# Why Must I Kludge My Combat?



## Stormonu (Jun 2, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 2, 2010)

The game was designed to have longer combats than you prefer.  I found 3e combats too short - it always felt like the monsters had tons of abilities they never got to use.  I'd suggest you play 3e instead of 4e.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> If I'm engaged in a relaxed game, why must I resort to using tricks to "speed up my combat"?  I'm talking about the type of tricks mentioned in several threads about speeding up 4E's combat - halving monster hit points, having PCs roll attack and damage together in the same roll and all the other "tricks" people have presented just to get their combat down to a reasonable time span.  Why can't the game just present a combat system in which you can resolve the situation in a reasonable amount of time in the first place.  Why do you have to kludge the system to make it work for you?  Why is it acceptable?



I haven't found I've needed to cut HPs in half - I gave a similar idea a shot, a while back, but didn't find it added anything to my game.  I don't find that I need to kludge it at all, actually.  I use a program called Masterplan to make my DMing even smoother, but I can go without if need be.

I think one of the issues you're running into is that 4e's combat is intentionally highly-interactive and highly-tactical.  It's not a combat engine you can just let run on autopilot, and it absolutely runs best when the players and DM are both engaged with it.

I'd say if your main goal for combat is kicking back and not worrying about tactics and preparation, and getting fights over in 15 minutes, 4e (and 3e) past the first few levels probably isn't what you're looking for.  I'd look towards one of the OSR games, or maybe at something altogether different like WFRP2.



> I think any RPG that _requires_ you to rush through combat by using various tricks or techniques is a telling failure in that part of the game.  A combat can be dramatic and exciting without having to be rushed.  I don't want to be hastened through running a combat just so I can get it to be over with in a half-hour to hour instead of two-hour, three-hour or longer combats in an RPG.  If I can't play through a combat at about the same pace I run the rest of the game and reliably have 15 minute to half-hour combats (or about the same length it takes a group of characters to interact with an NPC or search a non-empty room in the game), I think that's bad game design - a faulty focus placed on one aspect of the game over another portion of the game.



That's just it, though - it's not a failure in game design.  It's a failure of the game to match your expectations.  Hour-long combats are built into the system, and longer combats are expected for major battles.  And more than a few people are having great fun with 4e as-is.  Quite a few more find it works great for them with some "kludges" which you'd rather not deal with.  And quite a few yet more find that it doesn't work for them at all.

4e was never designed towards 15 minute combats.  Yes, those can be fun, too, but that was never a goal.  Other games _are_ geared towards quick & easy combat; not every game _has_ to be.

I'd probably say you're playing the wrong game if you're not enjoying it, if it's not meeting what you want out of your RPGs, and if you would rather not put effort towards making it work better for you.  I'd try some other games that will work better for your expectations out of the box.

-O


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 2, 2010)

individual player turns, tactical placement of minis and thick rulebooks lead to long combats.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2010)

My group had the opposite reaction to 4e combat: they loved it, despite, for the most part, being talky-talky gamers who happily play combat-free, and even dice-free, sessions consisting solely of character and plot development. During my last stint as DM I ran a four+ hour combat, split over two sessions, pitting the PC's (on a train) against pirates in an airship. Who knew pushing, pulling, sliding, and condition-inflicting could be so much fun? I've never run an encounter both that long _and_ that satisfying using previous editions of D&D. 

Anyhow, seems like 4e just ain't your thing, mang...


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 2, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I think that's bad game design - a faulty focus placed on one aspect of the game over another portion of the game.



But the DM sets the focus of the game...not the rules.

"Play something else" is always an option.  Another suggestion you will probably hear a lot is "have fewer battles."  The second one is probably your best bet, IMO.

It sounds like you and your friends really enjoy 4E, but you don't care for the battles all that much.  So instead of dropping the game whole-hog and going with something else, just cut back on the battles a bit.  Frodo and Sam didn't have to do battle six times a day, after all.

Have only one battle per gaming session, maybe two.  And make them *awesome,* with lots of dialogue, rich descriptions, special terrain, and unexpected surprises.

Quality over quantitiy.  That's the key.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 2, 2010)

There are many feelings that games tend to evoke. Relaxing may be one of them but not the only one. Certainly a game that to play it properly never allows you to relax and keeps you constantly worried about things artificial and not intuitive does not sound fun to me. Rpgs that are built and designed on metagaming calculations like battleboards or betting accounting tend to bore me. OTOH rpg storytelling can be boring sometimes too. What seems to be more fascinating is action that feels like action and that has to be evolving on the tracks of some story or plot purpose.
Both oldschool and newschool design have their merits and flaws. Unfortunately or fortunately, I believe that for tabletop rpgs there is still much room for improvement.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 2, 2010)

The idea that you cannot have tactically satisfying combats that take 15-30 minutes, tops, is IMHO and IME a false one.  AFAICT, though, having  tactically satisfying *minature-centric* combats that take 15-30 minutes is difficult.

And, as the WotC marketing data shows, gamers who buy minis spend a heck of a lot more than gamers who don't.  I wouldn't hold my breath, hoping that 5e goes in the other direction.

Fortunately, if you don't like the 4e combat engine, there are many other fine games out there to play.  


RC


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

@ OP: I am playing 4e and I can kind of sympathize with you for a couple of reasons...

1. If you come from earlier editions of D&D into 4e then overall combat is certainly longer than nearly any other edition... with the possible exception of some high-level 3e fights... and even some of those could end quicker than some low to mid-level 4e fights. The combat length in 4e however is pretty much hardcoded so there is no sticking to low levels for quicker fights as with 3.x (E6/E8/etc.)

2. There are no classes in 4e where you can just step up and whack creatures like the fighter in previous editions.  I lament this because IMO, there are plenty of people who would enjoy a game like D&D but don't want to play mini-chess everytime a fight breaks out... I actually lost one of my casual players (who only played Barbs and Fighters in 3.5) when I decided to run a 4e game.

3. Also, I find that the combat is causing the actual adventures my players are partaking in to move at a snails pace... literally. This is a preference thing, so I won't say it's "bad game design"... but I do think that it's game design that perhaps didn't take into consideration how the length of the combat encounter being hardcoded across all levels of play would affect the pacing of the overall game and the disconnect it would create with those who do not favor the focus on the individual encounter over the adventure as a whole.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 3. Also, I find that the combat is causing the actual adventures my players are partaking in to move at a snails pace... literally. This is a preference thing, so I won't say it's "bad game design"... but I do think that it's game design that perhaps didn't take into consideration how the length of the combat encounter being hardcoded across all levels of play would affect the pacing of the overall game and the disconnect it would create with those who do not favor the focus on the individual encounter over the adventure as a whole.



Actually, speaking as a big fan of 4e, I agree here.  It's one of the major flaws of WotC's adventures in particular, IMO.  I'm fine with longer combats, but to keep plot interest across sessions, there need to be fewer of them in between story developments.  (And there needs to be more emphasis on diplomacy/avoidance as solutions, as well as fewer "this monster attacks immediately and to the death" encounters.)

-O


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 2, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Actually, speaking as a big fan of 4e, I agree here.  It's one of the major flaws of WotC's adventures in particular, IMO.  I'm fine with longer combats, but to keep plot interest across sessions, there need to be fewer of them in between story developments.  (And there needs to be more emphasis on diplomacy/avoidance as solutions, as well as fewer "this monster attacks immediately and to the death" encounters.)
> 
> -O




This is not the first time it's come up that the adventure design and the rules design don't seem to be on the same page.

My brief experience with WotC adventures for 4e suggests that there are way, way too many fights.  So much so that it seems counterproductive if you want to keep selling adventures.  We need time to finish these massive slogs.

I find it interesting that the only time one of their play podcasts with the PA guys included a previously published adventure, they basically cut out 90% of the combats.


----------



## malraux (Jun 2, 2010)

Canis said:


> I find it interesting that the only time one of their play podcasts with the PA guys included a previously published adventure, they basically cut out 90% of the combats.




In fairness, the goal there was to play through the entire adventure in a relatively short timespan.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 2, 2010)

CleverNickName said:


> But the DM sets the focus of the game...not the rules.




Here I disagree.  The rules of the game are the only way for the players to interact with the game in an objective way.  The rules determine what is a good idea, and what is a bad idea.  They determine what kinds of abilities the characters can have, and how that affects the world.

I can, as a GM, decide that I am going to run a game with a focus that it was not designed for.  You can also, as the saying goes, pound in a screw with a hammer.  That doesn't make it a good idea.  I can say "I'm going to run a hack and slash dungeon crawl with Call of Cthulhu rules", but that doesn't make it a good idea.  You're much better off decided what kind of focus you want and then picking a game that works for that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 2, 2010)

malraux said:


> In fairness, the goal there was to play through the entire adventure in a relatively short timespan.




That's kind of the point. Change relatively short timespan a bit for a home game but otherwise we have the same issue. The individual encounters get so involved that the overall adventure that connects them gets a bit lost.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 2, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> I can, as a GM, decide that I am going to run a game with a focus that it was not designed for.  You can also, as the saying goes, pound in a screw with a hammer.  That doesn't make it a good idea.  I can say "I'm going to run a hack and slash dungeon crawl with Call of Cthulhu rules", but that doesn't make it a good idea.  You're much better off decided what kind of focus you want and then picking a game that works for that.



I concede your point: 4E was designed with detailed combat in mind, and that might not be suitable for everyone.  And there are tons of games out there with different styles of combat, and they are all great fun.

What I was trying to say was, if you don't like the way combat works in 4E (or any game system), another option is to just use less of it.  While I don't particularly care for 4E, I can't deny that it is extremely versatile.  There are lots of other ways to earn XP besides combat.  Furthermore, not every encounter has to result in combat in order to be "won."  And not all battles have to be to the death.

These things are set by the DM, _with_ the rules.  Not against them.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 2, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Here I disagree. The rules of the game are the only way for the players to interact with the game in an objective way. The rules determine what is a good idea, and what is a bad idea. They determine what kinds of abilities the characters can have, and how that affects the world.
> 
> I can, as a GM, decide that I am going to run a game with a focus that it was not designed for. You can also, as the saying goes, pound in a screw with a hammer. That doesn't make it a good idea. I can say "I'm going to run a hack and slash dungeon crawl with Call of Cthulhu rules", but that doesn't make it a good idea. You're much better off decided what kind of focus you want and then picking a game that works for that.




Are you saying that a given set of rules only supports one playstyle?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Are you saying that a given set of rules only supports one playstyle?



I don't think so, based on the conversations we've had in the past.

Every RPG is better at some things, and worse at others.  When I'm running a game, I try to pick an RPG that's good at what I want to get out of the campaign.  If I want dungeon-crawly, tactical goodness (and believe me, I do), I'll pick 4e.  Yes, you _can_ play highly political, intrigue-centric games using 4e, and I'll argue vehemently against anyone who says it's impossible, but it's really not what 4e is _best_ at.  When I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil, I pulled 1e off the shelf.  1e is perfectly suited to the kind of campaign I wanted to run and to the kind of adventure ToEE is.  When I wanted a grim & gritty game, I ran WFRP2.  When I wanted to run some space-opera Star Wars stuff, I pulled out SWSE.

No single RPG can provide everything I, personally, want out of gaming.  I want different experiences from my games, and some of them are even self-contradictory.  I'd go nuts trying to make a single system do everything I want to do.  So, I play lots of different games, as the mood strikes me.  Right now, in addition to my 4e game, I'm running an intermittent Call of Cthulhu game to scratch my character-centric, plot-heavy itches.  It works really well.

Honestly, I think the best thing a GM can do is play games to their strengths and against their weaknesses.  (With, of course, small tweaks to make them even better, should the mood strike you.)  It makes for better gaming for everyone, IMO.

-O


----------



## Umbran (Jun 2, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I think any RPG that _requires_ you to rush through combat by using various tricks or techniques is a telling failure in that part of the game.




My wife is fatally allergic to strawberries.  Does that mean that strawberries on a cheesecake are a telling failure in a dessert, in general?  No.

We frequently confuse "failure to meet our particular needs" with "failure in general", and forget that no single game is going to please everybody.  Yes, many folks need to speed up combat in 4e - but many people don't.  The folks who don't need it sped up are probably happy with it - speeding it up would be a detriment to them, not an improvement in design.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 2, 2010)

What Obryn said.  

As well, sometimes new games are interesting because they give you new ideas.  By focusing on different areas you realize that games can work differently and focus on areas that you might not have considered before.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 2, 2010)

"A reasonable amount of time" means different things to different people.

The "requirement" comes from a preference (which I share) for faster action, combined with a determination (which I do not share) to use a set of rules designed to produce prolonged combats.

It would likewise take a "kludge" to make a 1st-level fight in OD&D take as long. Combatants with one hit dice are typically 90%+ likely to be out after two hits. With even a mere 20% chance, that's an average of 2 hits per round for 10 combatants. The basic rules do not stipulate a lot of bonuses for this and penalties for that -- and even a fair bit of such elaboration doesn't slow down a game much unless the factors have to be recalculated frequently. Moreover, "grind" is harder to come by when you've got morale factors.

To resolve an attack takes just a few seconds. Players can roll at once, but even doing one at a time in sequence doesn't add up to much. At a minute or two per round, even a 10-round fight takes but 10 or 20 minutes.

"Why must I kludge my combat", someone might ask, "to have it not be so suddenly and seemingly randomly resolved, with such a high casualty rate among beginning characters?"

The answer, again, is because it was designed to be that way. To slow it down, one could add hit points, reduce chances to hit, add rolls beyond the standard two per attack, throw in modifiers that change from round to round (or even attack to attack), use individual initiative, allow and precisely track a lot of movement even in a melee, and so on.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Jun 2, 2010)

I honestly don't know where this talk about a grind comes from.

95% of the time, combats take 45 minutes to resolve.

The exceptions I've found are:
1)  Solo Soldiers
2)  No Strikers
3)  Too many players
4)  All the encounters are built like it was the climax of the adventure (i.e. 2+ levels higher than the average party level rather than -1 to +1 which is supposed to be standard).
5)  Everyone statted up high level characters and are trying them out for the first time.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

cdrcjsn said:


> I honestly don't know where this talk about a grind comes from.
> 
> 95% of the time, combats take 45 minutes to resolve.



I don't doubt peoples' self-reports about combat times.  I know that mine go longer than that, for example, because I generally have 6-7 players, and everyone is pretty casual - both in character optimization, and in keeping track of the fight.  I've sped things up on my end to accommodate.  We still have a blast, mind you - but we'd frankly have less fun if we stayed 100% focused.

Some games fit some play-styles better than others.  I have no trouble believing that two different groups could play the same combat with the same characters against the same monsters, and take wildly different times doing so.

-O


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 2, 2010)

Well I see your list but we still had the grind with 2 players, the major part of grind for me was the encounter being effectively over but still half a dozen rounds til the enemy is dead. Yeah I could hand wave the end and/or make the enemy surrender/run etc but doing that every encounter? No thanks. Our combats are much more to our pace now, with Dragon Age (modded to have no grid, using WHFRP3E's lack of grid system)

Still good for you if you don't get grind, I wish it was the same for us. 'The Grind' (even after I had done many of the tricks given in this site, lowered HP and upped damage) ended our 4E campaign at 11th level.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 2, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> This is a rant; it is mostly aimed at 4E, but it is just as validly aimed at other games as well that have overly involved combat subsystems.
> 
> Most games I've been involved in are generally about relaxing, getting together with friends and having fun.  Relaxing is an important part; I play these games to get away from the stress of my day-to-day life, kick back and pretend I'm someone else, doing something I could never hope to do in my own life, facing dangers and obstacles I could never survive in real life.  Sure, I like dramatic (and big) battles, but I like to be able to both soak in what is going on, as well as have the time to properly plan my own actions (I have the personal flaw of being a poor tactician and often taking a minute or two to "catch on" to many things).
> 
> ...




From what I can gather, the designers of 4E wanted to make sure fights lasted long enough for the monsters to do all of their "cool" or "special" attacks.  In 3.5 ,characters could sometimes kill monsters off so quickly they didn't get a chance to do much, so they wanted to get away from that in      4E.  The problem is that they (IMHO) went way too far in the other direction, and it either wasn't caught in playtesting or they decided it was "good enough". The mechancis of 4E pretty much demand that fights will last a long time unless it's an easy fight, house rules are used (less hit points, more damage for monsters, free expertise feats for players, etc.), players optimize PC's to extremes, or the PC's have astoundingly good luck.  If you don't want long fights and don't want to use house rules, I would play something besides 4E.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> My wife is fatally allergic to strawberries.  Does that mean that strawberries on a cheesecake are a telling failure in a dessert, in general?  No.
> 
> We frequently confuse "failure to meet our particular needs" with "failure in general", and forget that no single game is going to please everybody.  Yes, many folks need to speed up combat in 4e - but many people don't.  The folks who don't need it sped up are probably happy with it - speeding it up would be a detriment to them, not an improvement in design.




I have to disagree. The fact that 4E combat takes so long that it's difficult to have time to do much else is a failure of the system.  The fact that you do have to houserule or put in extra work so you can actually finish more than two 4E combat encounters in an evening of gaming is a glaring failure of the system.  Strawberries on cheescake aren't good for you wife, but they also don't require most other people eating said strawberry cheesecake to put in extra work to enjoy it.  IMHO 4E combat does require more work to make it enjoyable than it should.


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 2, 2010)

Oh, I sympathize with the OP. 

But I also, overall, like 4e, and 4e combat. 

You can play 4e in a relaxed way. But not if you want 30 minute fights. You can have 30minute fights, but loose 4e by the book _and_ relaxed 4e.

My solution is to be slightly less relaxed, slightly less by the book, and to have fewer fights. 

Yours might be something else entirely.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2010)

Obryn said:


> When I'm running a game, I try to pick an RPG that's good at what I want to get out of the campaign.  If I want dungeon-crawly, tactical goodness (and believe me, I do), I'll pick 4e.  Yes, you _can_ play highly political, intrigue-centric games using 4e, and I'll argue vehemently against anyone who says it's impossible, but it's really not what 4e is _best_ at.



While it's hard to argue with choosing the right tool for job, in a sense, my group doesn't --gamers are a stubborn lot. Watching one of our D&D campaigns unfold, you'd swear we should be playing FATE or Burning Wheel (or, alternately, starting our own sketch comedy troupe). Yet we're currently playing 4e (tomorrow, in fact).

We seem to choose the game that's good at providing the tools we're _bad_ at creating ourselves. For example. we like the 4e combat engine --a lot-- but never would have put the time and energy required into creating something like. On the other hand, we essentially added FATE-like Aspects to our 3e campaign, albeit informally, without even realizing it.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I have to disagree. The fact that 4E combat takes so long that it's difficult to have time to do much else is a failure of the system.  The fact that you do have to houserule or put in extra work so you can actually finish more than two 4E combat encounters in an evening of gaming is a glaring failure of the system.  Strawberries on cheescake aren't good for you wife, but they also don't require most other people eating said strawberry cheesecake to put in extra work to enjoy it.  IMHO 4E combat does require more work to make it enjoyable than it should.



I think we've been down this road before, and been down it already in this thread.  Umbran covered it pretty succinctly, I think.

I have absolutely no doubt that you and/or your group did not like 4e combat, and that you found it both long and grindy.  You, however, seem to doubt that others find it works just fine as-is - and can finish more combats without houseruling.  Groups vary, and tastes vary.

_If a tool doesn't work for you, it does not mean the tool is broken._  Your experiences are not everyone's experiences.

-O


----------



## Shazman (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm sure that a number of people have no problem with 4E combat.  However, a lot of people do have problems making it work out of the box.  I'm not saying it should be perfect, but it shouldn't be so easy to have long, grindy combats.  I believe more playtesting would have resulted in a system with better math that would be more enjoyable for everyone, which would be good for the game, good for WotC, good for the hobby, and good for gamers.  Even if people do enjoy the lengthier combat time of 4E, it does make it less feasible to progress through a campaign at a reasonable pace.  How many people can have a marathon session everytime they want to game, so they can fit in more than two combats?  I'd say not too many.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> Well I see your list but we still had the grind with 2 players, the major part of grind for me was the encounter being effectively over but still half a dozen rounds til the enemy is dead.



Honestly, I'm not sure that reducing the number of players to 2 would help combat length that much, either.   IME, 4e works best with 4-6 players.  Much bigger than that (I've had 9 at one point) and everything takes forever.  Much smaller than that, and it's tough to get a cohesive team going with complementary abilities.  With only two or three, focus-firing becomes a bit of a joke, and it's very possible you'll make no progress whatsoever one round out of every four, assuming a 50% hit rate.

But, this is another one of those cases where some games won't work for some groups.  I mean, it's not like you can magically find more players if your group is too small, or you would kick people out if your game is too big.  Better, IMO, to find a game that works better for the size of your group, if you expect it's a semi-permanent state of affairs.

-O


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 2, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> That's kind of the point. Change relatively short timespan a bit for a home game but otherwise we have the same issue. The individual encounters get so involved that the overall adventure that connects them gets a bit lost.



Not exactly.  No individual encounter was so bad, but having 3 of them before you learn anything or do anything else interesting was asinine.  I like an individual combat that takes an hour, but I want that combat to accomplish something if it takes that long.

Plus I'd rather have one or two _good_ encounters than 5 crappy ones.  4e, for me, is very good at making fun encounters.  Encounters that could be likened to fine chocolates.  Used properly, they go a long way.  Keep on the Shadowfell felt like they took those chocolates, smashed them to tiny bits with a hammer, and then used them as chips in crappy cookies.

If you're going to use fine chocolate in your cookies, up the level of your dough, man.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 2, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I have to disagree. The fact that 4E combat takes so long that it's difficult to have time to do much else is a failure of the system.  The fact that you do have to houserule or put in extra work so you can actually finish more than two 4E combat encounters in an evening of gaming is a glaring failure of the system.  Strawberries on cheescake aren't good for you wife, but they also don't require most other people eating said strawberry cheesecake to put in extra work to enjoy it.  IMHO 4E combat does require more work to make it enjoyable than it should.



Sez you, my crowd are quite happy with it and get to do all that they want and are happy with the combat.
Which I think was Umbran's point. Tastes differ and we have not tricked about with house rules to shorten combat except as DM I might rule a monster dead if it is taken down a lot of hp in one attack and has only a couple of hps left, if the fight is over anyway.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 2, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I think we've been down this road before, and been down it already in this thread.  Umbran covered it pretty succinctly, I think.
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that you and/or your group did not like 4e combat, and that you found it both long and grindy.  You, however, seem to doubt that others find it works just fine as-is - and can finish more combats without houseruling.  Groups vary, and tastes vary.
> 
> _If a tool doesn't work for you, it does not mean the tool is broken._  Your experiences are not everyone's experiences.




You've got a point, but so does, I think, Shazman. One question I have to clarify would be "what was WotC's intent with respect to D&D's players?" How was the tool *intended* to serve and does it meet those expectations? So I'd say it's not just how well does it serve its actual users but how well does it serve its intended purpose.

Did they expect to serve players whose sessions run about 3-5 hours in length? If they did expect to reasonably serve them, then I think Shazman's criticism is valid. The tool fails to serve that segment of the market well.

Did they expect 4e to serve a market whose game sessions run at twice that length? Then I think the tool does a better job of serving its intended purpose.

If WotC expected to serve both then, again, I think the tool fails that expectation. 

So while not universally broken, a tool may yet be a poor fit for certain applications, including indended applications.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Sez you, my crowd are quite happy with it and get to do all that they want and are happy with the combat.
> Which I think was Umbran's point. Tastes differ and we have not tricked about with house rules to shorten combat except as DM *I might rule a monster dead if it is taken down a lot of hp in one attack and has only a couple of hps left, if the fight is over anyway.*





So you've houseruled to shorten combat?  Yet you claim the length of combat is perfect... sometimes I wonder how many who are "satisfied" with combat length in 4e do little things like this but claim they enjoy 4e combat with no houserules?


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> So while not universally broken, a tool may yet be a poor fit for certain applications, including indended applications.



That's when we get into different play experiences, though.

If all of my combats are taking two to three hours, and I run three-to-five-hour sessions, it is clearly not a great state of affairs.  I can look for ways to expedite things, or switch games, or accept it as a fair trade-off for the stuff I like.

If all of my combats are taking one hour, and I run three-to-five hour sessions, it's pretty great, IMO.

-O


----------



## Glade Riven (Jun 2, 2010)

When I DM (3e, 4e, Pathfinder, Saga), I actually prefer to kludge.

This is so my players don't have to
The DM's turn can take the longest if played strictly by the rules; my goal is to get it to be the shortest
I like to use minions (even under 3e/saga) and adjust certaint bad guy hit points on the fly to control pacing.
Now, I understand why this would irritate some players who, philosophically speaking, prefer to adhere strictly to the rules. The result, however, is that my players can sit back, relax, and enjoy a well-paced battle. If I need it to be short, it is short and sweet. If I need it to be epic (which sometimes you need epic), I make it work.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 2, 2010)

You know, I kinda agree with you.

Or I thought I did.

But we busted out a casual game of Mutants and Masterminds this weekend, which is a more relaxed faster combat game.

And I found myself missing the elaborateness of 4E's combat.

I think it needs a tweaking for sure (hopefully in 5E) but I think I would miss it if it was gone.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So you've houseruled to shorten combat?  Yet you claim the length of combat is perfect... sometimes I wonder how many who are "satisfied" with combat length in 4e do little things like this but claim they enjoy 4e combat with no houserules?



Oh, gosh, calling that a house-rule is kinda silly.   I've been doing that since my 1e days every once in a while.  "Well, that was short by 2 hps...  I'll just call them dead."  It's no more a house-rule than "He's close to dead, so he's running away."

Now, if he'd done one of the various -HP/+dmg hacks, _that's_ a house-rule.

-O


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Oh, gosh, calling that a house-rule is kinda silly.  I've been doing that since my 1e days every once in a while. "Well, that was short by 2 hps... I'll just call them dead." It's no more a house-rule than "He's close to dead, so he's running away."
> 
> Now, if he'd done one of the various -HP/+dmg hacks, _that's_ a house-rule.
> 
> -O





What you're ignoring is that many people have claimed that one large grind factor is when combat is a foregone conclusion... and yet it takes forever to land those final blows or clean up those final enemies. I've seen a string of misses draw out combat like no one's business in 4e... especially with certain monster roles, so yes I think if examining this in a fair manner this type of thing can skew how one perceives combat... especially if it's done for more than one monster throughout numerous combats.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Did they expect to serve players whose sessions run about 3-5 hours in length? If they did expect to reasonably serve them, then I think Shazman's criticism is valid. The tool fails to serve that segment of the market well.



I don't think prior to starting our 4e campaign anyone in my group could have predicted we'd actually _like_ session-long combats. But there you go, we do. Apparently we aren't in the share of the market we thought we were .



> So while not universally broken, a tool may yet be a poor fit for certain applications, including indended applications.



I don't think anyone is actually debating this.



The Human Target said:


> But we busted out a casual game of Mutants and Masterminds this weekend, which is a more relaxed faster combat game.
> 
> And I found myself missing the elaborateness of 4E's combat.



Clearly your M&M game needs more villains getting pyramids dropped on their heads. It isn't a proper session if a villain doesn't get a pyramid dropped on his or her head. A pyramid dropped on a teammate's head will do in pinch.

(can you tell my M&M character can drop pyramids on villains --and frequently, his fellow teammate's-- heads?)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I've seen a string of misses draw out combat like no one's business in 4e...



Would a string of misses have resulted in a shorter fight using 1e-3e?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What you're ignoring is that many people have claimed that one large grind factor is when combat is a foregone conclusion... and yet it takes forever to land those final blows or clean up those final enemies. I've seen a string of misses draw out combat like no one's business in 4e... especially with certain monster roles, so yes I think if examining this in a fair manner this type of thing can skew how one perceives combat... especially if it's done for more than one monster throughout numerous combats.




To me this is akin to when you're playing a game like chess, or checkers, and it's kind of obvious one side is going to win, but the other player just kind of keeps moving his king around so as to ward off the inevitable as long as possible.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Scribble said:


> To me this is akin to when you're playing a game like chess, or checkers, and it's kind of obvious one side is going to win, but the other player just kind of keeps moving his king around so as to ward off the inevitable as long as possible.




Yep, but the difference is a PC can still loose hit points to one of these near dead monsters... which in turn will cost you more healing surges, which in turn affects fights that come later in the adventure.  In chess one game does not affect the next.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 2, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Would a string of misses have resulted in a shorter fight using 1e-3e?




Taken in an isolated cotext with no reference or in the context of how long fights tended to last in the different editions... and at different levels?

a string of 4 misses in a 1st level 3e fight against a goblin warrior with 4 hp's.... will still be a shorter fight than a string of misses in a 1st level fight against 4e's goblin with 30+ hp's. In other words context matters, and the question isn't as simplistic as you've presented it.

Edit: Yep, context definitely matters... sorta like how you took this one line out of the context of my entire post and addressed it as an individual statement instead of as part of a larger statement.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 2, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I'm sure that a number of people have no problem with 4E combat.  However, a lot of people do have problems making it work out of the box.  I'm not saying it should be perfect, but it shouldn't be so easy to have long, grindy combats.  I believe more playtesting would have resulted in a system with better math that would be more enjoyable for everyone, which would be good for the game, good for WotC, good for the hobby, and good for gamers.  Even if people do enjoy the lengthier combat time of 4E, it does make it less feasible to progress through a campaign at a reasonable pace.  How many people can have a marathon session everytime they want to game, so they can fit in more than two combats?  I'd say not too many.




Having long combats is one of 4e's design goals, and one of the things that people who like it, like about it.  I'm a story-dude, but I like 4e for having lots of roleplay then a big huge dramatic fight.  4e does those big fights pretty good, so its cool for that, it works for me in that way.

But complaining that you can't run through fights in 10 minutes is a bit like complaining that your stupid cat won't learn to bark.  Dumb cat.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 2, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yep, but the difference is a PC can still loose hit points to one of these near dead monsters... which in turn will cost you more healing surges, which in turn affects fights that come later in the adventure.  In chess one game does not affect the next.




Well sure... I wasn't really arguing otherwise.

Just the motivating factor in both cases to me is the same.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 2, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I don't think prior to starting our 4e campaign anyone in my group could have predicted we'd actually _like_ session-long combats. But there you go, we do. Apparently we aren't in the share of the market we thought we were .
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is actually debating this.
> ...




Someone got a Dipping Dots stand dropped on their head.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What you're ignoring is that many people have claimed that one large grind factor is when combat is a foregone conclusion... and yet it takes forever to land those final blows or clean up those final enemies. I've seen a string of misses draw out combat like no one's business in 4e... especially with certain monster roles, so yes I think if examining this in a fair manner this type of thing can skew how one perceives combat... especially if it's done for more than one monster throughout numerous combats.



If anything, it's fudging - not house-ruling.  I personally let my monsters stay around, most of the time, even if they're down to 1 HP because I'm ornery like that.  And yes, they can still do something.

However, I don't think fudging a death blow once in a while would skew anyone's idea of how long 4e combats actually last.   It's not like they're slashing 30 HPs off every monster or anything.  Heck, at the end of a combat, it would probably make a minute or two difference, max - things go super-quickly when everyone's down to At-Wills and there's a lone enemy left standing.

-O


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So you've houseruled to shorten combat?  Yet you claim the length of combat is perfect... sometimes I wonder how many who are "satisfied" with combat length in 4e do little things like this but claim they enjoy 4e combat with no houserules?



If the last remaining beastie has 40 hp left and its hit and has one remaining is anything served by saying its still alive? IMHO it is more dramatic for the player to drop a relatively healthy monster in one shot than to drag out a fight that is a foregone issue for another round but its not a rule in my opinion.
A house rule to me is something fairly formal that I would apply consistently and tell the players about. Not an excersise in DM judgement. Now you could accuse me of cheating but I don't care, it my table and my players are happy. By the way I do not inform the players how many hit points a monster has not how many it has remaining so in these cases of fudging they never know.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Obryn said:


> If anything, it's fudging - not house-ruling. I personally let my monsters stay around, most of the time, even if they're down to 1 HP because I'm ornery like that. And yes, they can still do something.
> 
> However, I don't think fudging a death blow once in a while would skew anyone's idea of how long 4e combats actually last.  It's not like they're slashing 30 HPs off every monster or anything. Heck, at the end of a combat, it would probably make a minute or two difference, max - things go super-quickly when everyone's down to At-Wills and there's a lone enemy left standing.
> 
> -O




So we're arguing about semantics... ok it's not a houserule... it's fudging that can still shorten the length of combat... is that bettter?? 

First, you are assuming he only does it for one monster per combat, Which I doubt is the case. Second, you assume it's the last monster in the combat so it's a given the PC's can gang up on it. And depending on the rolls doing this for more then one monster in combat can definitely affect the length of combat...

In the end, my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "IME combat as written works perfectly"... but you're not running it as written, and admit so.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> If the last remaining beastie has 40 hp left and its hit and has one remaining is anything served by saying its still alive? IMHO it is more dramatic for the player to drop a relatively healthy monster in one shot than to drag out a fight that is a foregone issue for another round but its not a rule in my opinion.




Well I think because of the rarity of actions in 4e and the chance to miss, depending on how often you do this in a combat, yes it could affect the length of combats.  As far as something being gained or lost by playing out monsters with only a couple hp's left in a game... that's not what were discussing so it's irrelevant.  I'm not commenting on your DM style, I'm commenting on whether you run combat by the book or not.



ardoughter said:


> A house rule to me is something fairly formal that I would apply consistently and tell the players about. Not an excersise in DM judgement. Now you could accuse me of cheating but I don't care, it my table and my players are happy. By the way I do not inform the players how many hit points a monster has not how many it has remaining so in these cases of fudging they never know.




Again, semantics... fine, you fudge to shorten combat... is that a better term for it?  Does it change my basic argument?  Not really.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So we're arguing about semantics... ok it's not a houserule... it's fudging that can still shorten the length of combat... is that bettter??
> 
> First, you are assuming he only does it for one monster per combat, Which I doubt is the case. Second, you assume it's the last monster in the combat so it's a given the PC's can gang up on it. And depending on the rolls doing this for more then one monster in combat can definitely affect the length of combat...
> 
> In the end, my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "IME combat as written works perfectly"... but you're not running it as written, and admit so.




In addition, no matter how you slice it, the purpose of the fudging seems to be to prevent the problem that is being discussed using the RAW.

If you are doing X to prevent a problem caused by using the RAW, where X is anything other than simply using the RAW, it is disingenious to also claim that the problem does not exist when using the RAW.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jun 3, 2010)

The Human Target said:


> Someone got a Dipping Dots stand dropped on their head.



It's a start... 



Imaro said:


> So we're arguing about semantics... ok it's not a houserule... it's fudging that can still shorten the length of combat... is that bettter??



Out of curiosity, would you say every 1e DM who didn't use the 'weapon vs. AC' table' of houseruling? Bonus question: why does it matter?  



> In the end, my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "IME combat as written works perfectly"... but you're not running it as written, and admit so.



The 4e combat engine doesn't work 'perfectly'. Has anyone said that besides you? But some people can use it better than others. If you like to discuss that, a number of us can provide helpful tips, which don't involve fudging or houseruling, BTW.

Here's one: don't use a lot of monsters the players need a 15+ to hit. Easy-peasy! I've got more, if you really want to talk about this. 



Imaro said:


> Does it change my basic argument?  Not really.



Speaking of that, what _is_ your argument, exactly, other than you don't think 4e works very well, if at all?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 3, 2010)

For what's it's worth, my group enjoys 4e combat just fine as written, and we neither house rule nor fudge to speed things up.  Our DM even informs us when an attack leaves a creature with 1 or 2 hp (usually with a sadistic grin on his face).  It's tough, but somehow we manage and have fun regardless.  

AFAIK, 4e was designed around the "sweet spot" of 3e (around level 6, IIRC).  I seem to recall the existence of threads during 3e about speeding up combat.  I don't know about you Imaro, but I certainly recall hearing of DM's who fudged monster hp all the way back in the days of 2e (and probably before, but I was a bit young during 1e).

It seems mistaken to suggest that a tweak that existed long before the days of 4e is an indication that 4e combat is flawed in its design.  If that _were_ the case, I'd say it's endemic to D&D in general (or perhaps hp systems).  That's reading a bit too much into things though, IMO.

Note that I'm not saying that 4e combat is perfect for everyone and that those who don't like it are doing something wrong.  Rather, as Obryn and others have been saying, not every system suits all tastes equally well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> I seem to recall the existence of threads during 3e about speeding up combat.




Crom's bones, yes.

As levels rise in 3e, combat takes significantly longer than it does in previous editions, and there were quite a few threads that discussed this.  In fact, so pervasive was this problem that one of the early design goals of 4e was to _*speed up combat*_.  The later decision to change this design goal to instead _*slow down combat*_ is one of the factors in my decision to give 4e a pass.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Mallus said:


> It's a start...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, would you say every 1e DM who didn't use the 'weapon vs. AC' table' of houseruling? Bonus question: why does it matter??




You're asking the question, you tell me why it matters (especially since I've already conceded that we can replace houseruling with fudging.)... I also see you didn't address my post to you earlier about combat length.




Mallus said:


> The 4e combat engine doesn't work 'perfectly'. Has anyone said that besides you? But some people can use it better than others. If you like to discuss that, a number of us can provide helpful tips, which don't involve fudging or houseruling, BTW.?




The whole thread is about kludging combat rules, earlier in the thread (if you bothered to read it) a discussion about it working right started... adroughter jumped in and said that it worked great for his group without any house ruling... except.... to kill monsters before they we're dead. My point was that this wasn't an accurate reflection of the combat engine per RAW. Others jumped in and claimed it was such a small change it didn't matter or wasn't a houserule... I replied as to what my thoughts on that were... Are you reading this thread or just posting without context... there's that word again... context...



Mallus said:


> Here's one: don't use a lot of monsters the players need a 15+ to hit. Easy-peasy! I've got more, if you really want to talk about this.
> 
> I've got my own "Kludges" for 4e combat since I'm playing it right now... but thanks for the suggestion...
> 
> ...


----------



## Shazman (Jun 3, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Having long combats is one of 4e's design goals, and one of the things that people who like it, like about it.  I'm a story-dude, but I like 4e for having lots of roleplay then a big huge dramatic fight.  4e does those big fights pretty good, so its cool for that, it works for me in that way.
> 
> But complaining that you can't run through fights in 10 minutes is a bit like complaining that your stupid cat won't learn to bark.  Dumb cat.




Point to me in my post where I said that I wanted combat to only last 10 minutes.  I don't want 10 minute, super short, anti-climatic fights.  I also don't want almost every single fight to last one and a half hours or more.  Unfortunately, 4E seems to be designed to make those longer fights almost inevitable.  Wasn't one of the selling points of 4E is that combat was supposed to be quicker and more exciting?  Then, when the designers realized that it wasn't quicker, they said "but rounds go by quicker".  I don't even think they are claiming that anymore, which is good because I do not believe it to be true in most cases.  If 4E was supposed to give us more streamlined, quicker combat than 3.5, I believe it has failed spectacularly.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> For what's it's worth, my group enjoys 4e combat just fine as written, and we neither house rule nor fudge to speed things up. Our DM even informs us when an attack leaves a creature with 1 or 2 hp (usually with a sadistic grin on his face). It's tough, but somehow we manage and have fun regardless.
> 
> AFAIK, 4e was designed around the "sweet spot" of 3e (around level 6, IIRC). I seem to recall the existence of threads during 3e about speeding up combat. I don't know about you Imaro, but I certainly recall hearing of DM's who fudged monster hp all the way back in the days of 2e (and probably before, but I was a bit young during 1e).
> 
> ...




I agree to a point... I don't remember people having to tweak low level combat like that, but in 4e some people do... otherwise I agree with you, I haven't commented on 4e being objectively better or worse at all in this thread... I have given 3 points I felt abnout 4e combat and I have given my feelings that fudging can skew looking at the length of combats.  In the end I don't think "3e did it too" is really a good way to justify things in 4e, but that's just my oppinion.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 3, 2010)

> The later decision to change this design goal to instead slow down combat is one of the factors in my decision to give 4e a pass.




I keep trying to figure out what the goals with 4e combat actually were. 

I don't really like it personally. I'm not a fan of minis, tactical positioning makes me groan, and a "deck of powers" is less appealing to me than a "suite of tools."

So I'm left trying to puzzle out why 4e combat is the way that it is. I didn't have any major problems with 3e stuff, or 2e stuff, or GURPS stuff...why does 4e choose to be the way that it is? What goal were the designers trying to accomplish? The 4e design team was (and is) pretty good at accomplishing their explicit goals (it's in making the goals the right ones that they sometimes suffer). What were their goals with combat? What did they want to do?

It's speculation, but if I figure it out, it can help me better tinker with it, and with my home games.

As best I can figure, the noblest goal they had was that they wanted somewhat to address the "20 minutes of fun in 4 hours" problem, where there wasn't a lot of action around the table. Combat is action, so long combat is more action, so if combats are stretched into hour-long things, it's an hour of fun in those 4 hours, rather than 20 minutes. It's an attempt to reach flow, to keep everyone in the zone, to keep tension high at all times, and to make the game more action-packed.

And what they failed to take into account was that combat isn't what everyone wants to do with most of their D&D time. 

They figured combat was the heart of the game, that more combat =  more fun, that detailed combat was what people were clamoring for, that focusing on combat could sell more minis (which was a major part of the strategy from Day 1 with 4e), that the combat engine was the most important thing to balance, that it was where the classes differed, and where the races should, too. 

There would be other stuff, of course. But Combat was the most important. 

This is even reflected in the adventures, which are mostly strings of combat linked by a fabric of a plot. I could compare it to a Super Mario game: everything is just a set-up to run and jump and fly. In many WotC adventures, everything is just a set-up to fight. 

One of the big revelations of 4e to me was that my games aren't about fighting monsters. That's absolutely a key part of them, but that's not why I play D&D. I don't want to spend my whole night fighting monsters, I don't want to take an hour to fight some monsters, I don't want fighting monsters to be the goal. My games are about *being a hero*, which is sometimes about kicking ass, and sometimes about coming to grips with mortality (Gilgamesh, the Illiad), or giving up control (LotR), or returning home (The Odyssey), or true love (the Divine Comedy, Inuyasha), or growing up (Paradise Lost, Star Wars, Naruto), or a thousand and one other simple psychological challenges, cast with steel and blood and fire and gold. Being a hero is more about metaphor than minis. 

So I, personally, don't want long, involved, tactically complex, option-overloaded, minis-based combats. I need there to be variety and interesting things to do in combat, because combat is certainly a big part of the game, but I also need there to be variety and interesting things to do when confronting your father figure, or when realizing that you will die, or when you see your wife for the first time in a decade, or when choosing to remain weak because power is corrupting, or when falling in love. I need combat to not try and be the reason I play D&D. 4e combat tries to be the reason to play D&D, in part because it hand-waves other stuff as DM fiat (which is deeply unsatisfying to me), and in part because it is *so complex*, especially by comparison. 

If the characters get to be heroes, I don't need to spend 90% of the night chosing powers and pushing little pieces of plastic around a grid. That doesn't make a hero. It's not in the slaying of a dragon. It's in the destruction of evil. It's not in the fighting of the army. It's in the achievement of glory. It's not in the fighting of a rival, it's in confronting your own capacity for evil. 

Combat is not the only fun part of the game, and when combat is overly complex, for me, it's not even *a* fun part of the game.


----------



## jbear (Jun 3, 2010)

@ the OP.

I'm not going to suggest you try a different system, because I don't think that is very helpful. You might not have that luxury. If you do, it might be good advice. I have no idea.

What might be a good idea, if your goal is to get together with friends and relax and unwind, is to do just that. Hmmm... that sounds like pretty useless advice now that I read over it again. I'm not trying to be a smart arse, honestly.

What I mean is, if combat is now a more major feature in the game due to the system design/how your DM is running things, why not just enjoy it. Mess around. Play around. You can be marvellously untactical playing 4e and do fine, my players are the proof. You can do a lot more than what you have written amongst your powers. Improvise with terrain features, find creative ways around or out of combat. And when your in combat, do fun stuff. 

My grandma always used to say, you're only as bored as you make yourself. No, she didn't actually. That's a total lie. She did say wish in one hand and pee in the other and see which gets filled first... but that's less relevant to the discussion.

I haven't experienced serious problems with the system. I have read the suggestions that one needs to this or that to make combat move faster but just haven't seen the need. I do make a conscious effort to build ways for the PCs can end combat with non combat actions into encounter designs whenever it fits/makes sense. Also my players enjoy combat, so that may be a key factor.

Anyway, without being wanting to seem like a twat, and assuming you don't have the possibility to play a system you enjoy atm, my advice would be: 'If you can't change the situation, change your attitude towards it.' Not easy, but simple.

Good luck and I hope you fnd a solution in any case.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Personally I think a lot of the "problems" with the combat system in 4e are actually user error.


I mean if I drive my car around in low gear all the time I will overwork my engine and get poor gas mileage...  So is the problem the low gear? Should my car be fixed to not have a low gear anymore?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I agree to a point... I don't remember people having to tweak low level combat like that, but in 4e some people do... otherwise I agree with you, I haven't commented on 4e being objectively better or worse at all in this thread... I have given 3 points I felt abnout 4e combat and I have given my feelings that fudging can skew looking at the length of combats.  In the end I don't think "3e did it too" is really a good way to justify things in 4e, but that's just my oppinion.




Folks may not have had to tweak low level combat in earlier editions "that way," but they often had different kinds of kludges to address problems such as combat being too swingy or lethal.  House rules such as rolling 3d6 instead of 1d20 to hit, or adding Con to starting hp.  

