|
I was wondering if anyone else GM's in the sort of style that I do, where I try to rely on immersion and imagination entirely to paint the scene of whats going on. This I have learned can be very hit or miss. I choose not to use use map layouts and miniatures because for one, they all cost more money, and two, the more proxies you use, the more you deter from the feel of what is actually going on. I try to keep combat very, as I say "conceptual" letting players who charge headlong into melee know they are "engaged" by X amount of baddies, and those that are at a range casting spells or firing off arrows or what not are given a range of where the actual melee is taking place. I always hear suggestions to use a "whiteboard" but I find that combat can sometimes become more dull, and I end up feeling like John Madden drawing circles and X's and arrows and all that jazz and that tends to deter the whole "immersion" effect I go for...
Any suggestions to this style of GMing would be greatly appreciated.
This is absolutely the way we played RPGs back in the day. I don't even remember a sketch of the battlefield happening.
With 3.5 and Pathfinder, however, I have a hard time picturing just how to do it because combat is very tactical and so many of the PCs abilities are "square-based". It would lead to utter confusion in my games, even if I was able to maintain a perfect map of the action in my head...which I could not do if I had a gun pointed at me.
So, I have no tips for you except that maybe you want to look at all of the precise tactical abilities available and make sure they work within your more abstract combat style...and let players know how they work with it as well. I presume you must already be doing something like this since you seem to be running games successfully with this style.
M
I think the best way to do it would be to simplify the game. The editions have become more complex over the years with rules nodding ever increasingly toward miniatures. You might find yourself re-writing a lot powers and abilities (or simply eliminating some) to accomodate this style of play.
Another idea is to use 1E as a base and add PF stuff to it.
|
|
Another idea is to use 1E as a base and add PF stuff to it.
There are also a number of retro clones out there that are free PDFs, based on 1e.
I know that you don't like whiteboards, but I've had some success with gaming on a glasstop coffee table - you can sketch a quick diagram on it with dry erase markers, and it doesn't add clutter to the table because it IS the table.
I was wondering if anyone else GM's in the sort of style that I do, where I try to rely on immersion and imagination entirely to paint the scene of whats going on. This I have learned can be very hit or miss. I choose not to use use map layouts and miniatures because for one, they all cost more money, and two, the more proxies you use, the more you deter from the feel of what is actually going on. I try to keep combat very, as I say "conceptual" letting players who charge headlong into melee know they are "engaged" by X amount of baddies, and those that are at a range casting spells or firing off arrows or what not are given a range of where the actual melee is taking place. I always hear suggestions to use a "whiteboard" but I find that combat can sometimes become more dull, and I end up feeling like John Madden drawing circles and X's and arrows and all that jazz and that tends to deter the whole "immersion" effect I go for...
Any suggestions to this style of GMing would be greatly appreciated.
Ah my good man; another convert. Let me say that with a little work you will find sessions with no map layouts and minis much more fulfilling; this being said however, you will find that a good topographical map even one hand drawn will give you a a whole lot of enjoyment and make your sessions based on imagination to be much more fun.
The key to success in a session based solely on imagination is the imagination of both you and the players. Think of reading a good book; if you can easily visualize the images being presented through the medium of words then you will have no trouble at all. If you have difficulty then it may present problems. In the latter case you may want to start small and simple, at least until you are used to this kind of thing.
Another point I want to touch upon is the idea that you will have to tone things down: In my experience this is complete rubbish. This is where imagination shines. Let the minds of the players take what you have mechanically informed them and visualize it the way they want; as long as it jibes with the mechanical presentation.
Combat is indeed where things get interesting. For this I say use your own seating arangement as a gauge. Your players are going to ask the invaribly astute question: "How far away am I from so-and-so?" You would then say: "Double the distance between us now..."
