Rather than retype it all out, here's what I've said before in a different thread:

I guess I have to ask, what's the point?

One reason for going mini-less is because of a desire not to deal with all the fiddly bits of miniatures. This approach certainly doesn't seem like it's going to be _less_ fiddly, there's just a bunch of additional stuff to keep track of.

I mean, it looks like you still have to track who's in combat with whom, you've got another list to maintain for everyone as to how many TP=Whatever movement, and you need to keep track of how many TP each character/monster has as well. And still try to track conditions, marks, etc.

I run 4E mini-less right now and so far I haven't had a problem. I use an abstract positioning system (taken from a game called Agon by John Harper). You can see the Range Strip (which is the core of the system) here:

http://www.agon-rpg.com/range_strip.pdf

So, ranges are all relative. Someone shows up in a strip and the strip right next to them is Close. If they're in the same strip, they're in Melee. I've got a small magnetic dry erase board with lines drawn on it. Each character's name is written on a small magnet, and then I've got extras to cover foes. I can organise the Initiative order on it and at the same time have the representation needed for who's in what range. Very simple to set up, easy to explain.

Range bands are Melee, Close, Medium, Long, Extreme. I used the ranges of weapons from the PHB, so Extreme is basically max distance of a Long Bow.

Combat Advantage is determined by 2 things: Narrative and number of foes. If the narrative suggests that a foe (or character) wouldn't be aware of something or would be disadvantaged in some fashion, CA is granted. If there's 2+ on a target, CA is granted.

Push/Pull/Slide powers... there's not really a hard and fast rule here. A lot of the time, it's shoving someone around within the same Range Band. As a general rule, if someone is getting shoved around and it's granting Op Attacks, if someone is in the Range Band where an Opp Attack could occur, then they can take the Opp Attack; that's of course assuming that they can make one in the first place.

Funky terrain (like lightning that hangs out in a square or whatever) is handled mainly by narrative. If there's some sort of struggle to get someone/maneuver them into funky terrain, a simple check/opposed check is my standard approach.

I think that covers it.

Obviously there's an element of "trust", but to be honest... there's _always_ an element of trust. You trust that the GM isn't going to screw you over on all sorts of things that they can. So "trust" in the case of mini-less combat is just one more element that people need to acknowledge but not really obsess over. I personally tend to operate on the Rule of Cool sort of thing and if there's a question whether something should favor the foes or the characters, characters win hands-down.

Soooooo.... I'm not saying your system sucks, I'm just not quite sure what problem you're trying to address with it.

Of course, there's also this approach to combat:
Fluid 4e: Gridless Combat.

There's some solid ideas there, especially the Move Save. My ranges are a bit different than what's there, but so far it hasn't been a problem; if need be I can tweak 'em more to match this version later.

I don't actually print the strip out. Like I said, I've got a magnetic dry erase board that I use to keep track of initiative order and monster HP.

It might seem a bit hard to wrap your head around how to initially set up where everyone is, but it's actually pretty simple. There's usually someone that has a darn good idea where they want/need to be; they become the "baseline" if you will.

For example, Bob says "I'm going to melee that sucker". Boom, you're done. Everyone else is basically in relation to Bob and his melee. Folks are hanging back for support, others are headed in to smack stuff around, whatever.

Maneuvering characters/monsters into funky terrain has varied a bit. Usually I go with an opposed roll just to keep things simple.

At the end of the day, it's a judgement call. My first litmus test is, "Is it cool?" If yes, then it's much more likely to happen. Next is, if it's an "even split" between the PCs and the monsters, PCs win.

It's not only possible to do mini/token free, I've done it and hand no problem. Granted it's been at the first Tier so maybe there's funky stuff I'd have issues with later, but so far it's been just fine. Some folks might not _like_ D&D without miniatures, some folks might be the sort that want to argue stuff unless there's no wriggle room for them, or whatever; that's a person problem, not an indication that the game can't be run mini/token free.

And just so my own personal bias is clear: I refuse to run D&D/d20 games with minis. I'm willing to play in them, because so many people love minis, but I can't be bothered with them when I'm running a game. Everyone that shows up to my table knows this, I let 'em know before character creation ever happens.

Hope something there is useful.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I can't imagine playing 4E without some sort of visual representation.

Yes, it does feel like a tactical minis game when combat starts.

That's because its supposed to become a tactical minis game when combat starts.

