Scared about squares

[Revinor]

So I don't see why it would be any harder to adjudicate or describe 4e than any other version of D&D.

1) Shift from single-big-monster fights to group-of-opponents fights. With single opponent, it is a lot easier to keep positioning in mind and describe it in terms of close/in-range/out-of-range

2) A LOT of powers which are expressed in terms on board results. In previous editions, with exception of bull rush, powers were mostly defined by hp damage/special damage/conditions. In 4e, major part of powers is slight board position changes - if you cut this element, you will heavily unbalance the powers. In 3e, if you were in combat range with enemy, only important thing was if you are flanking it or not. With 4e, you suddenly have to be fully aware about who is next to each other in exact number of squares - richer rules, more detailed info you require.

3) Powers defined by 'coolness' instead of 'simulation'. I have a strong feeling that in 3e, designers were thinking about character/monster concept, thought about powers in terms of descriptions and then tried to find mechanics for it (which was sometimes painful with limitations of the system). With 4e, it seems that first there is a general concept, then mechanics and only then trying to find out how/why the monster can do it. And if the last part fails, who cares - effect is still mechanically cool. With boardgame it is not a problem - you think in term of squares. With narrating combat, you will have to came up with a lot of cheesy explanations for various power effects.


Basically it all comes to one point - more rules, harder are things to narrate. If, instead of entire fight, we would just flip the coin to see entire encounter result, narration could go really well. Depending on your style, you could involve the players inputs in it, or not. With small amount of abstract rules (like 2nd ed was), you roll few times and then describe entire outcome in the way you want, as long as the result is similar to one given by dice. With bit more rules (like 3e), it is already quite hard to follow everything in mind - but you can do few shortcuts, which have very small mechanical effect, to cut the complexity down (and shift the focus from rules to narration). With 4e, amount of boardgame relates rules seems to cross certain treshold, where streamlining combat by ignoring positioning details will completly kill the system.

I agree, to play 3e _exactly_ you required a board. But with cutting just 5% of rule details during given combat, you could go without it, enriching your narration. With 4e, you will need to probably cut 50% of the rules to go without a board, to the point of being completly inconsistent mechanically. On top of that, you get the powers which are often hard to narrate due to gamist instead of simulationist design.

 

[hong]

Well, if you don't want to use squares, you could use hexes instead.



What?

 

[MichaelK]

Since the people who are saying, "well, if you weren't using squares before you'll be fine without them now" seem to mostly consist of people who only ever play using squares, I'm frankly not sure what their opinion is worth. Game designers or not.

I will wait until I see the book myself before I make up my mind.

 

[D'karr]

1) Shift from single-big-monster fights to group-of-opponents fights. With single opponent, it is a lot easier to keep positioning in mind and describe it in terms of close/in-range/out-of-range

Okay so you are saying that before 4e, you never had big fights. Your combats consisted of only 4-6 adventurers against a single monster, and you don't want to keep track of multiple opponents.

Then pit your party against elite or solo monsters.

2) A LOT of powers which are expressed in terms on board results. In previous editions, with exception of bull rush, powers were mostly defined by hp damage/special damage/conditions. In 4e, major part of powers is slight board position changes - if you cut this element, you will heavily unbalance the powers. In 3e, if you were in combat range with enemy, only important thing was if you are flanking it or not. With 4e, you suddenly have to be fully aware about who is next to each other in exact number of squares - richer rules, more detailed info you require.

Well I guess that your characters never used spells that had effects like cones or area burst either. It is pretty important to keep in mind where your opponents and allies are in those cases. If you were able to keep track of who was flanking pre-4e. I'm pretty sure that you can use the same mechanism to determine who is adjacent or not. Maybe just saying, I'm adjacent or flanking, etc. will continue to work the same way.

