TheRPGSite

How 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?

I was never a fan of using miniatures, always felt that they slowed the game down.  However, I am coming around to them.  At the moment I am running a HackMaster 5e game and using minis there on a wet erase hexboard.  It makes things easier and is working well.  Besides, miniatures on the board distract my friends from my sub-par GMing skills:)

I want a playable tactical game with map & counters that represents the situation to my satisfaction.

I was satisfied with The Fantasy Trip for several years:
1.3-meter hexes, 5-second turns, facing rules, terrain, counters for fallen bodies, dropped weapons, fire, etc.

Eventually TFT seemed too simplistic and predictable and didn't match my or my players' ideas about how some important things should work. We started making our own homebrew, but had only reached an incomplete muddy form when GURPS came out and did pretty much everything we were wanting much more elegantly than we had, playtested, etc.

I'm still mostly happy with GURPS:
Like TFT but 1-yard hexes, 1-second turns, more explicit/detailed rules, more fluid/dynamic action and unpredictable results.

For me, these types of combat situations are what it means for a game to be about decisions in a combat situation, because the situation and what people do largely determines what happens, so your choices (and the success of your rolls) determine what happens more than just character sheets saying one character is better than another. Also the combats are generally interesting to play out by themselves, for their own sake.

I've also tried Phoenix Command, but I failed to get into it. It seemed too detailed for me in terms of its impulse movement system (our TFT-redesign tried that too). Also the rules use many number-rich tables and calculations that I never got a full grasp of how/why the math was the way it was, but as I started to figure it out, I realized it had some features I didn't want, such as experienced people having significantly more hit points. It seemed too high-precision for me and not adding much that I wanted that GURPS didn't already do for me (also because I don't use modern gun combat settings much, which is PC's main focus). I will however always think of it fondly for the rules about exactly how long it will take for character A to saw through various body parts of character B with a chainsaw.

I prefer to use cardboard counters (http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/meleemg3cont.jpg) rather than miniatures because they're easier to use & read (the facing of counters is clear and body piles are not as messy), and of course they're far easier/cheaper to create and manage.

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?

I had never used miniatures until 4th edition. One thing I did like about 4th is that I liked the miniatures combat, and am willing to try it again with a system that doesn't require it.

I've always used miniatures.  Whether it makes the game "too board-gamey" is as valid a consideration to me as whether using a magenta folder to hold the information sheets for my Saturday run group is "too magenta-y."  Being, like Skarg, a TFT/GURPS GM going back several decades, precise relationships are near-to-essential.

There's another consideration.  My wife just has no abstract sense of relations: she has to have a visual reference or she just can't picture things.  I doubt she's the only gamer out there who has trouble imagining everything the GM has in his head, gamers not being any better mindreaders than the genpop.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005637I've always used miniatures.  Whether it makes the game "too board-gamey" is as valid a consideration to me as whether using a magenta folder to hold the information sheets for my Saturday run group is "too magenta-y."  Being, like Skarg, a TFT/GURPS GM going back several decades, precise relationships are near-to-essential.

There's another consideration.  My wife just has no abstract sense of relations: she has to have a visual reference or she just can't picture things.  I doubt she's the only gamer out there who has trouble imagining everything the GM has in his head, gamers not being any better mindreaders than the genpop.

Takes all kinds I guess.

I love miniatures wargames but I've come to hate grid and miniatures combat in RPGs.  My imagination is far more evocative, and statements like "I'm going to fade left and try to get into a flanking position" work just fine.  It does require knowing what you want to do and a fair amount of trust, admittedly.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1005654I love miniatures wargames but I've come to hate grid and miniatures combat in RPGs.  My imagination is far more evocative, and statements like "I'm going to fade left and try to get into a flanking position" work just fine.  It does require knowing what you want to do and a fair amount of trust, admittedly.

