# 4e rules will make some games much harder to run



## entrerix (Mar 16, 2008)

My apologies if a thread like this exists and I didnt see it.  After reading the new class powers, warlords in particular, it struck me that these rules will be much harder to accommodate in some games.  Mine in particular.  

Any groups which don't use a playmat/whiteboard/graph paper to chart out exactly where will have a hard time using rules like "slide opponent two squares" and such.  I know its easy to say "just tell your players to imagine the kobold was knocked ten feet to the left", but I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.  

normally I'd say something like "you enter the door, two kobolds see you enter and charge at you from the left, while their large and unfriendly looking gnoll taskmaster sweeps in from the right with his spear leading the way"  no need to describe exactly how many feet or anything and the players get a feel for whats happening and use their imagination to fill in minor details, and if they want specifics they can ask for them.

but now, if a player is using a warlord most of his skills lose their value since no one really knows or cares about the precise positioning of opponents.  At first i thought a couple easy houserules, but it looks like it would affect almost all of the warlords skills... 

I could go on with more specific examples but I imagine my point has come across... this is not a gripe by the way, I'm feeling a little worried is all because I'd hate to warn players "dont pick the warlord because most of his skills will be of little use in our games"

if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!


----------



## keterys (Mar 16, 2008)

I imagine in a more free form game, you'd just have a chorus of things like

'Okay, I'll slide so I'm flanking with A' and 'Backing off the ogre for me' and 'Sweet, closer to their wizard. Can I reach him yet?'

It certainly seems much harder than, say, BECMI-2nd to deal without a mat, but it feels just as hard as 3.x to me.


----------



## entrerix (Mar 16, 2008)

thats a very optimistic approach, but maybe thats just the thing, tell my players to be flexible as always and recommend people who want to play warlords be more aggressive with stating their position in relation to the enemies around them.  I guess as long as its being called out as the action occurs it might not be so bad... I just was feeling a bit of despair as I read through the warlords power list


----------



## keterys (Mar 16, 2008)

There's probably a dash of optimism in there, but I'll admit I did already offer to run 4e without a map for someone, so I'm at least putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak 

It definitely takes skill and flair, but I also like being able to use 4e's special moves descriptively without a map... I'll smash into him and push him into the bookshelf to knock it over! On a battlemat, that might not work, maybe stuff isn't close enough, etc... but without one? Eh, sure, sounds cool!


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 16, 2008)

Recycled concern from 3E. If your 3E game didn't suffer from not using a mat, I don't see how your 4E game will suffer.

I can't imagine not using some sort of mat. Distance is always going to be a factor for someone (archer, anyone? Spellcaster?) and y'all must never get into arguements like 'I said I was going behind the tree to take cover'.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Mar 16, 2008)

I thought I had:

Say every square of forced movement imposes a cumulative -1 penalty on the next check, unless a move action is taken to alleviate that.

The penalty represents being in the wrong position to work optimally, but by moving, you can manoeuvre back into the right position.

It's certainly a hackjob of a rule... but I think it could be a starting point.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Mar 16, 2008)

I plan on trying it out soon myself.

The biggest reason that I don't like mats & figures is that in every game I've played WITHOUT them I remember the events as if I was my character - seeing the events from my character's eyes.

WITH mats & figs I remember moving the figures around the mat.

I think that playing without figures would be pretty silly if you bothered with measuring distances at all. It's not like the character is running along with a yardstick. "Hey, I just moved 10 feet forward!"

However, it's really important to use terms like forward, back, left, and right, and to think of things in terms of here, there, and over there.

Right Here is anything you can reach, or fight in melee.
Here is anything you could get to with a shift. (Think of a shift as a slow, careful short move, rather than a specific minimal distance.)
There is anything you could get to in a single move. (This would include moving as fast as is feasible given the terrain.)
Over there can be quantified in number of moves. ("Over there by three" would take three move actions to arrive, making it now "here")

Movement rates should really simply be a comparative number that suggests that in a race to get someplace quickly (or a chase) the character with the highest speed wins.

This may sound complicated, but it gets pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

I'd simply say that forced movement in 4e that is less than 3 would keep a character "here" (relative to where they were before, but not in melee (if that's the intent.) and any forced movement of 3+ would move the target from here to there.

Anyway, I think I might be starting to confuse myself with terminology so I'll shut up now.

Any thoughts?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 16, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> Any thoughts?




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.


----------



## epochrpg (Mar 16, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.
> 
> normally I'd say something like "you enter the door, two kobolds see you enter and charge at you from the left, while their large and unfriendly looking gnoll taskmaster sweeps in from the right with his spear leading the way"  no need to describe exactly how many feet or anything and the players get a feel for whats happening and use their imagination to fill in minor details, and if they want specifics they can ask for them.
> 
> *if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!*




Welcome to the Crusade!


----------



## Iron Sky (Mar 16, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> The biggest reason that I don't like mats & figures is that in every game I've played WITHOUT them I remember the events as if I was my character - seeing the events from my character's eyes.
> 
> WITH mats & figs I remember moving the figures around the mat.




You know, that's something I didn't realize I missed until you mentioned it.  Our group never used a battlemap until about a year ago when I made my own by printing out 4 sheets of gridded paper, taping them together, then taping them to a chunk of cardboard and "laminating" it with masking tape (may sound pretty ghetto, but it cost essentially nothing and has worked fine for aver a year).

Anyway, I don't know if my players feel the same way, but I tend to not get as "into the scene" as I used to.  Partially because I don't have to.  Before grids, I had to imagine where everything was, imagine the environment, and where all the players were.  Led to a more vivid image of the scene and allowed for more to be hidden by the DM, but had the disadvantage of leaving much more for the DM to remember and bringing about many disputes about character/enemy placement - especially in DnD. 

Now we do gridded combat in almost every system.  It takes less work for me as the DM and has cut down arguments by an order of magnitude, but it definitely takes everyone out of character and reduces the immersion alot.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Mar 16, 2008)

Iron Sky said:
			
		

> Now we do gridded combat in almost every system.  It takes less work for me as the DM and has cut down arguments by an order of magnitude, but it definitely takes everyone out of character and reduces the immersion alot.



We use the battlemats for combat and enjoy the tactical part of the game, but we equally enjoy the role-playing aspect of RPGs.

In my group's case, we do battle about 40% of the time and 60% role-playing so the figs are out on the table only when we need to snap from first person to third person and play the tactical part of the game. We don't miss any immersion at all, though.  We view D&D as a TRPG (tactical rpg) and acknowledge the fact that we can fully enjoy our role-play scenes and also get a battle-mat fix in the same game.

Yes, it requires a bit of a paradigm shift - D&D is not just an RPG, but also a tactical game - but I believe once this is accepted the game becomes much better.

And it makes all the "D&D is not an RPG" arguments moot.


----------



## entrerix (Mar 17, 2008)

I REALLY like the above suggestion to use the warlord powers as an even greater chance to add cinematic descriptions to the scene, instead of the warlord "sliding the enemy two squares", he kicks him against the bookshelf/hurls him over the table/launches him across the room... way more fun sounding, and it still effectively means "Bad guy A is now further away than he was last turn"


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 17, 2008)

If you wanted to play the game as written, it was already difficult in 3e.

We have actually played 3e without a battlemat and quite successfully, but if you want to do that you have to give up some precision in things such as spell areas, weapon/spell ranges, cover and AoOs from movement.

