Mark, you have hit one of my building blocks (sort of like a writers block). I have two major construction projects in my head. I've gone so far as to lay out foam core poster board for one of them. I've laid out my Hirst blocks in a number of ways to build them out, but I just haven't been able to pull the trigger and glue them all down and commit to the thing. Instead I pull it all apart and toss my blocks back into their plastic containers and then do the whole thing all over again the next weekend...
The reason I find it so hard to commit is because of the sheer number of blocks involved in creating a large single cavern complex, or arena, or temple or tomb (all of which I've laid out and tore apart...)
One of these days I'll pull the trigger and just do it.
What I have built so far using the Hirst blocks and other terrain elements are:
1. Wizards tower (the 4" radius cut stone one)
2. Fieldstone bridge
3. Fountain
4. Ruined tower
5. First two floors of a four floor palace
6. The main walls and towers of a small keep
7. Several modular terrain with hills, trees, lakes, etc.
8. Tombs and graveyard...
But lately I've focused on just casting blocks and building up enough of them that I don't feel like I've used them all up on one structure.
Building it how some on the Hirst Arts Forums with modular wall sections and floor sections might work.
Also doing a Final Fantasy XIII/Star Ocean style combat works pretty good if setup right.
I'm sorry but going without a grid takes more time.
With the wrong DM, yes. With the right DM, it goes faster.
I think it's more about the players, actually. When we play without miniatures it's quicker, but we dont have arguments about who can see what or what's in range of who. We generally just say "Can I get a clear shot at the guy at the back?" and go from there. The DM is trusted to be always right (and generally we err on the side of the players, anyhow).
.I suspect it's harder if you're a player/group heavily focussed on tactics.
With the wrong DM, yes. With the right DM, it goes faster.I think it's more about the players, actually. When we play without miniatures it's quicker, but we dont have arguments about who can see what or what's in range of who. We generally just say "Can I get a clear shot at the guy at the back?" and go from there. The DM is trusted to be always right (and generally we err on the side of the players, anyhow).
.
I suspect it's harder if you're a player/group heavily focussed on tactics.
What I have found is that with 3.0 and later versions of the game (reaching its zenith in 4e) a large number of character concepts are based on tactics and when a player has spent hours optimizing their character to gain tactical advantages based on those concepts not having a grid just leads to arguments as the GM is focused on story and the player is focused on exercising what they sweat blood to create. There may well be groups who can still play 2e style mapless games, but I have not run into any in the past fifteen years.
Yeah, I'd agree with that (although at least one of my groups plays mapless just fine, however we dont spend any time working on tactics outside of combat, let alone outside of a session).
If the players want a game focussed on tactical choices and combinations, I think a grid is very useful. I also think PF/4E are both slanted towards that style of play.
Most of the AD&D and such groups I know have taken to the grid.
Even with the release of the AD&D Special Printing they still will use the grid.
Most of the AD&D and such groups I know have taken to the grid.
Even with the release of the AD&D Special Printing they still will use the grid.
I used the grid in AD&D, but then again, I am nuts about tactics and many of my players have been tactically oriented as well. We played with and without the grid in AD&D and 2e, and honestly both were fun. But I don't remember playing any game in 3.0 or later versions without the grid.
I've found that in pretty much every game without a map, there's still a map. It's just a different map imagined by each player and the GM.
Yar!
Back when I was playing 1e/2e AD&D, we would at the very least always have graph paper. Whenever we had the chance to, we would use the Advanced Hero Quest dungeon tiles to create random dungeons, and go through that with our minis, giving us the visuals as well as our tactical needs with the grid.
It was good times.
~P
I remember well that as players we would diligently map out the described area and use the map we had drawn as our guide for placement and movement. I do admit that I sort of miss that.
I would play a different system before playing D&D/PF without a grid.
Mark, you have hit one of my building blocks (sort of like a writers block). I have two major construction projects in my head. I've gone so far as to lay out foam core poster board for one of them. I've laid out my Hirst blocks in a number of ways to build them out, but I just haven't been able to pull the trigger and glue them all down and commit to the thing. Instead I pull it all apart and toss my blocks back into their plastic containers and then do the whole thing all over again the next weekend...
The reason I find it so hard to commit is because of the sheer number of blocks involved in creating a large single cavern complex, or arena, or temple or tomb (all of which I've laid out and tore apart...)
One of these days I'll pull the trigger and just do it.
What I have built so far using the Hirst blocks and other terrain elements are:
1. Wizards tower (the 4" radius cut stone one)
2. Fieldstone bridge
3. Fountain
4. Ruined tower
5. First two floors of a four floor palace
6. The main walls and towers of a small keep
7. Several modular terrain with hills, trees, lakes, etc.
8. Tombs and graveyard...But lately I've focused on just casting blocks and building up enough of them that I don't feel like I've used them all up on one structure.
Yar.
... you have hit one of my building blocks ...
Just have to say it: I enjoyed this pun, intentional or not.
^_^
~P
We only started using a grid once we swapped to Pathfinder, and as much as I resisted the idea I just found the mechanics of PF don't lend themselves as well to gridless play as earlier editions (I came off Basic/AD&D/2ed) especially given the rather non-abstract features of Feats - which are often very particular. Notions of facing, squares etc are all pretty heavily present throughout. Similarly, the mechanics would also be thrown off by our old favourite the Hex-Map.
