Scared about squares

[Will]

I've played 3.5e online a bunch without using a map. Though I've taken to using one when I run scenes that the players don't see, simply so I can help keep my statements consistent. I feel free to tweak positions to make more sense or to favor PC misunderstandings when they happen, and things work out fine.

I like having SOME map in combat, regardless of system. I used to run nearly systemless games, and during combat, 'bandwidth' issues became problematic: I could only describe so much, so fast; the number of options were immense; and the importance of decisions often hinged on positions and terrain.

Granted, at that point I resorted to blackboards (since we were gaming at college).

Well, "Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the target cannot shift if at least two of your allies (or you and one ally) are adjacent to it." has several tactical elements to it that seems to imply a battlemap and lots of detailed positioning. Perhaps I have a lower threshold for seeing this than others do, but to me, that wording could be taken right out of a tabletop wargame, which to me is not how I like my role-playing games.

Really? I don't see any positioning detail at all. Essentially, 'the target cannot make small steps/movements if two or more of your group are on him.'

From a descriptive point of view, allies in melee with a target should be pretty clear. Also from a descriptive point of view, 'shift' is just a quick step away from someone, or coming around someone so they aren't fighting two at once, or...

Even if you don't want to use fiddly 'shifts,' the general message of 'your target can't adjust position while two of us are on him' is pretty straightforward.


Maybe there are worse examples, but this one seems pretty compatible with mat-less gaming.

 

[D'karr]

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.

Like I said, you can still use elite and solo monsters so that you can keep a more comfortable ratio of opponents.

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.

If you did this with 3.5 nothing prevents you from doing the same with 4E.

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.

The only difference is in effect. If the 6th level spell affected several creatures and you successfully adjudicated it without a grid, using 3.5 rules. I don't see what difference a 2nd level power that affects a single target would pose that would prevent you from adjudicating it.

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.

That is a matter of opinion and not really supported by what has happened with the game in all editions. I remember vividly the cries of miniatures game that thundered across the interwebs when 3.0 and mostly 3.5 came out. Obviously that was just another case of overreacting, since quite a few people still play without minis and are able to cope rather handily with the gridless environment.

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).

So what you are saying is that you currently can adjudicate spells without a grid but powers are too gamist and don't "simulate" what you want in a game. Do you have trouble simulating spells in combat without a board? Because if you don't your argument does not have much validity. What do spells "simulate?"

That is fine, but that does not remove the possibility that 4e is just as easy to play without a grid as previous versions. If you had problems doing gridless combat with the other versions those problems probably still remain in this version. If you didn't, then nothing changes.

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.

Sorry, I don't see the disconnect. For those that had no problems before, the new game does not change anything in a way that all of a sudden your imagination can not cope with.

D&D had its roots in wargames and miniatures battles. Most of the effects that a "magic-user" could do where in direct relation to how "Artillery" worked in those games. If you were able to handle the complexities of combat in 3e, the edition that most closely went back to the D&D wargaming roots, then I can't see what the fuzz is about.

And the cries of "it's too gamist" or "simulationist" or "narrativist usually don't ring true. The three labels are mostly used to infer that whatever style of gaming the "labeller" is not; is somehow inferior. I don't buy it.

 

[BeauNiddle]

To my mind 4th ed is easier to run withOUT a map since the players have to explain what they are trying to do.

I force the goblin back with my shield so he falls in the fire. I slide the hobgoblin over to his friends so there is a group for the mage to get. I throw the orc back into the bookcase.

Then it's up to the DM to adjudicate how effective those tactics are. If you're using a map I've found the players are a lot quieter about what their intents are and so it's harder to reward them for nice plans (as opposed to lucky plans). It also allows the DM to flex dimensions for a better story - 'The orc flies back into the bookcase, slumping down as scrolls cascade onto him' as opposed to the 'sorry it's 2 squares away and you can only slide them one square'

No how to adjudicate it FAIRLY is much harder without a map but that's always been the case.

 

[Zimri]

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.

you misunderstand.. likely because I could have been clearer.

I personally love 4e. It sounds amazing. I don't think it will be any harder to play without a mat in 4e than it was to play without one in 3.X, and I plan on picking it up eventually and my group will do what we did with 3e to 3.5 slowly change over time

An encounter starts initiative is rolled generally at this point with our party build (no arcane caster and a melee cleric) it works out to "fluff text about room" "number of creatures and anything that distinguishes one or more from the rest" "party briefly discusses who should kill what/what should die first/who will flank with who" "pc/npc close and attack if close enough or move toward intended target in initiative order" My target dies I ask "can i move to a position to help (the most hurt usually) party member on my next turn" At this point thats really as complex as we get add in "to do that you move through this npcs square because he is between you and where you want to be so tumble or take the aoo"

If we are going to be in a combat that could span multiple rooms and events our dm has a program she uses to draw a revealable map on the computer and outputs that to the tv, it has counters and what not for the participants.

so yeah I think it'll work just as well with 4e as it worked with 3.5 without much more need for complexities. we'll find a way workable for us to deal with terrain and traps.