Im right with you Gronan. The chaotic and yet intricate swirl of combat is impossible to reproduce directly with markers or miniatures and I find they only serve to hamstring my imagination instead of supporting it. I can imagine a blur of movement as combatants maneuver about one another and the environment to best advantage and from the press of opponents but stick a figure down there on the table and thats pretty much I see... my guy, standing there, waiting his turn. Maybe its just me but its always been an issue.

I get it that tactically a representation of some kind is helpful to make sure everyone is on the same page on just where everybody is, but its a scene killer as far as Im concerned. Besides, since when is everyone so clear on where everybody else actually is at any given moment?

For me I prefer no miniatures, just description and people saying what they want to do. Players ask questions if they want clarification on positions but generally we don't worry too much about precision.

What I find fascinating about this (and similar) discussions is what feels like the lack of a middle ground on the subject. In re the OP's question, I use them as a sort of tactical display - a tool - with no grid. I'm baffled by this whole 'gridded movement' thing, to be honest.

I'm happy with rough diagrams/whiteboarding. It's fast.

I am also in a grid game atm, and it's also enjoyable. Meh, I'll really just go with the flow.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1005659Im right with you Gronan. The chaotic and yet intricate swirl of combat is impossible to reproduce directly with markers or miniatures and I find they only serve to hamstring my imagination instead of supporting it.

I could say, with considerable accuracy, that the "chaotic and intricate swirl of combat" is impossible to reproduce directly in tabletop RPGs at all.  Those of you who've actually been on a battlefield (whether in real life, SCA or LARPing) know what I mean.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1005659Im right with you Gronan. The chaotic and yet intricate swirl of combat is impossible to reproduce directly with markers or miniatures and I find they only serve to hamstring my imagination instead of supporting it. I can imagine a blur of movement as combatants maneuver about one another and the environment to best advantage and from the press of opponents but stick a figure down there on the table and thats pretty much I see... my guy, standing there, waiting his turn. Maybe its just me but its always been an issue.

I get it that tactically a representation of some kind is helpful to make sure everyone is on the same page on just where everybody is, but its a scene killer as far as Im concerned. Besides, since when is everyone so clear on where everybody else actually is at any given moment?

I work hard to train players to ask not "What is in the room," but "is there something in the room I can hide behind?" or whatever.  Leading questions work wonderfully.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005679I could say, with considerable accuracy, that the "chaotic and intricate swirl of combat" is impossible to reproduce directly in tabletop RPGs at all.  Those of you who've actually been on a battlefield (whether in real life, SCA or LARPing) know what I mean.

I couldnt agree more but a dramatic and descriptive narrative has a better chance than a procedure involving dry mechanics on a grid. Just my opinion, Im well aware MANY use that method (Im actually in a 5th ed D&D game at the moment where I loaned the GM a battle mat) to great effect. I just dont personally favor it. I have had players however that insist they see exactly where they are moving etc. You have to compromise in the end.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1005654I love miniatures wargames but I've come to hate grid and miniatures combat in RPGs.  My imagination is far more evocative, and statements like "I'm going to fade left and try to get into a flanking position" work just fine.  It does require knowing what you want to do and a fair amount of trust, admittedly.

I agree. I've used minis, grids, sketch maps, or just imagination. I greatly prefer Totm. For me, it's quicker and makes improv much easier. Yes, players will ask more questions as a combat unfolds, but I still find it quicker and more immersive. As soon as the grid and minis come out, we slip into a more boardgamey mode (which is fun enough, did it for years with 4e).

edit: I do use the occasional sketch map

Something in between grids are required or this.

Quote from: Skarg;10056271.3-meter hexes, 5-second turns, facing rules, terrain, counters for fallen bodies, dropped weapons, fire, etc.

And everybody imagines (or fails to imagine) a different (often wildly different) situation in their head.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005637There's another consideration.  My wife just has no abstract sense of relations: she has to have a visual reference or she just can't picture things.  I doubt she's the only gamer out there who has trouble imagining everything the GM has in his head, gamers not being any better mindreaders than the genpop.

She is most definitely not the only person.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1005665What I find fascinating about this (and similar) discussions is what feels like the lack of a middle ground on the subject.

