It's not that you alter the rules, it's that you mess them up because you're not accurately visualizing and tracking the tactical battlefield properly.
So far my group hasn't done that. Though so far we haven't had more than 8 combatants fighting at the same instance (not counting familiar/psicrystals), so perhaps if it got higher than that issues might start to occur?
Also, it does cause combat to take abit longer since you have to make sure you accurately describe the distances of characters in relation to the environment and other characters. But it's better than trying to draw on a paper grid and updating it every two seconds in the eyes of my group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The map hierarchy looks something like this:
1. Environmental map with grid and tokens
2. Plain map with grid and tokens
3. Grid with tokens
4. Tokens with no grid
5. Imagination and description
Most people play combat in PF somewhere from 1 to 3 because the rules have a lot of nuances around positioning.
Going from 1 to 2 is not a big deal. You basically lose flavor, since the pretty pictures go away. You might also have to rely on markers or just plain memory to keep track of terrain that affects movement, but it's not a big deal generally. A good GM can make up for the lack of illustration.
From 2 to 3 you lose important environment elements like walls and doors. Here, the grid is helping you keep track of positioning, but not much else. You are relying on markers or objects laid on the grid to mark important barriers. Still playable, but not as smooth as 2.
At 4, you lose the grid which gives you fast access to measurements, and with it goes some precision. You either pull out a ruler or estimate distances or both, but you gain some freedom in movement since you aren't tied to squares or hexes. Still playable provided you aren't a stickler for details and no one's a prick about tolerances.
At 5, you lose everything as far as visual aids are concerned. The entire combat is in the theater of the mind. Everything is estimated and some details of the game are hand-waved. The more combatants there are, the more handwaving there is. This is just fact. People in general are terrible at estimation. In a group of 4-6 PCs plus PC's, no one's estimate matches everyone else's, including the GM. Elements of the game that depend on precise positioning become judgement calls from the GM.
Is the game playable at 5? Sure. But you should be realistic about the impact on the game. You probably aren't playing all the rules, especially in larger combats. You are playing some to most of them, and many of those rules are not played precisely.
Is there anything wrong with this? No. As long as everyone's on the same page, it doesn't matter. You play the game the way that people want to play, and as long as everyone is still having fun (including the GM), you are playing it right.
I suppose if anyone cared, they could test themselves. Describe a battle scene, and have someone else map it out on a grid as you describe it. Then take pictures round by round as you resolve each turn (you don't get to see the grid).
Finally, when the combat is finished, you can see the picture sequence to see how well you 'made it work', and how well you accounted for things like movement, AoOs, reach, flanking, and other tactical positioning measures.
I already play in severa maples campaigns.
They are easier to manage with narrative game systems, but require a lot of hand-waving with more tactically oriented games like Pathfindeer.
Is the game playable at 5? Sure. But you should be realistic about the impact on the game. You probably aren't playing all the rules, especially in larger combats. You are playing some to most of them, and many of those rules are not played precisely.
What rules do you picture such groups forgetting or playing incorrectly?
Is the game playable at 5? Sure. But you should be realistic about the impact on the game. You probably aren't playing all the rules, especially in larger combats. You are playing some to most of them, and many of those rules are not played precisely.What rules do you picture such groups forgetting or playing incorrectly?
I said neither "forgetting" nor "playing incorrectly". I said "probably aren't playing all the rules" and "not played precisely". These are not the same thing.
If you aren't using some visual aid to manage positions in a game that has a large number of rules around positioning then you aren't being precise. That means you are playing the game differently.
That is not wrong. It is just a different play style where the details of combat aren't as important as the broad strokes.
I said neither "forgetting" nor "playing incorrectly". I said "probably aren't playing all the rules" and "not played precisely". These are not the same thing.
If you aren't using some visual aid to manage positions in a game that has a large number of rules around positioning then you aren't being precise. That means you are playing the game differently.
That is not wrong. It is just a different play style where the details of combat aren't as important as the broad strokes.
Your reading into my post ridiculously more than you should be.
When I said that I wasn't suggesting that you meant it was "wrong to do so". I said forgetting because forgetting a minor aspect of a mechanic because your trying to do stuff in your head sounds like a reasonable occurance in the situation, and I said incorrect because they are using the mechanics in a way not identical to the actual mechanical text. I wasn't assuming you were making a judgement....
I was just asking was mechanics might be the ones being run "imprecisely", you don't need to be so defensive.
I was just asking was mechanics might be the ones being run "imprecisely", you don't need to be so defensive.
Tone doesn't transfer over the internet. Trust me when I say I'm not being defensive.