Anyhow, its all Grid for PF. AS much as I empathise with his view, it's just the nature of this beast.
It is surprisingly easy to use a hex-grid with pathfinder when doing outdoor encounters at least after a little trial-&-error. Around your 3rd encounter you should be able to do it as easily as a square grid.
I personally don't, except for really hectic battles(usually BBEGs). It takes, for me, too damn long to clean off the last map and draw out the grid for every single encounter when I can just discribe the area and proximity of enemies to the player in feet, since that's where abilities are at most of the time.
Granted it's occasionally caused problems, with a single player in specific, but I attribute that more to individual players not listening as all but once every other player at the table will usually back me up.
I can't disagree that a map will make things clear, but most of the time it's more of a bother than it's worth. As a rule of thumb, if I have more than double the party in enemies, I should probably draw it out.
My sense is generally you need to go all or nothing -- in other words, use the battle map and minis (or appropriate pawns/representatves), or just wing it and guess (or just use a quick sketch on a piece of paper with no measurement). If you're tracking a "private grid" and have to relay the info the player, that's bound to risk some miscommunication and it puts a LOT of unnecessary work on you. As GM you already have enough work to do.
I have always preferred using a map/grid and even for informal non tactical games (not Pathfinder) tend to sketch out a rough idea of combat terrain, as a player or character. I've got ADD and lousy auditory processing--I've done my best to train it but there's only so much you can do to force a square brain into a round hole. If someone just describes what they do there is a good chance I will miss a piece of information or misunderstand a piece of information. If I have a nice map on the board and can say, you are here and I am there and I go this way, then I am not confused and neither is the person I am trying to communicate with. For me it is a massive timesaver, or else I will be constantly asking clarifying questions just to try and keep up with what the hell is going on, whether I am a GM or player.
I've also seen the map/grid eliminate arguments that otherwise pop up when everyone's relying on mental image. In fact, a GM of mine who swore by the "in your head" method switched to using a map after a lengthy argument with a player who was clearly "revising" where his character was standing when an area of effect spell went off -- and similar arguments about positioning and placement had been happening throughout the game. The GM introduced the map, we had to stick our minis where we put them and live with it, and all the arguments went away.
The only thing that IS time consuming about the map is set up, but I would prefer to "waste time" drawing on the map or adding AOE effects or whatever, than to "waste time" arguing with a player about whether he was 10 feet to the left of 5 feet to the right of the ogre. And if you have a general idea of where your adventure is going, you can prep ahead of time and draw major battle locations on your map before the game starts, or use map cards or flip mats or map tiles etc to represent the terrain.
Those are just some examples, and I'm still working on improving my craft (these are my first attempts at 3d...
Very impressive. Kudos!
I wouldn't try PF (or D&D) without some kind of physical representation, with a grid being the easiest. Savage Worlds? Sure. But the combat system is more abstract by design. Right tools for the job and all that...
I have done both mapless and mapped play for combat.
I used to prefer mapless but now prefer mapped as it helps the tactical wheels to start churning in my head when I see an accurate representation of combat in front of me.
Though I use digital mapping programs, not a physical mat.
I am a rampantly anti-physical guy.
I have done both mapless and mapped play for combat.
I used to prefer mapless but now prefer mapped as it helps the tactical wheels to start churning in my head when I see an accurate representation of combat in front of me.
Though I use digital mapping programs, not a physical mat.
I am a rampantly anti-physical guy.
Good point...I should have said "tactical representation" (though I prefer physical, I can see how either would serve).
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I personally don't, except for really hectic battles(usually BBEGs). It takes, for me, too damn long to clean off the last map and draw out the grid for every single encounter when I can just discribe the area and proximity of enemies to the player in feet, since that's where abilities are at most of the time.
Granted it's occasionally caused problems, with a single player in specific, but I attribute that more to individual players not listening as all but once every other player at the table will usually back me up.
I can't disagree that a map will make things clear, but most of the time it's more of a bother than it's worth. As a rule of thumb, if I have more than double the party in enemies, I should probably draw it out.
This is very close to how one of my groups runs as well. We can have played 2 rounds of combat in the time it takes to just draw a map and set up the start of the encounter. But, we have a very mature and experienced group that doesn't argue with the GM about minor things.
It does change the relative value of certain feats and skills, but we know that going in so no one's build is predicated on precise positioning.
Yes we sometimes have mistakes made that would have been avoided by using a grid, but we feel the time saved is worth the occasional error. But, about half our group feels that combat is a distraction from the real fun of roleplaying anyway. (You may say in response to this that we should find another system; I'll say that just because a system has complexity doesn't mean you can't also have deep RP)
I have another group that plays using maptools and we use grids for nearly everything - one advantage is there is that it's easy to create the maps ahead of time so a lot of play time isn't wasted getting them ready. Also it can be really fun exploring using vision rules and so forth; it's neat when the half-orc spots an enemy 60 feet away that doesn't even show up on the screen of the human holding a torch.
Now that I've typed this I think I realize that it's not that we dislike grids, it's that we dislike using valuable play time setting them up, erasing/redrawing the map, etc. I'm also not fond of how much real estate they can take up on the table; I recently played a PFS scenario where I had about a 24 inch by 4 inch area for my character, my dice, and my books due to the way the battle map got drawn as we progressed.