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. :D
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. :D
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. :P
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! :)
Yep, that's pretty much impulse movement you have going there. I like such systems, and hope you have far more success than I did (players with a wargame backgroung might help)! I'm right there with you on liking the feel of such systems.
By re-scaling and expressing moves in terms of "hexes per segment," you get rid of a lot of knarly calculating or "move 3 the first segment, 2 the second, 3 the third"-type rules. Very nice. I think the movement portion of your system will be very clean.
I wouldn't worry too much about fixing the exact time each segment represents, btw. It's hard for me to explain well, but that's where my system hit conceptual pitfalls...I started implementing actions that took more than one segment, then half-actions, then...it got ridiculous because I mentally chained myself to the time concept, and was forcing my mechanics to work within that.
I use a hex-map and whatever minis or counters are at hand -- typically minis.
Each combat round is 3-5 seconds, or a frame in a comic book. Each hex is 2 meters across.
Everyone rolls initiative (on a d12) and adds their modifier. Players act in that order, with some options for delaying a move, or holding your action and preempting opponents.
Movement rules are similar to Hero System in that each character has a base movement score (say 6 hexes). He can move this many hexes in a round, or half that and attack. Other actions fall into the categories of full actions, half actions, or free actions. The attack action is special because it ends your turn; you cannot attack and then move away.
Units do not exert a zone of control per se, but once you attack someone, you have engaged them. An engaged opponent can move one hex, but must remain adjacent to you. If he tries to disengage, you get a free attack (and he gets a -2 to his defense as a penalty).
You can freely disengage if you have some means of movement that takes you out of reach of your attacker. So you could jump off the side of a boat, or fly away. Characters with acrobatics can make a skill test to tumble out of an engagement. The other way to disengage without penalty is to have an ally move adjacent to your attacker. If you have help, you can disengage with no attack.
The system has rules for flanking, multiple attackers on a single opponent, the effect of weapon length, high ground, obstructions, and so on. It sounds fairly complicated, but I think it hangs together fairly well in play and is quick enough.
Quote from: KenHRYep, that's pretty much impulse movement you have going there. I like such systems, and hope you have far more success than I did (players with a wargame backgroung might help)! I'm right there with you on liking the feel of such systems.
By re-scaling and expressing moves in terms of "hexes per segment," you get rid of a lot of knarly calculating or "move 3 the first segment, 2 the second, 3 the third"-type rules. Very nice. I think the movement portion of your system will be very clean.
I wouldn't worry too much about fixing the exact time each segment represents, btw. It's hard for me to explain well, but that's where my system hit conceptual pitfalls...I started implementing actions that took more than one segment, then half-actions, then...it got ridiculous because I mentally chained myself to the time concept, and was forcing my mechanics to work within that.
Oh hey, that's a very good tip!
I will de-emphasize the time element. Thanks!!
:D
Chris's post touched on something pertaining to map and minis gaming: how do you handle facing?
My last few homebrews have used a fluid facing mechanic that works as follows (it works better in practice than it sounds in writing):
1. Your figure may change facing as many times as you like during your move/segment.
2. When moving, a figure rear facing matches the side from which it entered its new hex/square for purposes of interception (i.e. if someone decides to attack the moving guy in the middle of his move)
3. After an attack against your figure is resolved, you can change its facing toward the direction from which the attack came if you wish.
"Zones of control" only extend to the hexes/squares the figure is currently facing.
Flanking and rear attacks got a bonus, as per usual.
Nothing earth-shattering, but I like facing rules. By making such rules less rigid than some I've seen, though (by allowing for on-the-fly adjustments to meet new threats), it captures more of that fluidity you're looking for with your merge-movement system.
Oh, and with regard to the time element: its worth considering for working out movement rates and such, but don't be chained to the concept, both for the pitfalls you can hit in design, and for the quibbling that inevitably happens in actual play ("What do you mean I can't do this in 2 seconds...let me show you!"). Recently I've gone with the indeterminate time round, where the only definition is that a round represents a slice of time that would allow your character to do what they just did. I assume all combats take about 10 minutes of time, unless it "felt" longer in play (i.e. GM fiat!).
Quote from: cmagounI use a hex-map and whatever minis or counters are at hand -- typically minis.
Each combat round is 3-5 seconds, or a frame in a comic book. Each hex is 2 meters across.
Everyone rolls initiative (on a d12) and adds their modifier. Players act in that order, with some options for delaying a move, or holding your action and preempting opponents.
Movement rules are similar to Hero System in that each character has a base movement score (say 6 hexes). He can move this many hexes in a round, or half that and attack. Other actions fall into the categories of full actions, half actions, or free actions. The attack action is special because it ends your turn; you cannot attack and then move away.
Units do not exert a zone of control per se, but once you attack someone, you have engaged them. An engaged opponent can move one hex, but must remain adjacent to you. If he tries to disengage, you get a free attack (and he gets a -2 to his defense as a penalty).
You can freely disengage if you have some means of movement that takes you out of reach of your attacker. So you could jump off the side of a boat, or fly away. Characters with acrobatics can make a skill test to tumble out of an engagement. The other way to disengage without penalty is to have an ally move adjacent to your attacker. If you have help, you can disengage with no attack.
The system has rules for flanking, multiple attackers on a single opponent, the effect of weapon length, high ground, obstructions, and so on. It sounds fairly complicated, but I think it hangs together fairly well in play and is quick enough.
Cool. There are several things I like about this. The disengagement without penalty if the attacker has multiple opponents is good. The Move Half And Attack rule is something I'm doing too except my rule is that you can attack as long as you haven't used up all of your movement points (Merge-Movement method). I also have terrain as a factor in terms of movement as well. For High Ground vs. Low Ground I'm allowing for an Attack Level / Armor Class bonus, rather than apply that to movement, though now that I think about it ... Up hill movement should have a minus, and down hill should have a plus. Good good. Thanks! :)
Quote from: KenHRChris's post touched on something pertaining to map and minis gaming: how do you handle facing?