I'd probably switch systems were I you.

Ummmm... you know, that's _really_ not helpful. Yes, if you were faced with the option of 4E without minis, you'd play a different game. But that's not what the OP asked.

He asked If anyone does, and if they do, How is it done.

If you've done it mini-less and had specific issues, then yeah that can be helpful. Usually the issues people bring up are, "Players get confused because there's so much happening on the battlemat that they can't keep track of it otherwise" or "Things slow down because everyone is constantly asking where everyone else is and where all the monsters are."

Those can be valid issues. They're not insurmountable, but for some people/groups their attachment to miniatures is high enough (for _whatever_ reason) that removing them would be too disruptive to the game.

"Play another system" on the other hand... that just sounds an awful lot like "I don't like how you want to play the game and you should just go away." You might not _intend_ for it to come across that way, but it's kinda hard to know what your intentions are.

 

[giant.robot]

If you want to eschew minis but keep the grid you can stuff a piece of graph paper in a clear poly sheet holder (like for a three ring binder) and draw on it with wet erase markers. Use different color markers for PCs, monsters, and features of the map. I use initials and numbers to keep track of each monster and PC. You can store dozens of maps in a three ring binder and not have to port 4E to a map-less system.

Playing 4E without maps is difficult and more trouble than it's worth. The grid movement/positioning is a good abstraction and abstracting it more is just a hassle.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Play another system" on the other hand... that just sounds an awful lot like "I don't like how you want to play the game and you should just go away." You might not _intend_ for it to come across that way, but it's kinda hard to know what your intentions are.

Yes, it sounds that way, but sometimes it's good advice. D&D, in particular, is a game that people play because of it's history, longevity, and popularity. They don't always play it because it's the best game out there.

On Game Day, one player confided that he only played D&D because he couldn't find a group willing to play anything else. It's not nearly the first time I've heard the complaint.

There are some very good systems out there, some of them with very nearly the longevity of D&D, but people who are having issues with D&D may not have heard of them, let alone realize that they are a better fit for their style. I know we're all D&D fans here, but if someone genuinely doesn't like the game we all love, they deserve a hint that there are other alternatives out there they might like better.

I'm going to throw out FATE (from Spirit of the Century) as a for instance. No grids or detailed forced movement there, and it's been very well-recieved.

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, I have been using some kind of maps/hexes/grids and miniatures/tokens, even for systems which strict movement distance and such are not so important in combat rules.

Why? Because it makes much easier for the participants of the game to share each scene's image and situation.

RPG is played by a DM and multiple players. Sharing the same concept is very important to participate in the same story. For me, maps and miniatures (or similar tools) are not just for tactical combats, but also are very useful tools for sharing the same world with the others.

 

[P1NBACK]

Yes, it sounds that way, but sometimes it's good advice. D&D, in particular, is a game that people play because of it's history, longevity, and popularity. They don't always play it because it's the best game out there.

On Game Day, one player confided that he only played D&D because he couldn't find a group willing to play anything else. It's not nearly the first time I've heard the complaint.

There are some very good systems out there, some of them with very nearly the longevity of D&D, but people who are having issues with D&D may not have heard of them, let alone realize that they are a better fit for their style. I know we're all D&D fans here, but if someone genuinely doesn't like the game we all love, they deserve a hint that there are other alternatives out there they might like better.

I'm going to throw out FATE (from Spirit of the Century) as a for instance. No grids or detailed forced movement there, and it's been very well-recieved.

Gotta agree with Tony and the poster above. Sometimes a different game is what you need. Everyone wants to play D&D because of the hype and popularity. But, sometimes it's a better idea to play a different game.

I'd recommend:

The Shadow of Yesterday - The best free game ever.
Dungeon World - A free hack of Apocalypse World.
Red Box Hack - Another freebie and the Old School Hack based on it. Old School Hack has a strong community that is present right now and dedicated to improving the game.
DungeonSlayers - A great free game.
Some people seem to like Dungeon Squad.

The aforementioned Agon is great. But costs money. Also in the pay to play category are Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard.

There's also the many, many OSR games that try to recreate OD&D (which you can play nicely without minis). Of those, I'd recommend the free ones, and notably Red Box Fantasy and White Box Swords & Wizardry. You could throw OSRIC, Dark Dungeons, etc... in there too.

