Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Raven Crowking]

I think that what Imaro is trying to say is:

IF one argues that

(A) It is inherently harder to picture movement without a grid,

AND

(B) 4e includes more movement than earlier editions,

THEN

It is illogical to also propose, all other things being equal, THAT

(C) It is as easy to use 4e without a grid as it is to use earlier editions without a grid.

IOW, if (C) is true, it strongly indicates that either (A) or (B), or both, are untrue.


(Of course, I would argue that all other things are not equal, and that neither A nor C is true. I believe that only a combat system that is positioning-dependent to a particular degree is harder to use without a grid, and that 4e provides such a system. I am in good company here, I think, as Scott Rouse has also said that he believes 4e is harder to use without a grid than previous editions, or words to that effect, as linked upthread.)



RC

 

[Mallus]

You really don't understand the question?

Nope.

Ok, here it is... How can it be just as easy to play a game with tons of movement vs. one with supposedly very little movement... gridless?

Don't be a stickler about precision.

 

[Imaro]

The answer depends on the group's comfort level with imprecision of placement.

I don't think it does. Your comfort level for abstraction is your comfort level... regadless of how much any particular game asks you to abstract when not using a grid. Either that game is under or over it.

There are more powers in 4e that affect placement and shake up positioning. If you're using a lot of those, the number of variables a human being needs to keep in their head is going to quickly become untenable.

Here we start to get to the heart of the matter... 4e does encourage and require more movement due to it's ruleset... regardless of what particular powers your group has... when speaking on the game as a whole, we must take it as a whole.

But then.... I thought that was the case in earlier editions, too. Clearly there are a lot of people out there who are willing to compromise far more than I am on that score, so there's clearly not ONE TRUE ANSWER.

No, I believe there is... IMO, 4e is in fact harder to abstract positioning of without a grid... that does not mean it is impossible, but to say there is no difference in abstracting 4e and 3e (where supposedly all anyone does is lock in and swing, swing, swing) makes no sense to me. Movement is more fluid and encouraged in 4e... but there is definitely a trade off for it.

Basically, it stops working when someone at the table notices that it's not working. This will depend on several factors: Tactical depth of play, anal retentiveness of individuals, how well the DM describes things, the relative spacial skills of all individuals at the table, and so on.

I am not speaking in absolutes... works/doesn't work... I am speaking as to whether one edition is harder (not necessarily impossible) than another to abstract movement and still stay as close as possible to the rules.

 

[Imaro]

Nope.


Don't be a stickler about precision.

HEY! Thanks for that contribution to the discussion... next time I won't bother explaining the question since you weren't interested in discussing it anyway...

 

[Mallus]

HEY! Thanks for that contribution to the discussion... next time I won't bother explaining the question since you weren't interested in discussing it anyway...

Question:

"How can it be just as easy to play a game with tons of movement vs. one with supposedly very little movement... gridless? "

Answer:

"Don't be a stickler about precision." (That's how. It's also how people played AD&D without calculating exact spell effect volumes/radii).

If the participants accept a lesser degree of precision, then movement-heavy, grid-less combat can be quite simple. All you need to track is relative and approximate positions. Which isn't to say the same participants might not prefer a greater degree of precision some other time, and then haul out the map and minis. Note the lack of contradiction.

That said... personally, my group likes using a map for most encounters, which tend heavily toward the big set-pieces when I'm running. It's fun. And my friend w.minis is kind enough to lug them over to my place on game night.

 

[Imaro]

Question:

"How can it be just as easy to play a game with tons of movement vs. one with supposedly very little movement... gridless? "

Answer:

"Don't be a stickler about precision." (That's how. It's also how people played AD&D without also calculating exact spell effect volumes/radii).

If the participants accept a lesser degree of precision, then movement-heavy, grid-less combat can be quite simple. All you need to track is relative and approximate positions. Which isn't to say the same participants might not prefer a greater degree of precision some other time, and then haul out the map and minis. Note the lack of contradiction.

(Note also that I am interested in discussing this, despite your opinion to the contrary )

In the end you still have more to adjudicate in one game as opposed to the other, thus making one more difficult than the other.

