Hi there. After > 2 years playing combat as RAW as my brain allowed me I've come across a group of vets that don't want combat with battle map and the resting paraphernalia.
We are playing the KM adventure Path and I must say the result from the first two sessions was quite satisfactory. Both sessions ended ahead of time because I had not enough thoroughly prepared having miscalculated combat encounter times.
I managed to keep combat violent, thrilling and the players had a lot of fun (even though one PC was dropped to zero HP in both sessions).
The firs impression was great as I had not th feeling that I was playing "against" the PCs which normally "possesses" me in standard combat resolution.
While I personally like the idea (it was the very thing that made my entry in 3.x a late one) Ifind a few issues, that have at least surfaced so far but will be more prominent as the party gains levels:
1) Keeping balance. Things go more "old school" and it might lead to deus ex situations.
2) Difficulty integrating AoO with fairness for everyone. For this I have thought of having the actual map behind my screen and advising that PCs could incur in AoO while moving we're they've previously figured just via my own description. Note that I do like the idea of AoO and wouldn't want to cut this game feature.
3) Character builds. Some feats rely heavily on the fact that you're using map, grid and tactical movement. I don't want to screw a player's choice by reducing the chances of his PC using his "powers". Note that point 2) is directly related to this situation.
Any suggestions? I had thought of the aforementioned idea of keeping the map to myself in order to "guide" the tactical narration and keep fairness and mayb leaving one or two important encounters with map...
Thanks in advice
Go truly old school: get out a ruler, a laser pointer or srting on a fixed point, and use six siders to represent characters/monsters.
Honestly, when I played mapless up through college this is what it always degenerated to. Ironically we found the conversion to 3x to be blessed relief after having gone mapless for so long.
Anticipate rulings at the table. As you go up in levels and you're not using maps/minis/grids of any kind there is high probability of "I thought that guy was BEHIND me?" As part of the anticipation make the players accept that your word is law in these rulings for pacing. Any debates will have to be aired post game.
I was serious with the ruler and string thing. Get used to representative spacial demonstrations on the fly "ok billy, you're the bottle cap. The dire boar charges you from this side..."
Warn players as soon as possible what the potential impact will be to builds such as monks with lots of movement and attacks of opportunities through feats. If they can't REALLY envision where the enemies are coming from clearly, they need to speak up and not assume they'll get the AoO's just 'cause they see the combat differently in their heads than you do.
|
The Ao O is the only reason you might really need a battle map.
I played an GMed for a good 20 years (basic D&D 1st ed AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D, 3.O, 3.5)before encountering players that preferred to use maps and minis. I never really felt the need to use a map when GMing, or playing.
But you do bring up some good points. Talk to your players and see what their preferences are. If nobody cares one way or the other.....I wouldn't worry about it too much. If someone wants to make a character that relies on the battle map, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.
I really have trouble working without some kind of map in ANY game--very visual person (and yes, I have tried to go without, for years and years)--and what I'd suggest is at least draw up a loose battle map on a sheet of paper only you are looking at. It doesn't have to be strictly gridded (although if you've got graph paper you may as well) and you can track basic movements of the party that way. It doesn't have to be tracked turn by turn but if you have a general sense of where everyone is you can see where AOOs might be provoked, etc.
It also prevents arguments that I see frequently pop up whenever a map is not used:
Player: I'm standing on the bridge about 10 feet from the ogre
GM: The ogre sunders the support of the bridge and you start to fall as it collapses, make a reflex save.
Player: I didn't say I was ON the bridge, I meant I was BY the bridge.
If you're at least keeping your own mini map you can at least track what is said a little easier in case any such "misunderstanding" pops up.
The Ao O is the only reason you might really need a battle map.
No way. There are tonnes of abilities which deal with minor adjustments in positioning (shifting steps, step up, 5-foot adjustments, bull rushes, fireballs, flaming hands, sleep, bull rush, soft cover, flanking, etc.,).
If you ditch the grid, so much more falls to the DM to adjudicate which - because DMs are not perfect - will often end up inconsistent, unfair, and ultimately in DM fiat terriotry.
Old iterations of DnD (as well as more light systems, such as Storyteller) work gridless because there were far less of these highly map dependent rules.
Thanks for the answers!
We all play no-map oriented games in between our PF sessions and it was a specific request on behalf of the players. However, they really are new to Pathfinder and I didn't want to have them feeling disappointed (I'm really concerned with mid-high level encounters, but we'll see).
