Quote from: CRKrueger;577910WFRP3 did not, running a bog standard WFRP combat ie. a coach on a forest road ambushed by bandits/beastmen in 3-4 different locations using a combination of ranged and melee weapons) becomes a nightmare of determining representational ranges between all the groups of combatants, when a simple range system delivers the information much easier.  What's even more annoying is that even though WFRP3 doesn't use ranges, it still uses fucking minis, just with tokens to determine ranges from other combatants.

yeah, in a game system that was pretty much full of stuff I don't like - the way WFRP3 handled ranged combat was by far my least favourite thing.

Quote from: Ladybird;577947I've always preferred "zones" as a measuring system for RPG, because it's a nice half-way between a grid and range bands. Counting the amount of zones a shot has to go through works fine for ranged weapons, and if each zone is small enough, melee attacks are easy ("Anyone in the same zone", simples). It avoids the problems Justin identifies of S/M/L range systems.

Yup. Zones have always made sense to me because, basically, they're not that dissimilar from the way I mentally conceptualize complex battlefields: That group is all "in the kitchen"; this other group is all "in the living room"; and so forth. And the specifics of what's going on within a given area can get fluid.

Quote from: Ladybird;577947Definite ranges and range bands don't really work with non-minis RPG combat - Gleichman is right, without figures on the board you can't tell the exact distances between combatants, so it comes down to a DM call whether you're in range or not anyway. And there's nothing wrong with that, it's a system that works great and has done for decades, but... players should admit that's how things play out, and accept that range is handled fuzzily in games.

I'm not really clear on how your second statement is meant to justify the claim that range values don't work in non-minis RPG combat. Just because the difference between 95 ft. away and 105 ft. away might get fuzzy without concrete representation, it doesn't follow that the difference between 95 ft. and 50 ft. is meaningfully fuzzy at all.

Yeah, somehow we've managed to do distances in combats without miniatures for about 20+ years now in all of my games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;580508Yeah, somehow we've managed to do distances in combats without miniatures for about 20+ years now in all of my games.

RPGPundit

You were obviously cheating. Cheater!   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;580229I'm not really clear on how your second statement is meant to justify the claim that range values don't work in non-minis RPG combat. Just because the difference between 95 ft. away and 105 ft. away might get fuzzy without concrete representation, it doesn't follow that the difference between 95 ft. and 50 ft. is meaningfully fuzzy at all.

If the difference is obvious, yeah, using exact measurements as a shorthand works okay. 50ft vs 95ft, yeah, that's a clear distinction. It's in situations where the difference between 95ft and 105ft matters that it breaks down; if we're playing a game with range bands for missile fire, say, the best you could really say is "the characters are 100ish feet apart". Everyone is constantly in motion; the characters will time their actions as best they can, they'll be dodging and blocking and whatnot - combat is a mess, a damned mess.

And that's even without considering that a target won't suddenly become harder to hit just because they've crossed an arbitrary line. If your system requires that sort of level of detail, at the boundry lines, it becomes a GM call. Hell, if you're shooting at a closing target, even if you get the initiative... they're still going to be spending all the combat turn moving closer to you. Most systems would say that if you go first, you'll get your shot at their initial distance... but I've never really been happy with that as a solution. It feels too artificial and gamey.

You don't need Gleichman accuracy to have a fun game. I don't even think it's desirable to get to that level. But the systems games tend to use pretend that they're working to that level of accuracy, when in reality, they aren't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;580508Yeah, somehow we've managed to do distances in combats without miniatures for about 20+ years now in all of my games.

RPGPundit

You can, it'll work, as everyone knows. Estimates are plenty good enough. I just think people should admit that they're using estimates and not exact distances. "50ish ft" is plenty accurate enough for game purposes, and what most groups are actually using.

Quote from: Ladybird;580538Everyone is constantly in motion; the characters will time their actions as best they can, they'll be dodging and blocking and whatnot - combat is a mess, a damned mess.

Following this logic, one could conclude that miniatures on a 5 ft. grid aren't precise enough because they don't sufficiently distinguish between 98 ft. and 101 ft.

In reality, it's just foolish to expect more precision from your method of measurement than your method of measurement is capable of providing.

QuoteAnd that's even without considering that a target won't suddenly become harder to hit just because they've crossed an arbitrary line.