I believe that a gaming group must have a certain maturity in order to be able to play that way, because it requires a bigger effort in terms of trusting each other (players trusting DM, and DM trusting players). You cannot expect to get it perfectly right every time, so you have to accept that sometimes there'll be an AoO when it shouldn't have, or there won't be one when it should, etc.

Perhaps the key point is to become able to see this lack of precision as an added realism, or an added randomness besides that of the dice.

To play without a battlemat, 3.0 is slightly easier than 3.5, which is probably going to end up being easier than 4e. Quite obviously, the more the game is designed around precise measurements, the more you need a battlemat.


----------



## Mr Jack (Mar 17, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!




Use minatures. No, seriously. 3.x was designed to be used with minatures and plays better with them. 4th looks to be even further down the path back to the roots of D&D. If you're going to play D&D stop fighting it and play the system the way it was designed to be played (and plays best) or stop playing D&D and pick up one of the many, many systems out there which are designed to be played without minatures.

You don't have to spend lots of money on it, just grab a load of coins and put stickers on them - they work just as well.


----------



## jaelis (Mar 17, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> if anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, or houserules they want to share please do!



You can see the similar discussion here:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221699


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 17, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Recycled concern from 3E. If your 3E game didn't suffer from not using a mat, I don't see how your 4E game will suffer.
> 
> I can't imagine not using some sort of mat. Distance is always going to be a factor for someone (archer, anyone? Spellcaster?) and y'all must never get into arguements like 'I said I was going behind the tree to take cover'.




True, but I was forced to use a map board in 3E also.  It was too difficult in the group I was with, which admittedly had too many true wargamers, to get by without it.  I'm seeing it even worse in 4E.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 17, 2008)

Honestly, I can't see anyone who was comfortable w/3e's combat being uncomfortable w/4e's. 3e relied on flanking, attacks of opportunity, reach, and all the rest very heavily, and if you didn't use a battlemat and just fudged those things, you were probably unbalancing characters with feats/abilities that relied on positioning.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

We don't normally use a battlemat at our gaming table, mainly because our gaming table IS the living room with everyone on couches, the floor, standing, getting Mt Dew or snacks etcetera. Even when we are at the kitchen table the space that could be the battlemat usually has books or food or both on it.

I agree with others that have said immersion for us comes up lacking with a mat.

That having been said the 4e rules don't look much harder to me. We have plenty of combat now where it's the party vs more than the party in enemies and quite honestly the "If you attack this guy I can give you a plus 5 bonus then if/when he dies I can slide you over to this guy to flank with the rogue" doesn't sound overly complex.

Looks to me EXACTLY like "if you could manage it in 3.x you can manage it in 4"


----------



## jolt (Mar 17, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Honestly, I can't see anyone who was comfortable w/3e's combat being uncomfortable w/4e's. 3e relied on flanking, attacks of opportunity, reach, and all the rest very heavily, and if you didn't use a battlemat and just fudged those things, you were probably unbalancing characters with feats/abilities that relied on positioning.




More true for 3.5 than 3.0.  We never used a battlemat until 3.5.  We had played D&D for 20+ years without a battlemat and saw no need in 3.0.  The rules for things like AoO's and such in 3.0 were so poorly written that you were pretty much guessing your way through it half the time anyway (and I didn't feel like investing a lot of $ in minis either at the time and using copper pennies and whatnot seemed less immersive to us rather than more).

With 3.5 we switched over to a battlemat and it was okay but I agree with the previous poster; the battlemat made some things easier but was much less evocative.  When we realised that it was the evocative nature of D&D that kept us playing, we moved on to other things (we get our tactical fix from other sources; we neither needed nor wanted D&D to try and provide it for us).

As D&D forces the tactical nature more and more I think you are going to find it harder (though not impossible) to play without such aids.

I would suggest moving on to another game if it presents a significant problem for you or staying if it doesn't.  How much extra work are you willing to do to play the game in a way that they aren't presenting?  It was initially hard for us to move away from a game we had been playing since the '70's but when the game, company, and part of the community make you feel unwelcome, it suddenly isn't so hard anymore.

jolt


----------



## Peter LaCara (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, we've got the DDXP characters and a whole bunch of monsters. Has anyone tried running it without a map yet?


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 17, 2008)

Iron Sky said:
			
		

> Now we do gridded combat in almost every system.  It takes less work for me as the DM and has cut down arguments by an order of magnitude, but it definitely takes everyone out of character and reduces the immersion alot.




I ran Dawn of Defiance for the first time yesterday and there were two major encounters, both on very large battle maps. I agree with you here, and my solution in the future is going to be to mix games up with non-map encounters and some full miniature encounters.  Now, i spent a lot of time figuring out how i wanted the maps to look, and in one respect, there is less for the GM to describe when the players can just LOOK down and see everything.

But at the same time it does detract from being immersed in the story.  And SW isn't as tactically oriented as D&D.  In fact, after running the D&D skirmish game i'm a little disappointed with SW combat, which basically boils down to Aim & Shoot every round.  Oh, and duck behind cover.


----------



## rob626 (Mar 17, 2008)

*sort of on topic*

I am glad there are others out there with an aversion to the battlemat.  Although the mat clarifies a lot it does remove me from the action inside my head.

So for those of us with more emphasis on narrative spatial relationships rather than concretely defined space, this brings a follow up question:

How can we use online tools to enhance our gaming experience?  I am not talking about the tabletop.  That's great for what it does, but by direct representation it still removes an element of immersion for me.

I have been toying with the idea of Ventrillo-based 4ed game with Diceroller and chat support.  (And not to hijack the thread overmuch, but please send me a private message if you are interested as well.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming)

The benefits of almost complete story immersion without the break into skirmish mindset that I felt in 3.5 is a worthwhile goal as far as I am concerned.  I am not sure it can be easily supported within the 4ed framework.

Perhaps limiting the classes allowed in the game?  Perhaps a small restructuring of the existing powers into "narrative space"  instead of squares?  

I do like Keterys' explanation and it fits well with my playstyle.  "You push him into the bookcase" rather than "you push him 10'".  Also, FitzTheRouke hit the nail on the head: I remember battles without mats as my character sees things where with a mat I remember pushing minis.

My last observation on the matless game is this: the transition from battle to scene and back again is much less jarring and leaves open more options.  My experience has shown that when the mat rolls out players limit thier options on when to end a combat scene to "victory or death".  When the combat scene is gridless then I have seen other options emerge- negotiation, flight, cinematic stuff that just seemed squashed when the map comes out.   

When you have to have the description of the encounter area held in your head you remember details you can use to spice up the encounter and work with the environment.


----------



## Simm (Mar 17, 2008)

Given what I've seen, and run, in 3/3.5e the only additional difficulty in running 4e will be converting everything from squares back to feet. I've actually moved away from grid based combat in 3.5 in my most recent game and find that for any minor skirmish, like most dungeon rooms it works just fine.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 17, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I can't imagine not using some sort of mat. Distance is always going to be a factor for someone (archer, anyone? Spellcaster?) and y'all must never get into arguements like 'I said I was going behind the tree to take cover'.




It isn't a digital thing - either you use a mat, or you must never get into arguments.

Using a mat takes time, and the picayune wargamng can cause frustration.  Without a mat, you'll have arguments that take time, and the misunderstandings that arise without the mat can cause frustration.  

A group should choose the method that uses up less time and causes less frustration.  I, personally use a mat occasionally, for big or complicated combats, but manage to skip the mat without much issue most of the time.