I use a reasonably fluid facing system as well: A character can face any direction he likes during his move. When someone approaches him, he can change his facing IF the opponent starts his move anywhere in front of him. If the opponent starts his move from behind (the rear 180), the character must maintain his current facing and can be flanked.
I gotta check out Runebearer; I like what you've described in this thread!
So...ummm...where can I find it? :)
Quote from: KenHRI gotta check out Runebearer; I like what you've described in this thread!
So...ummm...where can I find it? :)
Well, much to my misery, I was informed that my link is broken. So... I either need to find some place to host the latest copy, or I need an email address to which I can send the files.
I'll send you a PM so as not to derail VB's thread here (which is great, btw).
Quote from: KenHRChris's post touched on something pertaining to map and minis gaming: how do you handle facing?
My last few homebrews have used a fluid facing mechanic that works as follows (it works better in practice than it sounds in writing):
1. Your figure may change facing as many times as you like during your move/segment.
2. When moving, a figure rear facing matches the side from which it entered its new hex/square for purposes of interception (i.e. if someone decides to attack the moving guy in the middle of his move)
3. After an attack against your figure is resolved, you can change its facing toward the direction from which the attack came if you wish.
"Zones of control" only extend to the hexes/squares the figure is currently facing.
Flanking and rear attacks got a bonus, as per usual.
Nothing earth-shattering, but I like facing rules. By making such rules less rigid than some I've seen, though (by allowing for on-the-fly adjustments to meet new threats), it captures more of that fluidity you're looking for with your merge-movement system.
Oh, and with regard to the time element: its worth considering for working out movement rates and such, but don't be chained to the concept, both for the pitfalls you can hit in design, and for the quibbling that inevitably happens in actual play ("What do you mean I can't do this in 2 seconds...let me show you!"). Recently I've gone with the indeterminate time round, where the only definition is that a round represents a slice of time that would allow your character to do what they just did. I assume all combats take about 10 minutes of time, unless it "felt" longer in play (i.e. GM fiat!).
Good points about facing. The way I do it now is that you have a facing direction that is a dot located at the forward position of the counter. This shows which direction you're facing (you can see the dots in the gif file on my website if you look carefully). To change direction where you are not moving forward (ie - to pivot) costs 1 movement to spin around (or per hex direction shift, but I think I prefer 180 degree pivot = 1 Movement point). You can also shift direction while moving forward without a cost unless you want to reverse direction, which also costs one movement point.
As for time, yup yup. I'm totally with you on that.
Thanks!
Edit: http://www.elthos.com/2008/Elthos_MergeMove_Example.htm (in case you breezed over it)
I saw the example...nice animation! :)
My rationale for allowing free facing changes had to do with the chaotic nature of melee. A combatant could conceivably be face every direction at some point in the span of even a six second round. So the free change allows for that, and it keeps players from feeling hamstrung by the number of movement points their character has (that's a perceptual thing, but damn if it didn't have an impact on my group!).
You still get some tactical nuance this way, too, especially in very close quarters or when a figure is surrounded: turn to face a new threat, exposing your flank to the old threat, or finish what you've already started?
By the way, do you have a system document online anywhere? I'm always interested in seeing how others handle issues like this.
Quote from: KenHRI saw the example...nice animation! :)
My rationale for allowing free facing changes had to do with the chaotic nature of melee. A combatant could conceivably be face every direction at some point in the span of even a six second round. So the free change allows for that, and it keeps players from feeling hamstrung by the number of movement points their character has (that's a perceptual thing, but damn if it didn't have an impact on my group!).
You still get some tactical nuance this way, too, especially in very close quarters or when a figure is surrounded: turn to face a new threat, exposing your flank to the old threat, or finish what you've already started?
By the way, do you have a system document online anywhere? I'm always interested in seeing how others handle issues like this.
Hmmm... actually that sounds pretty damn reasonable. Give Pivoting away as a freebee anyway. It's nicer and I suspect the players will like it better anyway. Good call.
As for documentation online... not yet. I have a rules book which I'm finalizing but I'm trying to playtest like a madman before I release the rules into the wild. I'll post some notice or other on theRPGSite when I put the book out there.
Unless of course you'd be interested and willing to look the book over in some sort of official capacity and provide feedback as part of my review process... in which case I'd be up for that! Fo Shizzle! :) If not, no problem. I know everyone is really busy with their own stuff (just like me at the moment). hehe.
Ah, I appreciate the offer, and despite really wanting to offer help, I'm swamped between the band, work and gaming. It'd be one of those best intentions, but no delivery situations, and I don't want to opt in and not be able to carry my weight.
I'd be happy to proofread when you've gotten a final draft down the road and some time may have opened up on my end, though. Despite my awful grammar (and word choice, and punctuation, and proclivity for long and rambling parenthetical asides) on message boards, I am pretty decent in that area.
It was buried a bit more than I thought:
Drawing rooms on hex paper (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4043756&postcount=121)
This is a biggie:
Non-Euclidian Geometry in 4e? (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218777)
But, it has a metric tonne of good info hidden among the arguments.
Quote from: StormBringerIt was buried a bit more than I thought:
Drawing rooms on hex paper (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4043756&postcount=121)
This is a biggie:
Non-Euclidian Geometry in 4e? (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218777)
But, it has a metric tonne of good info hidden among the arguments.
Yah. Sweet! Thank you for the links. I'm slogging through the second one now. Interesting stuff, definitely. The first one was kinda helpful too, and might just turn out the way I decide to go after all. I can live with Hex Maps for Dungeons I think. The only issue I've ever had is the half grids along the walls. But really, how many times has it ever actually turned out to be a game-problem? Um... never? Heh.
Quote from: VBWyrdeYah. Sweet! Thank you for the links. I'm slogging through the second one now. Interesting stuff, definitely. The first one was kinda helpful too, and might just turn out the way I decide to go after all. I can live with Hex Maps for Dungeons I think. The only issue I've ever had is the half grids along the walls. But really, how many times has it ever actually turned out to be a game-problem? Um... never? Heh.
You are certainly welcome. I would assume counting the half-hexes as a single hex when moving through them along a wall or something shouldn't cause any problems.
