|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 8:01AM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
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.
No, it does not make use of opportunity attacks. It does force you to engage/disengage with targets before you can make a melee attack against them, though.
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.
Yea, I think that between SARN-FU and the other ruleset provided I can make 4e do what I want it to. Keeping a private DM map also seems like a good idea.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 8:02AM
#42
|
|
|
I just want to try and find a way to run 4e without all the squarecounting.
What exactly do you mean by squarecounting, and what don't you like about it? Is it that people stop...slowly count out their movement...change their mind...count out movement again, etc? Is it the mere idea that people count squares (even quietly to themselves) that bothers you?
We don't allow people to slow down combat by stoping the pace and doing things like that. Players are required to know what they are doing and act when their initiative comes up. I do require them to move over every square they cross because it can be significant, but they don't slowly and laborously have to do it. Furthermore if players take too long on their initiative to act I force mandatory delays. These are just a few ideas of how you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
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 - 8:21AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
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.
People have been “cautiously suggesting that it is not the fault of 4e” because the 4e community tends to have a fairly ugly persecution complex. Considering how the 4e community was treated in its infancy it is not such a big surprise. Unfortunately, it has reached the point where it is doing nothing constructive for the community. This has nothing to do with what is or is not the fault of 4e. This has nothing to do with empirical values. This has everything to do with personal taste. You can narrate in combat while playing 4e. You don’t have to. Whether you prefer games that make that narration a requirement or not is a question of personal taste. That is all. When I express my personal taste, say what I am looking for, and ask for some constructive discussion on how I might achieve it with 4e, saying “4e is fine as is, you are doing it wrong, don’t talk bad about 4e, the problem is not 4e!” is childish and pointless. I know what I like, I know what I don’t, and I don’t need anybodies' help in figuring that out. I also have not passed judgement on 4e one way or the other. I have merely expressed what I like and what I don’t, what I would like the game to do and what I would not like it to do. If you cannot accept that my tastes are what I say they are there is no point to posting. Nothing constructive will come of it.
And 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.
No, it is actually as simple as this: I have played 4e for many years; I have played RPGs for even longer; I am a fairly self-reflexive person; I know how to figure out what I like, what I don’t like, and why; I have played in a group in which multiple players got burnt out on 4e for the same reason, and who have really got into the swing of a WFRPG 3e game due to its more narrative approach (in terms of combat resolution). If I were ever to play a 4e game with them again, I think I would have to sell it with houserules designed to make its combat more narrative and less “board-gamey.” The fact that you don’t share the same personal tastes, and that to you it is enough that one narrate when it is not required, is irrelevant. That does not match my desires, it does not match my tastes, and it does not mesh will with the tastes of many gaming groups.
This is just bad roleplaying regardless of the system used. I call it lazy, not a problem with 4e.
No, it is not bad roleplaying. One still plays their role if they make decisions based on their role even if they narrate absolutely nothing during combat. It is bad narration. The problem is, when narration starts to get “samey” one starts to cut down on narration for the sake of saving time. At least, that is what happened with our group. Coupling “samey” board movement with “samey” narration slowed the game down. For the sake of speeding the game up some groups would prefer to cut one of those "samey" qualities out of the game. The quality I would prefer to cut from the game is “samey” board movement. It is personal taste, that is all…
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 8:48AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I just want to try and find a way to run 4e without all the squarecounting.
What exactly do you mean by squarecounting, and what don't you like about it? Is it that people stop...slowly count out their movement...change their mind...count out movement again, etc? Is it the mere idea that people count squares (even quietly to themselves) that bothers you?
We don't allow people to slow down combat by stoping the pace and doing things like that. Players are required to know what they are doing and act when their initiative comes up. I do require them to move over every square they cross because it can be significant, but they don't slowly and laborously have to do it. Furthermore if players take too long on their initiative to act I force mandatory delays. These are just a few ideas of how you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I have already explained what it is I don't like, and why I don't like it, a number of times. I don't mind having a rough map which exists purely for the sake of helping players spatially position everything in their minds, but I prefer it when the map does not (in any way, shape, or form) interact with the rules of the game. I am looking to remove the map, and the grid, from the rules. If we choose to have a rough map (which is used freeform, without any rules) so that people can figure out where everyone is based on their descriptions that is fine. But that map should be an afterthought, a mere aid, to appeal to my tastes. Currently, 4e is setup in exactly the opposite schema. In 4e, narration during combat is an afterthought and all the rules focus on the map and the grid. I think the houserules provided by wrecan and herrozerro can provide me with something along the lines of what I am looking for.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 9:19AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
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.
Yea, I think that between SARN-FU and the other ruleset provided I can make 4e do what I want it to. Keeping a private DM map also seems like a good idea.
Yay, everybody wins! I know that as a DM, I would definitely prefer having the grid for my own use (and not just because it was my idea). You have enough to keep track of as the DM, and adding in trying to keep track of an entire fight in your head just seems like too much.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 9:23AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 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.
I've discovered my group does not like a lot of challenge, and no map often means no or easily bypassed problematic terrain. Movement is kinda fudgey, and they pout a bit when they can't charge attack everything in sight.
