Quote from: SettembriniWhy didn´t we miss anything back then?

Because, aside from wargames and wargame-centric RPGs (e.g., Phoenix Command), abstract combat was the standard in RPGs from the mid-1980s to late 1990s.

QuoteWhat techniques are used, to make abstraction of location in combat playable?

Lots of detailed description.

QuoteWhich of these techniques are worthy of preservation and documentation?

Just that one, really.

QuoteWhich things do I really trade in, when I chose to use or not to use a movement grid?

Well, for starters, you lose cohesion unless your players are all willing to make compromises for the sake of the group's fun. If they aren't, play without a grid can rapidly devolve into a series of arguments about who is standing where.

Okay here´s some thoughts on this:

The problem in Adventure RPGs is, that you have a lot of situations, where spatial relations are important.

To convey spatial information, you have several options:

generalized, projected, two dimensional graphic presentation =
a map, or map-like graphic

projected, three dimensional graphic presentation =
panorama, picture, first person 3D graphics

verbal description

three dimensional models

due to technical constraints of our days, the first person 3D graphics are not within the realm of tabletop RPGs most of the time. Thusly, I´ll omit them, they might become important in the future.

The merits and constraints  of maps are intuitively  known. To keep it short, I´d like to highlight, that:
- you get full survey knowledge (birds eye) of the area depicted
- you have basically a two dimensions to work with. With the use of stacking markers and depiction of elevation, you can make it 2.5 dimensional
The technical constraints of mapping are pretty important: You either have to use a prepared map, use building blocks like Dungeon Tiles, or ad-hoc create them.
Although theoretically anything can be depicted, the nature of technical restraints limits the plethora  of  graphical tools to a rather concise set  in actual play.

The three dimensional models available basically are just fancy maps, highlighting the restraints in expression and organizatorial overhead. Their scale and granularity reinforce the classification as fancy maps, as well as the trouble to actually navigate your playing pieces through enclosed spaces (which is therefor not done in most cases). Again, the existing stuff is a fancifull map, still  mostly  providing survey knowledge. Some techniques exit to make the experience a little more  "first-personey", but only in special circumstances and  preparation.

With both solutions, changes of the position of playing elements are acted out and updated via the moving of the pieces on the board. Changes in the situation are made via changes in the physical model, thereby reducing:

- verbal communication; thereby reducing communication errors
- coordination efforts to effect changes in the situation

So the real difference rears it´s head: The initial communication of the spatial situation vs. the mode of communicating changes to the situation.

A verbal description of a situation is not inherintly inferiour to a map. It can even be backed up by a map, picture or model. So the starting situation can be communicated most of the time.

BUT: There is the possibility to convey different levels of information.
For example, in an AD&D2nd game I played in, no maps were used. The information conveyed was the information from the room description, which is verbalized survey information: two dimensional bird´s view, "the room is 30 by 40 and ten feet high, two Orcs are sitting at a table"
Whereas some 2D survey knowledge is conveyed, the "moving parts" of the situation were basically one dimensional. Thusly, our combat movement options  degenerated into one dimensional options ("I´m in front, Wizard stays behind")
For this kind of verbalized changes in the situation, using a map adds literally another dimension of gameplay, the second dimension.

In our Mechwarrior, Star Wars and Traveller games, on the other hand, the verbalized description and changes to the situation were presented not in survey knowledge terms, but rather in first person terms. Truly three dimensional, non granular situations came to be. These were backed up by detailed description, which skillfully was supported through the use of diagrams, pictures and three dimensional models (a scratch-built JumpShip for example). The non-granularity of the experience is a very big advantage, to me.

Now, if you use a map, in the sense depicted in the first part, you have two dimensional-granular situations, every single time, and without problems during play.
If you use verbal description, you might

1) fail to communicate

2) degenerate into a one dimensional dynamic

3) create a wholesome, non granular, three dimensional experience

So, a map gives you a certain experience reliably, whereas verbalization is unreliable and needs more effort, but can produce superiour results.

My biggest interest would be to dig deeper into the techniques used to generate effect number three.

Suggestions?

Quote from: Settembrini3) create a wholesome, non granular, three dimensional experience

So, a map gives you a certain experience reliably, whereas verbalization is unreliable and needs more effort, but can produce superiour results.