Yeah, thanks for the link...particularly the second one. Interesting to see perspectives on this (seemingly minor...but it's not!) issue. Good arguments all around, though I'm still not convinced to abandon treating diagonal movement on a square grid as 1.5x movement points/inches/whatever.
Though I may just have to try hexes next time I get a tabletop group together. I wonder if it will garner a reaction.
Quote from: KenHRYeah, thanks for the link...particularly the second one. Interesting to see perspectives on this (seemingly minor...but it's not!) issue. Good arguments all around, though I'm still not convinced to abandon treating diagonal movement on a square grid as 1.5x movement points/inches/whatever.
Though I may just have to try hexes next time I get a tabletop group together. I wonder if it will garner a reaction.
This side of it is really interesting to me... the Player Reaction. So far for me every time I've introduced the idea of using Hex Grids or Square Grid maps to my Players the reactions have been
1) Puzzlement as to wtf I was talking about, to...
2) Interest in the concept of seeing exactly where their characters are as opposed to imagining they know (with all the attendant issues that caused), to...
3) Confusion (briefly) about the rules (zones of control seem the hardest thing for newbies to get the hang of so far), to...
4) Amusement at the maps (I like mine nicely crafted and colorful), to...
5) Some screw ups as they get used to the movement rules, to...
6) Enjoyment, to...
7) Requirement ... as in they don't like to play with out em after that.
This sequence holds true for either Square or Hex maps so far.
Now what I'm wondering is if this sequence is dependent on
A) How I introduce the topic. ("We keep losing track of who is standing where... lets try Maps")
B) How I explain the rules
C) My selection of simple, yet effective rules.
D) My choice of colors on the map (I find that cornflower blue shading is popular).
E) My selection of players (only some of them are wargamers to begin with).
F) The Phase of the Moon
I don't know. But I will say that so far and for a long time (I've been using hex maps since 1992), the reactions have been universally positive. So far. DON'T JINX ME! :)
Thanks for the feedback guys! I'm going to try to put together another GIF example tonight with Terrain.
I introduced encounter maps and minis without explanation. At the top of that campaign's first play session, I told everyone to choose a mini from my big box o'bargain lead badasses to represent their PCs and went from there.
It took a bit of hand-holding at first (getting used to measuring movement as opposed to declaring "I hit the spellcaster!", etc.), but the group ended up loving it. The reaction pretty much followed your outline to a T.
Hexes vs. squares seem to be an issue if a player has had a bad experience playing a traditional wargame (or has only heard of bad experiences, etc.). At least in my circle of friends and acquaintances. They see hexes, they think "ick, wargame!" Then they cross their arms and hold their breath until I go back to squares.
The next face-to-face group, however, will likely be composed mostly of newbies with little to no preconceptions about gaming at all. It will be interesting to see how they react in contrast to my old group (which was almost all gaming vets).
Quote from: KenHRYeah, thanks for the link...particularly the second one. Interesting to see perspectives on this (seemingly minor...but it's not!) issue. Good arguments all around, though I'm still not convinced to abandon treating diagonal movement on a square grid as 1.5x movement points/inches/whatever.
Though I may just have to try hexes next time I get a tabletop group together. I wonder if it will garner a reaction.
As for the 1.5 Movement issue on SQR maps. Hmmm... Again I go with Optional Rules for this. The Standard rule is that a Diagonal Move = 1 Movement Point (and that's fudging the math, yes). The Optional Rule is Diagonal Move = 1.5 Movement Points.
Actually on SQR maps I have another and totally different issue and question for you guys....
There's the theif, Phineas, sneaking up the long narrow corridor toward the open room which extends outward beyond where he can see into darkness, and to the left and right also beyond where he can see. He sneaks up... gets to the edge of the right hand corridor wall and there in the distance he sees the outline of an Orc with its traditional Orc Horned Helm standing far off to the right of the openning. Directly ahead in the distance he sees the outline of another Orc. He has not been seen yet (since no horns are blairing and the Orcs are not rushing towards him). Phineas wants to take the shot with his bow at the Orc on the right.
Here's the question: Right now the standard rule I have is that you can not shoot a bow around a corner which on a square map this is to shoot a missile weapon through the corner edge of the corridor wall. Instead Phineas must step into the room. However, in my example here, to make it poignent, the Orc that is straight ahead would then be in range with his own Orc Bow if Phineas steps into the room and twangs a shot. He *wants* to shoot around that corner from inside the corridor. He suggest hes proficient enough and left handed so he should be able to remain inside the corridor to get the shot off, rather than having to step into the room. Standard Rule says No.
Opinions?
I'd let him shoot around the corner; a character is not just standing in the middle of a grid square. If it's a big issue in that specific instance, maybe make him roll another stealth check or let the orcs get another perception roll. That's an instance where rules shouldn't have to spell it out, but allow for a GM to make a call based on common sense and what's awesome.
As for shooting around a corner:
I rule that line of sight means an unobstructed path from center of the shooter's hex to the center of the target's hex. Now, KenHR has pointed out that the character is not necessarily standing in the center of the square, but then again, neither is the target, and so even if you allow the character to be "on the edge" of his square, there are possible target positions that still lead to an obstructed view. I find center to center to work as an "average".
Now, that does lead to an interesting possibility. What if there was a "snapshot" maneuver that allowed a character to step a square, fire a shot (at some penalty) and then move back to his cover in a single turn? With this rule, the shooter could only be hit if someone was specifically waiting for him to appear around the corner. The character waiting to shoot the shooter would get the first shot.
If you are concerned that this rule is prone to abuse, then you can rule that the shooter has to remain exposed all round. In this case, he would shoot at a penalty, but he would get cover bonuses against return fire. In essence, he would trade a to-hit penalty, for a defensive bonus.
Quote from: cmagounAs for shooting around a corner:
I rule that line of sight means an unobstructed path from center of the shooter's hex to the center of the target's hex. Now, KenHR has pointed out that the character is not necessarily standing in the center of the square, but then again, neither is the target, and so even if you allow the character to be "on the edge" of his square, there are possible target positions that still lead to an obstructed view. I find center to center to work as an "average".
