Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
Well, Tunnels and Trolls comes immediately to mind. I would guess that Modiphus's Conan doesn't need a grid as Mutant Chronicles doesn't. Classic Traveller and T5 are gridless but not fantasy. Fate seems a likely candidate. I have waffled back and forth on grids with The Arcane Confabulation but I generally find it easier to go from concrete measures to abstract than abstract to concrete. At one point the range bands went, grappling, toe to toe, at sword points, at spear points, a stone's throw, bow shot, in sight, and out of sight.
All of them. Or so close to all of them, that it might as well be. (There may be some niche systems where it is technically impossible instead of sometimes merely inconvenient.) The techniques for running without a grid are applicable to any game, and are mainly about those techniques, not the rules of the game in question.
If you want "easier" for Theater of the Mind, then look for anything that doesn't have facing. Next, throw out anything with a heavy emphasis on precise distances (or at least pretense in that direction), since you are going to not use precise distances when playing Theater of the Mind.
Fantasy AGE doesn't use one. Aside from earlier editions of D&D and their clones, look at Tunnels & Trolls.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013254All of them. Or so close to all of them, that it might as well be. (There may be some niche systems where it is technically impossible instead of sometimes merely inconvenient.) The techniques for running without a grid are applicable to any game, and are mainly about those techniques, not the rules of the game in question.
If you want "easier" for Theater of the Mind, then look for anything that doesn't have facing. Next, throw out anything with a heavy emphasis on precise distances (or at least pretense in that direction), since you are going to not use precise distances when playing Theater of the Mind.
Pretty mush this:
all of them. And precise distances, for things like range and movement don't hurt anything as they just provide a guide. I play theater of the mind all the time and I use yards and feet to explain distances to players because that's the English language. It works, players just ask questions like "can I get there in a round?" or "is that long range?" Simple. About the only game that I have ever encountered that is really enhanced by maps and minis is TFT, because of the subtle tactics of positioning, and even it is perfectly playable without.
Quote from: RunningLaser;1013255Fantasy AGE doesn't use one. Aside from earlier editions of D&D and their clones, look at Tunnels & Trolls.
Just spent a week or so testing Fantasy Age before dropping it. It assumes a grid or map of some kind. It uses 2 yd increments for movement, weapon rangers, melee engagement, spell effects, combat stunts etc. Im not sure how you would play it without one.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
D&D. Tunnels & Trolls, about any RPG other than 4e D&D.
Also Dragon Storm. But its damn hard to come by now.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013259Just spent a week or so testing Fantasy Age before dropping it. It assumes a grid or map of some kind. It uses 2 yd increments for movement, weapon rangers, melee engagement, spell effects, combat stunts etc. Im not sure how you would play it without one.
The Referee: Bob, Alonzo the Archer is 20 yards from the orc.
Bob: OK, I move back another 5 yards and shoot.
I concur with Mad Professor
all RPGs can be played theater of the mind.
Well, probably all of them can be, but some of them may tend to have issues, depending on the GM. Something has to determine who can attack whom in a battle each round. If it's the GM, then it's up to him to decide how the battle is going, resulting in how many opponents each PC can attack or be attacked by, and in what circumstances.
I wonder how much rgrove prefers mapless combat because it allows him to dictate situations he wants, such as those he described before where a flurry of bullets force the party to take cover (but aren't actually rolled) or amazingly the party barely survives and manages to escape through a doorway (because he just had them fight unlimited foes until they were low on hit points, and then narrated that they get to escape at the last minute).
Quote from: Skarg;1013280Well, probably all of them can be, but some of them may tend to have issues, depending on the GM. Something has to determine who can attack whom in a battle each round. If it's the GM, then it's up to him to decide how the battle is going, resulting in how many opponents each PC can attack or be attacked by, and in what circumstances.
It is a visualization issue independent of the rules being used. Remember the point is playing a character in an imagined setting. Miniature are on way of visualizing what going on. Many people have the ability manage it their and communicate it verbally. A lot do some kind of hybrid approach like making notes on a whiteboard that everybody can see. Or using mini but they are for the PCs and to show the marching order.
Marc Miller apparently found range bands sufficient to deal with issue and wrote it up as part of the Traveller rules.
Now in general it been my experience that minis or at the least diagrams are far superior at depicting complex tactical situation. But if your campaign doesn't go into that level of detail then range bands or simple notation of how far people are from the action, or an area system like Fate will suffice.