I wonder if part of that is because the middle ground is, well in the middle. I can work with a meticulous grid or hex map, but it feels like too much work and too board gamey to me. I can work with airy fairy, arsty farsty TotM, but it seems like typing with one hand tied to your foot to  try and get any coherent view of the situation via description when plunking a few minis down to show relative positions gets everybody on the same page in 3 seconds.

I prefer a system that can go be used easily on a grid, on a map with a few markers, or done in the mind.  Because I want to be able to switch between methods fight by fight, or even within the fight.  Some things work better in the head, and some better on a board.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1005715I prefer a system that can go be used easily on a grid, on a map with a few markers, or done in the mind.  Because I want to be able to switch between methods fight by fight, or even within the fight.  Some things work better in the head, and some better on a board.

Agreed! Figures, maps, whiteboards; they're all GM tools to keep the adventure rolling.

I keep reading this thread title as "Abstract Poisoning" for some reason...

I seldom use miniatures or hex grids unless a situarion calls for knowing exactly where everyone is in relation to each other.

Sometimes they can help prevent the "No, my character is over here so that goblin couldn't have speared him" situation that can arise with a certain type of player...these days I don't have any of them in my games, luckily.

Quote from: Dumarest;1005734I keep reading this thread title as "Abstract Poisoning" for some reason...

I seldom use miniatures or hex grids unless a situarion calls for knowing exactly where everyone is in relation to each other.

Sometimes they can help prevent the "No, my character is over here so that goblin couldn't have speared him" situation that can arise with a certain type of player...these days I don't have any of them in my games, luckily.

The Goblins speared them all??

If playing D&D I use minis and dungeon tiles. Have always done that.
 For other games I'm more likely to go TOTM.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1005722Agreed! Figures, maps, whiteboards; they're all GM tools to keep the adventure rolling.

Oh aye.  I like minis, I've hundreds of them, I'm used to them ... but if what someone prefers are slashes from a dry-erase market on a whiteboard, it does the same thing, pretty much.

Quote from: Dumarest;1005734Sometimes they can help prevent the "No, my character is over here so that goblin couldn't have speared him" situation that can arise with a certain type of player...these days I don't have any of them in my games, luckily.

Err ... howzat?  Seems to me that "the goblin's over there and I'm over here" is a perfectly legit defense against being speared, the same way that "I wasn't caught by the papier-mache pit because I'm in the back of the party" or "Well of course the runaway chariot didn't clip me, I'm not in the street at all, I'm in the tavern" are valid.

Quote from: Bren;1005694... I can work with airy fairy, arsty farsty TotM, but it seems like typing with one hand tied to your foot to  try and get any coherent view of the situation via description when plunking a few minis down to show relative positions gets everybody on the same page in 3 seconds.

'Airy fairy, artsy fartsy' really? As a kid and teen every group I knew played without minis. I think that was the majority experience for kids playing D&D throughout the 80s. We didn't call it TotM and there's nothing remotely 'artsy fartsy' about it. From what I recall in the books it seemed to be the assumed approach in B/X, BECMI and even AD&D. Minis are mentioned but only in passing as an option.

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?

I can live with miniatures, if the rules require them. But way more often, I'd show my players the relative positions on a table, using cups of tea, random coins and the like, and tell them how many "zones" away it is, and what lies beneath.
Then I sweep it up, and we go from there;).

My compromise would be something like using coins and lead soldiers figures, but no damn grid. After years of this, I just don't want to go back:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1005654I love miniatures wargames but I've come to hate grid and miniatures combat in RPGs.  My imagination is far more evocative, and statements like "I'm going to fade left and try to get into a flanking position" work just fine.  It does require knowing what you want to do and a fair amount of trust, admittedly.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1005659Im right with you Gronan. The chaotic and yet intricate swirl of combat is impossible to reproduce directly with markers or miniatures and I find they only serve to hamstring my imagination instead of supporting it. I can imagine a blur of movement as combatants maneuver about one another and the environment to best advantage and from the press of opponents but stick a figure down there on the table and thats pretty much I see... my guy, standing there, waiting his turn. Maybe its just me but its always been an issue.

