I'll be honest: I've never really played or run Dark Sun, in any edition. Still, the setting has some fun possibilities, I think.

We'd decide as a group how "dark" we actually want the game to be. I always liked the idea of needing to have some backup characters in case one or more of the originals died. However, I'm also cool with other approaches. I prefer when victory isn't assured and when there's something at stake, even if it's not the characters themselves.

Another thing I should mention: I don't use maps. 4th Edition works fine without maps, but if people are building characters around the concept of fine manipulation of battlefield positioning, they might be disappointed. That said, I operate on a principle of "Yes, and..." as much as possible, meaning that if a player things something should be a certain way, then it usually is.

Considering the amount of abilities that have map-based effects and how map-intensive the whole ruleset is, I'm curious how you can run 4e combat without using maps?
That being said, I was always interested in Dark Sun, but my interest would depend on how you answer my question.

Should you consider using 2e instead of 4e, I'd be totally in. DS is by far my favorite setting.

In reply to jimlafleur (msg # 3):

What would you say 2e has to recommend it?

In reply to Novocrane (msg # 4):

Phew, don't know where to start actually...
Basically it doesn't have the videogame/minmaxing/powergaming flavour. You know: take this skill, take that skill so you get a +100 here and +25 there.

Well OP is offering a 4e games, I don't think we should be discussing the merits of one edition over the other. 4e is my least favorite, but I'll play it if that's what's on the table, I just have trouble believing it can be done without using maps, due to how the combat is basically D&D Tactics.

If you're talking 3.x and 4e, I agree. Maps are sort of intrinsic. The other editions can be done with fairly basic maps, if any though.

I'm not sure how this became a discussion of system differences. That doesn't seem appropriate, and I'd be grateful if such comments were edited. To each their own, eh?

To others, thanks for the interest.

"I'm curious how you can run 4e combat without using maps?"

Understandable. For me to better answer that question, I'd like to understand better the specific concerns people have about it. The rules involve distances, movement, positioning and size, but those exist regardless of whether there's a map and exist in every edition. So, if you could give some specific ideas of what you think wouldn't work without a map, I'd be happy to address them.

Well, if you HAVE the distances, relative positions, and size, you have a map, don't you?

In reply to tmagann (msg # 9):

Not necessarily. It can all be conveyed through description, though in face to face play that can prove difficult to keep track of, which is why many players even prior to 3.5 utilized maps, or they kept combat relatively simple.

Well the way the combat was designed in 4e is very map-dependant. Like you have abilities that can push people, or move them in a way to set them up for attack by your allies, etc.
It's an extremely visual system, and while 3.x suggests maps, 4e pretty much requires them. All measurements are not even in feet anymore but in squares.
The system is more similar to Final Fantasy Tactics (in terms of movement and spell areas) than a pen&paper rpg.
That's why I'm having trouble with it. Sure you can describe, but it seems to me like it wouldn't be the best way to go about it.

Well, that and the fact that the game started on maps.

I will play anything Darksun, 2e or 4e is fine by me. Though I have no experience with 4e...

I remember the box set fondly.... I would throw my hat in if anyone didn't mind refreshing an old AD&D player, but are we talking TSR or Wizards. Maps? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Maps!


I have no core books but I could probably get by, . Favorite setting tie with certain parts of the Forgotten Realm. I remember that you started at level 3 and dying was a more realistic notion than vorpal swords for everyone. As I remember you started with dirt weapons, dirt armor and bits of dirt coin, sounds like a plan!

I worry that if this game is started I will search out EBAY for nostalgic reasons or build a 1991 time machine. Or is this to be the half-boot 2010 version.

I am up for anything inspired by BROM, PC death and Psionic desert creatures thirsting for blood and water.

OP is offering a D&D 4e game so that's Wizards.
I never actually played Dark Sun so I couldn't tell you if anythign changed.. but 4e does have psionics and they did make a Dark sun book.

I don't see how.