One text of rules cannot serve both masters well, unfortunately - the same rules can be written to favor the matless or the matted, but to try to properly describe for both would make the text unwieldy.  Maybe in the future, one of WotC's supplements can contain hints on runnign the combat withotu a mat.  That'd be cool.


----------



## mearls (Mar 17, 2008)

If you played 3e without miniatures, you'll have no problem with 4e. However, there are a few things to consider.

First, forced movement is much more common in the game. However, I don't think it will be any harder to adjudicate in the game than normal movement. For instance, if the dwarf fighter pushes the ogre 2 squares, you just need to note that the ogre has to move closer to the party before attacking, and that the rogue who was next to the ogre can now move away with an opportunity attack.

Second, the areas of effect in the game have been standardized. So, you need to look at the areas and come up with basic rules of thumb for each. Once you've done that, you're set for the life of the edition.

Third, even without minis I'd keep track of a general, spacial relationship between combatants. When I used to play without minis, I'd have a back rank and front rank, with the front guys in melee and the back guys using missiles.

4e promotes the use of more set pieces and terrain than older editions, so I'd suggest creating a list of notable features in a room, and grouping combatants accordingly.

For instance, the chapel to Tharizdun has three notable features: an altar where the high priest stands, a giant stone idol, and several rows of pews. You might slot each combatant into one of those areas. If the dwarf is in the pews and pushes the ogre back, you might just shift the ogre over to the stone idol's area.

There is one area where going without minis is helpful: it's much easier to track effects. Let's say there are three orcs in a room. The fighter attacks and marks one. When the ranger shoots an orc with her bow, you can ask the player if she wants to shoot the marked orc or one of the other ones. If you attach a little descriptor to each orc, that makes it even easier, like this:

Orc Warriors
------------
One-eyed Orc
Orc in bronze helm
Orc with long fangs

Orc Archers
-----------
Orc with scars
Orc with wolf-skin cloak

That way, you promote immersion by giving little descriptions for each guy, and you also have references for conditions and attacks. For example, a player could say, "I hit the one-eyed orc with a flame spell, and now he's taking continuing damage." You mark that on your sheet, and you can use that as a reference.

Best of all, you can use the conditions descriptions to promote immersion - "OK Pallania, the one-eyed orc shrieks in pain as Mardallus' spell continues to burn him. The orc in the bronze helm cowers before Thorbard, while the one with long fangs raises his scimitar. He looks like he's ready to charge you. What do you do?"

I think this might work out a little *better* than minis, because most DMs use the same miniature to represent groups of guys. A purely verbal description makes it easier to differentiate enemies.


----------



## Dave Turner (Mar 17, 2008)

At the risk of sounding confrontational, why does the OP still think that he should continue to play D&D?  It's hardly the only fantasy game on the market and there are plenty of other games which feature non-tactical combat.  There are likely many familiar D&D elements that the OP wishes to hold onto (such as fireballs, chromatic dragons, spontaneous healing, or what-have-you).  I just wonder if the effort required to adapt 4e to the OP's needs is greater than adapting the cherished D&D concepts to a new, non-tactical system?


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Mar 17, 2008)

I, too, don't really like battlemats overall.  Yes, they help clarify combat and reduce misunderstandings but for me they ravage immersion.  Combat also take a LOT longer given the time it takes me to set them up and because it seems to encourage optimized boardgame thinking by players and doting over the mat, counting squares, etc., rather than doing what they feel their characters would do.  

Even though you'd think everyone wants to know precise distances due to range constraints etc.  I've always found that if as DM I am reasonable in my adjudication, players are fine with just asking, for instance, "How many orcs can I get in one fireball" and me just making an estimation on the fly and saying "6 if you include Bob the rogue there, 4 if you want to make sure he stays char-free."

I DMed BECMI and never AD&D1 or AD&D2 and never used mats.  As many have said, 3.x has rules (like flanking) that make mats more difficult to avoid.  I eventually settled into a compromise where any battle I thought could work without a mat and were the stakes weren't too high (high stakes meaning things like players really need to know how this is set up to avoid getting totally creamed) would go without one.  This was pretty good, but it does kinda suck to have some of the most interesting or dangerous fights be the ones with the weakest in-character memories.  I also do think that previews of 4e suggest more, not the same, level of difficulty going mat-less.  I can't prove this but given fey step, shifty, white raven onslaught, etc. it seems as if it is going to matter a lot more where people go relative to each other.  This is not bad, but I do think it will make matless harder.

I can appreciate the suggestion by some to find another game system but I'd like to think that many of the promised innovations of 4e can be used, the whole game in fact, perhaps with some alterations specifically to facilitate matless play.  I have an intuitive but practically useless sense that there ought to be a way to keep the mechanics of 4e but revise some rules, powers, etc. to work in terms of what rob626 called "_restructuring...into narrative space_"  instead of squares?  Since matless narration relies a lot on DM guesstimation and adjudication, it would be perfectly fine for such a system to be based partly on probabilities, what fits the story well, etc., and not necessarily try to model space in the same way a mat does.  Like Umbran said, maybe there could be a supplement aimed specifically at varying the rules specifically to accommodate this type of game.

If anyone has bright ideas or experience doing such a thing, please share!


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It isn't a digital thing - either you use a mat, or you must never get into arguments.
> 
> One text of rules cannot serve both masters well, unfortunately - the same rules can be written to favor the matless or the matted, but to try to properly describe for both would make the text unwieldy.  Maybe in the future, one of WotC's supplements can contain hints on runnign the combat withotu a mat.  That'd be cool.




I dunno about that Umbran, The text of rules that is 3.x appears to serve the people that use a battlemat fairly well and works well for my matless play. I have yet to see anything in 4e that will change this.


----------



## Revinor (Mar 17, 2008)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> At the risk of sounding confrontational, why does the OP still think that he should continue to play D&D?




This is very good question. There is a poll running in another thread which asks if people would buy 4e if it would be not named D&D (but still have exact same set of rules). At the moment, most people answered no.

For me, D&D 3e had following benefits over competition (in no particular order):

a) huge selection of well defined spells with interesting effects
b) huge selection of scalable monsters
c) large selection of magic items
d) high range of player advancement - from zero to hero
e) memories from earlier editions
f) very well defined campaign worlds with a lot of design history
g) large selection of books (including 3rd party) for pollinating with ideas/getting some extra content
h) generic fantasy feel, allowing to shape it in the way I want, instead of very specific color imposed by system

If I would have to chose single of those elements, it would be probably wizard spells. While magic system was far from perfect, spells were really nice. There are some systems with superior magic systems (Ars Magica or Mage comes to mind), but spells were underdefined, unbalanced or non interesting. My previous system was Rolemaster and while it had it's qualities, I was completly sick of Fire Bolt IV, Fire Bolt V, Fire Bolt VI, Cold Bolt III, Shadow Bolt X, Ice Bolt I, Vacuum A, Vacuum B, etc  spell lists, with one-liner spell descriptions.

Will 4e have aspects I have listed here? I'm bit scared about a and d. Huge selection of spells turned into small selection of Diablo/WoW-like powers. Rituals MAY save the day, or might be house ruled into saving the day, but it remains to be seen.  Range of advancement seems big from the numbers (30 levels !), but from what I can see so far, in 3e we got level 1 to 20+epics, in 4e we will get level 4 to level 11, just with many subdivisions. They have removed _on purpose_ one of the best elements of earlier editions - that after reaching certain threshold (5th level, 7th level, 11th level), your power was skyrocketing (not strictly combat power, I'm talking more about utility power). There was something to wait for. With 4e, it seems that powers are so 'balanced', that few levels here or there have just an effect of small modifier to hit and damage - there is no wow factor, again on purpose. I suppose that such wow factor is happening on 11 and 21 levels, when you cross the tier and get extra classes - but the distance between that is quite huge. In short, I'm afraid 4e will be too balanced for my taste.

