TheRPGSite

Hi folks!

There´s a growing tendency in mainstream gaming, as well as in my own gaming, to use FlipMats, Dungeon Tiles, Counters and Miniatures.
There´s nothing wrong with it. I dig miniatures, I love my Dungeon Tiles, and I´ll keep using them. They have their advantages. This thread is not about them.

BUT:
When reading the Saga Edition, my resentment against it stems mainly form the fact, that I can´t wrap my head around using discreet movement and AOOs for Star Wars. I know it´s my fault, and I don´t want to discuss the merits & flaws of these D20 principles.
At all.

My thoughts wandered off, and I remembered all the ultra fast paced combats we had with Star Wars D6, Traveller and MechWarrior 2nd or even HarnMaster, without a Battlemat, and oftentimes even without a quick drawing.

Now, as a discussion starter:

Why didn´t we miss anything back then?
What techniques are used, to make abstraction of location in combat playable?
Which of these techniques are worthy of preservation and documentation?
Which things do I really trade in, when I chose to use or not to use a movement grid?

I have some ideas and preconceptions,  but I would love to hear your ramblings first.

I use only abstract combat, because my players have no interest in the game-within-a-game that is miniatures-based combat. I was writing a bunch of stuff about this, then my Firefox crashed and I lost it all. So now I'm tired and cranky, so I'm gonna think and sleep more about it and get back to you.

Seriously.

I´d greatly appreciate if you re-do your entry.

(re-did?)

I think we didn't miss much because we had little to compare it to, gaming-wise. Speaking for myself, we had started using minis and battlemats long before d20 was released, because we were tired of ADnD fights turning into blow-trading and debates about whether the orc could've made it all the way from where he was to where the wizard was before the wiz got off his hold spell, or whether the thief got caught in the cleric's flamestrike. Don't get me wrong, we would abide by the DM's ruling on such matters, but that didn't prevent us from debating said matters anyway :) D20 combat for us has ended up being, most times, actually quicker than the old days just because we all know what's going on tactically. We wouldn't trade our minis and mats for anything anymore.

I agree with Sigmund.  In abstract games, without a clear division of authority between GM and players, they end up devolving quite a bit into "he can/he can't" arguements.

We used minis in AD&D, but it was hard, as you had to bust out the ruler to measure distance.  I like how standardized minis/combat rules are now.

There's an interesting system which is both abstract and crunchy in Burning Wheel Revised.

Other than that, I think a system that works OK and isn't quite freeform is to make people roll Strength/Athletics/Get Your Move On when they want to do a move-type thing that might be resisted by another entity in the game, like charging between two goblins to climb the horrid face and get to the gems...normally the running isn't a roll, the climbing is, and the goblins are either ignored or the GM says 'you can't do that'. D&D3 has good ways of dealing with this but they rely on minis. Another way, as I said, is that if you're playing abstractly, and you as GM feel that the field is crowded and a certain movement action is problematic, you have the person trying it roll: if they fail the action stops there, if they succeed it's on to the next part of what they're doing.

I never used miniatures in AD&D1st (starting for me in 78), and in indeed, throughout the entire 1990s, no matter what system. By the time I was in college I was one of those who (along with everyone else) sneered at the idea of a 'top down' viewpoint into a tactical scene. I think there are still posts by me on the Gaming Outpost doing that, in fact*.  But anyhow, even in the earliest days we never ever used any kind of marker except as an abstract "marching order" that was never touched. I don't think we even played around a table back then-- often just sort of lounging around a living room or whatever.

 When I first picked up a couple of Reaper minis in 2001 I was amazed at the utility. I'm not sure if I could go back, really.

I mean, I guess I could.

(*Although I had a girlfriend who was into collecting and painting miniatures around 1990, and I learned how to paint and drybrush back then)..

I first started playing with minis. Borrowed minis, mind you, but minis.

