Things I hate

[jdavis]

If you are now trying to to say that you were not implying that your form of gaming is superior, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, you are still wrong.

You and I could describe the same situation in each of our games.

My description is held to an objective standard and therefore must be more accurate.

Your description will never be anything more than 100% imagination. Without a standard, you are not forced to learn anything.

Now I will not say that makes my way better or that my way teaches you more. But it certainly doesn't teach you one tiny bit less.

Oh, and I really learned to describe things well when I started playing GURPS with some people back in high school. They and their grids brought a cool level of depth, decription and cool tactics to the game that I had never experienced prior to that.

I'd like to jump in and point out that a accurate discription and a good discription are not always the same thing, science books tend to give very accurate discriptions but that doesn't mean that they give interesting discriptions. Imagination is the key to the game, you are role playing a ficticional person you made up, the whole game is based on your imagination. I really don't care if you use a grid or not (it is a personal preference thing, no one side is any better than the other) but if you are discribing things based on room diminsions and not room content then you are missing the point of a good discription. You want the players to be able to close their eyes and picture how a room looks in their head, you want the players to feel like they are interacting with the room, you don't want the players to feel like they are sitting in Physics class in school. Whether you use the grid or not the game is played in your players heads and if your just flopping a grid down and saying the room looks like this and are not discribing how it looks then your going to end up worrying more about game mechanics than imagination. I think that was the point that was trying to be made, a lot of people get tied down in the mechanics and rules of the game and loose track of the storytelling part of the game, a DM needs to be able to weave a good story together and get that across so the players can picture the setting in their heads not on a grid map. A good DM needs to have the same discriptive powers of the author of a good fantasy book not the discriptive powers of a high school calculus teacher. Using a grid or not doesn't change the fact that the game is played in your head, it's all a big fantasy that the players and the DM are making up. The grid is just a measuring tool, like a ruler or a protractor, it's just a tool to help people measure out size and distance.

 

[Gort]

Imagine this situation.

You're a DM, but you're also a talented artist. You draw pictures of every place that your PCs go and of every room, so they get the best possible idea of what the places look like.

A grid's just a very basic form of that. Sure, you can argue that it requires less imagination if you describe it all, but is that really what's important? If I could, I'd put my players in a virtual reality representation of my world - it's still just as good a story, and if it helps them roleplay and feel immersed, who cares if it doesn't "challenge their imagination" or some such?

And does it really remove THAT much from your descriptions that you don't have to say stuff like, "You're at the south edge of the room, the nearest Imperial soldier is sixty-five feet away, just out of charge range, and there are seven of them?"

I would say a grid is a great aid to description. I'm just trying to get across the best possible view of my world to my players, and if a grid helps me do that without any real drawbacks, I'm gonna use it.

 

[BryonD]

I'd like to jump in and point out that a accurate discription and a good discription are not always the same thing, science books tend to give very accurate discriptions but that doesn't mean that they give interesting discriptions. Imagination is the key to the game, you are role playing a ficticional person you made up, the whole game is based on your imagination. I really don't care if you use a grid or not (it is a personal preference thing, no one side is any better than the other) but if you are discribing things based on room diminsions and not room content then you are missing the point of a good discription. You want the players to be able to close their eyes and picture how a room looks in their head, you want the players to feel like they are interacting with the room, you don't want the players to feel like they are sitting in Physics class in school. Whether you use the grid or not the game is played in your players heads and if your just flopping a grid down and saying the room looks like this and are not discribing how it looks then your going to end up worrying more about game mechanics than imagination. I think that was the point that was trying to be made, a lot of people get tied down in the mechanics and rules of the game and loose track of the storytelling part of the game, a DM needs to be able to weave a good story together and get that across so the players can picture the setting in their heads not on a grid map. A good DM needs to have the same discriptive powers of the author of a good fantasy book not the discriptive powers of a high school calculus teacher. Using a grid or not doesn't change the fact that the game is played in your head, it's all a big fantasy that the players and the DM are making up. The grid is just a measuring tool, like a ruler or a protractor, it's just a tool to help people measure out size and distance.

And I would counter that an interesting description is even better if it is also accurate.

The anti-grid side keeps insisting that people get "tied down in the mechanics" or put "wargaming" ahead of "role-playing". This is certainly true in some cases. But IME it is a very small minority.

