Quote from: cmagounPerhaps, but in this case, I am assuming that the archer is coming around the corner, taking a quick shot and ducking back under cover. The offensive penalty is for a lack of time to aim.

Good enough. I think one might wish to handle it differently for firearms, but that's just me.

In this thread on the LRPGSW I discuss the Play Test of last Saturday and talk about the mapping aspect using the hex grid.  

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/LRPGSW/message/1704

The highlight regarding mapping:

QuoteSo this time we decided to play the core rules, without any of the supplimental combat rules. So instead of merge movement on the combat maps, we used the standard Initiative Winner's Group Moves 1st + Attacks 1st, Initiative Loser's Group Moves 2nd and Attacks 2nd. That creates some very different tactics, btw, than the optional a) Rule which is Initiative Winner's Group Moves 1st, then Initiative Loser's Group Moves 2nd, then Initiative Winner's Group Attacks 1st, then Initiative Loser's Group attacks 2nd. That was an interesting discovery.

And...

QuoteThe party quickly coalesced around Arthur (using the hex grid with the barn and sty was very effective for tracking movement!), and after eight melees of rough and tumble the party managed to down every one of their assailents, including the kobold who tried to flee.  Again - the movement rule worked out perfectly for this - the Golden Sheaves won the initiative and while they couldn't reach him due to the 30' lead the kobold had, a fire bolt (critical hit, too) took the little creature out of the world.

I'll take a few moments to talk about this (I'm at work right now but waiting for my partner to show up so this will be brief)...

Right now I have three modes of movement, the standard is Winner Move-Attack, Loser Move-Attack.   Option a) is Winner-Move, Loser-Move, Winner-Attack, Loser-Attack.  The third, of course, is the new Merge-Movement.  As you can imagine this results in completely different tactical considerations.  In this game test we played with the Standard Movement Rule.

The Standard Movement results in this situation - if the Initiative Winning (IW) party gets too close by charging ahead the full distance of their range, and the Initiative Loser (IL) party is now within their own movement range, the result is as follows:   The IW runs up as far as it can.  They can't attack because they are out of range.  The IL runs forward and now they ARE in range for attack and so they can get the first actual strikes in (edged weapons).   Since the turn is then over, we roll Initiatve and the next melee begins.  This means that the IW can, concievably, run forward, and not get an attack for TWO attacks in a row.  Therefore it behooves the IW to learn to not run forward necessarily until they are within striking range.   Thus the IW-IL has tactical implications.   Now, we figured out that this is not necessarily bad, nor unexplainable.   In the case of this adventure the Goblin group thought they could easily cause Arthur to run away, and therefore get back slashes on him and split the defenders group.   So they charged forward on that assumption.  It was, however a miscalculation, and Arthur held fast.   Because of this he actually got the first blow in.   That works for us as far as explainations go.

Conversely this is not a consideration for Option A since the IW moves then the IL moves, then the IW attacks, then the IL attacks.  

Which do you think, of these two, would you make the Standard Movement rules?  I'm almost siding with Option A, actually.   Thoughts?

What's merge movement?

Personally, between Standard and Option A, I'd choose neither and go for the following. Initiative winner decides which side must move first. All moves are done before attacks. Attacks are conducted either in initiative order, or if you prefer, in Dex order.

Additional optional rule, which would enhance missile weapons: after initiative but before movement, any character with a ready missile weapon may fire/throw it. This is done in the same order used for melee attacks. Missile weapons can be held back and used during the melee attack phase. Characters that use missile weapons in the pre-movement phase should be marked to show that they can't make a full move (if at all).

Additional optional rule: characters that move more than half their maximum (running speed) may not attack.

Quote from: gleichmanIt's basically unheard of for me to not use a hex map and minis for rpg combat. For me, the game isn't worth playing without them.

It's basically unheard of for me to us a hex map and minis for combat. For me, the game isn't worth playing with them.

-clash

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat's merge movement?

Personally, between Standard and Option A, I'd choose neither and go for the following. Initiative winner decides which side must move first. All moves are done before attacks. Attacks are conducted either in initiative order, or if you prefer, in Dex order.

Additional optional rule, which would enhance missile weapons: after initiative but before movement, any character with a ready missile weapon may fire/throw it. This is done in the same order used for melee attacks. Missile weapons can be held back and used during the melee attack phase. Characters that use missile weapons in the pre-movement phase should be marked to show that they can't make a full move (if at all).

Additional optional rule: characters that move more than half their maximum (running speed) may not attack.

Merge-Movement is where we round-robin all of the pieces movements on the board one hex/grid at a time so that the groups Merge together.

Your suggestion is a good one, though I think that fits in with Option A pretty much with the exception that the winner chooses who moves first.  I should say that one of my primary objectives for the rules system I am working on is simplicity.  So I wanted the easiest to understand movement rules, with options being provided that add complexity if the GM + Players so decide.   But by default the rules will offer the Standard Movement, which will be the simplest option.   So your optional rules definitely could fit into the supplimental rules set.   Thanks for the thoughts!

