Hey,
I am trying to wean myself off of relying too much on figurines and battlemat, primarily because I don't want the game to devolve into a glorified board game. This was easily accomplished in earlier additions, but I am having difficulty putting away the minis and the battlemat in 3.5 edition/Pathfinder. (I am using Pathfinder rules by the way).
My gaming group consists of myself as DM and 4-6 players. I am currently playing through Savage Tide in Eberron with Pathfinder rules. I want to be able to run a very cinematic game where I can evoke the thrill of movies such as Pirates of the Carribean in my current campaign.
How should I go about relying less on minis and more on narrative to get my game going? How do I get my players more involved? Any advice or feedback would be very helpful!
In the last few campaigns I played in and DM'ed we used a lot of background music. Not just for the battle sequences (which were awesome) but for traveling, entering a great city, sailing, etc. I know there are other threads that discuss music options. This will help with some audio, as for visual I am a minis and tact-tile fan. I like to try to create three dimensional models so I dont know if I can be of much help there.
Bandit of LV
Yup- the strength of rpgs are their use of the inner eye, so feed their imaginations to get players going.
A wide variety of music on shuffle (soundtracks are the best), using set pieces for the games cues (play them sparingly, like the Imperial March is used in Empire strikes Back). I keep one piece that I use only at the start of a session- it's a mental cue that allows folks to get their game on fast and acts as their Campaigns Theme.
Print out pictures from the PDFs of major NPCs, use the occasional prop (weather beaten map, item cards).
Keep it moving- nothing kills the imaginative momentum faster then stopping to check a rule. If in doubt, make a fast ruling and keep it going. The rules are there to give the story a structure, nothing more.
The thing is to use tricks from storytelling and theatre to get your players engaged and into their roles. It sounds all a bit High School Drama Soc., but done right it can give your sessions a nitro boost.
|
Hey,
I am trying to wean myself off of relying too much on figurines and battlemat, primarily because I don't want the game to devolve into a glorified board game. This was easily accomplished in earlier additions, but I am having difficulty putting away the minis and the battlemat in 3.5 edition/Pathfinder. (I am using Pathfinder rules by the way).
My gaming group consists of myself as DM and 4-6 players. I am currently playing through Savage Tide in Eberron with Pathfinder rules. I want to be able to run a very cinematic game where I can evoke the thrill of movies such as Pirates of the Carribean in my current campaign.
How should I go about relying less on minis and more on narrative to get my game going? How do I get my players more involved? Any advice or feedback would be very helpful!
I think I can help a bit. I just accomplished this, and while it wasn't a struggle for me, it was a slow transformation for several of my players who joined my Monday evening group back in March of 2006.
A few of them represent what seems to have been a very recent (03-06) trend to do all things square-worthy. And I do understand why. Several of my players "grew up" on v.3.5 gaming. Wonderful! But somewhat limiting to their understanding of gaming through the mind's eye.
As the previous poster suggested, try the following:
>Bring your players along, ask them to describe more of what they're doing, what their character looks like, etc. This is good practice.
>As a GM, re-read the 1e DMG. That book alone has enough magic to break you of the 5"-step syndrome.
>Try running an old school game, via OSRIC 2.0, and read Matthew Finch's Quick Primer for Old School Gaming (see OSRICv1evC&C thread in this forum for links to it)
>During the game, create scenarios that aren't limiting, and don't require too many specifics.... a defiled church area, and open air shrine, a field.... and have a battle there. Just tell players, "yup, you're within melee range." or "you spend this round closing for melee."
>Remove battlemaps from the gaming area. Hide any object with a square on it. (laughs) Well, you sounded like an addict, so.... hide the paraphanalea! *lol*
>And, lastly, .... describe, describe, describe. Conversely, have a conversation with your players about the value of asking questions. Tell them if they want to know if there are any small stones on the ground.... to just ask. The more they ask, and the more you describe, the more swift the event will flow, and the less reliance upon simulationist squares you will all be.
CAVEAT: I love the grid. Fact is, I gamed just fine for 20 years without it. Yes. Completely without it. Just perfectly, happily, and wonderfully without it. For me, the HEAVY addition of combat battlemats and figures over the past 5 years has been a joyous boon to my game. But having done the oposite for 20 years, I know how to please the gamist, simulationist AND the narrativist at my table.
I simply use the grid sometimes, and don't use it sometimes. The trick to getting support from your players is to make this shift very gradually. DON'T GO COLD TURKEY, unless everyone in your group is supportive. Otherwise someone will say, "meh, it just isn't fun for me any more." Conversely, if everyone is supportive, the very best way to teach a non tactical, non grid play style, and to get everyone to listen carefully to the GM's descriptions, is to gamemaster a First Edition AD&D game. Seriously, Gygax knew exactly how to provide the perfect balance, without turning the narrativist play into wargame combat. He, himself, having grown up on that genre....