My point isn't that 3e, 2e, or 1e "did it too."  It's that no system is objectively perfect (though if you're lucky you might just find one that's perfect for you).


----------



## Storminator (Jun 3, 2010)

Our one house rule is designed to make 4e combats last longer. We give minions a save vs damage - make it, no damage, miss it and die. Our DM decided there were too many auto-damage with no attack roll powers for minions to be worthwhile. So far it's fantastic.

We only meet once a month for 4 hours. We devote most of our sessions to the combats, typically two or three per session. They tend to last an hour, tend to be level+ in difficulty, and tend to be important parts of the plot. 

Our DM is pretty good about making the fights interesting and dangerous and a lot of fun. That's a big part of the draw for D&D, so we're very pleased that it works so well. I think our group is unanimous that 4e is the best edition of D&D ever. I certainly don't want to play any other edition again (I've played them all).

PS


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Personally I think a lot of the "problems" with the combat system in 4e are actually user error.
> 
> 
> I mean if I drive my car around in low gear all the time I will overwork my engine and get poor gas mileage...  So is the problem the low gear? Should my car be fixed to not have a low gear anymore?




You may be right, but the content of WotC's adventures suggests (to me) that what seems to be "user error" is, in fact, what WotC intended.

Note, too, that it is fully possible to appreciate a thing while accepting that it has flaws.  It could be that, for some, the 4e combat engine per RAW is flawed, but they find that, with the addition of their kludges, RAW+kludges beats whatever other engine they are aware of.  As far as I am aware, there is nothing wrong with holding that sort of opinion.....indeed, based on their statements, I think that there are folks in this thread who do.


RC


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> You may be right, but the content of WotC's adventures suggests (to me) that what seems to be "user error" is, in fact, what WotC intended.
> 
> Note, too, that it is fully possible to appreciate a thing while accepting that it has flaws.  It could be that, for some, the 4e combat engine per RAW is flawed, but they find that, with the addition of their kludges, RAW+kludges beats whatever other engine they are aware of.  As far as I am aware, there is nothing wrong with holding that sort of opinion.....indeed, based on their statements, I think that there are folks in this thread who do.
> 
> ...




Sure- I'm not indicating it's perfect, like Fanaelialae said, no system is perfect.

But again I see what a lot of people call flaws as user error. Monsters not being selected properly, encounters not being built in a  good way, monsters fighting to the death instead of running away/surrendering, no one trying to regroup- and this doesn't even account for how the players act in combat.


I guess you could argue it's the fault of the system that it can't handle all builds/situations perfectly... But that seems kind of wrong to me. 

Anytime you start adding more options to a system it's going to have more areas where if you combine the wrong elements it won't work right- but the benefits you gain from having those elements in the first place is better then the potential problems.

This is what I see here.

Arguing that just because I don't agree with what YOU say is a problem means I'm arguing that the system is perfect feels a little disingenuous man.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> But again I see what a lot of people call flaws as user error.




Sure....And I am agreeing that, to some degree, you may be right.



> I guess you could argue it's the fault of the system that it can't handle all builds/situations perfectly... But that seems kind of wrong to me.




Sure, again.....But it rather depends upon how proscribed the builds/situations it can handle well _*are*_.  I would say that it's the fault of the system if it can't handle *many* builds/situations common to previous editions _*well*_.  After all, it says "D&D" on the label!

"All" and "perfectly" need not apply!  



> Arguing that just because I don't agree with what YOU say is a problem means I'm arguing that the system is perfect feels a little disingenuous man.




Good thing, then, that no one is making that argument.  


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> First, you are assuming he only does it for one monster per combat, Which I doubt is the case. Second, you assume it's the last monster in the combat so it's a given the PC's can gang up on it. And depending on the rolls doing this for more then one monster in combat can definitely affect the length of combat...



Hah!  You're right, I am assuming that, but you're making the opposite assumption - that he's doing it all the time and it's making a major impact on his combats.  I really have no idea which one is the case, so I'm just throwing out what I've done since my early days of gaming.  And essentially we're arguing about two different things.

4e for me is no different than any other RPG I've played - on very rare occasions I fudge, giving a monster more or less HPs at the last minute for dramatic reasons, at about even ratios.  There's nothing special about 4e that makes fudging like this remarkable, and we can look to one of the hundreds of fudging threads for discussion on it.

My argument is that slight and occasional HP fudging won't change a player's or DM's perception of combat length in the slightest because the amount of time we're talking about is minimal and inconsequential in relation to the combat as a whole.  Maybe 2-3 minutes, every few fights.  It's irrelevant.

NOW - If we're talking about effectively knocking 5%-10% of the HPs off every other monster, we'd be seeing a considerable difference.  I'm guessing this is what you're interpreting the original statement as.  Yes, that would be a big change, tantamount to a house-rule, that would certainly influence the length of combat, and you'll find no argument from me there.



> In the end, my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "IME combat as written works perfectly"... but you're not running it as written, and admit so.



And I'd argue that, by focusing on the minutiae you're ignoring the big picture - that it doesn't matter in the slightest to the overall experience of combat.  I mean, you _can _take a hard-line RAW approach like you're doing, but other than scoring rhetorical points, it's irrelevant.

Speaking of - Is having monsters retreat running combat as written?  I mean, I could cut my combats by a third, easily, by having monsters retreat when the situation gets sticky.

-O


----------



## Blackbrrd (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Personally I think a lot of the "problems" with the combat system in 4e are actually user error.
> 
> 
> I mean if I drive my car around in low gear all the time I will overwork my engine and get poor gas mileage...  So is the problem the low gear? Should my car be fixed to not have a low gear anymore?




A system with many user errors is often badly designed.

I usually discover that when I try to write the user manual for the software I designed. If it's hard to write the user manual my design usually stinks. If I don't write the user manual or write the hard-write user manual, I often get user errors.

I don't know what can be done to 4e to make it better, but it's quite likely something to cut down on the user errors.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Sure- I'm not indicating it's perfect, like Fanaelialae said, no system is perfect.
> 
> But again I see what a lot of people call flaws as user error. Monsters not being selected properly, encounters not being built in a  good way, monsters fighting to the death instead of running away/surrendering, no one trying to regroup- and this doesn't even account for how the players act in combat.




IMO, the difference between "user error" and "bad design" lies in how common the problem is.

If 5% of users have a given issue and 95% don't, then it's reasonable to suggest the ones that have the problem may be doing it wrong.

If 50% of users have a given issue, that's a design problem and blaming it on user error is a cop-out. Well-designed systems don't lead large numbers of users into error.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure....And I am agreeing that, to some degree, you may be right.




Cool... I like being right! 



> Sure, again.....But it rather depends upon how proscribed the builds/situations it can handle well _*are*_.  I would say that it's the fault of the system if it can't handle *many* builds/situations common to previous editions _*well*_.  After all, it says "D&D" on the label!
> 
> "All" and "perfectly" need not apply!




That's fine- but I guess this is where we disagree as to the nature of the problem.

Since we've added new options into the mix, it also stands to reason that while we can have the same "fight concepts" as in previous editions (since it has D&D on the label!) we can't always just rely on how we did it in previous editions for it to work the same (otherwise we wouldn't need 4th edition on the label.)

And again this is where I bring up user error.

In order to use a system we have to think about how it works, for it to work properly. 



> Good thing, then, that no one is making that argument.




Right on then!


----------



## Nebulous (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm about at 13th level of running 4e now, and while combat was fun and ferocious up until about paragon, as DM i am now finding it more and more of a grind, and i DO use the many tricks, such as reduced hit points, upped monster damage, someone else tracks initiative, etc.  It has just gotten to the point that players (and they agree with me) have too many powers, and worse, too many conditional powers that kick in or react according to what monsters do.  And monsters get a lot of powers too, which is difficult to remember.  Creating a balanced challenge for the party is getting harder, and making it less than a 2 or 3 hour combat is hard too.  Sure, that is a generalization and i fully understand the combat dynamics behind 4e, but i'm quitting it at 13th level and either playing another system or lower level 4e where it was more manageable for my tastes.  

I don't even see how anyone could run Epic level 4e, it would just be a tactical clustermuck of endless grid combat. But if ya dig that...


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Blackbrrd said:


> A system with many user errors is often badly designed.
> 
> I usually discover that when I try to write the user manual for the software I designed. If it's hard to write the user manual my design usually stinks. If I don't write the user manual or write the hard-write user manual, I often get user errors.
> 
> I don't know what can be done to 4e to make it better, but it's quite likely something to cut down on the user errors.






Dausuul said:


> IMO, the difference between "user error" and "bad design" lies in how common the problem is.
> 
> If 5% of users have a given issue and 95% don't, then it's reasonable to suggest the ones that have the problem may be doing it wrong.
> 
> If 50% of users have a given issue, that's a design problem and blaming it on user error is a cop-out. Well-designed systems don't lead users into error.




Possibly- I'd like to see real numbers on that though.

I personally think a lot of it has to do with what I said to Raven... People not looking the new features of the system, and just doing it exactly how they did it in the past, and wondering why there's a problem.

I guess it might point to a problem with the explanation of the system? But I still think it's not a fault of the system, so much as a fault of people not understanding how it works.

I had a lot of these issues before I figured out what I was doing wrong. I still have them occasionally (well I did as of November when I was still gaming... )  but no where near as much, and I can usually spot what I or the players did wrong when it happens.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Possibly- I'd like to see real numbers on that though.




Sure, I'm not claiming that 50% of users actually do have the problems in this thread. If I had to guess, I'd put it at 20-30%, but that's just a number I pulled out of my, um, hat.

I bet WotC has done surveys on this, but good luck prying the results out of 'em.


----------



## Glade Riven (Jun 3, 2010)

It has occured to me that a good chunk of this thread is somewhat ridiculess..

Two main complaints about 3e combat was 1. it was usually over in 3 rounds and 2. it took forever for people to take their turn.

4e addresses #1 with the encounter design, leading to longer, tactical encounters where you can do cool stuff. 4e attempts to address #2 by giving people a handful of powers to choose from rather than a long list for casters and fighters just throwing out attack rolls.

4e's attempt to address #2 fails when you have players that are indecisive, overly tactical, and don't really pay attention to what is going on until it is their turn. The result is you have people taking 5 minutes to take their turn. That's a people issue. There's a guy in my group who takes forever on turns because of that, even when it is a character who is a smashy smash fighter in 3e.

So, how to solve it? Talk to the person. Put a timer on turns so that they don't sit there for 5 min contemplating strategy. Virtual time in the game has 10 turns per minute (depending on system), so if their indecisive, their character is indecisive, so they essentually lose their turn. Or you can put up with it.

WotC makes big epic battle-crawls because 4e sales figures tell them thats what people want, so it is a cheap shot at them to complain about them doing what makes them money. The product works out of the box, although it may not work the way you want it to.

So the DM has to make adjustments. Add or remove minions. Adjust HP or AC. Tweak the situation. Good role-playing removes the need for most skill challenges, unless you're dealing with a funky trap design. This sort of thing has to be done for every system or edition of role playing. It's not a videogame, for crying out loud - don't treat it like one. Part of Rule 0 is that it is impossible for the DM to break the rules, and rule 0 is always in effect.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 3, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> Two main complaints about 3e combat was 1. it was usually over in 3 rounds and 2. it took forever for people to take their turn.
> 
> 4e addresses #1 with the encounter design, leading to longer, tactical encounters where you can do cool stuff. 4e attempts to address #2 by giving people a handful of powers to choose from rather than a long list for casters and fighters just throwing out attack rolls.
> 
> ...




In my experience, aside from the few cases in which we had to look up a spell with a long and detailed description, the very problems you mention that 4e won't solve are the primary reason 3e combats take so long too. 4e's attempt to fix how long an individual's turn takes fixes a small set of cases I've encountered.

I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't really feel that fights in 3e were too short. Who cares if my monster goes down before he fires off all of his kewl powrz? My ego isn't invested in doing so. My ego as a DM is invested in my players having fun taking him down, neutralizing him, whatever, to achieve their goals. If they figure out a way to shorten the encounter or manage to bring enough smack down to end it fast and enjoy doing so, I'm good. The idea that the monster has to do a bunch of stuff or the encounter isn't somehow fulfilling is just alien to me. Clearly, I haven't been on the same wavelength as the D&D design team in a long time...


----------



## amerigoV (Jun 3, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> ...and 2. it took forever for people to take their turn.
> 
> 
> 4e's attempt to address #2 fails when you have players that are indecisive, overly tactical, and don't really pay attention to what is going on until it is their turn. The result is you have people taking 5 minutes to take their turn. That's a people issue.




My foray's into 4e has convinced me that 4e is more "narrow" in its sweet spot for players. Prior editions did not necessarily do anything great, but it covered a lot of playstyles. 4e seems to have a great combat system and can really rock with the right group. It just seems harder to find that "right group" for me (I moved over to Savage Worlds myself - nothing against 4e, but I am not with the right people to really enjoy it).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 3, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> It has occured to me that a good chunk of this thread is somewhat ridiculess..





Welcome to the Internet!


----------



## Mallus (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Personally I think a lot of the "problems" with the combat system in 4e are actually user error.



That's my experience too, and I'm speaking as the user --specifically, DM-- that was in error. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I keep trying to figure out what the goals with 4e combat actually were.



That's a good and complicated question. Here's my attempt at a short answer. As far as I can tell they had two principle goals. 

One was to create a simple, unified, descriptive language for every action a PC can take in combat, whether it's weapon use, a spell, or impromptu stunt/environmental exploit.

The other was to create procedural rules for using them that increased the overall, average number of options --and therefore potential decision points-- that each class had during a typical combat. The system also prioritized options/decisions made _during_ combat, rather than before it ie, power synergies over pre-combat buffs. 

You can see this shake out in a number of ways: changing the HP-to-damage ratios so combats last more rounds, giving some healing ability to every character/making it easy for specialist healers to take other kinds of actions, no save-or-die/save-or-sit-the-fight-out, etc.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 3, 2010)

[ 
4e's attempt to address #2 fails when you have players that are indecisive, overly tactical, and don't really pay attention to what is going on until it is their turn. The result is you have people taking 5 minutes to take their turn. That's a people issue. There's a guy in my group who takes forever on turns because of that, even when it is a character who is a smashy smash fighter in 3e.

I beg to differ.  4E's attempt to address #2 just flat out fails.  Unless you take extraoridnary measures to stop it, 4E is combat is going to take a long time barring some inordiantely good luck on the part of the PC's.  Indecisive players can add to combat length (I personally know someone that is very bad for this) but that really doesn't have as much to do with the system as the person.  You can't blame long 4E combats on slow players, because they will most likely be slow regardless of the system.  The problem is that 4E combat takes a long time by default with or without indecisive players.  The indecisive players just make it take longer.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> You're asking the question, you tell me why it matters...



OK. It doesn't. 



> I also see you didn't address my post to you earlier about combat length.



Oops. My post was something of a joke --ie, when the dice are running cold, then system isn't relevant. Combat will take a long time. 



> ...(if you bothered to read it)...



As a matter of fact, I did. It probably explains why I posted things like "I'm surprised that my group likes 4e's admittedly lengthy combats". 



> I've got my own "Kludges" for 4e combat since I'm playing it right now... but thanks for the suggestion...



Out of curiosity, what are they?  



> Don't presume to know what I think about something without asking, ok?



That's what I was doing, asking. You seems hung up on demonstrating people who aren't having issues with the 4e combat engine were 'misrepresenting' it or modified the heck out of it to get it to run.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 3, 2010)

Did they expect to serve players whose sessions run about 3-5 hours in length? If they did expect to reasonably serve them, then I think Shazman's criticism is valid. The tool fails to serve that segment of the market well.

I think it was intended to serve this group of players.  It may not have intended to serve just that group, but I'm pretty sure it was one of them.  A while ago they said something about their research showing that the average player played around 4 hours once a week.  Another bit of evidence for this is that LFR modules are "supposed" to be completed in 4 hours.  They ususally contain three combat encounters plus a skill challenge or two.  That means that the combat encounters should take about 45 minutes to an hour to complete.  If you go into an LFR session and actually expect it to be done in 4 hours with several 45 minute combats,from my personal experience, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.  In reality. most of the fights will take an hour to two hours (sometimes more) and the mod will take a minimum of 6 hours and as long as 9 hours (or even a staggering 12 hours in paragon).  If you always play low (all adventures have high and low level options), have extremely optimzied characters, and rush through the fights by just throwing down you dice and barking out damage and conditions (convention style) you may be able to finish it in 4 hours, but I don't think that's how most people want to play, nor is it realistic to expect them to.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The 4e design team was (and is) pretty good at accomplishing their explicit goals (it's in making the goals the right ones that they sometimes suffer).



I do not agree with this. Skill challenges and stuff.

Now, what the 4e design team is good about is developing/producing a game line like 4e: which is not a small thing to do if you do not have the experience to do it. They are veterans of D&D lore, they can write lots of words and they know how to develop and produce a book.

To do this, as a team they must operate under the same game design guidelines. 

4e, as design goals had
- class balance regarding combats
- make combats interesting regarding gameplay
- make combat interesting regarding possibilities of expansion adds (new classes, builds)
- have the D20 system the lingua franca among the designers for the mechanics of these goals  

The result was 4e. If 4e was to be smoother in gameplay it should not be based on the D20 system of 3.xe. but built on a new system especially made for the game that 4e wants itself to be. 

Personally, I do not like 3.xe's engine regarding combat (requires too much-offers too little) so to me 4e is buffling to high levels. But I understand this is just me.

But as you said 3.x sold minis plus it wonderfully helps itself toward add-ons. So, for commercial reasons it is a very good choice. Also if they did change the engine they would lose a lot of followers of the previous edition. 

All of these three reasons: 
-design development
-selling future products
-not alienating fans of the previous edition to the extreme  
were the reasons of what 4e was designed to be.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 3, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't really feel that fights in 3e were too short. Who cares if my monster goes down before he fires off all of his kewl powrz? My ego isn't invested in doing so. My ego as a DM is invested in my players having fun taking him down, neutralizing him, whatever, to achieve their goals. If they figure out a way to shorten the encounter or manage to bring enough smack down to end it fast and enjoy doing so, I'm good. The idea that the monster has to do a bunch of stuff or the encounter isn't somehow fulfilling is just alien to me. Clearly, I haven't been on the same wavelength as the D&D design team in a long time...




I was frequently lost in the sea of powers available to a monster. In our last 3e fight, the encounter included "vrock (3), see MM page XX." I have a player that HATES it when I flip open book after book in the middle of combat, so I thought I'd print out the Vrock from the SRD, with all the spell-like abilities. 10 pages. Of which, I used 2 "powers," and should have used a 3rd, I just forgot it was there.

I much prefer the more manageable list of powers, even tho I, like you, don't care if/when my monsters die.

PS


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Mallus said:


> Oops. My post was something of a joke --ie, when the dice are running cold, then system isn't relevant. Combat will take a long time.




This is wrong... a system that takes 10 minutes to resolve a combat is still going to take less time than a system that takes 40 minutes to resolve combat if the dice go cold for the same number of rounds. 





Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, what are they?.



-25% hit points/+25% damage to all monsters except minions... Always replace at least one to two standard monsters in an encounter with minions (though this doesn't always work out that great, as far as combat speed goes, for various reasons I won't go into)...

A new one I have been thinking about trying next week is to have monsters make morale checks (a save) each round once at least half their number are dead and they reach less than half their bloodied value (25% of hit points= demoralized once half their number are dead) 




Mallus said:


> That's what I was doing, asking. You seems hung up on demonstrating people who aren't having issues with the 4e combat engine were 'misrepresenting' it or modified the heck out of it to get it to run.




Again you're assuming things... that's not asking. Anyway, I was addressing one particular poster... not demonstrating that... "people who aren't having issues with the 4e combat engine were 'misrepresenting' it or modified the heck out of it to get it to run". Now I did pose the *question* (you know like you are possing questions to me) that I would be interested in finding out if others end combats prematurely but claim they are not having any problems with combat length in 4e.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well I think because of the rarity of actions in 4e and the chance to miss, depending on how often you do this in a combat, yes it could affect the length of combats.



For the first 6 months or so I ran combat by the book and as far as I can tell it makes no noticable difference to combat length  but more to player enjoyment.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Now I did pose the *question* (you know like you are possing questions to me) that I would be interested in finding out if others end combats prematurely but claim they are not having any problems with combat length in 4e.




What do you consider "prematurely" (aside from the obvious "before it's over?")


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> For the first 6 months or so I ran combat by the book and as far as I can tell it makes no noticable difference to combat length but more to player enjoyment.




I don't want to assume, so I'll ask...if the players didn't know you were dropping the monsters with a few hit points left... What exactly was the added player enjoyment as far as this was concerned?  How was it different from the enjoyment they would have garnered from the next player who hit, dropping the monster with only a few hit points left?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> What do you consider "prematurely" (aside from the obvious "before it's over?")




Why?  So we can argue for a few more pages about the true meaning of prematurely?  I think it's pretty apparent what I mean by prematurely within the context I was using it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So we're arguing about semantics... ok it's not a houserule... it's fudging that can still shorten the length of combat... is that bettter??
> 
> First, you are assuming he only does it for one monster per combat, Which I doubt is the case. Second, you assume it's the last monster in the combat so it's a given the PC's can gang up on it. And depending on the rolls doing this for more then one monster in combat can definitely affect the length of combat...
> 
> In the end, my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "IME combat as written works perfectly"... but you're not running it as written, and admit so.



If it is my statements earlier this is about I would like to state that it would not even be one monster per combat it would one or two monsters in a non plot significant encounter per 6 or 7 combats, though that is not a hard and fast rule. 
It usually occurs where someone get a critical that nearly but not quite takes out a monster in a combat that the party victory is a foregone conclusion and I think that it is a cool outcome. This does not happen every fight or every session. 
I did it last session when the barbarian got two crits with two daily powers and an action point and took a monster from just above bloodied to 3hp in a round. The player is 12 years old has rotten look with the dice and the tactical awareness of the Dodo. A bit of encouragement was in order, no?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I don't want to assume, so I'll ask...if the players didn't know you were dropping the monsters with a few hit points left... What exactly was the added player enjoyment as far as this was concerned?  How was it different from the enjoyment they would have garnered from the next player who hit, dropping the monster with only a few hit points left?



I don't know about your players but mine get a kick out of dropping a monster when the dice give a good damage result on a daily, especially crits. Where as dropping on an at will is; "Meh, it was probably on 1 or 2 hp anyway".


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 3, 2010)

billd91 said:


> In my experience, aside from the few cases in which we had to look up a spell with a long and detailed description, the very problems you mention that 4e won't solve are the primary reason 3e combats take so long too. 4e's attempt to fix how long an individual's turn takes fixes a small set of cases I've encountered.
> 
> I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't really feel that fights in 3e were too short. Who cares if my monster goes down before he fires off all of his kewl powrz? My ego isn't invested in doing so. My ego as a DM is invested in my players having fun taking him down, neutralizing him, whatever, to achieve their goals. If they figure out a way to shorten the encounter or manage to bring enough smack down to end it fast and enjoy doing so, I'm good. The idea that the monster has to do a bunch of stuff or the encounter isn't somehow fulfilling is just alien to me.




As a DM, I didn't care how long things lasted as long as the players had fun.

As a player.... nothing pissed me off more than a 1 or 2 round fight against a big bad.  That's the soul of anticlimax.  Might be a nemesis we've had for a long time, might be a monster of legend... and it dies to a bad saving throw in round 2 before half of the _players_ have had time to do anything cool.

Massively unsatisfying.  Heck, IME, it's not even satisfying for the player who forced the saving throw.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> -25% hit points/+25% damage to all monsters except minions... Always replace at least one to two standard monsters in an encounter with minions (though this doesn't always work out that great, as far as combat speed goes, for various reasons I won't go into)...



I experimented w/similar changes. I ended up sticking to the RAW but paying a lot closer attention to monster selection --when session-prepping I used to focus on theme, rather than mechanical abilities. So far I like the results. 

I've also gotten good mileage out using Minions that were either much higher level than the PC's (glass cannons that are hard to hit but do reliable damage) or w/special abilities (like the wonderful Pale Reaver Creeper - they can phase and drain Surges).   



> A new one I have been thinking about trying next week is to have monsters make morale checks (a save) each round once at least half their number are dead and they reach less than half their bloodied value (25% of hit points= demoralized once half their number are dead)



Sounds good. Or you could give PC's an Intimidate-to-surrender check as a free action once per encounter.  



> Again you're assuming things... that's not asking.



I think what I was doing was _misreading_... 



> Now I did pose the *question* (you know like you are possing questions to me) that I would be interested in finding out if others end combats prematurely but claim they are not having any problems with combat length in 4e.



I can't recall ending a combat prematurely... but my group hasn't had a problem dishing out large quantities of imaginary damage, at least so far, and I try to avoid selecting opponents which combine high defenses and a great big sack of HP.

Our play style also tends toward a single large set-piece battle per session, or every every other session. The only traditional dungeon crawl we had was done play-by-post on our message board over the course of a week or two.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> What do you consider "prematurely" (aside from the obvious "before it's over?")




I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that "prematurely" in this context means "before it's over." That is, before all the monsters are defeated according to the rules as written. A monster that has one hit point left is still up and fighting; a monster that has not been successfully Intimidated does not run away.

Yes, that's a very stringent standard. But the original poster's complaint is that he's being forced to rely on DM fiat and "tricks" to speed up combat, so "Does combat in fact require speeding up if you don't use DM fiat?" is a fair question.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Why?  So we can argue for a few more pages about the true meaning of prematurely?  I think it's pretty apparent what I mean by prematurely within the context I was using it.




Well ok then- the answer is no, combats end when they're over, and therefore not prematurely.



Dausuul said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that "prematurely" in this context means "before it's over." That is, before all the monsters are defeated according to the rules as written. A monster that has one hit point left is still up and fighting; a monster that has not been successfully Intimidated does not run away.




So every monster has to be dead or a PC has to make a successful intimidate check for them to run away?

Otherwise it's premature?



> Yes, that's a very stringent standard. But the original poster's complaint is that he's being forced to rely on DM fiat and "tricks" to speed up combat, so "Does combat in fact require speeding up if you don't use DM fiat?" is a fair question.




I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?

I don't consider this DM fiat.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?
> 
> I don't consider this DM fiat.



I believe they are considering this DM fiat, yes, if they're also considering fudging 3 HPs from a monster DM fiat and failure to run the combat by RAW. 

Personally, I'd think intention should have a lot to do with it.  If you're having the monsters run away because you're sick of this long, dragging fight and want to get on with it already... well, you're using DM fiat to solve the problem.  If you're doing it because it's dramatically appropriate, or if you want to keep your intelligent villains alive to return another day, it probably shouldn't.

By the same token, if you're fudging a few HPs here and there because you're bored with the fight, you're experiencing and trying to solve the problem the OP is talking about.  If you're doing it because you and your players love big, dramatic hits, I'd say you're doing something else entirely - like upping the cinematic aspect of the fight.

-O


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?




A problem? Not exactly. I cut my DMing teeth back in the 2E days, and I don't mind applying a little DM fiat to make things more realistic and make the game run more smoothly. I'm a firm believer in Rule Zero.

But let's be clear, DM fiat is what it is; there's a mechanic for deciding when monsters get scared and run away, and we're bypassing that mechanic in order to improve the outcome. 4E was supposed to be moving away from needing DM fiat to make things run smoothly.



Obryn said:


> By the same token, if you're fudging a few HPs here and there because  you're bored with the fight, you're experiencing and trying to solve the  problem the OP is talking about.  If you're doing it because you and  your players love big, dramatic hits, I'd say you're doing something  else entirely - like upping the cinematic aspect of the fight.




Agreed.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well ok then- the answer is no, combats end when they're over, and therefore not prematurely.




Wow, sure didn't see something like that coming... 




Scribble said:


> I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?
> 
> I don't consider this DM fiat.




So what do you consider it?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> A problem? Not exactly. I cut my DMing teeth back in the 2E days, and I don't mind applying a little DM fiat to make things more realistic and make the game run more smoothly. I'm a firm believer in Rule Zero.
> 
> But let's be clear, DM fiat is what it is; there's a mechanic for deciding when monsters get scared and run away, and we're bypassing that mechanic in order to improve the outcome. 4E was supposed to be moving away from needing DM fiat to make things run smoothly.




I don't think I agree with how far you're taking the idea of DM fiat.

By that idea wouldn't pretty much anything the monsters do kind of be DM fiat then?

Yes there's a mechanic for intimidating a foe and making it run away/surrender, but that's a player side option. How a player can force an outcome kind of, but I wouldn't say that's the ONLY way to get to that outcome...

One of the hobgoblin entries it talks about them running away if the fight seems hopeless, and monsters running away and regrouping is mentioned in the DMG... Clearly intimidate isn't the only reason monsters would run.

I don't really call this DM fiat so much as just running the game.  (Unless everything a 4e DM is supposed to do is based on a predefined/written action or rule then yeah I guess it fails at doing that... Which I am happy for.)


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Wow, sure didn't see something like that coming...




If you saw it coming why not just answer the question instead of giving me a non answer? You complained to Mallus for assuming something, then complain to me for not assuming something... Which do you want?

All I wanted was clarification.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I've also gotten good mileage out using Minions that were either much higher level than the PC's (glass cannons that are hard to hit but do reliable damage) or w/special abilities (like the wonderful Pale Reaver Creeper - they can phase and drain Surges).
> 
> 
> Sounds good. Or you could give PC's an Intimidate-to-surrender check as a free action once per encounter.




The minions with special abilities is a good idea, but my party didn't have a controller until recently (our former rogue went wizard), and I kind of found too many minions sometimes added to the length of combat without a controller (or Dragonborn w/breath weapon) instead of reducing combat length.

The free action, Intimidate-to-surrender idea might be better... but I wouldprobably have to remind them constantly to do it. My way, I just have to remember... so not sure which one would be better for my group.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> If you saw it coming why not just answer the question instead of giving me a non answer? You complained to Mallus for assuming something, then complain to me for not assuming something... Which do you want?
> 
> All I wanted was clarification.




Because Dausuul seemed to get what I meant perfectly fine (as I suspect many other posters did as well) and took the time to post it... so I didn't feel like explaining it in detail was worth the effort or time.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Because Dausuul seemed to get what I meant perfectly fine (as I suspect many other posters did as well) and took the time to post it... so I didn't feel like explaining it in detail was worth the effort or time.




Well if explaining your questions to those who ask for clarification isn't worth your time, perhaps trying to have a discussion with you about something we disagree on isn't worth mine.  

I'm going to stop trying before the thread gets heated.

Have a good one man.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Personally I think a lot of the "problems" with the combat system in 4e are actually user error.




This seems, I dunno, a little arrogant on its face.

One of my problems with 4e's combat system is that there is a high level of tactical positioning in it (it's too simulationist for me, I find it takes too long, takes too many accessories, and doesn't provide a dynamic enough result to be worth the effort).

That's not an error on my part -- that does exist. It's also not necessarily an error on the game's part -- they probably *wanted* that.

Where the problem occurs is when the game's goals are different from my own. The designers wanted highly tactical combat. I just want some cool options. 

It's a mis-match of intent, not any "error," necessarily, from either side. You could maybe place some blame on 4e for requiring a combat system like that, but I think that would be kind of unfair -- they have to choose SOME combat system, and they probably figured this would be the best for the majority of players. 

Saying "You're playing it wrong!" isn't really true, though.

I'm willing to believe a lot of problems with 4e's combat system result from this mis-match of intent, rather than misuse.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I don't think I agree with how far you're taking the idea of DM fiat.
> 
> By that idea wouldn't pretty much anything the monsters do kind of be DM fiat then?
> 
> ...




We could argue semantics all night, so let's change the term to "DM judgement." I think we can agree that monsters running away, without an Intimidate check, is a DM judgement call in 4E.

Now, DMs vary in level of skill. One of the explicit design goals of both 3E and 4E was to support the novice DM, by providing a ruleset which didn't require a lot of DM judgement calls in the regular course of play. Obviously there is _room_ for DM judgement, and players will always do wacky things that aren't covered by the rules, but when the game is running squarely in the center of the intended design space - a straight-up fight against a bunch of dungeon denizens, no tricks - an inexperienced DM should be able to just run things out of the book and have it work.

I have played with a fair few novice DMs, and IME it's very, very common in such games to have all monsters fight to the death. For someone inexperienced with the combat system, who may not be very good at judging when a fight has become hopeless, it's the simplest and most logical approach.

Hence, if "all monsters fight to the death" results in grind and boredom... then I would say that's a problem, because the game is not supporting the novice DM as it should. (It's also not supporting the historically popular "beer and pretzels" school of gaming, in which nobody retreats, nobody surrenders, and the PCs emerge from every dungeon drenched in blood to the elbows.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 4, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Hence, if "all monsters fight to the death" results in grind and boredom... then I would say that's a problem, because the game is not supporting the novice DM as it should. (It's also not supporting the historically popular "beer and pretzels" school of gaming, in which nobody retreats, nobody surrenders, and the PCs emerge from every dungeon drenched in blood to the elbows.)



The problem is as far as I can tell, is that there is no consensus as to wither this is happening. I'm pretty happy with 4e and do not find grind or boredom so far. Others are of a different opinion. 
Now, I think that Mallus nailed the issue up thread, with the observation that monster selection is the key. Not all monsters of a given xp budget are equal for a given enterainment value in a fight. Some combinations are grindy and others not. Furthermore, i suspect that it depends on party composition.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Well if explaining your questions to those who ask for clarification isn't worth your time, perhaps trying to have a discussion with you about something we disagree on isn't worth mine.
> 
> I'm going to stop trying before the thread gets heated.
> 
> Have a good one man.




Scribble, you just seem to be coming off as unnecessarily passive-aggressive and snarky.  Perhaps I'm reading you wrong dude, the internet isn't the best place to get a feel for someone, and if you are being genuine I apologize... but I just don't see the point of discussing this with you as you seem more intent on nit-picking details than actually discussing the issue of the thread.  

No hard feelings though, because in the end it's just a game.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 4, 2010)

I think another piece of the problem is not reading the user manual.  Perhaps it's just me but, sometimes when I read about problems with 4e, the poster seems unaware of advice in the DMG intended to address those concerns.  One example is page 10 (Building a Party) which discusses what creature roles a party is weak against in the case of an unbalanced party.

Quite obviously though, it's only one of multiple possible factors.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 4, 2010)

Why is 4e combat this way? Well, because of the features of AD&D (1e and 2e) and 3e combat.

The feature about low-level AD&D combat that most comes to mind is "random". Yes, skill can mitigate luck to some extent, but it doesn't take long to put you on the ground, bleeding to death: just a couple of (un)lucky rolls. As the game gets into the higher levels, this damage randomness decreases, but instead the game hits the "one bad save and its over" swinginess.

I would say there are very few DMs who didn't fudge combat in AD&D - particularly low-level combat - so that PCs survive where they shouldn't have.

Once you get to 3e, you get that in spades, added to which was an advancement system that didn't have proper checks and balances. It was entirely possible to game the system: spell DCs that no-one could defend against except for the defense optimizers that no-one could touch.

At the higher levels, you were looking at one spell taking out all the enemies, or often no more than two rounds of combat. The problem? It'd take an hour or two to resolve those two hours! Swinginess and extreme length hit high-level 3e.

4E combat is designed with two major goals in mind: reducing the randomness of combat and stabilizing the length. Most combats should take 40-60 minutes to resolves, and last somewhere around 4-8 rounds.

It succeeds at the first pretty well, IMO. The second, not so well, although most of my combats have lasted about that long until recently (and we hit 18th level!) 

Why does the second fail? The reason comes with an overestimation of the defenses of the monsters. Take an Elite Soldier of 2 levels higher than the PCs. At this point, the PCs have something like a 25% chance of hitting it. This is where the major problem of grind comes from. This soldier is (by the guidelines) something that the PCs should be handle - and, in fact they can - however, the combat takes so stupidly long that it destroys the pacing of the session.

(Stupidest monsters ever are those with insubstantial and cause weakness in the party. That's horrendously bad design).

Higher levels monsters in 4e are more dangerous, yes, but they also take substantially longer to defeat. If you check the Wizards adventures, they've got entirely too many combats that are more difficult than the PCs, and not enough easy combats. 

Even with all of this, my 18th level combats in 4e are taking substantially less time to resolve (and with a lot more actions per character) than my 16th level combats in 3e.

_*In every single edition of D&D, I've needed to kludge combats.*_ Not perhaps every combat - I've run a lot of it by the book - but there are times when the system just falls over. 

Do I think the basic length of combat in 4e is too long? Certainly I do! However, the game still works pretty well for me until we start getting these 25% chances to hit. A little less defence, a little fewer hitpoints... 4e wouldn't need all that many changes before it ran combats in a more reasonable time and didn't have so many trouble with over-level monsters.

There is a secondary problem with the game getting a little too condition-happy (and thus trickier to track and slower), but it isn't as significant as the defenses issue.

Cheers!


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 4, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> The problem is as far as I can tell, is that there is no consensus as to wither this is happening.




Yes, that is indeed the question. 

I have certainly experienced grind, and I have seen enough complaints that I think it is indisputably happening - and happening to enough people that it can reasonably be described as a problem with the system.

In most cases when I've seen grind, it was not such that having the monsters run away was a suitable remedy. Either the monsters were not in a position to run (e.g., they were locked down by the party fighter and had already discovered that attempting to move was futile), or they were of a creature type that generally didn't run (e.g., shambling undead, orc berserkers).

Moreover, having the monsters flee often makes a fight _longer. _The PCs understandably don't want the monsters to escape; first because they might come back with buddies, and second because escaping monsters typically take the loot with them. So they make a point of running down and killing fleeing foes. In the end, it takes as much time to resolve the monsters' attempt to flee as it would to kill them all, and sometimes more.

On the other hand, this stuff is pretty specific to my group, and I can well imagine that at a table with less murderous players, less aggressive monsters, and no fighter in the party, having the monsters flee would do a lot to alleviate grind issues.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 4, 2010)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 4E combat is designed with two major goals in mind: reducing the randomness of combat and stabilizing the length. Most combats should take 40-60 minutes to resolves, and last somewhere around 4-8 rounds.




Sure, this could have been part of it.

And part of the complaints are now that 40-60 minutes is *too long for a single basic combat* (though 4-8 rounds might be solid). 

This gets back to the OP:



			
				Stormonu said:
			
		

> ...reliably have 15 minute to half-hour combats (or about the same length it takes a group of characters to interact with an NPC or search a non-empty room in the game)...




When I look at why combats last this long in 4e, I do see some defense/hp issues, on occasion, but I see far more issues with combat set-up, moving minis, mathematics (all the fiddly bits), tactics, choice paralysis, and rules questions. Compounded with the occasional defense/hp issues, it makes grind. Long periods of doing nothing significant while other people make decisions. 

For certain groups (the well-prepared, the naturally tactical, the easily mathematic) it's not much of an issue, but for the "average group," with no special capacity for any of those things, I think it is more of one. 

I think reducing the "moving parts" of D&D combat would be an admirable goal for the game. Less sim in combat, more game, a higher level of abstraction, with easier, less complicated, and, yes, less tactical rules. 

At the same time, I think increasing the "moving parts" of D&D that aren't involved in combat would be also an admirable goal, though that's slightly orthogonal.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 4, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Scribble, you just seem to be coming off as unnecessarily passive-aggressive and snarky.  Perhaps I'm reading you wrong dude, the internet isn't the best place to get a feel for someone, and if you are being genuine I apologize... but I just don't see the point of discussing this with you as you seem more intent on nit-picking details than actually discussing the issue of the thread.
> 
> No hard feelings though, because in the end it's just a game.




Imaro- I think you're right as I get the same feeling with you? Maybe all the long edition wars have put us all on edge about everyone else?  

My intention isn't to nitpick details- I'm just trying to find where people are coming from as far as play style, as it appears mine is different then others.

When you asked your question, honestly I wanted to know when you considered a fight over.

So if we can keep discussing this, without getting snippy at each other- I'd like too, as I think talking with people who have different opinions then I do is a good way for all involved to learn things...

Hug it out? 




Dausuul said:


> We could argue semantics all night, so let's change the term to "DM judgement." I think we can agree that monsters running away, without an Intimidate check, is a DM judgement call in 4E.




I think this is key though, as to me DM judgement and DM fiat mean two different things. (Maybe I'm the only one that does?)

To me DM judgement is the area that is kind of coded into the rules to allow a little more leeway with whatever situation presents itself. The important part though, is the DM is doing it based on his reading of the rules in combination with the situation at hand. There isn't really a rule there because a rule would most likely cause more problems and weirdness then it would resolve.

DM fiat on the other hand I've always seen as a little more heavy handed, in that it's more the DM deciding this is how it should work normally based just on his/her idea of how something should work, or simply because no rule exists in a place that a rule probably SHOULD exist.

In 3e I remember reading that they specifically removed the "morale" rules to give the DM a little more leeway in running the encounter. He could use his own best judgement to decide if a monster should stay, flee, or surrender. It just (in the designers eyes) wasn't something a hard coded rule really worked for. It seems to me, that the 4e designers had the same opinion.

If that's what others consider fiat, then thats where my confusion lies because making monsters run away or surrender when it would be the best tactic to survive (and possibly fight the PCs again) has always seemed like it should just be a judgement call to me, and as such just a part of the game as it should be (as opposed to something the DM does to fix what's missing.)




> Now, DMs vary in level of skill. One of the explicit design goals of both 3E and 4E was to support the novice DM, by providing a ruleset which didn't require a lot of DM judgement calls in the regular course of play. Obviously there is _room_ for DM judgement, and players will always do wacky things that aren't covered by the rules, but when the game is running squarely in the center of the intended design space - a straight-up fight against a bunch of dungeon denizens, no tricks - an inexperienced DM should be able to just run things out of the book and have it work.




For the most part I agree, but I think it also for the most part does work, and level of skill just increases someones ability to make it work better.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 4, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, this could have been part of it.
> 
> And part of the complaints are now that 40-60 minutes is *too long for a single basic combat* (though 4-8 rounds might be solid).




Could you look to the link I post in my thread?



> I think reducing the "moving parts" of D&D combat would be an admirable goal for the game. Less sim in combat, more game, a higher level of abstraction, with easier, less complicated, and, yes, less tactical rules.




The trouble with all of this is too much dialling down leads to a game where you stand in front of a big red button marked "Swing Sword". No tactical positioning, no choice of action. Interesting variation comes from DM Fiat.

Plenty of systems have this type of combat. AD&D (1e) melee combat is very much like this - the fighter is so limited in action, and there's no movement once melee is entered into (save withdrawal, rarely a useful tactic). Of course, it's entirely as a reaction against this form of combat that D&D has moved the way it has. The first big move was in Combat & Tactics back in mid-2e days, where the idea of using miniatures on a grid was properly formalized. From there the 3e system embraced miniatures and combat positioning. 

4e definitely hits a high-point for D&D in terms of importance of the battlefield (with all the forced movement options). It's still a fair below the most detailed systems I've seen for such; consider games such as BattleTech!

4e also is pretty high on the "Conditions affecting combatants" list. 1e was mostly "I just deal damage" with spells providing relief from the monotony (as much as you can ever call dealing damage monotonous! ) The joy of 4e is that it cuts down the lists of conditions to an easily memorizable list; it's a fair way away from the 3e list which seemed to be added to whenever a designer had an idea. 3e made things difficult with a lot of stacking and non-stacking bonuses and penalties everywhere. (Did I forget Bard Song again?) 4e is probably easier to track, but for some reasons the tracking seems more difficult and pervasive. (3E combat probably had more modifiers all-up, but as most just affected the PCs, it wasn't such a burden on the DM).

Of course, the reasons we *have* conditions is so that every attack isn't just "I hit for X damage" again and again and again. Still, for some people this is too complicated.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jun 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> In 3e I remember reading that they specifically removed the "morale" rules to give the DM a little more leeway in running the encounter. He could use his own best judgement to decide if a monster should stay, flee, or surrender. It just (in the designers eyes) wasn't something a hard coded rule really worked for. It seems to me, that the 4e designers had the same opinion.




Sort of, but in actual fact the Morale rules wandered off to the skill marked "Intimidate". 

Cheers!


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Imaro- I think you're right as I get the same feeling with you? Maybe all the long edition wars have put us all on edge about everyone else?
> 
> My intention isn't to nitpick details- I'm just trying to find where people are coming from as far as play style, as it appears mine is different then others.
> 
> ...





Hey no problem, I certainly wouldn't mind continuing the discussion.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 4, 2010)

MerricB said:


> 4e also is pretty high on the "Conditions affecting combatants" list. 1e was mostly "I just deal damage" with spells providing relief from the monotony (as much as you can ever call dealing damage monotonous! ) The joy of 4e is that it cuts down the lists of conditions to an easily memorizable list; it's a fair way away from the 3e list which seemed to be added to whenever a designer had an idea. 3e made things difficult with a lot of stacking and non-stacking bonuses and penalties everywhere. (Did I forget Bard Song again?) 4e is probably easier to track, but for some reasons the tracking seems more difficult and pervasive. (3E combat probably had more modifiers all-up, but as most just affected the PCs, it wasn't such a burden on the DM).




While I mostly agree with this, I think 4E to some extent confuses quantity with quality. Many of 4E's tactical elements have limited impact on the flow of combat - a situation exacerbated by the increase in hit-point-to-damage ratios - but still require tracking. Conditions seldom force a drastic change in tactics. They're just annoyances to be suffered through until you make your save.

(On the other hand, forced movement has a huge effect on the battle, which is why interesting terrain is so important in 4E, and why the 4E fighter's "You shall not pass!" shtick puts her head and shoulders above every other defender class. IMO, of course.)