This is a great point, and normally I'd be inclined to do exactly what you say. However, VB's example seemed to indicate the PC was taking the orcs unaware and the GM was indicating LOS existed. In that case I'd allow the corner shot.
Snapshot/opportunity fire rules work well in systems like this, too. Definitely something to keep in mind.
This thread has gotten me to return to my homebrew game. Thanks, guys!
Quote from: cmagounIn this case, he would shoot at a penalty, but he would get cover bonuses against return fire. In essence, he would trade a to-hit penalty, for a defensive bonus.
I would have thought seeking cover both for protection and to brace one's weapon on would result in better defense and offense. I'm always looking for a brace when I need to hit my target, even if I'm not being shot at.
Quote from: KenHRThis is a great point, and normally I'd be inclined to do exactly what you say. However, VB's example seemed to indicate the PC was taking the orcs unaware and the GM was indicating LOS existed. In that case I'd allow the corner shot.
Snapshot/opportunity fire rules work well in systems like this, too. Definitely something to keep in mind.
This thread has gotten me to return to my homebrew game. Thanks, guys!
Cool & glad to hear it. As far as I'm concerned perfecting my homebrew is too much fun to do without.
I see what you guys mean about the LOS question. Yeah my example wasn't perfect as it was implied that the Orcs would only see the character after he stepped into the room, not while he is still in the corridor. That's imperfect to be sure. But the discussion has given me food for thought. I got my old trusty bow out and tried an Around-The-Corner shot. The thing is that if I'm right handed, and I shoot around the left hand corner to the left... I could make a case for that shot not necessarily requiring me to be in the room exactly... but not Center-Square to Center-Square... that would never work as I would have to shoot through the corner of the wall.
Since these rules are something of an abstraction anyway I think it's fair enough to say... You can't shoot a bow around a corner.
There's another thing that I realised too that came up while I was making my latest video that caught my eye. In order to resolve the Scaling issue of the Merge-Movement I changed all Humans from a 5 grid (30') movement per melee to 6 grids (36'). However, going over my rules I realised I had Humans at 5 grids for a reason. When you include the zone of control rules, a human's 5 grid max means that a human character can not simply slip around and get directly behind an opponent in Standard Movement (where the initiative winner Moves and then Attacks). Six Movement, however, does allow him to do so. However, I further noticed that the human would need to pivot to his rear hex to do so, and so I have a simple solution which I was going to add anyway. Pivots cost 1 Movement point for ever 2 facing directions, but are free if you pivot only 1. In otherwords it costs a movement point to turn around, but not shift your facing dirction to the right or left. With this, it now works again that a human can not slip directly behind the opponent using the Standard Move-Attack, and then Move-Attack Method.
On the other hand it is not an issue at all if you do Initiatve Winner Moves, then Initiative Loser Moves, then Initiative Winner Attacks, then Initiative Loser Attacks. However, since the option exists to do Move-Attack, Move-Attack I have included it among the Standard Movement Supplimental Options. I could, then again, exclude one or the other. Or keep them both.
The reason it matters is two fold in terms of the zone of control rule.
1. If a character is directly behind you, and another is infront, then their zones of control in combination effectively pin you so you cant move.
2. From the left and right rear hexes your armor class is -1. However, from the directly behind you hex, however, it is -2.
Hmmm... anyway, yeah, thank you guys for a very cool discussion. This is really helping me! :)
Edit: Oh yeah... almost forgot: About the SnapShot idea... that's a hell of skill to have. It's possible, but I can not imagine anyone but a real pro being able to actually do something like that. An Elf maybe! I might include that is a special Elven Archer skill or some sort. Thanks. :)
My preference for most of the games I run is to use maps and counters. Only in some extremely cinematic/comedic themed games (where combat precision isn't as important) would I find it somewhat acceptable to not use them.
Speaking of which, does anyone use those Chessex battle mats?
http://www.elthos.com/2008/Elthos_StandardMove_Example_01.htm
This one is a bit rough as I'm in a rush (leaving today on vacation), but I threw this together last night just the same. Any thoughts / suggestions are welcome.
:)
Mark
Quote from: LancerSpeaking of which, does anyone use those Chessex battle mats?
Yup! I love Chessex stuff. Buy a new mat every year at GenCon like clockwork.
I like mats, heroscape terrain, wargame terrain with tape measures--all that kind of stuff. But what I've found handy to just throw in a file box or tuck in a book cover are folders that I make by taping a piece of white letter-sized cardstock to a transparency printed with a hex grid on a long edge. I can draw a map freehand, not distracted by gridlines, and tuck it in the folder. Or I can take out a blank one and draw on it with transparency markers. I can lay several down side by side for a big map, as needed. Handy and space-saving.
Quote from: gleichmanI would have thought seeking cover both for protection and to brace one's weapon on would result in better defense and offense. I'm always looking for a brace when I need to hit my target, even if I'm not being shot at.
Perhaps, but in this case, I am assuming that the archer is coming around the corner, taking a quick shot and ducking back under cover. The offensive penalty is for a lack of time to aim.
Quote from: cmagounPerhaps, but in this case, I am assuming that the archer is coming around the corner, taking a quick shot and ducking back under cover. The offensive penalty is for a lack of time to aim.
Good enough. I think one might wish to handle it differently for firearms, but that's just me.
In this thread on the LRPGSW I discuss the Play Test of last Saturday and talk about the mapping aspect using the hex grid.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LRPGSW/message/1704
The highlight regarding mapping:
QuoteSo this time we decided to play the core rules, without any of the supplimental combat rules. So instead of merge movement on the combat maps, we used the standard Initiative Winner's Group Moves 1st + Attacks 1st, Initiative Loser's Group Moves 2nd and Attacks 2nd. That creates some very different tactics, btw, than the optional a) Rule which is Initiative Winner's Group Moves 1st, then Initiative Loser's Group Moves 2nd, then Initiative Winner's Group Attacks 1st, then Initiative Loser's Group attacks 2nd. That was an interesting discovery.