Mark

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's basically unheard of for me to us a hex map and minis for combat. For me, the game isn't worth playing with them.

-clash

I don't suppose it's worth asking why as it is often the case that some preferences are simply that, preferences, and there is no real "why" about it.  Like if you are a fan of chocolate it's not worthwhile to "why".  You just are.  

That said, I like using the Hex/Grid Maps for the following reasons:

1. it allows the players and the GM to stay on the same page in terms of who is where in combat.  This eliminates the "I didn't understand that the such-n-such was there - I thought he was THERE" issue that came up previously for us.

2. it allows us to plan out somewhat more precise tactics for combat than before, so the game becomes a bit more chess-like, which I happen to enjoy.

3. I find it fun.

But as always with this sort of thing, each to his own.  

Precisely. We went without a big map for years, relying instead on graph-paper maps and sometimes marking our positions with pencils. Then we made a 3' x 4' square grid map and laminated it. We don't cotton to wasting money, so we went with the variously-sized wooden spindles, and it's really been quite nice. My only objection is that we tend to rely on it too much - both GMs and players - resulting in games that are little more than complex chess games followed by a couple minutes of interaction. We complained, and Paul uses the map a little less now, and we try to rely on it less as players.

It is, I think, very interesting to see the varied psychological effects of the big map; I think for many of us, we see this thing in front of us, and thus don't bother trying to see it in our minds. This leads to players being less imaginative and inventive, because their minds are in "see/do" mode, and not "imagine/think" mode. It's fascinating.

I think it has it's ups and downs like anything. Some players rely on the map more if it's present-be it the big grid or paper maps. Others are inspired by it. I think it's about finding the balance. I don't care too much what we use, as long we have fun.

One thing I try to do is have my maps ahead of time, so I'm not wasting too much time In Game drawing them, or making them up. This isn't always possible of course.

Quote from: EnginePrecisely. We went without a big map for years, relying instead on graph-paper maps and sometimes marking our positions with pencils. Then we made a 3' x 4' square grid map and laminated it. We don't cotton to wasting money, so we went with the variously-sized wooden spindles, and it's really been quite nice. My only objection is that we tend to rely on it too much - both GMs and players - resulting in games that are little more than complex chess games followed by a couple minutes of interaction. We complained, and Paul uses the map a little less now, and we try to rely on it less as players.

It is, I think, very interesting to see the varied psychological effects of the big map; I think for many of us, we see this thing in front of us, and thus don't bother trying to see it in our minds. This leads to players being less imaginative and inventive, because their minds are in "see/do" mode, and not "imagine/think" mode. It's fascinating.

That's a really good point about the imagination factor.  It's much like the difference between reading a great book, like Lord of the Rings, and seeing it in the movies.  However in this case there are pros and cons due to the game aspect where there's the advantage of clarity and the possibility of tactics.  

Based on your feedback and that of others I think what I'll do is try to squeeze in a comment about this distinction, and a recommendation to be moderate with map usage, and make the entire thing Optional in the rules book.

Quote from: Serious PaulI think it has it's ups and downs like anything. Some players rely on the map more if it's present-be it the big grid or paper maps. Others are inspired by it. I think it's about finding the balance. I don't care too much what we use, as long we have fun.

One thing I try to do is have my maps ahead of time, so I'm not wasting too much time In Game drawing them, or making them up. This isn't always possible of course.

Maps ahead of time is a good idea.  I try to do that too.  One problem that I have, though, is that my scales are always a bit fudged.   Like I'll have a really nice looking overview map, and it will show, for example, the North Glendale area around the town of Hamfest.   Looks great.   I zoom in and do another of Hamfest.   And another of Wheatdale, and one more of Giles Farm and Lake Meredith.   Then, because I didn't think carefully enough, I begin over time to notice that some things just don't fit like I thought they did.   The |<---->|  = 1 Mile thing should have been 4 Miles, or Blueberry Hill is in the wrong location, and whatnot.   Of course, that's just me being sloppy, and I wind up redoing my maps.   I'm just not good at getting the details just right, and so my maps always seem to have a fudge factor.   Of course those maps are not the Tactical ones that we use in combat so it's not really all that germane to what we're talking about.   But just the same, how do you handle the correct scaling of your maps, or don't you?   Do you have this issue also?   I'm trying, these days, to be much more careful, but it's a painfully slow learning curve for me.  

Quote from: VBWyrdeHowever in this case there are pros and cons due to the game aspect where there's the advantage of clarity and the possibility of tactics.

And that's the thing. I think some kind of physical representation makes it much easier and more clear for everyone, and when doing any kind of even remotely tactical combat, it's practically essential if you don't want to spend time dealing with sight lines and so on. It just has to be leavened with imagination, and that sort of thing is going to have to come from the GM, because players are fickle and foolish at the best of times. [And I, speaking as someone who is a player about a thousand times more often than a GM.]

Quote from: VBWyrdeBased on your feedback and that of others I think what I'll do is try to squeeze in a comment about this distinction, and a recommendation to be moderate with map usage, and make the entire thing Optional in the rules book.