We never used to use minatures until one fateful day that a huge row broke out over a characters exact placing in a combat..the player went as far as to accuse the DM of deliberately cheating to kill his character..after that we used minis for evey combat to prevent such accusations.I'm afraid human nature being what it is someone will always try and take advantage of an abstract combat situation.
|
Back in 2e, and 3.0 that is exactly what I used to do, it was all describing the engagement distance, and terrain, and then letting the players ask a lot of questions. One thing that you have to concede is a pad of paper, grid or lined, to give the approximate layout once in a while. Mostly just for area of effect spells, but it can help for "complex tactical moves." Things like difficult terrain, become harder to have in a meaningful way, unless everything is difficult.
What you end up getting is a much more cinematic combat, where players ask stuff like "can I squeeze between the two brutes to get at the mage" or "can I leap off the balcony and grab the chandelier." Your response has to be quick and fair, like "make a acrobatics roll" and then just adjudicate in a very gray way. Like if it is really bad then boom AOO, if it is really good they get by, and if it is in the middle you can just say "you can either stop short or Crusher Fang the Second will take an AOO"
Your best bet for a fun game is to say YES to the idea, and try to fairly adjudicate the attempt so that failure is possible, but that ultimately the players can control the combat narrative of their characters when they sacrifice the precise tactical narrative.
Here are my gathered pieces of wisdom:
-Train your players that if they describe and utilize a realistic piece of the environment, it will probably be there for them to use. This allows you to keep the fights especially cinematic without depending on long, drawn-out descriptions of every possible detail.
-Warn your players what the observable consequences of their actions will be, and give them a chance to fine-tune. This will prevent arguments of the "I wouldn't have tried to jump out the window if there were bars in it" variety.
-Recognize that there are still some rare circumstances when a visible representation will improve the encounter, and don't refuse to use a map just on principle.
-Know your own limits, and make sure you always know where all of the combatants are in relation to each other. Nothing spoils an encounter faster than NPCs who randomly change location.
This is really an exercise of self control for both the GM and the Players.
Total imagination is fine, but often hard to pull off because there are always situations in which the players imagine something different than you are. This can slow down the game considerably.
Now enter stage 1 - the overview.
Here you scetch the combat layout broadly on a whiteboard with no grid. This is fast and helps immensely and only slightly intrudes into imagination.
However with no grid and you needing to draw everything the players face the problem that sometimes they find their PCs inside the area of a fireball only because you drawed them there and not an inch more to the right - some players will try to hold this against you.
This can easily lead to stage 2 - the detailed overview.
Here you haev a white board with a grid and actually bother with exact movement (30' being 6 squares) and exact placement.
This can slow down combatting even more as the players will be drawn away from imagining the combat into min/maxing movement and placement. You will also need to draw a whole lot more and better which can be hard and needs a lot of concentration.
Often this leads to stage 3 - miniature board
Now the board is in the middle of the table, taking up space that could be filled with snacks and softdrinks. The players now move their miniatures themselves relieving you of this but also are even more focused onto strategy. Additionally this can get expensive as it's actually detrimental to imagination to use proxies (fearsome purple worm being symbolized by a candy bar...) so correct miniatures are often worming themselves into your game.
If you look at the options, I think it's best to stay at stage 1 and leave it scetchy. If a player complains explain what it would take to draw everything right. Maybe invent a "luck" roll (Cha-check) for someone who thinks the he really could be outside the blast area.
|
Mark your paper lightly with circles and x's. Use the first initial of party members in the circle. Keep a good eraser handy, preferably pencil ones since they are a bit more surgical.
A drafting metal plate with eraser spaces can also improve your erasing. Keep your pencils very sharp. Do not use mechanical pencils. Remember to press lightly.
I still recommend miniatures for just the party positioning. It helps in visualizing positions above paper so you can get a little more messy on the graph paper.
Be more descriptive in the wounds and deaths of their foes. You know, one arrow in the eye and two in the lung. Since your group can't study the tactics side of the game, you will have to give them pictures to focus on of their imaginery foes being shredded.