Since I don't have anyone to mooch off of (I'm running the games nowadays) I generally just use graph paper and quick sketches. Has a nice effect of "trashing the room" what with all the eraser marks, and my tendency to ad-hoc collateral damage.

Quote from: CalithenaThere's an interesting system which is both abstract and crunchy in Burning Wheel Revised.

Exactly. That a system is abstract doesn't mean there are no rules.

I like a lot abstract weapon range systems, like the ones in Burning Wheel Revised, The Riddle of Steel and Ars Magica 4th.

I'm not a fan of using rules for minis. They might be cool, but they're not for me.

I don't particularly like minis, due to a multitude of reasons. I don't want to paint them, I don't want to draw battle maps, there's hardly enough space on the table and it takes away the focus from pure imagination. With games like D&D, I sometimes get over that, as the rules don't really focus on simulation that much. As the strategic choices are about positioning _a lot_, using a map seems the right way to do. For the simpler stuff, I usually get by with free form object placement ("So, if you're this eraser and the pizza box is the Wall of Fire...")

With other games, fighting isn't as concerned with positioning, so I can get by fine without maps. That doesn't neccesarily mean they're simpler, they just focus on different things.

I also kinda liked maneuver rolls to abstract positioning. RoleMaste and Torg come to mind, and I think that Riddle of Steel had something similar. I never really liked the way Burning Wheel handled it, turning positioning into a whole parallel activity. It just didn't "flow" enough during my test combats.

We used minis as soon as they became available... but we never used a measuring system (we never painted them, either--I still think most minis look better as is). We did use dungeon tiles extensively, when those became available in the later 80s.

Even for Call of Cthulhu. Seriously, Citadel had an awesome range of investigators and monsters (Shoggoth, Dark Young...), and there were horror-themed cardboard tiles that are better than anything on the market now.

So, combat accoutrements yes: but for dramatic focus, not for tactical minigames. It's messy of course, but I still prefer that set-up to the extreme poles of battlemat on one hand, nothing at all on the other.

Wow, nobody's mentioned Spirit of the Century yet. SoTC divides environments into Zones. The zones are defined by the GM and affect movement - covering multiple zones at once requires the player to roll. In addition, zones can have borders that reduce the character's effectiveness when crossed. The cool thing about them is some things that might traditionally might be statted out as monsters or creatures can be treated as borders for zones. For example, an alligator filled moat - high border rating. A press of zombies just outside the entrance to the mall
 - high border rating. I really like the way that the zones and borders work together.

While not a pulp fan, I have to admit: that zone thing does sound spot on for the genre, and like a lot of fun to boot.

While it suffers from several weaknesses, 7th Sea has interesting movement rules which go into the direction that you might seek.

You use a freeform map without grids; the only thing that get's distinguished are height levels. So, the floor might be lvl1, the stairways and the tables are lvl2, the balustrade and the chandelier are lvl3...
As long as you stay on the same level, movement is for free. Only if you change the height level it costs you an action.


What is told here about SotC sounds similar, but I haven't read it myself so I can't tell that for sure.

Quote from: SkyrockWhat is told here about SotC sounds similar, but I haven't read it myself so I can't tell that for sure.

I think the biggest difference with Spirit of the Century and most other games that have abstracted movement are the borders. It's basically a penalty, up front, the character takes (borders are automatic stress the character takes when crossing them - kind of like taking damage, but not quite). In many games - particularly simulationist ones - the alligators in the moat would be statted out individually, or the concertina wire would have some kind of stats.  In SoTC, unless you are creative or know the right stunts, moving across the border results in (basically) automatic damage. When you think of the genre - fighting through the hordes of temple guards to stand in front of the high priestess, bloody and bruised from the fight - it makes sense. You could use the minion rules for the temple guards, but if even that is more than what the GM and the players want you just set up the zones between the PCs and the high priestess and use a border value to represent the guards.

Also, I can see an environment naturally breaking down into zones. You can probably look at a map of an area and say, "Here's a zone where that fence is...that hill would be a zone, the roadway would make up one side of this zone".

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....