Quote from: Dumarest;1005819Maybe I didn't explain it well. Some players have made it plain where they are, but then claim to be elsewhere when the fit hits the shan. I've had to have other players "testify," as it were," as to the player changing his story to try to get an advantage. Hex maps and tokens help to avoid this. Honest players are even more helpful. Nowadays I play with a set that isn't worried about whether they got blasted in the back because they made a bad choice, so it's a non-issue.

Somebody here (And they can properly chastise me for forgetting their name. ) recommended using "landmarks" for ToM distances and positioning. Like, a table in the center of a room that's 60' wide. Now you can have casters stand near the Doorway, melee characters advance to be next to the Table, and you know they had to cross 30' and are in the center of the room. Stuff like that. I think it's neat that it puts possible objects to interact with (using the table as cover) and a little descriptive flair (the table might be a scribe's worktable) all kinds of neat possibilites with a system like that.

In a combat situation with more than a very few number of people, I'm lost without a map and counters showing where people are.

Which combatants can attack which others, and with what modifiers for situation, and can all the players see the situation that determines that, and how?

Without a map, it's either in the game mechanics, or in the GM's imagination (which players can try to insert theirs into), or it doesn't exist. With a map, it's visible on the table automatically and as consistent as the rules are.

With a map, the play of a battle with multiple fighters is largely _about_ where everyone is and where they can therefore move and attack with what advantages or drawbacks based on that. At most points during a melee, most fighters are in no good position to attack most other fighters, and/or moving to attack each enemy has options about how to move and each of those options has effects on how the fight is going to evolve, which is a complex flow of movements of multiple figures around a map, which itself has terrain which are shapes, none of which can easily be communicated in detail so that it lands the same in all listeners' imaginations. That's mainly what makes combats interesting to me. In theory there could be an abstract system that tries to represent such things, but I haven't seen one that's as satisfying and natural as using a map and counters.

Quote from: RunningLaser;1005830Much of it depends on the game.  Some games ToM are easier than others.  I have read people playing D&D 4e without miniatures- I'd imagine everyone would have to be on the ball for that.  Playing HM where movement is simultaneous each second and distance/range is precise, we need to use them.

I ran a 4E campaign for a year and a half, using a grid and markers easily less than a third of the combats.  Usually, we used them because the environment of the fight was confusing.  However, a lot of our fights were "running fights."  I've always found those easier to do in the mind.  

It very much helps having players that are used to playing in the mind, I think.  Thus Gronan's point about asking leading questions.  Done long enough, you don't even need to ask the question anymore, as the players are in that mode--even when there is a grid on the table.  We would sometimes have a running fight where we started in the mind, then switched to a grid for a couple of rounds, then switched back again.  

When I have a new player, even when we use a grid, I still ask for intent.  It also helps to not get too nitpicky about positioning.  I deliberately remind people that as far as we are concerned, the positions on the grid are approximate.  If the GM says you can make it from point A to B in one move with no difficulty, you can.  If not, you are told what the difficulties might be, then can decide.  No rules lawyering according to precise and detailed grid rules, but no "gotchas!" either.  Then switching off the grid is as easy as not putting it on the table.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1005857Coming up with genuinely new topics for a 40 year old hobby is hard.

Point to Ratman!

Quote from: flyingmice;1006109Point to Ratman!

I imagine knitters endlessly discuss the quality of yarn over and over again too.

Quote from: Voros;1005753'Airy fairy, artsy fartsy' really?

Yes really.

Quote from: Bren;1006197Yes really.

No. It's really an exaggeration.[/COLOR]

I have never before been called "airy fairy artsy fartsy."

Also, if "artsy" is short for "artistic," what the hell does "fartistic" mean?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006209I have never before been called "airy fairy artsy fartsy."

Also, if "artsy" is short for "artistic," what the hell does "fartistic" mean?

"Smelly"?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1005622How abstract is too abstract where tactical positioning in combat is concerned?
How detailed is too detailed?

A lot of you guys seem to dislike the use of battlemats and miniatures. These components do take time to set up, and they add layers of complexity that can slow down play.

Some want the miniature, wargame experience. Some think this is to board-gamey.

What is your position on the matter?

My players tell me where their characters are and what they are doing. So no need for anything else.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006209I have never before been called "airy fairy artsy fartsy."

Also, if "artsy" is short for "artistic," what the hell does "fartistic" mean?

Just goes to show you're never to old for new experiences.