I get it that tactically a representation of some kind is helpful to make sure everyone is on the same page on just where everybody is, but its a scene killer as far as Im concerned. Besides, since when is everyone so clear on where everybody else actually is at any given moment?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1005681I work hard to train players to ask not "What is in the room," but "is there something in the room I can hide behind?" or whatever.  Leading questions work wonderfully.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1005692I agree. I've used minis, grids, sketch maps, or just imagination. I greatly prefer Totm. For me, it's quicker and makes improv much easier. Yes, players will ask more questions as a combat unfolds, but I still find it quicker and more immersive. As soon as the grid and minis come out, we slip into a more boardgamey mode (which is fun enough, did it for years with 4e).

edit: I do use the occasional sketch map

Basically, what those guys said:p! The part about leading questions is especially important.

How many times has this question been asked and answered, with all the same people saying the same things? AFAIC, it's a matter of taste, and there is no disputing matters of taste. There is nothing objective.Some people prefer one, and some people prefer the other - usually strongly.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005750Oh aye.  I like minis, I've hundreds of them, I'm used to them ... but if what someone prefers are slashes from a dry-erase market on a whiteboard, it does the same thing, pretty much.

Err ... howzat?  Seems to me that "the goblin's over there and I'm over here" is a perfectly legit defense against being speared, the same way that "I wasn't caught by the papier-mache pit because I'm in the back of the party" or "Well of course the runaway chariot didn't clip me, I'm not in the street at all, I'm in the tavern" are valid.

Maybe 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.

Much 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.

Was confused about 'ToM' for a moment.

Theatre of the Mind?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1005851Was confused about 'ToM' for a moment.

Theatre of the Mind?

Yeah, that's how I was using it.

Quote from: flyingmice;1005789How many times has this question been asked and answered, with all the same people saying the same things? AFAIC, it's a matter of taste, and there is no disputing matters of taste. There is nothing objective.Some people prefer one, and some people prefer the other - usually strongly.

Coming up with genuinely new topics for a 40 year old hobby is hard.

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. :o) 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! :D

Quote from: flyingmice;1006109Point to Ratman! :D

:D 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. :D

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. :D

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.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;1006495Short version: People lie.

I've never had problems with that kind of shit.  Mostly because, I suspect, things the players don't tell me during their turn don't count.  "You said two turns ago you were with Bob.  You never said you were moving.  You're still with Bob."

Why the hell do people make this out to be so damn difficult?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006596I've never had problems with that kind of shit.  Mostly because, I suspect, things the players don't tell me during their turn don't count.  "You said two turns ago you were with Bob.  You never said you were moving.  You're still with Bob."

Why the hell do people make this out to be so damn difficult?

Same approach here, and I don't know either:).

Quote from: AsenRG;1006620Same approach here, and I don't know either:).

I'm in a similar but different boat.  The people in my groups generally don't try stupid tricks like that, to the point that if there is confusion about where someone is, it's probably because I didn't communicate something clearly or didn't hear what they said.  Thus, I'll usually cut them some slack (that is, take their word for it on their intentions).  

I find that a lot easier than playing with people that try stupid tricks.

Sounds good, but it kind of misses my point:  if you run the game in an orderly fashion, asking each player turn by turn what they are doing, you really shouldn't have a lot of trouble keeping track of what's going on.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006644Sounds good, but it kind of misses my point:  if you run the game in an orderly fashion, asking each player turn by turn what they are doing, you really shouldn't have a lot of trouble keeping track of what's going on.

I usually use figures or counters or marks on paper as memory aids but rarely do the players notice them, even when playing in person. At my age, I need memory aids.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1006650At my age, I need memory aids.

What were we talking about?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006644Sounds good, but it kind of misses my point:  if you run the game in an orderly fashion, asking each player turn by turn what they are doing, you really shouldn't have a lot of trouble keeping track of what's going on.

And quite aside from that my game's combat system is based on visual positioning, the point is this: with minis and maps, I don't have to.