Why do you say "A good DM needs to have the same discriptive powers of the author of a good fantasy book not the discriptive powers of a high school calculus teacher. "?
What makes it an either or?
What if I said that to be a fairly good DM you need the descriptive powers of a good fantasy book author, but to be a really good DM you need the descriptive powers of a good fantasy book combined with the descriptive powers of a high school algebra teacher?

I don't think that statement is proscriptively true. But IMO it is far more true than your statement.

If I said that playing without a grid sucked because people will cheat by claiming they can catch to many orcs in this fireball or be just close enough to sneak attack with a ranged shot, when there is not true way to establish these things, I think you would say I was misrepresenting the way you play. You would say that you play all the time without a grid and don't have these problems.

I know that these things *DO* happen when people play without a grid. But I also know that decent players can avoid these issues and play a very good game.

Why do you insist that the opposite is not true?

You seem to insist that people who use grids sacrifice imagination. This is LESS true than saying that playing without a grid sacrifice tactical aspects of the game. I can assure you that I use imagination extensively. And I know, that without a grid, tactical aspect of the rules must be toned down. I am not trading one tool for another. I am using as many tools as possible to create as rich a game environment as I can.

but if you are discribing things based on room diminsions and not room content then you are missing the point of a good discription.

And if you think this statement is relevant to anything I have said, then you are missing my point. You are still stuck in either/or mode, when a great game comes from synergy of both.

Question, why does fireball have a radius of 20'? Why does a composte longbow have a Range increment of 110 feet when a longbow has a range increment of 100 feet?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I've never been comfortable with grids. It kinda shatters my suspension of disbelief, I guess.
While I can run extensive battle scenarios in my mind with ease, but once I see it all spelled
out on grid or a map I get all confused. Probably connected with how I have never been worth
diddlysquat in any kind of strategic games (whether computer or board games). If I get in
trouble with explaining something I do a quick sketch.

Well, not as much as a thing I hate, but rather a DM weakness. Can't win 'em all.

Now, I hate players that obsess over the rules. To me, they're never more than guidelines. My
number one combat rule is: If you can find a kewl enough way to kill someone it'll really help
(not a autokill or anything unless it's a 'grunt'). It has resulted in some really memorable fight
scenes.

As much as I value roleplaying over the rules, I can't stand people that take it TOO seriously.
It's kinda creepy. Players that don't enjoy the OOC jokes and such. I mean, too much of it just
becomes annoying but NONE?! To me, that just seems wrong.

 

[Gundark]

to grid or not to grid

well I'll jump on this bandwagon. Obviously I use grids and favour grids. I do not believe that you sacrafice any imagination by using one. I agree with Gort if I could I would put my players into a "Virtual reality" of my world. I don't think that grids take away from the description. I played many years without a grid and enjoyed it. The grid just adds that much more to the game. It's BS to say that not using one improves your descriptive abilities. How does using one in any way take away from imagination? If you've already done a good job describing then grids should just add on to what you want the players to see. Nor do I believe it slows down the game. If you pause to draw a map of the action, that's all the time it takes to set up the grid.

Just my opinion

 

[Jody Butt]

I don't see the point of grids. They kill suspension of disbelief in a big way. No DM ever has miniatures for every monster he needs. So, instead, we see things like dice, pocket change, and pieces of paper substituting for monsters. How is looking at a piece of paper that is supposed to represent a venerable white dragon supposed to help with my suspension of disbelief? It doesn't, of course. Moreover, no DM ever has the supplies needed to build a 3D dungeon of any type he wishes (the commerical products never correlate exactly with the actual description unless the DM writes his descriptions to match the cardboard cutouts he has bought). The miniatures for PCs often don't match up well with the actual descriptions of the PCs, anyway (my wizard has long hair, not short hair like on the miniature)? So, what's the point?

It seems that the only point is to encourage tactical combat.

"My elven wizard (who looks nothing like the miniature that represents her) attacks the piece of paper (which looks nothing like the white dragon that repesents it), and then moves down the hallway (which looks nothing like the cardboard cutouts that represent the actual hallway)."

Yeah, great suspension of disbelief!