So, I hope that helps, I'll stop in later again. Let me know if you want to know any more speicifics, or if any of this helps.
-Pax-
Thanks for all the wonderful feedback!
My intention is not to do away with battlemats completely, but bring back some of the "magic" of older editions. I'll definitely give the 1st ed DMG a peek, but I don't want to relearn a whole new ruleset, so I'll be sticking with Pathfinder.
Anyways, one thing that really irks me is metagaming through a dungeon. I'm seriously considering doing away with drawing out the map (which takes a whole lot of time and effort) and relying on a narrative to keep the game going. Do you have any tips on how best to run a dungeon without 1'' grids revealing everything?
Also, regarding attacks of opportunity - how does one resolve these in a gridless game?
Finally, let's say pirates decide to board the PC's vessel...
What is the best way to run a hectic, chaotic fight scene like this without a battlemat? Do you draw the relative placements of everybody behind the DM screen? Do you jot down notes as the battle progresses?
|
I think you should look through some of the PbP games running. Many of those are running without a map and their narrative style is fine.
You can also try putting a small map or image in front of the players and asking them to say where they think they are. Run it a bit more freeform, with less of the measuring and more of the "I run at that guy" kind of thing.
Be more prepared to accept that players actions are able to be done. If you're not tracking exact locations and terrain effects etc, be ready to describe why players could/couldn't get the job done. Eg on the ship, a player might say he's charging the pirate attacking the helmsman. Dm says he gets part way there but intervening fighting, stairs and stray rope prevents the character reaching and being able to attack. If that happens, its always good to have some of that info known before hand so the players get to make a more informed decision.
I started using things like concentration and spellcraft checks for casters when they wanted to drop spell effects accurately. It got a little ridiculous for a caster to drop a fireball so the area hit the monsters in combat but not the other Players only 1 square next to them. Without a battle mat this makes things even more exciting. Players will never know exactly where to drop that fireball, they have to say things like "I'll try to place it so my friends aren't in the effect", DM "great, spellcraft check to try and pull that off please". I've stopped this mechanic at high level, as my casters just can't fail a check like that (and really powerful casters would be able to do that kind of thing easily at any rate.)
If you want to track things more accruately though, you can keep a scale map behind the screen and monitor where people are, just don't let the players know their exact locations. That's a lot more work for the DM
You have to be careful not to stop the idea of flanking and 5 foot step maneuvres from being possible though. Many of the mechanics and balance fo teh game comes from these things and it's harder for players to do without a grid. As I said earlier, be ready to agree more to these things as DM when a player says "I move to flank".
Finally, good luck with it. Removing the battlemap makes improvising as DM much easier, and stops much of the metagaming rules lawyering that pops up occasionally.
Cheers
|
|
.
Thanks for all the wonderful feedback!
My intention is not to do away with battlemats completely, but bring back some of the "magic" of older editions. I'll definitely give the 1st ed DMG a peek, but I don't want to relearn a whole new ruleset, so I'll be sticking with Pathfinder.
Anyways, one thing that really irks me is metagaming through a dungeon. I'm seriously considering doing away with drawing out the map (which takes a whole lot of time and effort) and relying on a narrative to keep the game going. Do you have any tips on how best to run a dungeon without 1'' grids revealing everything?
Also, regarding attacks of opportunity - how does one resolve these in a gridless game?
Finally, let's say pirates decide to board the PC's vessel...
What is the best way to run a hectic, chaotic fight scene like this without a battlemat? Do you draw the relative placements of everybody behind the DM screen? Do you jot down notes as the battle progresses?
>Glad you'll check into 1e. no need to relearn a system. Just seek the advice Gary Gygax provides for the referee/gamemaster
>The "Magic" comes through slowly shifting your players (and your own) conceits about how the game is run. Explain to players that combat is iterative, and an attack roll is "representative" of many swings, jabs, and blows during the round, although some specific attacts appear to reflect just one arrow, or just one magic bolt, most are actually "representative" of many things that occur at once. This is one of the main conceits of old school "magic" - the idea that... The grid and squares were only representative anyhow.... so just "trust the GM to describe, and if you're unclear, please ask.">If maps are too revealing - don't use them! Once trick, I've used to "ween" players off of the "but Speilberg gave me everything so I didn't have to imagine..." syndrome, is to begin drawing a map infront ofthem.... a very very rough sketch at first, but then as combat ensues... never finish the drawing and just describe the rest. After a while, they will see the contrast first hand, and appreciate your fluid and imaginative style.
>I just ran a Pirate ship attack 4 weeks ago. Fortunately, the PC saw they were outnumbered and began yelling "plague!!!" and acting ill so the pirates would go away. The acting was so funny and believable, I abandoned the encounter and sent the Pirates packing..... HOWEVER, I began describing ropes and grapples coming across the water and hooking on, I described the feel of the boat being pulled closer and the sound of the roaps as they were stretched taught. I described the way the Pirates were crawling across the ropes, or readying canons or preparing to leap. I described with detail the swarthy blond haired captain, seemingly too young for his post.