3) Powers defined by 'coolness' instead of 'simulation'. I have a strong feeling that in 3e, designers were thinking about character/monster concept, thought about powers in terms of descriptions and then tried to find mechanics for it (which was sometimes painful with limitations of the system). With 4e, it seems that first there is a general concept, then mechanics and only then trying to find out how/why the monster can do it. And if the last part fails, who cares - effect is still mechanically cool. With boardgame it is not a problem - you think in term of squares. With narrating combat, you will have to came up with a lot of cheesy explanations for various power effects.

Oh, so how did you handle the "cool" spells before? Most of the powers have effects that are incredibly similar to what spells where in 3e.

Basically it all comes to one point - more rules, harder are things to narrate. If, instead of entire fight, we would just flip the coin to see entire encounter result, narration could go really well. Depending on your style, you could involve the players inputs in it, or not. With small amount of abstract rules (like 2nd ed was), you roll few times and then describe entire outcome in the way you want, as long as the result is similar to one given by dice. With bit more rules (like 3e), it is already quite hard to follow everything in mind - but you can do few shortcuts, which have very small mechanical effect, to cut the complexity down (and shift the focus from rules to narration). With 4e, amount of boardgame relates rules seems to cross certain treshold, where streamlining combat by ignoring positioning details will completly kill the system.

Got it, you think that 4E is a boardgame. Okay, it's your opinion. It might be wrong but you're entitled to it.

I agree, to play 3e _exactly_ you required a board. But with cutting just 5% of rule details during given combat, you could go without it, enriching your narration. With 4e, you will need to probably cut 50% of the rules to go without a board, to the point of being completly inconsistent mechanically. On top of that, you get the powers which are often hard to narrate due to gamist instead of simulationist design.

Got it gamist good. Simulationist bad. 4e is a boardgame because it uses one or the other or neither.

 

[D'karr]

Since the people who are saying, "well, if you weren't using squares before you'll be fine without them now" seem to mostly consist of people who only ever play using squares, I'm frankly not sure what their opinion is worth. Game designers or not.

I will wait until I see the book myself before I make up my mind.

See you're just like me. Only my opinion matters to me...

 

[Zimri]

Since the people who are saying, "well, if you weren't using squares before you'll be fine without them now" seem to mostly consist of people who only ever play using squares, I'm frankly not sure what their opinion is worth. Game designers or not.

I will wait until I see the book myself before I make up my mind.

We don't normally use a battlemat at our gaming table, mainly because our gaming table IS the living room with everyone on couches, the floor, standing, getting Mt Dew or snacks etcetera. Even when we are at the kitchen table the space that could be the battlemat usually has books or food or both on it.

I agree with others that have said immersion for us comes up lacking with a mat.

That having been said the 4e rules don't look much harder to me. We have plenty of combat now where it's the party vs more than the party in enemies and quite honestly the "If you attack this guy I can give you a plus 5 bonus then if/when he dies I can slide you over to this guy to flank with the rogue" doesn't sound overly complex.

Looks to me EXACTLY like "if you could manage it in 3.x you can manage it in 4"

 

[MichaelK]

See you're just like me. Only my opinion matters to me...

I apologize, I phrased that more rudely than I should have. I was more referring to the designers though.

Looks to me EXACTLY like "if you could manage it in 3.x you can manage it in 4"

Well perhaps you've seen more of the game than I have, I hadn't thought enough was released to say either way personally. (Then again I wasn't at the DDXP and haven't kept up with the previews as well as I could have).

 

[Rykaar]

We don't normally use a battlemat at our gaming table, mainly because our gaming table IS the living room with everyone on couches, the floor, standing, getting Mt Dew or snacks etcetera. Even when we are at the kitchen table the space that could be the battlemat usually has books or food or both on it.

I agree with others that have said immersion for us comes up lacking with a mat.

That having been said the 4e rules don't look much harder to me. We have plenty of combat now where it's the party vs more than the party in enemies and quite honestly the "If you attack this guy I can give you a plus 5 bonus then if/when he dies I can slide you over to this guy to flank with the rogue" doesn't sound overly complex.