And...
QuoteThe party quickly coalesced around Arthur (using the hex grid with the barn and sty was very effective for tracking movement!), and after eight melees of rough and tumble the party managed to down every one of their assailents, including the kobold who tried to flee. Again - the movement rule worked out perfectly for this - the Golden Sheaves won the initiative and while they couldn't reach him due to the 30' lead the kobold had, a fire bolt (critical hit, too) took the little creature out of the world.
I'll take a few moments to talk about this (I'm at work right now but waiting for my partner to show up so this will be brief)...
Right now I have three modes of movement, the standard is Winner Move-Attack, Loser Move-Attack. Option a) is Winner-Move, Loser-Move, Winner-Attack, Loser-Attack. The third, of course, is the new Merge-Movement. As you can imagine this results in completely different tactical considerations. In this game test we played with the Standard Movement Rule.
The Standard Movement results in this situation - if the Initiative Winning (IW) party gets too close by charging ahead the full distance of their range, and the Initiative Loser (IL) party is now within their own movement range, the result is as follows: The IW runs up as far as it can. They can't attack because they are out of range. The IL runs forward and now they ARE in range for attack and so they can get the first actual strikes in (edged weapons). Since the turn is then over, we roll Initiatve and the next melee begins. This means that the IW can, concievably, run forward, and not get an attack for TWO attacks in a row. Therefore it behooves the IW to learn to not run forward necessarily until they are within striking range. Thus the IW-IL has tactical implications. Now, we figured out that this is not necessarily bad, nor unexplainable. In the case of this adventure the Goblin group thought they could easily cause Arthur to run away, and therefore get back slashes on him and split the defenders group. So they charged forward on that assumption. It was, however a miscalculation, and Arthur held fast. Because of this he actually got the first blow in. That works for us as far as explainations go.
Conversely this is not a consideration for Option A since the IW moves then the IL moves, then the IW attacks, then the IL attacks.
Which do you think, of these two, would you make the Standard Movement rules? I'm almost siding with Option A, actually. Thoughts?
What's merge movement?
Personally, between Standard and Option A, I'd choose neither and go for the following. Initiative winner decides which side must move first. All moves are done before attacks. Attacks are conducted either in initiative order, or if you prefer, in Dex order.
Additional optional rule, which would enhance missile weapons: after initiative but before movement, any character with a ready missile weapon may fire/throw it. This is done in the same order used for melee attacks. Missile weapons can be held back and used during the melee attack phase. Characters that use missile weapons in the pre-movement phase should be marked to show that they can't make a full move (if at all).
Additional optional rule: characters that move more than half their maximum (running speed) may not attack.
Quote from: gleichmanIt'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.
It's basically unheard of for me to us a hex map and minis for combat. For me, the game isn't worth playing with them.
-clash
Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat's merge movement?
Personally, between Standard and Option A, I'd choose neither and go for the following. Initiative winner decides which side must move first. All moves are done before attacks. Attacks are conducted either in initiative order, or if you prefer, in Dex order.
Additional optional rule, which would enhance missile weapons: after initiative but before movement, any character with a ready missile weapon may fire/throw it. This is done in the same order used for melee attacks. Missile weapons can be held back and used during the melee attack phase. Characters that use missile weapons in the pre-movement phase should be marked to show that they can't make a full move (if at all).
Additional optional rule: characters that move more than half their maximum (running speed) may not attack.
Merge-Movement is where we round-robin all of the pieces movements on the board one hex/grid at a time so that the groups Merge together.
Your suggestion is a good one, though I think that fits in with Option A pretty much with the exception that the winner chooses who moves first. I should say that one of my primary objectives for the rules system I am working on is simplicity. So I wanted the easiest to understand movement rules, with options being provided that add complexity if the GM + Players so decide. But by default the rules will offer the Standard Movement, which will be the simplest option. So your optional rules definitely could fit into the supplimental rules set. Thanks for the thoughts!
Mark
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's basically unheard of for me to us a hex map and minis for combat. For me, the game isn't worth playing with them.
-clash
I don't suppose it's worth asking why as it is often the case that some preferences are simply that, preferences, and there is no real "why" about it. Like if you are a fan of chocolate it's not worthwhile to "why". You just are.
That said, I like using the Hex/Grid Maps for the following reasons:
1. it allows the players and the GM to stay on the same page in terms of who is where in combat. This eliminates the "I didn't understand that the such-n-such was there - I thought he was THERE" issue that came up previously for us.
2. it allows us to plan out somewhat more precise tactics for combat than before, so the game becomes a bit more chess-like, which I happen to enjoy.
3. I find it fun.
But as always with this sort of thing, each to his own. :)
Precisely. We went without a big map for years, relying instead on graph-paper maps and sometimes marking our positions with pencils. Then we made a 3' x 4' square grid map and laminated it. We don't cotton to wasting money, so we went with the variously-sized wooden spindles, and it's really been quite nice. My only objection is that we tend to rely on it too much - both GMs and players - resulting in games that are little more than complex chess games followed by a couple minutes of interaction. We complained, and Paul uses the map a little less now, and we try to rely on it less as players.
It is, I think, very interesting to see the varied psychological effects of the big map; I think for many of us, we see this thing in front of us, and thus don't bother trying to see it in our minds. This leads to players being less imaginative and inventive, because their minds are in "see/do" mode, and not "imagine/think" mode. It's fascinating.
I think it has it's ups and downs like anything. Some players rely on the map more if it's present-be it the big grid or paper maps. Others are inspired by it. I think it's about finding the balance. I don't care too much what we use, as long we have fun.
One thing I try to do is have my maps ahead of time, so I'm not wasting too much time In Game drawing them, or making them up. This isn't always possible of course.
Quote from: EnginePrecisely. We went without a big map for years, relying instead on graph-paper maps and sometimes marking our positions with pencils. Then we made a 3' x 4' square grid map and laminated it. We don't cotton to wasting money, so we went with the variously-sized wooden spindles, and it's really been quite nice. My only objection is that we tend to rely on it too much - both GMs and players - resulting in games that are little more than complex chess games followed by a couple minutes of interaction. We complained, and Paul uses the map a little less now, and we try to rely on it less as players.