 

[Kordeth]

Dirt-simple conversion to run 4E without minis or a board:

There are 4 ranges you need to worry about: melee, close, short, and long. A single move action allows you to close or open your range to a particular creature by one category.

Melee range means you can make melee attacks against the target. You provoke OAs for making ranged attacks at this range.

Close range means you can reach the target with the expenditure of a single move action or a charge. You suffer no penalty to ranged attacks at this range, regardless of weapon.

Short range means you can reach the target with a double-move or a run.

Long range means it would take you two rounds worth of full movement to reach the target. Beyond long range, a creature is not considered to be "in combat."

All ranged weapons have a range of close, short, or long. You can target any enemy within that range category or closer at no penalty, and enemies one range category beyond that at a -2 penalty (or whatever the 4E long-range penalty is, I don't recall).

Reach loses its specific range; a creature with reach can effectively engage a creature without reach in melee combat from close range.

Powers that shift, slide, push or pull a target are converted to the same range categories--if you can push an enemy 4 squares by the RAW, for example, you can instead push that target to close range. An exact conversion is left to the individual DM.

Exceptionally fast creatures (those with a Speed of, say, over 12 squares) can move two range categories per move action.

Area effects (bursts, blasts, or zones) have a size of Small (target up to two creatures within the same range category), Medium (target up to four creatures all of whom are within one range category of each other), or Large (target up to six creatures all of whom are within two range categories of each other). For example, a Close area burst Small targets up to two creatures in the Close range category, while a Short area burst Medium can hit up to four creatures who may be at Close and Short ranges, or at Short and Long ranges.

There you go--it's abstract as hell, but you're playing a tactical skirmish-based combat system without any sort of markers or concrete positioning, you can live with abstraction. Best of all, you can convert powers on a case-by-case basis as needed. If the party fighter never learns the Diamond Rhinoceros Enema attack, you don't need to worry about converting it. There are probably weird edge-cases that will arise, but considering I whipped this up in 15 minutes, I think it's pretty decent.

 

[Zimri]

Just to add since I missed the question in Rykarr's post.

It really is mostly mind's eye, we've been gaming together for nigh on 20 years now so being sure we are all "on the same page" as to the situation is really quite simple.

"as you burst through the door to the north you see 8 kobolds celebrating a kill, there are strewn body parts, a worktable, and a furnace, one of the kobolds grabs a piece of corpse and tosses it into the furnace with a maniacal giggle, the rest turn to face the sound of your arrival"

"the room is x by y the work table is approximately in the middle there are three kobolds on each side and two by the furnace which is in the middle of the northren wall. there are doors to the east and west roll initiative"

Crusader "I'm heading to the closest critter on the left side Someone eventually come flank please"

Ranger " Awesome I hate kobolds can I move to flank"

Dm "Sure but you'll take an aoo"

Ranger "No worries it's worth it"

Paladin and Melee Cleric "Well left looks crowded lets go right"

Rogue "Hmm that one is injured I'll tumble into a flanked position with it"

Next round

Crusader "Hmmm the rogue isn't looking good I use the power of my stance to heal her a little she's close enough right ?"

and so on.

A mat may have made sure we asked fewer questions but we got by just fine without it. I edited out more of the talky bits so it sounds more tactical than it was but that was from an encounter last night. The time we spent in questions would have been used counting squares instead. I haven't seen anything from 4e yet that makes our style seem untenable.

 

[Hussar]

I just received my old Basic D&D books from storage and have been sauntering down memory lane by rereading them. Funnily enough, it actually advises DM's to skip ranges and call everything out in squares when talking about mapping.

The more things change.

 

[jaelis]

I just received my old Basic D&D books from storage and have been sauntering down memory lane by rereading them. Funnily enough, it actually advises DM's to skip ranges and call everything out in squares when talking about mapping.

Heck, in the old D&D, the scale of a square depended on whether you were inside or outside at the time.

 

[HeinorNY]

The more things change.

Was diagonal movement 1-2-1-2 or 1-1-1-1?

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

Except Dave Noonan in the podcast specifically said he did run multiple games without a mat. I also mostly play without a mat, as I so grumpily mentioned in the other thread I linked to in the second post. In fact most of the people who play with mats in that thread were going "how do you play 3.x without a mat?" not "pff, I'm sure it'll be fine".

I agree, we've played with and without mats, and while I like mats, I agree that they're not necessary, and I don't see them being necessary in 4e, although I can see not using them making combat less interesting. things like "move a character 5 feet" just become "move a character out of melee", and people take them less.

I honestly don't think the Warlord would be horribly nerfed, Pin the Foe and the Charging power look fine in a matless environment.

Although I do agree that we'll have to wait and see to see how much effort it requires.