|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 4:09AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
Wrecan: What I saw of SARN-FU is that you're still dealing with "melee 1, melee 2, ranged 5, ranged 10, same-space" and similar distinctions.
As opposed to:
Location A
Location B
Location C
You're either in the same location as the other guy, or you aren't. If you are, you're fully engaged. If you're not, you're not engaged. (Maybe you can make ranged attacks against people in other locations, but there isn't any sense of range 5/10/20 etc.)
And you simply move to another location by spending an action to do so (with no such thing as movement speed/etc in combat; locations and individuals don't have any particular distance between them).
So there are only (in this case) three locations, and there are no further gradients beyond that. SARN-FU tries to maintain smaller gradients based loosely on the 4E speed/range/etc values.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 4:16AM
#32
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Wrecan: What I saw of SARN-FU is that you're still dealing with "melee 1, melee 2, ranged 5, ranged 10, same-space" and similar distinctions. As opposed to: Location A Location B Location C You're either in the same location as the other guy, or you aren't. If you are, you're fully engaged. If you're not, you're not engaged. (Maybe you can make ranged attacks against people in other locations, but there isn't any sense of range 5/10/20 etc.) And you simply move to another location by spending an action to do so (with no such thing as movement speed/etc in combat; locations and individuals don't have any particular distance between them). So there are only (in this case) three locations, and there are no further gradients beyond that. SARN-FU tries to maintain smaller gradients based loosely on the 4E speed/range/etc values.
I don't see why SARN-FU can't handle that. All it does is convert ranges into narratives descriptions. You're just saying what if everything was squeezed, adjacent, far, or unreachable. Oversimplifying SARN-FU into SA-FU isn't a big deal, particularly if you incorporate the ides of "knots" as described int he third and final installment of SARN-FU.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 4:29AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
> what if everything was squeezed, adjacent, far, or unreachable.
I'm putting it as two states: same location and different location.
No version of D&D has been designed to work that abstractly though, and making such a change would involve a complete redesign of the way combat works. It certainly won't happen mid-edition.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 5:24AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2011
|
I wasn't going to post here since it seems to be turning into a huge discussion, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents so to speak.
I've played RPGs with and without a map for combat, and I find it frustrating not having a visual representation of the fight. Without a map, problems arise such as "do I have line of sight to this enemy?", "am I far enough away to charge?" or "How many targets does my fireball hit?". It usually ends up being DMs call which I feel takes control away from the player, which is a bad thing I think.
Years ago I stopped playing tabletop RPGs because this was one of the problems I had with them. With the introduction of the battle map, I have come back to D&D.
In my eyes it's just easier and less hassle to drop some tokens on a map.
Yeah, its more preparation and more work, but I think it's worth it. In our games there is plenty of RP in the non combat sections.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 5:42AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
Cyber-Dave:
Does WFRPG 3e have opportunity attacks? I don't know anything about this system, so it would help to know a bit more about what you can and can't do.
In addition to SARN-FU (which seems like a great system for handling combat without a grid and minis if the DM can handle it and the group all goes along with it), another solution would be to simply hide the grid from the players. Because it seems that your issues with the grid don't come from the DM side, but from the player side. You dislike lazy players simply moving their mini, grunting toward a monster, pointing to a power card, and rolling the dice. An easy fix (assuming you have a laptop) would be to make your maps using a program like Maptools (or any other mapping program...even Excel works if you make the grid into squares). That way you don't have to waste mental energy on keeping track of everything, and the players will have to narrate their actions and at the same time know that you are not just giving a subjective answer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 6:07AM
#36
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I'm putting it as two states: same location and different location. No version of D&D has been designed to work that abstractly though
I thought we were talking about SARN-FU, which can work that way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 6:21AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
If it can, it certainly isn't the impression it gave what with the focus on melee 1 being distinct from melee 2 and moving taking a number of actions based on your speed and so forth.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 7:47AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I've never understood why people don't like knowing where they are relative to everything else in combat, and knowing where and how they can manuever in combat without problems or taking extra time fiding things out that can change their decisions.
This is a strawman characterization of what people like me do or don't like. It has nothing to do with knowing where you are relative to everything else in combat. In fact, I do like knowing where I am relative to everything else in combat. It is about not liking when the game stops being about verbal narration during any type of encounter. When the game no longer requires that you verbally narrate anything, it stops being about verbal narration. In combat 4e stops being about verbal narration. It didn’t bother me at first, but overtime this aspect of the game has come to really turn me off.
I admit, that 4E is specifically made to be run on a grid, but that's where a large portion of the balance comes into play. I generally describe what I'm doing, but like others have said, it gets very samey after a while. Not every killing blow will decapitate(most shouldn't), not every wizards spell leave gaping holes thru the targets body(again most don't). There is a point where doing 30 points of fire damage goes from turning everything in a room from living flesh to charcoal, and doing 30 points of fire damage is unnoticed by the wall of demons charging out of a portal to hell you just activated.
Seeing people count squares, point to a power, point to a target, and roll a die gets very “samey” to me after a while. I would rather hear people repeat similar verbal utterances to that…
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 7:53AM
#39
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with knowing where you are relative to everything else in combat. In fact, I do like knowing where I am relative to everything else in combat. It is about not liking when the game stops being about verbal narration during any type of encounter. When the game no longer requires that you verbally narrate anything, it stops being about verbal narration. In combat 4e stops being about verbal narration. It didn’t bother me at first, but overtime this aspect of the game has come to really turn me off.
And this is why a lot of people have been cautiously suggesting that this is not the fault of 4e. Many groups still fully describe their actions, make up flavor text descriptions for their powers, and do everything you say isn't happening in your game. Oh, and they play 4e.
Now, not to be entirely unsympathetic this was beginning to happen somewhat in my game, but rather than drastically change how the game works, I sat down with my players and asked them if they wanted to be more descriptive. They did, so now we do more of that. It boils down to a choice. You and your group seem to be making a choice that bothers you, so choose to do things differently. It's really as simple as that.
Seeing people count squares, point to a power, point to a target, and roll a die gets very “samey” to me after a while. I would rather hear people repeat similar verbal utterances to that…
This is just bad roleplaying regardless of the system used. I call it lazy, not a problem with 4e.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 7:56AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I can't understand the "sick and tired" part of the title. Maybe the OP was intentionally trying to be over the top with it?
Do you not understand what the colloquialism "sick and tired" means? It generally refers to something that you have taken part in or of for some time, but which you no longer enjoy. I own almost every 4e book. I have played the game since release. I also played 3e D&D. I also played 2e D&D with the combat and tactics optional rules (once they were released). All those games made heavy use of grids and maps. I have gotten sick and tired of the practice. I pine for the pre-combat and tactics days of 2e, and have come to enjoy WFRPG 3e more than any other fantasy RPG on the market, because of their map/grid-less approach.
I also don't understand how the OP could claim to like 4e and not like tactical combat. There isn't much else to the 4e rule set than tactical combat.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “tactical.” I like much of 4e’s setup. I like gamey RPGs. I like RPGs that require tactics. I just don’t like maps and grids anymore. At least, not heavy use of maps and grids which require regular squarecounting, and which distribute modifiers based on squarecounting.
If you want a rules light, abstract game system try Amber diceless roleplaying. It is almost entirely abstract and narrative. I'm sure some copies are floating around the internet for sale.
I am not looking for a rules light game. I already know which games I enjoy. I just want to try and find a way to run 4e without all the squarecounting. Thanks to two of the posters in this thread I think I can now do that…
|
|
|
