I guess one does indeed have to look not only at the PCs, but also the monsters and antagonists to make the combat as a whole centered around movement, positioning and the like. MCDM, for all its YouTube star's weird and sketchy political takes, does that pretty well in its monster book from what I've heard. Where enemies have more uses for their extra actions in the same sense as the player, and many are movement-related.

I dunno if this is useful to any of you but...

When I run combat in an open area, I use a hex mat and each hex is designated as 30' across.  This is primarily to run the game as a ranged combat game as players want to.  To engage in melee, a PC needs to share the hex with it's intended target unless the weapon has the reach characteristic and then they can hit adjacent hexes.  I designate each hex as to they level of cover available, the terrain type, and the types of things that are in it.  I loose some tactical granularity but gain a better over all game play experience for me and my players.

If you're wondering "why 30 feet per hex?" it's because that the D&D 5e standard for movement per turn.

I use a rule that is common in miniature wargames. At the end of each round, I compare the total number of hits scored by the PCs with the total number of hits scored by the monsters. If one side does significantly better, they push back their opponents. So, for example, of the PCs are guarding a doorway and roll poorly, they would be forced back, thus letting more enemies in through the door and possibly turning the tide of the battle.

In addition, many smaller monsters have a "Scurry Through" or "Climb Onto" special attack which allows them to either scurry through the PC's line, thus attacking from behind, or climb onto a PC, effectively now being in the same space/hex as a PC and allowing an extra monster attack going forward.

One point to consider is that players respond to mechanical incentives. In most d&d based rpgs, there is no penalty to attack or defence for standing still. There is one move, and one attack, unless you buy feats. Trying to move away from combat in 3.x triggers AoO's.

Also consider that in real life people move because they don't want to get hit.

So, generally speaking, you need some pretty serious house rules to create the results you want. PF2 introduced a second move action. That is a start. People who Stay still at the end of a combat round take a defense and or attack penalty. People who move get a defensive and or attack bonus.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 24, 2023, 11:22:27 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 24, 2023, 10:48:28 PM
I'm not a fan of "attack from behind" rules.

Backstabbing is a feature of the Rogue/Thief class since AD&D. How do you deal with it?

This wasn't asked of me, but my rule is that sneak-attacks/backstabs can be made in the following circumstances:

1. Enemy is surprised
2. Enemy is unaware of you (obviously unlikely if you are coming at them from the front)
3. In the first round of combat when entering melee with an enemy that is already fighting one of your allies.

Quote from: Captain_Pazuzu on December 25, 2023, 01:53:36 AM
Fun thread.  I like where this is going.

Mobile combat is a fun idea.  What about being able to move the target as well?  In essence this makes the combat mobile no?

Like Inigo fighting Wesley in The Princess Bride.  Highly mobile combat no?

That's the idea with the "Drive Back" action. The difficulty is going to be in making it worth doing. Some of that is going to be on me as the DM to have interesting combat arenas. There's not much point in maneuvering around an empty box. The "on the back foot" and "cornered" statuses potentially provide incentive, but there's a risk of them being overpowered.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on December 24, 2023, 06:08:30 AM
...In that game, combat is resolved as an opposed check and the winner drives back their opponent by default. This matters because once you are engaged in combat, you can't just walk away. This combines with the initiative system so that winning initiative means you get to choose which combats are going to pair off, so you can pick advantageous pairings,  potentially push models in your desired direction, and tie up the enemy's best resources with insignificant fights. The combat always always driving back the losers means that even big clashes between battle lines have an ebb and flow over the course of several rounds. Models can get trapped by terrain or other models which doubles the number of strikes they receive when the lose a combat (so guarding flanks is important). If an opponent holds a chokepoint, your goal of killing the opponent and taking the desired position coincide and it's actually tactically viable if you have spear support or good archery fire. Trying to force the enemy to leave the chokepoint and come to you just means you get the worst possible melee matchups which is lose/lose and fighting is probably actually your best option. So while list-building is an important part of the game (like all GW wargames), it makes positioning matter more than most GW games I've played and games are often decided by decisions about movement. This is probably more useful as a starting point for innovation than a complete idea.

At my table I have melee engagements lock all combatants in unless they try a full retreat or make a successful roll to escape. I allow a push/bull rush option, but being pushed into enemy reach or into terrain results in AoOs (which I buff since they now no longer serve the purpose of discouraging movement). I roll side-based initiative each round so I'm considering letting the winning side push their melee combatants around at half speed to simulate the push/pull dynamic of combat.

Interesting. That's the opposite of how I've been thinking of it. I tend to regard the AoO rules as being the chief culprit in turning D&D combats into locked-down slugfests. It seems like a difference in priority: movement/position before battle is joined versus after. I don't have much experience with tabletop wargames, but you're probably right that they're worth looking into.