My biggest interest would be to dig deeper into the techniques used to generate effect number three.

Suggestions?

Erm, narrative techniques? Highly dependent on the system and mood.
Mapping techniques? Seems a case for the "Uncanny Valley" hypothesis, i.e. less might be more.

One problem I've seen in minis, and even to a lesser extent in maps, is "Static Perception." This is the perception of combat as "move, stand, move, stand" because of the fact that the figures are moved in batches at intervals, rather than continuously throughout the combat. The solid actuality of the minis gives the positions too much concreteness. Battles are fluid and dynamic, which can be made much more real by good GM narration.

Another problem I've seen with minis is too much clarity. It's hard to represent stealth, invisibility, and the like, and the "Fog of War" is completely absent. The inverse can be a problem in using narrative techniques - the fog can get inpenetrable at times, and you have no clue where anyone is other than possibly yourself.

I don't use minis in games I run, preferring the verbal description techniques I've learned over the years. OTOH, I sometimes might prefer them when I'm a player, simply because the GM is having trouble either communicating clearly or can't keep a good mental image in his own head.

So I agree with Sett. Verbal/Abstract is superior when the GM has the chops to pull it off properly, but minis give you a baseline that's better than bad GM description.

-clash

Excellent analysis, Sett & Clash.

That is what we really mean when we say, "oh but in 3E combat becomes a wargame": that the suspenseful experience of sneaking down a dark subterranean hallway is suddenly abandoned in favor of a mini-version of the battle of Waterloo (sans fog of war). It's like switching from Thief (the FPS) to a squad-level version of Command & Conquer.

Would it be possible to model fog-of-war intensity and confusion mechanically rather than descriptively?

What would a combat mechanic look like that would model a melee with a hairy orc who's swinging a greataxe at you in a nigh-dark hallway?

More importantly, would that be fun to play (not because it scares you to death, but because it's presumably about both parties missing each other five times until one scores an instakill)?

Removed Because Not Helping.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWould it be possible to model fog-of-war intensity and confusion mechanically rather than descriptively?

What would a combat mechanic look like that would model a melee with a hairy orc who's swinging a greataxe at you in a nigh-dark hallway?

More importantly, would that be fun to play (not because it scares you to death, but because it's presumably about both parties missing each other five times until one scores an instakill)?

Well, I'm still working on the solution to that, but it's one I need to find, because my entire game is about fighting nasty horrors in the bloody dark.  

I don't really care for the usual approach of just basically ignoring the issue in the half-assed manner so many games do.  It's my experience than 9 out of 10 times the usual "narrative" approach taken as a shortcut in so many RPGs just boils down to "I move to him and hit him".  Only without any of the tactical action that would actually be involved in such a game.

IF, and I do mean IF, you've got a group that feels comfortable getting into florid prose then you can tart it up a bit, but in the end still winds up being a very fancy way of saying "I move up to him and hit him" or "I shoot him".  And you run into the problem of how much to narrate before or after a roll.  

So for me, more often than not, the minis approach, especially when paired with a good system that supports some real tactical behavior, produces far more exciting combat than what you actually get in most games that prefer to gloss over the subject.

Yes, that's the thing. To simplify task resolution and fill the holes with narrative is not the solution.

I wonder how Rune handles this. I haven't read it, but that one's supposed to be all about combat in dark hallways.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYes, that's the thing. To simplify task resolution and fill the holes with narrative is not the solution.

I wonder how Rune handles this. I haven't read it, but that one's supposed to be all about combat in dark hallways.

The frustrating thing is, thanks to my current rural location, any and all playtesting will have to take place over the internet, which means I pretty much have to find a more abstract solution unless I want to try and deal with virtual gameboard software somehow, and that's a lot more work than just firing up a game session in IRC.

I've got some ideas though, I just need to think them out some more.

Possibly a threadjack - at the very least a tangent...

But I'm convinced this is one of a couple of places where computers have the potential to facilitate table top play....

Back to your regularly scheduled thread..wherein I think the analysis is a perfect example of why I come to the RPGSite and, in the end, is a matter of preference until technology fills in gaps....