Quote from: Skarg;1013280I wonder how much rgrove prefers mapless combat because it allows him to dictate situations he wants, such as those he described before where a flurry of bullets force the party to take cover (but aren't actually rolled) or amazingly the party barely survives and manages to escape through a doorway (because he just had them fight unlimited foes until they were low on hit points, and then narrated that they get to escape at the last minute).
I am 50% deaf moreso, it nerve damage that also hit enough of my language centers to cause weirdness even when the volume for speakers is good. I also enjoy refereeing an activity that very verbal and require to deal with multiple conversation at once. So I adopted minis early on in part to allow my player clearly tell me what the hell they are doing.
I bring this up because one of the truism I noticed about referee over the years is that mini are harder to fudge than theater of the mind. Theater of the mind can work very well and I played with some amazing referees that did this well. But I also played with referee who very unclear and used this fuzziness to twist thing to whatever agenda they had in mind.
Anyway, regardless it never a problem of the rules. I am bringing this stuff about about myself to hammer the point that what the right answer is the one that works for you and clearly, completely, and fairly conveys to the players everything the need to know about the current situation to make decisions as their characters.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
My Volant - Kingdoms of Air and Stone is written for Theater of the Mind play. It has a very specific setting - post magical apocalypse with floating islands, flying ships, and giant riding birds and bats. Humanity has no magic of its own, because of the apocalypse, and can only use the inherent magic of life - via alchemy - and stone - via stoneworking. You can run it in more standard settings - I have had no problem doing so - but there is no drop-in magic system you can use.
I know you can technically use any game with TotM, but some take to it more than others. Pundit reviewed it here (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2015/08/rpgpundit-reviews-volant-kingdoms-of.html). :D
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
OD&D.
"Is there something I can take cover behind?"
* die roll * "Yes."
"Can I get a shot at the biggest ogre?"
* die roll * "Not where you are."
"Okay, I move to where I get a shot."
"Is the orc leader in range of a thrown spear?"
* die roll * "Yes."
Honest to Crom, it works great.
Quote from: Skarg;1013280Well, probably all of them can be, but some of them may tend to have issues, depending on the GM. Something has to determine who can attack whom in a battle each round. If it's the GM, then it's up to him to decide how the battle is going, resulting in how many opponents each PC can attack or be attacked by, and in what circumstances.
I wonder how much rgrove prefers mapless combat because it allows him to dictate situations he wants, such as those he described before where a flurry of bullets force the party to take cover (but aren't actually rolled) or amazingly the party barely survives and manages to escape through a doorway (because he just had them fight unlimited foes until they were low on hit points, and then narrated that they get to escape at the last minute).
Bite me Skarg.. for Gods sake let it go.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013322Bite me Skarg.. for Gods sake let it go.
I don't mention it to annoy you, but to make a point about the difference between having a grid and good rules for using it, or not.
If you do have a mapped combat system, the situation itself as it develops through an encounter, and the moves the combatants make, determine what is possible to do each turn, and with what modifiers.
If you don't, then those same things are mostly or all determined by the GM. A GM with theatrical motivations such as you have described in the past, may well prefer Theater of the Mind because they can easily sway outcomes and have situations happen. If there is a map and the positions of everything are laid out and played out, then more concrete and visible systems determine what does or doesn't happen.
And Estar, I appreciate your points, but I think the rules do influence how much of an effect this has. TFT seems like a great example of where the map situation can often be decisive and more important in determining who lives or dies, than the stats and die rolls, because there are few strength points between life and death, relatively high damage amounts and effects of injury, little practical ability to defend, and many PCs (especially at first) don't even wear any armor, so the difference between life and death is very often about how many foes you face each turn, or who has a good clear shot at whom, or whether someone gets charge-attacked by a polearm, or attacked from the side or rear, or tackled, all of which is dependent on the map situation and moves - if the GM has to come up with all of that, it's very different than if the map/rules are used. So TFT seems like an example of a game where the rules make mapped play more crucial than others (even than GURPS, where at least you have active defenses, are more likely to have armor, and dropping to 0 doesn't necessarily mean you're dead). Going further, a game where PCs have large amounts of hit points, aren't often hit by mooks no matter how many attack them, there are limits on how many can attack them per turn, and there are no effects of injury until you drop to 0, a map would seem to me less crucial because of those rules.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013259Just spent a week or so testing Fantasy Age before dropping it. It assumes a grid or map of some kind. It uses 2 yd increments for movement, weapon rangers, melee engagement, spell effects, combat stunts etc. Im not sure how you would play it without one.