So from 8 points, I got 6.5. I don't think I can find another system which will give me so many of them. For me, choice is staying with 3e, or moving to 4e - both with healthy amount of house rules obviously. I'll buy 4e anyway - I have skipped 3.5, so I owe Wizards some money .


----------



## entrerix (Mar 17, 2008)

i feel SO FLATTERED that Mr. Mearls posted in response to this topic   and I loved his suggestions for the visual cues to attach to each monster in the room, i am absolutely going to use that from now on (and his other suggestions).  Even better that i loved the idea and THEN realized who it was coming from!

to anyone who wonders how/why we play without a mat without argument - if there is ever an inconsistency between what I thought player A said and what player A thought he said (or any other possible argument topic)  then 

1: if anyone else heard player A's version, then player A is correct and I change my description/outcome/whatever to fit with what A said (so if he said he was behind the tree, and ANYONE else heard him say that, then yes he is behind the tree)

2: if there is ever conflict that cannot be solved that way, we either flip a coin and continue on (happens about twice a session btw, and takes 4 seconds to resolve the entire conflict) no one ever has hurt feelings because we all know the rules, and the coin is on your side half the time anyway

3:  if i don't feel the coin is appropriate I will make the call how i choose, and the players always agree, because I'm usually very fair and this happens rarely and only for story purposes and everyone knows it

4:  if I ever feel like a person might be hurt/sad/upset/mad then I let them win (and find some other way down the line to get my way... so if they end up slitting my big bads throat, he can make a deal with the devil and come back a demon lord or something - I'm very adaptable)  - this happens maybe once every couple of years

any argument we ever have NEVER takes more than 10-15 seconds, and i would say we spend less than 5 minutes for every 5 hours arguing about who is where and who called out what actions


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 17, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> Use minatures. No, seriously. 3.x was designed to be used with minatures and plays better with them. 4th looks to be even further down the path back to the roots of D&D. If you're going to play D&D stop fighting it and play the system the way it was designed to be played (and plays best) or stop playing D&D and pick up one of the many, many systems out there which are designed to be played without minatures.



Like 1e or BECMI D&D.


----------



## EATherrian (Mar 17, 2008)

WheresMyD20 said:
			
		

> Like 1e or BECMI D&D.




I know that is the stock response but I never even felt the mechanical need for miniatures until 3rd Edition.  I think that as a logical off-shoot of Chainmail, miniatures were helpful but not necessary in the earlier versions.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 17, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I know that is the stock response but I never even felt the mechanical need for miniatures until 3rd Edition.  I think that as a logical off-shoot of Chainmail, miniatures were helpful but not necessary in the earlier versions.



Yeah, I never used minis for anything other than a visual aid until 3e.  Although I like a lot of the 3e changes, the two that I dislike are the emphasis on grid-and-minis combat and the emphasis on character-engineering.  I was hoping that 4e would undo those two changes.  I think the game would be much more approachable for new players and easier to DM.  Plus, there'd be the added benefit of much faster combat and character creation.


----------



## baberg (Mar 17, 2008)

WheresMyD20 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I never used minis for anything other than a visual aid until 3e.  Although I like a lot of the 3e changes, the two that I dislike are the emphasis on grid-and-minis combat and the emphasis on character-engineering.  I was hoping that 4e would undo those two changes.  I think the game would be much more approachable for new players and easier to DM.  Plus, there'd be the added benefit of much faster combat and character creation.



Really?  I think that using minis and battlemats make the game easier to approach because things like OA and range-to-target are much more obvious when you can see the location of everybody in the game world.  Maybe this is a auditory-versus-visual learning style difference, but it seems to me it's much harder for a newbie to grasp concepts when they're left to only their imagination and DM's descriptions in combat, rather than actually seeing minis moving tactically around the grid.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 17, 2008)

Having played 4e games a few times now, I think playing without minis would work identically to playing 3.5 without minis. Which I have done and it works fine.

Players have to trust the DM to fairly adjudicate distances and OA's but it should work just fine.


----------



## el-remmen (Mar 17, 2008)

We use minis for our homegame and have used them for over 10 years now (before that it was a mix of pure imagination with the occasional drawing on a piece of paper or layout of marching order/general position using dice) and were using homebrewed initiative and movements, etc. . . during that time.  So going to 3E was no big deal to us in that regard.

On the other hand, when I run games at Cons, I never use minis or the grid.  I don't want to carry them around and when you have limited slot I would rather move the game along than have people vacilate on their actions as they check out the battlemat.

Not that that happens much in my home games because we play that all tactical discussion must be done in character and you can only speak as a free action on your own turn (around 5 to 10 words give or take). Hmm, this inspires me to start a thread about that aspect of how we play. (EDIT: And here it is!)


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Mar 17, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Really?  I think that using minis and battlemats make the game easier to approach because things like OA and range-to-target are much more obvious when you can see the location of everybody in the game world.  Maybe this is a auditory-versus-visual learning style difference, but it seems to me it's much harder for a newbie to grasp concepts when they're left to only their imagination and DM's descriptions in combat, rather than actually seeing minis moving tactically around the grid.



The older editions didn't have OA and range-to-target can be estimated by the DM on the fly.  Combat in the older editions was a bit more free-form and gave the DM more room to make ad-hoc rulings.  Of course, that style of play requires more trust between the DM and the players.  For some groups it works well and for other groups it might not work at all.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 17, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> thats a very optimistic approach, but maybe thats just the thing, tell my players to be flexible as always and recommend people who want to play warlords be more aggressive with stating their position in relation to the enemies around them.  I guess as long as its being called out as the action occurs it might not be so bad... I just was feeling a bit of despair as I read through the warlords power list



Don't. I've been playing without a grid or a battlemat for 29 years (!), despite lots of rules over the world that seemed to require them.


----------



## Nikosandros (Mar 24, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> Really?  I think that using minis and battlemats make the game easier to approach because things like OA and range-to-target are much more obvious when you can see the location of everybody in the game world.  Maybe this is a auditory-versus-visual learning style difference, but it seems to me it's much harder for a newbie to grasp concepts when they're left to only their imagination and DM's descriptions in combat, rather than actually seeing minis moving tactically around the grid.



In my quite limited experience, when we started playing 3rd edition the hard core players were thrilled about the tactical options while the less committed ones found it quite boring and preferred a system with less precision and more DM adjudication.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 24, 2008)

FitzTheRuke said:
			
		

> The biggest reason that I don't like mats & figures is that in every game I've played WITHOUT them I remember the events as if I was my character - seeing the events from my character's eyes.
> 
> WITH mats & figs I remember moving the figures around the mat.




This is a very valid concern. When I switched to a battlemat for 3E I at first found myself remembering the mat & figures, and not the first-person viewpoint I experienced with other games. But it soon went back to normal. All it takes is a little bit of time and familiarity with the system. 

One specific suggestion: keep your eyes on the eyes of the other players, and not the battlemat. This will focus you on the story/narrative/description, and you'll see the battlemat for what it is--just a reference, to be briefly glanced at only when needed.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> My apologies if a thread like this exists and I didnt see it.  After reading the new class powers, warlords in particular, it struck me that these rules will be much harder to accommodate in some games.  Mine in particular.
> 
> Any groups which don't use a playmat/whiteboard/graph paper to chart out exactly where will have a hard time using rules like "slide opponent two squares" and such.  I know its easy to say "just tell your players to imagine the kobold was knocked ten feet to the left", but I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.
> 
> ...