It is, I think, very interesting to see the varied psychological effects of the big map; I think for many of us, we see this thing in front of us, and thus don't bother trying to see it in our minds. This leads to players being less imaginative and inventive, because their minds are in "see/do" mode, and not "imagine/think" mode. It's fascinating.
That's a really good point about the imagination factor. It's much like the difference between reading a great book, like Lord of the Rings, and seeing it in the movies. However in this case there are pros and cons due to the game aspect where there's the advantage of clarity and the possibility of tactics.
Based on your feedback and that of others I think what I'll do is try to squeeze in a comment about this distinction, and a recommendation to be moderate with map usage, and make the entire thing Optional in the rules book.
Quote from: Serious PaulI think it has it's ups and downs like anything. Some players rely on the map more if it's present-be it the big grid or paper maps. Others are inspired by it. I think it's about finding the balance. I don't care too much what we use, as long we have fun.
One thing I try to do is have my maps ahead of time, so I'm not wasting too much time In Game drawing them, or making them up. This isn't always possible of course.
Maps ahead of time is a good idea. I try to do that too. One problem that I have, though, is that my scales are always a bit fudged. Like I'll have a really nice looking overview map, and it will show, for example, the North Glendale area around the town of Hamfest. Looks great. I zoom in and do another of Hamfest. And another of Wheatdale, and one more of Giles Farm and Lake Meredith. Then, because I didn't think carefully enough, I begin over time to notice that some things just don't fit like I thought they did. The |<---->| = 1 Mile thing should have been 4 Miles, or Blueberry Hill is in the wrong location, and whatnot. Of course, that's just me being sloppy, and I wind up redoing my maps. I'm just not good at getting the details just right, and so my maps always seem to have a fudge factor. Of course those maps are not the Tactical ones that we use in combat so it's not really all that germane to what we're talking about. But just the same, how do you handle the correct scaling of your maps, or don't you? Do you have this issue also? I'm trying, these days, to be much more careful, but it's a painfully slow learning curve for me. :P
Quote from: VBWyrdeHowever in this case there are pros and cons due to the game aspect where there's the advantage of clarity and the possibility of tactics.
And that's the thing. I think some kind of physical representation makes it much easier and more clear for everyone, and when doing any kind of even remotely tactical combat, it's practically essential if you don't want to spend time dealing with sight lines and so on. It just has to be leavened with imagination, and that sort of thing is going to
have to come from the GM, because players are fickle and foolish at the best of times. [And I, speaking as someone who is a player about a thousand times more often than a GM.]
Quote from: VBWyrdeBased on your feedback and that of others I think what I'll do is try to squeeze in a comment about this distinction, and a recommendation to be moderate with map usage, and make the entire thing Optional in the rules book.
I think a comment - okay, a paragraph or two - about this is probably essential if you're planning to release any sort of game which relies heavily on this sort of map. [I haven't, I apologize, read the entire thread, so I've missed anything that's been said about "the rules book."]
Quote from: VBWyrdeI don't suppose it's worth asking why as it is often the case that some preferences are simply that, preferences, and there is no real "why" about it. Like if you are a fan of chocolate it's not worthwhile to "why". You just are.
That said, I like using the Hex/Grid Maps for the following reasons:
1. it allows the players and the GM to stay on the same page in terms of who is where in combat. This eliminates the "I didn't understand that the such-n-such was there - I thought he was THERE" issue that came up previously for us.
2. it allows us to plan out somewhat more precise tactics for combat than before, so the game becomes a bit more chess-like, which I happen to enjoy.
3. I find it fun.
But as always with this sort of thing, each to his own. :)
It's a preference thing, but I can say the players tend to be more imaginitive in what they do, they try to picture things in their minds, for some reason roleplaying seems to be easier, and since I tend away from games with explicit tactics and towards games with abstracted tactics, it all works out fine.
I can't remember the last time I even had to draw a battle map. Mybe once every couple of years... Something like that.
-clash
Quote from: EngineAnd that's the thing. I think some kind of physical representation makes it much easier and more clear for everyone, and when doing any kind of even remotely tactical combat, it's practically essential if you don't want to spend time dealing with sight lines and so on. It just has to be leavened with imagination, and that sort of thing is going to have to come from the GM, because players are fickle and foolish at the best of times. [And I, speaking as someone who is a player about a thousand times more often than a GM.]
Definitely agree! I try, though not always entirely successfully, to mitigate the "Play by the Numbers Effect" by giving colorful verbal descriptions of the scenes as we play. So even when we use the map, it's still visualized with the appropriate atmosphere ... such as the last game test I played I made a point to Set the Scene with descriptions such as "it's midnight and the moon is dodging in and out of the clouds while to the west a flash of lightening flickers from the storm heading south over the distant hills. You hear the tolling of the bell from the monastery, and ... " the action begins.
QuoteI think a comment - okay, a paragraph or two - about this is probably essential if you're planning to release any sort of game which relies heavily on this sort of map. [I haven't, I apologize, read the entire thread, so I've missed anything that's been said about "the rules book."]
I'll see what I can do to drum something up. I'll be using this thread as a basis for it. So thanks! :)
Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a preference thing, but I can say the players tend to be more imaginitive in what they do, they try to picture things in their minds, for some reason roleplaying seems to be easier, and since I tend away from games with explicit tactics and towards games with abstracted tactics, it all works out fine.
I can't remember the last time I even had to draw a battle map. Mybe once every couple of years... Something like that.
-clash
Yup. I can see that. Very much so. What I'm going to do is mention this in the rules and make a point of declaring the Mapping aspect optional for that reason. Some people will prefer it, so I'll have nice rules for that, but other people will prefer not. Which is cool and fine. What I do myself is only whip out the map during battle. Then the map goes away again. And the maps are tightly tactical in that they cover a small area. In other cases where I have larger overview maps, I show those once in a while. I agree with the objective to keep as much of the game in the realm of the imagination as possible for the purpose of enhancing role playing. But gosh, I do like to run the tactics too. :)
Quote from: VBWyrdeI try, though not always entirely successfully, to mitigate the "Play by the Numbers Effect" by giving colorful verbal descriptions of the scenes as we play.
