Typically, that area is a two by three box and I have found it to be a 50/50 proposition whether the DM is going to insist that all PCs start in the six by six box packed together like a bulls eye waiting for their six monsters with area bursts or blasts to pound like a roofing nail. "It says 'PCs start here, put your minis in this area.'" That may not be what the authors and editors intend but it is very frequently how it is played out.
Any time you have monsters with area attacks and the PCs are forced to start in 3x2 formation, they will be blasted. This is why in the D&D minis game, they made certain that the maps had multiple start areas, some of which were blocked off from enemy view, and that there was enough room to create a sensible order of battle rather than bunching up like lambs to the slaughter.
This is an easy problem to fix--just increase the size of the "PCs start here" box. Six by three or four by five should be fine. There is really no excuse for bunching everyone into a three by two box.
Personally when I set up, I dash a line on the map saying "Nobody past this line, put yourselves where you like." But I have definitely seen many DMs use the PCs start here box extremely literally.
We had this discussion back in January in a thread about LFR TPK's (I don't expect people to dig up this post I just remembered having it) this is a snipped of the discussion and what Shawn Merwin had to say about it.
Actually my biggest complaint overall about LFR mods is the standard "start here in this 2x3 optimized grid so the GM can burst 1 your entire party with any critter that goes before you" starting zone.
Obviously, those zones are not put there for that reason. Those areas are put on the map to show the generally area/direction that the PCs might approach the encounter from. If we don't put them there, more times than not the DM looks at the map and doesn't know where that is. No DM should force the PCs to stand in those exact squares unless there is a very good reason to do so--like PCs are teleported into squares, for example.
Shawn
LFR Global Admin
So the admins seem to feel those area's are suggestions not law... if only the boilerplate at the start said that.
After playing Spec 1-2, I have reflected a bit on some of the mods I have played recently. One of the things that I have realized would be very easy to do and would improve gameplay a lot would be to triple the size of the "players start here" areas on the maps.
But then how do you expect the monster artillery or wizard to drop multiple AoE effects on the party if they aren't neatly piled into a 2x3 area? :P
So the admins seem to feel those area's are suggestions not law... if only the boilerplate at the start said that.
Exactly, which is why enlarging the box at least gives more freedom to the PCs.
Eh, a note in the next CCG (1.95 or 2.0?) or the adventure boilerplate mentioning that the start areas are a suggestion and should be adjusted based on actual play would be more than enough.
Why add to boilerplate or have the info in a CCG when you could just replace the box with an X (as Cedric suggests) or enlarge it instead? It can't be any harder to draw an X than to draw a box. In the image processing software I use (which is admittedly now very old), it is no harder to draw a 24 square box than a six square box.
It makes much more sense to simply make the maps say what you mean instead of drawing maps one way and then hiding some text on a message board, campaign documentation or boiler plate that says that the map does not really mean what it says.
Why add to boilerplate or have the info in a CCG when you could just replace the box with an X (as Cedric suggests) or enlarge it instead? It can't be any harder to draw an X than to draw a box. In the image processing software I use (which is admittedly now very old), it is no harder to draw a 24 square box than a six square box.
It makes much more sense to simply make the maps say what you mean instead of drawing maps one way and then hiding some text on a message board, campaign documentation or boiler plate that says that the map does not really mean what it says.
A Change in the CCG is retroactive to all mods without needing to redo the maps/pdf's etc. Most DM's I know locally no longer put us "in the penalty box" so to speak and most of us try to fan out some when we are placing our minis. Doors and hallways are always going to be clog problems anyway so it's almost no use trying to do anything about those.
A Change in the CCG is retroactive to all mods without needing to redo the maps/pdf's etc. Most DM's I know locally no longer put us "in the penalty box" so to speak and most of us try to fan out some when we are placing our minis. Doors and hallways are always going to be clog problems anyway so it's almost no use trying to do anything about those.
Fair enough, but that's a "yes and" solution rather than an "instead of" solution.
Doors and hallways are ok--fighting in constrained places is supposed to be dangerous in this regard, but even then it should be possible to give at least a 2x5 start zone or to put part of the previous room on the map. Constrained spaces make it hard to avoid area effects because it is difficult to bring your full force to bear and difficult to avoid bunching up (and the most effective strategies for bringing more melee force to bear (reach weapons and shifting/readying) tend to bunch your party up). It shouldn't be difficult to deal with area effects in close quarters because there is only a 2x3 box to put your characters in.