 

[Scribble]

I think that what Imaro is trying to say is:

IF one argues that

(A) It is inherently harder to picture movement without a grid,

AND

(B) 4e includes more movement than earlier editions,

THEN

It is illogical to also propose, all other things being equal, THAT

(C) It is as easy to use 4e without a grid as it is to use earlier editions without a grid.

IOW, if (C) is true, it strongly indicates that either (A) or (B), or both, are untrue.


(Of course, I would argue that all other things are not equal, and that neither A nor C is true. I believe that only a combat system that is positioning-dependent to a particular degree is harder to use without a grid, and that 4e provides such a system. I am in good company here, I think, as Scott Rouse has also said that he believes 4e is harder to use without a grid than previous editions, or words to that effect, as linked upthread.)



RC

I think where it breaks down is your point C.

"(C) It is as easy to use 4e without a grid as it is to use earlier editions without a grid."

I think if you tack on "while still using and accounting for all rules elements that deal with precise positioning." then your statement is correct.

But if not, and you're willing to overlook those benefits and the consequences of ignoring them in one game as you are in the other, then yeah... it's just as easy to overlook them in both games.

The tricky part is how much incentive does the game offer to NOT overlook them.

Does 4e offer more incentive NOT to overlook them? I'd say it does. (In my opinion.)

3e offered more then there was in 2e/1e and 4e offers more then there was in 3e.

 

[Crothian]

In the end you still have more to adjudicate in one game as opposed to the other, thus making one more difficult than the other.

More to adjudicate does not have to mean more difficult.

 

[Imaro]

More to adjudicate does not have to mean more difficult.

Are you saying in the specific case we are discussing this is true? If so...please expound... I'm trying to think of how this could be true... I have more movement, and movement effects to adjudicate as well as keep up with within a round... yet it hasn't gotten any more difficult to do so. Yeah, I would definitely be interested in hearing why you think this is the case.

I mean it's all well and good to throw a phrase out there, but something to back it up might help a little bit.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm having a bit of a disconnect here,and I'm not singling you out Fanaelialae, but your post made me think about it...

Emphasis mine: I see many fans of 4e use this reasoning when discussing the grid and defending against the complexity and difficulty of using the game gridless/miniless...but I've seen some of the same people turn around and claim, when the mood suits them, that the 4e ruleset causes/encourages more movement in combat and we no longer have combatants standing face to face only swinging at each other... which one is it?

Note: This question is directed to anyone not just Fanaelialae...

As others have pointed out, there's no contradiction here. IMO 4e has more movement based powers than earlier editions and you often don't have to choose between moving and attacking (for example, Dimension Door in earlier editions was a standard action whereas it's only a move action in 4e; prior to 4e you could - barring Quicken - teleport OR attack, whereas in 4e you can teleport AND attack).

If you can handle mini-less combat you can presumably handle movement. After all, even before 4e you had character concepts (such as the archer) based around staying far away from the enemy. I don't think that anyone has suggested that, prior to 4e, combat always began at melee range and nobody ever moved. Just that certain aspects (like losing your iterative attacks in 3e) discouraged mobile combats to a degree.

Similarly, if you could handle a gridless 40' diameter in an earlier edition, one would assume you can handle a gridless 35' diameter fireball in 4e.

In any case, I really don't want to drag this into edition war territory by sounding overly critical of earlier editions, and I apologize if it's taken as such as that isn't my intent. My point is that, for the "lesser and quick" fights that were being discussed earlier (I think a crimelord's insane relative was mentioned at one point) I think that 4e could run perfectly fine without a grid (assuming the DM has a basic understanding of how to run gridless in the first place).

Saying that every 4e encounter has to be a major one is another assumption I would question. Those are the encounters that I think it does best, and therefore I believe those are the types of encounters that have received the most attention. That doesn't equate, however, to simple encounters being nonfunctional in the 4e system. Just last game we encountered a pair of monsters in their den that died in the first round, less than five minutes of real time. It certainly wasn't an epic encounter, but our DM likes a good mix of encounters (from very hard to very easy) for the sake of "realism."

With respect to major battles with complex terrain, I would agree, I'm not convinced that 4e would run well without a grid (at least, it would require an exceptional DM to handle it well). For something like a simple encounter though, I think you could get away without it.