Gygax knew how to describe "focal points" during combat. Enough detail for the players to suspend their disbelief, without necessitating the need for maps and squares. When you describe things.... describe a few clearly visceral items, and leave the rest as backdrop. If you try to descrbe in words, what is in-all-the-squares, then you mind as well go back to using maps.
Additionally, as a GM, you will need to be very sharp mentally, and remember an on-going list of "what does everyone know, and what does everyone see?" Jump around from player to player, let actions occur iterative, let the chaos of battle ensue. Then, in the midst of combat you'll say, "Borador! You have three pirates attacking you, two of them flanking!" "Gwenvere, you manage to scale the ropes, give me an Acrobatics check and a CMB to do what you're intending to do...."
On Flanking: In descriptive combat, flanking can become annoying. After a year of hearing, "Am i flanking, am i flanking, am i flanking papa SMURRFF?" I decided to grant flanking (reasonably) to no more than two characters at a time during a round. I would mix this up, based on my mind's eye, and based on PC descriptions of their intention. Even when players (and they will do this to test you) say, Willowurt and Desmona attempt to get into flanking positions and stay there.... remember to break it up a bit. Offer flanking bonus on some of the rounds, but not all. Make the rogue check with you, the GM, prior to initiating or assuming backstab etc.
So, that a bit more to address some of your questions. Let me know if that's some of what you're looking for.
Some guidelines to consider:
>Tell your players they must stay in the "yes" mode, and what goes around comes around for everyone. Tell your players that you will make rulings and the that you, the GM, are the rulebook. Tell them you welcome questions, but will not entertain any arguments during combat as you intend to keep things moving.
>Don't apologize for anything. Don't show any heistation prior or during the game. Rule. Rule. Rule. The players will appreciate your confidence, and over time they will see a smooth, fair, effective game session and thank you for "breaking through to the other side" of the grid.
>Have fun. There is no one way to handle this. Take what you can from my notes and leave the rest. I am sure others have many more good suggestions for you as well. Good luck.
-Pax-
Contributor
|
Given the choice, I prefer no mats and no minis.
I pretty much only use them when I GM Pathfinder Society Adventures, basically because in Organized Play players can get testy, especially players you don't know. Even then, I often ask if the players want to go matless.
When I GM my own campaigns, I never use them. My formal excuse is that I don't have room for them at the table- my game usually has some 15+ players. But really, I just don't like them.
My real problem with minis and mats is simply thatI feel like they depersonalize the experience of the RPG.
To paraphrase my brilliant buddy Brendan Victorson,
Instead of the action being face to face, its continually broken up by people looking at the map and counting squares, to its face to mat to counting squares to face.
There's no secret method to ditching the mat. Just ditch it.
Keep looking your players in the eyes, move the action around the table as fast as possible to engage everyone, and they'll love you for it. Players will start to tell you, "I want to get behind the guy and use my sneak attack" or "I try to flank", or "I take a five foot step to the nearest opponent." It actually makes the combat more narrative from the players perspective, and 3.5/PRPG rules work great for that type of stuff.
Get good enough and you can pretty much play anywhere at anytime.
|
|
I personally prefer the battle mat for the most part, but that's just because I grew up on turn-based strategy games and I am a very strategically minded person -- and I usually play my character as such, usually a spellcaster of some sort with a message spell on all the other characters during any battle so I can give advice without breaking the suspension of disbelief.
Not that I wouldn't want to play a game some of the ways you've all suggested -- that sounds like a lot of fun too! My main problem is that I had a DM that didn't use a battle map AND wasn't good at describing the world or anything in it. Both of those factors made everything drag on... So I left. Also a few of the players were real jerks, but I heard that various misfortunes befell them (and I was playing a Gypsy-esque Hexblade; go figure).
I guess one piece of information that I can give is to be descriptive, and be consistent. If you say something one round, don't change it the next just because there isn't a battle map. The thing that annoyed me the absolute most was his constant additions. Me: "I go to charge him" DM: "Oh wait! I forgot there was a tree there. You can't do that." Now maybe he just forgot to say those things in the first place, but the end result is still the same.
|
|
I personally prefer the battle mat for the most part, but that's just because I grew up on turn-based strategy games and I am a very strategically minded person -- and I usually play my character as such, usually a spellcaster of some sort with a message spell on all the other characters during any battle so I can give advice without breaking the suspension of disbelief.
Not that I wouldn't want to play a game some of the ways you've all suggested -- that sounds like a lot of fun too! My main problem is that I had a DM that didn't use a battle map AND wasn't good at describing the world or anything in it. Both of those factors made everything drag on... So I left. Also a few of the players were real jerks, but I heard that various misfortunes befell them (and I was playing a Gypsy-esque Hexblade; go figure).