In some encounter, starting elsewhere would make it too easy. In some, too hard.
This has to be balanced with logic and what the PCs say.
In general "Put yourselves here" has a bad feel to it from a story perspective. "You enter the cavern, more or less reaching this area when..." is similar but sounds much better.
If a PC took special action (such as by saying they are scouting, or a leader suggesting the party not bunch up), then it makes sense to adjust for that.
Which is why I always either ask for a typical marching order (when dealing with ambush type of situations) or simply draw the map a little bit bigger and allowing the players to let their PCs march into the lair. The fact is that it is really odd we need to tell DMs that the maps are guidelines. The author can never predict the action of the PCs. They can just provide the most common situation. So why is it to so hard for a DM to adjust the map based on the PCs' actions?
Exactly. I've had players climb through a window as their starting location. The window wasn't even on the map, but it made sense.
The fact is that it is really odd we need to tell DMs that the maps are guidelines. The author can never predict the action of the PCs. They can just provide the most common situation. So why is it to so hard for a DM to adjust the map based on the PCs' actions?
I'm sorry. This is an Internet forum frequented by gamers. Common sense and flexibility have no place here. As a punishment, you will be made a global administrator of the campaign, forced to answer questions on this forum.
What's that? Oh, I see. Nevermind then. Carry on.
On the flip-side, authors also need to know if they must clarify if and when the PCs should really be in the starting areas.
The most recent example of this that was especially silly was in WATE1-4.
Show
When descending into the ocean to find the shipwreck, the fluff text to the players says something along the lines of "due to the dark, murky waters and currents, it is difficult to stay together." Then, it promptly drops you in a 2x3 box. Of course, when the wraith lord gets initiative, he immediately drops his take-damage-now-and-at-the-start-of-your-turn zone on top of us.
When descending into the ocean to find the shipwreck, the fluff text to the players says something along the lines of "due to the dark, murky waters and currents, it is difficult to stay together." Then, it promptly drops you in a 2x3 box. Of course, when the wraith lord gets initiative, he immediately drops his take-damage-now-and-at-the-start-of-your-turn zone on top of us.
I'm sorry. This is an Internet forum frequented by gamers. Common sense and flexibility have no place here. As a punishment, you will be made a global administrator of the campaign, forced to answer questions on this forum.
What's that? Oh, I see. Nevermind then. Carry on.
I would think that this was common sense myself but it turns out not to be all that common. I remember back when I first played Imp 1-1, I had a DM who had been in the RPGA since before 2nd edition. He was also a pretty good DM in LG and Arcanis which he played before. But when I asked, "OK, so there's the goblin camp, why should we approach it from this side with the river between us; can we sneak north, cross the river, and approach from the top of the map?" his response was, "This is all the map there is, you have to start in the start box."
Unfortunately, that is pretty typical. Experience has now taught me to be very careful before I try anything out of the box with a DM who I have not played with before and who I know is amenable to such things in 4th edition. Otherwise the typical result is "no," and the next most common response is, "it won't work, but I'll make you waste your standard action to find that out."
I don't know what it is about 4th edition or LFR that has hardened so many DM's creative arteries, but it's definitely happened around here. That's why I want bigger start areas. If it's buried in the boilerplate, most DMs will not read it and some will not even print it. (I set my printer to skip the boilerplate pages myself when I'm printing mods; why waste ink and paper on something I won't use?). It it is written in the same place that the DMs get the silly idea that you all have to start in the penalty box, at least the majority of average DMs who tend toward inflexibility will give us a chance to avoid some penalties.
Tagging the area as 'PCs approach from here' may be better. I mentioned this before though I do admit that I keep forgetting chainging the tags myself.
Gomez
I remember back when I first played Imp 1-1, I had a DM who had been in the RPGA since before 2nd edition. He was also a pretty good DM in LG and Arcanis which he played before. But when I asked, "OK, so there's the goblin camp, why should we approach it from this side with the river between us; can we sneak north, cross the river, and approach from the top of the map?" his response was, "This is all the map there is, you have to start in the start box."