I'd say "artsy" is short for has pretensions to being artistic. "Fartsy" is just a rhyming pejorative. Or perhaps someone with pretensions to fartistry.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Something has to determine who can attack whom each round, and whether the situation gives each fighter any sort of advantage or disadvantage. If that's up to the GM's imagination, judgment, descriptions, and openness to suggestions from players, then what determines those things is about the GM's thinking and the players' ability to read and manipulate that - i.e. the GM is the battlefield and how the PCs handle a battle may be determined by how successful they are at getting the GM to go along with their suggestions that what they say they do works out or not.

Also, it's liable not to be particularly detailed or consistent. Forces driving what happens (and how) will include the desire for speed and simplicity, and various types of player communication & listening skills. PCs' effectiveness in combat may end up having much to do with their verbal effectiveness, including passive-aggressive manipulation tactics, or other annoying behavior. Or, unintentional effects such as how quickly some players say what they do, and the desire not to have to discuss or argue about details and disagreements, and the desire to have things happen because they sound cool or compelling, even when some players may notice they are inconsistent with the previous description (which may be the reason they didn't suggest the thing that sounds cool but shouldn't be possible but is because the GM forgot where a character was or something). If a player doesn't follow a GM's description and end up with the same imagination as the GM or other players, they may pursue tactics that conflict with what the GM or other players imagine, etc.

Those sorts of things seem like problems to me which aren't there when there's a map, counters, and solid rules for playing out situations.

"The goblin's over there and I'm over here" is visibly true without discussion with a map & rules. Without a map, it depends on whose theater of mind details match whose, whether people speak up about it and whether the GM goes along with each suggestion or not.

I've done both, using 2e thru 5e and while I do prefer miniatures I'm game for TotM. I've done TotM with 4E and it wasnt terribly difficult. Some of the movement abilities aren't AS important but they hqve their uses. I'm also not a squares-Nazi, if youre moving 30' around a corner but can't quite make it, I'll probably just give it to them.

Really its all about detail. I do realize that when the map is drawn, my players tend to interact with the world more (using curtains, terrain, barrels, etc) to their advantage. Whether this is because I don't describe every single room feature in their place or because its visually represented, thus always front and center, I couldn't say.

Quote from: Bren;1006422Just goes to show you're never to old for new experiences.

I'd say "artsy" is short for has pretensions to being artistic. "Fartsy" is just a rhyming pejorative. Or perhaps someone with pretensions to fartistry.

I have been trying all my life, without success, to articulate my sphincter during flatulence to make intelligible words.  Would that count as fartistry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%C3%A9tomane

Quote from: Skarg;1006552Something has to determine who can attack whom each round, and whether the situation gives each fighter any sort of advantage or disadvantage. If that's up to the GM's imagination, judgment, descriptions, and openness to suggestions from players, then what determines those things is about the GM's thinking and the players' ability to read and manipulate that - i.e. the GM is the battlefield and how the PCs handle a battle may be determined by how successful they are at getting the GM to go along with their suggestions that what they say they do works out or not.

Also, it's liable not to be particularly detailed or consistent. Forces driving what happens (and how) will include the desire for speed and simplicity, and various types of player communication & listening skills. PCs' effectiveness in combat may end up having much to do with their verbal effectiveness, including passive-aggressive manipulation tactics, or other annoying behavior. Or, unintentional effects such as how quickly some players say what they do, and the desire not to have to discuss or argue about details and disagreements, and the desire to have things happen because they sound cool or compelling, even when some players may notice they are inconsistent with the previous description (which may be the reason they didn't suggest the thing that sounds cool but shouldn't be possible but is because the GM forgot where a character was or something). If a player doesn't follow a GM's description and end up with the same imagination as the GM or other players, they may pursue tactics that conflict with what the GM or other players imagine, etc.

Those sorts of things seem like problems to me which aren't there when there's a map, counters, and solid rules for playing out situations.

"The goblin's over there and I'm over here" is visibly true without discussion with a map & rules. Without a map, it depends on whose theater of mind details match whose, whether people speak up about it and whether the GM goes along with each suggestion or not.

Nonsense.

Requiring the party to specify a "marching order" before entering the dungeon is all that is necessary.  I've been running RPG combat without miniatures for 45 years and I have never, EVER had anybody pull "the goblin is over there and I'm over here."  Because I keep track of turns and ask each player what they're doing in turn.  If you want to get "over there" you have to MOVE "over there."

Use miniatures and a map if you want, and have fun.  But don't talk nonsense.