I guess one piece of information that I can give is to be descriptive, and be consistent. If you say something one round, don't change it the next just because there isn't a battle map. The thing that annoyed me the absolute most was his constant additions. Me: "I go to charge him" DM: "Oh wait! I forgot there was a tree there. You can't do that." Now maybe he just forgot to say those things in the first place, but the end result is still the same.
Well said. Its like the role of a GM requires skill and gamemastery to be able to communicate well, very well, and keep spinning in your mind the status of many different things all at once. That is why I can't stand the 4e approach of building a washed out game system that writes-out the important and esteemed role of the gamemaster, deferring to rules - probably for some of the reasons Hunterofthedusk mentions.
Its a dirty shame that, rather than teach the art of gamemastery, they chose to define the tactical rules of need-to-know-nothing. Sounds to me like Hasbro really did turn it into a "game." Chess, anyone?
Oh, sorry for the threadjack/ it just got me thinking in light of the OPs question. As the grid, as we call it, seems to be implied if not required in the newest so-called edition.
-Pax-
I personally prefer and mix of both. The battle map to give everyone a reference of where everything is and all the props and music to really set the mood. My problem with not using the battle maps is while I think I do a good job describing a scene I have a few readers and artists in my group so no matter how I describe something they picture it different. Re-clarifying something takes as much time and pulls you out of the game just as much as a battle map for me. My feeling that it's not the battle maps fault but the fact that 3.5 became more complex and at least in my group a lot of people only want to learn the basics but want their characters to be able to do the advanced stuff. It's not that the battle map slows things down its that they plays not knowing how to do what they want slows things down and that the battlemap just illustrates it more. I play in a game now where the GM loosly uses the battle map and I get very confused when monsters advantce twice as fast as PC, more around to places that I didn't think we accessable or change their actions midstream because he realizes he can't do that. It's all about keeping the flow going more than anything else.
How should I go about relying less on minis and more on narrative to get my game going? How do I get my players more involved? Any advice or feedback would be very helpful!
Do a play-by-post game. It is a bit hard to use minis in that setting. Of course you can still post maps and such if you wish, but it might be easier not to bother.
Some of the switches I made for pbp is:
-if two allies are in melee with a foe, they are always assumed to be flanking
-if a character wishes to withdraw, there is always assume to be a way to do that without drawing AoO
-all characters move the same speed (no more slow halflings), within reason (monk going 60 ft should be faster than others)
-distances are measured in close (single move), medium (charge range), or long (need to run), this includes spells
Well, I used to play exclusively without a battlemat, but my love of miniature painting put a stop to that.
My recommendation is twofold: a) have a pen and paper in case you need to clarify the terrain you've described. b) Have a proceedure for determining range over rounds abstractly.
With those two tools we played any number of boardless games.
I wonder how many people have done the "peanut-butter and jelly sandwich experiment". That is where you write out the directions to make a pb and j sandwich and someone else tries to follow your directions exactly as they are written. example direction, "Put the peanut-butter on one side of the bread", person puts the peanut-butter on one edge of the bread, since it is a "side".
Given the choice, I prefer no mats and no minis.
Get good enough and you can pretty much play anywhere at anytime.
I was going to write up my agreement and advice for the OP, and then I read Tim's post.
What he said.
Some of the switches I made for pbp is:
-if two allies are in melee with a foe, they are always assumed to be flanking
-if a character wishes to withdraw, there is always assume to be a way to do that without drawing AoO
-all characters move the same speed (no more slow halflings), within reason (monk going 60 ft should be faster than others)
-distances are measured in close (single move), medium (charge range), or long (need to run), this includes spells
I like these :)
Some questions though: won't the flanking rules give rogues a distinct advantage? Perhaps make the enemies adjust their "focus/facing" so that they concentrate most of their attention on the rogue the next round to prevent unlimited sneak attacks? Has anyone come up with other rulings that they could use in a matless game?
I can think of a few pieces of advice that might help, based on my experiences in 1e-2e games moreso than 3e.
1) Make sure to adjudicate things reasonably - a little challenge here and there, a little give and take - without really trying to preserve your NPCs. Without a grid, if you're too good at keeping your NPCs out of AoOs or too well spread for any more than 1 or two to be targeted by spell areas of effect, you open yourself up to serious complaints. The grid, in part, protects you from those complaints because everyone can see it. So you have to be particularly aware of not only being fair but appearing fair off the grid.
2) Be up front about the effects of things. If a player narrates that he'd like to flank something, tell him that he risks an AoO if that's what the rules and your imaging of the scene says, don't let him just walk into it like you might when using the grid. On a grid, you might expect the player to know the rules, know their risks, and move accordingly and catch them with a surprise AoO when they slip up or forget. Don't allow that to happen in a gridless game. Be right up front about it, then they can choose to tumble, approach slower so they can make a 5' advance next turn, etc.