EDIT: It's probably worth pointing out, though, that a lot of the conditions you might factor for a wargame don't make sense for an RPG. High ground, for example, really isn't an advantage in single combat. Arguably it's a disadvantage, since guarding your head is generally easier than guarding your legs. It's a topic for another thread, but this is part of why I don't like when games give a blanket bonus to attack for a mounted combatant. A horseman should actually be at a significant disadvantage against a footman, unless attacking on a charge/ride-by.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 03, 2024, 09:37:31 PM
Interesting. That's the opposite of how I've been thinking of it. I tend to regard the AoO rules as being the chief culprit in turning D&D combats into locked-down slugfests. It seems like a difference in priority: movement/position before battle is joined versus after. I don't have much experience with tabletop wargames, but you're probably right that they're worth looking into.

EDIT: It's probably worth pointing out, though, that a lot of the conditions you might factor for a wargame don't make sense for an RPG. High ground, for example, really isn't an advantage in single combat. Arguably it's a disadvantage, since guarding your head is generally easier than guarding your legs. It's a topic for another thread, but this is part of why I don't like when games give a blanket bonus to attack for a mounted combatant. A horseman should actually be at a significant disadvantage against a footman, unless attacking on a charge/ride-by.

I believe AoOs stem from wargaming where melees were sticky - AoOs were free strikes dealt to enemies as they flee after being routed. Like a lot of stuff that's carried forward through the editions of D&D, it's now a vestigial feature lacking the context that made it work. The lotr wargame gets away with sticky fights with three elements working together: 1. Initiative is rolled every round 2. Melee is sticky 3. Each melee exchange always pushes combatants away so they're no longer stuck - so every round the winner of the initiative can mostly move freely and do interesting things. Classic D&D has elements #1 and #2 (mostly), but Modern D&D has none of the above which renders the AoO a vestigial element that makes things worse and causes the lock-in.

My approach uses #1 and #2 (classic D&D-esque), but I also lack element #3 which I'm thinking of incorporating. I think sticky combats overall work better than free movement systems because free movement systems make it hard to maintain front/back ranks except in very tight quarters (chokepoints, funnels) or through special abilities. In really tight quarters, mobility is a non-factor so sticky or not it won't make much difference. In an open area though, sticky means initiative and movement just seems more interesting to me. I still let people slip out of combat or push or retreat with their checks and that prevents 100% lock-in, but your mileage may vary. It could be better, but it's a fine foundation.

It's also worth pointing out that the lotr wargame and most other modern miniatures wargames are skirmish wargames - not meant to model combat between armies like Napoleonic or Civil War games but rather models are 1:1 representations of soldiers. So the stickiness of melee fights might be inherited from tradition but it works fine.

In my games I also let mounted units ignore sticky combats unless they bump into a mounted unit, big monster, or spear unit. I think that sort of thing is much more interesting and probably true to life than just being able to move a little farther in a round or getting a bonus to hit.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 24, 2023, 10:48:28 PM
I'm not a fan of "attack from behind" rules.  They introduce the need for facing mechanics that inevitably balloon in complexity.  Which way is this character facing right now?  How about now?  How well can they keep track of things moving behind them?  Does this introduce uncertainty about where things are? If it does, how do you model that when some PCs can see the monsters moving around while others can't?  It's just a headache for not much real gain that I can see.

I've heard this over and over, but it's actually extremely easy if you're using miniatures.  A character only moves on his turn, and whatever way the miniature's facing, the other side is the back.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on January 04, 2024, 12:44:05 AM
I believe AoOs stem from wargaming where melees were sticky - AoOs were free strikes dealt to enemies as they flee after being routed. Like a lot of stuff that's carried forward through the editions of D&D, it's now a vestigial feature lacking the context that made it work. The lotr wargame gets away with sticky fights with three elements working together: 1. Initiative is rolled every round 2. Melee is sticky 3. Each melee exchange always pushes combatants away so they're no longer stuck - so every round the winner of the initiative can mostly move freely and do interesting things.

Oh, see that's actually quite interesting. I didn't grok that bit the first time around (probably a reading comprehension flub on my part). I could see that being the key that makes the AoO rules work, giving the losing party a roughly 50% chance to be able to run away. It'd be a little awkward to implement into standard D&D, which doesn't really have a rule for saying who "wins" an exchange, but it'd work well in something like Warlock!, where attacks are made simultaneously as a single opposed roll.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on January 04, 2024, 12:44:05 AM
Classic D&D has elements #1 and #2 (mostly), but Modern D&D has none of the above which renders the AoO a vestigial element that makes things worse and causes the lock-in.

You could argue that 5th edition still has functionally sticky combat, due to the combination of "disengage" taking up your action and most characters having the same movement rate, making it so that "disengage and move away" is generally going to be the same action cost as "pursue and attack" on the enemy's next round.

If memory serves, 3rd edition kind of had the opposite problem, where a combatant could take the 5-foot step action and then run away, and even with a higher movement rate, there wasn't much a melee opponent could do to stop them.