And I think that probably deserves mention in the rules, and is one solution to the conundrum Flyingmice mentions. When combat doesn't need to be tactical - because the situation doesn't require it, or the group doesn't tend to it, or whatever - maybe the big map isn't necessary.* But when the time comes, it's
absolutely irreplaceable as a means of visualizing large, tactical combat.
One point: I think it's important
not to limit the scale of the map to some specific value. We did that for quite a while - standard 5ft squares - and the problem becomes that the battle tends not to range outside the confines of the map! Even the players just don't ask, "What's eight feet over there?" This is okay if your combats can take place in that sized area, but when we first got the map, I was a Ranger and could shoot things from hundreds of yards away, but because of the scale issue, I never engaged anyone further than 120 feet or so. Something to keep in mind.
*But just think: there's a giant-ass thing to write on in the center of the table. If you don't need a map, use it to do something else: draw a picture of the scene, rather than a birds-eye-view; write down the names of the important NPCs in the enormous political arena; and so on. Even when it's not a map, it's an excellent tool: we use it to track initiative [large enough for everyone to see!] on the end of the map that's not gridded [there's a six-inch leader at the end for this purpose] and often, the players will make notes, to themselves or each other, right on the map, right on the table.
We're going to move over the next year to a multi-touch 3' x 5' display that'll be the center of the table and will be connected to a PC running XP Tablet, which will make some of this easier - for instance, no marathon erasing sessions - but for now, I think the big map's an incredible tool, which like any other, only needs to be used properly, and taken into account throughout the game.
Quote from: EngineAnd I think that probably deserves mention in the rules, and is one solution to the conundrum Flyingmice mentions. When combat doesn't need to be tactical - because the situation doesn't require it, or the group doesn't tend to it, or whatever - maybe the big map isn't necessary.* But when the time comes, it's absolutely irreplaceable as a means of visualizing large, tactical combat.
Even small scale combat as far as I'm concerned. There is the thief sliding down the corridor towards the corner around which he wishes to quietly peer, leaving the party 30' behind, when suddenly two doors on the opposite walls open and out pour six kobolds, three goblins and an ogre! Map, please! :D
QuoteOne point: I think it's important not to limit the scale of the map to some specific value. We did that for quite a while - standard 5ft squares - and the problem becomes that the battle tends not to range outside the confines of the map! Even the players just don't ask, "What's eight feet over there?" This is okay if your combats can take place in that sized area, but when we first got the map, I was a Ranger and could shoot things from hundreds of yards away, but because of the scale issue, I never engaged anyone further than 120 feet or so. Something to keep in mind.
Good point! I think I'll have to experiment with how to handle that, but my guess is that GM adjudication is the solution. Statement to the players would be: "Dudes, remember, that while we are playing on tactical maps with scales at 5' per hex, remember that you may always ask about and react to terrain and/or foes who may be off the current map. Archers with ranges that extend off the map - do take note!" Might that suffice?
Quote*But just think: there's a giant-ass thing to write on in the center of the table. If you don't need a map, use it to do something else: draw a picture of the scene, rather than a birds-eye-view; write down the names of the important NPCs in the enormous political arena; and so on. Even when it's not a map, it's an excellent tool: we use it to track initiative [large enough for everyone to see!] on the end of the map that's not gridded [there's a six-inch leader at the end for this purpose] and often, the players will make notes, to themselves or each other, right on the map, right on the table.
We're going to move over the next year to a multi-touch 3' x 5' display that'll be the center of the table and will be connected to a PC running XP Tablet, which will make some of this easier - for instance, no marathon erasing sessions - but for now, I think the big map's an incredible tool, which like any other, only needs to be used properly, and taken into account throughout the game.
Now THIS is really interesting! I am very curious about the multi-touch 3' x 5' display and how you intend to use it! Can you give some more specifics of the techical setup? I have some software here that I created that I might be able to put to excellent use on such a system. Manufacturer's and model numbers, and any other technical details would be awesome. Thanks!
Quote from: VBWyrdeI think I'll have to experiment with how to handle that, but my guess is that GM adjudication is the solution. Statement to the players would be: "Dudes, remember, that while we are playing on tactical maps with scales at 5' per hex, remember that you may always ask about and react to terrain and/or foes who may be off the current map. Archers with ranges that extend off the map - do take note!" Might that suffice?
Also, let's say you really need to draw a map that's 400 feet across: you're not going to do that on one inch squares at five foot a square! So then you mark scale: outline a square and write "10ft" next to it or whatever. That's generally all we end up needing to do, although you do have to remember, in a wargaming system like D&D, that all your engagement rules aren't going to apply per square, but per quarter-square, for instance. It can be tough.
Quote from: VBWyrdeCan you give some more specifics of the techical setup? I have some software here that I created that I might be able to put to excellent use on such a system. Manufacturer's and model numbers, and any other technical details would be awesome. Thanks!
The manufacturer will be "Engine Corp," and the model number will be "3278." No, seriously, I'm building it, rather than buying one [which we couldn't afford!] Originally, I'd intended to use an array of old LCDs and a side-mounted imaging system more like Microsoft's Surface, but it looks like we'll probably use a projector and a Wiimote, inspired by Johnny Chung Lee's whiteboard and airtouch controllers (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/). We predict much awesomeness. And, building it ourselves means we can put in cupholders and room for character sheets and space to roll on, etc.
Someday, I'd love to have a system that can read the bottom of the die, figure out the top value, and figure out your roll for you, but really, if we get to that point, we're just showing off.
Quote from: EngineAlso, let's say you really need to draw a map that's 400 feet across: you're not going to do that on one inch squares at five foot a square! So then you mark scale: outline a square and write "10ft" next to it or whatever. That's generally all we end up needing to do, although you do have to remember, in a wargaming system like D&D, that all your engagement rules aren't going to apply per square, but per quarter-square, for instance. It can be tough.