You could, with exactly as much justification, claim that a real GM doesn't need to work from prepared notes, and should be able to keep all setting and adventure details in his head.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006661What were we talking about?

The kids on my lawn.

There's one objective aspect about visual aids, whether X's and O's or Dwarven Forge dioramas with award-winning painted miniatures...it allows you to express a large amount of spatial information, to everyone around the table at once, in a single glance, a fraction of a second, less time than it takes to speak a single word.

You may not like miniatures for the feels, whether boardgamey, or what have you, but visual expression is a far more efficient way to express visual and spatial data.

Also, no type of visual aid would require a grid to get that near-instantaneous information transfer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1006682There's one objective aspect about visual aids, whether X's and O's or Dwarven Forge dioramas with award-winning painted miniatures...it allows you to express a large amount of spatial information, to everyone around the table at once, in a single glance, a fraction of a second, less time than it takes to speak a single word.

You may not like miniatures for the feels, whether boardgamey, or what have you, but visual expression is a far more efficient way to express visual and spatial data.

Also, no type of visual aid would require a grid to get that near-instantaneous information transfer.

Its the grid I dont like. A rough sketch or other map works well enough, if needed

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006595Nonsense.

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.

I'm not talking nonsense. I'm talking about my own experiences and observations from almost as much time playing with maps & counters, in comparison to my experiences to the times I've tried to GM or play in combats without maps. Your experiences are apparently different, but what I wrote is accurate about my own experiences.

It's not just an issue when players intentionally try to "pull" something, but happens when people don't have the same imagination of the situation or what's practical and how long it takes, etc., which needs to be filled in by the GM unless there is a map and rules. I imagine you're excellent at doing that and presenting it to your players, so it doesn't seem like an issue to you. But I don't have that skill, and when I've played with other GMs and good well-intentioned players and they switch between some mapped combats and then doing some fights TotM, I've seen these sorts of problems and been rather disappointed by them.

And I've seen many of them not notice and/or not mind that the person who says they're attacking first is the one the GM lets get to the foe they want and attack, whereas I can tell it would likely play out rather differently if we actually used a map and the rules were used to see who manages to get to whom and what the side-effects of the specific moves are based on where the furniture and all the various people are, etc. Even just running solo combats in Melee with one or two PCs and a mob of foes, I've tried to run it TotM as I think it would play out, and then actually play it out, and see it play out quite differently in ways I can't track in my head.

And I'm someone extremely interested in tactical details. Many players are not, or don't follow the GM's descriptions all that well, and would have to ask about who can reach whom and so on, which is a different thing from being able to look at a map and see where the figures are at a glance (and also possibly see opportunities that the GM doesn't notice).

Abstract positioning, if done right, could contribute something I'm not sure I've seen in any existing game: A way to capture the elements of distance and timing that really matter in hand to hand fighting. Games generally deal with questions of where you are and when you act in ways that are totally unlike the way range and timing work in combat sports or fights. The reality is that range is dynamic, and order of actions is a lot less important than who is in control of distance and the flow of the action. D&D's traditional approach to this is actually pretty honest and clear:  the game doesn't really know how to handle it, so it all gets abstracted into a random initiative roll and a to-hit roll, and you shouldn't sweat the details. Or, equivalently, you can make them up in whatever way you enjoy most. Games that get very concrete about initiative and distance - The Fantasy Trip, Runequest, GURPS, etc., often result in something that is good as a game, in the sense that it is fun and the player can 'game' it to find advantageous strategies. But it isn't any closer to the way distance and timing work in fighting.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1006912Abstract positioning, if done right, could contribute something I'm not sure I've seen in any existing game: A way to capture the elements of distance and timing that really matter in hand to hand fighting. Games generally deal with questions of where you are and when you act in ways that are totally unlike the way range and timing work in combat sports or fights. The reality is that range is dynamic, and order of actions is a lot less important than who is in control of distance and the flow of the action. D&D's traditional approach to this is actually pretty honest and clear:  the game doesn't really know how to handle it, so it all gets abstracted into a random initiative roll and a to-hit roll, and you shouldn't sweat the details. Or, equivalently, you can make them up in whatever way you enjoy most. Games that get very concrete about initiative and distance - The Fantasy Trip, Runequest, GURPS, etc., often result in something that is good as a game, in the sense that it is fun and the player can 'game' it to find advantageous strategies. But it isn't any closer to the way distance and timing work in fighting.