Even as a big proponent of the retro-clones/Old School Renaissance I would still suggest trying Pathfinder as others have said here, with description and immersion. I like the simulacrums, but we all also like the level of detail in Pathfinder in my group.
Originally the D&D rules grew out of wargaming which is very board-oriented. Which strikes me as odd considering I never used to use boards at all in our RP sessions that far back (yes, I do go that far back :) ).
For a long time now I've been using miniatures, maps and so on for combat until one week I got so thoroughly fed up with it. Combat dragged on and it seemed so distanced. I binned it all and went back to description only.
It felt so good to be back in control (as it were) and immediately felt familiar. I was removed from the restraints imposed upon me by the battlemat and I - and more importantly my players - enjoyed every minute of it.
To my mind it's a much superior form of game. The mind's eye is lowered to the ground level rather than the top-down viewpoint imposed by the map. Granted, there can be moments of confusion, but without the restraints of the board the players are for more likely to try something new, or cinematic.
I invariably say 'yes' to my players when they ask to do something, and just assign a difficulty, or preface it with a 'you don't think it'd be likely/possible' but allow them to try anyway.
This kind of play doesn't suit everyone, but everyone should at least give it a try.
|
|
stuff
My DM is doing this for our current game and I must say I'm torn. Removing miniatures, to me, removes most of the tactical aspect of combat from the game. Conversely, dropping minis substantially ups the PCs immersion into combat (but, again, removing the tactical components).
When I start running my Kingmaker game, I will be using a battle map and minis, but this is more due to the fact that I'm not as imaginative as my DM (he gives great descriptions!!).
BLUF: removing minis removes tactics, but makes combat more dynamic and immersive.
PS - another thing to consider is that things like flanking, sneak attack, etc. can be more easily represented with minis (IMO) so if you've got a rogue minis might be best (I'm playing a rogue and, well, I think i get SA dice alot more than I should).
As mentioned above, map and figurineless is the classical way to go. Faster, more immersive. We rolled this way for most of our games. To the point that, when we decided to check out 4rth edition, the single most annoying point was that EVERY DISTANCE WAS MEASURED IN SQUARES, and as such, needed to be translated back into feet.
Anyways, it does remove a bit of the tactical part from combat. Certainly makes movement bases AOOs rarer (basically, without maps people will probably think of AOOs only against retreating opponents, or using AOO provoking actions. I don't believe it is a big thing, but it might be for characters who took combat refexes.
Also make combat maneuvers like bull rush and overrun more conceptual, and they will probably be used even less. Things like reach weapons will also be deeply affected.
But for all normal sword and sorcery action, it does'nt change much. In my opinion it even improves the game. Greatly. And, it has the added bonus of getting rid of square fireballs.
|
|
At the risk of being flamed...
Read D&D 4.0 DMG 2...
It is rules light, and RP/DMing heavy, and really gives some great ideas about letting your players narrate and saying yes.
Serious great read.
Interesting. I've never played 4e, but I've heard that it does put more emphasis on "squares" as opposed to 3.0, which did most everything in feet...I think if anything it would be more married to the board/tactical aspect of the game.
Is there anything in there that talks specifically about ideas for boardless/mapless play? (Not baiting here, just honestly curious, since I've never touched 4e).
This is absolutely the way we played RPGs back in the day. I don't even remember a sketch of the battlefield happening.
+1... or at least, I ran 95% of my battles that way, saving battle maps for special battles, or for when the players requested them.
With 3.5 and Pathfinder, however, I have a hard time picturing just how to do it because combat is very tactical and so many of the PCs abilities are "square-based". It would lead to utter confusion in my games, even if I was able to maintain a perfect map of the action in my head...which I could not do if I had a gun pointed at me.
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1...
|
|
At the risk of being flamed...
Read D&D 4.0 DMG 2...
It is rules light, and RP/DMing heavy, and really gives some great ideas about letting your players narrate and saying yes.