3) Look at the feats and other rules that seem to most require a grid - stuff like AoO rules, spring attack, etc. Jot down some notes about how you'd like to handle these things and present them to players for comment or so that they can choose how to build their characters knowing how the rules will work. If your mind changes, let them know. This will help you treat the rules consistently and fairly.
Some questions though: won't the flanking rules give rogues a distinct advantage? Perhaps make the enemies adjust their "focus/facing" so that they concentrate most of their attention on the rogue the next round to prevent unlimited sneak attacks?
The advantage of being target Numero Uno, perhaps. A dexy guy comes up, you better take that guy out first. And remember what goes around, comes around. Whatever the PCs can do, the NPCs can do also, perhaps better. I really wouldn't worry about it too much, compared to things like power attack and save-or-die spells, making it a bit easier for a rogue isn't going to destroy the game.
|
|
This is a great post that I have really enjoyed reading. I'm Glad you asked about this Cesare.
I like battlemats and miniatures, but I agree with some of the other posters that they do take a lot away from the face-to-face story part of narrative gaming. It's also hard to carry around a bunch of books and mats and miniatures and everything else needed for miniatures style play.
I have been considering ditching them also and this thread gives me some great ideas. Thanks!
Don't get me wrong, I like battlemats and miniatures (my fiance helps me out by drawing excellent maps on our well-used battle mat), but lately I have been feeling that there was something missing in my games. When I broached the topic of going gridless with my fiance (one of my players) and gave her a little example, she was like, "Wow, it's like you're actually there instead of playing an interactive video game." I'm going to give this a try as soon as I get some time off which will probably be sometime next week. I'll let you guys know how it goes.
I'm glad that this thread was able to be of some help to some of you. Likewise, thanks for all the great comments. Please keep them coming!
|
|
I guess the mix I really want is to use the battle mat only when there is an actual battle, as opposed to using it as the entire dungeon or what have you. As a player, I really don't like surprises that I could otherwise reasonably see coming had a physical representation been used. But outside of battle, I don't really see why you would need a mat. We always used a dry-erase marker board and the DM never touched it. He would describe the room to us, and if one of us wanted to, he (the player) would draw it. Of course, we spent just as much time doodling as we did drawing maps, as one or two players were artists, but that's to be expected. Like when the DM described a monster or an NPC, one of them would draw a little humorous depiction of it.
One of my DMs drew the whole map out before hand and let us see the entire thing, and we all separated ourselves from our out-of-character knowledge. But he was very good at keeping our minds in the mood of the game, so that even if the entire thing was right there in front of us and we were represented by little colored marbles, we were all engrossed into it because of his story telling. It all really depends on skill level.
I have played without the mat/map/grid come to think of it (although I've barely ever actually played with an actual grid; normally just a crudely drawn map and a ruler, just measuring distance by the inch as we moved our pebbles). It was my first time playing D&D (and it was 3.0). We played first in a coffee shop, then my house, then someone else's house, then at the DM's house, and even once at the lunch table at school (although that was a mini-session at best). All we needed room for was our books to roll our dice on or to use as a hard surface to write on.
Having experienced the different kinds of play-styles, they all have their merits, and all are quite fun if the DM is properly prepared for that particular style of play. I guess that's just what it comes down to.
It depends on your players. In my one player campaign I DM, I've done the no map thing on occasion because I didn't want to draw the map. She hated it, however, as she likes having the spatial relations in front of her.
I can't stand battlemats and dolls. What I like to do is break up the combat into manageable chunks: "Mialee, you recognize the robed figure as Bargle, a renegade wizard of your order; when he sees you, he says, "Long have I intended to try your power!" and lifts his arms... Krusk, the horned ogre flexes its muscles and raises its axe, charging straight for you! Regdar, you'd like to help Mialee, but in between you and the evil wizard are three armored bodyguards, who are grinning evilly at the 3:1 odds. Everyone roll initiative!" In this manner, large combats can be treated as several one-on-one fights; when somebody finishes their fight, they can move on... or if they see a friend about to go down and break off to help, it's easy to tell who gets AoO on them: whoever they were fighting.
Also, regarding attacks of opportunity - how does one resolve these in a gridless game?
That's the only snag I've found in map-less games (in my experience); attacks of opportunity tend to disappear and that helps spellcasters and ranged attackers and hurts melee folks. It'd probably work out OK if you just got rid of 5' steps, though.
|
|
I can't stand battlemats and dolls. What I like to do is break up the combat into manageable chunks: "Mialee, you recognize the robed figure as Bargle, a renegade wizard of your order; when he sees you, he says, "Long have I intended to try your power!" and lifts his arms... Krusk, the horned ogre flexes its muscles and raises its axe, charging straight for you! Regdar, you'd like to help Mialee, but in between you and the evil wizard are three armored bodyguards, who are grinning evilly at the 3:1 odds. Everyone roll initiative!" In this manner, large combats can be treated as several one-on-one fights; when somebody finishes their fight, they can move on... or if they see a friend about to go down and break off to help, it's easy to tell who gets AoO on them: whoever they were fighting.