Really? You play it just the way that Gronan, estar, and I have said. Or if you don't like what we are saying, then there are videos floating around of Chris Pramas (who wrote the game) running Fantasy Age for Will Wheaton and his nerdy crew - and guess what? He plays exactly as we described and doesn't use maps or miniatures. It's like this: GM describes the tactical situation, players ask questions, GM elaborates where needed, players make decisions, GM adjudicates the rules. Now rinse and repeat. I'm not trying to be snarky, but this rpg 101, and I can't imagine what rules could prevent this.
Quote from: Skarg;1013329I don't mention it to annoy you, but to make a point about the difference between having a grid and good rules for using it, or not.
If you do have a mapped combat system, the situation itself as it develops through an encounter, and the moves the combatants make, determine what is possible to do each turn, and with what modifiers.
If you don't, then those same things are mostly or all determined by the GM. A GM with theatrical motivations such as you have described in the past, may well prefer Theater of the Mind because they can easily sway outcomes and have situations happen. If there is a map and the positions of everything are laid out and played out, then more concrete and visible systems determine what does or doesn't happen.
And Estar, I appreciate your points, but I think the rules do influence how much of an effect this has. TFT seems like a great example of where the map situation can often be decisive and more important in determining who lives or dies, than the stats and die rolls, because there are few strength points between life and death, relatively high damage amounts and effects of injury, little practical ability to defend, and many PCs (especially at first) don't even wear any armor, so the difference between life and death is very often about how many foes you face each turn, or who has a good clear shot at whom, or whether someone gets charge-attacked by a polearm, or attacked from the side or rear, or tackled, all of which is dependent on the map situation and moves - if the GM has to come up with all of that, it's very different than if the map/rules are used. So TFT seems like an example of a game where the rules make mapped play more crucial than others (even than GURPS, where at least you have active defenses, are more likely to have armor, and dropping to 0 doesn't necessarily mean you're dead). Going further, a game where PCs have large amounts of hit points, aren't often hit by mooks no matter how many attack them, there are limits on how many can attack them per turn, and there are no effects of injury until you drop to 0, a map would seem to me less crucial because of those rules.
Ok, snark retracted... But no, my style of GMing or perceived style of GMing has nothing to do with it. I do spend a lot of time prepping. Having to come up with detailed schematics of every possible location for an encounter is just a time killer. I prefer to play without them but some systems make it very difficult.
Quote from: Madprofessor;1013349Really? You play it just the way that Gronan, estar, and I have said. Or if you don't like what we are saying, then there are videos floating around of Chris Pramas (who wrote the game) running Fantasy Age for Will Wheaton and his nerdy crew - and guess what? He plays exactly as we described and doesn't use maps or miniatures. It's like this: GM describes the tactical situation, players ask questions, GM elaborates where needed, players make decisions, GM adjudicates the rules. Now rinse and repeat. I'm not trying to be snarky, but this rpg 101, and I can't imagine what rules could prevent this.
Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.
Maybe the players could say something like,"we spread out a bit so he can't get any two of us in a fireball."
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.
"Where are you aiming it?"
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013318OD&D.
"Is there something I can take cover behind?"
* die roll * "Yes."
"Can I get a shot at the biggest ogre?"
* die roll * "Not where you are."
"Okay, I move to where I get a shot."
"Is the orc leader in range of a thrown spear?"
* die roll * "Yes."
Honest to Crom, it works great.
As long as there is a high degree of trust in the group, it works great. It is absolutely critical that the players know that the NPCs might screw them, but the GM never will.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.
This is part of what that saving throw for half damage is about. Also have you actually mapped out the area of effect of a fireball on the tabletop? It's huge.
If trying to figure out who is an is not hit by a fireball is a "common issue" in your games, then you may need a map and tokens of some sort. I would also recomend playing it old school, no grid, get out a ruler and measure the distances.
As for the player placing himself just where he wanted to be on the map so as to avoid the spell, this is unrealistic. If we had that ability in real life there would never be automobile collisions or any other accidents resulting from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one would choose to place themselves there on the map. Also real melees are never as static as map&token games. I don't care how finely you break up the game turns, they are still static compared to reality. Grids just make it worse. There is no "half space" on a grid. You are in the space or you are out of it.