Yeah, well that's the same scaling issue I was talking about a little earlier in essense (or at least related). My problem has been keep track of what scales on zoom in maps are what so that my scaling makes sense between maps. Kinda tricky, but I'm working on it. I think the key for me may be to standardize my scales so that I'm always sure what scale belongs to what Map Levels. I've done this effectively in my software, but I have yet to apply the principal to my poor old analog brain. :P
QuoteThe manufacturer will be "Engine Corp," and the model number will be "3278." No, seriously, I'm building it, rather than buying one [which we couldn't afford!] Originally, I'd intended to use an array of old LCDs and a side-mounted imaging system more like Microsoft's Surface, but it looks like we'll probably use a projector and a Wiimote, inspired by Johnny Chung Lee's whiteboard and airtouch controllers (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/). We predict much awesomeness. And, building it ourselves means we can put in cupholders and room for character sheets and space to roll on, etc.
Someday, I'd love to have a system that can read the bottom of the die, figure out the top value, and figure out your roll for you, but really, if we get to that point, we're just showing off.
Holy macrel - built it yourselves? Geektastic! I hope you'll show off with some screenshots and specs diagrams and stuff when you're done! I was hoping there'd be something on the market like this because I do have software that would be pretty useful for this kind of setup that I designed a while back. Anyway, thanks for the leads. While I don't think I'll be manufacturing this myself, I sure will be interested to hear about your progress.
When I orginally wrote my Nucleus game I used hex grids a lot, the rules were formulated around moving around on such a grid, and there were rules for how and when this movement should be performed. At that the time the game was a fanasty game so all the action was fairly close together (as a rule) so it tended to work well.
It all kind of fell apart however when I wanted to use the same rule system in a Scifi game were invariably the action occured across a wide area (shooting and vhiecle combat for example), while still having localised melee fights at the same time. At this point you ethier needed very big hex grids, or just stopped caring what specific hex combatants were in, and instead just worring about how big the hxes were for roughly managing movement and working out how far apart things were. Once you kind of took this decision it no longer mattered whether you were using hexes or squares.
The decision about whether two comabants get in the way of each other becomes a little more subjective once you accept that the hexes / squares are not occupied / unoccupied but instead just a unit of measure, but in my experience common sense prevalies and players and GM almost always agree on whether something is possible in this regard. I.E. its often not required to plan out movement in a board game like way.
The order in which movement occurs is also an interesting subject, but is of course only significant really when two or more combatants have competeing goals with respect to movement (I.E. what to get through the same door) or block the move of another and so on. IMO good systems only get down to a fine level of detail once this beocmes an issue, while keeping it quick and easy when not significant. Or allowing faster combatants to call the shots in such an oppossed situation
Quote from: HawkyWhen I orginally wrote my Nucleus game I used hex grids a lot, the rules were formulated around moving around on such a grid, and there were rules for how and when this movement should be performed. At that the time the game was a fanasty game so all the action was fairly close together (as a rule) so it tended to work well.
It all kind of fell apart however when I wanted to use the same rule system in a Scifi game were invariably the action occured across a wide area (shooting and vhiecle combat for example), while still having localised melee fights at the same time. At this point you ethier needed very big hex grids, or just stopped caring what specific hex combatants were in, and instead just worring about how big the hxes were for roughly managing movement and working out how far apart things were. Once you kind of took this decision it no longer mattered whether you were using hexes or squares.
The decision about whether two comabants get in the way of each other becomes a little more subjective once you accept that the hexes / squares are not occupied / unoccupied but instead just a unit of measure, but in my experience common sense prevalies and players and GM almost always agree on whether something is possible in this regard. I.E. its often not required to plan out movement in a board game like way.
The order in which movement occurs is also an interesting subject, but is of course only significant really when two or more combatants have competeing goals with respect to movement (I.E. what to get through the same door) or block the move of another and so on. IMO good systems only get down to a fine level of detail once this beocmes an issue, while keeping it quick and easy when not significant. Or allowing faster combatants to call the shots in such an oppossed situation
Good points. The problem with the TableTop game for this kind of thing, I find, is that maps are not easily drawn, so that scaling when you need to change the scale can be a drag for the GM. Computer enhanced play would include a scalable map feature for this purpose, but I don't have that tool ready for distrubution to the public.
As for the order of movement, yup. I think I'd go with your suggestion - don't hassle with it unless it is an actual issue - such as getting to the open door first. In that case, if the number of movement points are equal, then I'd compare the dexterity of the two characters and let them roll against that to determine who won the race. Seems like that would be fair and work well enough. Yah?
I'd love a Microsoft surface to play on, so yes, I'm with you on a computer aids. In my experience most movement is not oppossed ist rarely worth getting to detailed about it until it matters, even then its fair to say that an opposed role modified in what ever way is appropriate solve the issue, so yep we seem to agree there to :-)
Quote from: HawkyI'd love a Microsoft surface to play on, so yes, I'm with you on a computer aids.
Only costs about US$100 plus projector if you make it the easy way.
Harder to use at the pub though, but its a fine idea ;-)
Quote from: EngineOnly costs about US$100 plus projector if you make it the easy way.
I have the code that would work for this, but not the expertise to bring it forward. The code is in VB6 and would handle quite a bit of what we're discussing in terms of mapping. Functions:
1. Create maps (grid and hex)
2. Assign Terrains that have movement values
3. Create pieces and place them on the map board
4. Move pieces by mouse drag
5. Show movement paths of all pieces or selected piece.
6. Reverse movement using backspace key
7. Calc Movement Range and show on screen for all or selected piece.
Etc.
Etc.
It does a lot of stuff. But I am currently stymied by the fact that the code is in vb6 and needs a good solid code review and polishing up (improved and/or reviewed error handling, etc). This code would, however, work very well on Microsoft Surface, I'm pretty sure. Only question is - where to go from here with it? That's where I'm stymied, actually.