An interesting fact is that this is a new group I'm talking about here, with only one in 4 players being previously known by me. Games run far more smoother than with my all-life buddies' group, and the only difference lies in the absence of tactical map. I've found that without one players tend to argue far less with me and interact much more among them, but this again may change with advancement. Has anybody tested this in Pathfinder? Playing without maps in mid level games?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically, didn't the old Chainmail rules from the sixties/seventies evolve from a group of wargamers? Wouldn't they have used 3d terrain and painted minis?
Yes, I too started in Basic/Expert/Advanced D&D, then went thru 2 and 3x before coming to PF. All the way up thru 3.0's first campaign we went mapless and we fought CONSTANTLY (DQ: that bridge thing ACTUALLY happened though in our game it was 2e, it wasn't called sundering, and it was a hill giant).
If your players are old school, REALLY old school, ask them if they want to map the dungeon/exploration area themselves. This is a classic staple of all my old-school friends. If they're up for that, maybe they'll go the extra step and provide you with a whiteboard battlemap or something.
Y'know what I always fought about as a GM? It went sort of like this:
Me: ok, so you open the door...
Player: NO! we just crack the door a scoch, just to hear/see inside.
Me: alright, you see an empty room. What do you do?
Player: Ok, enter the room
Me: you all enter the room and it erupts in flame from the fireball trap in the...
Player: No, wait, I meant we just sort of, wave a sword through. Maybe my guy is part in the door, but everyone else is still outside.
...
Or some iteration of entering the room/chamber/threatened space. Even if I go gridless I try to make my players at least use minis. It's like chess then; once your hand is off the mini, your character has moved and I'm free to unleash a devastating trap+monster assault.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remove Attacks of Opportunity from the game.
They're important to grid-based or tactical combat, but all they do is slow down narrative combat. If monsters or players want to stop movement or spell casting then that's what the readied action is for.
Another thing is to grab the condition and buff cards, and use them to remind players of penalties/bonuses they are taking. Also add some cards for flanking and higher ground.
You'll find combat moves smoother and there is a lot less to remember/rules arguments.
Now this reduces the viability of some builds (particularly those built around AoO), but increases the viability of others.
|
The grid itself isn't strictly necessary, I think, but a map with scale is. By that I mean a map where one unit (inch) represents 5ft. It can be gridless, with measuring tape used to adjudicate movement on any angle. Having a square grid merely makes it that you don't need measuring tape.
So why is it necessary? For non-frontal assault. If you want to play an archer, it really matters how far the enemies are. That may seem simple if it's just you versus a monster, but if there's another PC circling around, you're suddenly trying to compute triangles without drawing them. Can the other PC move to intercept? If you're 100ft from the enemy, and your ally is 30ft from you, how far is he from the enemy? Hard to say if you don't use a map.
If you just want to play a barbarian that charges straight ahead, you don't need a map. But an archer who wants to know how many shots he can fire before they get close, or a mage wondering how many enemies he can catch with one AoO - they need the map. Likewise the fighter who's gone for Reach and area control abilities like Whirlwind/Trip - he really needs to know what's where.
So if you want to play a fancy-footwork or tactical fighter, rather than a rampaging barbarian, I think you need a map.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any suggestions? I had thought of the aforementioned idea of keeping the map to myself in order to "guide" the tactical narration and keep fairness and mayb leaving one or two important encounters with map...
In 20 years, I have never run any RPG with a battlemap--I've PCed a few times with one, and honestly, I hate them. They bog the game down tremendously with little to no gain, as far as I'm concerned.
As for dealing with AoOs:
1) Everyone knows you won't be using a map, so encourage the players not to build AoO based builds.
2) Just worry about abstracts--engaged, unengaged, blocking the way, etc. For example, if a PC tries to get away from an NPC they were previously in melee with, they provoke. If they try to move past a guy blocking the way, they provoke. If they try to get adjacent to someone with reach, they provoke, etc.
Even with the map, I have seen AoOs from movement only happen once or twice anyway--it's very rare as everyone is generally very careful. Just warn people if their actions would provoke and they'll most likely do something different.
I normally keep a map in front of me regardless of whether or not we are using a map.
I normally have a small pawn or something for each character that I can move for them.
It doesn't slow play down once you get used to it.
|
|
I tend to play with a seven player group. In my experience, any combat involving more than a few PCs or any significant tactical obstacle requires a map, just to prevent confusion.
In PF, I tend to use the grid, because several of the PCs have made high-speed moving characters who focus a lot on controlling areas.
In Vampire, a sketch on paper with some indication of scale suffices.
In both cases though, the map is needed to indicate the presence and shape of buildings, location of doors and so forth. Because with a large group, it just gets too messy otherwise.