Looks to me EXACTLY like "if you could manage it in 3.x you can manage it in 4"

I'm curious when you do a party vs party fight how you keep track of even relative positioning so you can use sliding and moving mechanics. I feel like at some point somebody is noting positions in at least general terms on something other than their mind's eye. Personally, I would find that as cumbersome or moreso than just using minis, but that's just me. Or maybe I'm wrong and you all just have phenomenal visualization skills.

Perhaps the issue is that you don't want to lose the aspect of the game where your mind is forced to detail the battle, and looking at plastic avatars of your characters cheapens that mental picture. I think one solution then is to simply not use minis, use counters that only have names on them, not even illustrations. Hell, use your Mountain Dew cans for the party and some other soda for the baddies--that way everyone can see the markers from distant couches.

Also, consider skipping the grid, and just put these counters in relative proximity, and move them in relative distances based on the ongoing action. That way your minds aren't channelled along gridlines, but you still have a better concept of where each person is standing. You can thumb your nose at the 1-2-1-2 vs 1-1-1-1 debate then as a bonus.

You might want to try this before contorting your brains to make the precision of 4e combat work without minis. And definitely try it before dismissing 4e outright, assuming it has appeal to you.

 

[Ricochet]

Thanks for all the replies. I listened to the podcast and read all this, and I've become less scared of squares from reading it.

However, to all the questions about "How do you figure out the cone area.." etc, well, we merely ask the GM/comminucate, consider stuff through talking and visualizing, as opposed to moving minis, so thats not ever an issue (as long as there is trust in the GM of course, but that isnt an issue for us).

 

[Revinor]

Okay so you are saying that before 4e, you never had big fights. Your combats consisted of only 4-6 adventurers against a single monster, and you don't want to keep track of multiple opponents.

You asked what makes 4e harder to play without a board. 4e is more focused on big fights, big fights are harder without a board, so 4e is harder without a board. I have never said there were no big fights in 3e, I just said they were less common.

[/QUOTE]
Well I guess that your characters never used spells that had effects like cones or area burst either. It is pretty important to keep in mind where your opponents and allies are in those cases. If you were able to keep track of who was flanking pre-4e. I'm pretty sure that you can use the same mechanism to determine who is adjacent or not. Maybe just saying, I'm adjacent or flanking, etc. will continue to work the same way.
[/QUOTE]

For the cones/bursts, you can just describe the situation to the wizard (you can hit A and B, or ABC but also your friend Z) and he can decide. In fact, I have mostly ruled that you were not able to aim the fireball on two normal sized combatants in melee to affect only one of them (which is trivial with board, but would be horribly hard in real dynamic combat) - but this is not important here. As for the adjacent as flanking - sure, just instead of tracking 2-3 variables (as flanking was not being on the opposite square, but result of the action "I flank him so my friend is on the other side"), there will be 10-15 variables (who is adjacent to whom in combination of 5 players versus 5 monsters). Not impossible, just harder.

Oh, so how did you handle the "cool" spells before? Most of the powers have effects that are incredibly similar to what spells where in 3e.

Sure, but there is small difference between 6th level 3e spells using arcane energy and 4e 2nd lvl goblin powers using small harpoon or shouting really hard at enemy.

Got it gamist good. Simulationist bad. 4e is a boardgame because it uses one or the other or neither.

Not really. 4e is a boardgame, because it requires a board to get even basic support for the combat, while many other systems, including 3e, allow quite advanced board-less combat, with minimum amount of house rules.
Having powers driven by game needs instead of 'simulation', make it harder to narrate the combat (while making it a lot more interesting to play on the board at the same time).

And just to let you know - I love boardgames and I would be more than happy to play/DM 4e games with board-base combat and RPG between the combats. I'm just scared that this switching will decouple the character-in-rpg from miniature-on-board in everybody's minds a lot more than 3e character-in-rpg versus character-in-combat. And I think that boardless 4e is a harder to pull out that boardless 3e. Not impossible, harder.