 

[Gundark]

imagination

I don't see the point of grids. They kill suspension of disbelief in a big way. No DM ever has miniatures for every monster he needs. So, instead, we see things like dice, pocket change, and pieces of paper substituting for monsters. How is looking at a piece of paper that is supposed to represent a venerable white dragon supposed to help with my suspension of disbelief? It doesn't, of course. Moreover, no DM ever has the supplies needed to build a 3D dungeon of any type he wishes (the commerical products never correlate exactly with the actual description unless the DM writes his descriptions to match the cardboard cutouts he has bought). The miniatures for PCs often don't match up well with the actual descriptions of the PCs, anyway (my wizard has long hair, not short hair like on the miniature)? So, what's the point?

So you can't use your imagination to see the piece of paper that represents a white dragon? But you can use you imagination to see the the character that your character sheet represents? Does it suspend you belief that you roll dice to see if you hit? It doesn't make sense that you say grid suspend you belief

 

[Jody Butt]

Re: imagination

So you can't use your imagination to see the piece of paper that represents a white dragon? But you can use you imagination to see the the character that your character sheet represents? Does it suspend you belief that you roll dice to see if you hit? It doesn't make sense that you say grid suspend you belief

Your analogy is falls apart on so many levels. My character sheet is not trying to be a physical representation of my character. The miniature of my elven wizard IS trying to be a representation of my elven wizard. See the difference?

 

[hong]

Re: Re: imagination

Your analogy is falls apart on so many levels. My character sheet is not trying to be a physical representation of my character. The miniature of my elven wizard IS trying to be a representation of my elven wizard. See the difference?

Are you still burbling about minis, Butt?

 

[jdavis]

And I would counter that an interesting description is even better if it is also accurate.

The anti-grid side keeps insisting that people get "tied down in the mechanics" or put "wargaming" ahead of "role-playing". This is certainly true in some cases. But IME it is a very small minority.

Why do you say "A good DM needs to have the same discriptive powers of the author of a good fantasy book not the discriptive powers of a high school calculus teacher. "?
What makes it an either or?
What if I said that to be a fairly good DM you need the descriptive powers of a good fantasy book author, but to be a really good DM you need the descriptive powers of a good fantasy book combined with the descriptive powers of a high school algebra teacher?

I don't think that statement is proscriptively true. But IMO it is far more true than your statement.

If I said that playing without a grid sucked because people will cheat by claiming they can catch to many orcs in this fireball or be just close enough to sneak attack with a ranged shot, when there is not true way to establish these things, I think you would say I was misrepresenting the way you play. You would say that you play all the time without a grid and don't have these problems.

I know that these things *DO* happen when people play without a grid. But I also know that decent players can avoid these issues and play a very good game.

Why do you insist that the opposite is not true?

I'm not arguing with you or trying to say anything negative about the grid. If it works for you then that's fine, but I hear so many people who say that people who don't use the grid are wrong (The whole thread started out with a statement to that effect). I am defending the point that you can game ok without the grid, it isn't necessary in any way, it's just another tool for the DM and players. This is in no way a attack on the pro-grid community it's just a statement that my group doesn't need it to have a good detailed and highly involved game. If you need the grid to stop cheaters or you enjoy a more technical aspect of the game then that is fine but please don't say that I am wrong in how I play because I don't need the grid. I don't understand why people get so angry or temperamental about the grid it is a very small part of the game, some people like it and some people don't, that's the end of it, it is no better or worse either way it's really not all that different either way it's still D&D the rules still apply and the game still plays the same way. I am all for people who like to use the grid using the grid, I got no problem with other people using the grid, I just hate it when people say you have to use the grid or you are gaming wrong. I stated how it worked when we tried it and how it felt to me to defend my position not to attack your position.

Another thing that I think there is some misunderstanding on here is that I am not talking about maps in any way just the grid and the miniatures. Maps are great, we use maps all the time, detailed drawings of rooms are great tools to use in the game to help with the description aspect of the game. I love having maps and diagrams and illustrations and hand out notes or pre-written story descriptions or any of a thousand different things we can physically interact with, we just don't use a pre-measured grid with miniatures to measure our movements or to plan tactics. I fully admitted that we use rough maps in detailed or large encounters I love having maps and diagrams. The grid is not a descriptive tool it's a measuring tool, now the map the grid is on may be descriptive but the grid itself is just for measuring stuff. It is no different than using a tape measure or a ruler, it's a measuring tool, it is much more efficient than using a ruler and it helps to scale maps properly but that is it. The only thing I am talking about is the grid and the miniatures being used to measure attack distances, movements and to mark character placement on the map. That is what I am saying we do without when I say we don't use a grid in our game.

