Does anyone else use hex (as in the kind that are used for wargames like Blitzkrieg) or grid maps with counters for characters in the RPGs?  I know that people use miniatures, but what about hex maps and counters?  If you do, what kinds of rules do you use?  

I've been using this method for quite some time and I have some rules and stuff, but I want to compare and contrast mine with whatever is out there.   Leads?   Ideas?  Critiques?

Quote from: VBWyrdeDoes anyone else use hex (as in the kind that are used for wargames like Blitzkrieg) or grid maps with counters for characters in the RPGs?  I know that people use miniatures, but what about hex maps and counters?  If you do, what kinds of rules do you use?  

I've been using this method for quite some time and I have some rules and stuff, but I want to compare and contrast mine with whatever is out there.   Leads?   Ideas?  Critiques?

Excellent discussion over on ENWorld, but it is several pages back by now.  I will see about digging those up and posting them.

Quote from: StormBringerExcellent discussion over on ENWorld, but it is several pages back by now.  I will see about digging those up and posting them.

Super.  Thank you!  I look forward to it.  

I use grids for scale purposes only. I've never used miniatures because I think it detracts from the description and turns things too much into a wargame for my liking. A piece of paper with a grid for scale and a load of pencil marks all over it does the trick nicely. Normally I have three maps of different scales at hand, one for close up (bars, cafes, apartments), one for generl shooty shinanigans (showing buildings and rough room layouts) and city wide ones for car chases and space craft lunacy.

It's basically unheard of for me to not use a hex map and minis for rpg combat. For me, the game isn't worth playing without them.

As noted before, generally I use HERO System and Age of Heroes for my rules. I won't under any conditions play a game that doesn't have hex map support.

I use a grid and minis/counters for combat or encounters where the environment is somehow a factor in face-to-face games.  They help conceptualize space better.  In addition - for the folks I've played with, at least - they seem to encourage more use of the environment (upending tables for cover, vaulting over low walls, throwing chairs or flagons, etc.).

I'm not sure if you're asking specifically about using hex grids, though.  While I like hex grids better in concept (I probably play more wargames than RPGs), I usually end up defaulting to squares for RPGs.  Never really reflected on why, though.  Diagonal movement with squares is a very minor headache, but kind of annoying.  Hexes give you equal distance in six directions and work better for games that use facing (imo).  I guess I use them because I and most of my group were raised with the old-style RPG map aesthetic where most maps tended to conform to a square grid.  Which really isn't a good reason, now that I think about it.

Quote from: KenHRI use a grid and minis/counters for combat or encounters where the environment is somehow a factor in face-to-face games.  They help conceptualize space better.  In addition - for the folks I've played with, at least - they seem to encourage more use of the environment (upending tables for cover, vaulting over low walls, throwing chairs or flagons, etc.).

I'm not sure if you're asking specifically about using hex grids, though.  While I like hex grids better in concept (I probably play more wargames than RPGs), I usually end up defaulting to squares for RPGs.  Never really reflected on why, though.  Diagonal movement with squares is a very minor headache, but kind of annoying.  Hexes give you equal distance in six directions and work better for games that use facing (imo).  I guess I use them because I and most of my group were raised with the old-style RPG map aesthetic where most maps tended to conform to a square grid.  Which really isn't a good reason, now that I think about it.

Thanks for the replies guys.  

I use both square grid for dungeons and hex grid for wilderness.  The reason for the square grids is simply that dungeons are usually square based (20' x 40' room, or the 10'x60' corridor) and so it makes mapping and moving counters easier in those cases.   However, yes, diagonal movement on square grids is a bit of a pain.   I made rules for that but I'm not 100% happy with it, so for similar reasons I tend to use hex grids.   I've tried using hex grids for dungeons, and that actually works out, so I might give up on square grids anyway.

What I like about using counters rather than minis is that I can pen in data on the counters.   So I can have the character's attack level in the upper right corner and Armor Class in the lower left.   That sort of thing.   I use symbols to indicate class:

Square = cleric
Circle = Fighter
Triangle = MU
Cross = Thief

I can use mutlple symbols inside each other to indicate multi-class.

Anyway, I like using counters, and my players have been quite down with that.   I also use zone of control rules.  However the theiving skill Stealth allows the character to slip through zones of control.   All in all it's been a good system.  

Recently though I came up with a concept called Merge-Movement, which is just another way of moving the counters per turn.  So that got me thinking about how many other ways of doing this there might be out there.   If anyone cares to give a brief on how their movement rules work I'd be happy to pay attention and comment / steal ideas.  

Thanks!

I like your counter system.  Very nice, and fits nicely with my argument for playing hex-n-counter wargames vs. minis: you can put a mountain of info on a cardboard square, not so much with minis.