I don't see how that requires maps, since it's simple enough to convert squares to feet.

And? The combat system is well-designed, but that's only part of the system. It's still a full RPG. So I'm not sure what point you're making here.

That depends on what "best" means. It's faster and easier for me not to create and maintain maps, which increases the posting rate and survival of the game. I'm able to create any type of battlefield I want, without being limited by two-ish dimensionality, or available images, or my artistic ability. I'm able to accept and apply player ideas without feeling tied to a set of graphics.

On the downside, it's easier if the battlefield is relatively simple. Then again, I've seen GMs put a lot of time and attention into a battle scene only to have ninety percent of it not get used. They might as well have kept it simple.

Along those lines, the abilities that supposedly allow for tactical setups rarely, in my experience get used in ways that matter. More often than not the power with the cool rider just kills the enemy outright anyway, or simply doesn't wind up having much effect. When I've been at a table, players tend to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to make their "push 1" matter. Maybe they can, or maybe something arises out of happenstance, but the mere fact of a map doesn't seem to me to be the deciding factor.

If a player did want to focus on battlefield movement, I'd ask them to make it clear what they were trying to achieve with their push or slide, or whatever, and I'd basically let that happen. Want to position an enemy so your ally can charge them? Okay, no need to figure out the exact direction or whatever, let's just decide it works and go with it. In my experience there's usually a way to do what the player thinks their power can do, so instead of figuring out what that looks like on a map we can just say that it works.

Another downside: lots more room for misinterpretation. I handle this by simply not sweating it. If I thought the enemy was far enough away to avoid being charged and a PC charges it, oh well. Hopefully, I made the encounter fun anyway, and the player who got to charge is probably enjoying themselves.

Any other specific concerns or misgivings? Maybe you have a specific example that you're wondering how I'd handle?
This message was last edited by the user at 04:49, Thu 28 July 2016.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was off-topic, at 05:15, Thu 28 July 2016.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was off-topic, at 05:17, Thu 28 July 2016.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was moot, at 05:18, Thu 28 July 2016.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was off-topic, at 05:11, Thu 28 July 2016.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was moot, at 05:16, Thu 28 July 2016.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was derailing, at 13:45, Thu 28 July 2016.

Ok. Because I'm new to the setting, I was thinking of starting off with the short adventure in the Dark Sun Campaign Setting, to make sure we all know what kind of lethality level the monsters offer.

I would *love* to play this.

In reply to BlonderChick (msg # 24):

Hey, cool, thanks.

What sort of an adventure or quest would interest you? Do you think of Dark Sun as dark and authentically lethal, or more heroic and lethal for everyone but PCs? Or what?

Practically speaking, especially in the more ROLEplay intensive medium of pbp, I'd go for the latter. It's tough to invest in a rich character and then have them killed off. A strong possibility that that is going to happen will lead to shallower player engagement, which will cause your game to wither and die. There's some tricks your can play to create a sense of danger without killing off PCs. The star trek redshirts are a classic example used in TV medium that has the same issue with not wanting kill off characters that the audience and writers have invested in.

True, though I ask because there's more to roleplaying than just one's character. Some people are invested in the world itself and want to see their characters as part of it, not distinct from it. In that case, a person might gladly play a less rich character. In fact, my understanding is that the original rules for Dark Sun advised players to have several characters made so that they could be killed without the player being ejected from the game.

Unless the players are bought in to the concept and prepared ahead of time.

Yes, though of course that approach to story telling also requires buy in. I know people who roll their eyes at the idea of that kind of script immunity.

But that raises the follow-up to the question I asked BlonderChick: if the characters aren't at stake, what is? The main characters in Star Trek aren't really at stake, but they can and do still fail, at some cost. Or, perhaps a better example, Leia and Luke can't die in "Star Wars" but Alderaan and the moisture farm can be destroyed. So, what kinds of things would you want the PCs in this game to face losing? In what ways can they fail, survive, and carry on, but with a painful, irreparable loss?