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 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