ZOCs are just fine in combat; I always interpreted 3e's AoO rules to be an implementation of them.

As far as movement systems, the only unusual one I ever implemented was used in a homebrew.  The combat system used multiple impulses within a round.  Each participant could perform one action per impulse; one possible action was to move up to x feet (value of x depending on move speed).

In theory, it was a fairly interactive system that would keep people involved and allow for interrupts, etc.  In practice, it didn't work as well as I wanted it to, and my players hated it.  The system was borrowed from a wargame, and worked quite well there, but not so much in an RPG setting.  Of course, that just might have been my piss-poor implementation of the concept.

Sort of related, I like chit draw mechanisims in wargames like Across 5 Aprils or The Devil's Cauldron.  That might be an interesting avenue to explore down the line, but again, it might put off a lot of people who don't like wargame-iness in their RPGs.

Quote from: KenHRI like your counter system.  Very nice, and fits nicely with my argument for playing hex-n-counter wargames vs. minis: you can put a mountain of info on a cardboard square, not so much with minis.

ZOCs are just fine in combat; I always interpreted 3e's AoO rules to be an implementation of them.

As far as movement systems, the only unusual one I ever implemented was used in a homebrew.  The combat system used multiple impulses within a round.  Each participant could perform one action per impulse; one possible action was to move up to x feet (value of x depending on move speed).

In theory, it was a fairly interactive system that would keep people involved and allow for interrupts, etc.  In practice, it didn't work as well as I wanted it to, and my players hated it.  The system was borrowed from a wargame, and worked quite well there, but not so much in an RPG setting.  Of course, that just might have been my piss-poor implementation of the concept.

Sort of related, I like chit draw mechanisims in wargames like Across 5 Aprils or The Devil's Cauldron.  That might be an interesting avenue to explore down the line, but again, it might put off a lot of people who don't like wargame-iness in their RPGs.

Thanks for the thoughts.  So far I haven't run into players who outright didn't like the hex map and counters system.  I tried to keep the implementation as simple as I could though, to keep from getting confused.  So I didn't add a whole ton of information, but rather just enough to make the system useful without being burdensome.   Some players though prefer to have a higher level of "realism" and so I created some optional rules as well which add more detail, and make things smoother, but are a little more complicated to actually do.  I'm experimenting now with the Merge-Movement idea.  I have a little proto example here:

http://www.elthos.com/2008/Elthos_MergeMove_Example.htm

What do you think?  Maybe too complicated for some, but so far in play testing it seems to be working out ok.   I'm having a discussion about this on the Literary Role Playing Game Society Yahoo Group where I've posted a little more information about the details of my thinking.  

You can catch that thread here: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LRPGSW/message/1682

In particular my second and third posts in that thread fill in some of the details and propose a possible and relatively simple solution to multi-race and multi-terrain issues.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear any feedback, and any new ideas.  

Thanks again!

This is very similar to the impulse move I described in my post.  I like what I see so far.

Systems like this are pretty neat imo, as they keep everyone involved with shorter periods between moves/actions, and allow for a relatively fluid situation without too much in the way of fancy rules.  I think with my system, it wasn't so much the movement rules that made the players hate it, it was the myriad maneuvers and special case rules I wrote around them...and for some reason they couldn't wrap their heads around impulses-within-rounds.

Keep it up!

I'm a huge fan of hex maps and minis or counters for tactical play.

Epic's movement system uses a count down from 20 (or more) to 1 in a standard sort of initiative fashion, but minis move 1 hex per countdown (i.e. at 18 i'm here, at 17 i'm the next hex, etc.).

Default characters have to use their aggressive action (attack, magic, taunts, etc.) before moving or after it, but can't in mid-move.

Masteries offer folks who focus on such things the opportunity to move, act, and then finish out the move, which makes mobility an asset.

We like how it models consecutive movement well, and allows for change of intention/motion inside of a combat turn.

Quote from: KenHRThis is very similar to the impulse move I described in my post.  I like what I see so far.

Systems like this are pretty neat imo, as they keep everyone involved with shorter periods between moves/actions, and allow for a relatively fluid situation without too much in the way of fancy rules.  I think with my system, it wasn't so much the movement rules that made the players hate it, it was the myriad maneuvers and special case rules I wrote around them...and for some reason they couldn't wrap their heads around impulses-within-rounds.

Keep it up!

Ok thanks!  So far so good.  I have a series of play tests coming up so I'll try to document the results.   What I like about the Merge-Movement is that everyone gets to decide where they are going based on where they see everyone else moving in the flow.

Quote from: ReimdallI'm a huge fan of hex maps and minis or counters for tactical play.

Epic's movement system uses a count down from 20 (or more) to 1 in a standard sort of initiative fashion, but minis move 1 hex per countdown (i.e. at 18 i'm here, at 17 i'm the next hex, etc.).