My hope is that 5E will refine and focus 4E's tactical aspect. Design conditions and effects that alter the nature of the battle and force combatants to shift gears; at the same time, limit the number of conditions that get imposed. Strip away the fiddly little modifiers.

Ideally, 5E's math would also work such that a low-powered monster group (relative to the PCs) deals damage quickly and is then slain, 1E-style, while a high-powered group (again relative to the PCs) results in an extended, dramatic combat, 4E-style. This would make it possible to incorporate a mix of "skirmish" and "set-piece" encounters, rather than having nothing but HUGE AWESOME EPIC BATTLES which can too easily become slow sloggy grinding battles instead.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 4, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> Two main complaints about 3e combat was 1. it was usually over in 3 rounds and 2. it took forever for people to take their turn.
> 
> 4e addresses #1 with the encounter design, leading to longer, tactical encounters where you can do cool stuff. 4e attempts to address #2 by giving people a handful of powers to choose from rather than a long list for casters and fighters just throwing out attack rolls.
> 
> 4e's attempt to address #2 fails when you have players that are indecisive, overly tactical, and don't really pay attention to what is going on until it is their turn. The result is you have people taking 5 minutes to take their turn. That's a people issue. There's a guy in my group who takes forever on turns because of that, even when it is a character who is a smashy smash fighter in 3e.





Shazman said:


> I beg to differ.  4E's attempt to address #2 just flat out fails.  Unless you take extraoridnary measures to stop it, 4E is combat is going to take a long time barring some inordiantely good luck on the part of the PC's.  Indecisive players can add to combat length (I personally know someone that is very bad for this) but that really doesn't have as much to do with the system as the person.  You can't blame long 4E combats on slow players, because they will most likely be slow regardless of the system.  The problem is that 4E combat takes a long time by default with or without indecisive players.  The indecisive players just make it take longer.



I would distinguish between the total amount of time that combat takes and the amount of time that each individual player takes for his turn.

I think that 4E changes such as reducing the number of options available to spellcasters and requiring PCs to share actions with their mounts, companions and summoned creatures was an attempt to reduce the time taken by individual players on their turn. I might have made an argument here that 4E could have increased the time taken by melee characters on their turns since the number of options they have been given has increased, but it has been pointed out that melee characters actually had _more_ options in 3E since they are no longer able to trip, sunder, disarm or overrun in 4E without selecting specific powers. Hence, melee characters should also take less time on their turns than they did in 3E.

However, the desire to have more tactically interesting fights (by which I mean fights in which it is advantageous for the PCs to change tactics from time to time) also necessitated more combat rounds per fight. This would (of course) offset the time saved on each player's turn. If each player takes half the time for his turn in each round, but combats are twice as long in terms of rounds, the total amount of time spent in combat will still be the same.

Nonetheless, even if the length of time spent in combat is the same, players will have less time to wait between turns, and that might help to keep them engaged in the game.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 4, 2010)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Could you look to the link I post in my thread?




Yeah, I'm basically in agreement with the ideas in your LJ post. 

I do wonder how "combat should take about an hour" became a design goal, because it would seem that the problems in that would become evident in playtesting, even for "lunch hour games" and the like. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The trouble with all of this is too much dialling down leads to a game where you stand in front of a big red button marked "Swing Sword". No tactical positioning, no choice of action. Interesting variation comes from DM Fiat.




...and then you have Skill Challenges. 

I think there's a fertile middle ground. Consider Skill Challenges at one unpleasant extreme for me, and 4e combat at the other. Closing the gap between them would improve both. I should have powers I can use that aren't combat-related (personally, I've been giving Rituals a close look for this). I should also have fewer choices to make when beating the face of some goblins in (personally, getting rid of the grid and using abstract battlefields with binary melee/ranged powers makes a lot of sense). 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> The joy of 4e is that it cuts down the lists of conditions to an easily memorizable list; it's a fair way away from the 3e list which seemed to be added to whenever a designer had an idea. 3e made things difficult with a lot of stacking and non-stacking bonuses and penalties everywhere. (Did I forget Bard Song again?) 4e is probably easier to track, but for some reasons the tracking seems more difficult and pervasive. (3E combat probably had more modifiers all-up, but as most just affected the PCs, it wasn't such a burden on the DM).




4e making many conditions more codified, and reducing the buff effect, was a great thing. But there's still a lot of fiddly moving parts. As it ramped down the random +1's, and clamped down on sim-style moves like disarm and grapple, it ramped up the "pull, push, shift, slide" and the "cover, concealment, difficult terrain," and the "minor, free, standard, move, reaction, daily, at-will, encounter, burst, blast, close," and simply upped the quantity of stuff to do (more powers! more stuff in a turn!).

4e slightly diminished bookeeping overall, but also ramped up the raw information that you need to juggle overall. Which is part of what the OP was griping about. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Of course, the reasons we *have* conditions is so that every attack isn't just "I hit for X damage" again and again and again. Still, for some people this is too complicated.




For me, I'm comfortable making one choice on my turn, and seeing the results of that choice.

A simple cause-effect.

Even if that effect can be quite varied, only being able to do a single thing, from a limited list, makes deciding what to do quicker, which streamlines combat overall. 

I don't care about the raw quantity of conditions in existence, really. There can be a new specific condition for each individual power, if you wanted. The trouble comes when you're juggling more than one condition per creature over different durations. When the moving parts increase. When it's less "fire and forget."

This helps to approach that middle ground I was talking about, where you have some interesting options, but where you don't loose the momentum picking a card from your deck of a dozen, deciding 6 different times which squares to occupy, carefully parceling out actions to different abilities, and doing at least 4 other things, all on one turn. 

Long turns, I think, grind combat more thoroughly than long combats.


----------



## Ariosto (Jun 4, 2010)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Of course, it's entirely as a reaction against this form of combat that D&D has moved the way it has.




Of course, it's partly D&D moving as it has that made it a big issue in the first place.

In shooting and throwing, 4e I think has to stretch further to come up with funky stuff at its level than is the case with hand-to-hand fighting. Fortunately, there's no shortage of inspiration in such sources as Hong Kong "gun-fu" movies. (I don't think it's just coincidence that, as in _Exalted_, the powers have names evocative of Asian cartoon martial arts.)

That funky stuff, though, is not what "tactics" means in military-historical terms. We're really getting down here to fine points of individuals' _techniques_ or moves, albeit fantastic ones. From these, small-unit tactics peculiar to the game emerge, but the building blocks are more along the lines of choosing particular parries in a game of fencing duels.

O/AD&D is, properly speaking, an eminently tactical (as well as strategic) game. One can apply lessons from Kadesh or Culloden -- provided one has the forces.

Having the forces in the first place, though, has been pretty generally deprecated. Instead of mustering combatants enough to deploy into useful formations, the 4e adventure more probably amounts to but 4 or 5 individuals. Worse yet, the fashion in tactics seems too often to be "split up, rush to engage, get pinned down and surrounded, call for fire support".

I would even say that making fights take longer probably _came first_. Way back in the 1970s, going back even to Arneson's Blackmoor, people were adding complications that did not really add so much in the way of decisions to make round by round, as simply in more numbers to add, dice to roll, and tables to look up.



> Sort of, but in actual fact the Morale rules wandered off to the skill marked "Intimidate".



The first time I ran 4e, I didn't know about that -- so, when the players took out the enemy leader in a spectacular first-round assault, I made off-the-cuff checks vs the rank-and-file Will. That was just because it made sense to me, considering the situation, but it turned out to be fortuitous because a couple of the players had to leave before we would have finished the fight. In the event, there was some interesting intra-party conflict over how to treat with the foe.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 4, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The trouble with all of this is too much dialling down leads to a game where you stand in front of a big red button marked "Swing Sword". No tactical positioning, no choice of action. Interesting variation comes from DM Fiat.



I am positive that a game can be designed where this does not happen. Interesting action choices for fighters without the grid. There is a bunch of games that have been doing this, for example "The Riddle Of Steel". It uses no minis but the system has tactical choices that have to do with medieval martial equipment esoterics. Personally I am not interested in this kind of thing -but it is proof that what you are talking about is not true. Personally, I want combats to play out like what you see in "Prince of Persia" and this to be done on mechanics that support this sort of thing. I am trying to see how to design something that can be like this.



MerricB said:


> 4e definitely hits a high-point for D&D in terms of importance of the battlefield (with all the forced movement options). It's still a fair below the most detailed systems I've seen for such; consider games such as BattleTech!




BattleTech uses a grid. Battlefield importance is not the same as grid gameplay. You could abstract the important points of a battlefield and the way of interacting with them. There are many ways to implement battlefield importance. Depending on the media itself, a narrative will approach it differently than a cinema film, a tabletop game will approach it differently than a video game. Moreover, narratives, cinema, tabletops and video games, all within their own medium have possibilities of different ways and techniques that can have different results and effects for the final product.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 4, 2010)

xechnao said:


> I am positive that a game can be designed where this does not happen. Interesting action choices for fighters without the grid.





I am absolutely certain as well.  I played in such a game last night.

For those interested in modifying combat in 3e-ish D&D, _*Codex Martialis *_is a fantastic system that captures individual tactics *very* well without using a grid.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2010)

xechnao said:


> I am positive that a game can be designed where this does not happen.




Well, yes and no.

Battlemaps and battlemap positioning are not required for there to be tactical richness in a game.  But, _tactical_ positioning is not the same as battlemap positioning.  

Tactical positioning is about pursuing a state to maximize your effectiveness within the rules.  If the tactical rules are rich there are many meaningful choices, and there's a lot to consider.  Any time there's many things to consider, the game will take time.  The battlemap itself isn't slow - the process of making decisions may be slow, no matter what the representation.

This is not an issue of simulation vs game.  Perhaps the most popular, successful, and famous games in human history - Go and Chess - are elegantly simple in their rules, contain no real simulation to speak of, have great tactical depth, and can still take _days_ to play out.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 4, 2010)

FireLance said:


> I would distinguish between the total amount of time that combat takes and the amount of time that each individual player takes for his turn.
> 
> I think that 4E changes such as reducing the number of options available to spellcasters and requiring PCs to share actions with their mounts, companions and summoned creatures was an attempt to reduce the time taken by individual players on their turn. I might have made an argument here that 4E could have increased the time taken by melee characters on their turns since the number of options they have been given has increased, but it has been pointed out that melee characters actually had _more_ options in 3E since they are no longer able to trip, sunder, disarm or overrun in 4E without selecting specific powers. Hence, melee characters should also take less time on their turns than they did in 3E.
> 
> ...


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

Shazman said:


> FireLance said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds good in theory, but I don't think it bears out when actually playing 4E.
> ...


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 4, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I am really starting to see the purpose classes like these serve as I struggle in 4e to find a class that can be operated by my young nephew as well as players who maybe aren't as interested or adept at grid-tactics but like roleplaying games without someone else having to basically coach them.



I think you're right, players do have to buy in to a certain level of complexity at the start. I think that anyone in the recommended age-group for the game is more than capable of doing that, but for younger peeps...

I recommend simply re-skinning one of the many 1st-level monsters as a PC, with a basic melee, basic ranged, and one or two attack powers. Later, when he's familiar and adept with the rules, he can "graduate" to a full-fledged PC. Otherwise, maybe 4E isn't the entry game it used to be.


----------



## ST (Jun 4, 2010)

There are also, oh, about *several hundred* different RPGs out there with fairly simple and fast-paced combat, if having that is a priority over either using a RPG with "D&D" in the title or making some simple house rules to speed things up.

The OP did a pretty good job of establishing a "crisis" by carving away potential solutions, to the point that I don't really buy that it's a legitimate question.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, yes and no.
> 
> Battlemaps and battlemap positioning are not required for there to be tactical richness in a game. But, _tactical_ positioning is not the same as battlemap positioning.
> 
> ...




Hmmm. I believe your point confuses matters. Go and Chess are games that are exactly about this: a tactical analysis exercise.
Rpgs OTOH need to use tactics as a means to make things interesting within their own roleplaying environment: "If I do this I am risking this - if I do that I am risking that other thing: now what do I want to risk?" RPG tactics should not ruin this kind of roleplaying immersion. For this reason rpg tactics should pay respect to verisimilitude. Now does the battlemap really helps with this or is it in the end more hassle than worth? Yes, it is a technical matter regarding rpg design. Another question: should the monsters really make dice rolls as players do? This is another technical question that does matter though regarding how combat will work out. If you really think about it, you will find out that it is obvious it is technically better for tabletop rpgs that monsters should not roll as PCs do (it takes up unnecessary time): the fact though that rpgs sprang out of wargames and gained most of their popularity at their very initial and original stage explains the evolution of their technicalities.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 4, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> I think you're right, players do have to buy in to a certain level of complexity at the start. I think that anyone in the recommended age-group for the game is more than capable of doing that, but for younger peeps...
> 
> I recommend simply re-skinning one of the many 1st-level monsters as a PC, with a basic melee, basic ranged, and one or two attack powers. Later, when he's familiar and adept with the rules, he can "graduate" to a full-fledged PC. Otherwise, maybe 4E isn't the entry game it used to be.




A companion character (DMG2) could also work well, I think.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

ST said:


> There are also, oh, about *several hundred* different RPGs out there with fairly simple and fast-paced combat, if having that is a priority over either using a RPG with "D&D" in the title or making some simple house rules to speed things up.
> 
> The OP did a pretty good job of establishing a "crisis" by carving away potential solutions, to the point that I don't really buy that it's a legitimate question.




Or maybe... we just want to discuss the game system as it is, since the OP isn't necessarily asking for a solution... but instead seeking answers to the question of "why" these solutions had to come about for some people.  

The "Find another game." suggestion popped up on page 1, but it doesn't really address the OP's question or add anything to the discussion... does it?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

wedgeski said:


> I think you're right, players do have to buy in to a certain level of complexity at the start. I think that anyone in the recommended age-group for the game is more than capable of doing that, but for younger peeps...
> 
> I recommend simply re-skinning one of the many 1st-level monsters as a PC, with a basic melee, basic ranged, and one or two attack powers. Later, when he's familiar and adept with the rules, he can "graduate" to a full-fledged PC. Otherwise, maybe 4E isn't the entry game it used to be.








Fanaelialae said:


> A companion character (DMG2) could also work well, I think.




These are both good suggestions, and I wish I had DMG 2 when we started our game, but I didn't... and I don't want to take his character away now, but I wish from the outset 4e had been a little more friendly towards younger or more casual players.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2010)

Imaro said:


> The "Find another game." suggestion popped up on page 1, but it doesn't really address the OP's question or add anything to the discussion... does it?



Sure it does.

The OP boiled down to "I am unhappy with how this game is working, and I do not think I should have to make house-rules or change how we play to make it work better."

If you've eliminated house-rules and changes in play-style, there's nothing (well, very little - like changing the kinds of monsters in a fight) else left to suggest, assuming that the OP was looking for a way to a more enjoyable gaming session.  If 4e's not meeting his needs, and he doesn't want to try and change 4e to make it meet his needs better, playing another game is really the only solution left.  That or, "suck it up and deal," but I don't think that's very helpful, either.

-O


----------



## MerricB (Jun 4, 2010)

xechnao said:


> but it is proof that what you are talking about is not true.




Please read my post again. I don't think you properly did so the first time.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> The OP boiled down to "I am unhappy with how this game is working, and I do not think I should have to make house-rules or change how we play to make it work better."
> 
> ...




What I'm saying is that the OP very clearly states it's a rant... and the question is "why" not "how do I fix"... so again he isn't necessarily looking for solutions as he has already used kludges on his combats in 4e, but moreso asking what are the reasons people use these kludges and why.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What I'm saying is that the OP very clearly states it's a rant... and the question is "why" not "how do I fix"... so again he isn't necessarily looking for solutions as he has already used kludges on his combats in 4e, but moreso asking what are the reasons people use these kludges and why.



Last I checked, this was not RPG.net and there's no [4e-] tag ahead of it.

Come on.  If you post a rant on a message board, instead of your personal blog, you invite discussion and comment.  Including, "Wow, you're right, 4e isn't working for your group and it sounds like you aren't having much fun.  Why not do something else?"  It's absolutely topical, whether you say it's a rant or not.

-O


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

Obryn said:


> Last I checked, this was not RPG.net and there's no [4e-] tag ahead of it.
> 
> Come on. If you post a rant on a message board, instead of your personal blog, you invite discussion and comment. Including, "Wow, you're right, 4e isn't working for your group and it sounds like you aren't having much fun. Why not do something else?" It's absolutely topical, whether you say it's a rant or not.
> 
> -O




Totally agree, never said he didn't have the "right" to say it, however the "get a new game" line has been brought up already numerous times in the thread. And not once has it spurred any further commentary or discussion.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 4, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Please read my post again. I don't think you properly did so the first time.




I did read your post. I disputed the point of no battlemap with 4e style choices generally means no interesting mechanic options for a swordsman like guy. I believe I was clear in this, no?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 4, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I am really starting to see the purpose classes like these serve as I struggle in 4e to find a class that can be operated by my young nephew as well as players who maybe aren't as interested or adept at grid-tactics but like roleplaying games without someone else having to basically coach them.




I hear that an archer Ranger can be stupidly easy to run.  Stay away and Twin Strike all day long.  Use dailies/encounters when you feel like doing something different.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> I hear that an archer Ranger can be stupidly easy to run.  Stay away and Twin Strike all day long.  Use dailies/encounters when you feel like doing something different.



Yes, if you Quarry and Twin Strike every single round, your archer ranger will be about 80%+ effectiveness.

But with a few feats, and a few interesting power choices, it's not that simple...  Getting stuff to buff Prime Shot adds a lot of tactical interest to the class, for example.  (Why yes, I'd _love_ an extra +2 to-hit and +5 damage per attack, thankyouverymuch!)

-O


----------



## Shazman (Jun 4, 2010)

I guess that an archer ranger is the closest thing to a "simple" class that you can get in 4E. As long as they can remember quarry and prime shot, they should be fine. An archer ranger is what I made for my wife when I tried to get her to play LFR.  Alas, she never did.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 4, 2010)

Yeah, the archer ranger probably would have been a better choice. I made him a Beastmaster Ranger because he wanted a pet and it seemed like the simplest class that got an animal companion. I mean don't get me wrong he's having fun, and I have already scaled the fights back to account for him mostly protecting his wolf confused: yeah I know, crazy right) with basic melee and the occasional basic ranged attack (for some reason his dwarf tends to throw anything he can get his hands on... including his own weapons and even shield at times.).

Edit: Maybe I'll try to talk him into switching over and give him a really weak companion animal from DMG 2... that way he will have his pet and be able t contribute... maybe reskin his "archery" as "throwing stuff"...lol


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2010)

xechnao said:


> Hmmm. I believe your point confuses matters. Go and Chess are games that are exactly about this: a tactical analysis exercise.
> Rpgs OTOH need to use tactics as a means to make things interesting within their own roleplaying environment: "If I do this I am risking this - if I do that I am risking that other thing: now what do I want to risk?" RPG tactics should not ruin this kind of roleplaying immersion. For this reason rpg tactics should pay respect to verisimilitude.




With respect, it seems to me that you might be confusing, "RPGs need..." with, "I prefer RPGs have...".

RPGs are an outgrowth of _wargames_.  There's loads and loads of folks who seem to like the tactical wargame aspect - killing things and taking their stuff.  There's any number of folks out there who are "beer and pretzel" gamers - immersion and verisimilitude are not necessarily high on their agendas.  

The point is that there's loads of different things that people can get out of RPGs.  Immersion is one.  A good time playing a tactical wargame with some story and role-playing to give the whole thing some context is another.  What your game has in it will depend on exactly which gamers you're trying to get to play the game.

Tactical richness requires more than just "meaningful" choices, the player also has to have to have a bunch of different options at hand.  Weighing choices and making decisions can take time, as you review options.  If you're trying to get the players who like tactically rich combat, you have to be ready for that combat to not be particularly quick.

D&D has always tried to draw players who like the tactical side of combat, and D&D combat has historically never been particularly quick, in large part for that reason.


----------



## malraux (Jun 4, 2010)

As a thought, one of my (admittedly slim) hopes for the Castle Ravenloft and Dragon Dungeon board games coming out is that they will offer a slimmed down and faster combat mechanic for DnD for use in minor fights.  I'm not sure if it would work, but might be cool to have distinct rules for fast resolution combats for less important fights and the full blown rules for when the details of the fight matters.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 4, 2010)

Umbran said:


> With respect, it seems to me that you might be confusing, "RPGs need..." with, "I prefer RPGs have...".
> 
> RPGs are an outgrowth of _wargames_. There's loads and loads of folks who seem to like the tactical wargame aspect - killing things and taking their stuff.




There is still some confusion here. What I am saying is that killing things and taking their stuff can be done either with wargaming techniques or with rpg techniques. Roleplaying killing things and taking their stuff mechanically evolved from wargames as wargames are based on some simulation idea of combat. Roleplaying killing and taking stuff has been a success because of the simulating combat aspect and not because of purely the gaming aspect. There are thousands of games but D&D players are not interested in them. They are interested in fantasy combat mostly. So you cannot say that rpgames need to necessarily follow the gaming mechanics of wargames. Besides they are different as games. In wargames you play against another player on equal terms. On rpgs the gaming situation is totally different.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 4, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I guess that an archer ranger is the closest thing to a "simple" class that you can get in 4E. As long as they can remember quarry and prime shot, they should be fine. An archer ranger is what I made for my wife when I tried to get her to play LFR.  Alas, she never did.




I think you can also make really simple rogues as long as the person can grasp flanking all the time.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 4, 2010)

Had a thought when reading this discussion, especially the bits about design goals.

4e is meant to last 4-5 rounds for a combat.  But if there's an error in PC tactics or GM encoutner setup or just bad/weird dice rolling, it can turn into a slogfest.  How do we fix this?

We force it to go 4-5 rounds.  Lets establish 4 rounds as the baseline.  Maybe there are some unstable creatures that will only go three rounds, or some hardliners that will go 5 or 6.  But for most creatures, that's all they've got.  After that, its either fight or flight.

One PC will roll an Intimidate check at the beginning of round 5.  If he beats the average/leader's will defense, the bad guys run tail and run.  If he does not, then they go into a berserk rage, believing this to be their blaze of glory.  All standard monsters become Minions with 1 hit point, though they still roll damage normally.  They lose all encounter and recharge powers and deal increased damage (I want to say doubled but I'd have to test it a bit).

Thoughts?


----------



## Votan (Jun 5, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am absolutely certain as well.  I played in such a game last night.
> 
> For those interested in modifying combat in 3e-ish D&D, _*Codex Martialis *_is a fantastic system that captures individual tactics *very* well without using a grid.
> 
> ...




Sadly, it only seems to exist as a PDF.  :-(


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 5, 2010)

I honestly dont think it is possible to have a mini-less combat system IF you have at least two of the following assumptions and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with powers or feats specifically (although powers and feats can encourage it)

1. Multiple ENEMY combatants versus PCs.

2. Flanking

3. Opportunity attacks

Basically, a combat system that has more of those 3 features will automatically be more mini-prone than a system that has fewer.

One of the things I noticed personally when we switched from 1e to 2e was that with the loss of the emphasis on henchmen/followers, there was less combatants to track. Throw in that in 2e we didn't track facing or bothered with mob rules and a 2e DM doesn't need to know WHERE the enemies precisely are (other than for spell area effects)

Simply put, once a DM has to know where upwards of 10 combatants are (5 PCs + 5 enemies), the battlemap comes up.

I mean, we could even see this in 2E once Combat and Tactics came out. The introduction of flanking and opportunity attacks means that a 2e C&T game is even more likely to require minis than the latter edition 3e.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 5, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I honestly dont think it is possible to have a mini-less combat system IF you have at least two of the following assumptions and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with powers or feats specifically (although powers and feats can encourage it)
> 
> 1. Multiple ENEMY combatants versus PCs.
> 
> ...




I ran 3E with all of those things and no minis, and it went perfectly fine.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> I ran 3E with all of those things and no minis, and it went perfectly fine.




How?

If you're running multiple combatants and you need to know where person X is, do you actually keep track of all people in your head? 

Person X is always moving around the battlefield trying to get out of being flanked, avoiding opportunity attacks and positioning themselves to flank an enemy.

I can see this being done with say one NPC versus 4 PCs as that is really only 5 combatants to track and given that two of the PCs are probably spell slingers who aren't in melee range...but 10 combatants?

(unless nobody actually MOVES from where they start, then yea,I could see how that would be done...)


----------



## xechnao (Jun 5, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> How?
> I can see this being done with say one NPC versus 4 PCs as that is really only 5 combatants to track and given that two of the PCs are probably spell slingers who aren't in melee range...but 10 combatants?




The ability to get flanked or not is ermm... an ability. Which means it is dependant on skill and luck by some measure. Which you can define. Same regarding ability to coordinate people or break coordination of people. You can abstract really everything. There are no problems in abstracting everything that battleboard turn-based positioning can provide. Moreover by using an abstract system you can define and insert more things into the equation (in theory infinite). In practice it will depend on game design.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 6, 2010)

Canis said:


> As a player.... nothing pissed me off more than a 1 or 2 round fight against a big bad.  That's the soul of anticlimax.  Might be a nemesis we've had for a long time, might be a monster of legend... and it dies to a bad saving throw in round 2 before half of the _players_ have had time to do anything cool.




True, but a DM isn't just a rules adjudicator and reader of boxed text--a great DM is a great storyteller as well, and understands the basics:  character, plot and pacing.

In other words, roll the BBEG's save behind the screen, and instead of announcing to everyone the number and declare the fight over, tell the group that although the casting of the spell felt right, something has gone wrong--the villain isn't dead/unconscious/incapacitated as expected, just severely injured/weakened/slowed...and angry!  Fight on!


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 6, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> In other words, roll the BBEG's save behind the screen, and instead of announcing to everyone the number and declare the fight over, tell the group that although the casting of the spell felt right, something has gone wrong--the villain isn't dead/unconscious/incapacitated as expected, just severely injured/weakened/slowed...and angry!  Fight on!




That spits in the eye of the "let the dice fall where they may" types as well as the more neutral/lawful aligned DMs of the world.

One hit kills work well in an "anyone can die" type game but can be painful when you want characters to have a strong chance of surviving in order to have character development.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 6, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> That spits in the eye of the "let the dice fall where they may" types as well as the more neutral/lawful aligned DMs of the world.
> 
> One hit kills work well in an "anyone can die" type game but can be painful when you want characters to have a strong chance of surviving in order to have character development.




Agreed!  But I think in the context of someone feeling pissed off about a 1-2 rnd fight, favoring story over the dice is a valid solution.

Also, even if done, it should be done extremely rarely.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 6, 2010)

xechnao said:


> I did read your post. I disputed the point of no battlemap with 4e style choices generally means no interesting mechanic options for a swordsman like guy. I believe I was clear in this, no?




Except I didn't say that: I said that dialling back the complexity too far leads to this, not that there wasn't a middle ground.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 6, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> How?
> 
> If you're running multiple combatants and you need to know where person X is, do you actually keep track of all people in your head?
> 
> ...




How? Same way you keep track of multiple combatants and movement in mini-less 2e (by the way, we *did* keep track of facing in 1e and 2e without using minis and we did have a limited set of opportunity attacks). You use a lot more communication and a lot more "fuzzy" movement. 

For example: Rather than having the player plot the movement on the grid, using their knowledge of the rules to avoid an AoO, the player tells the DM "I want to get around so that I'm flanking with the fighter". Using the image the DM has in his head and has described, the DM can respond with "Well, you could do that this round but suffer an AoO or get about halfway without risking the attack." The player then chooses which he wants to do.

That sort of method requires a fair amount of trust because you don't have the impartial standard of the grid and rules. But then, the DM is supposed to be an impartial referee anyway. So this *shouldn't* be a problem because of lack of trustworthiness. Though it might be an issue with being a poor communicator...


----------



## xechnao (Jun 6, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Except I didn't say that: I said that dialling back the complexity too far leads to this, not that there wasn't a middle ground.




Again I want to rise an objection. Complexity levels and having battleboard options is something different. Having battleboard options means that there is some certain level, some certain standard of complexity. Not having battleboard options does not mean that the complexity has to be of a lower standard. Complexity can be as high as you want it to be -it is rather easier to design something highly complex or highly simple without a board because you have fewer limiting guidelines and thus you are more flexible in design(ing). Not having a board simply means that you do not have a board. It means nothing to the complexity level potential of a designed game.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 6, 2010)

xechnao said:


> Again I want to rise an objection. Complexity levels and having battleboard options is something different. Having battleboard options means that there is some certain level, some certain standard of complexity. Not having battleboard options does not mean that the complexity has to be of a lower standard. Complexity can be as high as you want it to be -it is rather easier to design something highly complex or highly simple without a board because you have fewer limiting guidelines and thus you are more flexible in design(ing). Not having a board simply means that you do not have a board. It means nothing to the complexity level potential of a designed game.




I agree with that... (well, mostly).

Here's a question: Can you increase complexity of combat (past "swing and damage") without increasing the problem of tracking what's going on?

Cheers!


----------



## xechnao (Jun 6, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I agree with that... (well, mostly).
> 
> Here's a question: Can you increase complexity of combat (past "swing and damage") without increasing the problem of tracking what's going on?
> 
> Cheers!




For me, to understand your question and be able to answer it, you have to better define what you mean when you say "swing and damage". 
For example it seems you do not want to be tracking attacking skill and/or defensive skill. But you know that D&D tracks BAB or THACO, AC and hps. So I am not sure what you want to ask here.


----------



## Votan (Jun 6, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> How?
> 
> If you're running multiple combatants and you need to know where person X is, do you actually keep track of all people in your head?
> 
> ...




I had a DM who seemed to have this uncanny ability.  Or he faked it awful well.  I certainly could not have done it myself!


----------



## xechnao (Jun 6, 2010)

Votan said:


> I had a DM who seemed to have this uncanny ability. Or he faked it awful well. I certainly could not have done it myself!




What you are saying is that you need some game rules that guide you how to do it. And I certainly agree with your take, as neither could I pull this off without any rules.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 6, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I agree with that... (well, mostly).
> 
> Here's a question: Can you increase complexity of combat (past "swing and damage") without increasing the problem of tracking what's going on?
> 
> Cheers!




You can to a point.

I'll give a good 4e example, one powers does 10 damage, slide 5. The other does 10 damage, -4 to attacks (save ends).


In the first power, I attack and do damage. I then immediately use my slide effect, and then resolve any situations that reside from that (such as getting thrown into a fire or something).

This either requires some good imagination or a battle board if you want the power to be effective, however, there is no ongoing tracking to worry about. You resolve the power and never think about it again.


The 2nd power requires ongoing thinking. The -4 to attack rolls has to factored in to the attacks (including OAs). The saving throw has to be remembered, and any saving throw bonuses/penalties applied. And if the saving throw fails, the power is tracked over several rounds.



If you use a battle board (which I would guess most 4e players do) then the first power gives you more than just a swing and damage but the amount of tracking required is very small. The 2nd one however requires a much larger investment in tracking.


That to me is a key division in tracking mechanics. Even you have effects that are instantaneous they can provide diversity without largely increasing the brainpower required to implement them into the game. Its the ongoing effects that generally increase tracking.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 6, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> You can to a point.
> 
> I'll give a good 4e example, one powers does 10 damage, slide 5. The other does 10 damage, -4 to attacks (save ends).
> 
> ...




Interesting example...

One thing I notice though is that the former power more likely will require the use of a battlemap so that you know where you currently are (and everyone else is) and where BEST you want to slide said target.

Whereas the latter example doesn't actually require a gameboard. You just need some way to track it, most likely by a simply crib sheet.

(You can also have a third option. Swing and do damage. So it would be attack for 12 pts of damage and the tactical consideration would be what would be the best of the 3 current choices.)


----------



## xechnao (Jun 6, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> ...




I do not agree with this. The battleboard gives information regarding squares. But you still have to track what powers/resistances you have regarding squares and what square related powers/resistances your enemies have. Without a battleboard you could lose the information regarding squares (and thus need to provide some alternative information) but you could make up for it on the second part:
 if the information you have to provide in the first part can make the second part so intuitive that your players need not have to track things there.

Also you do not need to have imagination. With a set of proper rules that you have to answer you can be guided figure out as much info as necessary for doing any action. If these rules are intuitive and properly designed they wont be a major hassle. And as mentioned above they can create as much an intuitive environment as you want for the second part of the process.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 6, 2010)

xechnao said:


> I do not agree with this. The battleboard gives information regarding squares. But you still have to track what powers/resistances you have regarding squares and what square related powers/resistances your enemies have.





As I mentioned, a battleboard is needed to easily deal with scenario 1. However, the difference is that the tracking is handled immediately as part of the action. If you do have slide resistance, then we deal with it as part of the slide.

The reason I find these kind of things easier to track is that everything is dealing with the same thing at the same time all at once. Right now we are talking about sliding a guy...so everything involving sliding is on the table. The DM and players know to be thinking about sliding. We take care of it, then we stop thinking about sliding.

In the second example, I give the guy a -4 to his attack rolls. Then on a players turn, he begins movement. So the table is thinking about movement right then and there. But that movement triggers an OA. Now the table starts thinking about that OA, the DM starts looking up the attack values and any extra benefits it might add. But now that -4 comes into play, so people are thinking about that to. And once all of that is resolved we go back to the movement, which might have its own set of bonuses and rules.

In my experience, people are able to track things well when its one thing at a time, its when you pile up things that it gets tricky. When things tended to be compacted like example 1, they are easier to deal with then scenarios that affect lots of other scenarios.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 6, 2010)

xechnao said:


> With a set of proper rules that you have to answer you can be guided figure out as much info as necessary for doing any action. If these rules are intuitive and properly designed they wont be a major hassle. And as mentioned above they can create as much an intuitive environment as you want for the second part of the process.





This I will disagree with to a point.

RPG systems are a balance of:

1) Creativity (variability)
2) Balance
3) Ease of Use
4) Speed
5) Realism

The reality is that each factor can reduce some of the others. The more options a game has, the less easy it is to use, etc. 

Since most rpgs are pen/paper, we have to rely on humans to run the subsystems. Well we humans are only so good at that, the ruleset has to be much much simplier than if a computer is running it. Once example is lighting. Computers are very good at setting up lighting as someone moves through terrain, its very accurate and fast. When humans have to describe it, its a lot more difficult.


So while we can always look for better rules, there is a limit on what the rules can model. You can't mimic the complexity of gurps with the rock/paper/scissor model of live WOD, etc.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 6, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> ...
> In my experience, people are able to track things well when its one thing at a time, its when you pile up things that it gets tricky. When things tended to be compacted like example 1, they are easier to deal with then scenarios that affect lots of other scenarios.




Ahh ok. But I am not entirely convinced. Say that you want to slide someone to some square or move your pawn to one. To make this choice you have to think about what may happen next. For example: can some enemy move and flank me where I am going? So you kind of pre-track things.

But this thing regarding growing piles of things to track with time passing is not relevant to whether you are using a battleboard or not. Even if you do not use a battleboard you can design a game where this does not happen. And have it have as many options and choices to make as you wish.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 6, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> This I will disagree with to a point.
> 
> RPG systems are a balance of:
> 
> ...




Keyword is intuition. You have to design rules that run on intuitive guidelines of people's own assumptions. So the game is powerful not because of your own rules but because of all the rules people already understand and know by their own. It is not easy: you have to insert in your design one strong parameter: communication design to speak to people's own resources and what you can make out of them: the ability to make use of them.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 6, 2010)

Can't give you XP Stalker, but you make a very good point. It seems to me you could get an intricate and crunchy ruleset but by limiting the outcomes to the immediate you could cut down on all the 'in your head' type book keeping that was so annoying in 3E and still bugs a lot in 4.

Cheers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I honestly dont think it is possible to have a mini-less combat system IF you have at least two of the following assumptions and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with powers or feats specifically (although powers and feats can encourage it)
> 
> 1. Multiple ENEMY combatants versus PCs.
> 
> ...





Strangely enough, I have no problem with a system that allows me to use all three without a grid.

Heck, I was able to do that with AD&D 1e.


RC


----------



## MerricB (Jun 7, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strangely enough, I have no problem with a system that allows me to use all three without a grid.
> 
> Heck, I was able to do that with AD&D 1e.




I believe it can be done. Indeed, I do it with 4e. 

However...

...either it requires the DM to make a virtual grid in his head, or...
...occasionally it won't make sense if the DM were to try to plot out the movements of the opponents.

In the first case, you're _still_ using miniatures, but just in the "blindfold chess" manner.

In the second case, you can formulate some simple rules to allow those three things to occur. To give an example - which is a fairly good representation of how I might do it, although the first case describes my "combat without 'real' minis better" - you can call each PC to be "adjacent" which can then (with a shift) be upgraded to "advantage" and finally "flanking". Or they can forgo the shift and just move to flanking... albeit with an opportunity attack allowed.

Exceptions can be added: you can't move to "advantage" when the monster has two of its allies adjacent to it. However, there is a basis of a system there that allows combat without minis and with a certain abstraction of movement.

Whether this is actually desirable is another matter entirely. 

It should be noted that in AD&D, by my reading of it, characters really have two states: engaged in melee or not (although disengaged includes range to the opponents). Once you're in the melee... getting out is quite unlikely. Mostly you pick an opponent and trade blows until one is dead - with missile attacks hitting random targets in the melee (DMG pg 63)... and the choice of initial opponent in melee may well be random as well (DMG pg.73)

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2010)

My experience suggests that your expectations of the limitations of gridless combat are overstated.  YM probably V, though.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 7, 2010)

Canis said:


> Not exactly. No individual encounter was so bad, but having 3 of them before you learn anything or do anything else interesting was asinine. I like an individual combat that takes an hour, but I want that combat to accomplish something if it takes that long.
> 
> Plus I'd rather have one or two _good_ encounters than 5 crappy ones. 4e, for me, is very good at making fun encounters. Encounters that could be likened to fine chocolates. Used properly, they go a long way. Keep on the Shadowfell felt like they took those chocolates, smashed them to tiny bits with a hammer, and then used them as chips in crappy cookies.
> 
> If you're going to use fine chocolate in your cookies, up the level of your dough, man.




This is a great theory but the quality vs quantity argument is meaningless in a game where the players determine the nature of most encounters. How can a DM plan out a "meaningful" combat when he/she doesn't know when or where the next combat takes place? 

In order for combats to be fewer and more meaningful they would need to be dictated in advance. Part of the fun for me is not knowing how much combat the PC's try and get involved with until they try. Attempting to inject too much meaning into an encounter that might never take place is wasted prep time for me.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 7, 2010)

I think you'd be best off using a system designed for miniless play than trying to force 4e (or even 3e) into such a mold.  Yes, it can be done, as can pounding in a screw with a hammer.  Doesn't make it a good idea.

To take one of my favorites, the Cinematic Unisystem has a tactically interesting system without the assumption of minis or a grid.  Flanking is handled by a bonus for teamwork - the more people fighting a monster besides you, the more you get to hit.  Opportunity attacks are nonexistant.  Characters have access to a large number of special moves they can try - simple attacks for a little damage, harder moves for more damage, moves to disable an opponent, and hard to pull off instant kills.

I've had fights with 6 PCs and a dozen monsters without a hitch, and no minis to speak of.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> I think you'd be best off using a system designed for miniless play than trying to force 4e (or even 3e) into such a mold.  Yes, it can be done, as can pounding in a screw with a hammer.  Doesn't make it a good idea.





Agreed.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 7, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> True, but a DM isn't just a rules adjudicator and reader of boxed text--a great DM is a great storyteller as well, and understands the basics:  character, plot and pacing.
> 
> In other words, roll the BBEG's save behind the screen, and instead of announcing to everyone the number and declare the fight over, tell the group that although the casting of the spell felt right, something has gone wrong--the villain isn't dead/unconscious/incapacitated as expected, just severely injured/weakened/slowed...and angry!  Fight on!



This is an even bigger rules kludge than anything complained about above.

Doing that occasionally and when narratively interesting is fine.  But if you do it too often, why bother having a set of rules to adjudicate the combat?  If players don't know what their tools will do when used (at least the vast majority of the time), I think the shared narrative breaks down pretty quickly.



Raven Crowking said:


> My experience suggests that your expectations of the limitations of gridless combat are overstated.  YM probably V, though.
> 
> 
> RC



My experience and everything science knows about memory would suggest that a human DM's ability to adequately track position and movement of 6+ figures in a tactical space with the number of variables in D&D without visual aids is actually very, very poor.

As long as the DM is far and away better at it than the group and has the trust of the group, this will never present as a problem.  But if any one of the players is as good at it as the DM or better, there are bound to be many, many mismatches of understanding the tactical situation.

You can add as much tactical depth as you want to a gridless environment, but the limits of the human brain mean that you will, of necessity, lose precision.  That's not a bad thing, per se.  It just depends on the preferences of the group and the experience and capacities of the DM.

If you want to include meaningful positioning tactics, grid is simply going to be more straightforward for the inexperienced DM or player, and more accurate even for the veteran.  That accuracy will be more important to some people and groups than others.  Some players might not care.  The DM will describe the situation in a way that doesn't match their image, but even if they get hosed a bit, they will know that errors occur in their favor, too.  That's just part of the limits of relying on memory.  Other players might care a lot.



ExploderWizard said:


> This is a great theory but the quality vs quantity argument is meaningless in a game where the players determine the nature of most encounters. How can a DM plan out a "meaningful" combat when he/she doesn't know when or where the next combat takes place?
> 
> In order for combats to be fewer and more meaningful they would need to be dictated in advance. Part of the fun for me is not knowing how much combat the PC's try and get involved with until they try. Attempting to inject too much meaning into an encounter that might never take place is wasted prep time for me.



I was speaking specifically of the published adventure.  In that case, the meaningfulness of the encounters, and the number of them between narrative milestones was more or less dictated for the DM unless he/she wanted to rebuild it.

This gets at what I was saying earlier.  The system encourages tactically interesting combats that take a long time.  For me, building a module to fit the 4e system would involve a small number of individual encounters that each have a narrative heft commensurate with their gameplay heft.  However, I felt that the modules I played were not like that.  Instead, they threw many encounters at the players, many of them mundane or irrelevant.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 7, 2010)

Canis said:


> I was speaking specifically of the published adventure. In that case, the meaningfulness of the encounters, and the number of them between narrative milestones was more or less dictated for the DM unless he/she wanted to rebuild it.
> 
> This gets at what I was saying earlier. The system encourages tactically interesting combats that take a long time. For me, building a module to fit the 4e system would involve a small number of individual encounters that each have a narrative heft commensurate with their gameplay heft. However, I felt that the modules I played were not like that. Instead, they threw many encounters at the players, many of them mundane or irrelevant.




Yeah, with the monster builder its so easy to produce better adventures yourself anyhow.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 7, 2010)

Canis said:


> My experience and everything science knows about memory would suggest that a human DM's ability to adequately track position and movement of 6+ figures in a tactical space with the number of variables in D&D without visual aids is actually very, very poor.





Again, you hinge on "with the number of variables in D&D" or, perhaps more specifically, "with many location-dependent variables".

I would agree that there are times when it is useful to break out a grid; I would argue that the times when this is useful occur far less often than when it is not....assuming the use of a ruleset that is not intended to promote the purchase of minis.

And that can *easily* include multiple enemy combatants versus PCs, flanking, and opportunity attacks.  



RC


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 8, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> To take one of my favorites, the Cinematic Unisystem has a tactically interesting system without the assumption of minis or a grid. Flanking is handled by a bonus for teamwork - the more people fighting a monster besides you, the more you get to hit. Opportunity attacks are nonexistant. Characters have access to a large number of special moves they can try - simple attacks for a little damage, harder moves for more damage, moves to disable an opponent, and hard to pull off instant kills.
> 
> I've had fights with 6 PCs and a dozen monsters without a hitch, and no minis to speak of.




Silly question, but exactly how do you determine that the person is beside you IF you have about a dozen "people" involved WITHOUT a grid.

To me anyway, this is no different than FLANKING in that you actually NEED to know the precise location of people involved otherwise you're just using DM FIAT to say, "ok, you two are beside each other and get a bonus".

That said...I would be surprised if the Cinematic system would be faster (an earlier concern) than either 3e or 4e since a player would be looking at 4 plus options at their turn which means they would need to actually think about what was the best option.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 8, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Silly question, but exactly how do you determine that the person is beside you IF you have about a dozen "people" involved WITHOUT a grid.




He said "besides," not "beside." In other words, if there are 3 people fighting the monster in addition to you, you get a bigger bonus than if there are only 2. Doesn't matter where they're located, although presumably they have to be in melee.

That's my guess, anyway.

(Also, what's with the randomly capitalized words? Have you been drinking Brawndo?)


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> the quality vs quantity argument is meaningless in a game where the players determine the nature of most encounters. How can a DM plan out a "meaningful" combat when he/she doesn't know when or where the next combat takes place?
> 
> In order for combats to be fewer and more meaningful they would need to be dictated in advance.



In my view, this isn't an issue about meaningfulness. It's an issue about preparation.

There are plenty of RPGs that rely on (i) player-driven conflict and (ii) only playing out conflicts that are meaningful to the players. There is no reason, in principle, why 4e can't be played in this way also. The issue (as far as I see it) is that 4e also depends upon certain encounter mixes and terrain layout to make combat interesting, and this encourages a lot of detailed pre-planning by the GM.

The solution that I use is to have a good sense of what my players are interested in, and to draw up maps and rosters for encounters that fit with those interests. Occasionally I get it wrong, in which case some prep goes unused. Oh well - can't win 'em all!