Serious great read.
Interesting. I've never played 4e, but I've heard that it does put more emphasis on "squares" as opposed to 3.0, which did most everything in feet...I think if anything it would be more married to the board/tactical aspect of the game.
Is there anything in there that talks specifically about ideas for boardless/mapless play? (Not baiting here, just honestly curious, since I've never touched 4e).
I don't have the book handy, but the majority of the DMG 2 isn't really game mechanic centric. It is honestly one of my favourite RPG books, agnostic of systems, but here from the previews:
Just gives the flavour of the book, but it naturally dovetailed into this conversation because I think the notion of group story telling is what really empowers and makes memorable the idea of combat without props.
Any suggestions to this style of GMing would be greatly appreciated.
As part of my disclosure, let me say I love painted miniatures. I also like maps. For me, having these items helps me visualize the scene. And besides, everyone knows that a well-painted PC mini attracts better dice rolls. The downside is that a painted mini for the DM means the players all know who the BBEG is . . . .
Having said that, I HATE the way d20 games emphasize movement, especially diagonal squares. I actually had a 5" long pencil that the DM wouldn't let me use because my miniature wouldn't line up with the squares. Drove me absolutely batty.
I use miniatures stictly for general positioning purposes, and rarely require detailed movement from my players. Usually, a phrase like "You'll spend this round running across the field, and you'll engage next round" will be all the players need.
Good stuff, and I agree with most of it.
Reach Weapons: I still use these, but with a slight caveat - a reach weapon will win initiative for that round, as the person moves into the threatened area. I haven't had any issues with this, as the concept of a reach-weapon is very easily described. I've found that most issues with reach weapons fall into the "obvious" category. Charging a longspear-weilding soldier? He's gonna get to hit you first, since his spear comes up first.
For spells, most times being firm and fair will quiet any discussion of who is in the area of effect or not.
Ask the players what their marching order is. A lot, because when the bad stuff happens it's amazing who suddenly doesn't have point anymore!
Thus far, I haven't had a problem with running this way.
|
|
I rarely use a battle grid. Very rarely.
That being said, I have used a battle grid many, many times in 3E -- and when I get to run a PC, it's always been with a DM who uses a Battle Grid. Thus I am very experienced with tactics, etc. in combat.
That's why I can run a game without one.
The thing that makes playing any 3E variation without a Battle Grid is having little or no experience using one. Since so many Feats, Class Features and combat rules are integral to the grid you gotta learn it on a grid. But once you've learned the system you can throw the battle mat in the fire where it belongs.
In combat the Players can ask questions about what they can do and you can arbitrate.
PC: I want to move to flank the NPC
DM: Sure, you're now flanking, roll to hit.
PC: Can I catch everyone in my fireball without getting my allies
DM: (Thinks a second and determines -- in 1/ 1,000,000,000th of the time it takes the friggen Player to find the best intesection) You can get 4 of the NPCs including the BBEG but you can't get the guy in melee w/ Bob.
PC: I take a 5' step so I don't provoke
DM: sure
PC: Oh Crap, that hurt -- I withdrawl
DM: Mwahahahahaha -- okay, you're now 90' away from the fight
DM: My BBEG moves out of the range of the Silence spell giving Bob an AoO
PC: Mwahahahaha --
DM: My BBEG has Mobility; Mwahahahahaha
You get the idea. It is fair. It is fun. It takes 1 trillionth the time of the mat.
I feel mats/minis/maps/Dwarven Forge can be useful... but frankly, it can very easily cross the line from useful to "colossal time sink / interruptive exercise" far too easily.
I have had a number of discussions about this with my current ref. He absolutely loves his dwarven forge sets, while I feel they detract from the game more often than they help.
If you know there's going to be some sort of 'lives on the line' epic battle, putting the time into an elaborate layout might be beneficial (even better if it's done the night before), especially when players are risking a lot.