Wrong example, since the adventure actually does discuss that direction, mentioning it is a sheer cliff ;) (Or at least, that is what I seem to remember, but it has been ages ago that I read that adventure...)
I don't know what it is about 4th edition or LFR that has hardened so many DM's creative arteries, but it's definitely happened around here. That's why I want bigger start areas. If it's buried in the boilerplate, most DMs will not read it and some will not even print it. (I set my printer to skip the boilerplate pages myself when I'm printing mods; why waste ink and paper on something I won't use?). It it is written in the same place that the DMs get the silly idea that you all have to start in the penalty box, at least the majority of average DMs who tend toward inflexibility will give us a chance to avoid some penalties.
Like Gomeztoo said, making the areas bigger only works when the map is actually bigger. I usually try to remember noting more something like PCs come from this direction, but I got negative comments on that from playtesters as well. They thought a PC start here box was much clearer. In any event, if you already admit boiler plate text is ignored, then what do you expect we can do?
So if I put in BIG, BOLD letters in a LFR adventure, send money via paypal to this email address, I would get money? Hmmm, I wonder if Shawn would notice.
The only thing the starting areas represent is the author's concept of from where the PCs are approaching the encounter area. Feel free to ignore it, and if the PCs (players) want to "go around back," for goodness sake, let them! If the PCs want to spread out, and they are not limited by physical barriers, let them. If they want to walk on the grass, let them. (I am channneling a 60s song about "signs" right now and visualizing the RAW gamer in the scene.)
If we let them off, then we would get questions/complaints about "but which direction are the PCs coming from?"
Keith
The most recent example of this that was especially silly was in WATE1-4.Show
When descending into the ocean to find the shipwreck, the fluff text to the players says something along the lines of "due to the dark, murky waters and currents, it is difficult to stay together." Then, it promptly drops you in a 2x3 box. Of course, when the wraith lord gets initiative, he immediately drops his take-damage-now-and-at-the-start-of-your-turn zone on top of us.
So if I put in BIG, BOLD letters in a LFR adventure, send money via paypal to this email address, I would get money? Hmmm, I wonder if Shawn would notice.
I would absolutely not allow it
Show
for anything less than 33% of the profits.
Actually in the adventure it says something different.ShowThe text reads: "Have the PCs arrange themselves on the map in
the formation they use for searching. If the PCs are taking too long to come up with a plan, have them place their characters on the map to represent where they are when they are communicating."
The only thing the starting areas represent is the author's concept of from where the PCs are approaching the encounter area.
Someone should tell us authors this...
Seriously, this needs to be spelled out. It probably needs to be in the adventure template. If not, in the author's guidelines.
Currently, the template states: "Text here describes the area for the DM and what the situation is upon the PC's arrival to the area. It can also include the starting location of the PCs on the map, if necessary." If that is a suggested starting location, then it should be mentioned so that authors can use the right wording for the non-default situation.
Like Gomeztoo said, making the areas bigger only works when the map is actually bigger. I usually try to remember noting more something like PCs come from this direction, but I got negative comments on that from playtesters as well. They thought a PC start here box was much clearer. In any event, if you already admit boiler plate text is ignored, then what do you expect we can do?
I would suggest using bigger maps and bigger start areas
.The bigger start area should work whether or not the DM reads. If he doesn't look at the map, he doesn't see a start area. No problem. If he does see a start area, it's big enough to accomodate reasonable arrangements of PCs. No problem.
For indoor maps or other tight quarters, it is not as big a deal, but you can still draw some of the corridor leading to the encounter area like in the final encounter of Aglarond 1-1 (though I don't think Agl 1-1 labeled the whole corridor as start area..
As a Player, I've often commented how the conversion to 4E seems to have tossed decades of common sense and experience out the window and decided that all characters move about in tightly packed formations - despite the fact that this was explicitely something that we NEVER did as players under earlier editions.
Standard practice moving through dangerous wilderness areas was actually to spread out so that a fireball or other AoE would hit no more than two or three players. In 4E, we would probably pack a bit tighter, but we would still try to avoid all being in a single blast.
I would do away with the starting boxes altogether and perhaps define a starting edge rather than a starting box. In actual play, it's not too difficult to add some kind of tile off of the starting edge to handle the placement of the more distant characters.
Carl