 

[The Human Target]

Ummmm... you know, that's _really_ not helpful. Yes, if you were faced with the option of 4E without minis, you'd play a different game. But that's not what the OP asked.

He asked If anyone does, and if they do, How is it done.

If you've done it mini-less and had specific issues, then yeah that can be helpful. Usually the issues people bring up are, "Players get confused because there's so much happening on the battlemat that they can't keep track of it otherwise" or "Things slow down because everyone is constantly asking where everyone else is and where all the monsters are."

Those can be valid issues. They're not insurmountable, but for some people/groups their attachment to miniatures is high enough (for _whatever_ reason) that removing them would be too disruptive to the game.

"Play another system" on the other hand... that just sounds an awful lot like "I don't like how you want to play the game and you should just go away." You might not _intend_ for it to come across that way, but it's kinda hard to know what your intentions are.

DnD 4E (and 3E) is an incredibly minis focused game.

There are a bunch of other games that aren't.

If you don't like minis, why not play another game that better fits your groups play style?

Playing 4E without minis seems like a real hassle to me.

The stuff you have to do in your 4E game to avoid using tactical combat doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

[The Human Target]

If you want to eschew minis but keep the grid you can stuff a piece of graph paper in a clear poly sheet holder (like for a three ring binder) and draw on it with wet erase markers. Use different color markers for PCs, monsters, and features of the map. I use initials and numbers to keep track of each monster and PC. You can store dozens of maps in a three ring binder and not have to port 4E to a map-less system.

Playing 4E without maps is difficult and more trouble than it's worth. The grid movement/positioning is a good abstraction and abstracting it more is just a hassle.

Yeah, this is an excellent idea that is a much faster way to go "tactical."

We did stuff like this in 3E and it helped a lot.

 

[Melkor]

Thanks for the replies folks.

To be honest, I have tried twenty or more different fantasy systems over the last 25+ years of gaming, and while there are some that I absolutely love (Rolemaster, MERP, Runequest), none of those games have the 'flavor' of D&D that I like, and I have found that even when my gaming group tries to bring D&D elements (monsters/races/settings) into those other games, they just didn't 'feel' the same to us.

I have played every edition of D&D except OD&D, and in doing so, I've found that there are certain things I like about the rules, and certain things I do not enjoy. Most of my gaming group feels the same way, but there are one or two exceptions.

We all love the options that the 3rd edition opened up, but felt like things became overly complicated and slowed down. We love that 4E seems to have streamlined a lot of things and introduced some great new ideas.

For the most part, we also agree that there seems to be a disconnect when the miniatures and game mat comes out, and that (for us, and I can only speak for us) tactical, grid-based combat "interrupts the flow of the story."

That said, we have had some amazingly fun combats using the grid-map and minis over the years, and we would probably keep using them for epic battles.

What we do not enjoy is that combat, when it becomes such a tactical exercise, slows the game down to the point where one entire 3 hour session can be taken up by one major combat. In AD&D and 2E, we were able to plow through 4 or 5 combats, and a good deal of story, in the same amount of time.

"Then why not go back to AD&D?" You might ask? That's something we do for fun from time to time, but we LIKE the skills systems in 3.5, and even moreso in 4E...and we like the options available during character creation in those systems.

So, in summary, I'm really just asking those of you have tried 4E without miniatures to let me know how it went, how you handled it, and what tips you have to pull it off successfully.

Thanks!

 

[P1NBACK]

For the most part, we also agree that there seems to be a disconnect when the miniatures and game mat comes out, and that (for us, and I can only speak for us) tactical, grid-based combat "interrupts the flow of the story."

That said, we have had some amazingly fun combats using the grid-map and minis over the years, and we would probably keep using them for epic battles.

What we do not enjoy is that combat, when it becomes such a tactical exercise, slows the game down to the point where one entire 3 hour session can be taken up by one major combat. In AD&D and 2E, we were able to plow through 4 or 5 combats, and a good deal of story, in the same amount of time.

Another option, and something I've done in my games, is use a Skill Challenge format for combat instead of a full blown combat. You can do this without the grid, allow people to use their powers and track HP and all that, but it's more abstract. Allow skill checks to do things for the party to gain bonuses (like, acrobatics or athletics to get into flanking position) or something.

Ultimately, it's going to take a little work. If you're dead set on 4E without the grid, like I said, I'd check out LostSoul's "Fiction First" hack.