Love it ...
except, when was Krusk, a horned ogre?
Maybe Mialee only thought he was a horny ogre.
except, when was Krusk, a horned ogre?
No, silly! Krusk is one of the PCs -- in-game I like to address the characters by their names (I address the players by theirs for out-of-game stuff) -- and I'm warning him about the minotaur that's about to charge him.
We recently switched from using the battlemat and minis and I have to say it's been absolutely great. We used to struggle to get through two encounters in a four to five hour session, and now we're getting through four to five and have plenty of time for social interaction and exploration, both aspects of the game that were getting squeezed out by time constraints before. There are less 'shinies' for the ADHD player (me) to get distracted by, the player who tends to lapse into rollplaying has an easier time staying in character now that he's not counting squares for every move, and the player of the cleric can look up spell info much faster now that there's room on the table for the books.
All that said, we'd go crazy if all we had to go on was verbal description. We're a very visual group. So instead, the DM draws a quick rough map of the area and where everybody is on graph paper which helps a lot too if there's an effect where squares really matter like flanking or AoO. Having the map be just a small piece of paper keeps attention on the DM and what he's saying rather than on the battlemat, and for the most part we're pretty fast and loose about counting out squares exactly for figuring movement.
Anyways, that works great for us, and may be a good compromise for you if you're worried about very visual players.
|
|
Also, regarding attacks of opportunity - how does one resolve these in a gridless game?That's the only snag I've found in map-less games (in my experience); attacks of opportunity tend to disappear and that helps spellcasters and ranged attackers and hurts melee folks. It'd probably work out OK if you just got rid of 5' steps, though.
As long as the Dm has a visual idea of where things are (either in their head or roughly on papaer) AoO's are still viable. You just have to let players know before hand.
Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "No worries, but you're going to go pretty close to the body guard with really big axe swinging at your head to do so"
This way the player can at least think twice about getting to foes. It also makes it easier to get AoO's in for a DM. If the player says they want to avoid the AoO but still engage the caster, just make it a full action rather than a standard move action. This is probably more realistic in the long run.
As long as you're willing to have it work for the players as well.
This style of play used to have my players and I really thinking about our actions more.
Unfortunately, we're playing very high level now (just hit 20, about to take on Kyuss in age of worms). We use the battle mats for those situations becasue really, these are tactical battles and every little advantage my players can squeeze out they'll need it.
Playing without a mat is alot more work for the DM too, and at high level I don't need any more work as DM.
Next campaign I DM live, I'm going to drop back to using the battlemats far less. Already doing so for the PbP I'm running and it seems to be going ok, just need to be more flexible as DM.
Cheers
I'm an old 1e/2e player back in the game and I've played both ways. The next game I DM, I'm taking a compromise route and using a big dry erase board. Spatial relationships are all there but there aren't any squares/hexes. I think that is the best compromise and it will made the roleplaying much more realistic and humorous, I think.
DM: (after measuring) Oh gee, you realize too late you can't move out of the room before X happens.
or
Player: I cast fireball centered here!
DM: (after measuring) The enemy reserve troops are all hit but you missed their front line troops (or, Ouch! their front line and your front line troops are all hit!)
I think this has all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of battlemats but I haven't playtested it yet to get some practical experience.
|
|
...We used to struggle to get through two encounters in a four to five hour session, and now we're getting through four to five and have plenty of time for social interaction and exploration, both aspects of the game that were getting squeezed out by time constraints before.
This was the balance, Gygax used to explain. This is the type of description that he used to describe why simulationist play would slow the game to a screeching halt.
And, the beauty of this movement back away from the battemat, is that players who grew up on 3e, playing with highly simulationist GMs, can now enjoy a whole new faster form of play that gets closer to the Gygaxian sweet spot.
This term, "fast and loose"... is this a new trendy wotci marketing phrase, or is this just a neutral generational expression? Just curious? I know what it means, but its prevalence is so high these days, I'm curious about its source? Any ideas?
|
|
I'm an old 1e/2e player back in the game and I've played both ways. The next game I DM, I'm taking a compromise route and using a big dry erase board. Spatial relationships are all there but there aren't any squares/hexes. I think that is the best compromise and it will made the roleplaying much more realistic and humorous, I think.
DM: (after measuring) Oh gee, you realize too late you can't move out of the room before X happens.
or
Player: I cast fireball centered here!