I do like one aspect of gridless combat - players feel much more 'free' to do new and crazy things. Not to say they could not do such things with a grid, but perhaps having the visual aid means that some (perhaps a great deal) of the players' focus is taken up by the board.
---
If you want more descriptive combat, perhaps you could ban calling out powers by their name at the table. I think most attacks will devolve into "I stab it with my sword," but it might be worth trying for a session just to see.
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 9:30AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
I have already explained what it is I don't like, and why I don't like it, a number of times. I don't mind having a rough map which exists purely for the sake of helping players spatially position everything in their minds, but I prefer it when the map does not (in any way, shape, or form) interact with the rules of the game. I am looking to remove the map, and the grid, from the rules. If we choose to have a rough map (which is used freeform, without any rules) so that people can figure out where everyone is based on their descriptions that is fine. But that map should be an afterthought, a mere aid, to appeal to my tastes. Currently, 4e is setup in exactly the opposite schema. In 4e, narration during combat is an afterthought and all the rules focus on the map and the grid. I think the houserules provided by wrecan and herrozerro can provide me with something along the lines of what I am looking for.
It's interesting that when a person requests input on how best to make 4E do something he wants it to do that is admittedly a bit outside the intended design of the game, the responses turn into attempts to invalidate what the person wants the game to do or claim it already does it if the person just "did it right", rather than to help him get there or at worst, say it isn't possible. I think you're right about why that happens Dave.
Anyway, I would definitely give Fluid and Sarn-Fu a shot if you think those will work for you. I would just reiterate that it can be simpler than that if you're willing to be selective in what powers you allow. Most all the classes I've looked at have enough powers available that a pretty solid build can be created even if you limit yourself to powers that don't rely heavily on squares and positioning. If you pick such powers, I think you can do what you're setting out to do without little or no houseruling, other than a slight redeifinition of adjacent.
The one thing this won't really address is what you mentioned as "precombat planning". Assuming you want to impact this in the same way you want to impact in-game narration (i.e. that even though 4E allows it, it does not require it) there will be a bit of a struggle since 4E is also designed with the assumption of balance such that the players have a linear relationship to difficulty. I've had luck overcoming this by abstracting the level of the monster. For example, I will plan multiple encounters identical except for the level of the enemies. One encounter might be level + 4 or level + 5 which in 4E terms is difficult to the point of being nearly impossible (as I'm sure you know). I will then run the "precombat planning" as a skill challenge. Success on the skill challenge will determine how much the level of difficulty gets lowered. Maybe if the preplanning goes very well, they'll ultimately face a level + 1 encounter.
Edited to remove the people the commenter was replying to since my only intent was to reply to Dave. Sorry for any confusion.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 9:32AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
|
Yay, everybody wins! I know that as a DM, I would definitely prefer having the grid for my own use (and not just because it was my idea). You have enough to keep track of as the DM, and adding in trying to keep track of an entire fight in your head just seems like too much.
This is absolutely what I would be doing. I love how the combat grid simplifies keeping track of who's where and what's going on, but I can see how people might say "hey, I want people to narrate what they do and that's the ONLY way they get to do anything!" In such a case I'd still love to retain my own grid as DM, just like how I'd never try to keep a map of an entire dungeon level in my head no matter how "old school" I was going.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 30, 2011 - 10:36AM
#49
|
|
|
the responses turn into attempts to invalidate what the person wants the game to do or claim it already does it if the person just "did it right", rather than to help him get there or at worst, say it isn't possible. I think you're right about why that happens Dave.
It doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, it has to do with "how you do it." Dave's group apparently regresses to "count, point, roll" unless they are forced to be more descriptive. Maybe that is necessary for Dave's group, but it isn't a feature or fault of the 4e system. My players are very descriptive (and not repetitvely so) and so am I. All it takes is trying not to be. It's not even hard. Believe me I'm not a 4e fan boy. I look forward with great relish to 5e, and at heart I am probably mostly a 1e grognard. I just believe an issue has been created out of whole cloth here. No rules adjustment is needed, unless there is something about the personalities around your particular table that requires it. Bottom line.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning 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 - 10:47AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
|
the responses turn into attempts to invalidate what the person wants the game to do or claim it already does it if the person just "did it right", rather than to help him get there or at worst, say it isn't possible. I think you're right about why that happens Dave.
It doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong, it has to do with "how you do it." Dave's group apparently regresses to "count, point, roll" unless they are forced to be more descriptive. Maybe that is necessary for Dave's group, but it isn't a feature or fault of the 4e system. My players are very descriptive (and not repetitvely so) and so am I. All it takes is trying not to be. It's not even hard. Believe me I'm not a 4e fan boy. I look forward with great relish to 5e, and at heart I am probably mostly a 1e grognard. I just believe an issue has been created out of whole cloth here. No rules adjustment is needed, unless there is something about the personalities around your particular table that requires it. Bottom line.
Thanks for making my point for me. I'm sorry I upset you. Although I don't actually recall mentioning you. Your response kind of precludes me arguing since you so profoundly state that "it's not even hard". Were I to argue, I'd be admitting that I can't do this "easy thing" you mention. You've pretty much put me in a box of "you're doing it wrong". I guess I'll just have to be content to stay here. Shrug.
|
|
|