Honestly, my first thought is perhaps 4e is not for you.  3.5 was very heavy on the tactical aspect, which I see from your latest post that you worked around.  I think that you will likely be able to work around this as well.


----------



## Magus Coeruleus (Mar 25, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> This is a very valid concern. When I switched to a battlemat for 3E I at first found myself remembering the mat & figures, and not the first-person viewpoint I experienced with other games. But it soon went back to normal. All it takes is a little bit of time and familiarity with the system.



Having DMed and played several years both ways this is not my experience.  Mat-based play has continued to result in inferior first-person perspective immersive experience and memory for me despite complete familiarity and comfort with grid use.



			
				Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> One specific suggestion: keep your eyes on the eyes of the other players, and not the battlemat. This will focus you on the story/narrative/description, and you'll see the battlemat for what it is--just a reference, to be briefly glanced at only when needed.



This sounds like good advice.  As another poster mentioned, I think it is also good for a DM to describe the room verbally, including details on appearance (not just dimensions) before revealing a mat, so that an image can form in the players' minds before settling down to mat-mode.  The DM can also continue referring to details not shown on the mat to maintain awareness of the unique context during combat.

It's more automatic without a mat, however, since the DM then relies on such details to provide spatial cues.  I also like the flexibility afforded by a mat-free combat in terms of those details.  Cover, for instance, will usually be readily apparent and fixed on the mat, whereas without a mat, a player can ask about nearby cover and the DM can decide whether/where there is some in a way that facilitates an exciting fight, and/or that allows a little fudge-work to help the players or opponents if things are going too easy/hard in an unsatisfying way.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 25, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Recycled concern from 3E. If your 3E game didn't suffer from not using a mat, I don't see how your 4E game will suffer.



This.

I didn't know an echo could take eight years to bounce.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 25, 2008)

There was an interesting discussion on this issue back in 2003 here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=59508

You might be interested in my post http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=1052818&postcount=13 where I link to a pdf for a "simple narrative action" for 3e - I've not looked at it in years, but it might prove interesting in terms of a 4e discussion.

Cheers


----------



## Khaalis (Mar 25, 2008)

Personally, I've been using 3D representations for combat since AD&D. I started with using Dice and Coins as PCs and Monsters and hand drawn "terrain" on paper in days before I could afford the fancy lead minis and other fun accoutrements. I've always had problems with a highly detailed combat encounter (or even some basic adventuring style encounters such as opening doors) not being visualized. There are always those players that try to "bend" a scene to their advantage when things don't go the way they want (e.g. "No i wasn't standing there, I was over here. If no one heard me its not my fault. I'm over here not there." or "I heal the warrior. But the warrior is over fighting the dragon... if you were next to him you would have been hit with its breath weapon. So which is is it? Are you still in back by the wizard like you said, or next to the fighter?"). Battle maps did away with all that. It also clarified ranges, line of sight, etc.

As for the more tactical aspects such as actually 5' grids, I can give or take it. It adds a level of strategy to the game that myself and our group of gamers enjoy (lots of Mech players and strategy Board game players) so it doesn't bother us. Overall though, I have seen 3E run without minis and maps, and it works IF you have a DM AND Players that aren't at all about following rules and willing to "fudge" powers, skills, spells etc. to make it seem more cinematic, such as going on faith that the wizard's fireball doesn't actually hit any party members, the ranger firing into melee without concern for possibly hitting an ally, etc.  Personally, I think that if you want this style of combat you shouldn't be using D&D in the first place. There are better storyteller systems for that style of game. JMHO.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 25, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> I've always had problems with a highly detailed combat encounter (or even some basic adventuring style encounters such as opening doors) not being visualized. There are always those players that try to "bend" a scene to their advantage when things don't go the way they want (e.g. "No i wasn't standing there, I was over here. If no one heard me its not my fault. I'm over here not there." or "I heal the warrior. But the warrior is over fighting the dragon... if you were next to him you would have been hit with its breath weapon. So which is is it? Are you still in back by the wizard like you said, or next to the fighter?"). Battle maps did away with all that. It also clarified ranges, line of sight, etc.



This! QFT. Finally someone who made exactly the same experience I did. 

We've had loads of problems with pcs teleporting all over the place including long arguments and terrible rollbacks that destroyed the mood and got on everybodys nerves or even made people angry and bear lasting grudges.

Still, it's nice if you don't HAVE to use minis for every encounter. What I wouldn't like to do is play D&D like Heroquest, where every single action has to be done on the board.
Since I am quite fond of wilderness encounters I often have to deal with very long distances. For these it's sufficient to indicate general directions and approximate distances - no need to count squares.
But I really don't expect any changes in that regard in 4E.


----------



## Zinovia (Mar 25, 2008)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> We've had loads of problems with pcs teleporting all over the place...



Just make everyone play Eladrin in 4E and they can teleport all over the place while still following the rules.   

I hadn't considered that using a mat might impact the players' ability to have a memorable combat because it forces them out of the first person experience, and into viewing minis on the table.  My husband or I always wound up being the GM for whatever game we ended up playing.  We've used a mat since Rolemaster about 20 years ago, and when we adopted 3E, we naturally continued to use it.  Personally I have trouble remembering where everyone is without props of some sort.  Even without a grid, we used minis and dice to show relative positioning in our AD&D days.  

I found that without using minis (or dice) you do have arguments with players about where they said they were, and where you thought they were, and retroactive movement that happens only after a described consequence of positioning.  In general I like using minis, and our hex map (long live hexes!!!).  Still, it might be fun to try some small combats without them to see if they feel more immersive.


----------



## Kaisoku (Mar 25, 2008)

I have, and still, play without a mat or grid in most situations. This is done as both a timesaver for playing the game (we only have a couple hours per session usually) and for the DM prep (we lead busy lives).

I've never been in a situation where there was an argument over peoples positions. Yes, there are moments where the DM forgets where you moved to, and has to change his NPCs actions accordingly... or a player had a different picture in his mind and didn't realize his limits. However, these situations never lead to arguments. What happens is either the DM or Players let them know the correction, and play moves on. It helps if the players are honest.

One trick I've found works is explaining the repercussions of what you are doing along with the action itself. Like... "I move past the enemy, keeping out of it's reach, and try to flank". And the DM responds saying if it's possible with your movement or not. Combat movement and ranges tend to be a bit more freeform... if anything, the actual feet could be taken out and you could replace them with "short, mid, long" for ranges and run with it.. but saying "feet" gives a more solid impression on our mind's eye for visualizing the events.


Ultimately, the time spent on clarifying position, range and movement is so minimal, that it is hardly noticeable and doesn't detract from the experience at all. Grids and Minis create a jarring disconnect, and in and of themselves take up a lot more time (in my experience).

Quite frankly... our sessions have been bogged down more by people (DMs and Players alike) being unclear on rule calls and ability limitations, and nitpicking bonuses from round to round while multiple effects are being applied. It doesn't sound like 4e will reduce the bonus tallying aspect much (if anything it sounds like it may get to be a bigger issue). Honestly, I'm not sure how to resolve this part without making the game too simplistic, so I can't really fault 4e for not being the cure-all for that.