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Jun 8, 2010)

Disregarding several pages of this thread, I will try to respond directly to the original posters questions.

First, I think that the majority of players end up liking most, but not all of any given ruleset, and they will always feel the need to tweak it.

As far as 4th edition, I would say that the perception of grind is highly dependent on what the DM uses for monsters in any given encounter, and how the PC's are built.  Different groups, different combats.

However, I think that there is one recurring reason people run into grindy combats.  Specifically, any fight that results in combat being a foregone conclusion long before the last opponent is dropped.  

I am convinced that Dm's (and WoTC printed adventures) using monsters several levels higher then the players. (Ball park it at party level + 4 or higher), especially Soldier types, and Elites / Solo monsters.  The higher hp, and greater AC will cause encounter and daily's to miss, and that will make a big difference in how interesting the combat is.

Player HP and access to healing is greater then it used to be as well.  So while a high damage output could drop someone in an earlier edition, a leader can stand up the dropped PC with a minor action.  It is much more difficult to kill or threaten a PC with death then it used to be.

To my mind, saying that 4th Edition is flawed in its combat system is like saying your Smart Car is flawed because you cannot go off roading in it.  Cutting HP wont make nearly as much a difference as keeping monster levels closer to the PC's.

Getting back to your question, I would say that you feel the need to customize or kludge a system because you are not getting the desired end result from the system based on how you wish to be able to use it.  But that problem is not unique to any game system or game element.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## Mephistopheles (Jun 8, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> That to me is a key division in tracking mechanics. Even you have effects that are instantaneous they can provide diversity without largely increasing the brainpower required to implement them into the game. Its the ongoing effects that generally increase tracking.




This reminded me of the topic of user memory when operating user interfaces.

In short, there are only so many things a user can keep in active memory before information starts getting put into longer term storage to make room in active memory for new information. It's because of this that if an interface requires users to juggle too much information it's likely to result in user confusion. You've possibly experienced this when using applications or computer games or websites: you know what it is that you want to do but you can't immediately remember how to go about it within the interface. If you experience this frequently while working with an interface it's probably not you that's the problem, but a poorly designed interface.

Seems like a similar phenomenon is being discussed here, with the game rules standing in for the interface.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, you hinge on "with the number of variables in D&D" or, perhaps more specifically, "with many location-dependent variables".
> 
> I would agree that there are times when it is useful to break out a grid; I would argue that the times when this is useful occur far less often than when it is not....*assuming the use of a ruleset that is not intended to promote the purchase of minis.*
> 
> ...




Why do you have to go there?  I mean, couldn't it be equally possible that someone might _actually_ think that the use of minis and battlemaps _adds_ to the enjoyment of the game, rather than simply as a vehicle to flog plastic toys?  Why phrase this in such a derogatory manner?

To me, I've gone so far as to refuse to play without minis.  Doesn't matter the system any more.  If you want to have a combat, I break out minis.  Heck, I use minis for my Sufficiently Advanced game and combat is 100% abstracted without ANY tactical considerations.

But all this aside, I'm still left very confused how you can have tactical choice AND speed of play AND no minis.  I can see two of those, but, how do you get all three?  Time is entirely dependent on tactical choice.  It takes much more time to play a turn of Squad Leader than it does to play a turn of Risk.  

All because ASL has considerably more tactical choices.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2010)

Lord Zardoz said:


> I am convinced that Dm's (and WoTC printed adventures) using monsters several levels higher then the players.



I wonder about this too. My party has two defenders (dwarf fighter, tiefling paladin), a controller (human wizard), a striker (drow sorcerer), and a hybrid striker/leader (elf ranger/cleric). The PCs are not weak, but not particularly optimised. As GM, I rarely use monsters more than one level above the party, and have never used a monster more than 3 levels higher. I do use quite a few controllers (probably on average one or two per encounter) but I don't use many elites (probably on average one in every second or third encounter) and I use even fewer solos. And we have not had the grind issue come up.

Probably my favourite monster type is artillery: good attack and weak defences, and automatically bringing terrain and tactics into play. I tend to use brutes and skirmishers as my front line, but also use some soldiers. However, I have never used a soldier more than 2 levels above the party. And one thing I do before using a monster more than a level or two above the party is simply compare its AC to the PCs' attack bonuses. If they're going to need 15 or better to hit, then normally I won't use the creature.

But absence of grind is not the only respect in which my group seems atypical. For example, the wizard in my party has never hestitated to use rituals.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Why do you have to go there?  I mean, couldn't it be equally possible that someone might _actually_ think that the use of minis and battlemaps _adds_ to the enjoyment of the game, rather than simply as a vehicle to flog plastic toys?  Why phrase this in such a derogatory manner?





People may enjoy minis as gamers; WotC enjoys minis as a seller.

Prior to the advent of 3e, WotC did a massive survey, including the spending habits of those who use minis vs. those who did not.  Those who used minis were shown to spend something on the order of 10 times as much as those who did not, perhaps more.

3.0 was more mini-centric than 2e or 1e as a result.  3.5 was more mini-centric than 3.0.  4.0 is more mini-centric than 3.5.  In fact, 4.0 is the most combat-focused version of D&D.  And that combat all but requires minis.  And the inclusion of minions requires _*more minis*_!

This was not an accident.  WotC would have to have a poor business plan indeed if they were aware you would probably spend ten times times as much on a mini-centric game than on a non-mini-centric game, to not have actually planned to boost the miniatures aspect.

During the TSR days, minis production was licensed out; it is doubtful that TSR made any more on the basis of whether or not Joe Gamer used minis.  WotC, on the other hand, has a clear vested interest in Joe Gamer using minis.  If WotC can get you to refuse to play without minis, to break out minis every time you want to have a combat, marketing has done its job.

Even if you are playing another system -- even if you are playing Pathfinder -- WotC stands to make a significant profit if you can simply be convinced that buying their minis is the way to go.

(And, frankly, I am tired of the double standard that goes:  If WotC does something that would be questionable were it a person doing it, it is defensible on the basis of their being a corporation required to make a profit.  BUT, should you assume that their motivations are those of a corporation seeking to make a profit, shame on you for your derogatory statements!  )



RC


----------



## renau1g (Jun 8, 2010)

Typically in my games I try to avoid the whole 10 combat encounters/level and trade that for 3-4 (at most) combats that are tactically interesting, story-advancing and player challenging. I'm not good enough of a combat designer to do that 10 times/level, or around 100 times/tier. I feel I can do a decent enough job though at 1/3 that amount. I award more quest xp and RP xp for the group and we have a fair amount of roleplaying sessions where combat doesn't break out, nor an actual "skill challenge".


----------



## billd91 (Jun 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> People may enjoy minis as gamers; WotC enjoys minis as a seller.
> 
> Prior to the advent of 3e, WotC did a massive survey, including the spending habits of those who use minis vs. those who did not.  Those who used minis were shown to spend something on the order of 10 times as much as those who did not, perhaps more.
> 
> 3.0 was more mini-centric than 2e or 1e as a result.  3.5 was more mini-centric than 3.0.




I believe this is wrong. 3e is miniatures heavy because its direct precursor, *Player's Option: Combat and Tactics*, was designed to be played on a grid. That's a 1995 release, 4 years before WotC's survey. 

There may have been some recognition that minis sell well and a game heavily using them would do well, but 3e's grid focus isn't the result of WotC's market survey. It's the result of other ongoing and well-established trends with TSR's and then WotC's designers.

That and I'd have a hard time saying 3.5 was any more mini-centric than 3.0. That's a bit baffling.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2010)

Sorry, having a hard time finding the June 2009 Scott Rouse post which makes this far more explicit.


RC


----------



## Obryn (Jun 8, 2010)

billd91 said:


> That and I'd have a hard time saying 3.5 was any more mini-centric than 3.0. That's a bit baffling.



I can see it.

The change in base sizes from 3.0 to 3.5 was mostly designed to make grid combat easier and more sensible.  (I personally never liked the implied facing of long miniatures, but that's neither here nor there.)  It also made miniature production easier; standardized round bases of a few set sizes are a lot easier to produce than a wide variety of ovals.

-O


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 8, 2010)

pemerton said:


> I wonder about this too. My party has two defenders (dwarf fighter, tiefling paladin), a controller (human wizard), a striker (drow sorcerer), and a hybrid striker/leader (elf ranger/cleric). The PCs are not weak, but not particularly optimised. As GM, I rarely use monsters more than one level above the party, and have never used a monster more than 3 levels higher. I do use quite a few controllers (probably on average one or two per encounter) but I don't use many elites (probably on average one in every second or third encounter) and I use even fewer solos. And we have not had the grind issue come up.




What has the threat level been like using these levels of monsters? Most encounters with opposition of roughly the same level have been fairly easy for my players. 

I consider an encounter that stands less than a 50% chance of dropping at least one party member to be a speed bump.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 8, 2010)

Some semi-random thoughts...

... I've never played in a D&D campaign which sported 10 minute combats. My experience is that particular figure is being low-balled significantly. Now I started with AD&D... is OD&D much different?

... I think the difficulty of playing 4e _without_ a map and minis is being exaggerated. A lot. While complete accuracy would be tough, it's also unnecessary. In practice, positioning breaks down to 'is it in range/inside the effect area', 'can I engage', 'can I get away', 'can I get I bonus', 'can I push/pull them into an advantageous/disadvantageous location'. Focus on the intended results, not precise recreation, and you're golden. I mean, technically you were supposed to _measure_ ranges and calculate spell effect volumes in AD&D... which would have required not only maps but rulers... and ummm, math. Never saw it done in practice. Estimates and ass-pulled figures sufficed.   

... I agree w/pem... frequent use of artillery monsters is a great way of playing to the strengths of 4e's combat engine while avoiding the pitfalls ie grind.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 8, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Silly question, but exactly how do you determine that the person is beside you IF you have about a dozen "people" involved WITHOUT a grid.
> 
> To me anyway, this is no different than FLANKING in that you actually NEED to know the precise location of people involved otherwise you're just using DM FIAT to say, "ok, you two are beside each other and get a bonus".
> 
> That said...I would be surprised if the Cinematic system would be faster (an earlier concern) than either 3e or 4e since a player would be looking at 4 plus options at their turn which means they would need to actually think about what was the best option.




Okay, the Scooby Gang is walking through the Graveyard on patrol when the gang of vampires they've been hunting come out of the shadows.  Two each charge in on Buffy and Angel.  Two more come up from behind, one goes for Giles and Cordelia and the other tries for Xander and Willow.

The vamps attacking Angel and Buffy each get a +1 to their Combat score, while the White Hats (regular folk) of the group get a +1 to the vamps they are fighting.  The GM can easily note on his scratch paper who is fighting what vampire, and for Buffy to say "Alright, I've dusted my two I'm gonna go help Xander and Willow' there's not really very much to figure out.  Exactly how far away they are from each other and what angle they are at isn't important.

The game has other things to make it go quickly - the bad guys don't roll, Drama Points can help you set things up tactically rather than do them on a grid - Willow spends a Drama Point so that the vamp is standing right in front of a sharp tree branch, and Xander tackles him onto it.  The moves that a character likes are pre-calculated on the character sheet, and aren't hard to do on the fly.

The fight described above would take maybe 10 minutes real time to resolve.  No minis, no grid.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 8, 2010)

Even a crunchy simulationist system like GURPS can use gridless combat. If you use GURPS basic then you still have a gritty system without all the minis or maps required.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 8, 2010)

Obryn said:


> I can see it.
> 
> The change in base sizes from 3.0 to 3.5 was mostly designed to make grid combat easier and more sensible.  (I personally never liked the implied facing of long miniatures, but that's neither here nor there.)  It also made miniature production easier; standardized round bases of a few set sizes are a lot easier to produce than a wide variety of ovals.
> 
> -O




There's a difference between "mini-friendly" (reducing the difficulties and problems involved in playing with minis) and "mini-centric" (changing the design in ways that create problems when _not_ playing with minis).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 8, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> Okay, the Scooby Gang is walking through the Graveyard on patrol when the gang of vampires they've been hunting come out of the shadows.  Two each charge in on Buffy and Angel.  Two more come up from behind, one goes for Giles and Cordelia and the other tries for Xander and Willow.
> 
> The vamps attacking Angel and Buffy each get a +1 to their Combat score, while the White Hats (regular folk) of the group get a +1 to the vamps they are fighting.  The GM can easily note on his scratch paper who is fighting what vampire, and for Buffy to say "Alright, I've dusted my two I'm gonna go help Xander and Willow' there's not really very much to figure out.  Exactly how far away they are from each other and what angle they are at isn't important.
> 
> ...




But, from what you've described, there is zero tactical thinking involved.

This is pretty much how things worked out in my 1e and 2e games as well.  The monsters match up with the PC's, when a PC or a monster drops his opponent, he moves on to the next one.  

In your example, the only actual tactical thinking going on is spending a drama point.  

How is that tactical depth?  

Now, I'm totally not saying it's not fun, I like playing this way too.  But, it's certainly not tactical IMO.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorry, having a hard time finding the June 2009 Scott Rouse post which makes this far more explicit.




I'd be interested in seeing this.

WOTC brought out Chainmail in 2000 but didn't really seriously get into producing minis until a few years after that with DDM in 2003.  If 3e was meant to be a vehicle for selling minis, to the degree you appear to be claiming, why did they wait almost four years to get serious about selling minis?

Claims that 3e and then 4e D&D was designed to sell minis seems about as valid as saying D&D (any edition) was designed to sell graph paper.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, from what you've described, there is zero tactical thinking involved.
> 
> This is pretty much how things worked out in my 1e and 2e games as well.  The monsters match up with the PC's, when a PC or a monster drops his opponent, he moves on to the next one.
> 
> ...




The combat maneauvers provide a decent amount of tactical depth.

For starters, Buffy can go right for the stake through the heart.  If the vamp is weak enough and she rolls good enough, it could go down right off.  Or, she could punch it a couple of times first to soften it up.  Staking does about the same as a dagger, but if 5x that damage would kill it, vamp is dust.  If not, it just takes regular damage.  Or she could go for a kick, which is harder to land but does more damage.  Or go for a sweep kick or knockout, which is harder still but can disable a foe.

The less heroic characters have many choices too.  They could spend a DP to do something like described above, or team up and hope for some lucky shots, or go help the hero to get them a teamwork bonus.  And there's no 'feats' where the combat moves are concerned.  Anyone can try to do a leg sweep or a stake through the heart.

There's a strong tactical element to the game without going to miniatures, its just a different sort of tactics.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As levels rise in 3e, combat takes significantly longer than it does in previous editions, and there were quite a few threads that discussed this.  In fact, so pervasive was this problem that one of the early design goals of 4e was to _*speed up combat*_.  The later decision to change this design goal to instead _*slow down combat*_ is one of the factors in my decision to give 4e a pass.



That's totally incorrect, though, as you probably full well know.

I cannot remember if one of the design goals ever was to actually speed up combat (but it may well have been), but it doesn't really matter, either.

What they DID do is *speed up a combat turn*. Overall combat length measured in real time did not change noticably but combat _feels_ faster because everyone gets to act more often. Triggered actions and granting other players bonuses and extra actions also mean that players stay focused on the action when it's not their turn.

Even more so than it was in 3e, combat in 4e is a mini(!)-game within the role-playing game. If you don't enjoy this mini-game it's obviously not the system for you. If you do, however, it's great.

I can certainly say that my 3e group are enjoying 4e a lot. Even the players who don't care about combat all that much, agree that 4e combat is fun. It's more tactical than 3e combat and requires (and rewards) better teamplay.

We recently had a 3e combat btw. that took a whopping 10 hours to finish. The combat lasted for 8 turns before the main opponent (a beholder) withdrew. EL and effective party level was 15.

I don't think a 4e combat would ever take that long - especially not a combat that takes (only) 8 turns.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 8, 2010)

Grids and boards are handy when creating tactical games, because they provide a large array of options - which of these 400 squares do I want to occupy? what route do I want to take to get there? - in a compact format that is very easy for human beings to grok. Millions of years of evolution as savannah-dwelling predators have given us an intuitive understanding of how to maneuver in two dimensions. (Contrast the difficulty we have when aerial combat comes into play and we have to maneuver in three.)

So it's a challenge to design a game with a strong tactical element (built into the rules, as opposed to created through player and DM improvisation) without a grid. But it's certainly doable. The obvious comparison here is Magic: The Gathering (or any CCG). M:tG  has a lot of tactical options despite not having a game board per se.



Hussar said:


> Claims that 3e and then 4e D&D was designed to sell minis seems about as valid as saying D&D (any edition) was designed to sell graph paper.




The way I see it, 3E was not designed to sell _minis_, exactly... but it was designed to cater to the _type of gamer who buys minis_, since those gamers spend ten times as much as everybody else. Hence things like system mastery.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> The combat maneauvers provide a decent amount of tactical depth.
> 
> For starters, Buffy can go right for the stake through the heart. If the vamp is weak enough and she rolls good enough, it could go down right off. Or, she could punch it a couple of times first to soften it up. Staking does about the same as a dagger, but if 5x that damage would kill it, vamp is dust. If not, it just takes regular damage. Or she could go for a kick, which is harder to land but does more damage. Or go for a sweep kick or knockout, which is harder still but can disable a foe.
> 
> ...





Yep, Runequest 2 with it's combat maneuvers provides tactical depth without a grid as well... or Exalted with it's charms.  I definitly don't think a grid is necessary for tactical depth in combat.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 8, 2010)

What they DID do is *speed up a combat turn*. Overall combat length measured in real time did not change noticably but combat _feels_ faster because everyone gets to act more often. Triggered actions and granting other players bonuses and extra actions also mean that players stay focused on the action when it's not their turn.

I don't really think that the combat trun has been sped up, though.  More decisions to make, more concern about forced movement and where to place you mini or powers, more conditions to track, more actions to consider (most people in 3.5 only worried about move, standard, or full-round actions) plus many times making multiple attacks with bursts and blasts means that 4E turns can easily take just as long or longer than in 3.x.  Even if they are shorter for many people, they are only marginally so.  Slightly shorter rounds plus doubling the number of rounds equals much longer combat.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 8, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I don't really think that the combat trun has been sped up, though. More decisions to make, more concern about forced movement and where to place you mini or powers, more conditions to track, more actions to consider (most people in 3.5 only worried about move, standard, or full-round actions) plus many times making multiple attacks with bursts and blasts means that 4E turns can easily take just as long or longer than in 3.x. Even if they are shorter for many people, they are only marginally so. Slightly shorter rounds plus doubling the number of rounds equals much longer combat.




Yeah I agree.  Of course the problem is that many people will tell you that if these things are slowing your 4e game down, it's not the rules that are at fault but instead that it is some form of user error when implementing these things.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 8, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I don't really think that the combat trun has been sped up, though.  More decisions to make, more concern about forced movement and where to place you mini or powers, more conditions to track, more actions to consider (most people in 3.5 only worried about move, standard, or full-round actions) plus many times making multiple attacks with bursts and blasts means that 4E turns can easily take just as long or longer than in 3.x.  Even if they are shorter for many people, they are only marginally so.  Slightly shorter rounds plus doubling the number of rounds equals much longer combat.




That depends on your PCs. My last 3e game, at 10th level, included a 2 weapon dervish - 7 attacks, different attack and damage roll for each, with movement between each attack. His turns took a LONG time to resolve. On the order of an entire round of our 4e combat (same players). Next up was the wildshaping, summoning druid with animal companion (with multi-attacks, follow-up rakes, and a poison attack - which forces a stat-block recalculation). He could have a 20 minute turn, if he didn't need to pick a new wildshape. Thank god he spent literally hours outside the game day creating the statblocks for his wildshapes and Augmented summons, and various combinations of buffs on his companion. 

Now the bow ranger and the sorcerer would take maybe a minute or two each, but we're still over half an hour per round, without the DM's turn in there. Certainly if you have no iterative attacks, no TWFers, no spellcasters, no cohorts/companions/familiars, no summoned creatures, and no ambiguous rules, you can make 3e combats short. Start stacking those things up tho, and the turn resolution goes in the tank.

PS


----------



## Shazman (Jun 8, 2010)

I've seen many 4E rounds that took that long or longer or least felt that long since I didn't break out a stopwatch and time them.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 8, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I've seen many 4E rounds that took that long or longer or least felt that long since I didn't break out a stopwatch and time them.




Our 4e game is only at 8th level. So far, 5 minutes (often less) and it's my turn again is normal.

PS


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Claims that 3e and then 4e D&D was designed to sell minis seems about as valid as saying D&D (any edition) was designed to sell graph paper.




I am not saying that they are *exclusively* designed to sell minis, but that selling minis was a part of the design.

But, if TSR had owned a graph-paper-making business, and each new product came up with new reasons why you should buy more graph paper, and the language of each new product related increasingly to using graph paper, I would, indeed, assume that there was a design goal of selling graph paper.

Frankly, TSR dropped the ball on selling support items like this.  Hex paper is an obvious one to have been selling, esp. before the Internet, and esp. with nested hexes (as shown in the 1e DMG).


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jun 8, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Overall combat length measured in real time did not change noticably but combat _feels_ faster because everyone gets to act more often. Triggered actions and granting other players bonuses and extra actions also mean that players stay focused on the action when it's not their turn.



This matches my group's experience w/4e...



> Slightly shorter rounds plus doubling the number of rounds equals much longer combat.



... but this doesn't, exactly. We average about double the rounds per combat compared to 3.5e, but they're not much longer. Then again, our last 3.5e game featured 3 full-progression spellcasters, whose players were quite well-versed in the rules. A three-round encounter could last a _really_ long time by 13th level, without any of the 'participate even when it's not your turn' mechanics found in 4e to mitigate things. 



Imaro said:


> Of course the problem is that many people will tell you that if these things are slowing your 4e game down, it's not the rules that are at fault but instead that it is some form of user error when implementing these things.



I think it comes down to this: there are ways to run 4e faster, and ways to run it slower, strictly by the RAW. But the same is true for 3e. Choose a bunch of creatures with miss chances and high SR and watch what happens -- I speak from some experience w/this. 

Now this doesn't necessarily mean they were bad encounters... my players really enjoyed when I rained incorporeal ghost-ninjas down on their home city... but it did take time to resolve (one entire session + play-by-post on the campaign board).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> That's totally incorrect, though, as you probably full well know.




So, one of the initially announced design goals was not to speed up combat?

There are certainly designer quotes out there about how combat was designed to take longer (so as to allow the PCs to use their abilities).



> I cannot remember if one of the design goals ever was to actually speed up combat (but it may well have been)




Oh, so when you say "totally incorrect" you don't actually mean that you know something is "totally incorrect".  

Maybe you missed the point:

3e combat can take a very long time (IRL).  WotC was aware of complaints about the same, and early in the 4e process stated that it was a design goal of 4e to shorten the amount of time a combat took IRL.  That proved to be incompatable with some other design goals, which were deemed more important, so it got ditched.  Eventually, WotC had to increase the length of combats so as to meet those other design goals.

(Specifically, those design goals were to give the players a chance to use their abilities, while not making the chance to use their abilities be dependent upon longterm attrition ala 1e, 2e, 3e, and OD&D.)

EDIT:  Whether or not the trade-off was a good one is, of course, dependent upon personal preference.



RC


----------



## Kingreaper (Jun 8, 2010)

maddman75 said:


> One PC will roll an Intimidate check at the beginning of round 5.  If he beats the average/leader's will defense, the bad guys run tail and run.  If he does not, then they go into a berserk rage, believing this to be their blaze of glory.  All standard monsters become Minions with 1 hit point, though they still roll damage normally.  They lose all encounter and recharge powers and deal increased damage (I want to say doubled but I'd have to test it a bit).
> 
> Thoughts?



Seems a bit unbalanced, it would teach the PCs "Turtle up, and they'll become weaker, and you can mop them up"
If you're going to say that enemies can't get fighting past 5 rounds, why not the PCs?

ie. at each round past the 5th one person on each side makes an intimidate check, modified by number of men (not counting minions) lost/left. If one side wins by 5 or more, the other side are immediately demoralized, and must choose to run or surrender.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'd be interested in seeing this.




I found the forked thread where it was first discussed, in which you participated, so I think that you _*have*_ seen this.

There was a link in the thread the discussion was forked from to the Scott Rouse original, but with the changes to EN World, the "forked" link no longer works, and my Google-Fu hasn't been strong enough (yet) to reaquire the original thread.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 8, 2010)

The Rouse speaketh:

"I think it is pretty safe to say the 4e rules were designed with minis use in mind. With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work. This was a rules decision influenced by both a style of play that had come out of 3e and the business model that style of play created. WoTC didn't invent playing D&D with maps and minis but we certainly folded it more into the core that TSR had done."

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4828135-post35.html


----------



## MerricB (Jun 8, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, one of the initially announced design goals was not to speed up combat?




No.

As I've said on more than one occasion, the goal of 4e wasn't to speed up all combats. It was to make combats last a more predictable length... and (especially) speed up high-level combat.

From my experiences with 3rd edition, 16th level combat could take two or three hours to resolve, and only have a handful of rounds. (Two hours for three rounds? Entirely possible). The only way the final session of my 16th level Ulek game got played in a reasonable amount of time was because everyone had a lap-top, and pre-rolled their dice on it so that when their turn came around they just announced the result of their attack.

_That_ was a system that was broken at the higher ends.

Meanwhile, at very low levels, combat would last a very short time with a great deal of swinginess. One hit and your PC was dying. One set of unlucky rolls and your character was dead. There was one infamous combat I ran between a 1st level orc and a 3rd level ranger in a gladitorial arena. First round, the orc won initiative, charged the ranger, critted, and did over 50 points of damage, killing the ranger stone dead.

The other problem with low-level 3e combat just related to the abilities of the wizards: Do I fire my crossbow (which I'm awful with) or cast my one spell for the day.

The design behind 4e was to extend the "sweet spot" of 3e (levels 5-12 or thereabouts) and apply it to all levels in 4e. Combats wouldn't be entirely swingy, they wouldn't be over in a round, nor take forever to resolve.

The way they did this has caused other problems - related mainly to tracking modifiers and overly high defenses of the higher-level monsters they seem very happy to put in their adventures. Elite Soldiers of two levels higher? Urgh. To be fair, they've realised a few problems and they've modified later monster manuals, but I'm not quite happy with where they've pegged a few values.

However - in general - the system has worked pretty well. I'm currently running an 18th level game, and the combats are taking about 50-80 minutes to resolve... without people prerolling attacks on laptops. And this is against some of the insane monsters of the official adventures; when I run my own encounters against more level-appropriate foes, they take less time.

Is 3e minicentric? Not at all. It does something new, which is provide rules to enable the use of miniatures within the core game, but the game isn't really that dependent on the use of miniatures. Not more than earlier editions, at least! 4e, on the other hand, is quite definitely minicentric. You don't make that many powers that force movement without needing minis. It certainly can be played without minis, but the default method using them.

I find it  amusing - with a touch of sadness - that the DDM line has failed in 4e rather than in 3.5e. 

Cheers!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 8, 2010)

MerricB said:


> As I've said on more than one occasion, the goal of 4e wasn't to speed up all combats. It was to make combats last a more predictable length... and (especially) speed up high-level combat.




This one thing that I don't want any part of-combats that last a relatively predictable number of rounds. Nothing screams yawnfest like a ring announcer stepping out and saying " This combat will be a single fall with a 60 minute time limit!" 

IMHO predictable sends both barrels into the face of exciting. 




MerricB said:


> Meanwhile, at very low levels, combat would last a very short time with a great deal of swinginess. One hit and your PC was dying. One set of unlucky rolls and your character was dead. There was one infamous combat I ran between a 1st level orc and a 3rd level ranger in a gladitorial arena. First round, the orc won initiative, charged the ranger, critted, and did over 50 points of damage, killing the ranger stone dead.




Problem? Combat is risk. 




MerricB said:


> I find it amusing - with a touch of sadness - that the DDM line has failed in 4e rather than in 3.5e.
> 
> Cheers!




Well, a large number of players had a ton of minis from 3.X already and the quality of the minis was slipping. I don't think it was edition related at all.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jun 8, 2010)

MerricB said:


> I find it  amusing - with a touch of sadness - that the DDM line has failed in 4e rather than in 3.5e.



"The DDM Line is dead.  Long live the DDM Line! "

More to the point: the minis-skirmish game is dead, but minis are still coming out -- targeted more toward the RPG, however, rather than being targeted toward the random-draft skirmish game. 
We won't see the overall effect of this until the Essentials line has been out for a while. ("Always in motion the future is.")


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

MerricB said:


> No.
> 
> As I've said on more than one occasion, the goal of 4e wasn't to speed up all combats. It was to make combats last a more predictable length... and (especially) speed up high-level combat.





Is your name listed on the design credits?  If not, then what is your source?  

Mine is the design announcements and blogs I read.  It is certainly possible that I misread them, or misremember them now.  However, someone unrelated to the design process saying something on more than one occasion isn't sufficient to make me believe I have done so.

After all, it was only the early comments about speeding up combat and making a more sandbox-friendly game that interested me.

Moreover, since higher-level combats (past 6th level) were the ones people were complaining about being too slow in 3e, it makes no sense to claim that it was a design goal to speed up high-level combat, but not to speed up combat based upon complaints about 3e.

Dungeons and Dragons 4 - DnD, the Dungeons and Dragons Wiki - D&D, 3.5, Characters, and more includes the note "Some other combat rules changes will also speed up the play", but I note that the reference for this seems to have been removed.


RC


----------



## MerricB (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> Problem? Combat is risk.




Add this rule to all of your combats from now on:

Roll a d6 at the beginning of combat. If you roll a 6, you can participate in the combat. On a 1-5, your character is dead.

Now your combats have *more* risk. Does that make them better?

Cheers!


----------



## xechnao (Jun 9, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Add this rule to all of your combats from now on:
> 
> Roll a d6 at the beginning of combat. If you roll a 6, you can participate in the combat. On a 1-5, your character is dead.
> 
> ...




Was there some risk for entering the arena or not? Usually PCs are expected to figure out how to set up fights in environments where they could withdraw if things were turning no good. But the arena? 

Anyway, I agree PCs should be able to survive more than one round.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 9, 2010)

RC, you're probably right: I'm overreaching.

Mind you, what we certainly got was a lot of talk about extending the "sweet spot" of 3e to all levels of 4e.

"One of our goals in designing 4th Edition was to extend the "sweet spot" across all 30 levels of play. There's a general sense among 3rd Edition players that the game hits a sweet spot around level 5 and stays good up to level 12 or so. Below level 5, characters are too fragile, and above level 12 they're too complicated. But I contend that another reason for that sweet spot is that, utterly by coincidence, that's the range of levels where a mostly arbitrary system of damage, hit points, and attack and saving throw numbers align to make the game work reasonably well. One of the ways we extended the sweet spot across all 30 levels was by replacing that arbitrary math with a system that's consistent and coherent throughout the whole game.

"And some of that math is reflected on this table. We have a pretty good idea what character ability scores look like across 30 levels. Every character uses the same progression of attack and defense bonuses. We have targets for monster attack and defense numbers, based on what we have found is a good hit rate for character and monster attacks. And we've done the same math for character and monster hit points. All that math lets us build a table showing target DCs and damage numbers for improvised challenges." - James Wyatt

The jump from that to a more "standard" length - especially with having experienced 4e in play - is not a particularly hard one to make. Exactly if it was a goal or side-effect I won't comment further on, though I have my suspicions.

Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

Obviously, combats should have the *right amount *of risk -- neither too much, nor too little.  And, the "right amount" is going to be determined by the people at the table, not the manufacturer of the game.


RC


----------



## MerricB (Jun 9, 2010)

xechnao said:


> Was there some risk for entering the arena or not? Usually PCs are expected to figure out how to set up fights in environments where they could withdraw if things were turning no good. But the arena?




The incident happened about 9 years ago - wow, where did the time go? As part of my Greyhawk campaign, there was an arena in which gladiatorial combats took place for profit. One PC - the 3rd level ranger - enrolled himself into a fight which was (IIRC) until unconsciousness or yielding. His opponent was the 1st-level half-orc, and the PC didn't get an action before he was dead. 

I mean, looking at the risk to the character before entering the arena, you were talking about 27 hit points to 5... even with weapon damage for the orc at 1d12+5 or thereabouts, you'd expect to survive a hit. Yeah, good old criticals and swingy combat.

Yes, it is an extreme example, but that basic form of swingy combat applies to all low-level pre-4e combats. Characters are fragile as anything, and if the dice go against you, despite preparation, you're likely dead.

(The sad thing in 3e is that even higher level combats could occasionally run that way. )



> Anyway, I agree PCs should be able to survive more than one round.




You'd hope so.  

I mean, I'm not against risk in combat. I'm not against unwinnable combats. I just like having the PCs have the option to make a decision that the combat can't be won and get out of there... rather than suddenly going from "I'm fine!" to "I'm dead!"

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Obviously, combats should have the *right amount *of risk -- neither too much, nor too little.  And, the "right amount" is going to be determined by the people at the table, not the manufacturer of the game.




Erm... 

Not quite sure what your point is, RC. Sorry about that. 

It seems to me that every edition of D&D has had a level of risk determined by the manufacturer (and then modified by playing groups).

Cheers!


----------



## Gimby (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Obviously, combats should have the *right amount *of risk -- neither too much, nor too little.  And, the "right amount" is going to be determined by the people at the table, not the manufacturer of the game.




I think the point is that predictability actually helps with this.  If the participants of the game want high risk, they can use the guidelines based on the predictability to build a high risk game.  If they want low risk, they can do the converse.  If your guidelines are not good, then it's far more difficult to be sure if something you thought was high risk actually will be high risk or not.

-edit 

Perhaps I'm thinking of a different definition of risk - in general, encounters of a higher level than the characters will be more difficult than those of lower levels, but it will be predictably more difficult.  

A simple example would be a high level party vs a Bodak - the characters can easily defeat the creature and are likely to be totally unaffected by it's gaze, but there remains a risk that it will randomly kill someone despite their good saves.    This is an easy encounter, but a risky one.  Is this more what you are after?


----------



## Wiseblood (Jun 9, 2010)

In MerricB's example the orc defied the odds. He roll the six at the beginning of combat. There were four specific rolls that killed the ranger.

Init  Ranger<Orc
Orc attack roll Nat 20
Orc confirms probably 10<
Orc inflicts damage Rolls 9< on d12 to exceed 50 Pts of damage.

That was one lucky orc or one tragically unlucky Ranger.

Had the ranger been seventh level I could understand a problem but truth be told he wasn't much better than the orc to begin with. In fact seeing how lucky the orc was I might have recruited him for the party. He's Magically-y Vicious.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I found the forked thread where it was first discussed, in which you participated, so I think that you _*have*_ seen this.
> 
> There was a link in the thread the discussion was forked from to the Scott Rouse original, but with the changes to EN World, the "forked" link no longer works, and my Google-Fu hasn't been strong enough (yet) to reaquire the original thread.
> 
> ...




Went through the link you provided.  Interesting stuff.

Although, since my name doesn't appear anywhere in that thread, I'm not sure why you think I participated.

But, what I find really interesting about your quote is the order of events.  4e was designed to incorporate minis, not to sell minis as you claim, but because using minis is how their target audience was playing.

In other words, they didn't make minis important, they were already important and then they responded by catering to that market.

Which puts a much different spin on things than you were with the idea that "4e was built to sell minis".  A point you've made repeatedly in the thread.  

In other words, it's no different than any other publisher responding to their audience, not some money grab.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> What has the threat level been like using these levels of monsters? Most encounters with opposition of roughly the same level have been fairly easy for my players.
> 
> I consider an encounter that stands less than a 50% chance of dropping at least one party member to be a speed bump.



I don't think I can give you percentages - I don't have my records handy, and my memory is not reliable enough - but I would say that at least one PC drops unconsicous in probably a little more than half these combats.

Most of the encounter levels I use are between level and level+3, with probably every 5th or so being more like level+4. As you've probably already worked out from these numbers, I tend to use a lot of monsters - often twice as many as the PCs, plus minions. I find that large numbers have the same virtues as artillery - the combat gets spread over the battlefield, automatically bringing terrain and tactics into play, but invidivual threats are getting dropped at a reasonably rapid rate, which means that there is a sense of dynamism rather than grind.

I think that large numbers of opponents also reduce the "speed-bump" feel of a low-threat encounter. With large numbers there is always a sense that the PCs may be surrounded, or that one enemy might break through and start butchering the wizard and sorcerer. So even if the encounter is not that dangerous in the abstract mechanical sense, for the players to actually _achieve_ that absence of danger can require them to engage in interesting tactical play. I should add - this is an approach to encounter design that I bring out of GMing Rolemaster, where higher level foes can be very deadly, but large numbers of lower-level foes can still be interesting without being deadly, precisely because good play is required to prevent them becoming deadly.

In the past 18 months I've only GMed two encounters with a single monster - a black dragon and a solo vampire - and in both cases terrain figured heavily in making the encounter interesting rather than just a grind.

EDIT: I'm thinking back over some recent sessions - maybe the drop rate is a bit below, rather than a bit above, 1 in 2. I should also add - one thing that adds to the excitement of our game is that we only have half a leader. So the PCs are relying on attacking rather than on healing as their basic strategy for getting through a fight (this is also the way the same group used to play Rolemaster). I think this is an approach to play that pushes in favour of dynamism and excitement, but unlike the encounter build stuff, is obviously not something that the GM has control over.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Jun 9, 2010)

I think that one of the issues here is that we've all grown up expecting a certain pattern to adventures, especially when going into lairs or other areas of similar type creatures (say for example the Steading of the Hill Giant King).

You expect several encounters as you enter the lair but largely with similar monsters, but they're usually over very quickly.  Then you eventually get to the leader and have a tougher, longer encounter.

The thing with 4e is that it does the epic end-battle AWESOMELY, but even the basic earlier filler encounters take 45 minutes to resolve.

This is where I think a lot of the WotC adventures have problems.  They are still writing the adventures with the old school flow in mind.

Minions I think help.

Torg also had a mechanic to deal with this via the Dramatic vs. Standard combats.

I think 4e really needs something like that.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Jun 9, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Shazman said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with most of what you said, and would also point out that in 3.x it was perfectly viable at times for some melee characters to just attack...
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> What has the threat level been like using these levels of monsters? Most encounters with opposition of roughly the same level have been fairly easy for my players.
> 
> I consider an encounter that stands less than a 50% chance of dropping at least one party member to be a speed bump.




Do you mean "drop" as in dead or "drop" as in below 0 hitpoints?

Because, if you mean "drop as in dead" then that means you should be whacking a PC every other encounter.  That's a bit bloodthirsty don't you think?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 9, 2010)

ArcaneSpringboard said:


> This is where I think a lot of the WotC adventures have problems.  They are still writing the adventures with the old school flow in mind.




Although it's a good theory, I think it fails once you actually analyse the adventures and realise how poorly they mimic the old school flow.

Combats against less dangerous foes don't really take that long in 4e. Unfortunately, try finding an encounter like that in a 4e published adventure. _Every_ combat is written to be a major challenge, with the final encounters being insanely difficult challenges. 

The other part of old-school adventures - negotiation, exploration and discovery of strange tricks to play with - are almost completely absent in the published adventures. Every so often one or two bits are snuck in, but the adventures are overawed by combat after combat after combat. Once you get around to exploring the room after combat... nothing interesting presents itself.

There are exceptions (P2), but that's mainly due to additional material in one of the books, the main flow of the adventure would be combat after combat if you let it.

The sad thing is that I'm sure that the Wizards designers could do better if they were allowed to... but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a corporate policy dictating how the adventures must be. (The element I'd really expect is this: Because each combat takes so much space, every combat must be encountered! Stupid dictate, but it seems likely).

Cheers!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 9, 2010)

I disagree totally with you Merric, I have only run the first 3 modules (then quit 4E) but the combat was a doddle 75% of the time. I had only 4 players, instead of 5, but I never reduced the monster numbers and they walked them mostly.

H1-3, with a few notable exceptions (Irontooth IIRC) were easy. Too easy, after I dropped the HP by 1/3 and upped the damage they became a little quicker but still easy.

My guys are not optimisers and only one spends any time at all outside sessions reading the books or DDi.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 9, 2010)

ExploderWizard said:


> This one thing that I don't want any part of-combats that last a relatively predictable number of rounds. Nothing screams yawnfest like a ring announcer stepping out and saying " This combat will be a single fall with a 60 minute time limit!"
> 
> IMHO predictable sends both barrels into the face of exciting.
> 
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Erm...
> 
> Not quite sure what your point is, RC. Sorry about that.




Simply agreeing with the point I thought you were making; increasing the risk doesn't necessarily make combat better.  And the "level of risk determined by the manufacturer" is relatively unimportant, so long as it can fairly easily be "modified by playing groups".



Hussar said:


> Went through the link you provided.  Interesting stuff.
> 
> Although, since my name doesn't appear anywhere in that thread, I'm not sure why you think I participated.




Forked from that thread was a thread called "It's All About the Minis" which you did participate in.  Until I had dredged up the quote, I imagined that you might have been part of the original conversation as well.



> 4e was designed to incorporate minis, not to sell minis as you claim, but because using minis is how their target audience was playing.




Well, you could read things that way, I suppose.

What we do know is:

*  Prior to the advent of 3e, using minis was relatively uncommon.  Over 40% of the gamers polled by WotC claimed to have _*never*_ used minis at all.  The remaining under 60% had used them, but we don't know how often.

*  The WotC data also showed that those who bought minis spent 10 times as much as those who did not (on gaming materials), or more.

*  3.0 was mini-friendly, but did not require the use of minis.  From the statements of Monte Cook, and from the previews in Dragon, I expect that WotC wanted the game to be miniatures-friendly, but nothing more.

*  I suspect that, as the marketing data indicated was likely, the minis sold very, very well.  If the marketing data is correct, then the sale of books is 1/10th the sale of minis; the game becomes a means of selling minis, rather than the minis becoming an adjunct of the game.

*  3.5 comes out, and references to real distances are replaced by references to the grid; the game is made to forward the use of minis more than 3.0 did.

*  4.0 comes out, and all but requires minis.  Scott Rouse:  "With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work."

*  We know that this was a business decision related to the use of and sale of minis in previous WotC editions (3.0 & 3.5).  Scott Rouse:  "This was a rules decision influenced by both a style of play that had come out of 3e and *the business model that style of play created*."  (emphasis mine)

Frankly, if I know that I can sell X, or I can sell X + Y and make ten times the money, *and* I know that I can produce X so as to make Y all but mandatory, I would be a fool not to produce X in such a manner.  

Even if doing so caused 10% of my current clientele to desert (and there were lots of threads where folks thought this unlikely), those clients would not be my meat-and-potatoes clients anyway, as they were presumably less likely to buy Y in the first place.  And, if my marketing data is correct, the sales in Y will more than cover the loss of sales in X.

I would find it more than vaguely insulting, were we to assume that my goal was to make money, were you to suggest that I am incapable of seeing the obvious and responding accordingly.

I would, therefore, suggest that it is more than vaguely insulting to imagine that the good people at WotC are somehow incapable of following the obvious profit trail.

That could just be me, though.  

YMMV.


RC


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> *  I suspect that, as the marketing data indicated was likely, the minis sold very, very well.  If the marketing data is correct, then the sale of books is 1/10th the sale of minis; the game becomes a means of selling minis, rather than the minis becoming an adjunct of the game.




While I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, this does not logically follow from the observation that "gamers who buy minis spend 10x what gamers who don't buy minis spend."

More plausible, I think, is the explanation that some gamers are deeply committed to the game and some gamers are not. Those who are not committed to the game are unlikely to drop money on anything but the basics - a Player's Handbook and a few dice. They aren't going to be out buying minis.

Anyone who does buy minis is almost certain to be a committed gamer, and therefore willing to drop lots of money on the game. That doesn't mean all or even most of that money will be spent _on minis_. Until the last few years, I had bought maybe 2-3 minis in my entire life; but I had a heap of D&D books big enough to shingle a house with.


----------



## wedgeski (Jun 9, 2010)

Although I tend to agree with RC that the progression of the game has gone hand-in-hand with Wizards' success with mini's, there is a distinction to be made here, if it hasn't been made already. The game does not encourage the use of minis, so much as it encourages the use of a battle-mat.

Now there happens to be an excellent line of official D&D mini's sold by Wizards that will do this job. But you could as easily use cardboard tokens (of which there are also many options on the market), marbles (I have a fine collection myself), bits of paper (I'm never without), beads, balls of fluff, bits of hardened pizza crust, coins... whatever. Maybe they're not as *fun* (well, depending on where the fluff came from), but they do the job.

In addition, that 40% figure that RC quoted... I too would have answered "no" to the question, "Have you ever used mini's to represent D&D combat?". But I would have answered an emphatic yes to the question, "Do you visualise D&D combats on your table using tokens to represents PC's and monsters?".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> While I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, this does not logically follow from the observation that "gamers who buy minis spend 10x what gamers who don't buy minis spend."




Perhaps not, but when I co-owned Golden City Comics, minis outselling books by a factor of 10 to 1 was pretty much spot on.  Moreover, Scott Rouse's quote makes it seem likely that the margin was big enough to affect WotC's business plan.



wedgeski said:


> Although I tend to agree with RC that the progression of the game has gone hand-in-hand with Wizards' success with mini's, there is a distinction to be made here, if it hasn't been made already. The game does not encourage the use of minis, so much as it encourages the use of a battle-mat.




That is absolutely true; but battlemats make less of a profit, I would imagine, than the little pieces of plastic that get placed on them.  Encouraging the battlemat is the best way to encourage the use of minis that I know of.