DM: (after measuring) The enemy reserve troops are all hit but you missed their front line troops (or, Ouch! their front line and your front line troops are all hit!)I think this has all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of battlemats but I haven't playtested it yet to get some practical experience.
My "guru" friend runs a v.3.5 game, and never, ever, in the 25 years I've played in his games, never has he used the grid. But he often draws a bit, describes a bit, uses spatial relations as illustrations when there are questions, but confirms that he does not need any grid for play.
I find this the ultimate litmus test for v.3.5 and Pathfinder RPG insomuch as it can be played with or without a grid...... just perfectly.
And that a beautiful thing imho.
|
|
Also, regarding attacks of opportunity - how does one resolve these in a gridless game?That's the only snag I've found in map-less games (in my experience); attacks of opportunity tend to disappear and that helps spellcasters and ranged attackers and hurts melee folks. It'd probably work out OK if you just got rid of 5' steps, though.
I use my minds eye.
If a player describes something risky, as in moving past a creature in a tight space. I say, "and the ogre lashes out at you as you move past. you suffer a minor slice as he catches you with his [weapon] and you make it to the evil alter alive!"
My trick is.... I keep this just as infrequent as it might occur when I do the whole simulationist style play. I've been into cutting, crafting, and painting bridges, stairs, castles, out of styrofoam lately - and they really do present a different kind of enjoyment. None of it is necesssary, and depending on the group and the game system I am using I either use that stuff, or avoid it like the plague.
Weekly I run Pathfinder RPG, and use battlegrids, minis, and Gamemastery flip mats about 70% of the time.
Monthly I run an OSRIC game (1e), and I don't use any of it, however, I will pull out minis to show spatial relationships, as my groups have many engineers and detail-oriented programmers in it who like the visuals.
Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "No worries, but you're going to go pretty close to the body guard with really big axe swinging at your head to do so"
I would suggest this is exactly what a DM without a map and using AoO should not do. This DM in this example is giving mixed signals. First he says, "No worries" which would seem to indicate there is no concerns with the stated action. Then he warns that the character will be "pretty close" to a body guard. What exactly does "pretty close" mean? Within the threat range and thus open to an AoO or within a single move of the body guard (that might have readied an action to intercept) or something else? If you are going to be using a mapless system, you need to clear and not give mixed signals to your players. Something like:
Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "You can try, but the only way to get to him is to go right past the body guard with the really big axe and open yourself up to an attack."
|
|
Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "No worries, but you're going to go pretty close to the body guard with really big axe swinging at your head to do so"
I would suggest this is exactly what a DM without a map and using AoO should not do. This DM in this example is giving mixed signals. First he says, "No worries" which would seem to indicate there is no concerns with the stated action. Then he warns that the character will be "pretty close" to a body guard. What exactly does "pretty close" mean? Within the threat range and thus open to an AoO or within a single move of the body guard (that might have readied an action to intercept) or something else? If you are going to be using a mapless system, you need to clear and not give mixed signals to your players. Something like:
Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "You can try, but the only way to get to him is to go right past the body guard with the really big axe and open yourself up to an attack."
Hey pres man, we agree. The GM should not give mixed signals... that pretty annoying.
This term, "fast and loose"... is this a new trendy wotci marketing phrase, or is this just a neutral generational expression? Just curious? I know what it means, but its prevalence is so high these days, I'm curious about its source? Any ideas?
At least in the context I used it in, it was just a figure of speech. As in we're not stopping to worry about the exact positioning. We're just eyeballing it and the DM makes a quick ruling about distance and then we move on. Honestly, it's been a commonly used figure of speech for a long time in non-gaming settings. I hadn't realized it had become common gaming speak recently. Perhaps because a lot of people got frustrated with slow simulationist play?
|
|
At least in the context I used it in, it was just a figure of speech. As in we're not stopping to worry about the exact positioning. We're just eyeballing it and the DM makes a quick ruling about distance and then we move on. Honestly, it's been a commonly used figure of speech for a long time in non-gaming settings. I hadn't realized it had become common gaming speak recently. Perhaps because a lot of people got frustrated with slow simulationist play?
This term, "fast and loose"... is this a new trendy wotci marketing phrase, or is this just a neutral generational expression? Just curious? I know what it means, but its prevalence is so high these days, I'm curious about its source? Any ideas?
I think so.
The sophistication of v.3.5 is unprecedented. Truly the pinnacle of the games evolution, until Pathfinder RPG. And, what makes me particularly happy about Pathfinder (and 3e in general) is that I can ditch the grid, and play fast and loose - they way the game was meant to be played. Yet, on the other hand, the rule are an excellent way to satisfy the simulationist itch - especially for those big encounters or really awesome settings. I've also begun getting more into 3d walls, war-torn terrain, and other things like elevations & tinkered tactics stuff.
Basically, I'm very happy having the option.
