I find rolling encounter distance at 4d6 x10' (x3 meters, for those under Napoleonic occupation) works well and avoids a lot of problems, unless the PCs deliberately Split the Party.

Never split the party.

Quote from: S'mon;1029682I find rolling encounter distance at 4d6 x10' (x3 meters, for those under Napoleonic occupation) works well and avoids a lot of problems, unless the PCs deliberately Split the Party.

Never split the party.

So don't space out 700 feet apart like Moracai's players' PCs?

Quote from: Skarg;1029684So don't space out 700 feet apart like Moracai's players' PCs?

Yeah. I recognise some players are much less competent than their PCs ought to be - say a player is playing a Ranger or a high level Barbarian - so these days I often warn of the unwisdom of that kind of thing. OTOH  some players have watched a Vietnam War movie or two and have a good idea about reasonable spacing.

Quote from: S'mon;1029685Yeah. I recognise some players are much less competent than their PCs ought to be - say a player is playing a Ranger or a high level Barbarian - so these days I often warn of the unwisdom of that kind of thing. OTOH  some players have watched a Vietnam War movie or two and have a good idea about reasonable spacing.

While tabletop RPG campaigns are not a sport, for things like tactics and figuring what course of actions to take, players can benefit from good coaching. Especially if they are novices or lacking in skill in a particular area. Like in sports, the result of good coaching is that the players learns how to do it for themselves.

A lot of the advice talked about the articles referenced by this google search are surprisingly relevant to a referee managing a tabletop roleplaying campaign.

Yeah, I routinely consider PC skills and traits their players lack, and interrupt player foolishness with information from their PCs.

Regarding the OP... So, from what I understand, it sounds like there was a map with one square = 50 feet. However, the PCs and the NPCs treated it like a tactical map, and they put figures down on it. As a result, it was a tactical encounter at very long ranges, and the characters were very widely spaced apart.

I think that's mainly misuse of the map. I don't know if the module encouraged that misuse.

I generally run things not in round-by-round combat if the characters are spread around a very large map like that. Instead, I'll run things loosely - like if the characters are spread around a town. If there is a small fight, I will resolve it round by round. Depending on if it is a major fight, I may pull out a battle map and draw in a closer, tactical view of the area.

Quote from: estar;1029609What specifically is wrong with the Yester Hill map? The only thing I see that one square is 50 feet but then it again it is a outdoor map.

From Mike Schley website

Yeah it sounds like you just didn't run it right with that kind of scale.

It's a strategic map, not a tactics map. It's 50 ft to the square, ergo it is a map intended for the entire party to fit on one square at a time. If they want to split up into additional smaller parties, thus upping their coverage yet amplifying their risk, that's their choice. That they split up is not a failure of the party, but a risk to be chosen with full knowledge.

You as the GM not switching to a tactical map -- usable 5 ft. measurements so as to show individuals -- is your failure alone. The map gives a rough idea of the terrain, so go scribble a rough generality and go to it already. Your complaint seems strange to me.

50 ft. to 5 ft. means an obvious 10 times difference. Complaining about it is like whining why something provided in liters and why isn't it useful for use in medical injections, which should be in cubic centimeters (centiliters).

Quote from: Opaopajr;1029754Complaining about it is like whining why something provided in liters and why isn't it useful for use in medical injections, which should be in cubic centimeters (centiliters).

Often milliliters.

Harn's best feature are its nice maps, that's for sure.