Otherwise, it should be all about description. The game has de-evolved far too much into a tactical board game for my tastes, so focusing on the 'mind's eye' description is paramount.
Like the poster said above, simply laying it all out verbally beforehand and answering questions (including offering healthy options and alternates) really goes a long way to removing the crutch that is the overuse of minis/etc.
|
Hahahahaha........... NO!
BTW IURD - DF is annoucing a new mystery set to add to their classic dungeon line sometime in August. Hopefully it will be a new tower expansion so I can stack the dungeon "jenga" style before it falls and knocks your gatorade into your lap.
So more stuff for your ref to add to the colossal time sink/interruptive exercise.
Oh yeah, I also found a new half-naked elf mini for your broken Druid/Wizard character to run around in my DF nightmares, I will make sure to paint on a loincloth before I turn him over to you.
BUMBULAS!
BTW, Stay out of the Kingmaker threads
|
|
Here's my suggestion. Don't use anything.
If a fight gets "complicated" and a grid would help fine, find the old 3.0 dungeon master's screen booklet (the last page is a grid!) or find something you can use as a grid. Don't worry about miniatures! Everyone has dice, some people have more dice then they need, use dice (or pocket change) as a substitute for minis and once it's over, done. :)
I think my favorite setup was at a technophiles house. He had a computer hooked up to a projector and so I went through the whole Shattered Gates of Slaughterguard module and remade all of the maps in Flash. They looked wonderful and I made all of the PCs, NPCs, and monster icons as stylized circles with a letter abbreviation inside of it.
If they went into a room I would remove some of the fog of war and they'd see a a grid with all the furniture of the room, monsters and what not.
When i first started out we didnt use a battle map. I think this biggest difficulty was always keeping track of where everyone was. For me at least it slowed things down alot because I always had to ask 'where was that other goblin with the crossbow? Was he fighting the barbarian or sneaking around the side? For the dm its even harder since the responsibility of tracking alot of the movement falls to them, since the players dont have visual representation of the room/area.
Now that said, battle matts dont have to cost anything. My group made do for years with a pair of go boards and a bag of coins/go pieces for monsters. Each player had a single mini they used. It wasnt untill i got into wargamming itself and I started having a miniature collection that we really started at least occasionally using 'correct minis' I still prefer to be descriptive, I dont put alot of effort into what's drawn on my whiteboard, I instead try to describe it in as much details as I can, and encourage players to describe their actions more. So really the board becomes less the focus, and more of a record keeper then a focus of the battle.
Have the minis, legos, salt shakers, cups, what have you, at hand; but don't rely on them. Avoid using a grid strictly; it's a crutch. A grid can be useful for crude measuring(oh he's 6 squares away), but becomes restrictive. You and your group will get used to the give and take of adjudicated combat (sometimes that fireball hits 5 goblins, sometimes 4; but sometimes, the troll is too far away to charge you). I take the players as far into abstract combat as I can. If things get hairy, I bust the legos out which they have customized to their liking. Use them to resolve the issue, then ignore them(the figures).
I bust the legos out which they have customized to their likingThat is what I loved about playing with Legos ... Players could customize them and personalize the min-figs to suit their PC. Making characters was always a lot of fun, and personal. Unfortunately, min-figs on a 2x3 base to keep them balanced are just a little too large for a 1" grid.
R.
Yea we had once tried using legos for a star wars game, they just didnt fit, particularly when they were holding things. You need bigger then a 1" grid if you are using lego mini's.
While I believe I was slightly off on my initial assessment, I think Rezdave's point is still a tad convoluted.
I agree with the posts which underscore the importance of description. Although I take notes on basic positioning (which monsters are in a group, which ones are scattered, etc), I have never used a map grid since I began with D&D back in the 80s. We have given it a try for 4e as a sort of experiment (and that makes our 4e games more infrequent than PF or other systems, as it adds to preparation time, whether you use a simple grid whiteboard or electronic board).
