Some rpgs use a very abstracted movement and positioning. There aren't exact measurement but distance is subsumed into "ranges" like Close, Medium, Far, etc. It considered a simplification that reduces or eliminates the need for maps and miniatures.

But I seem to have a mental block when it comes to these rules. I find them more confusing that just keeping the distances in my head especially when multiple characters and important items of scenery and other items come into play. I find a vastly prefer even simple measurements.

Absolutely, abstract movement is always more complex than the simple and elegant laws of motion.

i have the same problem dont worry

I very much prefer abstract movement. Vastly.

-clash

Quote from: Nexus;858889But I seem to have a mental block when it comes to these rules. I find them more confusing that just keeping the distances in my head especially when multiple characters and important items of scenery and other items come into play. I find a vastly prefer even simple measurements.

If four heroes are fighting four monsters, you find it easier to just keep 28 different distances in your head?

EDIT: Major math mistake, I somehow decided that the number of distances to remember was n! rather than n(n-1)/2

Quote from: Axiomatic;858917If four heroes are fighting four monsters, you find it easier to just keep 40320  different distances (which is to say, 8! of them) in your head?

Your math is misapplied.

And yes I find it much easier to have a mental map* to manage an 8 body problem. Did one tonight in fact, though it had 17 bodies, not just 8.


* A sketch helps. Especially if you can show it to the players. But sometimes I'm in too much of a hurry or just too lazy to do a physical sketch.

Quote from: David Johansen;858898Absolutely, abstract movement is always more complex than the simple and elegant laws of motion.

Pretty much this.

As far as abstract movement and ranges go, I think we need to define "abstract".  Clash's games have ranges and movement in meters.  At the table, you could just estimate the actual distances but doing that as opposed to breaking out a tape measure and grid isn't what I think of as "abstract movement".

I think of abstract movement and ranges where things are based on "range bands" without any measured equivalent given like 3:16 or WFRP3, or the Modiphius 2d20 system where units of range could be anything from room, to building, to city block, to city, depending on narrative need.

WFRP3 and The One Ring take the cake for non-measurement systems that for the supposed sake of simplification actually make the games ridiculously complex when it comes to range and movement.

A couple of my players, with no head for spatial awareness, are even more insistent on using minis than I am, which is Pretty Durn.  I see no reason to guess when I can know and understand every relation with a half-second's glance at a battlemat.

As always, some exceptions may be made for convention one-shots, but in general:

Abstract positioning is the only positioning that I'll use.

I've found that most rule sets that assume some kind of grid(d20, GURPS, etc.) are pretty trivial to use in a more abstract fashion. I played GURPS in a chatroom, and I played Fantasy Craft over Skype, and not once did any of us need to consult a grid, even in combat. Miscommunications were rare, and the few that occurred were cleared up quickly.

If I found a ruleset that I didn't find easy to use in the abstract, I simply would not use that ruleset. And if I found a group who played something like d20 or GURPS with all of the positioning and distance rules in effect, I'd pass on gaming with them, too. I just do not want.

So abstract for the win.

Abstract as in there are no actual movement? Just "I move to medium range and shoot?" How would you even determine of X is faster than Y?

I cant recall any RPGs I have played that totally abstracted movement or range other than RuinsWorld wayyyyy back. And that was a pseudo-RPG really. Which though did a surprisingly good job of it with minimal rules clutter.

Quote from: Axiomatic;858917If four heroes are fighting four monsters, you find it easier to just keep 28 different distances in your head?

First off, you're presuming that all the different distances are relevant.  A good part of the time, the distance between members of the same side don't particularly matter, so that takes us down to 16 (4 PCs x 4 monsters) distances right there.

Secondly, you're neglecting the ability to coalesce groups into effective points.  If Alice and Bob are in melee with three of the monsters while Charlie and Dana are firing their bows at the fourth, while it tries to escape, then you only have, at most, four nodes on your graph (Alice/Bob/m1-m3, Charlie, Dana, m4).  If Charlie and Dana are standing together, that further reduces it to three nodes.

Finally, the abstract ranges are usually set up such that each range is substantially larger than the one before.  "Medium" range is larger than "melee" range by enough that if several combatants are within melee range and you're at medium range from one of them, you'll automatically be at medium range from all of them.  Similarly, "long" exceeds "medium" by enough that, if you're at long range from someone, then you're also at long range from anyone else within medium range of them.  This can be used to further simplify the above example: Alice/Bob/m1-3 are all in melee range with each other.  Charlie is at medium range from the melee in one direction and Dana at medium in another.  m4 is at long range from everyone else.  Easy-peasy.

Concrete map-and-grid positioning is a lot easier to deal with when exact positions and movement distances are important, there's no doubt about that, but, a lot of the time, they're not and, when they're not, then abstract positioning and movement can be a lot easier.  The problem comes in when you try to represent precise information with an abstract system (or vice-versa, although that tends to come up far less frequently).

Quote from: Axiomatic;858917If four heroes are fighting four monsters, you find it easier to just keep 28 different distances in your head?

Its easier for me to track 8 positions and more importantly visualize their lay out and their relative positions to each other and important bits of scenery and determine "where" things are when changes occur and position becomes particularly important (some drops something, the position of a random object becomes important, some uses an area of effect, etc) or determining things like "She runs across the room, does she pass close for me to make a an attack?".

On a purely feel level, abstracted movement makes movement based abilities feel less interesting and impressive. "My character moves 2 range bands per Action instead of one" doesn't feel as impressive as "My character runs at 60 MPH."

Are we talking about this?


(from: Meikyuu Kingdom)


(from: Ancient Kingdoms - Treasure Awaits!)


Or this?


(from: The Reef blog)


(from: Epictable blog)

In Sly Flourish's blog are more but they are too big for this forum.


Or are we talking about pure abstract Theatre of the Mind, with not even a room sketch?
(With a sketch, even without minuatures, players will point to positions that they think their characters are, or where they are trying to go.)

I often run maples combats where position is a bit fuzzy and movement is abstract.  What I hate is stuff like Moving from Long to short takes four turns but moving from short to close takes one.  Followed by long discussions of special case handling.

d=vt isn't hard math, it isn't scary or intimidating.  It fits in four characters and it works.  If you want to mess with vehicles 1/2att is not that bad either.

The Barbie that said, "math is hard," must've been a gamer.

I started gaming and then roleplaying with systems with tactical maps and rules that made positions and terrain and facing and dropped weapons and fallen bodies and so on the meat of the gameplay. Also, in the games I've always played, who gets killed or dismembered or not is determined more by what their situation is (which is largely determined by how they move on the battle map) than by their stats. So playing a system with no map, no counters for people and objects, and/or no detailed rules for the effect of where people are, what's around them, and what they're trying to do, is to suggest I remove most of the content from the game I'm interested in playing.

Imagine you had a player who loved playing wizards with various detailed spells, and you told them the magic system is abstract and you just roll a number of dice equal to their wizard level once per day, and then they get to add their roll to their hitpoints or the hitpoints of their friends. And that's it. That's about how interested I am in abstract movement combat systems.