I have a hard time coming up with RPGs that actually
require maps and tokens. Even
Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok which plays out combat as a hex grid based tactical wargame with lots of range counting and area of effect powers includes rules for playing mapless theatre of the mind. I have played it that way for a very tactical encounter and we had no problems at all.
You could always look at
The One Ring no combat grids or maps. Combatants choose a stance, forward, defensive, rearward, etc. This determines their relationship to teh enemy and the combat.
What
specifc games are giving you problems with getting away from maps, grids, and tokens?
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013356Ok, snark retracted... But no, my style of GMing or perceived style of GMing has nothing to do with it. I do spend a lot of time prepping. Having to come up with detailed schematics of every possible location for an encounter is just a time killer. I prefer to play without them but some systems make it very difficult.
In all seriousness, if a given system does not mesh well with your GMing style, don't run it. There are plenty of games I don't play or run because I don't like the way the mechanics work. Why make it harder on yourself?
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
Dungeon World, Feng Shui 2, Tunnels and Trolls, Fate and Classic Traveller are what I would recommend:). Yes, FS2 and CT aren't fantasy, but they're written broadly enough that you can play anything with them, and it would make next to no difference mechanically.
Quote from: estar;1013275I concur with Mad Professor all RPGs can be played theater of the mind.
Yep. I rarely use a battle-mat. When I do - it's almost *always* establish locations for ambushing etc. and almost always for ranged concerns like someone in t he group is a sniper or something.
99% of the time it's Melon Theater.
Precis Intermedia has a game called Ancient Odyssey's: Treasure Awaits! that has four distances. Going by memory here, they are Close, Far, Sneaking and The Enemy.
I've come around to using minis for when I run games- simply because my melon is weak in theater of melon.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013370As long as there is a high degree of trust in the group, it works great. It is absolutely critical that the players know that the NPCs might screw them, but the GM never will.
That should always be the case. Apparently it isn't with some folks, but I still find that hard to grasp.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
I've actually played systems that have all sorts of tactical facing like modifiers, movement points, etc. that seem to require a map, and played them without a map just fine. You just envision it and need to have cool player's who are about honesty and fairness and not every little advantage.
I usually use just a piece of paper (nor grid) to give a rough idea of layout when it gets complicated (for us that is like a PC party with a dozen all told and 2-3 dozen opponents).
I both love and hate tactical maps and miniatures. I love the look and feel, hate the set up / interruption; I love how they keep you honest, as to how many creature can really fit in that 20x20 room. But I got lots of room and dwarven forge so not so bad.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.
I pretty much have and do it the way Gronan describes when have no map, but have you considered a hybrid approach. This really came out of our love of miniatures that we just had to put on the table. We first started with just marching order, no grid or anything, but we all got the scale from relative placement. This evolved to relative placement in a "room" we didn't draw the room and may use a dice to represent something.
Basically it gives you spacing between characters.
Now on robbing of ability to be where one wants....as we use rules that don't track or need exact position, and are all pretty easy going, we'd roll to see if one is outside the radius or not if it is a question. If playing OD&D may be as simple as giving a situational modifier to your save, and special dispensation to avoid all damage.
Quote from: darthfozzywig;1013409That should always be the case. Apparently it isn't with some folks, but I still find that hard to grasp.
Oh, it's required for any
good game. But if you don't have it, you can still get a passable, fun game--at least often enough to make it worth it to smooth out the rough spots. Plus, it takes some time to build up trust in a new group. With new players, I'll still often play without a map, but if they show any confusion, I'll set up something primitive to make sure they are following--if only a few dice as markers on the table, and showing rough positioning. It's better then to not have things like facing that draw too much on that developing trust.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013424Oh, it's required for any good game. But if you don't have it, you can still get a passable, fun game--at least often enough to make it worth it to smooth out the rough spots. Plus, it takes some time to build up trust in a new group. With new players, I'll still often play without a map, but if they show any confusion, I'll set up something primitive to make sure they are following--if only a few dice as markers on the table, and showing rough positioning. It's better then to not have things like facing that draw too much on that developing trust.