With the exception of of 4e and its many shift-push etc rules (which are intuitive on a board, but hard to implement in a non-board system), I find that other incarnations of the game do well with a narrative system:
1) describe the scene well (initial setting)
2) ask the players for more narrative feedback on how they attack.
3) give narrative feedback on monster responses
Things like feats and special abilities are a good indicator of what a character/creature may do/attempt doing instead of the math data for a grid. Maybe you'll lose a bit of accuracy, but if you're flexible with your players and somehow reward creative combat narrative, the thing works pretty well.
Of course, you have to know your players. If your table leans strongly to the rules lawyers side, this approach can be trouble and a grid could be the only way to go without having too many arguments. If your players are less prone to lawyering, you can give narrative combat a try. I've found quite a few players who prefer it, because, according to them, grids and tokens/figures interfere with their inner visual depiction of the scene.
|
|
I was wondering if anyone else GM's in the sort of style that I do, where I try to rely on immersion and imagination entirely to paint the scene of whats going on. This I have learned can be very hit or miss. I choose not to use use map layouts and miniatures because for one, they all cost more money, and two, the more proxies you use, the more you deter from the feel of what is actually going on. I try to keep combat very, as I say "conceptual" letting players who charge headlong into melee know they are "engaged" by X amount of baddies, and those that are at a range casting spells or firing off arrows or what not are given a range of where the actual melee is taking place. I always hear suggestions to use a "whiteboard" but I find that combat can sometimes become more dull, and I end up feeling like John Madden drawing circles and X's and arrows and all that jazz and that tends to deter the whole "immersion" effect I go for...
Any suggestions to this style of GMing would be greatly appreciated.
It does engage the imagination better. We tend to get confined within three dimensional thinking when you use a Battle Board. The potential inherent within the imagination opens up new dimensions of play.
Back during 2nd edition D&D we only occasionally used a battle grid of any sort, and it required a lot more descriptive interaction, and confusion would eat up game time from time to time, but I remember more about how the fight played out from our character's perspective than I do today with the use of battlegraph boards.
A few guidelines would be
Be descriptive: Include details like the number of feet away the enemy is, lighting, position relative to features close by and the characters.
The beauty of playing this way is that it frees you from the table, so get up and demonstrate more. Use your gaming surroundings as an example. Point out the window at landmarks nearby and reference them for distance.
Take your sheets and dice outside and see how far you can throw a rock to demonstrate range and accuracy.
Just avoid demonstrating flaming effects or drowning rules. Some things are best left in the rulebooks.
I make and sell boards to be used in gaming, but I have to admit that we lost something along the way.
Great post, I will have to take our group back outside one of these days!
|
This is absolutely the way we played RPGs back in the day. I don't even remember a sketch of the battlefield happening.
With 3.5 and Pathfinder, however, I have a hard time picturing just how to do it because combat is very tactical and so many of the PCs abilities are "square-based". It would lead to utter confusion in my games, even if I was able to maintain a perfect map of the action in my head...which I could not do if I had a gun pointed at me.
So, I have no tips for you except that maybe you want to look at all of the precise tactical abilities available and make sure they work within your more abstract combat style...and let players know how they work with it as well. I presume you must already be doing something like this since you seem to be running games successfully with this style.
M
We used to rely on description only adventuring for the very reasons mentioned above by many of the posters already, it fires the imagination more. This makes the game a more immersive and believable experience. I have to agree with a point made by another poster above that when you're looking down at the miniatures representing your PCs (however beautifully painted) there is a sort of disconnect between you and them.