I think a comment - okay, a paragraph or two - about this is probably essential if you're planning to release any sort of game which relies heavily on this sort of map. [I haven't, I apologize, read the entire thread, so I've missed anything that's been said about "the rules book."]

Quote from: VBWyrdeI don't suppose it's worth asking why as it is often the case that some preferences are simply that, preferences, and there is no real "why" about it.  Like if you are a fan of chocolate it's not worthwhile to "why".  You just are.  

That said, I like using the Hex/Grid Maps for the following reasons:

1. it allows the players and the GM to stay on the same page in terms of who is where in combat.  This eliminates the "I didn't understand that the such-n-such was there - I thought he was THERE" issue that came up previously for us.

2. it allows us to plan out somewhat more precise tactics for combat than before, so the game becomes a bit more chess-like, which I happen to enjoy.

3. I find it fun.

But as always with this sort of thing, each to his own.  

It's a preference thing, but I can say the players tend to be more imaginitive in what they do, they try to picture things in their minds, for some reason roleplaying seems to be easier, and since I tend away from games with explicit tactics and towards games with abstracted tactics, it all works out fine.

I can't remember the last time I even had to draw a battle map. Mybe once every couple of years... Something like that.

-clash

Quote from: EngineAnd that's the thing. I think some kind of physical representation makes it much easier and more clear for everyone, and when doing any kind of even remotely tactical combat, it's practically essential if you don't want to spend time dealing with sight lines and so on. It just has to be leavened with imagination, and that sort of thing is going to have to come from the GM, because players are fickle and foolish at the best of times. [And I, speaking as someone who is a player about a thousand times more often than a GM.]

Definitely agree!  I try, though not always entirely successfully, to mitigate the "Play by the Numbers Effect" by giving colorful verbal descriptions of the scenes as we play.  So even when we use the map, it's still visualized with the appropriate atmosphere ... such as the last game test I played I made a point to Set the Scene with descriptions such as "it's midnight and the moon is dodging in and out of the clouds while to the west a flash of lightening flickers from the storm heading south over the distant hills.   You hear the tolling of the bell from the monastery, and ... " the action begins.

QuoteI think a comment - okay, a paragraph or two - about this is probably essential if you're planning to release any sort of game which relies heavily on this sort of map. [I haven't, I apologize, read the entire thread, so I've missed anything that's been said about "the rules book."]

I'll see what I can do to drum something up.  I'll be using this thread as a basis for it.  So thanks!  

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a preference thing, but I can say the players tend to be more imaginitive in what they do, they try to picture things in their minds, for some reason roleplaying seems to be easier, and since I tend away from games with explicit tactics and towards games with abstracted tactics, it all works out fine.

I can't remember the last time I even had to draw a battle map. Mybe once every couple of years... Something like that.

-clash

Yup.  I can see that.  Very much so.  What I'm going to do is mention this in the rules and make a point of declaring the Mapping aspect optional for that reason.  Some people will prefer it, so I'll have nice rules for that, but other people will prefer not.   Which is cool and fine.   What I do myself is only whip out the map during battle.   Then the map goes away again.   And the maps are tightly tactical in that they cover a small area.   In other cases where I have larger overview maps, I show those once in a while.   I agree with the objective to keep as much of the game in the realm of the imagination as possible for the purpose of enhancing role playing.  But gosh, I do like to run the tactics too.  

Quote from: VBWyrdeI try, though not always entirely successfully, to mitigate the "Play by the Numbers Effect" by giving colorful verbal descriptions of the scenes as we play.

And I think that probably deserves mention in the rules, and is one solution to the conundrum Flyingmice mentions. When combat doesn't need to be tactical - because the situation doesn't require it, or the group doesn't tend to it, or whatever - maybe the big map isn't necessary.* But when the time comes, it's absolutely irreplaceable as a means of visualizing large, tactical combat.

One point: I think it's important not to limit the scale of the map to some specific value. We did that for quite a while - standard 5ft squares - and the problem becomes that the battle tends not to range outside the confines of the map! Even the players just don't ask, "What's eight feet over there?" This is okay if your combats can take place in that sized area, but when we first got the map, I was a Ranger and could shoot things from hundreds of yards away, but because of the scale issue, I never engaged anyone further than 120 feet or so. Something to keep in mind.

*But just think: there's a giant-ass thing to write on in the center of the table. If you don't need a map, use it to do something else: draw a picture of the scene, rather than a birds-eye-view; write down the names of the important NPCs in the enormous political arena; and so on. Even when it's not a map, it's an excellent tool: we use it to track initiative [large enough for everyone to see!] on the end of the map that's not gridded [there's a six-inch leader at the end for this purpose] and often, the players will make notes, to themselves or each other, right on the map, right on the table.

We're going to move over the next year to a multi-touch 3' x 5' display that'll be the center of the table and will be connected to a PC running XP Tablet, which will make some of this easier - for instance, no marathon erasing sessions - but for now, I think the big map's an incredible tool, which like any other, only needs to be used properly, and taken into account throughout the game.