What would be stunning is if the DMG had a section on playing the game without a Mat, and the obstacles involved, and tricks to get around them. That would impress me greatly.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Mar 25, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> Personally, I've been using 3D representations for combat since AD&D. I started with using Dice and Coins as PCs and Monsters and hand drawn "terrain" on paper in days before I could afford the fancy lead minis and other fun accoutrements.




I think most people, even in OD&D, at some point broke out some counters (even scraps of paper) or sketched out a scene on graph paper to denote relative positions of combatants.

Maybe part of the problem is that the quality of those representations has steadily gotten *better*. If you use a button or bottlecap to keep track of your character's position, everyone knows that it's just a counter. It's not your character. But as minis have gotten better, it may have gotten easier to think of the mini itself as your character.

Magus Coeruleus, I encourage you to give it a try next time you play on a battlemat. Use M&Ms, spare dice, or pennies to represent your characters--anything other than miniatures. Since the playing pieces don't look *anything* like what they represent, your mind will have to visualize the characters themselves.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 25, 2008)

Dave Turner said:
			
		

> At the risk of sounding confrontational, why does the OP still think that he should continue to play D&D?  It's hardly the only fantasy game on the market and there are plenty of other games which feature non-tactical combat.  There are likely many familiar D&D elements that the OP wishes to hold onto (such as fireballs, chromatic dragons, spontaneous healing, or what-have-you).  I just wonder if the effort required to adapt 4e to the OP's needs is greater than adapting the cherished D&D concepts to a new, non-tactical system?




Because D&D is much better supported than most other RPGs?  Because it's infinitely easier to find players?  Because there looks like being a whole lot of good stuff in 4E, much of which won't appear in other systems, and it seems better to try to tweak 4E than try to find some other game?

I've played with and without battlemats.  Each has its advantages and its drawbacks.  I would really like to be able to do both with 4E, without having to learn a whole different game.



			
				Mr Jack said:
			
		

> Use minatures. No, seriously. 3.x was designed to be used with minatures and plays better with them. 4th looks to be even further down the path back to the roots of D&D.




Uh, no.  3.x was indeed designed to be used with minis, but I would not say that it plays better with them.  My experience has been that with minis, it's a tactical wargame (when combat breaks out, at least); without minis, it's an immersive story.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a strategy gamer from away back and I enjoy the wargame, but I also enjoy the ability to go "story-first," as the Forge people might say.

And as for the "roots of D&D," I would never dream of playing Classic or AD&D with minis.  Way too much hassle and loss of immersion, for too little reward.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 25, 2008)

EATherrian said:
			
		

> I know that is the stock response but I never even felt the mechanical need for miniatures until 3rd Edition.  I think that as a logical off-shoot of Chainmail, miniatures were helpful but not necessary in the earlier versions.




I never used minis until 3E.  Everything, as far as distance and what not, was estimated in our heads (that was what the DM was for).  There was never this level of tactical movement before 3E AFAICR


----------



## smathis (Mar 25, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Because D&D is much better supported than most other RPGs?  Because it's infinitely easier to find players?  Because there looks like being a whole lot of good stuff in 4E, much of which won't appear in other systems, and it seems better to try to tweak 4E than try to find some other game?




Also, because in many regions there's no alternative to _not_ playing D&D. In some places I've lived, there really were two choices: play D&D or not play at all.

I don't mean to invalidate Dave's point. But I don't find statements like "play something else" all that helpful.

I seriously doubt that it was a design goal of WotC to alienate all those people who either can't afford or simply don't want to use minis. Sure, I believe they wanted to make mini use a more _attractive_ option in 4e.

But to tell all those people to pack up and go home?

I don't think so. Especially when we have a lead developer (Mearls) giving us concrete examples on these boards and advice based on his own playtesting of 4e _without minis_. If the goal of some posters is to splinter the D&D community and dissuade others from playing, by all means, keep advising people to pack up and go play WoW.

But, in any other case, I can't see how it's helpful to tell people to not play D&D simply because they don't want to use minis. It's not like there's a strong contingent of mini-haters on these boards telling mini-users to go play Battletech.

 :\


----------



## Revinor (Mar 25, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> And as for the "roots of D&D," I would never dream of playing Classic or AD&D with minis.  Way too much hassle and loss of immersion, for too little reward.




Roots of D&D in this context mean something from what D&D grew (Chainmail), not just very old version of D&D.

Same as World of Warcraft could go back to it's root by releasing World of Warcraft 2, which would text only game playable over telnet. I'm sure that both gamers enjoying text MUDs would be very happy.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Mar 25, 2008)

Magus Coeruleus said:
			
		

> I, too, don't really like battlemats overall.  Yes, they help clarify combat and reduce misunderstandings but for me they ravage immersion.  Combat also take a LOT longer given the time it takes me to set them up and because it seems to encourage optimized boardgame thinking by players and doting over the mat, counting squares, etc., rather than doing what they feel their characters would do.




I played without any mini or mat in 2nd edition.  I have found that the trade off is not as significant as you thing.

 - Players will always optimize their combat actions.  They will announce an intent to set up a flank.  They will declare that the fireball is centered to maximum effect.  I do not think that much time is gained by not using a mat / minis.

 - You will save time by not having to set up a mat.  You may however lose time if you end up in an argument about whether or not someone would have cover from another player or obstruction.  Or whether or not a players Fireball is really able to hit 8 out of your 10 combatants.  A grid inherently resolves all positioning arguments.  On top of that, applying positioning based rules becomes easier and much fairer.

 - The use of a grid makes the use of terrain considerations much easier.  For me it helps immersion when a player can chose to run into a nearby building and close the door.  Or they can choose to bullrush someone into an environmental hazard (off a cliff, into a fire).  Without the visual aid, they wont bother considering it.

There are only two reasons I can think of not to use a grid at all.  The first is if your gaming space is already cramped.  A standard grid takes up alot of space, and if you have already have problems fitting your books, notes, and snacks at the table, you will have a problem.

The other reason is simply the cost of the grid and minis.  I managed to luck out, since I still have the plastic mini's from a Hero Quest game, as well as a bunch of minis someone left at at my place 10 years ago after college (He just forgot them, and about 6 months later I realized they were still around).  Using random coins hurts immersion, and it makes mixed combatants hard to track properly.

But if you do not mind the cost, or can work around it (chess pieces work quite well, pawns for fodder, king and queens for big bad), I am convinced that the mini's solve more problems than they cause.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## entrerix (Mar 26, 2008)

I'm really surprised to see how many people have arguments at the game table, or think that matless play will increase arguments, I know i posted a long message on this topic at the end of page 1, but it still strikes me as odd hearing about arguments.  If I had a player try and argue hard enough slow play down more than once every few months I wouldn't invite someone like that back to play.

Maybe I'm just super lucky to have the friends I have or something, I don't like arguments and won't have them at the table


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 15, 2008)

Zaruthustran said:
			
		

> I think most people, even in OD&D, at some point broke out some counters (even scraps of paper) or sketched out a scene on graph paper to denote relative positions of combatants.
> 
> Maybe part of the problem is that the quality of those representations has steadily gotten *better*. If you use a button or bottlecap to keep track of your character's position, everyone knows that it's just a counter. It's not your character. But as minis have gotten better, it may have gotten easier to think of the mini itself as your character.
> 
> Magus Coeruleus, I encourage you to give it a try next time you play on a battlemat. Use M&Ms, spare dice, or pennies to represent your characters--anything other than miniatures. Since the playing pieces don't look *anything* like what they represent, your mind will have to visualize the characters themselves.