I mean, am I the only person who remembers when WotC considered selling _*randomized virtual minis *_for the Virtual Tabletop (RIP)?  That's how much profit there is in it for WotC.  And, had there not been such a backlash against that idea, I bet the VT would be a reality now.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Jun 9, 2010)

RC said:
			
		

> I mean, am I the only person who remembers when WotC considered selling randomized virtual minis for the Virtual Tabletop (RIP)? That's how much profit there is in it for WotC. And, had there not been such a backlash against that idea, I bet the VT would be a reality now.




Again, this isn't quite what happened.  Someone at WOTC was basically just spit balling an idea, and IIRC, it wasn't even someone directly related to developing Gleemax, talked about something like this as part of a larger bunch of ideas.  People, as was usual for the time, massively over reacted and now it's become "truth" that WOTC considered selling random virtual minis.

Kinda like a lot of things related to the roll out of 4e.

Meh, this conversation isn't going to end well.  I'm out now.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 9, 2010)

MerricB said:


> Add this rule to all of your combats from now on:
> 
> Roll a d6 at the beginning of combat. If you roll a 6, you can participate in the combat. On a 1-5, your character is dead.
> 
> ...




The odds could use a little work and fluff needs to be more closely tied in with the crunch. 



MerricB said:


> The incident happened about 9 years ago - wow, where did the time go? As part of my Greyhawk campaign, there was an arena in which gladiatorial combats took place for profit. One PC - the 3rd level ranger - enrolled himself into a fight which was (IIRC) until unconsciousness or yielding. His opponent was the 1st-level half-orc, and the PC didn't get an action before he was dead.




So the ranger decided to engage in mortal combat with real weapons to try and make a quick buck? It seems the player decided on a risky endeavor based on metagame factors. Had he thought about the situation as the ranger then he might have realized that volunteering to let a bestial strong looking half orc swing an axe at him was perhaps not the wisest way to earn a bit of coin. 



MerricB said:


> I mean, looking at the risk to the character before entering the arena, you were talking about 27 hit points to 5... even with weapon damage for the orc at 1d12+5 or thereabouts, you'd expect to survive a hit. Yeah, good old criticals and swingy combat.




Yup. Metagame thinking can get you killed kids, don't try this at home. 




MerricB said:


> Yes, it is an extreme example, but that basic form of swingy combat applies to all low-level pre-4e combats. Characters are fragile as anything, and if the dice go against you, despite preparation, you're likely dead.




Thus, he who proposes combat as plan #1 sometimes does not survive to attempt plan #2. 



MerricB said:


> I mean, I'm not against risk in combat. I'm not against unwinnable combats. I just like having the PCs have the option to make a decision that the combat can't be won and get out of there... rather than suddenly going from "I'm fine!" to "I'm dead!"
> 
> Cheers!




I think the problem lies with equating having a berserk hulk swinging an axe at you defined as "fine".


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 9, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Do you mean "drop" as in dead or "drop" as in below 0 hitpoints?
> 
> Because, if you mean "drop as in dead" then that means you should be whacking a PC every other encounter. That's a bit bloodthirsty don't you think?




I meant reduced to 0 hit points, knocked out, or the like. It doesn't have to be death per se. 


The level of combat threat being measured in resource consumption just always seemed lame IMHO. I guess if the goal is to lead PC's by the nose into fight after fight it has to be done that way.


----------



## Votan (Jun 9, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The other problem with low-level 3e combat just related to the abilities of the wizards: Do I fire my crossbow (which I'm awful with) or cast my one spell for the day.




Well, to be fair, that was much more the lot of the wizard in 1E and 2E; in 3E the wizard needs to have an Intelligence of less than 12 not to have a bonus first level spell, is likely to have adequete dexterity (and so only be a point or two in attack bonus behind the Fighter) and has a bunch of cantrips.  

Still, the scaling point is well taken as the opposite extreme (dozens of spells to cover all contingenices) wasn't ideal either.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> *  3.5 comes out, and references to real distances are replaced by references to the grid; the game is made to forward the use of minis more than 3.0 did.




Nitpick. They didn't *replace*, they were *added to* the distances in feet. It's SW Saga and 4e that replaced the feet with squares.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Nitpick. They didn't *replace*, they were *added to* the distances in feet. It's SW Saga and 4e that replaced the feet with squares.




Fair enough.  The point is that a business decision is involved, and, from the standpoint of making the game profitable, it is a _*good decision*_.

But it has consequences to gameplay, and, depending upon your personal preferences, those consequences may be good or bad.


RC


----------



## Herschel (Jun 9, 2010)

Minis are generally required for more complex and accurate combat. I don't think that's bad or good, just what it is. And as the game has evolved in to a more complex tactical game, marketing and playstyle kind of grew together.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Minis are generally required for more complex and accurate combat.




Already refuted upthread.



> I don't think that's bad or good, just what it is.




Depending upon your personal preferences, those consequences may be good or bad.



> And as the game has evolved in to a more complex tactical game, marketing and playstyle kind of grew together.




So, despite the trends discovered in their market research, WotC just sort of kind of haphazardly fell into the profitable minis-oriented model?  I find that to be rather insulting of the intelligence of those running WotC, and, if true, doesn't give me great confidence in the future of the company.


RC


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 9, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Minis are generally required for more complex and accurate combat. I don't think that's bad or good, just what it is. And as the game has evolved in to a more complex tactical game, marketing and playstyle kind of grew together.



I think people forget or downplay the accuracy angle.

Doing complex positioning _accurately_ in your head is, frankly, bunk.  But it's a form of bunk that a group will buy into if they trust their DM.  If the group has all bought into it, they don't care about the lack of precision.  Maybe they make very loose use of terrain, so it doesn't matter.  Or maybe their DM is very good about adjudicating things in his head so that it feels fair to everyone involved.  But that social skill is not something you can design a game toward.

Personally, every time a disagreement about the mental model of the combat comes up, I start digging around for coins, bottle caps, and what have you.  Maybe this is because I mostly played in my youth with very tactical people who enjoyed things like knocking people over bars or cliffs and making use of high ground and so on, and knowing which of those options works best depends on a strong common image of the battle rather than constantly referencing the DM's imagination through clumsy, imprecise linguistic means.  So we broke out my bottle cap collection and fought over the cool ones to be our character before we got down to playing.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Already refuted upthread.



Not remotely.

The complex examples that were gridless rely extensively on DM fiat or player narrative control in terms of exactly where characters or terrain are in relationship to each other.

This is not "accurate."  It is socially agreed upon handwaving.  It's not a bad way to do things, but it has _never_ been the way D&D encouraged people to do things, which used to involve measurements in scale, after all.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> I think people forget or downplay the accuracy angle.




Not really. You have to be accurate on things that matter to be accurate. And if you figure this out you see how you can be accurate on those things. Then you see if you do need a board or not. And I am positive that you don't.

Most people OTOH use inverse logic due to conditioning. 
1)"I have a battlemat" 
2)"what can I do with a battlemat?"
3)"Now that I have learnt to use a battlemap can I do what I do with a battlemat without one?"

Which is a wrong way to try to answer the whole battlemat problematic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> Doing complex positioning _accurately_ in your head is, frankly, bunk.




Oh, but it is the position of the weapon that is important.  Oh, but it is weapon style that is important.  Oh, but it is the position of the shield that is important.  Oh, but you cannot be accurate without facing.  

Oh, but accuracy is defined by _*your*_ preferences, not by a large range of factors to be considered, by which no game existing can be considered accurate or complex unless you prune the tree to the definition you prefer.

Colour me unimpressed.



RC


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> Not remotely.
> 
> The complex examples that were gridless rely extensively on DM fiat or player narrative control in terms of exactly where characters or terrain are in relationship to each other.
> 
> This is not "accurate."  It is socially agreed upon handwaving.  It's not a bad way to do things, but it has _never_ been the way D&D encouraged people to do things, which used to involve measurements in scale, after all.




Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.




Exactly.

And, in RCFG, you need to determine how you are using your weapon.  Are you trying to land a really solid blow?  Trying to make sure you hit?  Putting more effort into defense?  And the answers cause mechanical differences to how combat plays out.

[monty python]Yet, were I to claim that a game which does not do this is neither "accurate" nor "complex", but rather "socially agreed upon handwaving", they'd put me away.[/monty python]


RC


----------



## Herschel (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Already refuted upthread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Your claim of refuting does not constitute proof. In general, they help make complex combat more accurate and efficient, if that sounds better to you. I'm pretty good with spacial concepts but a lot of people are not. Minis help a lot for those that aren't great at them or trying to keep track of more things than they're confortable multi-tasking. They aren't necessarily needed by everyone always, but they're a tool for facilitation.

As for neither good or bad, it is exactly because of personal preference they are that way. They will have different "meaning" to everyone rather than having an inherent value either way.

As for trends in market research, you're putting the cart before the horse, as it were. The reason they could do market research at all was because minis had been introduced and people were using them to enhance their game. If the game wasn't evolving with the advent of miniatures, Ral Partha would have ever been the only one.

I will agree the market research had a big influence on how the game has evolved after the introduction of 3.0, but I disagree with, well, just your starting point of analysis.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

Herschel said:


> Your claim of refuting does not constitute proof.




No; but saying "No it's not!" doesn't refute the refutation, either.  



> In general, they help make complex combat more accurate and efficient, if that sounds better to you.




My experience is that mini-dependent combat systems are no more accurate than the better mini-independent systems I have played, and quite a bit less efficient.  

But YMMV, depending upon what you want out of a system.



> I will agree the market research had a big influence on how the game has evolved after the introduction of 3.0, but I disagree with, well, just your starting point of analysis.




Fair enough.  


RC


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 9, 2010)

xechnao said:


> Not really. You have to be accurate on things that matter to be accurate. And if you figure this out you see how you can be accurate on those things. Then you see if you do need a board or not. And I am positive that you don't.
> 
> Most people OTOH use inverse logic due to conditioning.
> 1)"I have a battlemat"
> ...




I don't know about "most people" but that certainly wasn't my experience.  

With a few minor exceptions, we played without minis for the first few years (mostly 2e and 3e).  We finally started using minis after we got tired of having arguments caused by descriptions that directed us to take actions we otherwise wouldn't have (had we properly understood what the DM was trying to explain).

You might have (or be) a DM who never makes mistakes when describing scenarios, and kudos if so.  However, for some of us minis are, while not outright necessary, of significant benefit nonetheless when it comes to the accuracy of our shared imaginative space.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 9, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, but it is the position of the weapon that is important.  Oh, but it is weapon style that is important.  Oh, but it is the position of the shield that is important.  Oh, but you cannot be accurate without facing.
> 
> Oh, but accuracy is defined by _*your*_ preferences, not by a large range of factors to be considered, by which no game existing can be considered accurate or complex unless you prune the tree to the definition you prefer.
> 
> Colour me unimpressed.



Considering that we're talking about recent iterations of the D&D rules, weapon position, weapon style, and facing are pretty far outside the bounds of the discussion.  But I'll bite.

Personally, I care about terrain and relative position of players, which have been fairly important to the rules as written for a few editions now.  I'm willing to fudge a grid if I trust the other people at the table, but I want some sort of representation of people, monsters, boulders, cliffs, bad terrain, etc. that I can look at and use.

I want to know more or less exactly how close someone is to a cliff/table/boulder/rough terrain/etc, because I love positioning effects that I can use to hinder, incapacitate, or irritate my foes.  There are DMs I've met that can fairly adjudicate that stuff on the fly, but it's a rare skill, IME.  So I'd rather have some sort of common representation.

I find that more enjoyable by leaps and bounds, and my personal experience is that the time it saves in avoiding arguments more than makes up for the time spent fiddling with it.



billd91 said:


> Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.



Perhaps I should have said "No one in this thread has come up with an example of mini-less combat that didn't involve vague positioning and using player narrative control."  I can't say for certain that no one, anywhere, has come up with such an example.

But I'm quite happy to say that some physical representation is absolutely required for accurate positioning.  I enjoy the game play that emerges out of accurate positioning, so therefore I prefer physical representations of the combat space.

There is a distinct difference between having a grid where my rogue and your fighter are standing next to an orc and the DM describing the scene with no referent.  The first gives me an accurate representation of which abilities of mine are in play and what I need to do to set up or maintain my abilities.  The second requires me to reference the DM's memory every time.

I've studied memory in the lab.  Trusting memory is, frankly, a mistake.  In simple terms, you re-write it every time you access it.  Running a combat requires accessing it many, many times.  The telephone game is instructive here.  I wouldn't trust my own memory about this, so I'm certainly not going to inflict my memory on others or trust someone else's when we can bust out some coins, bottle caps, pogs, minis, or whatever.

Paper is a wonderful technology.  It allows us to offload menial mental tasks to the environment, enabling us to spend mental resources on something we find more fun.  I find there to be no particular virtue in refusing to do so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> Considering that we're talking about recent iterations of the D&D rules, weapon position, weapon style, and facing are pretty far outside the bounds of the discussion.




That's nonsense.

Discussion of the effects of X, without any ability to consider what X *might be other than what it is* are futile at best.

I am not arguing that the grid doesn't satisfy you -- clearly it does.  But the idea that the grid is required for complexity, or for coherence/accuracy, is simply wrong.

However, that said, the grid itself creates its own fuzziness to combat, at least as it is used in WotC-D&D.  I mean, if you can travel farther on a diagonal than not, or if you have a system where, say, either the world is divided into 5-foot chunks or exactly what terrain you are on in in question.  Or where a horse requires a square space......Or, worse yet, a 200-foot-long snake requires a square space......I would say you have entered the realm of vague fuzziness with regards to actual location.  

I mean, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard as an answer to CaGI affecting some creatures "Perhaps the creature was always there?" or words to that effect.  

No, I am afraid that the grid substitutes one form of vagueness for another.  And, by fooling some folks into thinking that they have eliminated vagueness, it perhaps does a disservice to them in the bargain.  

By all means, use a grid if you want to.  If you enjoy it, or if you find that you need it, all the more power to you.

But please don't imagine that it is necessary for everyone, or that those who enjoy gridless combat somehow have more "vague" combats than you do.  

After all, no one in this thread has come up with an example of mini-using combat that didn't involve vague positioning and using player narrative control.


RC


----------



## xechnao (Jun 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> ...I want some sort of representation of people, monsters, boulders, cliffs, bad terrain, etc. that I can look at and use.
> 
> I want to know more or less exactly how close someone is to a cliff/table/boulder/rough terrain/etc, because I love positioning effects that I can use to hinder, incapacitate, or irritate my foes.  There are DMs I've met that can fairly adjudicate that stuff on the fly, but it's a rare skill, IME.  So I'd rather have some sort of common representation.
> 
> I find that more enjoyable by leaps and bounds, and my personal experience is that the time it saves in avoiding arguments more than makes up for the time spent fiddling with it.




Agreed. You can have all this without a grid. If you can't, I can design a way for you to do it if you so wish. Hell, we could do it even together.




Canis said:


> But I'm quite happy to say that some physical representation is absolutely required for accurate positioning.  I enjoy the game play that emerges out of accurate positioning, so therefore I prefer physical representations of the combat space.



There is no such requirement thus the reason of your preference is flawed.



Canis said:


> There is a distinct difference between having a grid where my rogue and your fighter are standing next to an orc and the DM describing the scene with no referent.  The first gives me an accurate representation of which abilities of mine are in play and what I need to do to set up or maintain my abilities.  The second requires me to reference the DM's memory every time.



Agreed but the grid is not the only referent you can have. We can design other referents -perhaps even more intuitive than the grid.



Canis said:


> I've studied memory in the lab.  Trusting memory is, frankly, a mistake.  In simple terms, you re-write it every time you access it.  Running a combat requires accessing it many, many times.  The telephone game is instructive here.  I wouldn't trust my own memory about this, so I'm certainly not going to inflict my memory on others or trust someone else's when we can bust out some coins, bottle caps, pogs, minis, or whatever.
> 
> Paper is a wonderful technology.  It allows us to offload menial mental tasks to the environment, enabling us to spend mental resources on something we find more fun.  I find there to be no particular virtue in refusing to do so.




Agreed. Another one is language. If you think that there is any need of we can use paper to record down a bunch of things and solve the memory problem.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 9, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't know about "most people" but that certainly wasn't my experience.
> 
> With a few minor exceptions, we played without minis for the first few years (mostly 2e and 3e).  We finally started using minis after we got tired of having arguments caused by descriptions that directed us to take actions we otherwise wouldn't have (had we properly understood what the DM was trying to explain).
> 
> You might have (or be) a DM who never makes mistakes when describing scenarios, and kudos if so.  However, for some of us minis are, while not outright necessary, of significant benefit nonetheless when it comes to the accuracy of our shared imaginative space.




You rather need some rules that the players can understand, agree and follow to avoid such confusion and arguments. You didn't have because D&D or any other product you were aware of did not have any and obviously you did not bother to house rule about it. Minis can be a handy substitute in this case. Not the only solution or the best solution. But a handy one -perhaps the most handy there exists if you have not bothered to design something.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 9, 2010)

Canis said:


> Perhaps I should have said "No one in this thread has come up with an example of mini-less combat that didn't involve vague positioning and using player narrative control."  I can't say for certain that no one, anywhere, has come up with such an example.
> 
> But I'm quite happy to say that some physical representation is absolutely required for accurate positioning.  I enjoy the game play that emerges out of accurate positioning, so therefore I prefer physical representations of the combat space.
> 
> ...




I'm going to repeat myself. It's not a question of accuracy. It's more a question of specificity. You prefer to play the game when a Character attacks the orc from a particular square that you can see right in front of you. But plenty of games, including 3e with a little good work on the descriptions, do not require that level of specificity. It's accurate to say, in a gridless game, that you want to move to melee range with an orc and continue to say how you move in relation to that. It is less *specific* than using a grid and minis. 

For some people, a less specific game, even if moderated more by a DM rather than presented on a grid, has advantages, particularly in saving time spent on plotting out moves. I certainly prefer to use it in short engagements where setting up the battlemat would take as long or longer than the following fight.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 9, 2010)

billd91 said:


> For some people, a less specific game, even if moderated more by a DM rather than presented on a grid, has advantages, particularly in saving time spent on plotting out moves.




Moreover this specificity refers to many things artificial. The less you have to deal with them, the more intuitive and the better (IMHO) game you can have.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 9, 2010)

> The complex examples that were gridless rely extensively on DM fiat or player narrative control in terms of exactly where characters or terrain are in relationship to each other.




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.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Fair enough.  The point is that a business decision is involved, and, from the standpoint of making the game profitable, it is a _*good decision*_.
> 
> But it has consequences to gameplay, and, depending upon your personal preferences, those consequences may be good or bad.




It should be noted that AD&D used inches throughout - exactly the same as squares, effectively. (3e/4e and late 2e tend to use a grid rather than just measuring out stuff on the tabletop). 

Cheers!


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Jun 10, 2010)

MerricB said:


> It should be noted that AD&D used inches throughout - exactly the same as squares, effectively. (3e/4e and late 2e tend to use a grid rather than just measuring out stuff on the tabletop).
> 
> Cheers!




Yes, AD&D 1e used inches as a measurement of distance since some players chose to use minis and a measuring system.  (Not actually the same as squares since diagonal movement on a square grid isn't the same distance as orthogonal movement)

Anyway, pages 10 & 11 of the 1e DMG make it clear that miniatures are considered optional in 1e.  The game was designed in such a way that you could use minis or not use minis and either way it plays just fine.  Unfortunately, the game as it exists today was deliberately "evolved" in such a way that this option has effectively been taken away.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 10, 2010)

KM said:
			
		

> 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.




Now this I would agree with.

My next question would be, should it be?  Is it better to support two options not as well, or one option really well.  Where a person comes down on that question will probably depend on all sorts of factors, one primarily being, "does it support MY option?"

If you've decided to design a game based around a combat grid - and lots of games have done this - going all the way back to Star Frontiers for me - do we embrace it fully or partially?  

3e only partially embraced it.  You can play 3e miniless, but, it's not easy.  You can use minis in 3e, but, while there are elements, particularly Attacks of Opportunity and Reach, which make playing without minis difficult, it doesn't actually add a whole lot of tectical options in play.  3e rules punished movement so heavily that bouncing around the combat map was usually a very bad idea.  Many combats, once you got into base to base contact, devolved into 5 foot steps to gain flanking and not much else.

Now, this isn't always true, and I'm sure people are furiously typing exceptions right now, but, generally speaking, 3e didn't go very far to promote using a battlemap, but, went too far to not use one.  (if that makes sense)

4e chose to embrace the battlemap (for whatever reason  )  Which means that on the battlemap, you have a plethora of choices.  Combat becomes very fluid with people moving all over the place every round, because the game promotes this style of play.  

It does so, however, to the detriment of other play styles.

Personally, I think that's a good thing.  I don't want a game that does a dozen different things in a half assed way.  I want a game that is good at a small number of things.  If I want miniless combat, I won't play 4e D&D.  Not a problem, there's fifteen other games out there that will scratch my itch.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 10, 2010)

WheresMyD20 said:


> Yes, AD&D 1e used inches as a measurement of distance since some players chose to use minis and a measuring system.




I would think it more likely that AD&D 1e used inches as a measurement of distance _since the rules were derived from a fantasy miniature game_. It's far more a legacy item than a design decision. 

Cheers!


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 10, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I mean, am I the only person who remembers when WotC considered selling _*randomized virtual minis *_for the Virtual Tabletop (RIP)?  That's how much profit there is in it for WotC.  And, had there not been such a backlash against that idea, I bet the VT would be a reality now.



I'd take the bet. There's no way you could ever win it


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 10, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I'd take the bet. There's no way you could ever win it




Hah!  You just wish there was!

Really, the VT would have been cool, and had a lot of potential for allowing games to be run centrally.  Could you imagine a gigantic shared world being run over the VT?  Awesome with extra awesome sauce.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 11, 2010)

> Personally, I think that's a good thing. I don't want a game that does a dozen different things in a half assed way. I want a game that is good at a small number of things. If I want miniless combat, I won't play 4e D&D. Not a problem, there's fifteen other games out there that will scratch my itch.




That's a great option for the big game geek with awesome players (  ), but I don't think that's really true for 90% of the potential D&D/Tabletop Game Market.

They don't have other games to choose from. They don't have time or patience to learn them, and even if they do, the players often don't. 

So, for *D&D*, I think scalability is ideal. The casual DMs without time or money to map out the grid who just want some Beer & Pretzels games or some interactive storytelling, or those who simply don't like or can't afford minis, shouldn't be excluded. In order to maximize the game's market, you need to be able to hit both the DM who has a case for his collection of hundreds of dollars worth of pewter figurines, and the DM who plays a game of point-a to point-b narrative with dice rolling because she once remembered having fun playing the game in high school. 

But scalability is tough. If a choice has to be made, D&D should, I think, err on the side of those more casual DM's, with the option to go deeper for those of us more likely to buy every book, or minis set, or whatever. The casual DM's are a broader segment of the market, even if the hardcore players generate more reliable revenue. If you make the combat system as exception-based as the rest of your game (rather than so tightly integrated with class, race, powers, advancement, pacing, and overall game design), you should be able to add a skirmish system without breaking the core system. 

Those who want to use a grid and minis will always be a much smaller niche than those who want to play D&D. Serving the smaller niche in, say, the DMGII with a solid skirmish system, would probably provide a lower barrier to entry for the game, as opposed to serving them in the core game, and basically ignoring those fully grown adults and image-conscious teenagers who don't want to buy plastic toys as a prerequisite to pretend to be an elf wizard.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The casual DMs without time or money to map out the grid who just want some Beer & Pretzels games or some interactive storytelling, or those who simply don't like or can't afford minis, shouldn't be excluded.



I draw out the battle maps for my game on photocopies of the DMG 8x10 square grid. Photocopying the grids isn't that expensive. Drawing them out takes time (maybe 15 minutes or so per the typical page) but helps me consolidate my sense of the location's design.

Minis, on the other hand, are something I don't have the money to buy or the space to store, even if I was otherwise inclined to get them (which I'm not). So my group doesn't use minis - we use plastic tokens that I've collected from board games over the years.

I wonder how much of a minority we're in, using grid + tokens?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 11, 2010)

There are also a lot of cool cheap/free PDF printable tokens with the monsters on them too.


----------



## xechnao (Jun 11, 2010)

Think of descent journeys in the dark marketed as you describe. 
Or warhammer 40k for that reason. Who the hell is going to buy that? Ok, some people will, but, by any means, not close enough to slightly match the sales these stuff do right now.

D&D traditionally is something that is supposed to market on the value of fantasy adventure simulation: it offers rules on fascinating fantasy adventure ideas with a toolset to handle and manage them. Minis used to be merchandising. Now the minis environment is core. I certainly get what KM is saying. For me, his frustration is totally on the spot.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> * Prior to the advent of 3e, using minis was relatively uncommon. Over 40% of the gamers polled by WotC claimed to have _*never*_ used minis at all. The remaining under 60% had used them, but we don't know how often.




No.  At the end of 2e, using minis was relatively uncommon.  D&D comes out of a skirmish wargame.



> * I suspect that, as the marketing data indicated was likely, the minis sold very, very well. If the marketing data is correct, then the sale of books is 1/10th the sale of minis; the game becomes a means of selling minis, rather than the minis becoming an adjunct of the game.




Your logic doesn't follow.  It is entirely possible that people who spend more money on minis than on books.



> * 3.5 comes out, and references to real distances are replaced by references to the grid; the game is made to forward the use of minis more than 3.0 did.




A step towards older editions here - from memory, distances in 1e were in _inches_.



> * 4.0 comes out, and all but requires minis. Scott Rouse: "With effort you can play with out but them but it does require a fair amount of DM hand waiving and/or behind the screen position tracking to make area effects work."




4e turns the battlemap from something to keep track into something to use.



wedgeski said:


> Although I tend to agree with RC that the progression of the game has gone hand-in-hand with Wizards' success with mini's, there is a distinction to be made here, if it hasn't been made already. The game does not encourage the use of minis, so much as it encourages the use of a battle-mat.




And battle mats look better with minis...  (Also remember WoTC sells dungeon tiles).



ExploderWizard said:


> So the ranger decided to engage in mortal combat with real weapons to try and make a quick buck? It seems the player decided on a risky endeavor based on metagame factors.




Going down a dungeon when you are expecting a dragon is a risky endeavour, arguably based on metagame factors. Risky endeavours based on metagame factors are par for the course for adventurers.



Raven Crowking said:


> Already refuted upthread.




I see _nothing_ that could qualify as a refutation. Merely assertion.

I can look at a battlemap and see where a dozen fighters are in relation to each other - and from this have a clear idea what they are trying to do. It is more or less _impossible_ to keep that in your head at once (seven plus or minus two being the normal rule for the number of things someone can remember at one time). 

On the other hand, if two fighters are having a duel then the battlemap's not going to add much. (And if you're running a system with mooks, such as Feng Shui, who cares where they actually are? There's always one where you need him.)



Raven Crowking said:


> Oh, but it is the position of the weapon that is important. Oh, but it is weapon style that is important. Oh, but it is the position of the shield that is important. Oh, but you cannot be accurate without facing.
> 
> Oh, but accuracy is defined by _*your*_ preferences, not by a large range of factors to be considered, by which no game existing can be considered accurate or complex unless you prune the tree to the definition you prefer.




So. You're saying that a 6" difference in the position of a shield matters as much as a 10' difference in where someone's physical body is.



billd91 said:


> Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.




On the other hand, negotiating is a _lot_ more arbitrary. And for all the people who ran mapless AD&D, D&D at its roots was a minatures skirmish game. Fireballs with 20' radius (or worse yet, based on volume) are weird without a grid - and as for Lightning Bolt...

This isn't to say gridless is a bad thing. I wouldn't even _think_ of running Spirit of the Century or Feng Shui with a grid. Just that AD&D was designed with minis in mind - and the drop in their use seems to have been 2e, with 3e being a return to rule. (With 4e actually mechanically using the grid).



xechnao said:


> Agreed. You can have all this without a grid. If you can't, I can design a way for you to do it if you so wish. Hell, we could do it even together.




Show me?



> Agreed but the grid is not the only referent you can have. We can design other referents -perhaps even more intuitive than the grid.




Again, show me.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Going down a dungeon when you are expecting a dragon is a risky endeavour, arguably based on metagame factors. Risky endeavours based on metagame factors are par for the course for adventurers.




If the inhabitants of the game world know anything about the potential deadliness of dragons then the propositiion is risky both on the metagame level and within the game world. The player knows that dragons are tougher than some other monsters because the statblocks say so. The character (unless he/she has never heard of dragons) knows that dragons are frightening beasts that can destroy whole villages. 

Assuming the situation with the ranger was purely metagame driven, lets look at that knowledge. The player knew that he was fighting a strong looking half orc wielding a greataxe. 

A) The greataxe has the potential to do horrendous damage on a crit, especially if the wielder has a STR bonus. 

B) Worst case odds of getting critted are 5% per hit assuming the weapon wasn't special with a nastier crit range.

C) A half orc is merely a racial type. He could have had fighter levels, nasty feats, or other templates which could make him tougher than he appeared. 

Knowing all this at the metagame level, the player elected to enter single combat simply to earn some coin. Sometimes, making decisions purely on metagaming factors is unwise and thinking as the character would, can avert disaster. 

A long time ago in a 1E AD&D game far away, a situation like this came up in my campaign. The PC's found themselves surrounded by a hobgoblin war band. The hobgoblins were honorable (though evil) warriors and offered the PC's free passage if their chosen champion could best the hobgoblin war captain. One of the players playing a 3rd level fighter double specialized in the bastard sword accepted the challenge. The player was very cocky having rolled an actual 18/00 strength. (the only person I have ever seen do this in front of me). 

What the player didn't know was that the hobgoblin was a 7th level fighter, double specialized in the flail with an 18/77 STR. 

The combat was touch and go. When the hobgoblin didn't drop after 4 solid hits the player began to get nervous. His dice were on fire and he dropped the war chief, having only 3 HP left himself. After the battle, the party was allowed to pass unharmed as the hobgoblins were honorable. 

I congratulated the player on defeating a 7th level fighter single-handedly and he turned almost as white as a sheet! He had no idea the war captain was anywhere near that level. He said that had he known what he was fighting then he wouldn't have volunteered. 

In this case it was a lack of metagame knowledge and simply roleplaying his overly cocky fighter that saved the day.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I don't want a game that does a dozen different things in a half assed way.  I want a game that is good at a small number of things.  If I want miniless combat, I won't play 4e D&D.  Not a problem, there's fifteen other games out there that will scratch my itch.




There is much wisdom in this.  You can't please everybody all of the time, and no finite/usable rule set does everything well.  It just isn't a practical possibility.  It is not unreasonable for a designer to choose what the game will and won't do.

I'm not a fan of certain foods.  That doesn't make a restaurant that serves those foods a bad restaurant, poorly conceived, or with a sub-standard chef.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> No.  At the end of 2e, using minis was relatively uncommon.  D&D comes out of a skirmish wargame.




No.  If 40% of the people polled never used minis, that number includes all of the people polled, not just the people who began playing at the tag-end of 2e.  Moreover, the question is not "Are you using minis now?" but "Have you ever used minis?" or words to that effect.

EDIT:  As has been pointed out by others upthread, use of minis was actually *increasing* at the tag-end of 2e, not waning.



> Your logic doesn't follow.  It is entirely possible that people who spend more money on minis than on books.




It doesn't matter where they spend the money; what matters is that the key difference between $1 and $10 is whether or not they buy minis.  So, if you are intelligent, you try to make sure they buy minis.



> I see _nothing_ that could qualify as a refutation. Merely assertion.




Well, you can lead a horse to water...... 

Sorry, but if you see nothing that could qualify as a refutation (as opposed to, say, a refutation that you might, in turn, choose to refute), I have no desire to argue the point with you.  I don't think it would profit either of us.



RC


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There is much wisdom in this. You can't please everybody all of the time, and no finite/usable rule set does everything well. It just isn't a practical possibility. It is not unreasonable for a designer to choose what the game will and won't do.
> 
> I'm not a fan of certain foods. That doesn't make a restaurant that serves those foods a bad restaurant, poorly conceived, or with a sub-standard chef.




Yes, but you and Hussar pre-suppose that 4e succeeded at what it set out to do. I honestly feel that many of the gripes raised in this thread concerning 4e are because it doesn't.... at least not without one spending money on more books (or DDI) beyond core and/or houseruling. As an example...It didn't do skill challenges well at all, and you are now expected to pay for more in order to get them to work halfway decent. 

I also don't think a fantasy rpg system that can cause grind, can't handle an exciting and interesting fight with a solo BBEG by himself (without houserules and DM fiat) or a quick unimportant (but interesting) mook fight (without drawing one into a 40-60 minute tactical-grid game) a success in the combat department either... at least not as it relates to the feel of fantasy and the genre overall ( I won't get into how IMO, 4e also stumbles pretty bad in the single PC vs. enemy scenario). 

This I think is one of the major problems I have with 4e. I like 4e for large epic battles... but loathe it for those unimportant battles that a PC has stumbled into or chosen to take part in. The fact that the system assumes every battle is a major setpiece of epic proportions and deadly terrain is IMO, a failure in it's design philosophy that has nothing to do with grid vs. non-grid.

In fact I would be more forgiving if it tried to cater to more styles and that was why these weaknesses were in the game... than I am with a game that was supposedly focused on these principles (a tactical and interesting combat engine, structured way to handle extended/complex skill checks, minion mechanic, etc.)and doesn't get, IMO, alot of them right. YMMV of course.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> There is much wisdom in this.  You can't please everybody all of the time, and no finite/usable rule set does everything well.  It just isn't a practical possibility.  It is not unreasonable for a designer to choose what the game will and won't do.
> 
> I'm not a fan of certain foods.  That doesn't make a restaurant that serves those foods a bad restaurant, poorly conceived, or with a sub-standard chef.




This is all true, but it avoids the question "Is the role 4e set out to play the right role for the game most RPGers know about or have access to?" It's all well and good if I have the choice of lots of different games, but as KM points out above, that's not really true for a lot of people who aren't really well-plugged in to the hobby.

McDonalds may serve one type of food that a consumer doesn't like, but if that's the only restaurant in town...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No. If 40% of the people polled never used minis, that number includes all of the people polled, not just the people who began playing at the tag-end of 2e. Moreover, the question is not "Are you using minis now?" but "Have you ever used minis?" or words to that effect.
> 
> EDIT: As has been pointed out by others upthread, use of minis was actually *increasing* at the tag-end of 2e, not waning.




Point.  I'd forgotten about Skills and Powers.  It wasn't quite at an all time low.  And (as a professional statistician) I'd love to see the exact wording.  Minis != battlemat.



> Well, you can lead a horse to water......




And then when you get there realise that the whole thing was a mirage all along 



> Sorry, but if you see nothing that could qualify as a refutation (as opposed to, say, a refutation that you might, in turn, choose to refute), I have no desire to argue the point with you. I don't think it would profit either of us.




You have not engaged with any of the refutation.  There is no way to keep in one person's head a visualisation of the interactions between the positioning of six a side combat.  Let alone to ensure you are all on a shared narrative space.  Mapless works (I run mapless with Feng Shui), but makes things like the lightning bolt's area of effect arbitrary and impossible to use accurately.

In short, to run D&D mapless you need to eviscerate a lot of the detail in D&D.

(Oh, and on another subject, it wasn't the presence of the weapon speed rules that sucked.  It was that they were almost precisely backwards - the first person to hit should have been the one with the biggest and longest weapon, all else being equal).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I also don't think a fantasy rpg system that can cause grind, can't handle an exciting and interesting fight with a solo BBEG by himself (without houserules and DM fiat) or a quick unimportant (but interesting) mook fight (without drawing one into a 40-60 minute tactical-grid game) a success in the combat department either... at least not as it relates to the feel of fantasy and the genre overall ( I won't get into how IMO, 4e also stumbles pretty bad in the single PC vs. enemy scenario).




But, are these issues issues with the system or the user of the system?

I honestly don't have enough experience with the game to know.  So far, I've played exactly one scenario (Raiders at Oakhurst) to completion, so, I can't say if your claims are accurate or not.

I do know that in that scenario with a new DM who had never DM'ed anything previously, had never played 4e D&D previously, we did not experience grind, the solo fight was brutal both times (we had to run away the first time as it kicked our asses royally) and the one skill challenge I recall ran smoothly and with no problems.  So, in my very limited experience, all your concerns are things I have not run into.  I'm not saying they're not true, just that they're not things I've experienced.

Then I turn to the, now, 4 WOTC gaming podcasts - 3 with Penny Arcade and 1 with Robot Chicken, in which they run 5 or 6 encounters in a 3-4 hour session, with LOADS of role play AND skill challenges, noting that the latest one was run by Tycho (IIRC) and not by anyone at WOTC.  

So, the evidence that I can see certainly doesn't support your assertions.  The only counter assertions I ever seem to see are by people who have disliked the system since it was released.  Which is pretty similar to how things were in 3e days as well.  

------------------

There have been a very large number of claims in this thread about speed of play, the level of tactical choice, and whatnot.  So, I would like to test these claims with a couple of scenarios.

*Scenerio 1* - Ease of play without visual aids.

A lone human fighter with a longsword and shield in chainmail is surrounded by orcs.  1/3 of the orcs have longswords, 1/3 have two handed swords and 1/3 have battle axes.  Using only the 1e ruleset, how many orcs are surrounding the fighter?

Stipulation 1 - you must use ONLY the actors in the example.  No substitutions.
Stipulation 2 - you may NOT use any sort of visual aid or a calculator.
Stipulation 3 - your answer MUST conform to 1e RAW.  No house rules or DM Fiat.
Stipulation 4 - you must try to keep as close as possible the ratio of different weapon wielding orcs.  ((No saying they all use the same weapon, all three weapons must be used))


*Scenario 2*  - Speed of Play

A group of 6 PC's (2 fighters, 1 ranger, a cleric, a wizard and a thief - all level 4) are wandering through a dungeon and meet a random encounter with a group of 12 hobgoblin mercenaries led by a drow cleric (level 2).  Range is set at 60 feet.  Combat ensues.

Determine surprise, roll initiative, and run the combat by 1e rules, all within 15 minutes or less.

Stipulation 1:  This is a combat encounter.  No weaseling out by claiming you bribe the enemy.
Stipulation 2:  The PC's and the enemy choose to fight.  No weaseling out by running away.
Stipulation 3:  All actors must have at least two tactical options every round unless they are dead or incapacitated.
Stipulation 4:  No substitutions.  THIS is the scenario.
Stipulation 5:  ALL RAW rules must be adhered to.  No house rules, no ignoring rules, no DM Fiat.

Go to 'er boys.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It doesn't matter where they spend the money; what matters is that the key difference between $1 and $10 is whether or not they buy minis.  So, if you are intelligent, you try to make sure they buy minis.




Bit of a correlation-causation error here. You cannot assume that "the people who buy minis spend more money" implies "making people buy minis will cause them to spend more." There could be a third factor which causes both the purchasing of minis _and_ the spending of more money - namely, the willingness to drop money on D&D in the first place.

Some customers are willing to spend $10 and some are only willing to spend $1. If someone is only willing to spend $1, making them spend that $1 on minis will not make them spend more. And if you set things up so that you _have_ to drop $10 on minis in order to play the game, that person will simply quit playing (or at least quit buying).

A strategy of "design the game to require minis" is targeting the people who _might_ spend $10 on D&D, but will spend only $1 if that's what they can get away with. The goal is to "turn" enough of those players to make up for the loss of the $1 players who stop buying altogether.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> *Scenerio 1* - Ease of play without visual aids.
> 
> A lone human fighter with a longsword and shield in chainmail is surrounded by orcs. 1/3 of the orcs have longswords, 1/3 have two handed swords and 1/3 have battle axes. Using only the 1e ruleset, how many orcs are surrounding the fighter?
> 
> ...




I didn't notice a location in the stipulation. Are we to assume a featureless plain without walls? I ask because per 1E RAW different weapons have different space requirements.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> There have been a very large number of claims in this thread about speed of play, the level of tactical choice, and whatnot.  So, I would like to test these claims with a couple of scenarios.
> 
> *Scenerio 1* - Ease of play without visual aids.
> 
> ...




6 or 8 depending on whether the DM thinks mainly in hexes or in squares. Pretty easy, frankly, particularly if you're worried about surrounding rather than actually attacking and dealing with weapon spaces. But I ask you, is referring to the rule book or the DM's screen using a visual aid in this case? If you think so, considering they're expected/encouraged tools without a set of minis and a battle map, I think your requirement would be unfair. 



Hussar said:


> *Scenario 2*  - Speed of Play
> 
> A group of 6 PC's (2 fighters, 1 ranger, a cleric, a wizard and a thief - all level 4) are wandering through a dungeon and meet a random encounter with a group of 12 hobgoblin mercenaries led by a drow cleric (level 2).  Range is set at 60 feet.  Combat ensues.
> 
> ...




Why 15 minutes? Seems perfectly arbitrary. I certainly don't think I'd see a 4e combat with this many actors occurring in that time frame. All 1e has to do is noticeably beat 4e's time to support the assertion that 1e is faster. That said, I don't think the combat would take particularly long. Initiative by side speeds things up considerably and the ranger will make mince out of the hobgobins because he's +4 damage on each of them and will probably drop one per round.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes, but you and Hussar pre-suppose that 4e succeeded at what it set out to do. I honestly feel that many of the gripes raised in this thread concerning 4e are because it doesn't.... at least not without one spending money on more books (or DDI) beyond core and/or houseruling. As an example...It didn't do skill challenges well at all, and you are now expected to pay for more in order to get them to work halfway decent.




I'm trying to think of an edition of D&D that isn't seriously mechanically flawed.



> I also don't think a fantasy rpg system that can cause grind, can't handle an exciting and interesting fight with a solo BBEG by himself (without houserules and DM fiat)




How is the 4e fight going to be _less_ interesting than the AD&D equivalent?  Other than no games of win-roulette.  A single solo fight in 4e is little different from one in previous editions.



> or a quick unimportant (but interesting) mook fight (without drawing one into a 40-60 minute tactical-grid game)




If it's quick and unimportant, why is it interesting?  (If it's sentry-ganking, I make it a skill challenge).



> This I think is one of the major problems I have with 4e. I like 4e for large epic battles... but loathe it for those unimportant battles that a PC has stumbled into or chosen to take part in. The fact that the system assumes every battle is a major setpiece of epic proportions and deadly terrain is IMO, a failure in it's design philosophy that has nothing to do with grid vs. non-grid.




By the end of Heroic, there are two types of opponents.  Skilled and powerful and darwin awards.  4e can cope with both.  (What it doesn't do well is real grit - but my PCs were run ragged by a gang of thugs in the first couple of levels using no especially complex terrain).



billd91 said:


> This is all true, but it avoids the question "Is the role 4e set out to play the right role for the game most RPGers know about or have access to?" It's all well and good if I have the choice of lots of different games, but as KM points out above, that's not really true for a lot of people who aren't really well-plugged in to the hobby.




And this is where I am amused by the criticism.  What sort of game does AD&D do well other than D&D (which is a genre in its own right)?  4e at least works well across a cinematic range (it just doesn't do grit).  AD&D in particular was full of Gygaxian prose, weird levels of detail (count the number of polearms), random and inconsistent modifiers, and other things that would have caused trouble for people who aren't plugged in.



> McDonalds may serve one type of food that a consumer doesn't like, but if that's the only restaurant in town...




Then people will be better off than if the only restaurant just serves blow your mouth off curry.

4e is not perfect this way, but it's the first edition of D&D I'd use to run something other than a game of D&D other than because people knew the system.



Dausuul said:


> A strategy of "design the game to require minis" is targeting the people who _might_ spend $10 on D&D, but will spend only $1 if that's what they can get away with. The goal is to "turn" enough of those players to make up for the loss of the $1 players who stop buying altogether.




You miss the $1 players who will repeatedly spend $1



billd91 said:


> Why 15 minutes? Seems perfectly arbitrary. I certainly don't think I'd see a 4e combat with this many actors occurring in that time frame.




Depends how many of the hobgobs are minions.  And whether the party's got a Wizard or Invoker to clear the board.  

Seriously, Skirmisher (Leader), two bodyguards, and ten mooks won't take that long in 4e.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Point.  I'd forgotten about Skills and Powers.




No worries.  It happens to the best of us.

Hell, it happens to me, and I am about as far from "the best of us" as you can get.  



> And (as a professional statistician) I'd love to see the exact wording.  Minis != battlemat.




There are links to the WotC survey to be found; I know that over the course of the last few years I have found it & linked to it more than once.



> There is no way to keep in one person's head a visualisation of the interactions between the positioning of six a side combat.  Let alone to ensure you are all on a shared narrative space.  Mapless works (I run mapless with Feng Shui), but makes things like the lightning bolt's area of effect arbitrary and impossible to use accurately.
> 
> In short, to run D&D mapless you need to eviscerate a lot of the detail in D&D.




The problem is that you are conflating the original claim with specific locations on a grid (which are not, themselves, actually specific).  Neither complexity nor tactics require specific locationing of the type the grid allows.

And, when you claim that "to run D&D mapless you need to eviscerate a lot of the detail in D&D", you are reliant upon the base assumption that *only certain types of detail matter* -- specifically those that rely upon the grid.

As an obvious example, weapon speed, the manner in which a given weapon is being used (trying most to hit, trying to land a really solid hit, trying to defend yourself, etc.), attempting combat maneuvers, if you are able to draw an opponent toward you with a bluff, or intimidate an opponent to drive him away from you, etc., etc., are all properties of the RCFG combat system which do not rely upon a specific grid.  They are all details that a grid-based system might not allow for, allowing for both complexity and complex tactics, because the focus of the grid-based system is elsewhere.  And, in play, they work very, very well.