This is something Burning Wheel attempts to capture.

Quote from: ffilz;1006995This is something Burning Wheel attempts to capture.

That's right, and it is one of the better ideas in BW. It is one of the reasons I seriously toyed with the idea of running BW, although its many other quirks kept me from overcoming the activation energy to starting a campaign. I used the system there as a starting point for an abstract positioning system I wrote for a home-brewed system, though it was really just one of those busy-work rules projects that didn't go anywhere.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006595Requiring the party to specify a "marching order" before entering the dungeon is all that is necessary.

I think this is a key aspect of the old-school dungeon play that has been overlooked. When not in "combat time" the party moves as a single unit (formation set by their marching order). Then _after_ the party makes a coordinated move each turn you can handle individual player actions.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006594I have been trying all my life, without success, to articulate my sphincter during flatulence to make intelligible words.  Would that count as fartistry?

Sounds like it to me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1006682...visual expression is a far more efficient way to express visual and spatial data.

Also, no type of visual aid would require a grid to get that near-instantaneous information transfer.

Yes, and yes. To hear some people talk about this topic it's as if they have never drawn or used a roadmap or done Cartesian coordinate geometry. Yes I can give you the directions for the ~1700 mile trip from my house to Denver Colorado without ever showing you a map. And you may be able to follow all those directions perfectly. But a map is really handy to have in the even that a bridge get's washed out, a road is detoured, or you make a mistake in following my directions.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1006912Abstract positioning, if done right, could contribute something I'm not sure I've seen in any existing game: A way to capture the elements of distance and timing that really matter in hand to hand fighting. Games generally deal with questions of where you are and when you act in ways that are totally unlike the way range and timing work in combat sports or fights. The reality is that range is dynamic, and order of actions is a lot less important than who is in control of distance and the flow of the action. D&D's traditional approach to this is actually pretty honest and clear:  the game doesn't really know how to handle it, so it all gets abstracted into a random initiative roll and a to-hit roll, and you shouldn't sweat the details. Or, equivalently, you can make them up in whatever way you enjoy most. Games that get very concrete about initiative and distance - The Fantasy Trip, Runequest, GURPS, etc., often result in something that is good as a game, in the sense that it is fun and the player can 'game' it to find advantageous strategies. But it isn't any closer to the way distance and timing work in fighting.

And that's why I like abstract positioning, too, ever since I first read TRoS:).

Quote from: ffilz;1006995This is something Burning Wheel attempts to capture.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1007005That's right, and it is one of the better ideas in BW. It is one of the reasons I seriously toyed with the idea of running BW, although its many other quirks kept me from overcoming the activation energy to starting a campaign. I used the system there as a starting point for an abstract positioning system I wrote for a home-brewed system, though it was really just one of those busy-work rules projects that didn't go anywhere.

Have you considered running TRoS, instead?

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?

As long as my players have a general idea of where they are, and at what range category their opponents are, there's no real problem.

Quote from: AsenRG;1007243And that's why I like abstract positioning, too, ever since I first read TRoS:).




Have you considered running TRoS, instead?

I own TRoS and have vague memories of monkeying with it back when it first came out. I understand it has some good ideas for managing tactical combat, but I seem to recall feeling like the rest of the game wasn't quite 'on'.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1007543I own TRoS and have vague memories of monkeying with it back when it first came out. I understand it has some good ideas for managing tactical combat, but I seem to recall feeling like the rest of the game wasn't quite 'on'.

Well, it sure is a game where "range is dynamic, and order of actions is a lot less important than who is in control of distance and the flow of the action";).