QFT.  Plus, there is one other thing you can do to enhance this experience:  Don't use a battlemat.  That's right.  Just plop your eraser and bottlecap and the hat from Monopoly down on the table, in approximately the relative positions they are in according to the description of the GM and players.  

After you have done that awhile, get a yardstick or maybe a flexible tape--if you can trust yourself to not get too caught up in exact measurements, and only use it for things like, "This guy is close enough to short bow range to count as in range."  Otherwise, you might want to get a piece of string and mark it with those excellent suggested distances, Here, There, and Over There.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Apr 15, 2008)

Entreri: I think you're seeing different types of player groups.  Some can get along with almost no arguing whatsoever (for whatever reason).  Others will apparently argue over whether the sun is up.

A battlemat serves to lay down parameters in concrete terms rather than abstract terms.  This is the essential difference between playing with a mat vs. not playing with a mat.  Some people apparently find that keeping the action on the abstract level (no mat) helps their immersion, while other people find that actually _seeing_ the action going on helps their immersion.

It definitely seems to be a difference in style.  I'm curious as to whether those who prefer concrete representations of the game state (mats) also prefer concrete representations of the rules (generally, more explicit and wordier rules to cover corner cases) as opposed to abstract representations of the rules (i.e., work with the GM and rely on his judgement and 'common sense').

Speaking for my group, personally, we use a mat.  And it might be just me, but whenever I reach over and topple the BBEG's mini, I get a cheer from the players.  That, to me, tells me that I'm doing the right thing.  (Note: I and two of my players all score highly on the 'Tactical Gamer' scale of Robin Laws, and so factor that information in to the above.)


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 15, 2008)

I've played with and without a mat. I definitely prefer playing with one. Back in the 1980s I was in high school and couldn't afford miniatures, so we used cardboard counters with the character's/monster's name written on them.


----------



## med stud (Jun 3, 2008)

I usually don't care for a grid, but some kind of graphic representation is a must in a close matched combat. I will try a grid out now with 4e and see how it works (it must be possible to make a working grid in Excel pretty easily).


----------



## GameOgre (Jun 3, 2008)

I have never used a mat while DMing D&D in the 39 years Ive been playing. I've been running 4E D&D for two days strait now and there is no more call for a mat than there was in 3.5 or 2E.

 Really if a experienced DM who doesnt like Mats/figures can run his 3.5 game without them then there is no issue with doing so in 4e. 

 I can see a new untried DM having issues however. But then they had the same issues in 3E and 2E.


----------



## Grazzt (Jun 3, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Recycled concern from 3E. If your 3E game didn't suffer from not using a mat, I don't see how your 4E game will suffer.




Yep. Im guessing 4e can be played without minis and without mats. One of the guys on the Troll Lord Games forums (DangerDwarf) is trying out/playing 4e. And the last session they played, they didnt really use a mat or minis much at all.

Mid way down the page, here: 

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewt...&postorder=asc&start=15&mforum=trolllordgames

I can myself foregoing minis and mats sometimes. I didnt use them all the time in pre-3.x, and definitely didnt use them all the time in 3.x. Sure lots of 4e is predicated on movement and positioning, but if the players are ok with abstractions then I am too. And I think we can make it work just fine


----------



## Evenglare (Jun 3, 2008)

Ill throw in my 2 cents here, Basically we used to do this.

Throw down character representers (miniatures) . THATS IT. Never drew out anything, i describe the scene, we used the miniatures on the table, NO SQUARES or anything. We used this to know where our characters were in relation to one another. So you still get to use the imagination without drawing out everything, and yet you still get your tactical combat. Everybody wins.


----------



## Heselbine (Jun 3, 2008)

As someone who loves using minis I'm very interested to hear that so many people play without. Is there any chance one of you could do a detailed example of how it plays? I'm struggling to imagine how you keep track of everything.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 3, 2008)

In one 3E campaign we use miniatures, in the other we don't.  It works fine in 3E with or without.  4E is completely impractical to not use miniatures.

  3E you had to deal with generally 1 to 8 monsters and all you had to care about was flanking and attacks of opportunity and occasionally an area of effect from the wizard, short of bull rush when a player or mob moved that was where it stayed until it's next action.

  In 4E you have to deal with 10-20 monsters and every single one can shift or mark or has an aura or burst power or the players can shift them several squares several times a turn and every player has an area of effect power.  In KoTS the dragonshields would be fodder without a map to handle all their shifting, or to keep track of how many are on each target for pack tactics and to keep track of who is marked by who etc.

WotC wants to sell miniatures.  Surprise.


----------



## Henry (Jun 3, 2008)

Heselbine said:
			
		

> I'm struggling to imagine how you keep track of everything.




I'm guessing they don't, and that's the secret.  If the group is in tune with what they're doing, the DM and players can probably guesstimate what is going on, op-attacks, etc. with the players trusting the DM as to adjudicating who is in range to get hit by what, etc. I also suppose ignoring or eliminating powers and effects that depend on op-attacks help, too.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 3, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> In one 3E campaign we use miniatures, in the other we don't.  It works fine in 3E with or without.  4E is completely impractical to not use miniatures.
> 
> 3E you had to deal with generally 1 to 8 monsters and all you had to care about was flanking and attacks of opportunity and occasionally an area of effect from the wizard, short of bull rush when a player or mob moved that was where it stayed until it's next action.
> 
> ...




How do you get 10-20 monsters? In a standard encounter, you're facing one monster per PC.

The only time it would be different would be if you face a lot of minions but minions, like other monsters, are set by the DM. I would assume the DM would only use enough monsters they feel comfortable with.

As well, if the DM feels like the marking monsters are too troublesome, don't use them but use the other ones instead.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 3, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm guessing they don't, and that's the secret.  If the group is in tune with what they're doing, the DM and players can probably guesstimate what is going on, op-attacks, etc. with the players trusting the DM as to adjudicating who is in range to get hit by what, etc. I also suppose ignoring or eliminating powers and effects that depend on op-attacks help, too.




That's how it works in my Mutants and Masterminds game. Players ask if they can get to such and such a villain, and I decide if it would be a cooler scene if they get there now and whomp, or if they have to spend a turn running/flying/driving/swinging first to build tension.

Everything is "plot distance" apart, which works because everyone travels at "speed of plot." If you didn't (or couldn't!) trust your DM tho, that would be hell.

PS


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm guessing they don't, and that's the secret.  If the group is in tune with what they're doing, the DM and players can probably guesstimate what is going on, op-attacks, etc. with the players trusting the DM as to adjudicating who is in range to get hit by what, etc.




Pretty much.  Playing with minis gets you used to the idea that everything is clearly defined and there's an objective, rules-based answer to every question, which can be resolved without recourse to the DM.  Playing without minis requires one to break out of that mold.

Non-battlemat combat is much more loose and freewheeling, and involves a lot of on-the-fly judgement calls from the DM.  Instead of the wizard carefully positioning her _fireball_ on the grid, she asks, "How many can I hit with a _fireball_?"  And the DM replies, "Three of them, or four if you're willing to hit the paladin as well."  Then the wizard decides whether to fry three enemies, or four plus the paladin, or do something else, and the game moves on.

Now, when this happens, the DM is not consulting an elaborate mental map.  He's just tossing off a number that "feels" right.

Opportunity attacks involve similar handwaving.  Typically, a player will say, "I move up and attack the orc chieftain," and the DM will reply, "That's going to provoke two opportunity attacks from the grunts."  Then the player can either say, "Okay, I'm doing it anyway," or, "Oh, then I'll attack one of the grunts instead."