As another example, in 3.0, I ran an encounter where the PCs were travelling along a cave tunnel angled between 30-40 degrees downward, when a cave fisher attacked a PC from a tunnel that intersected the PC's tunnel at a 45-degree angle, adjoining from the ceiling.  The need to use a grid would make such a set-up almost impossible, removing a tense and exciting encounter from the game.

Similarly, I ran an encounter where a grick attacked PCs climbing a rope down a cliff, from a cave that was bored into the cliff, that could not be seen from above.  You could use a grid for that encounter, but the encounter was much better for not using a grid.

These kinds of "non-standard" fights are discouraged by a grid system, meaning that, for many games, you need to eviscerate a lot of the potential detail in the campaign milieu.

There is certainly nothing wrong with using a grid when it is appropriate; in a combat where the space is sufficiently complex, and where the fight is essentially a "set piece", it can be cool and fun to break out the minis and even a premade "battlefield" if you have one.....A map, a grid, or a three-dimensional model.

But neither are these things always necessary, or always desireable.



> (Oh, and on another subject, it wasn't the presence of the weapon speed rules that sucked.  It was that they were almost precisely backwards - the first person to hit should have been the one with the biggest and longest weapon, all else being equal).




I think you have to keep in mind the ability to set a weapon against a charge.  A pike is a wonderful weapon when the enemy is coming at you; it is less useful when the enemy is in your face.

A great system for dealing with this is Codex Martiallis (sp?), which is really worth a look.



Dausuul said:


> Bit of a correlation-causation error here. You cannot assume that "the people who buy minis spend more money" implies "making people buy minis will cause them to spend more." There could be a third factor which causes both the purchasing of minis _and_ the spending of more money - namely, the willingness to drop money on D&D in the first place.




Sure, but in that case the guy buying minis is still spending more than the guy who isn't.  And, if Scott Rouse is telling us the truth, the correlation was strong enough that it affected WotC's business strategy with respect not only to miniatures sales, but also to how the rulesets were devised.

I, personally, feel that there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that the sales of miniatures are an extremely important part of WotC's business plan, and that the game rules are affected by the same.

If you are not convinced, that is your perogative.  No one else can set the bar of your skepticism for you.  



> And if you set things up so that you _have_ to drop $10 on minis in order to play the game, that person will simply quit playing (or at least quit buying).
> 
> A strategy of "design the game to require minis" is targeting the people who _might_ spend $10 on D&D, but will spend only $1 if that's what they can get away with. The goal is to "turn" enough of those players to make up for the loss of the $1 players who stop buying altogether.




You summed that up nicely.  I think that this is exactly what we have seen with 4e.

In any event, I would love to see the marketing data on battlemaps, if any is ever released.  Cheaper to produce than minis, and sold at a good price point, they might actually be more profitable than the minis.....although I believe that you would still need the minis in order to sell the maps.

There is nothing "evil" about trying to make a buck.  As I said earlier, I think Gygax & Co. dropped the ball on marketing some obvious accessories to earlier editions.  Had they not done so, TSR might still exist.

But there is also nothing "evil" in paying attention to that desire to make a buck, and trying to see how it influences the end product, for better or worse.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> *Scenario 2* - Speed of Play
> 
> A group of 6 PC's (2 fighters, 1 ranger, a cleric, a wizard and a thief - all level 4) are wandering through a dungeon and meet a random encounter with a group of 12 hobgoblin mercenaries led by a drow cleric (level 2). Range is set at 60 feet. Combat ensues.
> 
> ...




Once again, we have no reference for the battleground other than "dungeon".  encounter distance 60'? Ok is that due to a sighting or a hearing? Is there LOS. If visual the drow would get the drop on the PC's with 90' infravision. From there it would depend on a lot of things. Does the wizard have sleep prepped? If so, the whole affair could be a done deal in 5 minutes or less.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this is where I am amused by the criticism.  What sort of game does AD&D do well other than D&D (which is a genre in its own right)?  4e at least works well across a cinematic range (it just doesn't do grit).  AD&D in particular was full of Gygaxian prose, weird levels of detail (count the number of polearms), random and inconsistent modifiers, and other things that would have caused trouble for people who aren't plugged in.




It's not just a question of cinematic range. You could ask "Are most game players out there with little scope of the hobby beyond the D&D brand served by a game based on miniatures and battlemats?"


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, are these issues issues with the system or the user of the system?
> 
> I honestly don't have enough experience with the game to know. So far, I've played exactly one scenario (Raiders at Oakhurst) to completion, so, I can't say if your claims are accurate or not.
> 
> ...




I will address your other points (the one's that actually try to refute my claims at least) in a moment. First however I want to examine your claims about Raiders at Oakhurst... Here is the stat block of the solo in question...

*Nightscale*
*Young Black Dragon Level 4 Solo Lurker*
Large natural magical beast (aquatic, dragon) XP 875
*Initiative*: +11 *Senses*: Perception +9; darkvision
*HP* 280; *Bloodied* 140 See also _bloodied breath_
*AC* 24; *Fort* 19, *Ref* 21, *Will* 18
*Resist*: 15 Acid
*Saving Throws* +5
*Speed* 7, fly 7 (clumsy), overland flight 10, swim 7




*Action points* 2 

*Bite (standard; at will)* * Acid
Reach 2: +10 vs. AC; 1d6 + 3 damage, and ongoing 5 acid damage (save ends) 
*Claw (standard; at will)*
Reach 2: +8 vs. AC; 1d4 +3 damage 
*Double attack (standard; at will)*
The dragon makes 2 claw attacks 
*Tail slash (immediate reaction, when a melee attack misses the dragon; at will)*
The dragon uses its tail to attack the enemy that missed it; reach 2: +8 vs AC; 1d6 + 4 damage and the target is pushed 1 square 
*Breath Weapon (standard; recharge 5 6)* * Acid
Close blast 5; +7 vs Reflex; 1d12 + 3 acid damage and the target takes ongoing 5 acid damage and takes a -4 penalty to AC (save ends both). 
*Bloodied Breath (Immediate reaction, when first bloodied; encounter)* * Acid
The dragon's breath weapon recharges automatically, and the dragon uses it immediately. 
*Cloud of Darkness (standard; sustain minor; recharge 3 4 5 6)* * Zone
Close burst 2: this power creates a zone of darkness that remains in place until the end of the dragon's next turn. The zone blocks line of sight for all creatures except the dragon. Any creature entirely within the area (except the dragon) is blinded. 
*Frightful presence (standard, encounter)* * Fear
Close burst 5; targets enemies: +5 vs. Will; the target is stunned until the end of the dragon's nest turn. Aftereffect: the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls (save ends).
*Alignment:* Evil *Languages*: Draconic
*Skills*: Nature +9, Stealth +17
*Str* 16 (+5) *Dex* 20 (+7) *Wis *15 (+4) *Con* 16 (+5) *Int* 12 (+3) *Cha* 10 (+2)


...Now, according to my MM1 Yng Blk Dragon...his AC should be 22 not 24, his Fort should be 18 not 19, his Ref should be 20 and Will should be 17.. His defenses are all better or equal to the Young Green Dragon which is a level 5 solo monster

HP's are increased by 56 (again more than the Young Green Dragon)... Cloud of Darkness recharges on a 3,4,5,6 instead of 4,5,6...


This is definitely a more powerful monster than a level 4 solo lurker, so I wouldn't necessarily base your refutation of my argument on this encounter. ... I would say as a solo it falls in the level 5 to level 6 range which, as the DMG suggests +2 to +3 levels for a difficult encounter ( a level 3-4 solo is difficult for (5)1st level PC's), and as this was an encounter for level 1 PC's... it should have been almost certain death against a bunch of absolute new players. The fact that you're party as new players still beat it kind of supports my point


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 11, 2010)

> So, the evidence that I can see certainly doesn't support your assertions. The only counter assertions I ever seem to see are by people who have disliked the system since it was released. Which is pretty similar to how things were in 3e days as well.




That Raiders game didn't have any real grind. Though I do think spending essentially two sessions whittling down a dragon is probably a bit excessive, it was fun the whole time. Whether that's the game, the DM, or the group...I'm inclined to go with the latter two. 

I've also seen real grind. 

And I'm fairly 4e agnostic (I think of 4e like I think of most Apple products: neat, can be a lot of fun, but I do have some serious, deep concerns). 

Grind isn't just a symptom of the Edition Wars. 

Fortunately, WotC seems to realize and be actively combating it, so we'll see what happens in the future.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The problem is that you are conflating the original claim with specific locations on a grid (which are not, themselves, actually specific). Neither complexity nor tactics require specific locationing of the type the grid allows.
> 
> And, when you claim that "to run D&D mapless you need to eviscerate a lot of the detail in D&D", you are reliant upon the base assumption that *only certain types of detail matter* -- specifically those that rely upon the grid.




No.  I'm saying that certain types of detail matter.  Not that _only_ certain types of detail matter.  Using a battlemat doesn't _prevent_ you using your weapon speed rules or different types of attack.  (And god knows, 4e isn't short of different types of attack and maneuver).  Maps encourage some but the only time they are at the expense of others, it's simply because players have limited brain space.



> As another example, in 3.0, I ran an encounter where the PCs were travelling along a cave tunnel angled between 30-40 degrees downward, when a cave fisher attacked a PC from a tunnel that intersected the PC's tunnel at a 45-degree angle, adjoining from the ceiling. The need to use a grid would make such a set-up almost impossible, removing a tense and exciting encounter from the game.




Thanks for the idea.  Stolen for my 4e campaign.



> Similarly, I ran an encounter where a grick attacked PCs climbing a rope down a cliff, from a cave that was bored into the cliff, that could not be seen from above. You could use a grid for that encounter, but the encounter was much better for not using a grid.




Thanks for the idea.  Stolen for my 4e campaign.



> These kinds of "non-standard" fights are discouraged by a grid system, meaning that, for many games, you need to eviscerate a lot of the potential detail in the campaign milieu.




I have no problem running mapless.  I just have a problem running mapless for a game with fireballs measured by volume, distances measured in inches, and a lot of the other AD&D tropes.  I go mapless for much more free-form games.



> There is certainly nothing wrong with using a grid when it is appropriate; in a combat where the space is sufficiently complex, and where the fight is essentially a "set piece", it can be cool and fun to break out the minis and even a premade "battlefield" if you have one.....A map, a grid, or a three-dimensional model.
> 
> But neither are these things always necessary, or always desireable.




I think part of the difference here is that I barely believe in the random encounter for D&D after about first level (AD&D scales).  PCs are guys who routinely walk round in packs, all either packing spells or armed to the teeth.  Sensible single monsters are going to take one look at the average party and either run or hide.

This means that where there is combat it's either going to be the PCs tackling the bad guys in their lairs, attempts to ambush PCs, accidental meetings in the midst of chaos, or hunting hunters.  Or the occasional bar brawl.



> I think you have to keep in mind the ability to set a weapon against a charge. A pike is a wonderful weapon when the enemy is coming at you; it is less useful when the enemy is in your face.




Pikes and long rapiers, granted.  But not for halberds, scimitars, greatswords, etc.  Daggers hit last.



> But there is also nothing "evil" in paying attention to that desire to make a buck, and trying to see how it influences the end product, for better or worse.




And if, as in the case of 4e, it's for better, what's there to complain about?


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm trying to think of an edition of D&D that isn't seriously mechanically flawed.




What do other editions of D&D have to do with this? I love how 4e is compared to past editions when it's faults are brought up instead of with modern games that are currently available. It was like that or worse in the past isn't a valid reason it should be like that currently... is basically all I'll say on this matter as to avoid devolving into an edition war. 




Neonchameleon said:


> How is the 4e fight going to be _less_ interesting than the AD&D equivalent? Other than no games of win-roulette. A single solo fight in 4e is little different from one in previous edition.




Again see above... if all your replies boil down to... it was like that before so why complain... well then my answer is why spend the money for the new edition if it doesn't do better.





Neonchameleon said:


> If it's quick and unimportant, why is it interesting? (If it's sentry-ganking, I make it a skill challenge).




Because it can progress or change the narrative. That's great you want to use skill challenges in that way, I don't enjoy substituting them for what should, IMO, be a quick & simple combat. I didn't have to do it in previous editions... see what I did there.



Neonchameleon said:


> By the end of Heroic, there are two types of opponents. Skilled and powerful and darwin awards. 4e can cope with both. (What it doesn't do well is real grit - but my PCs were run ragged by a gang of thugs in the first couple of levels using no especially complex terrain).




Yeah I never said it couldn't... my gripe is with the way it copes with both... fighting skilled and powerful enemies takes as much time as fighting the darwin awards... In fact depending upon the roles you have in your group it could take longer to fight off all the darwin awards.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It's not just a question of cinematic range. You could ask "Are most game players out there with little scope of the hobby beyond the D&D brand served by a game based on miniatures and battlemats?"



And all I can say here is that they are better served by battlemats than they are by gygaxian prose and speciesist assumptions or a system massively weighed down by itself and with the rule that wizards overwhelm everyone.    (If I had the choice, I'd go for a split between GURPS and FATE as the generic systems everyone had heard of, but given the choice of editions of D&D, 4th beats the rest (although there's an argument for a simple retroclone)).


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> And all I can say here is that they are better served by battlemats than they are by gygaxian prose and speciesist assumptions or a system massively weighed down by itself and with the rule that wizards overwhelm everyone. (If I had the choice, I'd go for a split between GURPS and FATE as the generic systems everyone had heard of, but given the choice of editions of D&D, 4th beats the rest (although there's an argument for a simple retroclone)).




Why is it either/or?  Why do you keep using what D&D has been to defend against the faults people are finidng in what it is now?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> No.  I'm saying that certain types of detail matter.




And, I am saying that which types of detail matter is based upon situation and preference.  For some of us, for most combats, the grid doesn't provide enough bonus to outweight the negative (in terms of time cost).  For others, it does.



> Thanks for the idea.  Stolen for my 4e campaign.




Well, there's more where that came from!  

There is a "some cavern encounters" thread here somewhere, and a "faerie encounters" thread.  There is a thread with a ruined mausoleum that could probably be converted to 4e without too much difficulty -- the main villians are 



Spoiler



swarms of dread ghoul mice


.  I think some of the faerie encounter stuff in particular would be cool if reworked into the skill challenge format; feel free to post to that thread if you want to do so!



> And if, as in the case of 4e, it's for better, what's there to complain about?




Not everyone agrees that it is to the better.  I think that depends, very much, on what you want out of a frpg.  Clearly, though, there are a lot of people who do think it is to the better.  AFAICT, they are not complaining.

(But I would like to see what a 3pp could do with the system, if it was under the OGL, to make a version ammenable to faster play without a grid.)

As an aside, I will also agree that "slower combats" =/= "grind".  If the combats aren't boring to the players, then there is no grind, no matter how long they take.  It is only when the players feel that the combat is taking "too long" that "grind" sets in.

The problem with long combats, IMHO, is that they reduce the number of encounters per session, so that each encounter must bear more of the weight of the session's success.  Longer encounters means each encounter is load-bearing to a greater degree, and a single "meh" encounter can seem as though it sucks to a disproportionate degree.

I encountered a good example of this when running the WLD under 3.x.  In the early part of WLD there are 



Spoiler



lots of fiendish darkmantles to worry about


.  This should have been cool (and is cool when run under a faster system!), but it took up too much of the game time under the 3.x ruleset for my group.  

It's fun to have the players groan "Oh no!" when they see the monsters coming because they are concerned about how the encounter will play out in-game (Will they win?  Will they lose?  Will precious resources be used up?); it is not so much fun when the players groan "Oh no!" because they are concerned about how much of the session the encounter will suck up, thus preventing them from getting more done.

In yesterday's game session, I had a ghoul rogue paralyze 2 out of 3 PCs, before being slain by the final PC.  It was fast, and tense.  I had a running encounter that took place in two complicated three-dimensional spaces.  I drew a small map to give the players a general idea of the layout because the space was very complicated.  A picture, or a photograph, would have worked just as well.  No grid was needed.

OTOH, for some battles (set pieces), minis are definitely useful (or fun).  PCs in a fortified position against hordes of goblins; multi-level cave complex with cultists, extra rooms, prisoners, and a sacrificial pit; a room filled with moving gears and complex parts.  Things like this are sometimes fun to use minis with.   I can run them without, but, for me, the use of minis in these cases adds something greater to the presentation than the time cost of using them.

I want to use minis only when I wish to use them, because an encounter is truly worth lingering over.  I don't want to use minis for every encounter, nor do I want to eliminate minor encounters because they take too much time to resolve.

YMMV.

Different strokes for different folks and all that.  


RC


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What do other editions of D&D have to do with this? I love how 4e is compared to past editions when it's faults are brought up instead of with modern games that are currently available. It was like that or worse in the past isn't a valid reason it should be like that currently... is basically all I'll say on this matter as to avoid devolving into an edition war.




D&D has always been behind the curve here.  Mostly because it was the first.



> Again see above... if all your replies boil down to... it was like that before so why complain... well then my answer is why spend the money for the new edition if it doesn't do better.




Because there are things it does do much better.



> Because it can progress or change the narrative.[/quoet]
> 
> Only under rare circumstances.  In which case it's effectively a set piece.
> 
> ...


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> D&D has always been behind the curve here. Mostly because it was the first.




How does this statement in any way address what I posted?



Neonchameleon said:


> Because there are things it does do much better.




Are they related to what we are discussing, and if so... what things does 4e do objectively better than previous editions?



> Because it can progress or change the narrative.[/quoet]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> As an aside, I will also agree that "slower combats" =/= "grind".  If the combats aren't boring to the players, then there is no grind, no matter how long they take.  It is only when the players feel that the combat is taking "too long" that "grind" sets in.




QFT. Grind produces the _perception_ that combat is taking a long time, and sometimes that perception is correct and sometimes it isn't. The point of grind is not that combat is lengthy but that it is _boring_. (As such, I suspect it's less common in groups new to 4E. Combat only gets boring once you've mastered the rules well enough to detect when the outcome is no longer in doubt.)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 11, 2010)

To keep it simple, I'll only address a little of this.



Raven Crowking said:


> I want to use minis only when I wish to use them, because an encounter is truly worth lingering over.  I don't want to use minis for every encounter, nor do I want to eliminate minor encounters because they take too much time to resolve.



This is where the single biggest logical disconnect is coming in, for me (besides the various revisionist histories, but I'm not about to tackle that Gordian knot).

Minor encounters can, in fact, *be* minor encounters in 4e.  Resolved quickly and easily, even with minis/tokens/etc.  Minions are the most obvious example without any rules tweak at all.  If you're willing to tweak slightly, you can get an effect very similar by nerfing defenses or hp values, and maybe removing a power from an NPC if it has something that requires tracking or will lower PC expected damage.  But all of that can be done on the fly, too.  You don't even need to add prep time.

Incidentally, IME it's not the grid that adds time to 4e combats, it's adjudicating all the temporary effects.  Weakened until next turn, slowed (save ends), etc.  That's the system "problem" that ate the most time, IME.  Mainly because I haven't played with anyone who did a good job of tracking all that, and we had a lot of pauses for "Did you save?"  "Save from what?"  "That was two turns ago!" etc.

If you want to keep a specific 4e combat fast and simple because it's not a set piece, cut down on or eliminate those effects.

Back to the grid, though... I have bumped into the kind of player who sees a grid and turns into an obsessive about movement, counting and recounting spaces and driving the whole table nuts by taking 4x as long as anyone else to take their turn, but that problem exists with the same people playing Clue, too.  That's a player problem, not a grid problem.

Also, I've seen people do 3D combats with a grid.  It requires some fudging when it comes to forced movement and such, and it requires some additional imagination to remember, for example, that the apparently flat plane your mini is on represents a slope at a 45 degree angle, or whatever, but I think it's rather extreme to suggest that the grid makes those kinds of combat impossible or even all that hard.  Overhangs are a bit of a PITA, but nothing we can't solve right quick with paper, tape, and maybe some properly bent paper clips (I admit, having a table that enjoys -and can rapidly accomplish- some construction is a help here.  For the right kind of nerd, though, this is very much a feature and not a bug.)

But again, I think a lot of this comes back to our very different histories with the game.  I want to know to a high degree of precision, what is going to happen when I use my abilities as a player.  And all the options I have even with a melee character (usually my preference) to affect the battlefield in 4e makes this even more important.  I have never seen a DM running combats in his head who could maintain an acceptable level of consistency, and I've never tried, myself, because for me, moving things around on a map of some kind is easier and more fun, allowing me to spend my mental energy elsewhere.

There's definitely a diff'rent strokes element to the situation, but I think overall you are exaggerating the limitations of the grid (or mislabeling other problems as grid problems) and underplaying its strengths.  Likewise, I tend to overemphasize the strengths, and I'd guess reality lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2010)

Canis said:


> Back to the grid, though... I have bumped into the kind of player who sees a grid and turns into an obsessive about movement, counting and recounting spaces and driving the whole table nuts by taking 4x as long as anyone else to take their turn, but that problem exists with the same people playing Clue, too.  That's a player problem, not a grid problem.




Depends on how often it happens. If it happens with a large percentage of players, it's a grid problem.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 11, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Of what value is complexity?
> 
> Of what value is simplicity?
> 
> ...




I'm not convinced that 4e is any harder to run mini-less than earlier editions, with the exception of large, complex set-piece encounters.  

Certainly 4e has a number of effects that relate to positioning, but so has every edition.  The DM has always had to know (or at least competently make up) the relative positions of all participants.  How else would you know how many orcs get caught in the web spell (or how many successful checks each will have to make to extricate himself and how much cover the web currently grants him)?  How else could you know whether or not the ranger with a movement rate of 12 can reach the enemy on the far side of the room this round?

If a 4e enemy is slowed, you know he can't possibly move adjacent to anyone more than 20 feet away (assuming he doesn't run or use a power).  If an enemy is pushed 20' (4 squares) away from the wizard, the wizard can push him adjacent to the fighter assuming the fighter is no more than 25' away (and not on the opposite side of the wizard).  If you shift, you're probably doing it either to gain flank or to step away so that you can move without provoking OAs, so it's no more difficult to adjudicate than taking a 5' step was.

Now, certainly, it's a little more free form than when you're using minis, but D&D has always been a bit more free form when played thus (IME and AFAIK).  I think you'd still need to break out the grid for serious battles (BBEG), but 4e does those quite well (IMO) so I don't see a problem.

I think that simply assuming that 4e never handles well without minis is a mistake.  I'll have to give it a try the next time I'm in the DM's seat.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> I'm not convinced that 4e is any harder to run mini-less than earlier editions, with the exception of large, complex set-piece encounters.
> 
> *Certainly 4e has a number of effects that relate to positioning, but so has every edition.* The DM has always had to know (or at least competently make up) the relative positions of all participants. How else would you know how many orcs get caught in the web spell (or how many successful checks each will have to make to extricate himself and how much cover the web currently grants him)? How else could you know whether or not the ranger with a movement rate of 12 can reach the enemy on the far side of the room this round?
> 
> ...




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...


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 11, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> I'm not convinced that 4e is any harder to run mini-less than earlier editions, with the exception of large, complex set-piece encounters.




But large, complex set-piece encounters are what 4E is built for. Hit point to damage ratios were drastically increased so that there would be time for set-piece encounters to play out. You have to hack on the system a fair bit (altering monster stats, primarily) to make it do quick skirmishes.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> ... which one is it?



I don't understand the question.

A battle map and tokens/minis make the movement powers easier to envision and adjudicate, but they're not necessary. 4e PC's can still zoom around the battlefield if you don't use a map. Their movement powers don't change, only the method of representation does ie-- positioning is handled using pure narration. 

Either way, Come and Get It makes the target close with user, just as Push powers still knock them away.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I don't understand the question.
> 
> A battle map and tokens/minis make the movement powers easier to envision and adjudicate, but they're not necessary. 4e PC's can still zoom around the battlefield if you don't use a map. Their movement powers don't change, only the method of representation does ie-- positioning is handled using pure narration.
> 
> Either way, Come and Get It makes the target close with user, just as Push powers still knock them away.




You really don't understand the question?  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?  I never said it was impossible, but there has been the claim that it is just as easy as previous editions... well one of these has to be false.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> You really don't understand the question?  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?  I never said it was impossible, but there has been the claim that it is just as easy as previous editions... well one of these has to be false.



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

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.

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.

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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 11, 2010)

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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Canis said:


> 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.



Canis said:


> 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.



Canis said:


> 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. 



Canis said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Mallus said:


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





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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I think that what Imaro is trying to say is:
> 
> IF one argues that
> 
> ...




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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Crothian said:


> 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 (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 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.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> 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.




I don't find it more difficult.  Some DMs have different skill sets then others so what one does with no increase of difficulty other might find more difficult.  It is also something that practice helps, so if one has not tried it before then they might see it as difficult but after they get used to it they might find it is just as easy as before.

edit: In response to the XP comment: Practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I don't find it more difficult. Some DMs have different skill sets then others so what one does with no increase of difficulty other might find more difficult. It is also something that practice helps, so if one has not tried it before then they might see it as difficult but after they get used to it they might find it is just as easy as before.




I find this suspect... it's like saying... "Because I can add two single digit numbers and remember the answer... it's no more difficult to remember 10 sets of two single digit numbers and remember all 10 answers. You may be able to do it, but objectively it is more difficult. As far as "practice"... again things get easier with practice for an individual but that doesn't make the objective difficulty of something lower through you practicing... you just learn to deal with that level of difficulty better.

A similar example...Hey a 5th grade math test isn't more difficult than a kindergarten math test because I can finish both within 15 minutes is a false statement... the 5th grade math test is objectively more difficult regardless of how fast you can finish both or how much time you spend practicing with the 5th grade math.

Edit: Why do people keep chiming in with "Mini-less can work in 4e"... that's irrelevant and not what's being discussed.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Edit: Why do people keep chiming in with "Mini-less can work in 4e"... that's irrelevant and not what's being discussed.




I think because for many of us, "Mini-less can work" is how we would describe ANY edition of D&D.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I think because for many of us, "Mini-less can work" is how we would describe ANY edition of D&D.




Whose arguing it's wrong... what we are discussing is the difficulty of going mini-less, not whether it is possible or not.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I find this suspect... it's like saying... "Because I can add two single digit numbers and remember the answer... it's no more difficult to remember 10 sets of two single digit numbers and remember all 10 answers. You may be able to do it, but objectively it is more difficult.




I don't think it is objective.  2+2 is just as easy as 4x4.  Multiplication might be taught later then addition and for kids just learning it it might be more difficult to grasp the concept of multiplication.  But for college kids taking calculus they are one is no more difficult then the other.  It depends on the person if it is actually more difficult.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Whose arguing it's wrong... what we are discussing is the difficulty of going mini-less, not whether it is possible or not.




Yes, but it's related in the same way.

The possibility of going mini-less means giving up a certain level of precision in any edition of the game.

Giving up that precision means forgoing a certain number of rules that utilize that precision.

In any edition ignoring stuff is easy. You just ignore it.

So I think the real question is if certain editions give more incentive NOT to ignore it. In which case, I believe 4e does.

But that doesn't mean it's harder to ignore those rules, if the incentive doesn't catch your interest.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Yes, but it's related in the same way.
> 
> The possibility of going mini-less means giving up a certain level of precision in any edition of the game.
> 
> ...




Ignoring stuff is easy... unless it's important. A Warlord built around numerous movement based powers is not as easy to adjudicate in a grid-less game as a 3e fighter would be...

So I think the question is how integrated is positioning in the system and what parts of the system does it effect when ignored on both the DM and Players side.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ignoring stuff is easy... unless it's important.  A Warlord built around numerous movement based powers is not as easy to adjudicate in a grid-less game as a 3e fighter would be.




The fact that the Warlord has powers built around movement is an incentive to track that precise movement.

Just like knowing if I get to a rock on my turn in order to get a  -10  bonus to my armor class in 2e is an incentive to track precise location.

In either case if I don't care about the effects caused by not knowing the precise details  I can ignore it just as easily.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Whose arguing it's wrong... what we are discussing is the difficulty of going mini-less, not whether it is possible or not.




I've been keeping out of this thread for the most part as I was having a hard time if we were still talking 4Ed or not - since it seems we are simply talking going mini-less, I can weigh in on that.

It's not hard going mini-less.  We very, very rarely use minis in our regular 3.5 game - in fact, I don't think we've used minis yet in this current campaign.  The scene flows without having to break and move a little plastic figure around and it's easy to know where you are in relation to enemy combatants using a mental image.

Characters in this campaign use trip attacks, sunder attempts, grappling and attack of ops happen just as if we had a full battle map setup.   It all flows pretty naturally, as mentioned, probably faster than if we were moving pieces of plastic all around.  I don't believe anyone in our group would consider it more difficult.

Now this style of play may not be for everyone - but it works for us and I feel we do it without losing out on any number of "special attacks" or combat options that are available to us through the 3.5 rule set.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> The fact that the Warlord has powers built around movement is an incentive to track that precise movement.
> 
> Just like knowing if I get to a rock on my turn in order to get a -10 bonus to my armor class in 2e is an incentive to track precise location.
> 
> In either case if I don't care about the effects caused by not knowing the precise details I can ignore it just as easily.




Wrong, one is the basis of player's character, which if ignored... can neuter the character (It is not an incentive, but something that intrinsically ties positioning into the game rules.)... the other is something the GM may or may not place in an encounter and thus if ignored does not directly affect the viability of a character... The are two different things.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Ignoring stuff is easy... unless it's important. A Warlord built around numerous movement based powers is not as easy to adjudicate in a grid-less game as a 3e fighter would be...
> 
> So I think the question is how integrated is positioning in the system and what parts of the system does it effect when ignored on both the DM and Players side.




If the DM and players have already decided that the precision of the grid is not necessary then the warlord using that power is handled the same way.  So it requires the same amount of "work" as any other movement.  If players can go from not engaged in melee to engaged in melee, a power that shifts can change that or allow a flank.  I don't see what the issue is.  It requires work, like in any other version of D&D.  Is it impossible? No.  Is it difficult?  Not really if the DM is willing to work it out.  For the inexperienced it takes some time to get used to but how did people do it in previous editions?  The exact same way.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> I've been keeping out of this thread for the most part as I was having a hard time if we were still talking 4Ed or not - since it seems we are simply talking going mini-less, I can weigh in on that.
> 
> It's not hard going mini-less. We very, very rarely use minis in our regular 3.5 game - in fact, I don't think we've used minis yet in this current campaign. The scene flows without having to break and move a little plastic figure around and it's easy to know where you are in relation to enemy combatants using a mental image.
> 
> ...




We are actually diuscussing whether there are higher or lower difficulty levels when using different editions to go grid-less/mini-less. Personally I believe so... I think 4e is harder than 3.5 and I believe 3.5 & 4e are both magnitudes harder than BECMI... but others are arguing there is no change in the diffculty of going miniless in different editions.

Note: In the actions you mentioned, the only one that really relies on detailed positioning is an AoO (and in most situations it's a binary yes or no answer dependent upon relationship between attacker and defender, not a maneuver that allows for an exact number of squares that should be shifted, pushed, slid, etc.).  Just thought that was an interesting point.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

D'karr said:


> If the DM and players have already decided that the precision of the grid is not necessary then the warlord using that power is handled the same way. So it requires the same amount of "work" as any other movement. If players can go from not engaged in melee to engaged in melee, a power that shifts can change that or allow a flank. I don't see what the issue is. It requires work, like in any other version of D&D. Is it impossible? No. Is it difficult? Not really if the DM is willing to work it out. For the inexperienced it takes some time to get used to but how did people do it in previous editions? The exact same way.




Yet there is way less emphasis and actions that depend on positioning in certain editions than there is in others thus in those with less (or less emphasis on it) it is less work and thus easier... in those where there are more actions like this (or more emphasis on it) it is more work (whether in complexity or in number of times it comes up) and thus more difficult.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 11, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Wrong, one is the basis of player's character, which if ignored... can neuter the character (It is not an incentive, but something that intrinsically ties positioning into the game rules.)... the other is something the GM may or may not place in an encounter and thus if ignored does not directly affect the viability of a character... The are two different things.




I don't agree.

In both cases ignoring the precise positioning means ignoring the level of tactical advantages/disadvantages that comes with knowing it.

The 4e Warlord has a lot of powers that do cool stuff if you know the details of the movement. I'm not arguing it doesn't. These types of things are reasons I WANT to track position with minis.

But if the in game effects that happen based on that precise knowledge doesn't interest you? Why would you be upset about ignoring them?

In 2e if I fire off a fireball- if I'm cool with the DM just saying "You hit 4 of them" I won't care if a mini could have told me I actually would have hit 5.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> In both cases ignoring the precise positioning means ignoring the level of tactical advantages/disadvantages that comes with knowing it.
> 
> ...




Bingo.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Hey for those claiming it's simple... here's a thread where someone is requesting help on running 4e mini-less and grid-less.... http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/278078-off-grid-d-d-4th-edition-without-minis-maps.html

So if it's as easy as previous editions, someone please go over there and let him know what to do and how to do it.  So far all he's gotten is "It's not worth it posts" and a vague post about trust and communication... Why doesn't someone step up and give him some examples or even blow by blow instructions on running 4e without mins or a grid.  I know I'd be interested in reading it... instead of the vagueness this topic always gets.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> In both cases ignoring the precise positioning means ignoring the level of tactical advantages/disadvantages that comes with knowing it.
> 
> ...




So you see no difference between the amount of work necessary to continuously (perhaps even every round) adjudicate and approximate a players stable of powers as well as tracking their effects on your monsters/NPC's and his allies... vs. tracking a single rock in an encounter?  I'm not even sure what to say... I guess we are at an impasse.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 12, 2010)

Imaro said:


> So you see no difference between the amount of work necessary to continuously (perhaps even every round) adjudicate and approximate a players stable of powers as well as tracking their effects on your monsters/NPC's and his allies... vs. tracking a single rock in an encounter?  I'm not even sure what to say... I guess we are at an impasse.



The trick is to separate the ability to keep track of accurate positions from the ability to adjudicate the effect of movement powers on the fly. Doing the former makes the latter unnecessary, but without doing the former, the DM could do the latter by simply saying, "Yes," "Yes, but..." "No," or "Roll a die."

For example: 

"I have a power that allows me to shift 3 squares. Can I flank the orc?" "Sure."

"I can move my speed before attacking. Can I reach the priest?" "Yes, but you will provoke an opportunity attack from the gnoll if you do."

"I can push the wizard 4 squares. Is that enough to send him into the fire pit?" "No, he's taking care to stay away from that." or "I'd say there's a 25% chance that he's close enough. You do it if you can roll 16+ on a d20."

This means that the effect of movement abilities will need to be filtered through DM judgement and become less precise and objective than they would if there was a battlemat. To be frank, this has shades of "Mother may I?" which I'm not too happy with, but I could live with it if I feel I can trust the DM to be fair (if not always accurate).


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2010)

FireLance said:


> The trick is to separate the ability to keep track of accurate positions from the ability to adjudicate the effect of movement powers on the fly. Doing the former makes the latter unnecessary, but without doing the former, the DM could do the latter by simply saying, "Yes," "Yes, but..." "No," or "Roll a die."
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...





Yes, and more to my point... the fact that these situations are bound to arise more often in 4e than in say 3.5, or BECMI... would indicate that it is more difficult to run a 4e game mini-less or grid-less than it would be in those systems since you are called upon to make more ad-hoc rulings and estimations as well as keep track of more things to make said calls fair and accurate.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 12, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes, and more to my point... the fact that these situations are bound to arise more often in 4e than in say 3.5, or BECMI... would indicate that it is more difficult to run a 4e game mini-less or grid-less than it would be in those systems since you are called upon to make more ad-hoc rulings and estimations as well as keep track of more things to make said calls fair and accurate.




Nope, most DMs I've played with, and players too, have had the ability to talk, drink, chew gum and walk at the same time.  

If they are doing it now with any version of the rules there is really no BIG LEAP, as you seem to think, between one and the other.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Nope, most DMs I've played with, and players too, have had the ability to talk, drink, chew gum and walk at the same time.
> 
> If they are doing it now with any version of the rules there is really no BIG LEAP, as you seem to think, between one and the other.




This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  Being able to do something does not speak to it's objective difficulty when compared to something else.  Many people can talk on a cellphone and drive... I don't think talking on a cellphone and driving takes a "gigantic leap" of ability to do... I don't however believe it is just as easy as driving alone, because these people can accomplish it.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 12, 2010)

Imaro said:


> We are actually diuscussing whether there are higher or lower difficulty levels when using different editions to go grid-less/mini-less. Personally I believe so... I think 4e is harder than 3.5 and I believe 3.5 & 4e are both magnitudes harder than BECMI... but others are arguing there is no change in the diffculty of going miniless in different editions.




It would appear that at least one group of us do not think going mini-less is difficult.  I know I don't think its difficult to go mini-less for 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition.  So for me to try to make a distinction between the difficulty of going mini-less by edition doesn't work out because I didn't think any of them were what I would call difficult.  So trying to make the case that one edition is harder than another doesn't go well when one doesn't think its difficult to go mini-less to begin with.

Now you think there was difficulty in going mini-less from the earlier editions to 3rd edition and then to 4th edition.  And that is certainly fair, one just has to realize not everyone feels the same.

It looks like this would be a better discussion between people who did feel there was difficulty going mini-less in 3rd edition and in 4th edition to have a better conversation about which edition was more difficult.  Right now it looks more like a group of people that didn't think going mini-less in various editions was difficult versus a group of people who did feel mini-less play was difficult.  I find it quite unlikely that either of these two groups would agree on the scaling of difficulty.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I ran an encounter where the PCs were travelling along a cave tunnel angled between 30-40 degrees downward, when a cave fisher attacked a PC from a tunnel that intersected the PC's tunnel at a 45-degree angle, adjoining from the ceiling.  The need to use a grid would make such a set-up almost impossible, removing a tense and exciting encounter from the game.
> 
> Similarly, I ran an encounter where a grick attacked PCs climbing a rope down a cliff, from a cave that was bored into the cliff, that could not be seen from above.  You could use a grid for that encounter, but the encounter was much better for not using a grid.



RC, when you say "no grid" do you mean no visual representation of any kind, or a visual representation but not one used as a classic gridded battlemat?

I ran an encounter a few weeks ago involving a pit with exits at multiple levels. As it was 4e, I was using a grid - multiple sheets for the different levels, and relying on memory for elevation of people climbing up and down the pit walls.

It worked OK, and I don't think the grid made it harder than it would otherwise have been, but it's certainly not the sort of encounter that a game reliant on 2D visual representation is going to default to.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2010)

FireLance said:


> The trick is to separate the ability to keep track of accurate positions from the ability to adjudicate the effect of movement powers on the fly. Doing the former makes the latter unnecessary, but without doing the former, the DM could do the latter by simply saying, "Yes," "Yes, but..." "No," or "Roll a die."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This means that the effect of movement abilities will need to be filtered through DM judgement and become less precise and objective than they would if there was a battlemat. To be frank, this has shades of "Mother may I?" which I'm not too happy with, but I could live with it if I feel I can trust the DM to be fair (if not always accurate).



Until our group started playing 4e I ran combat like this - occasionally drawing up a quick sketch of the situation on a piece of paper if necessary.

In Rolemaster, most of the tactical decision-making is not in positioning but in deciding how to allocate one's skills to various possible purposes each round. For _this_ stuff my group never fudged it - as a result, the declaration phase for a big combat at high levels could sometimes take as much as half-an-hour to resolve!

Now that we're playing 4e, we've taken to using a battlemap and tokens to make sure we have precision in the aspect of the game that 4e focuses on (namely, movement and positioning). I personally don't think I would be that keen to play 4e without this sort of preision, but I can understand that others might be quite happy to do so. Especially if playing out tactically engaging combats isn't, for them, such a big part of the RPG experience.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 12, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Why doesn't someone step up and give him some examples or even blow by blow instructions on running 4e without mins or a grid.  I know I'd be interested in reading it... instead of the vagueness this topic always gets.




It's the same as doing it with a grid but there is no grid.  Players still move and attack and roll dice.  The only difference is no one has to bother with moving minis and drawing out a map.  I don't see it as complicated or know what offering a blow by blow instructions will do.  there is not a lot of difference between the two.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 12, 2010)

Imaro said:


> and a vague post about trust and communication...




Communication is important because it's the backbone of the game.  If players and DMs can't communicate with each other then neither will understand what the other is doing.  Without proper communication DMs won't know what the PC is trying to accomplish and the player won't understand the scene or what the NPCs and monsters are doing.  

Trust is important because the DM acts as referee and makes the calls with how many bad guys are in a certain abilities area of effect, where terrain is in relationship to everyone, and other similar judgment calls.  If players don't trust a DM and argue with him it will hinder the game and might even cause it to end.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2010)

Crothian said:


> It's the same as doing it with a grid but there is no grid. Players still move and attack and roll dice. The only difference is no one has to bother with moving minis and drawing out a map. I don't see it as complicated or know what offering a blow by blow instructions will do. there is not a lot of difference between the two.




Here's an actual system for playing 4e grid-less/mini-less... Fluid 4e: Gridless Combat. (It does seem a little complex from my quick read through but seems viable as well)... This is what I'm talking about when I ask people to please explain or give examples of how they play grid-less or mini-less. "I just do"... "It's just easy"... and "Just take away the grid" are not exactly what I'm looking for as an answer.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 12, 2010)

Crothian said:


> Communication is important because it's the backbone of the game. If players and DMs can't communicate with each other then neither will understand what the other is doing. Without proper communication DMs won't know what the PC is trying to accomplish and the player won't understand the scene or what the NPCs and monsters are doing.
> 
> Trust is important because the DM acts as referee and makes the calls with how many bad guys are in a certain abilities area of effect, where terrain is in relationship to everyone, and other similar judgment calls. If players don't trust a DM and argue with him it will hinder the game and might even cause it to end.




 That's great in a "high level" discussion sort of way... but what is the system that should be implemented to account for grid-less combat in 4e is what I am more interested in hearing about.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2010)

Crothian said:


> It's the same as doing it with a grid but there is no grid.




When there's a grid, you move your mini and everyone knows where you are without having to speak.  Can't do that without the grid.  Ergo, it isn't really the same.

The saw of a picture being worth a thousand words isn't so glib in this context.  Managing the thousands words is not trivial, or nobody'd ever think the grid was called for.  If it isn't trivial, how does one do it?


----------



## Crothian (Jun 12, 2010)

We just do it.  I've never used minis except in rtare instances when the players really wanted them.  I find it harder to use minis since it is something I'm not used to.  Peopel say what they are doing.  People ask what the battle goround is like and were the bad guys are.  We don't do anything unique and there is no secret of success that I'm holding back.  I guess maybe if people say what issues they have going gridless that might help.  If I just gave an example of our gridless combat it would just be like any other game that doesn't use minis.  We don't do it differently just becasue it is D&D.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> When there's a grid, you move your mini and everyone knows where you are without having to speak.  Can't do that without the grid.




Even with a grid I need to speak to let the DM know what my actions are.  

Without a grid when I say my character is moving to the critter that just cast a spell to attack him everyone in my group knows where my character is, even without a grid or mini representing the combat.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 12, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Here's an actual system for playing 4e grid-less/mini-less... Fluid 4e: Gridless Combat. (It does seem a little complex.




Yes, it looks complex.  That makes me think that there is not a lot of trust between the DM and players because they need to have so many rules and everything spelled out for everyone.  Like I don't think we need a rule that specifically spells out characters will avoid AoO when possible.  It takes a RBDM to do otherwise.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 12, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I don't see it as complicated or know what offering a blow by blow instructions will do.  there is not a lot of difference between the two.




While I'm of the mindset that people can play 4e anyway they want, grid or no grid, I will disagree with this statement.

If you decide to play 4e without a grid, you are giving up some of the precision of the game, and some powers are dependent on that precision.

As an example, let's say I have a power that does a slide 3 vs another power that does a slide 4. Without a grid, the effectiveness of the slide power is often up to DM interpretation as there is some vagueness to position (are you 3 squares away from the burning lava or 4 squares?). 

So if a player says, I use my power to slide that guy 3 squares and knock him into the lava...the DMs interpretation of the position is what determines whether 3 was good enough or just not quite.

Further depending on the DMs style that slide 4 power may not be useful at all, or may be extremely useful because its such a bigger slide than the other powers in the game that the DM often lets it get away with much more.

In a grid, the effectiveness of 3 slide vs 4 slide is based on the board, either he's 3 squares to the lava or 4. Its more impartial to the DMs style.



HOWEVER (here's the big butt)...there is nothing innately wrong with that. Gridless combat can be quicker to setup, might even force the players to use imagination more, and everyone in the game may be fine with the DM's interpretation to keep the game going. Its a perfectly valid way to play.

Valid...but Different.

Grid vs Gridless is a different way to play. And the more a gameset relies of abilities that use precision (and 4e has quite a lot of these) the more different the two become.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 12, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> If you decide to play 4e without a grid, you are giving up some of the precision of the game, and some powers are dependent on that precision.




Yes, lack of precision is what happens.  Others talked about that so I didn't feel the need to repeat their points.



> So if a player says, I use my power to slide that guy 3 squares and knock him into the lava...the DMs interpretation of the position is what determines whether 3 was good enough or just not quite.




This is why I say trust is importance and communication are important.  A DM can communicate how far the bad guys are from lava (or whatever) and the players can inquire on that if the DM doesn't mention it.  

DM style does matter.  I said early on that gridless is not for all DMs and every group.


----------



## Wik (Jun 12, 2010)

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.