You seem to insist that people who use grids sacrifice imagination. This is LESS true than saying that playing without a grid sacrifice tactical aspects of the game. I can assure you that I use imagination extensively. And I know, that without a grid, tactical aspect of the rules must be toned down. I am not trading one tool for another. I am using as many tools as possible to create as rich a game environment as I can.

No actually I don't insist that at all, I stated that you needed imagination and good description whether you used the grid or not. Imagination is the key to all role playing games because you are role playing being somebody else someplace else. My statement on imagination was independent of the grid argument.

I know what was said about not using a grid makes you more imaginative but that wasn't said by me, I do not think you gain more imagination or descriptive skills without the grid, I do not think the grid hampers that in any way or that not using a grid expands your capability in any way. I am not going to argue that point because it was not my point and I don't agree with it anyway.

What I do believe is that way to many DMs need to brush up on their descriptive and storytelling skills and worry less about being 100% precise and exact with the rules. The rules are guidelines on how to play the game, but without a good story and a good ability to describe and present your world and adventure to the players then your game will fail, regardless of your knowledge of the rule book. Using a grid or not doesn't matter one little bit in this, don't ever downplay the necessity of imagination or interpersonal communication in any game, D&D or otherwise. It's not that the grid changes how you learn to describe stuff, it's that you need exactly the same descriptive skills whether you use the grid or not, there is no difference.

As far as loosing tactics or having to downplay some of the rules when you don't use a grid, I say you are wrong, we don't downplay any rule and we don't tone down any tactical aspects of the game. All we loose by not using the grid is we don't measure every single move in exacting detail, we still use tactics and ranges and arcs of fire are just as important we just don't measure them on a grid, we either eyeball it on a map or the DM makes a judgement based on the description he gave if we don't have a map. We have no problem with players cheating or bending the rules because nobody is out to win over anybody else, we are not competing with each other or the DM, we are gaming for fun. If we all die but the game was enjoyable then the game was a success, we are gaming for the enjoyment of getting together and gaming not for any competition or power trip. I was friends with these people before I gamed with these people, it does make a difference. If you have a problem with people cheating in the game then you don't have a grid problem you have a people problem, if they are cheating they are cheating, and if they are fudging the grid then they are probably cheating in other areas too, the grid is not a solution to the problem of players who cheat it just forces them to get better at cheating.

I just left the most tactic intense game of D&D I have played in months not 4 hours ago and rest assured we lost nothing by not having a grid and miniatures, we focused on the tactics of beating the encounter not on the placement of our players on the map.

And if you think this statement is relevant to anything I have said, then you are missing my point. You are still stuck in either/or mode, when a great game comes from synergy of both.

No I am not missing your point you are missing mine. Having the room dimensions in the description is good but the basis for your description should be to bring the room to life so that the players can invision what you are describing. What is in the room is much more important than if the room is 5' by 10' or 4' by 12'. The description of what is inside the room is vastly more important than the exact dimensions of the room. That is the end all be all of what I was saying, I don't care if you use a grid or not you better be able to make a room come alive when the players open the door. I never said you couldn't describe a room or that people who use grids couldn't describe a room, I was pointing out that the priorities here were messed up, creative description and imagination are huge issues grid use is a silly side issue, if you can't keep the players interest in what's in the room then who cares how big the room is in exact measurements.

Question, why does fireball have a radius of 20'? Why does a composte longbow have a Range increment of 110 feet when a longbow has a range increment of 100 feet?

Because those are the ranges, if the grid was necessary to play the game then they would give those measurements in grid spaces not feet. Why do you insist that the grid is the only way you can judge distance in this game? Is it too much for you to believe that we can figure distance without having a grid or that when the DM says the monsters are 110 feet away that we just take him at his word?

I'm not attacking how you play the game you are attacking how I play the game here. The grid is a tool, yes, but the grid is not essential to play D&D. It is a tool to aid you in the game but you can play the game without it without loosing any of the quality or feel of the game, heck you can play without the grid without actually changing the game in any way. It is a personal/group preference thing not a essential element. It makes no difference in the big picture of how D&D is played.


edited to fix my crappy spelling