I sometimes throw some dice, a soda can, a notebook, a pencil or whatever is at hand on the table in a rough approximation of relative positions to help players visualize a complex tactical situation (or sometimes I'll sketch a 1 minute map) - but I won't waste much time on it, or bother moving markers on the "map." It is just an expedient of communication where a quick visual of spatial relationships is quicker and less confusing than words.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013318OD&D.
"Is there something I can take cover behind?"
* die roll * "Yes."
"Can I get a shot at the biggest ogre?"
* die roll * "Not where you are."
"Okay, I move to where I get a shot."
"Is the orc leader in range of a thrown spear?"
* die roll * "Yes."
Honest to Crom, it works great.
This is pretty much the basis of FU and Mythic's GM emulator. You ask a Yes/No question and get an answer. I prefer FU and Emergent though as they five a more granular answer. "Is there something I can take cover behind?"
and you can read that as "No. but theres something here you can use to make cover - a table you can upend." (Assuming the contents of the room havent been established yet. The system isnt supposed to be used at that scale of detail.)
Grover, this isn't a bad question BUT you should elaborate more on what exactly you are looking for in a system.
More importantly, what systems have you run that worked great for you?
Did you run them RAW or houserule them?
If you houseruled them, what EXACTLY did you do to make the game run well for you?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1013370As long as there is a high degree of trust in the group, it works great. It is absolutely critical that the players know that the NPCs might screw them, but the GM never will.
Yes.
However, I often use minis for abstract placement and general visual representation, not exact square by square whatever.
Quote from: DavetheLost;1013388In all seriousness, if a given system does not mesh well with your GMing style, don't run it. There are plenty of games I don't play or run because I don't like the way the mechanics work. Why make it harder on yourself?
Agreed.
Here's a question for everybody: have you noted that players seems to want Minis and Maps in fantasy games more than other genres?
Maybe its just my experience, but the same players who go Melon Theater (thank you Tenbones!) for Cthulhu and Traveller will want Minis & Maps for D&D (even pre-3e D&D).
Quote from: Madprofessor;1013436I sometimes throw some dice, a soda can, a notebook, a pencil or whatever is at hand on the table in a rough approximation of relative positions to help players visualize a complex tactical situation (or sometimes I'll sketch a 1 minute map) - but I won't waste much time on it, or bother moving markers on the "map." It is just an expedient of communication where a quick visual of spatial relationships is quicker and less confusing than words.
This. This, this, this, this. We're talking an aid to play, not the bleeding Sistine Chapel. What is it with the dang grids, anyway??? I had no trouble with using plain sheets of paper two weeks ago; the players seemed to deal with it just fine. They seemed to have heaps of fun diving through doorways and throwing the furniture around, all with no grid lines, rulers, tape measures, calipers, micrometers, laser range-finders, split-leg dividers, astrolabes, gromons, or even the infamous Gygaxian (TM) Bounce Stick.
In forty years, I've never seen an RPG that required a grid, except for D & D 4E, and I refuse to go anywhere near that game because of it. I saw some guy trying to use wire templates that fitted the square grid at Gary Con, and walked away vowing to never, ever do that kind of thing in a game that I run. I freely admit that I like making things for my players, to make the games more fun for them, and they seem to enjoy it.
Play what you like, how you like. Dave and Gary said it was ok.
Heretic! Unbeliever! Poo poo head!
Marinate the Jesuit! Marinate the Jesuit!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013469Heretic! Unbeliever! Poo poo head!
Marinate the Jesuit! Marinate the Jesuit!
What, in this the best of all possible threads on this the best of all possible forums in this of all the best possible hobbies.
I'll see your literary allusion, and raise you one.
We really need to bring back the "hats off" smiley.
Apparently some local group is playing 4e D&D without the maps or pogs. So even something like that.
As for the fireball. I think thats a bad example to argue as even in 5e its got a huge blast radious.
In AD&D & 2e it still was a 40ft sphere. But it had a volume and would deform to fill area outside the sphere as it were. A volume of of 33000 cubic feet that expanded to fill halls and such. So it could cover say cover 33 of your standard 10x10x10 dungeon spaces. Thats enough to fill a 50x50 space room with fire to spare. Or 3 spaces short of filling a 60x60 room.
An O, BX, 3e and 5e fireball is just a 40ft sphere. It will not quite fill a 4x4 room due to being a spherical zone rather than a volume filling available space.
So unless the PCs or target are in a really large room or outside. Placement isnt exactly a problem unless someone is trying to cut it really close.