----------



## Votan (Jun 12, 2010)

FireLance said:


> This means that the effect of movement abilities will need to be filtered through DM judgement and become less precise and objective than they would if there was a battlemat. To be frank, this has shades of "Mother may I?" which I'm not too happy with, but I could live with it if I feel I can trust the DM to be fair (if not always accurate).




It can also lead to long turns if a player wants to assess all of the actions that they may or may not be able to take.  This is non-optimal and, in this sense, minatures might make things go a lot faster as the tactically oriented folks don't have to go down a shopping list.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 13, 2010)

IMO it's always been the case that grid-less games grant the DM a good deal more power regarding scenarios where positioning is significant.  If a 2e or 3e wizard tosses a fireball or lightning bolt in a grid-less game, it is largely DM's fiat that determines how many orcs are caught in the blast.  Same with 4e.  IME, that's part and parcel for how a grid-less D&D game works.

As for an example of grid-less play, it's been ages since I've done it but I think I can give a simple example.


DM: You open the door to see three orcs with large axes gathered around a table at the far northern end of the room.  There's a pie on the table.  It's a 30 x 30' stone room with a roaring fire pit against the eastern wall.  The orcs snarl and move to defend their pie.  Roll for initiative.

Fighter: I charge the orcs, trying to get as many as I can within sword's reach.

DM: The orc narrowly dodges your swing.   You're adjacent to two of the orcs.  The one on your right is marked.  

Ranger:  I stand in the doorway to block their escape.  I focus my attention on my target and arc a pair of  arrows over the fighter at the orc he just attacked.  Twin Strike and Quarry.

DM:  You nail him soundly in the shoulder.  Blood begins to soak his jerkin instantly.  The orc looks pissed (and he's bloodied)!

Wizard:  I move over to the nearest corner of the eastern wall and ready an action to attack the first enemy that moves adjacent to me with Thunderwave.

DM:  Okay.  The orc on the fighter's right side is attacking him.  The orc on his left moves carefully away (shifts) and charges the ranger.  The remaining orc carefully makes his way around the table and then charges the wizard.

Wizard:  That sets off my readied action.  I want to Thunderwave him into the fire pit.

DM:  Go for it...


That encounter is a bit sparse on detail, and I left out the rolls as they aren't especially relevant, but hopefully you get the idea.  I don't see why you would need to do grid-less combat in 4e any differently than any other edition of D&D.  I don't contest that you _can_ do it differently if you prefer (such as in Imaro's link), but I really don't see why you would _need_ to.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 13, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> IMO it's always been the case that grid-less games grant the DM a good deal more power regarding scenarios where positioning is significant.  If a 2e or 3e wizard tosses a fireball or lightning bolt in a grid-less game, it is largely DM's fiat that determines how many orcs are caught in the blast.  Same with 4e.  IME, that's part and parcel for how a grid-less D&D game works.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't see why you would need to do grid-less combat in 4e any differently than any other edition of D&D.  I don't contest that you _can_ do it differently if you prefer (such as in Imaro's link), but I really don't see why you would _need_ to.




Very good example and exactly my point, and the point that I have seen Crothian make.  If you trust your DM and the DM trusts the players you don't need all this added complexity.  And you can do "gridless" combat with the same simplicity as it was done in previous editions.  You can do it differently and add all these "positioning" rules, you don't need to.  In addition, do you do that with other systems that you play gridless?  

If you didn't mind that 3 instead of 4 orcs were under the blast radius of a fireball in 1e, 2e, or 3e, then why worry if a push power catches 3 instead of 4 orcs?  If you didn't mind that your character moved 6 inches in 1e and didn't reach the furthest orc but got in the face of the 2 closest, why should it matter if your character moved 6 squares in 4e and didn't reach the furthest orc but got in the face of the 2 closest?  If you didn't mind that in this 50x50 room the lighting bolt that you cast in 1e only hit the same target twice, why does it matter if in 4e the thunderwave pushed the furthest character into the fire pit but did not push the 2 nearest ones?

If you trusted your DM to handle combat without minis and battlemats in 1e, then why the hang up now?

You can make gridless combat as complicated as you want, but if you're going to do that and add all these positioning rules wouldn't it make more sense to just use a grid?  Then again you might want to use gridless for expediency, and in that case you can run it exactly the same as you had done before.  

Gridless/battlematless combat has always had a large degree of DM ad-hoc rulings attached to it no matter the edition, unless you wanted to go and create all these positioning rules like those seen in the link above.

There is no added difficulty, if I was able to determine that 3 instead of 5 orcs were under the blast of a fireball in 1e, I can just as easily determine if 3 instead of 5 orcs are under the blast radius of a 4e dragonborn's breath.  If don't see the added difficulty in one over the other.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 13, 2010)

pemerton said:


> RC, when you say "no grid" do you mean no visual representation of any kind, or a visual representation but not one used as a classic gridded battlemat?




Neither of those encounters required any sort of visual representation, apart from textual/spoken ones.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 13, 2010)

Wik said:


> 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.




My experience differs from yours.

A grid can be used to empower players.  It is not the only way to do so, however, and a gridless system can be just as empowering as a grid system.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm going to go with Imaro on this one, just for the novelty of it.  

Going gridless in 4e, and 3e as well IMO, is going to put a lot of pressure on the DM to track elements.  In 3e it might be a bit easier since encounters were typically fairly small.  4e defaults to much larger encounters, which makes it that much more difficult to go gridless and still retain detail.

Now, if the DM is just ignoring the fiddly bits, fine, but, that doesn't make it easy to do 4e gridless.  That means that a particular homebrew which ejects the fiddly bits is easier.

Kind of like ignoring space requirements for weapons to come up with either 6 or 8 opponents surrounding the human fighter (I'd still like to see the weapon breakdown of those numbers considering a two handed sword requires 10 feet of space IIRC - it's been a LONG time and OSRIC doesn't include this rule apparently.)  Or ignoring the weapon vs armor table.

Sure, it speeds things up, of course it does.  It also has a pretty serious knock on effect of making longswords absolutely king - far and away better than any other weapon in the game, and also tends to help out monsters since the PC's will generally be better armored than the bad guys.

As far as empowerment goes, I'd say that the grid has to empower the players rather than the DM.  Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM.  If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it.  Otherwise you can't.  Having the grid forces the DM to specifically place all the actors, removing the requirement for all player movement and space related decisions being filtered by the DM.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jun 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> What do other editions of D&D have to do with this? I love how 4e is compared to past editions when it's faults are brought up instead of with modern games that are currently available.




  Because the unconscious assumption of most EN World debates is that everyone must be either an Old School fan, a 3E/Pathfinder loyalist, or a 4E fan, with no overlap between the three and no one who does not fall into those categories?


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Going gridless in 4e, and 3e as well IMO, is going to put a lot of pressure on the DM to track elements.  In 3e it might be a bit easier since encounters were typically fairly small.




I can only speak to 3e, but it isn't just the DM tracking elements.  The players pitch in and once the combat is underway it isn't like the battle field is redrawn from scratch every round, so the battle tends to unfold in a sequential way which makes it easy for everyone to keep up with where everyone is at.  It all sort of just flows.  Again, I don't play 4e, so I can't speak to it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM.  If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it.  Otherwise you can't.  Having the grid forces the DM to specifically place all the actors, removing the requirement for all player movement and space related decisions being filtered by the DM.




The scene unfolds sequentially once the combat is underway though.  So it isn't solely the DM's responsibility to place everyone.  Once it is underway the players know if their character is in position to do what they want to do.  DM controlled critters aren't randomly moving about during the combat, so the way the scene was described initially is kept up with by the DM and players through narrative.

This might not work for everyone - it is quite possible this style of gridless play may not work for you or your players and I respect that.  But for those of us that play this gridless, it really isn't difficult to do so.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM.  If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it.  Otherwise you can't.  Having the grid forces the DM to specifically place all the actors, removing the requirement for all player movement and space related decisions being filtered by the DM.




I tend to agree but how is that any different in ANY version of D&D?  And if we are going to talk about number of combatants, have you seen the number of creatures that can appear in a 1e combat encounter?  If I recall correctly even one of the examples on the PHB uses an encounter with a party of 4-5 characters against 20 orcs + an NPC illusionist.  How did DMs handle that without a grid?

I agree if a heavily houseruled or devoid of fiddly bits game was used in 1e to handle gridless combat then why are we saying that the same can't be done in 4e save with great difficulty.  If the DM simply kept a rough drawing of the combat behind the screen for 1e, why can't that be done in 4e?  If he relied entirely on memory and description in 1e, why can't that be done in 4e?

In 1e a thief had to be "positioned" in the right location to backstab.  In a gridless game that ability was ENTIRELY in the hands of the DM.  Much like the use of the 3e Ranger's Favored Enemy was entirely in the hands of the DM.  If a DM didn't give that "control" in some ways to the player those abilities were useless.  So if a group could trust their DM to handle those things in 1e and 3e then why in the world would they not do the same in 4e?

Are we saying that the level of difficulty for a DM in handling a party of 5 against 20 orcs and an illusionist in 1e is going to be much elevated if he is handling a party of 5 against 5-8 orcs in 4e.  Because I saw combats in 1e that had 20 orcs, but I've never seen 4e go much higher than about 8-10.  With the inclusion of minions you can go to that level of "slaughter" without adding much complication.  So if a 4e DM wanted to have 20 orcs against a party of 5 he can.

I believe this is arguing about the "perceived" difficulty, not the actual at the table dynamic.

Gridless combat is not something everyone could do in 1e either.  As a matter of fact I believe both the PHB and the DMG usually recommend the use of miniatures.

This is probably just a matter of taste.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> As far as empowerment goes, I'd say that the grid has to empower the players rather than the DM.  Without a grid, all placement is entirely in the hands of the DM.  If he wants you to do something related to location, or he thinks it's ok, then you can do it.  Otherwise you can't.





Raven Crowking said:


> A grid can be used to empower players.  It is not the only way to do so, however, and a gridless system can be just as empowering as a grid system.



On this one, I think I agree with RC rather than Hussar.

Gridless doesn't have to empower the GM over the players. Players just as much as the GM can be a bit flexible and creative about where they are in the non-visually-represented gamespace. And as others have said, for number of foes in a fireball etc it's often a die roll rather than GM stipulation.

I think gridless may tend to empower the GM when players (as in 4e) have a lot of fiddly movement-related powers that are a big part of what their PCs can do. But that is pretty specific to a particular ruleset.

If I've been following RC correctly, he's making the same point I made upthread in relation to Rolemaster - in some RPGs, the tactical decision-making (and hence the player empowerment) is located in aspects of the game _other than_ positioning. For RM, this is in allocation of combat bonuses on a round-by-round basis to defence, initiative, crit-shifting, multiple attacks etc. I gather than RC's homebrew uses comparable elements - players have to choose how their PC attacks, defends etc. At least in my experience, in this sort of game the grid gets replaced by running sheets on which players record their declared actions for the round - a canonical record of this becomes more important to play than a canonical visual representation of the combatants' locations.

A footnote: in a game where most combatants have movement rates comparable to typical weapon and spell ranges, positioning is likely to become less important. At least, this is my experience from RM: unlike D&D, it has 10 second rounds plus stat bonuses to speed and double movement rate at no penalty, leading to 100'+ per round movement rates. Whereas the most common spell range is 50'. And there are no attacks of opportunity. So typically you're either in melee or out of it, and if you're in and want to get out then you can, unless your opponent presses the attack after you.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

pemerton said:


> On this one, I think I agree with RC rather than Hussar.




I'll also agree with someone, I don't know who, but for the sake of having some agreement I'll agree...  

The only premise I don't agree with is that going gridless in 4e is somehow much more difficult.  If the group had done battlematless combat in 1e, 2e or 3e, then they already have the basics down.  Doing the same in 4e is no leap at all.



> A footnote: in a game where most combatants have movement rates comparable to typical weapon and spell ranges, positioning is likely to become less important. At least, this is my experience from RM




If this is the case then positioning in 4e should also not be much of an issue for gridless combat.  Most creature and PC movement falls way within the range of most spells and ranged attacks.  Except for the very "long" ranges of 20 squares most combatants are either in melee range or a charge away from being in melee range.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

pemerton said:


> in some RPGs, the tactical decision-making (and hence the player empowerment) is located in aspects of the game _other than_ positioning. For RM, this is in allocation of combat bonuses on a round-by-round basis to defence, initiative, crit-shifting, multiple attacks etc. I gather than RC's homebrew uses comparable elements - players have to choose how their PC attacks, defends etc.




Very much so, yes.



> At least in my experience, in this sort of game the grid gets replaced by running sheets on which players record their declared actions for the round




I cannot speak for RM, but I do not find this necessary for RCFG.  We are more than capable of playing the game on a verbal basis.

The only case where I might make a note is when a large group of opponents follows tactics that change their numbers significantly.  In this case, I will make a quick reference note for myself.  Otherwise, most of the tactics in RCFG play out as declared, with the numbers reverting after the action.  I use dice to keep track of variable initiative counts, so that a 20-sider might be turned to "14" to remind me when certain monsters act.  It then gets turned to "4" to remind me when their next action is.  (However, even then it is my experience that the players keep track of these things pretty well themselves.)  Most of the things you need to track are numbers on the character sheet.

The method of attack can affect a PC's attack roll modifier, damage modifier, armour class, and/or critical threat range.  Different weapon skills allow for different types of modifiers.  That, along with stats like weapon speed, damage, and normal critical threat range, makes it possible for characters to be created with very different fighting styles, based upon their equipment of choice.  Fighters can also optimize for special combat manoeuvers, and can gain special bonuses (somewhat akin to limited feats).

It is actually possible to set up a duel, where each of the duellist spends his or her Actions on defending, or on trying to get a special opening, with all of the actual attacks occuring as Reactions.  And, apart from jotting down what your new AC is, or what damage you've taken, there is no real bookkeeping needed.

And, while RCFG has attacks of opportunity, they are not grid-based attacks of opportunity.  Rather, it is assumed that combatants will generally avoid giving their foes those opportunities unless some triggering event occurs.  For example, a natural "1" on an attack roll provokes an AoO for the creature attacked.  This is true even if a missile weapon is used -- you linger to long over your fouled sling/uncooperative arrow/whatever -- but the creature you attacked must have a ranged attack to make good on it.

There are a lot of ways to set up a tactically rich game without minis, and without needing to keep copious notes each round.  RCFG's way is just one of them.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> The only premise I don't agree with is that going gridless in 4e is somehow much more difficult.  If the group had done battlematless combat in 1e, 2e or 3e, then they already have the basics down.  Doing the same in 4e is no leap at all.




Then Scott Rouse didn't know what he's talking about when he wrote otherwise.  That's cool, actually.  Things like that happen.

Upthread there was a challenge to post in one or more of the "How do I play 4e miniless?" threads.  I hope that you have jumped in there and explained how to do so.  I am sure that there are posters who will appreciate the advice.



RC


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Then Scott Rouse didn't know what he's talking about when he wrote otherwise.  That's cool, actually.  Things like that happen.
> 
> Upthread there was a challenge to post in one or more of the "How do I play 4e miniless?" threads.  I hope that you have jumped in there and explained how to do so.  I am sure that there are posters who will appreciate the advice.
> 
> ...




I don't know if the snarkiness was intended so I'll just reply this way.  I had mentioned before that gridless combat in ANY edition is not something that can be done by everyone or is preferred by all.  Even the rulebooks in previous editions recommend the use of miniatures.  Maybe Scott and his group fell into that category and saw it as more expedient to use miniatures or his group preferred to use minis anyway, so not using them was not an easy option for them.  So he's not WRONG, it just didn't work out for them or they didn't see a way to do so.  My group and some others have obviously not had that problem.

What I've seen here are a lot of assumptions and assertions that gridless combat in 4e MUST be more difficult because of positioning.  I disagree.  If the group has never done gridless, going gridless in ANY edition is not an easy startup proposition, but once it is started it becomes easier.  If the group has already been doing gridless with ANY edition, then the "leap" to 4e is mostly elementary.

And yes, I posted in the other thread, not because it was a challenge from those that disagree with the premise, which was the case on this thread, but because the OP in the other thread seemed sincere in his search for a way to do it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> What I've seen here are a lot of assumptions and assertions that gridless combat in 4e MUST be more difficult because of positioning.





What I've seen are assertations that, if positioning is important, and if it is difficult to pinpoint positioning without a grid, the degree to which positioning is important is going to have a direct affect on how difficult it is to play without a grid.

If positioning is important:

*  The greater the number of game effects that exist that rely on positioning, the more important positioning will be.  

*  The more precisely game effects rely on positioning, the more important positioning will be.

*  Some have claimined that positioning is necessary for tactical play; this has been refuted (to what degree of success it has been refuted, I leave up to you).

If it is difficult to pinpoint positioning without a grid:

*  The more pieces in play, the more difficult it is to know where those pieces are.  

*  The more precisely you need to know the location of pieces, the more difficult it is to know where those pieces are.

The general idea is that it is harder to play without using a grid when a game uses a great number of effects that rely on precise positioning, while using a large number of pieces whose precise position must be known to adjudicate those effects, than it is to do so with a system that does not rely on precise postioning, or that rarely does so.

And "harder" is like "taller" -- it doesn't tell you how difficult (or big) something is, except in comparison to something else.  You might not think that 3 feet is tall, but 3 feet is tall in a room full of 2-foot-tall people.

Likewise, the only people I am aware of who are making the specific claim that 4e is hard to play without the grid are Scott Rouse (whose statement seems to indicate that this was by design, and who only said it would be hard for him), and other people in linked threads who apparently like 4e, but are having difficulty in using the game without a grid.

Everyone else, AFAICT, is talking about _*relative difficulty*_.

And, if you disagree that that it is harder to play without using a grid when a game uses a great number of effects that rely on precise positioning, while using a large number of pieces whose precise position must be known to adjudicate those effects, than it is to do so with a system that does not rely on precise postioning, or that rarely does so, then I honestly don't think that anyone or anything is likely to change your opinion.



RC


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> What I've seen are assertations that, if positioning is important, and if it is difficult to pinpoint positioning without a grid, the *degree to which positioning is important* is going to have a direct affect on how difficult it is to play without a grid.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And, if you disagree that that it is harder to play without using a grid when a game uses a great number of effects that rely on precise positioning, while using a large number of pieces whose *precise position must be known* to adjudicate those effects, than it is to do so with a system that does not rely on precise postioning, or that rarely does so, then I honestly don't think that anyone or anything is likely to change your opinion.




So what you are saying is that if PRECISE positioning is important then the game is much harder, and what several people on this thread have said is the if you have decided to go gridless you are foregoing precise positioning.  PRECISION and GRIDLESS are mutually exclusive to a certain point.

IF I decide that I'm going to go gridless in 1e, then the precision of where the rogue is to do his backstab is entirely in the hands of the DM or it can be handled by "social contract."  You have given away the need for precise positioning for the convenience or novelty of going gridless.

IF I decide that I'm going to go gridless in 4e, then the precision of when the rogue has combat advantage is entirely in the hands of the DM or it can be handled by "social contract."  Once again you have decided that the need for precision is not important to your game.

By making the decision to go gridless you are by default consciously sacrificing your NEED for exact precision.  However, you don't have to lose "perceived" precision.  I can still push, pull, slide, etc. in a gridless environment.  It just requires that I not be a slave to precision.  Somebody upthread mentioned not to get "nitpicky about precision" and I'm paraphrasing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> So what you are saying is that if PRECISE positioning is important then the game is much harder, and what several people on this thread have said is the if you have decided to go gridless you are foregoing precise positioning.  PRECISION and GRIDLESS are mutually exclusive to a certain point.




"Precision of Position" and "Gridless", sure.  "Precision" and "Precision of Position" are not the same thing, though.  And, also, "at some point", not at all points.

In a game system where position can be handled "generally" without any loss of detail, for instance Codex Martialis, one can play without a grid with no loss of precision.  Moreover, adding a grid is of no special value AFAICT.

Likewise, in 1e, a thief's backstab requires only "general" knowledge of where figures are located.  In 1e, were you to use a grid, the grid could be 10-foot squares, or even 20-foot squares, with no effective loss of information or complexity 90 times out of 100.

So, yes, handwaving position in 4e is akin to handwaving position in 1e, but the amount of information that is being handwaved -- and the number of PC decisions that are based upon understanding the imagined space to a relatively precise degree -- is much higher.

Not outside the realm of human ability, by any means, but much higher....and consequently harder.

So:

(1)  In some cases, foregoing the grid does not mean losing any precision in the game system.

(2)  In other cases, foregoing the grid means losing minimal precision in the game system.

However,

(3)  In the case of 4e, foregoing the grid means losing a large amount of precision in the game system, and large amounts of precision upon which tactical play/important PC decisions are predicated.

It should be obvious that foregoing the grid in the case of (1) or (2) is easier than in the case of (3).

IOW, IF (and only if) precise positioning is no more important in 4e than in previous editions, THEN it will be as easy to handwave precise positioning when going gridless.  IF (and only if) precise positioning is more important in 4e than in previous editions, THEN it will be harder to handwave precise positioning when going gridless.

All one has to determine, IMHO, is which of those IFs is, in fact, the case.



RC


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "Precision of Position" and "Gridless", sure.  "Precision" and "Precision of Position" are not the same thing, though.  And, also, "at some point", not at all points.
> 
> In a game system where position can be handled "generally" without any loss of detail, for instance Codex Martialis, one can play without a grid with no loss of precision.  Moreover, adding a grid is of no special value AFAICT.
> 
> ...




I agree that the complexity is higher, but I don't think it's much higher with regards to running without a grid.

In 1e, you typically had to know who was adjacent to whom, for the simple reason that you have to be in melee range to make a melee attack.  3e/4e have the added complication of flanking, but that's fairly easy to work out.  If the fighter is adjacent to the orc, the rogue asks "Can I flank with the fighter?"  The DM will probably respond "yes you can", "no you're too far away", or "yes but you'll take an OA."  Not any more difficult, IMO, than determining whether the rogue could properly position himself for a backstab in 1e.

Opportunity attacks?  Fairly simple to figure out considering that you should already know who's adjacent to whom (as above).

Burst and blasts?  They had those and other area effects in 1e.  IMO, they're actually a bit easier to resolve considering you don't have volume based fireballs and bouncing lightning bolts to contend with.

Movement?  At the end of any movement you should be able to determine a relative position based on other points.  'Next to the fireplace' or '10' from the fighter.'  If you ever had an archer running around in a 1e game, you've almost certainly done this at some point.  Unless the only reason you could run grid-less in earlier editions was because your combats were static, I can't see how this is a problem.  More movement should not be a deal breaker for any DM experienced with dealing with movement.

I won't deny that running combat without a grid (in any edition) is a skill.  However, I do think that if you could do so competently in 1e, then doing so in 4e ought to be a negligible complication.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> <snip>
> So, yes, handwaving position in 4e is akin to handwaving position in 1e, but the amount of information that is being handwaved -- and the number of PC decisions that are based upon understanding the imagined space to a relatively precise degree -- is much higher.
> 
> Not outside the realm of human ability, by any means, but much higher....and consequently harder.




So we agree that handwaving is handwaving.  What you are "arguing" is about degrees of handwaving.  But if I've already decided to handwave and my group has decided to handwave how is the difficulty any greater?  If I handwave one decision or 2,000 they are each handwaved in a discreet slice of time.  I'm adjudicating each players turn in turn.  I'm not processing them all at the same time.  So I'm not processing more information for the purpose of handwaving.

I cannot type 80-100 words a minute.  There are people that obviously can.  I can hardly type and talk to someone at the same time.  There are people that clearly can and do it very proficiently.  So it is clearly harder and more difficult for me.

If someone can type 100 words a minute and talk at the same time, but I can't is that a fault of the keyboard, is that a fault of my vocal chords?  If I get an ergonomic keyboard will it make it better?  In my case obviously not.

I have no problem going gridless in 4e.  Many people in this thread have confirmed that they don't have a problem either.  We collectively don't find it any "harder" to do so because we understand that we sacrifice precision for convenience. According to your previous example of "degree" we don't find the 3' people taller.  Maybe we are the 3' people.  Will it be harder for some?  Obviously or we wouldn't be having this conversation, but since harder in this case is entirely subjective, they are not wrong.

BTW, I run 4e in both modes, depending on how I'd like the combat to proceed.  I've even posted a combat example in the other thread.  The tricks that I learned by running 1e gridless still apply.  I honestly don't make up additional rules to insert precision to cover gridless combat.  If I want precision I use the grid.  But like it has been said many times before if you go gridless be prepared to lose precision, why does that have to be harder?

I'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.  Thanks.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 14, 2010)

Well this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked and is now grid vs. no grid instead of "Why must I kludge combat?"   The answer is if you want a quicker combat, and you want to play 4E, you are going to have to kludge it.  4E is definitely not designed for quick combat, even though it was originally supposed to be quicker and simpler than 3.5.  If you want quick combat without kludges, you are probably going to have to settle for playing another system such as low level 3.5/Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy, Feng Shei, etc.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Well this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked and is now grid vs. no grid instead of "Why must I kludge combat?"




Get off our gridless kludgeless LAWN!!!   LOL


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> I agree that the complexity is higher, but I don't think it's much higher with regards to running without a grid.




Fair enough.  (Shrug)  I fail to meet the bar of your skepticism.



D'karr said:


> So we agree that handwaving is handwaving.




True by definition.



> What you are "arguing" is about degrees of handwaving.  But if I've already decided to handwave and my group has decided to handwave how is the difficulty any greater?  If I handwave one decision or 2,000 they are each handwaved in a discreet slice of time.




Please note that, in terms of handwaving, there are two factors I consider important:

(1)  The degree to which information must be generated, and

(2)  The degree to which PC decisions are based on comprehending that information.

EXAMPLE:  In the case where "Bob is to the east" is good enough, and in the case were determining that "Bob is 21 feet to the east, at a 21 degree angle southward of you, slightly crouched, with his left foot forward of his right", is all required information, the GM must invent and track more information in the second case than in the first.

In the same case, if the PCs can act regardless of where Bob is, and Bob's position only affects the GM when determining what Bob will do, then there is no effort of communication.  In the second case, if all of that information affects PC decisions, and the PCs should reasonably be aware of it, the GM has an obligation to communicate it.

One might, of course, argue that each bit of handwaving is nearly negligable in terms of effort, so that saying 2,000 bits of handwaving are not much harder than 1 bit.  But even so, 2,000 > 1, and 2,000A > 1A, so long as A represents a positive number.

You also ignore tracking those handwaves; as described earlier, if a handwave has pervasive effects, it must be tracked in some way.  Not unlike pemerton keeping a record of RoleMaster actions, as descibed upthread.  The grid is an artifact (in 4e, at least, and in many other systems as well) of keeping track not only of precise positioning, but also pervasive effects of precise positioning.

Re: Typing:  I can draw reasonably well.  As a result, I do not find it difficult to draw a simple figure reasonably well.  This does not prevent me from understanding that, in general, it is harder to draw reasonably well than it is to draw a stick figure.  IOW, my personal talents do not enter into what is the general case.  It would be irrational of me to say, for example, "I can draw reasonably well, and therefore it is reasonably easy to draw a simple figure to the degree I can do so fairly easily."



> BTW, I run 4e in both modes, depending on how I'd like the combat to proceed. I've even posted a combat example in the other thread.




No one I know of has ever claimed it to be impossible.



> I'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. Thanks.




Always a reasonable decision.  

We cannot always meet the bar of each others' skepticism, and it would be foolish to throw away the benefit of your own experience unless you see a clear reason to believe that it may be misleading you!

Cheers!


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Well this thread has kind of gotten sidetracked and is now grid vs. no grid instead of "Why must I kludge combat?"   The answer is if you want a quicker combat, and you want to play 4E, you are going to have to kludge it.  4E is definitely not designed for quick combat, even though it was originally supposed to be quicker and simpler than 3.5.  If you want quick combat without kludges, you are probably going to have to settle for playing another system such as low level 3.5/Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy, Feng Shei, etc.




(Shrug)

The properties of a combat system determine, to a large degree, what it does well, and what it does poorly.  The balance is made up of the particular strengths and weaknesses of the GM and group.  AFAICT, the properties of the combat system are easier to discuss in this context, and most likely to provide either insight or solutions.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Re: Typing:  I can draw reasonably well.  As a result, I do not find it difficult to draw a simple figure reasonably well.  This does not prevent me from understanding that, in general, it is harder to draw reasonably well than it is to draw a stick figure.  IOW, my personal talents do not enter into what is the general case.  It would be irrational of me to say, for example, "I can draw reasonably well, and therefore it is reasonably easy to draw a simple figure to the degree I can do so fairly easily."




Ah, but we now get into the esoterical.  Is the game good because of the game or is it good because of the DM.

Typing is a skill that can be learned and with practice, mastered and even perfected.  Drawing is a skill/talent that with practice and probably with instruction can be perfected, though true mastery, IMO, is probably more in the realm of talent.

DMing is as both of those.  Some people have a natural talent for it, and can become very good at it, should we say masters of it through practice and talent.  There are others that are completely intimidated by the mere concept and would call it difficult or harder than something else.

Like I said before, gridless combat is a skill that a lot of people find hard.  So there is no argument there.  With practice people get better at it and it ceases to be so intimidating.  The leap from people finding it hard at first glance and then determining that it MUST be hard is where I don't agree.

My children started swimming proficiently about a year ago.  Was the swimming difficult to them before because of the water?  No, but because of inexperience.  But for them to get comfortable, experienced and proficient in swimming they had to get in the water...  There is no amount of theory that was going to change that.

Some see the complexities of the systems as 2000>1 so from that experience deduce that it MUST be hard or harder.  Some have the experience with the system and have found the complexities are more in line with about 2>1 with a give or take of about 5.  Its that threshold that differentiates the hard/harder bit.  The threshold is defined by experience.

A very good example, IME, was the rules as they read.  When I first read the rules I was confused.  The game seemed interesting, but the rules were dry and not very exciting.  When I started playing I noticed that the game plays a lot different than how it reads.  I had read the rules for the warlord and found the class to be boring and uninteresting, a "missed opportunity" is what I said at the time.  I got to play a warlord, and man was that experience different.  The class was nothing like what I had imagined based solely on my cursory read.

IME, gridless combat is like that.  It can fool you into thinking that it is much more difficult than what it really is in practice.  And with a skilled DM it is even easier and exciting...

My 2 pence.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 14, 2010)

Shazman said:


> The answer is if you want a quicker combat, and you want to play 4E, you are going to have to kludge it.  4E is definitely not designed for quick combat, even though it was originally supposed to be quicker and simpler than 3.5.




Well, maybe you have to kludge it.  Or maybe you can learn some from the folks around who do find it to be faster and simpler than the 3.x line.  Find how they differ in who they are and what they're doing, and maybe you can learn things that speed matters up that don't have to do with changing the rules.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Like I said before, gridless combat is a skill that a lot of people find hard.  So there is no argument there.




Prior to 3e, I never met anyone who found gridless combat hard, despite playing in several American states and Canada.  (Shrug)  With 3e+, I have met many people who find playing without a grid hard..._*including people who previously had no difficulties in doing so*_, and specifically because of an expectation that precise positioning would be important, _*even when it explictly was not*_.

So, my viewpoint is a little different here.  My viewpoint is that WotC-D&D _*trains*_ players and GMs to view gridless combat as difficult.

YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## D'karr (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, my viewpoint is a little different here.  My viewpoint is that WotC-D&D _*trains*_ players and GMs to view gridless combat as difficult.
> 
> YMMV, though.
> 
> ...




Perhaps.  I obviously don't feel that way but good point nonetheless.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

There is no reason to expect agreement on everything.  After all, we have different experiences, so we are naturally going to be seeing the game through a different "experiential filter".  


RC


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 14, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> In 1e, you typically had to know who was adjacent to whom, for the simple reason that you have to be in melee range to make a melee attack.
> 
> Opportunity attacks?  Fairly simple to figure out considering that you should already know who's adjacent to whom (as above).




To be fair, there were some additional concerns even back in 1E because it had facing rules; shield side attacks, rear attacks, max # of attackers per target (which still carries over to the latest edition).

You could conceivably replace the grid with a skill system of sorts to determine tactical advantage/disadvantage (i.e., a Stealth check to get behind someone, an Athletic check to move into flanking or charge, etc.), but that in itself is a kludge.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 14, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> You could conceivably replace the grid with a skill system of sorts to determine tactical advantage/disadvantage (i.e., a Stealth check to get behind someone, an Athletic check to move into flanking or charge, etc.), but that in itself is a kludge.




Not if it is part of the actual system.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Prior to 3e, I never met anyone who found gridless combat hard, despite playing in several American states and Canada.



I guess, you should try playing in Germany, then 

No matter what rpg, all of our games tended (and tend!) to include at least one player who is a quarrelsome rules-lawyer who will always disagree with the DM where his character currently is, trying to force a roll-back:
"No, I'm on the other side of the door!"
"I was saying I wanted to take a look around the corner, not walk around it."
"I would never have tried getting behind the monster, had I realized I had to get that close!"
..., yadda, yadda, ...

It's always been a pain for us to try to play without at least _some_ indication of general positions. It doesn't have to be as accurate as a battlemap, though. A short sketch would often do, but using minis (or some other tokens, e.g. dice) was (and is) preferable.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

D'karr said:


> My children started swimming proficiently about a year ago. Was the swimming difficult to them before because of the water? No, but because of inexperience. But for them to get comfortable, experienced and proficient in swimming they had to get in the water... There is no amount of theory that was going to change that.




Interesting example... so going by your philosophy, it will be no harder for them to swim in a raging river than it is in a 3ft pool of gently swaying water, right?  I mean with enough experience they will be able to swim against currents that could carry an elephant away, as essentially they are just swimming in water... correct?


----------



## Wiseblood (Jun 15, 2010)

You must kluge your combat because you find the RAW unsatisfying. There are options though. Many would say play something else. It seems clear you do not want to do so. 

If I was in your shoes I would take the sum of my laziness and apathy multiply it by any resistance that might be put forth by other players and decide if that was a bigger PITA than atteplting a kluge. Of course I still might fail at kluge-ing.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Interesting example... so going by your philosophy, it will be no harder for them to swim in a raging river than it is in a 3ft pool of gently swaying water, right?  I mean with enough experience they will be able to swim against currents that could carry an elephant away, as essentially they are just swimming in water... correct?




Good one, I see what you did there.  Where are the "applause" smileys when you need them?   

Your hyperbole is mildly amusing but I'm not really that interested in it since once again it seems like baiting.  I think I've already made my point and opinion abundantly clear.  Several others have done so too.  I'm just not that interested in seeing the thread devolve into another "edition war" argument framed by exaggeration.

If you want to compare 4e combat and going gridless to a raging river have fun at it, I'm sure someone will bite.  Good luck with that one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

@ D'karr:  Whether or not Imaro's post is "baiting" (I do not believe it is), it does demonstrate the basic problem in the reasoning being presented.  Effectively:

A is like X
X is not hard
Therefore, A is not hard, either​
The syllogism is faulty because, while A is like X, the qualities that make X "not hard" are not necessarily shared by A.

I think it is easier (and more correct) to recognize that A is harder than X, but that the _*degree to which it is harder*_ may well be situational and/or in dispute.

YMMV.



RC


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Good one, I see what you did there. Where are the "applause" smileys when you need them?
> 
> Your hyperbole is mildly amusing but I'm not really that interested in it since once again it seems like baiting. I think I've already made my point and opinion abundantly clear. Several others have done so too. I'm just not that interested in seeing the thread devolve into another "edition war" argument framed by exaggeration.
> 
> If you want to compare 4e combat and going gridless to a raging river have fun at it, I'm sure someone will bite. Good luck with that one.




There is no "baiting" going on here and I am not comparing 4e to a raging river or anything else.  However I am, as RC pointed out above showing the fallacy in your logic.  That is all, haven't brought up any editions, though I feel like you are using that insinuation to really say... "I don't want to discuss  Well I'm sorry but this is a forum and you should expect a statement like that to be challenged.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> There is no "baiting" going on here and I am not comparing 4e to a raging river or anything else.  However I am, as RC pointed out above showing the fallacy in your logic.  That is all, haven't brought up any editions, though I feel like you are using that insinuation to really say... "I don't want to discuss  Well I'm sorry but this is a forum and you should expect a statement like that to be challenged.




D'karr's analogy, however, was about learning/perfecting a skill.  Hence, your comparison only makes sense if you're comparing 1e to a placid pool and 4e to a raging river.

While there's certainly room to argue which system is more difficult to run grid-less, suggesting such a leap in difficulty (1e = easy while 4e = nigh impossible) seems absurd in light of points made in this thread.

1e had shield sides and facing whereas 4e has flanking and opportunity attacks.  While you _might_ have an easier time adjudicating one than the other without a grid, I think it's pretty clear that they're still at least somewhere in the same ballpark.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> D'karr's analogy, however, was about learning/perfecting a skill.  Hence, your comparison only makes sense if you're comparing 1e to a placid pool and 4e to a raging river.




No, the point is accurate regardless of the scale used. 

Demonstrating an absurd conclusion of logic is often used as a means of demonstating that the logic itself is in error even where the conclusion drawn is not absurd.

This is because it is generally easier to notice the fault in logic when the scale is ramped up so that the conclusion is obviously wrong than it is notice the same when the conclusion falls within the realm of acceptable possibility.

It should also be noted that demonstrating logic is faulty does not demonstrate that conclusion is faulty.  I can say:

Fish live in water.
Birds live in trees.
Therefore, a trout is a fish.​
Which is fallicious logic, but which comes to a correct conclusion.  This, again, sometimes makes it difficult to see where the fault lies, as the conclusion is acceptable.



RC


----------



## D'karr (Jun 15, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> D'karr's analogy, however, was about learning/perfecting a skill.  Hence, your comparison only makes sense if you're comparing 1e to a placid pool and 4e to a raging river.




Thank you, somebody that reads in context.

My analogy has to do with gaining experience in a skill such as DMing.  Which you only get better at with practice.  I'm pretty sure that was the context used in the part he was referencing.

The hyperbole makes it seem like the skill is useless when applied to going gridless in 4e, which I can only imagine would be the equivalent of a raging river that would drown an elephant.

His leap in logic is fallacious and I'm not going to go in circles with the same tired argument.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 15, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Ah, but we now get into the esoterical. Is the game good because of the game or is it good because of the DM.




Neither. 
If we measure good by the entertainment value provided by the experience then it is good because of the combined contributions of the players and the DM. A great game is possible with a great group of people regardless of the rules in use. A great DM enhances any game but he/she can't make it the best it can be alone. Likewise, a solid set of rules (even with a superb DM running them) won't be able to produce the magic for a group of  apathetic disinterested players. 

An rpg session has always been about the people.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Interesting example... so going by your philosophy, it will be no harder for them to swim in a raging river than it is in a 3ft pool of gently swaying water, right?  I mean with enough experience they will be able to swim against currents that could carry an elephant away, as essentially they are just swimming in water... correct?




Maybe they can.  People don't know their limits until they try to exceed them.  DMs might be able to run gridless 4e or 2e, or any game that way if they try. It would take work on the DMs part and they might have to start small and train and learn how to improve their game to make it work, but I like to think anyone can do that is willing to work at it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

D'karr said:


> His leap in logic is fallacious and I'm not going to go in circles with the same tired argument.




It is fine to choose not to engage, but Imaro's statement is neither a leap in logic, nor is it fallacious.

To put it in RPG terms, imagine a chasm with a DC 40 to leap across.  An untrained human has exactly a 0% chance of leaping across the chasm.  A human with a +21 bonus to the appropriate skill has a slim chance of leaping across the chasm.  A human with a +39 bonus will succeed every time.

While it is obvious that skill is operative in allowing a task to be accomplished, and while it is obvious that increasing one's skill makes a task easier whether the DC is 15 or 40 (again, in RPG terms), it is nonetheless true that less skill is needed to accomplish the DC 15 task than the DC 40.  

One is easier than the other; the other is harder than the first.

So, the character with a +39 bonus will view both as being trivially easy, but that individual should not confuse this with the relative difficulty, in general or in fact, of each task.  After all, not everyone has a +39 bonus!  


RC


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, the point is accurate regardless of the scale used.
> 
> Demonstrating an absurd conclusion of logic is often used as a means of demonstating that the logic itself is in error even where the conclusion drawn is not absurd.
> 
> ...




Thanks RC, but seeing as I was a Philosophy major for a time, I've studied logic.  Despite that it's been a while, and despite my disgust with modern philosophy in general, I still retain much of it.

While you aren't incorrect, you do seem to be overlooking the fact that any logical comparison can be taken to absurdity.  When seeking to debunk another's logic via extreme examples, one is best served avoiding absurd examples.

One can learn to swim in a pool.
There are bodies of water that are too difficult to swim regardless of one's skill.
Therefore, learning to swim is pointless.​
Sorry, but I can't agree with that logic.  The technique you refer to is, IME and IMO, more often used for cheap verbal prestidigitation than for anything productive.  Note, I'm not accusing anyone of doing so in this thread, but rather explaining my own general distaste for the method.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is fine to choose not to engage, but Imaro's statement is neither a leap in logic, nor is it fallacious.
> 
> To put it in RPG terms, imagine a chasm with a DC 40 to leap across.  An untrained human has exactly a 0% chance of leaping across the chasm.  A human with a +21 bonus to the appropriate skill has a slim chance of leaping across the chasm.  A human with a +39 bonus will succeed every time.
> 
> ...




And if running 4e gridless was the equivalent of jumping a DC 40 chasm or swimming across a raging river that would carry an elephant away, I might even give consideration to the premise.  However, that assumption would be starting from a false premise, therefore it is fallacious.  The inference that running gridless 4e is like a DC 40 chasm or a raging river is where the fallacy starts.  My only inference from the context of my previous discussions was that experience, as it relates to this, comes from practice, and that practice comes from doing and not necessarily from reading about it.

My kids couldn't swim.  They practiced and now they can.  They could not have learned and gotten better without getting in the water.

People couldn't run a game gridless.  They've practiced and now they can. They could not have done it with out going ahead and doing it, instead of reading how HARD it is on message boards..

Look at my discussion and if that is not what I said, then I'll correct my statement.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> Maybe they can. People don't know their limits until they try to exceed them. DMs might be able to run gridless 4e or 2e, or any game that way if they try. It would take work on the DMs part and they might have to start small and train and learn how to improve their game to make it work, but I like to think anyone can do that is willing to work at it.




You may be correct, but again there can be an inherent difficulty to something that, irregardless of skill level, exists. It is harder to run a 5 min mile than it is to run a 10min mile... though one's skill level may allow him to do either one... it takes a greater exertion, greater fitness, greater training, etc. to achieve a 5 min mile than it does a 10min mile. This is what some seem unwilling to admit, instead focusing on the minutae in my examples instead of the point I am making.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> You may be correct, but again there can be an inherent difficulty to something that, irregardless of skill level, exists. It is harder to run a 5 min mile than it is to run a 10min mile... though one's skill level may allow him to do either one... it takes a greater exertion, greater fitness, greater training, etc. to achieve a 5 min mile than it does a 10min mile. This is what some seem unwilling to admit, instead focusing on the minutae in my examples instead of the point I am making.




The problem is the analogy doesn't work.  To run a 10 minute mile first one has to be able to run a five minute mile.  To run gridless D&D though does not mean one first has to be able to run gridded D&D and vice versa.  They are not exactly the same skill set both being just a subset of DMing skills.  One can have the ability to do one and not the other, to do both, or not be able to do either.  Being able to do one may make it easier or harder to do the other.

Analogies rarely seem to work to make these matters clearer.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> The problem is the analogy doesn't work. To run a 10 minute mile first one has to be able to run a five minute mile. To run gridless D&D though does not mean one first has to be able to run gridded D&D and vice versa. They are not exactly the same skill set both being just a subset of DMing skills. One can have the ability to do one and not the other, to do both, or not be able to do either. Being able to do one may make it easier or harder to do the other.
> 
> Analogies rarely seem to work to make these matters clearer.




I never said you have to be able to run grid-based combat in order to run gridless.  

How's this as an example... In order to run gridless combat one must (as a DM) be able to estimate and track positioning in one's head.  Doing this for two combatants who stand still is easier than doing this for two combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for four combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for 10 combatants who can move every round and can affect others movement every round... and so on.  No one is saying it is impossible, only that there are varying levels of difficulty in running gridless combats dependent upon the amount and frequency of changing positioning, number of combatants and their ability to affect positioning, and so on.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> How's this as an example... In order to run gridless combat one must (as a DM) be able to estimate and track positioning in one's head.  Doing this for two combatants who stand still is easier than doing this for two combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for four combatants who move every round, which in turn is easier than doing this for 10 combatants who can move every round and can affect others movement every round... and so on.




Except for folks practiced at running gridless combat this is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water!


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Except for folks practiced at running gridless combat this is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water!




Which one is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water?  Again, it takes more cognitive power period to keep track of more things mentally, whether you personally classify it as easy or not is irrelevant... there is a measurable factor for difficulty of tracking these things that grows as more variables are introduced.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Thanks RC, but seeing as I was a Philosophy major for a time, I've studied logic.  Despite that it's been a while, and despite my disgust with modern philosophy in general, I still retain much of it.




That is excellent.  And I can understand the bias against (at least some) modern philosophies!  



> While you aren't incorrect, you do seem to be overlooking the fact that any logical comparison can be taken to absurdity.  When seeking to debunk another's logic via extreme examples, one is best served avoiding absurd examples.
> 
> One can learn to swim in a pool.
> There are bodies of water that are too difficult to swim regardless of one's skill.
> ...




Nor should you agree with that.  It is an example of a faulty syllogism, just as the example I made was.  What Imaro demonstrated, AFAICT and IMHO, is that D'karr's reasoning relied upon a similar faulty syllogism.

