Community

May 30, 2012 -- 8:26PM, Rask wrote:

Personally, I like the TOTM idea, but I did encounter an interesting issue. Of my 4 players, 3 were more than happy to play without a grid, a couple in particular where excited to loose the grid, being players that started with the earliest editions. One however only really has experience with 4e and was very thrown by the idea of not having a grid. The player felt that she was disrupting the game because we would have to stop and deal with where things where and what was going on. Thus the problem being:where is the happy medium?

As DM, I didn't have a problem with keeping track of things, but that one player had a really hard time because she felt she had to constantly ask questions about where things were, how far they could move, etc. in order to follow along.  After the game, the player did agree that at least having a basic sketch would have helped, grid or not, so I think that will have to be a consession for next time at least. 

I also felt like the lack of rules for any form of AoO was a problem. It seemed as if a PC could just move past the weak guy next to them in order to take out the bigger threat without concequence. Even if its not based on the "creature in the adjacent square" idea, i think there needs to be something. While I prefer ToTM, because it makes things so much faster and easier, the grid does help with movement, range, and a lot of other things.

Paradoxally, it demand more work to play a ToTM game than a grid one, but not more work for the DM. Why? Because the players have to participate in the narration for the ToTM to work smoothly. They are no more in the position of the user of the adventure's work, they have to give a little of their own imagination to support the adventure.

This is why some players viscerally hated grid combat and 4e in general, because they felt something was taken from them. They felt they needed to play in the limits of another one's imagination, who is not even at the table. Some other players like my groups' found the 4ed's rules refreshing and usefull, but never have been committed to be stricty bonded by them; Eventually, they will just play the same way they did before, with ToTM when a grid is not really fun. We would also enjoy the "Descent-like" system once in a while.

In a ToTM game, the DM have to describe the combat zone with a little more care than with a grid map, pointing out obvious features within the room. He has to repeat the features, using the monsters actions or RP, in order to get them right in the players' minds. When there is a danger that is not a work from the monsters, it is ok to make one bad guy suffer it just to tell the players the risks.

It is sure that a rough sketch would always be helpfull, but I would advice you to make it the simplest possible. Leave some gap to be filled by players' imagination. More than often, you will see that they will add some features in your combat you wouldn't have thought of. In my personal experience, it seems ToTM play is more open to this kind of narration process than the grid.

For the players, and there will always be some, who have a hard time projecting the fight in their mind, there is something you can do as a DM or as a fellow player. You can encourage them to imagine. You don't have to play the Mother-may-I game, which is not fun. Just encourage them to tell you what they want to do in more simpler terms than distance between creatures or mouvement speed. The speed rules are just guidelines, not a hard fact to be strictly followed. If one's character is a dwarf (speed 5) and the monsters are goblins (speed 8) you just have to tell that they are roughtly twice as quick as a dwarf. In every way, you have to make their decisions matter for them to immerse themself into the battle.

edit: I will add another advice that just popped in my mind. When you are confronted to a player who can't seem to understand what's going on or can't seem to choose what to do, here is what I do: I tell that player what is immediatly happening in his character's vicinity (at immediate distance of his speed). It helps greatly the player to consider the options available and to pin-point himself in the battle.

Considering the lack of OAs and the general mouvement rules in this playtest, I must admit that it feels weird for players since they are so long used to these mechanics. But each of my players and myself agreed that OAs are not the way to go anymore. Then, the rules seemed easy enough to us to improvise some taunting (contest again creature intelligence) and some mouvement impeders for trespassers (using the ready an action rule). After that, it was obvious for everyone that D&D doesn't need anymore an OA system nor some more complicated tanking mechanic.

You are very true. I never stated otherwise. From the rough sketch to the pure grid play, like it is possible with 4ed. Imagination is the only limitless ressource a human got.

I just tried to give some personal thought and advice for the OP who ask for them.

On the consistency matter, well there is no explanation to a feeling. My players and I don't feel the game inconsistent when not using references. If I were to DM for another group, I would use all the pencil and paper it is needed to make sure that inconsistency feeling won't be a problem.

Then again, you are right.

I found that it is so much work for the DM to make a compelling encounter in 4ed that little by little I tend to design only a few per adventures. My players and I won't accomodate for some basic fighting using all the time needed for a grid encounter. In our playing style, an encounter has to have certain qualities to be put on a grid:

1- to serve some meaningfull story plot
2- to be in an iconic or at least fantastic location
3- to have plenty of room for meaningfull and various tactical choices

It is the last point which is the more subtle to pull off and I continously research and find some new ways to deal with that. Here is the main tricks I use:

1- Size does matter, make it big.
2- It does not have to be only one room. It will be more intense if you pull out an entire network of rooms. Traps are very fun this way.
3- It does not have to be only one encounter worth of creatures. It have to be daunting then characters should feel some stress and be confronted to meaningfull choices. But play smart with your groups' ideas and reward them.
4- It has to have some social interactions and some physical world interactions. I'm playing a lot of video games and I'm happily plundering from level design to ensure that my encounters ask for a little bit of thinking.
5- It has to have some element of surprise and turnaround.

Now, for that's for the grid. For the ToTM you can guess this is not that easy to pull off the same kind of encounters with lots of rooms without having the players or yourself feel lost. Even the time tracking could be an issue. That's exactly why we use grid for these, it feels more immersive and less inconsistent. While one could also say this is because of my lacking DM skills to make this work alltogether.

I personally take a lot of fun at challenging myself in narration and story telling. That's why I'm more of a DM than a player. Even when pushing minis, I make sounds like a kid and tell jokes and story related material. It is an evidence that designing encounters for a grid play and for a ToTM play are really different in my mind, while I also could say that this difference between the two is just a mind trick - a way of telling things. Like you said, I feel that I have more to think about spacial relationships in a grid play that in ToTM, but it is a fraud. A misconception that what enhance ToTM is about not caring for the little details, when they are in fact as importants as in a grid play.

I plus the comment above!

It is remarkable that one could think he has to tell everything, every details, when playing in ToTM. But in a grid play, unless you talk about a certain feature drawn on the map nobody is really sure what it is either. The difference is that in one case they know for sure there is something there, while in the other they can just imagine something.

Let an exemple clear this. If I say in ToTM that the character enter the room of a noble girl, with the main element of the room being the large baldachin bed. I don't have to precisely tell that there is drawers and dressings, the player should understand that by himself or then ask. In a grid play, the bed and the drawers will be (or not) drawn, but until we talk about them the very nature of themselves don't really exist. I hope I'm not confusing, but if I forgot to draw a coffee table that don't mean there isn't one.

 What could make the difference in this exemple would be, as you said, the spacial relation. In grid play it is immediatly obvious at which distance is the bed from the character. In ToTM it would not matter even if there's a zombie girl in the bed, the player will tell what his character does, you will rule what's happening, end.

Useful links for above comment:

www.feartheboot.com/ftb/index.php/archiv...

dungeonsmaster.com/2012/03/blind/

I'm not associated with the Fear The Boot podcast, but they're awesome. Give a listen. The article is invaluable too. I was glad to find another cool D&D blog out there.