A better example would be good ol Lightning Bolt. But even that you dont need minis for. Just a good idea of where everyone was when the bolt was launched. Helped if the player or NPC is taking the time to line up for a shot.
When in doubt just set down some dice to represent positions quick to help visualize positions.
Here is a quick ref recreation of my old graph paper plotting of the fireball area. Made this for a player who was having trouble with that.
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic3881245.png)
oops. Forgot to note that the grid is 10ft and the AD&D/2e foreball is laid out flat to show the amount of area it can cover assuming a 10ft ceiling. An AD&D or 2e fireball in a standard 10x10x10 hall is going to spill out in all directions following the paths of the halls possibly a huge distance.
I GM 5e D&D in text chat with no tactical display, so that's one I'd recommend. BX/Classic D&D is very similar.
The only game where I tried to GM without tactical display and felt forced to add one in, was 4e D&D, it is extremely square & minis dependent, deliberately so I think - they wanted to sell minis.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013357Prevent? No but hinder, yes. Just trying to figure who is hit by a fireball is one common issue. Roll randomly or arbitrarily assign those involved and the player is robbed of his ability to place it where he would have wanted given a map.
I tend to see this as a positive. Without minis I typically roll 6d6 for the number of mooks in a big AD&D battle who get incinerated by the fireball. Takes a moment. With minis the MU player wants to place the fireball at the exact spot on the grid map to maximise kills, similar final result but takes 10 times as long. Also the image of the fireball incinerating the enemy front rank while leaving the PC front rank unscathed doesn't sit very well with me - but 4e & 5e D&D encourage this, 5e even has spell-sculpting powers where the PC can specifically avoid hitting allies. A far cry from 1e's volume-filling fireballs.
D&D, TOR, DW, T&T...and that only counts fantasy games. Outside of a few games, like TFT that Skarg mentions most games rely or assume mapless combat.
Quote from: AsenRG;1013404Dungeon World, Feng Shui 2, Tunnels and Trolls, Fate and Classic Traveller are what I would recommend:). Yes, FS2 and CT aren't fantasy, but they're written broadly enough that you can play anything with them, and it would make next to no difference mechanically.
I think d6 system would fit Grove's style well, eg d6 Fantasy (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/20448/D6-Fantasy?it=1&) or Mini-Six (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/144558/Mini-Six-Bare-Bones-Edition). It's definitely not minis based (unlike eg Savage Worlds), and it's definitely 'cinematic' in tone. It's a system where I think players are much more likely to accept rules-free cut scene interpolations - "the bullets force you to take cover" or "You flee & escape" than in some of the more simulationist-crunch systems. But it's not a storygame system either.
4E works fine without a gird or even a map--if you know what your are doing, and don't mind slight differences in play. Though I can see why if people are going that route, they'd rather play something else. It's part of why I'm running 5E now instead of 4E. But that's just more grist for the mill--yep, the map/grid/markers/scenery are tools, and sometimes it is convenient and even fun to use them. Plus, you can always flip the question on its head--which games are fun to use with the map, the grid, the ruler, the piece of string, etc? The ones that encourage you to play with that kind of thing as part of the game. That makes the things a little less tools and a little more toys. It's a question of degree, not hard boundaries.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1013457Here's a question for everybody: have you noted that players seems to want Minis and Maps in fantasy games more than other genres?
Maybe its just my experience, but the same players who go Melon Theater (thank you Tenbones!) for Cthulhu and Traveller will want Minis & Maps for D&D (even pre-3e D&D).
My experience is the opposite, though my non-fantasy experience is limited enough, I'm sure it isn't representative. Perhaps that's part of it. The players I'm around have largely mastered most fantasy games we are playing, and can take or leave miniatures as the mood strikes. With other genres, we are not on such sound fitting, and thus the grid and miniatures help smooth over some of the rough edges.
Palladium Fantasy if it runs anything like Robotech does, which it should. I've played and GMed Robotech for years without using miniatures. We've used maps on occasion to give people an idea of the setting/planet of the week, but just for display.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1013457Maybe its just my experience, but the same players who go Melon Theater (thank you Tenbones!) for Cthulhu and Traveller will want Minis & Maps for D&D (even pre-3e D&D).