However, and this is a big however. The rules for Pathfinder can be quite complex especially in combat situations. Now some GMs and players have minds like razors and can cope with the description only style and still work within the rule system without simplifying it. I know that as a GM I have so many other things to consider during combat I cannot always rely on my players to provide me with accurate information as to their whereabouts during melee. Sometimes they'd even pretend that I'd misunderstood their movement intentions and argue about it. This tended to distract from the game and it's fun, as arguments could carry on significant amounts of time, and don't tell me to tell them that the GM's word is final because that leads to sulking and irritation. It's kind of like a good/bad line call at a tennis match where players are abusive to the umpire and referees. Sometimes I also make mistakes and when I realize this it pains me a little.
So, being that I like the rules as they are and don't wish to simplify them, I can suggest a hybrid approach.
Use simple board game counters like those you see in CLUE, a little like a plastic column with a bobble at the top to represent the combatants, different colors for each. Reserve red to represent the attackers. make simple bases out of card for larger than 5" reach opponents and put them on a marked grid with no pretty surface pictures. Put crosses in squares that are impassable and a question mark over squares representing difficult terrain.
Then state that the only reason you are using this aid is so that everyone knows where they are and where everyone else is. Reserve this only for combat. You might not even need it for simple combat situations.
Make sure you have already described the space and the attackers to the players before you even use this device, so they can picture themselves in the situation and feel they are there. As the grid is plain and the counters look like nothing but counters, it shouldn't detract from the combat experience. On completion of combat remove the grid and pieces and continue the narrative.
It does work quite well, and at least everyone can agree that they weren't being hard done to by a GM decision. After all they are they are the ones pushing the counters.
It does work quite well.
|
|
i suggest finding a game that is not based on the need for minis and giant maps, you might as well say your not gonna use dice cuz it doesn't feel real to see the numbers on them as hits and misses. 3, 3.5, and PF all rely too heavily on minis for all the combat functions to use descriptions of where characters and enemies are to just not use them. i suggest ( like someone else did above) going old school and using the AD&D first edition rules.
Which strangely enough still uses dice ;) I've been playing D&D since the first rulebooks, and there are no RPGs where there are no dice unless it's live action role playing where you dress up and fight with plastic swords and stuff.
The dice are a fair way to add a little randomness to the RPG. This is why we apply all the modifiers to compare skill of attacker vs defender or whether you can or cannot do something successfully or not In the real world things don't go exactly as planned. Dice are the in-game abstraction for luck, fate or whatever you want to call it.
I've played RPGs with minis, with counters, without minis. If a group enjoy their game by modifying rules that suit them that's fine, if a group likes playing by the canonical rules without alteration that is also fine.
The game can definitely played very enjoyably without miniatures, and I tend to think that beautiful floorplans and pretty miniatures are a distraction from the essence of the immersion experience, because however hard people try, they still think of the dungeon as it looks on the floorplans and minis and tend to stop using their imaginations. Minis are effectively statues and as such should be treated only as position markers with regard to the rules.
That doesn't mean that GMs using Floorplans and pretty miniatures are wrong if that's the kind of game they enjoy playing. I don't think there is any right and wrong way. If you enjoy your game session and keep coming back for more then its a good game.
D&D, Pathfinder and all other rule systems employ abstraction. The pathfinder game doesn't have rules for attacks lopping off limbs or even heads. Instead the Critical Hit system deals with this, as does the massive damage rule.
For example. Your CE 10th level fighter character decides to murder a one HD peasant by attacking him/her and causing massive damage. The DM can describe it like this "you swing your mighty sword and neatly sever Bodkin's head from his shoulders, his decapitated body collapses as gushes of blood spurt from his neck". In game terms the peasant suffered massive damage, simply because he didn't have the hit points to survive the attack from such a PC. Hit points are also an abstraction, indicating the toughness of seasoned adventurers and their opponents.
I used a cruel example, so please don't be too offended but this is how 3rd Ed. Pathfinder rules work. I've played games in the past where you have to roll on which part of the body gets hit, but I found that it bogged down the game and ceased playing it.
Bottom line is you can play the game in a fashion that suits you and the rules are there so that fairness can be achieved.
If you're going to do this, and it's possible, you need to SIMPLIFY.
