Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5209741" data-attributes="member: 40177">Really, it comes down to this.&nbsp; Grids offer the players much more input or &quot;power&quot; than gridless.&nbsp; A gridless game gives GMs more of the processing power and control over a game's pacing.As someone who switched to gridless for our d6 mini campaign, I am getting all too familiar with this - it is much easier for me to set up the scenes I want to happen, simply because I have more control on positioning than the players do. If I want a player to be in the path of a tidal wave, I can do so, and the players can't &quot;look at the grid&quot; and realize I'm off course.I used to see that as a strength - I could keep games fast and fun.&nbsp; Now, I'm not so sure - since it's much easier to have what I want to happen, happen... I'm not getting faced with the challenge of winging it on the fly (which is what I love about gaming!)&nbsp; It is entirely a play style.&nbsp; But I for one would never play 4e without it - there are far too many positioning powers or area attacks that would be unfairly ruled out (even subconsciously) based on what I as a GM wanted to happen in the encounter.&nbsp; For what it's worth, though, I *do* kind of want to play a gridless MINIs game of 4e.&nbsp; As in, there is a battlemat, and there are minis, but there are no squares or hexes.&nbsp; Everything (range, movement, etc) is instead measured out by rulers, like Warhammer.&nbsp; While it would add a layer of complexity, I think it'd be kind of a fun variant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 5209741, member: 40177"] Really, it comes down to this. Grids offer the players much more input or "power" than gridless. A gridless game gives GMs more of the processing power and control over a game's pacing. As someone who switched to gridless for our d6 mini campaign, I am getting all too familiar with this - it is much easier for me to set up the scenes I want to happen, simply because I have more control on positioning than the players do. If I want a player to be in the path of a tidal wave, I can do so, and the players can't "look at the grid" and realize I'm off course. I used to see that as a strength - I could keep games fast and fun. Now, I'm not so sure - since it's much easier to have what I want to happen, happen... I'm not getting faced with the challenge of winging it on the fly (which is what I love about gaming!) It is entirely a play style. But I for one would never play 4e without it - there are far too many positioning powers or area attacks that would be unfairly ruled out (even subconsciously) based on what I as a GM wanted to happen in the encounter. For what it's worth, though, I *do* kind of want to play a gridless MINIs game of 4e. As in, there is a battlemat, and there are minis, but there are no squares or hexes. Everything (range, movement, etc) is instead measured out by rulers, like Warhammer. While it would add a layer of complexity, I think it'd be kind of a fun variant. [/QUOTE]

Verification