This is my friend Abstraction. You guys should get acquainted.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;580580Following this logic, one could conclude that miniatures on a 5 ft. grid aren't precise enough because they don't sufficiently distinguish between 98 ft. and 101 ft.

Actually, yeah, I do find 5 ft grids to be too artificial and stupid. Two characters in squares next to each other aren't going to be slugging it out like American Gladiators, they're going to be in each other's squares, stepping into adjacent squares...

QuoteIn reality, it's just foolish to expect more precision from your method of measurement than your method of measurement is capable of providing.

Yep. And I also think that it's foolish for games to use rules that claim to require that level of precision but don't have a way of acquiring it.

Traditional exact distance rules work great on a one-dimensional battlefield. It's when you get to two dimensions that things start to break down. Sure, pythagoras theorem works great, but can you really be bothered to do it for every individual combatant? No, you won't. And that's fine. But, perhaps down to the wargame origins of the hobby, rules are still written on the assumption that you will be... but you won't, because actual play tends not to involve minis much, and as lot of players get very hostile at the thought of them. So writing those rules is a waste of time for the designers, it's a waste of time for the players to read them.

I suppose the difference between me and Gleichman is... Gleichman would say that without a battle mat, you're cheating the game. I would say that without a battle mat, you're wasting your time pretending to give an accurate answer when a "good enough" answer... is plenty good enough.

Quote from: Ladybird;580629Yep. And I also think that it's foolish for games to use rules that claim to require that level of precision but don't have a way of acquiring it.

I'm just not clear on why you think writing "100 ft." is the height of intellectual dishonesty but writing "roughly 100 ft." is some sort of triumph of game design. What actual utility are you proposing?

QuoteSure, pythagoras theorem works great, but can you really be bothered to do it for every individual combatant? No, you won't.

I've got a reference chart for that on my GM screen, actually.

Quote from: Ladybird;580538You can, it'll work, as everyone knows. Estimates are plenty good enough. I just think people should admit that they're using estimates and not exact distances. "50ish ft" is plenty accurate enough for game purposes, and what most groups are actually using.

Clearly. The real issue is what distances are needed for.  And the answer is that you need them to track movement, ranges for missile weapons and ranges for spells. You need nothing that will be more accurate than what's necessary to accommodate these.

RPGPundit

Get on the crippleware train, ye kids!

First review's out.

http://rpggeek.com/thread/913690/a-weird-deathless-fugue

The dice look even MORE confusing than Warhammer 3rd. I can't properly discern the differences without a CLOSE up. And death is story'd away. I wonder how that will go down on this forum...

Quote from: Windjammer;619568Get on the crippleware train, ye kids!

First review's out.

http://rpggeek.com/thread/913690/a-weird-deathless-fugue

The dice look even MORE confusing than Warhammer 3rd. I can't properly discern the differences without a CLOSE up. And death is story'd away. I wonder how that will go down on this forum...

Heh, it'll get moved to the Other Games Forum.

Since this has started up again, I notice the game has range bands, which are shit.  You don't need a grid to use numbers.  This guy is 50ish feet to my right, that guy is 30ish feet to my left, they are 80ish feet from each other.  That's a fuck of a lot easier then figuring out well since two Short Range bands equal a Medium, and two Mediums equal a Long, what does a Short plus a Medium equal?

Sounds like they took all the narrative/abstract bullshit from WFRP3 and then fucked up the one cool thing about it, the Dice system.

Quote from: SW-EofE rules bookWhile even the most stalwart character cannot survive everything, the Star Wars®: Edge of the Empire™ Beginner Game does not include rules for Player Character death.

...

...

...

Ok, unless they changed this since the Beta rules, pg143 has pretty clear rules for Death. It even says Droid Death can not be overcome. Time to make a new character.

Ah, re-reading it, this "No Death" is part of the Beginner's Box.
Not how I would have done it, but for an intro into the game, maybe it works for a demo.

He is correct, the text has been altered, it's only the beginner's box that says that.  In the Beta document theoretically you can die.

However, the only way you can die is to get a high roll on the critical hit chart,a roll so high that you need to have 3 or 4 critical hits already to even make it possible.  By that time you would already be unconscious.  So unless your unconscious body get shot a few times or gets caught in a couple grenade blasts, I don't see how you can die.  You can't expire from sheer number of wounds taken.