Example: How many locations are possible in the fight between the PC's and the Orcs w/shaman leader in a 60' square room?
Answer: While some of you are trying to estimate the number of free squares, that's the wrong way to do this.
There's actually only three locations that matter. You're in the melee line (fighters from both sides), back line for the party, or back line for the orcs (shaman).
Once you've done this, then you can bring in other ideas, like tumbling to change location without provoking an AO.
|
|
I applaud those who actually addressed the OP's request for tips running the game a certain way and shake my head at those responding as if running without minis/grid is inconceivable under the existing rules.
It boils down to a single issue, are we enjoying the game the way we like to play it? If the answer is yes then no-one else need criticize. Some GMs and players are clever enough and/or co-operative enough to work without using visual aids. In fact, if you were to be complete purist you might actually say that miniatures are as meta-game as calling your "trusty sword Rory the Slasher" a +1 Sword (with X stats).
In my game we promote role play and try to limit meta-game comments from our PC dialogues. We might break and discuss meta-game issues during this break, but not during play. We all know our stats as players, but our PCs do not think in stats they think in terms of the setting that they inhabit.
When our mage uses his Knowledge (arcana) skill, he says something like "I think I've come across something like this before, lets have a look."
He rolls his skill check and if he succeeds he will say something like "I knew it, this is book about the Metaphysics of Extra-planar Travel written in Aklo". Now though he knows of the tome and has seen the title before in his travels and that the language is Aklo, but he doesn't read Aklo so he might add. "I might take this to Eridar the Sage, he might be able to decipher it." If he fails his Knowledge check then he might say "Nah I was wrong, I've never seen anything like this before, but I can detect magic emanating from it (as he casts detect magic on it). I'm going to hang on to it, it might be useful."
I like my hybrid approach (see earlier post) simply because I'm not bright enough to handle all the details required in combat without it. Others, however are. Everyone to his own, use the rulebooks as your guide but do not become enslaved by them. Gaming is fun, and you don't game for 30+ years like I have doing a recreational pastime if you hate it.
i think a few of you misunderstood what i meant, so i will clarify. i am not telling anyone how to run their game, i am pointing out an obvious fact that pathfinder is set up to be played with map and minis. this is true wether you like it or not. i suggested 1st edition because its rule system is much easier to run without minis and maps. and descriptive narration should be a part of your game with or without minis cuz " you hit it, roll your damage" just sucks the life out of the game.
I do not know if your logic applies. As already pointed out, 1st ed was quite designed for being played with minis and maps (it evolved from a wargame after all), as you may see in the "inches" for movement measures or in variable ranges between indoors and outdoors settings. Back in the day, it wasn't easy or intuitive to move into narrative combat, but people just did, probably for economic and space reasons, and because one of the pluses of the "new" RPGs was their extreme portability (you could play in school recess, in the train, etc).
Also, I was not talking of descriptive narration, but of a narrative combat system to replace the more "griddy" aspects of the game. Also already commented:
1) determine cover by interpretation of PCs and monsters narrative placement
2) define main areas of battle: e.g. group A of ogres, solitary ogre sniper; solitary ogre wizard; what areas you may cross into, which ones generate AOs, etc.
3) use those same areas to adjudicate area spells (and "friendly fire").
I've been playing D&D since the first rulebooks, and there are no RPGs where there are no dice unless it's live action role playing where you dress up and fight with plastic swords and stuff.
Ever hear of the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game? How about TSR's Saga system, as used by Dragonlance: Fifth Age and the Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game, which used no dice?
I've been playing D&D since the first rulebooks, and there are no RPGs where there are no dice unless it's live action role playing where you dress up and fight with plastic swords and stuff.Ever hear of the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game? How about TSR's Saga system, as used by Dragonlance: Fifth Age and the Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game, which used no dice?
There's also Everway, an old WotC property (I still use the cards from the base set for all kinds of purposes).