Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5207029" data-attributes="member: 2067">Of what value is complexity?Of what value is simplicity?How do they help you achieve the goals your are looking for at the table?At my table, the value gained by not using grid + minis (lack of set-up time, flexibility in encounters, more narrative combat, less fiddly bits, less decision points) absolutely outweighs the value gained by using grid + minis (visual aid, simulationist positioning, complexity).This is because at my table, combat is one of many very important things that the party is engaged in. Combat is not, as it were, the point.I can have miniless combat that is complex enough to be vastly entertaining. I find it difficult to have minis combat that is not overly complex for my tastes. So for me, abstraction is a very useful tool in combat, to reach the level where it is not really very important how many exact squares one person moves, takes up, or attacks into.4e, largely because of the presence of a host of effects that relate purely to how many squares your plastic toy can move (slow, push, pull, slide, shift, among others), makes this difficult. The trade-off, ideally, is combat that is more fun than it would otherwise be. Personally, I don't find that combat gains more fun with these additional details. I don't need these additional details of spacing and positioning, any more than I need to know how a dragon flies or how big an outer plane is, or the exact height and weight of a halfling. They are extraneous things for me.I accept that not everyone agrees with that, and that some have a whole mess of fun with minis. But 4e is not very welcoming of those that disagree with the main design principles on this subject.</blockquote>

Verification