One nice thing is that it's easier to include new elements based on how convenient/awesome it would be to have them included. Like having a rogue player ask if there's an alcove they can duck into to hide or someone determining they want to flip a table over for cover when there might not necessarily have been a table or alcove in the original plans, but why not?
Obviously you can still do that when you have a concrete map (especially if it's dry erase), but players seem less likely to suggest new features and GMs less likely to consider them when you already have everything down in black and white where everyone can see it.
One nice thing is that it's easier to include new elements based on how convenient/awesome it would be to have them included. Like having a rogue player ask if there's an alcove they can duck into to hide or someone determining they want to flip a table over for cover when there might not necessarily have been a table or alcove in the original plans, but why not?
Obviously you can still do that when you have a concrete map (especially if it's dry erase), but players seem less likely to suggest new features and GMs less likely to consider them when you already have everything down in black and white where everyone can see it.
Yeah.
It's kind of like Schrodinger's Cat.
Giving players a map defines that reality completely. The cat is out of the box.
But the advantage of mental maps is that each player has their own image of what that is in their heads, and they tend to fill all the "empty" space (i.e. the stuff that wasn't important enough for the GM to describe) with stuff they might later ask the GM about. There simultaneously is/is not a crawlspace.
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
i'm a visual and tactile guy.
if you tell me the room is 10x10 meter room with 4 orcs in it, i'll take it at face value. if a chest high wall, a chandelier and a pit suddenly appear out of nowhere for the rogue to jump off, swing on and kick the orc down into, i'll probably "WTF?!"
maybe not out loud but it'll kill my immersion a bit because i'm thinking "how the hell did i miss those things?"
maps, minis and a host of other visuals oil up all my brain cogs so they can work in high gear as i simply have more information to work with.
different strokes and whatnot, but mapless is a big turnoff for me.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
In 4E it honestly tends to be more tactical savvy than optimization that determines group vs encounter difficulties. A group that employs basic tactics like "let's all hit the same guy until he stops fighting" can swing level +2 pretty easily in my experience, regardless of their builds.
Groups that are good at using their abilities in interlocking ways can take level +4 at a walk most of the time as well, barring specific foils amongst the monsters. Less so after MM3, so maybe you're looking at +3, +4 to scare them a bit.
These numbers bear out, in my experience, across the entire Heroic to Epic progression.
Conversely, groups with no concept of tactics, teamwork or action economy are going to get trounced by on-level encounters. Not because of their builds, but because 4E can be pretty demanding in terms of tactical thought.
Having played some seasons of encounters both as a player and as a GM with a group that ranges from veteran to utter scrub in terms of expierience, I can tell you for dam sure that some encounters felt like they were designed for FBI profilers in that it took multiple turns to figure out what was expected of the party, and by the time it is figured out, the players can and are often half dead.
Like this one time when the encounter was set up with the players on one side of a steep incline, a horde of minion drow up on the ledge with two nasty drow torturers hanging out that could summon and control a demon each. My poor players got stuck in the ditch they started in (for want of a better term) while the minions blocked the top of the ledge and the demons kept flinging themselves down to them (Luckilly for the players I was forcing acrobatics checks on the maw demons so they frequently face planted). Adding to the confusion was a bunch of prisoners milling about who the players were trying to avoid killing.
By the time they were able to determine that killing the torturers would eliminate the demons (who could be resummoned after they were killed), multiple turns had gone by, the party had blown a chunk of their encounter powers on fighting the demons. Ultimately, the session ended in a wipe (though there were no deaths so yay!).
This is the organized play in Encounters. A lot of them had just horrible combats set up. There is an encounter with dust devils in the Dark Sun season that I don't think any party survives if it is played as laid out and the instructions indicate. I really like the idea behind Encounters but it had some serious asshole things going on with it.
Posts
Obviously you can still do that when you have a concrete map (especially if it's dry erase), but players seem less likely to suggest new features and GMs less likely to consider them when you already have everything down in black and white where everyone can see it.
Yeah.
It's kind of like Schrodinger's Cat.
Giving players a map defines that reality completely. The cat is out of the box.
But the advantage of mental maps is that each player has their own image of what that is in their heads, and they tend to fill all the "empty" space (i.e. the stuff that wasn't important enough for the GM to describe) with stuff they might later ask the GM about. There simultaneously is/is not a crawlspace.
Actually, the word Advantage is used often in 4E (Combat Advantage)... so even that's not unique.
Let me know what you think of the opening post.
if you tell me the room is 10x10 meter room with 4 orcs in it, i'll take it at face value. if a chest high wall, a chandelier and a pit suddenly appear out of nowhere for the rogue to jump off, swing on and kick the orc down into, i'll probably "WTF?!"
maybe not out loud but it'll kill my immersion a bit because i'm thinking "how the hell did i miss those things?"
maps, minis and a host of other visuals oil up all my brain cogs so they can work in high gear as i simply have more information to work with.
different strokes and whatnot, but mapless is a big turnoff for me.
Having played some seasons of encounters both as a player and as a GM with a group that ranges from veteran to utter scrub in terms of expierience, I can tell you for dam sure that some encounters felt like they were designed for FBI profilers in that it took multiple turns to figure out what was expected of the party, and by the time it is figured out, the players can and are often half dead.
Like this one time when the encounter was set up with the players on one side of a steep incline, a horde of minion drow up on the ledge with two nasty drow torturers hanging out that could summon and control a demon each. My poor players got stuck in the ditch they started in (for want of a better term) while the minions blocked the top of the ledge and the demons kept flinging themselves down to them (Luckilly for the players I was forcing acrobatics checks on the maw demons so they frequently face planted). Adding to the confusion was a bunch of prisoners milling about who the players were trying to avoid killing.
By the time they were able to determine that killing the torturers would eliminate the demons (who could be resummoned after they were killed), multiple turns had gone by, the party had blown a chunk of their encounter powers on fighting the demons. Ultimately, the session ended in a wipe (though there were no deaths so yay!).
This is the organized play in Encounters. A lot of them had just horrible combats set up. There is an encounter with dust devils in the Dark Sun season that I don't think any party survives if it is played as laid out and the instructions indicate. I really like the idea behind Encounters but it had some serious asshole things going on with it.
Thanks!