And, as you did above, pointing out that a line of reasoning relies upon a faulty syllogism is not "cheap verbal prestidigitation".  It is, instead, one of the most important means by which discussion can be rendered rational.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in demarking the example you quote as being a false syllogism?



D'karr said:


> And if running 4e gridless was the equivalent of jumping a DC 40 chasm or swimming across a raging river that would carry an elephant away, I might even give consideration to the premise.




It doesn't have to be for the point to carry.

The point is not that 4e is a raging river or a deep chasm; such a point would obviously be ludicrous.  If that is what you are understanding from what I am writing, I am obviously not writing well enough.

The point is that, while individual skill modifies the difficulty one has in approaching a situation, this does not mean that one situation is not inherently more difficult than another.

If you are a good swimmer, you can swim 100 yards almost as easily as you can swim 50 yards.  Yet it takes more effort to swim 100 yards than 50 yards regardless of how good a swimmer you are.  The extra effort may just seem, to you, negligible.

It is factual to say that training to swim will make it easier to swim 100 yards.  It is not factual to say that, therefore, it is no more difficult to swim 100 yards than 50 yards.

Or another way of looking at it:  Driving up a grade requires a car to fight gravity.  The steeper the grade, the more it has to fight gravity, and the more energy the car expends.  However, we as drivers may not be aware of this extra effort.  We might conclude that it is as easy (energy-wise) for a vehicle to move uphill as it is to move on a level surface.  

It is only when we are on bicycles that we suddenly become aware of the difference......and even then, a trained cyclist might not be as aware of the difference as you or I.

However, in all of these cases, the actual degree of extra effort needed is static, and determined by physical laws.  Our perception of how difficult a thing is does not necessarily equate how difficult a thing is.

It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that some folks are perceiving running 4e gridless to be more difficult than it actually is.  It is not reasonable, therefore, to conclude that there is no difference in difficulty.



RC


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I never said you have to be able to run grid-based combat in order to run gridless.




The analogy did but like I said I wouldn't use them.  



> No one is saying it is impossible, only that there are varying levels of difficulty in running gridless combats dependent upon the amount and frequency of changing positioning, number of combatants and their ability to affect positioning, and so on.




We were originally discussing grid verse gridless gaming.  I will agree that running a combat with more combatants does increase the difficulty, this is true if one is using a grid or not though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Maybe this would be easier to grok:

People use grids in various game systems because there are factors in those systems which using a grid aids in dealing with.  The more of these factors, the more useful a grid is in the system.

The more useful a grid is in the system, the more not using a grid is felt when trying to deal with these factors.  I.e., the harder it is to use the system as written without a grid.

Identify which factors the grid aids you with, and by comparing the degrees to which those factors are important in a system, you can determine how comparatively difficult it is to run gridless between two systems.

EDIT:  And, as an aside, I note that the claim that it is no more difficult to use 4e than 1e w/o a grid could be rephrased, "A grid is no more helpful to 4e players than to 1e players".  


RC


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, as an aside, I note that the claim that it is no more difficult to use 4e than 1e w/o a grid could be rephrased, "A grid is no more helpful to 4e players than to 1e players".




Difficult and helpful though are not the same thing.  Throughout this discussion people have wanted to substitute words for difficult that just do not fit.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> Difficult and helpful though are not the same thing.  Throughout this discussion people have wanted to substitute words for difficult that just do not fit.




No; they oppose one another.  Which is exactly the way in which I used them.

If something is helpful, doing without it is more difficult than doing with.

The degree to which an aid is helpful determines the degree to which doing without that aid is more difficult than using it is.

EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both.  One can be true, or the other can be true.  Both cannot be true.


RC


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> The analogy did but like I said I wouldn't use them.




No it didn't... swimming=gridless combat in the example. Now if I had made a comparison to being able to jog first before one could swim, you might have a point... but I didn't.



Crothian said:


> We were originally discussing grid verse gridless gaming. I will agree that running a combat with more combatants does increase the difficulty, this is true if one is using a grid or not though.




Wow, you totally disregarded the other factors I listed as too try and make your point... so what do you think of the other things I listed that could make running a grid-less combat more difficult?


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Wow, you totally disregarded the other factors I listed as too try and make your point... so what do you think of the other things I listed that could make running a grid-less combat more difficult?




Are you talking about the post with the example of how 2 combatants is less difficult then 4 which is less difficult then 10?  I did not ignore that I said 

"I will agree that running a combat with more combatants does increase the difficulty, this is true if one is using a grid or not though. "

I wasn't ignoring it, it was a statement that was true for all combats with or with out a grid.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 15, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Except for folks practiced at running gridless combat this is as easy as swimming in a pool of calm water!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I knew I should have edited the post to explicitly state my initial comment was stated in a joking manner.  I was hoping the laughing smiley would be enough to indicate as such.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 15, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> I knew I should have edited the post to explicitly state my initial comment was stated in a joking manner.  I was hoping the laughing smiley would be enough to indicate as such.




Put that can of gasoline away...  You're only pouring it on the fire.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> Are you talking about the post with the example of how 2 combatants is less difficult then 4 which is less difficult then 10? I did not ignore that I said
> 
> "I will agree that running a combat with more combatants does increase the difficulty, this is true if one is using a grid or not though. "
> 
> I wasn't ignoring it, it was a statement that was true for all combats with or with out a grid.




 Is that really all the post said?  Or was there something about combatants and their movement as well?  Oh, yeah and also a reference to combatants affecting other comabatants movement making it more difficult as well... but you keepreading the parts you want to in my posts.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 15, 2010)

imaro said:


> but you keepreading the parts you want to in my posts.




lol


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Is that really all the post said?  Or was there something about combatants and their movement as well?  Oh, yeah and also a reference to combatants affecting other comabatants movement making it more difficult as well... but you keepreading the parts you want to in my posts.




Quoting large blocks of text for little to no gain is something I try not to do.  It just wastes space and annoys readers.  Just because it wasn't quoted does not mean it was ignored.  Also, how is it you think you know what I'm reading?  

To me it doesn't matter what makes 4 foes easier to run then 10 foes.  It could be because of movement, because of tracking that many more sets of hit point and different effects on them, or just knowing what each one is doing.  But it is more difficult to do with a grid or without a grid; so the grid being there or not doesn't have any bearing on it being more difficult.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> Quoting large blocks of text for little to no gain is something I try not to do. It just wastes space and annoys readers. Just because it wasn't quoted does not mean it was ignored. Also, how is it you think you know what I'm reading?
> 
> To me it doesn't matter what makes 4 foes easier to run then 10 foes. It could be because of movement, because of tracking that many more sets of hit point and different effects on them, or just knowing what each one is doing. But it is more difficult to do with a grid or without a grid; so the grid being there or not doesn't have any bearing on it being more difficult.




Yes it does, less brainpower spent keeping track of where everyone is in one's mind and thus more brainpower to focus elsewhere... in fact with a grid, I don't even have to think about keeping track of any movement or positioning at all.


----------



## Imaro (Jun 15, 2010)

Crothian said:


> Quoting large blocks of text for little to no gain is something I try not to do. It just wastes space and annoys readers. Just because it wasn't quoted does not mean it was ignored. Also, how is it you think you know what I'm reading?
> 
> To me it doesn't matter what makes 4 foes easier to run then 10 foes. It could be because of movement, because of tracking that many more sets of hit point and different effects on them, or just knowing what each one is doing. But it is more difficult to do with a grid or without a grid; so the grid being there or not doesn't have any bearing on it being more difficult.




Yes it does, less brainpower spent keeping track of where everyone is in one's mind and thus more brainpower to focus elsewhere... in fact with a grid, I don't even have to think about keeping track of any movement or positioning at all.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Yes it does, less brainpower spent keeping track of where everyone is in one's mind and thus more brainpower to focus elsewhere... in fact with a grid, I don't even have to think about keeping track of any movement or positioning at all.




Based on my own experience I disagree.  I ran Dragon Mountain a week and a half ago and if you are not familiar with it basically the PCs run into hoards and hordes of kobolds.  I did it without grids and minis and I think it was easier to just describe what the 80 or more kobolds they were fighting at a time were doing then trying to position all of that on a grid with that many figures.  I'm not saying everyone would have been better off doing it this way but it was easiest for me and the group.  

That is the basic disagreement we have; you based on your comments seem like a DM that would have a harder time with that without a grid.  But different DMs have different skills and some like myself find it easier to not use a grid even for complex encounters.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nor should you agree with that.  It is an example of a faulty syllogism, just as the example I made was.  What Imaro demonstrated, AFAICT and IMHO, is that D'karr's reasoning relied upon a similar faulty syllogism.
> 
> And, as you did above, pointing out that a line of reasoning relies upon a faulty syllogism is not "cheap verbal prestidigitation".  It is, instead, one of the most important means by which discussion can be rendered rational.
> 
> Perhaps I wasn't clear in demarking the example you quote as being a false syllogism?




No, you were quite clear.  I wasn't, however, talking about pointing out that someone's reasoning is faulty.  I was referring to the fact that doing so by taking it to an absurd extreme often leads to a less, not more, rational conversation.

Let me clarify my point.  

-We are discussing the difficulty of grid vs gridless, and the complexity of combat in 4e as compared with earlier editions.  

-Since several people have claimed they possess the capacity for running without a grid in both 4e and earlier editions, we can reasonably assume that at least some people are capable of running D&D without a grid regardless of edition.

-It's also been claimed that running D&D without a grid is a skill that can be learned.  This matches my experience as well, and I think it's reasonable to say that there is at least some truth to it.

-Therefore, comparing running 4e gridless to trying to swim in a raging river that would sweep an elephant away actually misdirects the conversation, because it suggests that doing so is either impossible, or at the very least superhuman, which doesn't seem like a very reasonable conclusion based on the above.

The marathon analogy (running 5 vs 10 miles) is better, though it still suffers from faults that most analogies suffer.  That being, it's only the rough sketch of the point you're making, and nothing more.  In other words, if I can only run 5 miles competently, then running 10 miles is either impossible for me or at least a serious physical strain.  Remembering the relative positions of 5 vs 10 minis doesn't compare on any serious level.  

Both 4e and 1e have their respective complexities.  While it isn't unreasonable to assume that different people might have an easier time with one than the other, it _is_ unreasonable (IMO) to assume that one could not learn to run either.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> No, you were quite clear.




Good.

And I'd also like to take this moment to thank you for continuing to respond to the substance of posts, rather than to try to engage in the contest of one-upmanship to which I fear this thread is degenerating.  I'd XP you again if I could.  

(And I will try to remember that I should when the opportunity arises again.)



> I wasn't, however, talking about pointing out that someone's reasoning is faulty.  I was referring to the fact that doing so by taking it to an absurd extreme often leads to a less, not more, rational conversation.




Depending upon those conversing, I agree with you.

I also agree with you about all of the following:

*  Some people are capable of running D&D without a grid regardless of edition.

*  Running D&D without a grid is a skill that can be learned.

*  While it isn't unreasonable to assume that different people might have an easier time with one edition than the other, it _is_ unreasonable to assume that one could not learn to run either.

Where I disagree is



> comparing running 4e gridless to trying to swim in a raging river that would sweep an elephant away actually misdirects the conversation, because it suggests that doing so is either impossible, or at the very least superhuman




AFAICT, and the way I read it, no one is saying that you must be superhuman or that it is impossible to run 4e without a grid.  AFAICT, and IMHO, the example was made absurdly large because smaller examples failed.

It is rather like the Monty Hall Problem]Error -- when the example consists of three doors, most people simply do not get it.  When the example consists of 1 million doors, OTOH, few people fail to understand what is happening in terms of odds.

Because, in the end, what it comes down to is that EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both. 

One can be true, or the other can be true. 

Both cannot be true.

There is not necessarily a "value" appended to the observation; or, if there is, it is purely subjective.  However, the observation will have an effect on how difficult it is to run one edition without a grid as compared to another.

Imagining that you can have it both ways (and I am not saying that you are doing so) helps no one, least of all the person so doing.




RC


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Good.
> 
> And I'd also like to take this moment to thank you for continuing to respond to the substance of posts, rather than to try to engage in the contest of one-upmanship to which I fear this thread is degenerating.  I'd XP you again if I could.
> 
> (And I will try to remember that I should when the opportunity arises again.)




Thanks.  



> Depending upon those conversing, I agree with you.
> 
> I also agree with you about all of the following:
> 
> ...




Sorry, but I don't agree that it's the same.  One is an illustration of mathematical probability.  The other is a subjective comparison that carries with it irrelevant, unnecessary, and potentially misleading baggage.

Just because a person can imagine a hypothetical scenario where no degree of skill with swimming will save him, doesn't mean that there aren't many possible scenarios where swimming _would or could_ save him.  It also doesn't consider whether the impossible scenario is relevant to the topic at hand (if we're discussing relatively calm bodies of water, then bringing up a raging river is not relevant).



> Because, in the end, what it comes down to is that EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both.
> 
> One can be true, or the other can be true.
> 
> ...




I'm glad you agree that it is not an objective determination.  However, it seems to overlook the initial point (about learning skills such as running without a grid).

Let's assume that you currently hold the first stance (gridless is easier in 1e).  Do you not consider it possible that, were you to practice running 4e without a grid for a reasonable number of sessions, you might change your mind and hold the second stance instead (grid offers equal helpfulness to both)?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Thanks.




I call 'em as I see 'em.



> Sorry, but I don't agree that it's the same.




Then use the uphill example, and assume that the other example was written with the purpose of clarifying (however much it may have failed to do so IYHO).  That way, you are not compounding what you see to be a problem.



> Just because a person can imagine a hypothetical scenario where no degree of skill with swimming will save him, doesn't mean that there aren't many possible scenarios where swimming _would or could_ save him.




No one is arguing this.



> I'm glad you agree that it is not an objective determination.  However, it seems to overlook the initial point (about learning skills such as running without a grid).




I haven't overlooked it; it's irrelevent to the point.  For example:



> Let's assume that you currently hold the first stance (gridless is easier in 1e).  Do you not consider it possible that, were you to practice running 4e without a grid for a reasonable number of sessions, you might change your mind to the second stance (grid offers equal helpfulness to both)?




No, because in this case I would not conflate my personal experience with the difficulty level offered.

To put it in RPG terms (again), the DC is set, and my skill is a bonus I add to my die roll.  If I can always take 10, I have a +10 bonus, and the DC is 20, I will always succeed.  But it would be foolish of me to say that, because I was adding 10 + 10, the result was not 20.  The DC exists regardless of my skill.

In this case, if the DC for 1e was 15, and the DC for 4e was 20, I would still always succeed at both -- there would be no measurable difference _*for me*_ -- but 4e would still be harder than 1e.

Valuation is subjective.  Perception of difficulty is subjective.  Actual difficulty, in this case, is at least theoretically measurable.




RC


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, because in this case I would not conflate my personal experience with the difficulty level offered.
> 
> To put it in RPG terms (again), the DC is set, and my skill is a bonus I add to my die roll.  If I can always take 10, I have a +10 bonus, and the DC is 20, I will always succeed.  But it would be foolish of me to say that, because I was adding 10 + 10, the result was not 20.  The DC exists regardless of my skill.
> 
> ...




I'm of the school of thought that if the highest DC is 20 and a 20 can be attained by taking 10, then the DC difference is merely academic (and therefore largely irrelevant).  A 1.1 lb object is heavier than one that weighs exactly 1 lb; however, it simply isn't a noticeable or meaningful difference for a healthy adult who lifts each, despite that a precision scale would certainly note the difference.

I think your DC analogy above is actually a pretty good one for this discussion, though I would probably set the default DCs at 11 and 12, myself.  I don't deny that 4e is probably a little harder to run without a grid than 1e; I just don't think it's significantly harder.  Pretty much anyone can learn to run 1e with a little practice.  I believe it to be the same with 4e.  I knew a DM who wasn't exactly a genius and yet was still capable of running 3e without a grid.  IMO, based on that anyone can do it with any edition provided they're willing to apply themselves.

Realistically speaking, I think deriving an objective difficulty value for both 4e and 1e would be approximately as difficult as predicting the next two presidents using the laws of physics.  Sure, if we eliminate the existence of a higher power, free will, and quantum mechanics it's probably possible (in theory).  However, it isn't feasible in any _practical_ sense in the real world.  There are an enormous number of minute difference between the two editions, each of which you'd have to objectively measure according to a scale that hasn't even been invented (AFAIK).

Even if it were possible, such a number would be of dubious value, since the most meaningful value is your own subjective value.  If the objective difficulty value of 1e is 7 and 4e is 9, how is that of any relevance to me if I find it subjectively easier to run 4e?


----------



## Scribble (Jun 15, 2010)

The only thing that will settle this debate is a good ol'fashioned dance off.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 15, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't deny that 4e is probably a little harder to run without a grid than 1e; I just don't think it's significantly harder.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Realistically speaking, I think deriving an objective difficulty value for both 4e and 1e would be approximately as difficult as predicting the next two presidents using the laws of physics.




Fair enough.  FWIW, as far as I am concerned, I will call that settled.  



Scribble said:


> The only thing that will settle this debate is a good ol'fashioned dance off.




D'oh!  I called it settled too soon.  Now I'll miss the dance off. 










RC


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2010)

Scribble said:


> The only thing that will settle this debate is a good ol'fashioned dance off.



Hardly surprising. That's how every debate with RC is eventually settled. Cheers!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Hardly surprising. That's how every debate with RC is eventually settled. Cheers!




Is that supposed to be insulting?  

I agree that I don't say "Gee, you're right" simply on the basis of your insisting that you are.  If what a person says doesn't follow, I don't grant it some sort of mythic power of persuasion for no reason.  Insistance is not refutation.

OTOH, I can point to specific posts where I have said I was wrong.  Which is more than I can say for many others here.  And that is because the refutation was valid, and demonstrated that my position was in error.

Also, dance offs, like bow ties, are cool.  



RC


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is that supposed to be insulting?



Nah. You may take it as a compliment if you like. 

You just have a tendency to argue your points ad nauseam if you think they have not been refuted. I don't think there's anyone on this forum who is so, mhm, enduring, persistent, stubborn?!

So, carry on! (or maybe dance off, if you prefer...)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2010)

I'll take it as a compliment, then.

After all, the reverse is also true -- if I believe I have been refuted, I don't mind saying so.  And I am willing to hold my new position with equal tenacity until it is, in turn, refuted (if it is).

And, I would like to point out, my opinion of 4e has been greatly improved by folks who have successfully demonstrated that some of my initial perceptions about the system were wrong.  I appreciate a coherent position!  


RC


----------



## Goonalan (Jun 16, 2010)

Jumping in at the end also, although I've read parts of the thread along the way. 

If you check out my sig you can see a stats based story hour that catalogues who did what to who, and to what effect. A turn by turn account of what happened when a group of mostly noobs (4 from 5 had never played a PnP RPG before) played their way through KOTS.

If grind is meaningless combat then we've had some of that, although not at the point I'm at in the story so far, it comes later.

Why it didn't feel like grind at the time, by which I mean dull, was because-

1) Players were into the system, and in the space of KOTS they leveled up several times, and got 'cool' new powers or skills, which they couldn't wait to try out.

2) The monsters do cool things too (sometimes), which unless you're a DM & Player (or 4e experienced) then you weren't expecting. When the Ochre Jelly split in two I was faced with a wall of blank stares and open mouths.

3) Combat doesn't mean the narrative has to stop. So the Goblins (in translation), scream for Balgron the Fat to help them. Or else make disparaging remarks about various individuals and/or races- make it personal.

4) Have the PCs discover something at the end of the combat, yes a magic toy is nice, but better is info from a prisoner, or the hint of something which foreshadows future events.

5) Finally provide direction for the combat- 'the Goblins look anxious, keen to escape your spells and steel, several of them glance at the far door- it's obvious that they want to get away, or worse still get reinforcements, not only must you defeat them quickly but you must prevent them from retreating.' I'm not adverse to throwing a few encounters together to make a big mess, and if you do this once or twice then combat becomes something that takes a bit of thinking about, and the use of big guns (Daily/Action) and/or the use of 'cinematic' cool actions.

I used to play with another group and we house ruled that any crazy stunt- Dwarf Fight leaps onto Spined Devil, hovering over twenty foot drop into water, and attempts to bear it down and drown it... for example gained a +2 bonus on all rolls needed to attempt. Obviously the monsters got the same bonuses- made for some hilarity.

We don't have any problems with Level +4 fights either, yes they take longer but generally the reason for this is because the PCs are struggling- swinging and missing, and getting chopped down- whispering to each other about the possibility of abandoning the fight.

In hindsight their are many turns which are just attrition, particularly with Solo creatures, however on paper these look dry (at times), when I think back to them I remember the PCs being desperate to make the bad guy/monster go away (die). Thinking back to the fight in KOTS with the Blue Slime (their first Solo scrap) the PCs were terrified of the thing after it weakened and slowed all but one of them even before it appeared. They just dumped Daily Powers and Action Points in some frightened frenzy.

I'm not working out the stats for average encounter times et al much in advance in the story hour, so some of the results are going to be a surprise to me (perhaps). The PCs are only 4 combat encounters in so far so it's pretty early in the piece.

I've played up to Level 13 in 4e, I've not kludged a fight yet, am I playing the game wrong? And yes, we've even played through the H series Wizards adventures.

Cheers


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2010)

As you know, I have been reading your thread with interest.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 16, 2010)

I seem to be very late to the party, but I wanted to point out that the entire discussion of relative difficulty is ignoring individual differences and trying to set up a fallacious objective standard.  To wit...



Raven Crowking said:


> Because, in the end, what it comes down to is that EITHER doing without the grid is easier in 1e than 4e, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both.



No, it doesn't.

I'm going to take the apparently heretical position that 1e is harder to run _*as written*_ gridless than 4e.  For me, facing and volumes alone would be enough to make this the case.  By comparison, opportunity attacks and flanking are substantially more vague in their meaning and application.

Along these lines, I wish I could give Umbran xp for this:


Umbran said:


> Well, maybe you have to kludge it.  Or maybe you can learn some from the folks around who do find it to be faster and simpler than the 3.x line.  Find how they differ in who they are and what they're doing, and maybe you can learn things that speed matters up that don't have to do with changing the rules.



This is important.  The rulesets abstract slightly different things and abstract them in different ways.  Therefore, for some people, 1e is going to be harder, and for others 4e is going to be harder.  For me, without a grid to abstract volumes and a mini to show facing, I'm going to have a seizure.  And don't give me measurements in inches and then not expect me to go insane trying to find miniatures at the right scale.

On the other hand, while I don't particularly like handwaving "Push 3" and "Close burst 5", I can do so without wanting to hurt game designers.  "Can I get there while avoiding an AoO?" is a bit more irritating, but I've learned to live with that, too.

If I wanted to learn how to run 1e gridless, I would be in for an uphill slog, whereas running 4e gridless is just sort of annoying.

Many other people have the exact opposite reaction, because they have different histories, preferences, and skills.

I would also point out that I never, ever saw anyone run 1e or 2e as written.  Since everyone was throwing out rules they found inconvenient, that might have made running 1e gridless much simpler, but I don't think the RAW _necessarily_ supports that analysis.  Leastways not as an objective standard that can be applied to all people.

This stretches back conveniently to the disparities earlier in the thread, where some people have seen their time spent per round drop dramatically going from 3e to 4e, while others have seen these horrific rises in time spent per round.  There's a case to be made that, cognitively speaking, some people simply get along with better with certain abstractions and ways of chunking information, which may be driving that disparity to seemingly absurd degrees.  Or maybe it's not a raw cognitive disparity, but some people are simply over-trained in a "3e way of thinking" and are forcing a way of thinking onto 4e that is hindering rather than helping.

It's like translating in your head as you take a test in another language.  The process itself eats up cognitive resources, and you do worse on the test than you would have on the same test in your native language.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 16, 2010)

This was a ways back, but I can't seem to let this go by....



IronWolf said:


> I can only speak to 3e, but it isn't just the DM tracking elements.  The players pitch in and once the combat is underway *it isn't like the battle field is redrawn from scratch every round*, so the battle tends to unfold in a sequential way which makes it easy for everyone to keep up with where everyone is at.  It all sort of just flows.




Emphasis mine.

Actually, when you are running a battle inside your head, it is *exactly* like that.  In fact, every time someone takes or contemplates an action aloud, the battlefield is redrawn.  That's how memory works.  If you are very good at chunking information, perhaps only the immediate area is affected, but accessing a memory always, always, always rewrites it.  This is a fact.

I could cite dozens of papers on this.  Memory is a trainwreck.  Spatial memory is slightly better than narrative memory in the short term, but not all that much.  If you're not noticing this in your games, it's because (a) we're *all* bad at it, and easily influenced by the memories and suggestions of others; and/or (b) your DM is simply the best at the table at it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2010)

Canis said:


> I'm going to take the apparently heretical position that 1e is harder to run _*as written*_ gridless than 4e.




I was, of course, looking at the logical problem I was presented with in this thread.  You are, however, absolutely correct -- I should have said _*EITHER doing without the grid is easier in one edition than the other, OR the grid offers the same degree of helpfulness to both*_.  

The problem relates to the idea that the grid is somehow both more helpful in one edition, while the cost of losing that help is not greater.  The problem here has nothing to do with which edition gets more mileage out of adding a grid.

Good catch!


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2010)

Canis said:


> I could cite dozens of papers on this.  Memory is a trainwreck.





To be fair, though, I imagine that those papers don't take trained memory into account.  We are used to using memory aids, such as a grid or writing things down, and this is bound to affect how we process memory.  OTOH, there is strong anecdote to suggest that preliterate peoples had better memories than we do, especially if those memories were trained.

I would also suggest that, if you run your game gridless, you have probably trained your memory to some degree, making your memory for this task more reliable than average.


RC


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 16, 2010)

Canis said:
			
		

> This was a ways back, but I can't seem to let this go by....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Er, not sure why that portion of a statement was singled out and taken to mean that I was trying to define the inner workings of the mind.

The battle field is not being redrawn every round.  The participants in the combat are not suddenly being tossed up in the air every round and placed in completely different locations and situations.  Because of this, in round one of a combat if I have to ask the DM "will I take an AoO if move away?" and he answers yes and then I proceed to *not* move in away in that round and the enemy does not move away, then come round two I don't have to ask that question again.  As the scene has not changed to the degree that I need to ask that again, the circumstances surrounding an AoO are the same as they were in round one and I know the answer.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 16, 2010)

IronWolf said:


> Er, not sure why that portion of a statement was singled out and taken to mean that I was trying to define the inner workings of the mind.



Wasn't meant to be applied to you personally.  Just a pet peeve that you happened to hit on since I was last at a computer and able to respond to the thread.

Human beings are quite bad at this kind of thing, so large numbers of people insisting they can do it with something resembling accuracy is always on the border of amusing and irritating to me.

It's like how less then 5% of people can talk on a cell phone while driving without performing like they are drunk, but 90% of people act like they're in that 5%.  These disconnects are jarring to me.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> The problem relates to the idea that the grid is somehow both more helpful in one edition, while the cost of losing that help is not greater.



Indeed.  And I think the answer will vary from person to person and table to table, especially in games like 1e/2e with so many optional subsystems.  Depending on how many of those are in play (and which ones), you may well see one table losing nothing with the loss of grid, and another losing much.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 16, 2010)

Canis said:


> It's like how less then 5% of people can talk on a cell phone while driving without performing like they are drunk, but 90% of people act like they're in that 5%.  These disconnects are jarring to me.




This, I believe, is because they don't really care about how the consequences of their actions affect other people.

Like crocodiles; both live in de Nile.



RC


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> This, I believe, is because they don't really care about how the consequences of their actions affect other people.
> 
> Like crocodiles; both live in de Nile.
> 
> ...




Every day, countless players are denied basic necessities such as grids and minis by harsh, tyrannical DM overlords.  However, for less than a dollar a day, *you* can sponsor a player, granting him not only a miniature but a sense of spatial orientation within his game world.  Won't you please think of the players?

I accept cash or checks.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 17, 2010)

After having read through a good bit of the replies, I've organized my thoughts a bit and thought I'd present them:

I think what bothers me about the 4E combat system "kludges" is not so much the _use_ of a grid; I've been using gridded combat and minis since I got into D&D.  Its the changes like reducing monster hit points by half, increasing character damage output, not using monsters above the character's level +2, using egg timers to limit character's turns and those sort of tricks to get combats down to a "reasonable length" that irk me.  Overall, the RAW combat of 4E simply takes too long to resolve, grid or no grid.  If I had to pull the same stunts in my 3.X game or Vampire game to get a combat under 30 minutes, I'd be highly annoyed.

The 4E combat system, overall, annoys me because it is built like a mini-game within the game.  If the _base_ combat rules ran more along the level of detail of a skill challenge (say, a 12 success skill challenge; at-wills, encounter and daily "powers" would be akin to different skills) with the _option_ to add deeper detail to the game (perhaps in its own splatbook), I don't think it would bother me so much*.  Running combats that are the length (and appearance) of other wargame tournament rounds (such as Mechwarrior: Dark Age or WH40K games I used to play in or a DDM game), simply does not appeal to me, or several of my gamers.

* In fact, I've made several stabs at trying to convert 4E's combat system into a skill challenge.  I just haven't had the energy to sit down and slog through it; there's other games that do what I want without having to rewrite so much of the system.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 17, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> After having read through a good bit of the replies, I've organized my thoughts a bit and thought I'd present them:
> 
> I think what bothers me about the 4E combat system "kludges" is not so much the _use_ of a grid; I've been using gridded combat and minis since I got into D&D.  Its the changes like reducing monster hit points by half, increasing character damage output, not using monsters above the character's level +2, using egg timers to limit character's turns and those sort of tricks to get combats down to a "reasonable length" that irk me.  Overall, the RAW combat of 4E simply takes too long to resolve, grid or no grid.  If I had to pull the same stunts in my 3.X game or Vampire game to get a combat under 30 minutes, I'd be highly annoyed.
> 
> QFT.  I totally agree with you.  This boils down the whole thread into one succinct post.  4E combat is slow by default.  So slow, in fact, that the RAW game is nearly unplayable for many.  This is a huge flaw of the system.  It simply doesn't work for more casual gamers (or even hard core gamers) that don't have 6 or more hours to devote to a game session on a regular basis. In fact,the unreasonable length of 4E combat along with annoyance with neverending rules updates (PC nerfs) has seriously diminished LFR play in my area.  There a some that want to play, but cannot devote the 6 or more hours to play an LFR mod.  If the mods actually only took 4 hours to complete like they are supposed to, I am confident more people would be playing, but 4E's slow combat system makes the time investement too steep for many adults with busy lives.  I think it's perfectly okay for a nice setpiece "boss" fight to last an hour and a half or more, but it is not acceptable to have every single fight that is supposed to be even remotely challenging to the PC's to take that long.  A nice long, epic fight with the BBEG is fine, but I don't want to spend an hour or more fighting Bob the pig farmer and his four sons turned bandits or a bunch of kobolds.  There should be an option in 4E's RAW to have quicker fights for non setpiece encounters.


----------



## D'karr (Jun 17, 2010)

Shazman said:


> In fact,the unreasonable length of 4E combat along with annoyance with neverending rules updates (PC nerfs) has seriously diminished LFR play in my area.  There a some that want to play, but cannot devote the 6 or more hours to play an LFR mod.  If the mods actually only took 4 hours to complete like they are supposed to, I am confident more people would be playing, but 4E's slow combat system makes the time investement too steep for many adults with busy lives.




Interesting that you should mention LFR.  We've seen just the opposite in our area.  We have a huge influx of new people, and now with D&D Encounters we are seeing even more.  The "nerfs" that you mention have been a good thing, IMO.  You have to try to keep a level playing field for something like LFR which is global, and some of the changes have been to keep the items and powers in check and from being abusive, which once again IMO is a good thing.

I've been running and organizing LFR games since the campaign started, we routinely run well over 30 sessions in a month across several locations.  We have encountered very few LFR adventures that took longer than the "advertised" time, usually the ones that did are the ones that have multiple paths to arrive at the conclusion.  "Night I brought out the undead" is the only notoriously long adventure we've found.

So our experiences are completely different.  A handful of adventures out of well over a hundred adventures does not seem like a bad ratio.  YMMV, of course.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 17, 2010)

If the rules updates actually fixed serious imbalances in the game, they would be a good thing. What they actually end up doing is trying to shut-down theoretical char-op builds, while people playing even moderately optimized characters have to watch sadly as their PC gets nerfed repeatedly.  IMHO, that is the wrong way to do things.  I have never seen a 4E character that was "broken" even if they were using some things that were deemed "broken" and got nerfed.  I have seen many PC's that simply can't do enough damage to end fights in a reasonable amount of time.  If having thngs like half elf twin-strikeing avenger/daggermasters and ranger/fighter/pit fighters is what it takes to do enough damage to end combats in a reasonable amount of time, then I say let them stay.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I have seen many PC's that simply can't do enough damage to end fights in a reasonable amount of time.



My experience is quite different. All our group's PC's are current-errata compliant and they have no problem dishing out the pretend violence. They're frighteningly good at, in fact. And this from a group of inveterate storytellers. 

This all cycles back to: some people use the 4e rules more effectively than others (both players in terms of builds/tactics and DM's in terms of encounter design/opponent selection).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 17, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Stormonu said:
> 
> 
> > After having read through a good bit of the replies, I've organized my thoughts a bit and thought I'd present them:
> ...


----------



## Shazman (Jun 17, 2010)

That will only work if they also give a boost to the exp value of the monsters.  Otherwise, you have to use more monsters to "spend" your exp budget.  More monsters that do a lot more damage, means PC's have to take more time doing defensive actions like using second winds, drinking potions, and using standard action heals or PC's go down more often and can't do damage.  That means more rounds of PC's doing less damage, so grind can still happen.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jun 17, 2010)

In the odd event this 30 page thread isn't enough for you to read, here's a thread on the Paizo boards that discuss playing without minis as well.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2010)

Shazman said:


> That will only work if they also give a boost to the exp value of the monsters.  Otherwise, you have to use more monsters to "spend" your exp budget.



Err... exp budgets are guidelines. Use as many opponents as you need and no more. You seem to be inventing a problem where one doesn't exist -- or am I missing something?


----------



## Shazman (Jun 17, 2010)

Actually, it is a real problem if you use pre-published adventures or play LFR.  They have pretty standardized exp per mod or leveling rate per adventure, so if they use lower level monsters they have to use more of them or have more encounters to get the same exp.  The only way around it would be to have more skill challenges and "quest" exp, which I hope would be the way the writers would go, although some may consider that a kludge as well.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 17, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Actually, it is a real problem if you use pre-published adventures or play LFR.  They have pretty standardized exp per mod or leveling rate per adventure, so if they use lower level monsters they have to use more of them or have more encounters to get the same exp.



Aha... got it. My friends and I play an all-homebrew home game with no real expectations regarding XP/leveling (outside of the DM using XP budgets to ballpark encounter difficulties, we don't use XP).

I forget that people play in more formalized campaigns.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 18, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> After having read through a good bit of the replies, I've organized my thoughts a bit and thought I'd present them:
> 
> I think what bothers me about the 4E combat system "kludges" is not so much the _use_ of a grid; I've been using gridded combat and minis since I got into D&D.  Its the changes like reducing monster hit points by half, increasing character damage output, not using monsters above the character's level +2, using egg timers to limit character's turns and those sort of tricks to get combats down to a "reasonable length" that irk me.  Overall, the RAW combat of 4E simply takes too long to resolve, grid or no grid.  If I had to pull the same stunts in my 3.X game or Vampire game to get a combat under 30 minutes, I'd be highly annoyed.
> 
> ...




Hang on a second here.  You run 3e combat with a grid in under 30 minutes, without using any house rules or table rules like shot clocks, but your 4e combats are far slower?  

My suggestion would be to do whatever it is in 4e that you do in 3e to get that time down.  If you are actually running combats with grids and minis in 3e at any significant levels (say 5th level plus) and your combats are routinely under or equal to 30 minutes, my hat's off to you.  You have managed to accomplish something that very few have.

So, how do you run 3e combat so quickly?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second here.  You run 3e combat with a grid in under 30 minutes, without using any house rules or table rules like shot clocks, but your 4e combats are far slower?




The question to ask is this: What level 3e combat?

For 5th level 3e combat, _with miniatures_, I'd often finish in 30 minutes or less. By 16th level, 3e combat was a monster taking often about 2 hours or more.

3e combat (at nominal levels of difficulty) varies in length far more than 4e combat, IME.

Cheers!


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 18, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second here.  You run 3e combat with a grid in under 30 minutes, without using any house rules or table rules like shot clocks, but your 4e combats are far slower?
> 
> My suggestion would be to do whatever it is in 4e that you do in 3e to get that time down.  If you are actually running combats with grids and minis in 3e at any significant levels (say 5th level plus) and your combats are routinely under or equal to 30 minutes, my hat's off to you.  You have managed to accomplish something that very few have.




I think there are large number of variables here.  5th level really isn't that high to start causing issues with combat.  Maybe up around the 10th to 12th level range you'll start to see longer combat times.  But even that is going to vary with how many combatants on either side?  Four characters against one BBEG is likely to go pretty quick.  Those same four characters against eight to ten other mid-level combatants is likely to go slower.

I think it is hard to make meaningful comparisons among combat times unless one was to run one encounter under the 3.x ruleset and then run the same encounter under the 4e ruleset.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 18, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The question to ask is this: What level 3e combat?
> 
> For 5th level 3e combat, _with miniatures_, I'd often finish in 30 minutes or less. By 16th level, 3e combat was a monster taking often about 2 hours or more.
> 
> Cheers!




Definitely agree here. If we look at the sweet spot of 3e, than I think 3e combats running quicker and smoother than 4e. But at high levels, 4e's combat stays relativity consistent, where 3e becomes a lot slower and more time consuming.


----------



## Stormonu (Jun 18, 2010)

MerricB said:


> The question to ask is this: What level 3e combat?
> 
> For 5th level 3e combat, _with miniatures_, I'd often finish in 30 minutes or less. By 16th level, 3e combat was a monster taking often about 2 hours or more.
> 
> ...




I don't normally run games past 12th level in D&D (in fact, ever); my campaigns generally reach their climax by that point (and I just plain don't like the game above those levels) and the players have been playing long enough they're ready to move on to a new game. Most of my games have the heavy action in the 3rd-8th levels of play.

For running the 3E combats, I use fantasy grounds for a combat tracker and roll my dice (I can do up to 20 attacks on my side in one flick of the dice, and see what order they were rolled in).  That's the only trick I can think of I'm using to speed up the combat in my game.  I don't count battlemat / initial miniature placement in the combat time either, if that makes a difference.

I have occasionally used spell cards/spell books for the spellcasters so they have faster access to their spells, and in the last campaign I preprinted out stat blocks for the druid's summoned allies, but it didn't seem to save much time over just having the rulebooks handy.

Our WoD combats run even faster; usually they only last a round or two - perhaps 10 minutes or less?

Probably the longest combat we ran was a ship-to-ship fight in the last campaign.  It involved four full crews - two ships on the player's side, two on the enemies.  One galleon and one sloop size on each side with over 100 combatants total.  I don't think the whole maneuver-broadside-boarding action took more than two hours total, but it was a major setpiece battle.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 18, 2010)

My experiences are similar to Stormonu's.  Earlier this year, I was playing in a Pathfinder campaign, and we could easily finish three fairly challenging encounters in one and a half to two hours.  That was with the DM coming up with the encounters on the spot, having 6 PC's, not using any computer programs or other "kludges", and included setting up the minis on the battlemat.  In my expereince, one similar combat in 4E could have easily taken the same time as those three combats in Pathfinder.  That pretty much says it all as far as length of combat between the two systems goes.  3.5/Pathfinder moves like lightning but does get noticeably slower at higher levels, while 4E starts at a snail's pace and continues to get even slower as levels increase.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 18, 2010)

Shazman said:


> My experiences are similar to Stormonu's.  Earlier this year, I was playing in a Pathfinder campaign, and we could easily finish three fairly challenging encounters in one and a half to two hours.  That was with the DM coming up with the encounters on the spot, having 6 PC's, not using any computer programs or other "kludges", and included setting up the minis on the battlemat.  In my expereince, one similar combat in 4E could have easily taken the same time as those three combats in Pathfinder.



All that is well and good.  But here's where you go off the rails:



> *That pretty much says it all as far as length of combat between the two systems goes.*  3.5/Pathfinder moves like lightning but does get noticeably slower at higher levels, while 4E starts at a snail's pace and continues to get even slower as levels increase.



For you.

My mileage varies considerably, as it clearly does for several other people here.

Your experience does NOT "say it all."  It says that your group uses the earlier edition more efficiently.  That is pretty much *all* it says.  Both of the groups I've played with, on the other hand, used 4e very efficiently, much more efficiently than even the latter portion of the 3e sweet spot.  There are also dozens of 4e play podcasts on the internet of people knocking out much better than 1 combat per hour, mixed liberally with RP and goofing off in most cases, which I'm pretty sure you classified as "impossible" earlier in the thread.  

If I said that my group's ability to run 4e fast and furious "said it all" about length of combat, I'm sure we'd have half a dozen people in this thread frothing at the mouth and howling for my blood.  So let's keep this "fair and balanced", wot?


----------



## D'karr (Jun 18, 2010)

Canis said:


> My mileage varies considerably, as it clearly does for several other people here.




My experience also, with more than just several groups in both 3.x and 4e.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 18, 2010)

Okay, maybe I won't say it's a fact that 3.5/Pathfinder combat much faster than combat in 4E, but I will say that in my experience with various groups of people (so different DMs and different players) that combat in the 3.5/Pathfinder system can be resolved in approximately one third of the time that it would take in 4E with PC's being about the same level and the combat being at approximately the same level of difficulty.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 18, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Okay, maybe I won't say it's a fact that 3.5/Pathfinder combat much faster than combat in 4E, but I will say that in my experience with various groups of people (so different DMs and different players) that combat in the 3.5/Pathfinder system can be resolved in approximately one third of the time that it would take in 4E with PC's being about the same level and the combat being at approximately the same level of difficulty.




There are plenty of factors that can slow down a game one of the most importance being familiar with the game.  For people that have playing 3e for 10 years and 4e for almost two it makes sense to me that 3e works faster for them.  

Obviously, I have no idea if that is a reason for your own case but I know it would be for my own.


----------



## Shazman (Jun 18, 2010)

Familiarity may have something to do with it, but I don't think it's the main reason I've seen 4E combat take so much longer.  The 4E games involved people very familiar with the system, and some of the Pathfinder games had one person new to the system, with the rest being very familiar with it.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jun 18, 2010)

The fights for my group might be a little quicker in PF. The main difference I see is that there are few abilities that go off during someone else's turn in PF. In 4e you generally have to remain vigilant. It's like having a 8-9 hour workday and not taking any breaks. While the 8-9 hour day isn't abnormally long it will seem to be so beacuse there have been no breaks.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2010)

Shazman said:


> Familiarity may have something to do with it, but I don't think it's the main reason I've seen 4E combat take so much longer.  The 4E games involved people very familiar with the system, and some of the Pathfinder games had one person new to the system, with the rest being very familiar with it.




And yet... and yet, my experience is the complete opposite.  My first 4e experience was with a new DM (not only new to 4e, but had never DM'd anything before) two brand new 4e players (myself and one other) and two experienced 4e players.

We played the Rivenroar module.  Combats took about 40 minutes each.

By what you are saying, we should have been taking hours to play through.

Never minding the WOTC podcasts themselves, all of which showing combats taking around 40 minutes as well.

Hey, in 3e, by the end of things, we had our combats down to about 40 minutes as well, most of the time.  Until we hit double digit levels, and then combats went from 3 or 4 per session to one.

Now, I do play in another 4e game as a player.  There, combats have taken up to two hours.  But, that's not system, that's player problem.  The same group was glacially slow in 3e as well.  

I find it very hard to understand how anyone could blast through 3e combats in under an hour and then see their time double in 4e.  4e is easier than 3e.  There's no grapple rules, AOO's are considerably more simplified and you have far less standard options like trip or disarm to grind the game to a halt.

What are you doing in 4e that takes you so much longer than 3e?


----------



## Wik (Jun 19, 2010)

There's a thread by Blargney kicking around where we time our combat sessions - as well as what resources were used.

Most of our combats are in the 1 hour mark, give or take fifteen minutes.  Our 3e fights were pretty fast... up until the group hit 7th level or so, and then they got much longer.

4e, on the other hand, seems to be about the same throughout.  Blargney's posts on this are a pretty good empirical indicator of this.  

Also, while we could say combats in 4e are longer (not sure I agree with that, as a general rule), I'd say it's a fact that individual turns are far shorter - a 3e fight often ends in two or three rounds, while a 4e encounter usually takes about six or seven (from my experience).


----------



## billd91 (Jun 20, 2010)

Hussar said:


> What are you doing in 4e that takes you so much longer than 3e?




I can't speak for anyone but my own group, but there's a lot more PCs with fussy powers and the ratio of damage dealing ability to monster hit points is reduced. That's been quite enough to cause combat to soak up a lot more time than comparable combats in 3e with the players otherwise being the same (and playing with pretty much the same style).


----------



## xechnao (Sep 2, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Show me?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, show me.




Sorry to necro. I have tracked my last post since I visited the forum last time and it seems I left this unanswered.

I felt like I had to reply to this one debate I left.

So, well, regarding the matter, I am too lazy to actually try to make something serious now (fun, tactical miniless combat).

But I will be keeping it in mind. In the meantime, if anyone still wishes and has something-some idea to discuss we can start a new thread.


----------