I sort of agree and sort of disagree. We used miniatures nearly always for fantasy RPGs, but never for Star Trek. We used miniatures a lot , probably most of the time, for Star Wars, but rarely for Call of Cthulhu. This directly correlates to the number of miniatures I have painted for each of those settings. Which correlates directly to the number of miniatures that were available to purchase circa 1976-2005 for each of those settings.
Quote from: Bren;1013542I sort of agree and sort of disagree. We used miniatures nearly always for fantasy RPGs, but never for Star Trek. We used miniatures a lot , probably most of the time, for Star Wars, but rarely for Call of Cthulhu. This directly correlates to the number of miniatures I have painted for each of those settings. Which correlates directly to the number of miniatures that were available to purchase circa 1976-2005 for each of those settings.
Yeah, I'm all over the place, too. With D&D and similar, I do love to go crazy with miniatures, elaborate terrain/Dwarven Forge/etc set-ups, the works. Heck, even mood lighting and fog effects sometimes. As I said - crazy.
For Cthulhu (and other horror), I like to keep it miniatures-free, because the unnamed-yet-horrible thing emerging from the darkness loses something when reduced to a two-inch-tall miniature.
And while I have a ton of Warhammer 40k and Star Wars minis, I'm sadly lacking on 25/28mm sci-fi minis suitable for Traveller, etc.
Based on some of your other posts, you really might want to take a look at Tunnels and Trolls. It is very abstract but not a "storyteller" style of game still having specific results based rules (if that makes sense).
As it doesn't assume a map and minis, damage is assessed to the group, and divided as they or the GM chooses which allows for a lot of player / GM narration of the outcome. A fighter could decide to wade into the hordes (take all the damage) to allow the others to withdraw and heal, or a wall of fighters could equally take the damage holding the line for the spell casters and archers.
The GM could decide to divide damage heavily towards a PC that he decided had described their actions in a way that put them all alone in battle or divide up the damage among all the PCs because the party was describing their actions in a way that they are not acting as a group and each fighting individual battles. Similarly damage against the opponents could be divided evenly or against one "a mighty blow was struck against the goblin leader severing his head which sailed over the top of the lesser minions". This also makes it a good game to introduce younger players with as there is a fairly low chance of accidentally killing off a PC since the party can generally absorb the damage with those who can take it.
The rules are cheap, 5th edition is generally regarded as the best (although the recent deluxe edition seems to have positive reviews from fans) and was the longest lived version (1979 into the 2000s). Drive thru RPG has the 5th ed pdf for $6.95
If you look for a print copy 5th and 5.5 are essentially the same. At some point Flying Buffalo reprinted the rules, fixing some errors and added a few things. They called the reprint 5.5 but it is pretty much the same as 5th ed. (Scratch that, just took a look at Ebay and older print copies are apparently made from gold soaked in angels tears).
7th ed added some neat ideas, but was a hot mess organizationally. If you find you like the rules it could be worth tracking down a copy for optional rules, but it would be very hard to learn the rules from this version.
There are some products from Outlaw press, these are not official and the publisher had a history of blatantly pirating material from anywhere he pleased.
At one time RPG.net had a fairly active T&T base, but I'm sure most have left voluntarily or been banned by now. I've not seen much interest in T&T here, but Vin's Trollbridge is the closest thing there is to an official forum for the game. Some very helpful people there. T&T is very simple, but I found discussing the game with experienced GMs there is a lot more depth to the game than it initially appears.
Quote from: S'mon;1013496I think d6 system would fit Grove's style well, eg d6 Fantasy (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/20448/D6-Fantasy?it=1&) or Mini-Six (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/144558/Mini-Six-Bare-Bones-Edition). It's definitely not minis based (unlike eg Savage Worlds), and it's definitely 'cinematic' in tone. It's a system where I think players are much more likely to accept rules-free cut scene interpolations - "the bullets force you to take cover" or "You flee & escape" than in some of the more simulationist-crunch systems. But it's not a storygame system either.
You could recommend Talislanta 4th edition with the same pitch, I think;).
For that matter, Barbarians of Lemuria Mythic edition would also be there, if rgrove doesn't want D&D-style magic.
Quote from: rgrove0172;1013248Hate the interruption of laying out a tactical grid and visual aids of some kind for combat.
You guys know of any systems that dont use a tactical display of some kind. Theater of the Mind and all that crap?
Thanks in advance.
Um... most editions of D&D and every OSR rule-set I know of?
I personally strongly recommend Lion & Dragon.