It seems like it should be slower than miniatures-based combat, since you're asking the DM questions all the time, but my experience is that it actually goes faster.  The time spent asking the DM stuff is more than compensated for by the time _not_ spent counting off squares, figuring out exactly where to place spell effects, and plotting just how to move so as not to provoke AoOs.

As others have said, however, this style of play requires a lot of trust between players and the DM, because _everything_ boils down to DM judgement calls.  The players have to trust the DM to make those calls fairly.  The DM has to trust that when a player says, "What?  I didn't realize they were positioned like _that_... if I'd known, I wouldn't have done that," the player is telling the truth and not trying to fudge an advantage.  If you have that trust, it's a fast-paced, immersive, and exciting way to play.  If you don't, it will degenerate into a hellacious argument.


----------



## see (Jun 3, 2008)

I have to disagree with Mr. Mearls, here.

The difference between 3.5 and 4 that makes it harder to not use a "battle mat" is that players can move their opponents.  This _requires_ the players to have a much more precise understanding of positioning of the opponents than in the sort of high-trust 3.5 game I ran in an text-only chat environment.

Granted, this works out to something minor like having to answer, "Is there a wide enough space between the forward brutes that I can use my power to pull the opponent wizard forward where the fighter can hit him with his sword?"  But with the slowness of text chat, having to answer that sort of thing several times translates into a significant slowdown of the combat over 3.5, which was itself a slowdown over 2e.

Accordingly, I'm investigating online tabletop programs to decide if I'm even going to try to run 4e online.


----------



## Regicide (Jun 3, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How do you get 10-20 monsters? In a standard encounter, you're facing one monster per PC.
> 
> The only time it would be different would be if you face a lot of minions but minions, like other monsters, are set by the DM. I would assume the DM would only use enough monsters they feel comfortable with.
> 
> As well, if the DM feels like the marking monsters are too troublesome, don't use them but use the other ones instead.




  I base this on KotS.
[sblock]
Encounter
1. 12 monsters
2. 5
3. 13
4. 17 including an elite, a guaranteed TPK encounter
5. 7
6. 5 including a swarm
7. 5
8. 5
9. 14 including a named
10. 14

  Thats about an average of 9 monsters per encounter, and no, minions don't vapourize on turn 1, playing no part, they've had a huge impact in our games.  With 5 PCs you have 14 models to keep track of on average, half the time more.
[/sblock]


----------



## jmucchiello (Jun 3, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Now, when this happens, the DM is not consulting an elaborate mental map.  He's just tossing off a number that "feels" right.



I could never play with that DM. I would have a mental map of the combat and the first time the DM just tossed out a number that made no sense on my map I'd ask what creature moved? My sense of time and space is acute and it is not something I can turn off. It would always bug me. That has nothing to do with me trusting or not trusting the DM. It has to do with me. I've always played RPGs (all RPGs) on a battlemat because it removes arguments about who is where. I've played with too many folks who can't hold the battle mat in their head to do otherwise.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 3, 2008)

Regicide said:
			
		

> I base this on KotS.
> Encounter
> SNIP!




You really ought to Spoilerize that.

PS


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 3, 2008)

Storminator said:
			
		

> If you didn't (or couldn't!) trust your DM tho, that would be hell.




If you don't trust your DM, then an RPG is hell, period, whether you're using a grid or not.


----------



## entrerix (Jun 3, 2008)

hi all, op here after many weeks and now having tried the game without mini's.  I ran my own scenario and everything worked out exactly like it did in the last 3.5 editions, except for because of "shifting" and "sliding" and all that stuff I ended up using phrases like 

"the kobold slices at you with his shortsword and then quickly hops away, just out of arms reach"  

or "the force from your attack knocks him back ten or 15 feet or so"

or (in the case of sliding/shifting your ally)  "right after you make your swing you grab at the rangers shoulder and shove him into position at your side/back so you can't be flanked"

or "after cracking the orc over the head you kick him aside, which opens up a hole in the line that one of your allies can move into - who do you order to take the position?"

so while it does diminish the warlord class in particular to a slight degree, it still gets much of the point across to the players, and leads to some very exciting action scenes, with people being shoved and kicked and knocked around while slashing and bashing at the droves of enemies that keep coming in (minions)

and for people who were wondering recently, i posted earlier in the thread in detail about how we run games without mini's, and the level of cooperation and trust required. go back through and find it if you're interested


----------



## 2eBladeSinger (Jun 3, 2008)

"Don't play 4e then!"  The best advice I've gotten all day.  And here I've been wondering all this time how to find the best compromise between the literal rules a more open narrative playing style *feels silly*  Sometimes the answer is right in front of us and I can't believe that I haven't seen it until now.  I suppose this remedy works well for all sorts of issues 4e related:

Upset with the nerfed 2 weapon rules?  Don't play 4e!
Dislike multi-classing options?  Don't play 4e (play HERO instead)
Alignment got you down?  No problem.  Don't play.

I've already cancelled my order through Amazon.

Anyone looking for a Rolemaster or Hero Game in the California Central Valley?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 4, 2008)

entrerix said:
			
		

> My apologies if a thread like this exists and I didnt see it.  After reading the new class powers, warlords in particular, it struck me that these rules will be much harder to accommodate in some games.  Mine in particular.
> 
> Any groups which don't use a playmat/whiteboard/graph paper to chart out exactly where will have a hard time using rules like "slide opponent two squares" and such.  I know its easy to say "just tell your players to imagine the kobold was knocked ten feet to the left", but I don't want to have to worry about keeping track of exactly how many feet away each enemy is, that's why we don't use a mat to begin with.



Freeform D&D has always dealt with this, since spells have explicit ranges, bows can only fire so far, and so on.

If this wasn't an issue before, it's not an issue now.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 4, 2008)

see said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with Mr. Mearls, here.
> 
> The difference between 3.5 and 4 that makes it harder to not use a "battle mat" is that players can move their opponents.  This _requires_ the players to have a much more precise understanding of positioning of the opponents than in the sort of high-trust 3.5 game I ran in an text-only chat environment.
> 
> ...




Wouldn't this depend on class?

The rogue and the fighter definitely look like they use a lot of movement options either on themselves or the opposition whereas the warlord, cleric and the ranger seem somewhat bereft of these options mostly.

The warlock seems in-between the fighter and warlord whereas the wizard doesn't seem to have any at all.

If I was going gridless, I would actually restrict the amount of classes people would play or at the least, cut off the powers that focus on movement.

re: No of models
I think I was misunderstanding you. When you said 10-20 monsters, I thought you were referring to NPCs and NOT including PCs in that total.

However, as yourself pointed out, half of the time it will actually be 10 models and in fact, if you were overhelmed, you can actually decrease that number. Use elites and solos plus higher level monsters in the budget.

For a DM, for any standard encounter {defined in the DMG as laverage evel of party (+1)}, the numer of models can range from 1 (solo) up to 20 (all minions).

So, I don't think a DM has to be worried about keeping track of everything since by and large, the DM is the one that sets the encounters.

That would be another tip for running gridless. Use less monsters and focus on more elites/solos


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 4, 2008)

GameOgre said:
			
		

> in the 39 years Ive been playing.




Good Lord, that's 12 years longer than I've been alive! *bow*


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 4, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Good Lord, that's 12 years longer than I've been alive! *bow*



Your name is false advertising, sir!


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 4, 2008)

You really thought I was old? 

Nah there was an old Dragon mag that had "Old Gumphrey" in there, it was an NPC. I've used it in almost every campaign I've run since then.


----------