Default characters have to use their aggressive action (attack, magic, taunts, etc.) before moving or after it, but can't in mid-move.

Masteries offer folks who focus on such things the opportunity to move, act, and then finish out the move, which makes mobility an asset.

We like how it models consecutive movement well, and allows for change of intention/motion inside of a combat turn.

Thanks.  I'll have to check out Epic.  

Merge-Movement is an optional rule in my game.  

The standard rule is more like a standard wargame where the initiative wining side moves all their pieces, then the other side moves all their pieces, and then the initiative winning side attacks, and then the other side counter-attacks.  

The Merge-Movement means that as the guy is trying to flank you, you can respond by pivoting and moving more like you would in real life... and in effect the two groups Merge together.

Where I was running into trouble was with the complexity of dealing with cases where you might have Humans with 6 movement points per melee, but elves with 8.  And where terrain might be -2 or -3 movement.   I *think* I have a good solution, which is to make all movement points divisible by 2, and any map that has multi-race or multi-terrain can simply multiply all points by 3 and scale the map out by three (so each hex is 2' instead of 6').  Mathematically that reduces the complexity back to easy-math.   I think it works well.   I will be play testing it out over the spring and summer.  

Thanks for the input!  

Why not, instead of expressing movement rate as a total distance you can move in a single round, express it as how far you can move per...errr...move (what I called impulses)?

Hmmm...but if this is an alternative to a more traditional phased system, you might run into problems that way.  Is it too much work to re-jig movement rates into multiples of 6 (or however many impulses/moves are in one of your rounds)?

Quote from: KenHRWhy not, instead of expressing movement rate as a total distance you can move in a single round, express it as how far you can move per...errr...move (what I called impulses)?

Hmmm...but if this is an alternative to a more traditional phased system, you might run into problems that way.  Is it too much work to re-jig movement rates into multiples of 6 (or however many impulses/moves are in one of your rounds)?

That's the trade off.  It is more complex.  If you're steady about it and round robin efficiently it's not a big deal.  But you have to do it like this:

Piece 1 - Move 1 - Move 1 Hex
Piece 2 - Move 1 - Move 1 Hex
Piece 3 - Move 1 - Move 1 Hex

Piece 1 - Move 2 - Move 1 Hex
Piece 2 - Move 2 - Move 1 Hex
Piece 3 - Move 2 - Move 1 Hex

Piece 1 - Move 3 - Move 1 Hex
Piece 2 - Move 3 - Move 1 Hex
Piece 3 - Move 3 - Move 1 Hex

etc.

Now if you have lets say one of the Characters is a horse with movement 12 then for each hex segment (what you call impulse) the horse would move 2 hexes.   Not too bad.   But what about Elves which move 8?   Oh nuts.  Then you get into the whole Elves move 1 and 1/3 thing.   SO!   The solution we came up with is:   Scale the map by a factor of 3.

Now you get this (where piece 3 is the elf):

Piece 1 - Move 1 - Move 3 Hexes
Piece 2 - Move 1 - Move 3 Hexes
Piece 3 - Move 1 - Move 4 Hexes

Piece 1 - Move 2 - Move 3 Hexes
Piece 2 - Move 2 - Move 3 Hexes
Piece 3 - Move 2 - Move 4 Hexes

Piece 1 - Move 3 - Move 3 Hexes
Piece 2 - Move 3 - Move 3 Hexes
Piece 3 - Move 3 - Move 4 Hexes

etc.

And in this case the hex grids go from being 6' each to being 2' each.  Therefore we get no fractional moves, and everything stays nice and clean.  And the math is pretty simple:  Multiply everything by 3.   Not too bad I hope.  We'll be experimenting with it, but I do think that may well be the answer.  Everything else seemed to wander into the "too complicated people will hate it" zone.  

Edit:  Oh yeah... as for Movement per Impulse... I think ultimately the calculation would be Distance / Time.   The time is six seconds, which is one Melee in my world.   So therefore the question is How far can you move in six seconds?   Each segment (what I think you call Impulse) within the Melee (this issue only applies to Merge-Movement) is 1 second.   So how far can you move in a second?   Including encumberance, weapons and armor I'm saying by this system as it currently stands, that the average human will go 2' per second.   Of course that's in reality quite variable.   So that's why I say it's Quasi-Realistic.   It only goes so far.   Of course if you wanted to you could as the GM let the Players say "I drop my ruck sack and sprint!"  in which case you can give him or her a movement of 10, or whatever.   See?

I realise it's a bit more complicated but I've tried to come up with rules that are not really *too* complicated for those who are willing to take the time and really like the Merge-Movement feel.

I do hope this works!