And gamemasters who aren't used to both should try to stay versatile, and use what makes sense for the context.
|
|
I would suggest this is exactly what a DM without a map and using AoO should not do. This DM in this example is giving mixed signals. First he says, "No worries" which would seem to indicate there is no concerns with the stated action. Then he warns that the character will be "pretty close" to a body guard. What exactly does "pretty close" mean? Within the threat range and thus open to an AoO or within a single move of the body guard (that might have readied an action to intercept) or something else? If you are going to be using a mapless system, you need to clear and not give mixed signals to your players. Something like:Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "You can try, but the only way to get to him is to go right past the body guard with the really big axe and open yourself up to an attack."
Now you see, that would depend on the situation. If the guy with the axe were right next to the mage, then I'd agree, if however he was along the direct path to the mage, but some distance from him then the player has other options. (Like taking a full move to get to the mage in a more circuitous route).
However, I agree with your statement. DM's need to be clear in their descriptions. I try to avoid metagame talk when describing in game situations, but will use them if directly asked by players. It seemed to work for us when we were playing this way.
Cheers
|
|
I would suggest this is exactly what a DM without a map and using AoO should not do. This DM in this example is giving mixed signals. First he says, "No worries" which would seem to indicate there is no concerns with the stated action. Then he warns that the character will be "pretty close" to a body guard. What exactly does "pretty close" mean? Within the threat range and thus open to an AoO or within a single move of the body guard (that might have readied an action to intercept) or something else? If you are going to be using a mapless system, you need to clear and not give mixed signals to your players. Something like:Player "I wanna hit that mage"
DM "You can try, but the only way to get to him is to go right past the body guard with the really big axe and open yourself up to an attack."
Now you see, that would depend on the situation. If the guy with the axe were right next to the mage, then I'd agree, if however he was along the direct path to the mage, but some distance from him then the player has other options. (Like taking a full move to get to the mage in a more circuitous route).
However, I agree with your statement. DM's need to be clear in their descriptions. I try to avoid metagame talk when describing in game situations, but will use them if directly asked by players. It seemed to work for us when we were playing this way.
Cheers
Sure, lets say Galeb Duhr's are the minions in front of a bbeg. If the cleric pulls off an air-walk and by passes the stone creatures, banking on the idea that they're likely too heavy to have any flying ability, then that player, through imaginative description has earned the spontaneous by-pass.
Seems like the great art of imagining and communicating will need to make a come back for many who are not used to it.
P.s. Is there something customary to say-back to cheers!? And cheers also with you. ?! ;)
|
|
Seems like the great art of imagining and communicating will need to make a come back for many who are not used to it.P.s. Is there something customary to say-back to cheers!? And cheers also with you. ?! ;)
I find my story telling abilities are far better in the written form than the verbal. I can describe a fairly good scene in my PbP's, but have much more difficulty doing so verbally at a game table with my mates around.
Something else I just remembered from our days without the mat. We used to have things like wielding two handed weapons and halberds much more dangerous to your mates as well as your foes. Don't stand next to the guy with the big sword in a small corridor. While that in itself isn't imnportant, it did make things like being able to defend 10ft corridors easier as you could stand in the middle, not limited to a square on one side. It also made tactics like rushing these guys more interesting, as players would happily describe how one of them would feint to the left to draw the defender in that direction, allowing the other player to dash past the new opening to attack the others behind him. That doesn't seem to happen so much with my players now we use the grid more.
The more I read this thread, the more I'd like to go back to some of that older style of play.
Btw, I have no idea what the customary reply to cheers is. It's just something I use to say thanks for those who took the time to read my thoughts. Just trying to be polite really. :)
Cheers
We just played several sessions in our Savage Tide campaign without figurines or battlemap. The transition was very smooth and needless to say, we've all enjoyed it very much. Thanks for the input guys!
Encourage bold action with bonuses instead of restricting with penalties. If you want the characters to swing from the chandeliers, do not set the DC so high they fall off and become comedic relief, or worse.
Reward in game tactics over meta-game tactics.
Insist the players tell you how their character is attacking instead of "I attack with my spear and magic helmet." This does not have to be paragraph long, detailed descriptions. Something as simple as, "I lunge forward" or "I swing for his head". And if they do try the swing for the head thing, don't immediately pile on the called shot penalty. Ask them if they are really going for the called shot or if it is just for flavor. If it is just for flavor, let it go.
|
I do find that battles that are on the battlemat with the group I'm running tend to be less RP and more wargame...kinda pisses me off personally...and I'm getting sick of it.
1st thing, you need to make notes for everything int he area that could be used cinematically.
try to hit all the senses. Sight, sound, touch, smell, taste.
(Taste is easily tied to smell...)
Have the opponents use the scenery cinematically to encourage to players to do this also.
Make sure you know how most of your scenery will work. How strong is that table? When the characters cut the chandelier, what will happen?
Describe the scenery at hand...