Quote from: Old Aegidius on January 04, 2024, 12:44:05 AM
My approach uses #1 and #2 (classic D&D-esque), but I also lack element #3 which I'm thinking of incorporating. I think sticky combats overall work better than free movement systems because free movement systems make it hard to maintain front/back ranks except in very tight quarters (chokepoints, funnels) or through special abilities. In really tight quarters, mobility is a non-factor so sticky or not it won't make much difference. In an open area though, sticky means initiative and movement just seems more interesting to me. I still let people slip out of combat or push or retreat with their checks and that prevents 100% lock-in, but your mileage may vary. It could be better, but it's a fine foundation.

I don't think RPG combat should allow people to easily maintain something like a front and back rank. Like you say, it's not replicating infantry formations maneuvering in the field. At best it's replicating something like skirmishing between loosely ordered scouting parties, but more often its replicating what is essentially a brawl between a handful of combatants. Obviously I haven't fought in lots of medieval battles, but from reading and some experience with re-enactment/battlegaming type stuff, you can't meaningfully maintain a ranked formation in melee without quite a large group of allies on your side.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 04, 2024, 08:37:52 AMI don't think RPG combat should allow people to easily maintain something like a front and back rank. Like you say, it's not replicating infantry formations maneuvering in the field. At best it's replicating something like skirmishing between loosely ordered scouting parties, but more often its replicating what is essentially a brawl between a handful of combatants. Obviously I haven't fought in lots of medieval battles, but from reading and some experience with re-enactment/battlegaming type stuff, you can't meaningfully maintain a ranked formation in melee without quite a large group of allies on your side.

That's a decent point, but from a gameplay point of view I strongly prefer to have a system where the frontline fighters are protecting the glass cannons in back.  Back in my 1E/2E games strategy often revolved around protecting the magic users so they could launch their nukes without being interrupted.  It added quite a bit of tactical thinking and excitement.  This went away along with the interruption mechanic in 3E.  If you want a reason to make positioning and moving around in combat important, this is a really good one.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 24, 2023, 11:22:27 PM
Backstabbing is a feature of the Rogue/Thief class since AD&D. How do you deal with it?

In versions before 3.X, you have like a minute to land a backstab, and the normal way to accomplish it is to have hidden on the prior round.  Without that, an opponent can be distracted, or not know that the thief is behind him via some other trickery.  The only version of the game where you physically move a miniature that has facing to behind another miniature that also has facing, is like, the "players option" rulesets that launched at the very end of AD&D's life.  Though perhaps there was some earlier miniatures source that allowed it too that I'm not aware of or am forgetting.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 04, 2024, 08:37:52 AM

Oh, see that's actually quite interesting. I didn't grok that bit the first time around (probably a reading comprehension flub on my part). I could see that being the key that makes the AoO rules work, giving the losing party a roughly 50% chance to be able to run away. It'd be a little awkward to implement into standard D&D, which doesn't really have a rule for saying who "wins" an exchange, but it'd work well in something like Warlock!, where attacks are made simultaneously as a single opposed roll.

Yes, it's how all the rules that interact that make something work or not, which makes talking in a vacuum only so helpful.  For this particular point, I go to the Dragon Quest (and other systems) route of having an explicit "fighting withdrawal" action that still allows an attack at reduced odds, single movement, and improved defense.  Or you can "dodge" which is even more defense and make single move.  Or you can run for it, and take your chances with the free shots you give your opponents. 

The argument against those options in WotC D&D would be that no one would use those maneuvers, which I mainly agree with.  Because the way attacks and hit points work in those versions, and the related issues of focus fire above all else, means that you are better off taking your normal attacks or running for it and taking your chances.  In my system, there are other aspects that discourage focus fire, and given the relative values of attacks and defenses, a fighting withdrawal is sufficient sometimes to discourage someone from following you.  Sure it takes at least 2 actions to get away doing that.  However, it also takes actions for many characters to reload a bow or prepare a spell, to shoot or cast later.  So there are times when a withdrawal is a better choice than others. 

That is, in general the answer to making combat more mobile is to first ask why anyone would want to move, and then see if the game makes that reasonable.

Quote from: David Johansen on December 23, 2023, 11:09:32 PM
It's something TFT and GURPS do quite well.  Really it's a theatre of the mind verses map based play issue.  A battle line is much easier to track with theater of the mind and dynamic tactics are quite difficult and usually work with some kind of boost or dice pool based on tactical skill rating rather than actually rewarding tactics.  It's a bit like my Star Trek technology rule: if the player makes the roll whatever technobabble they spouted works.

Fourth edition D&D did a lot with pushing, pulling, and shifting opponents which is another way to go about it.

That being said, shield walls and battle lines are very much what classic D&D is designed to represent and reward.  In first edtion a level 0 soldier can fight in two ranks effectively.  The free attack on fleeing foes also makes standing in ranks desirable as you can safely withdraw.  In D&D fifth edition you have to be fourth level before you get that feat.  The average soldier appears to be 2HD though there are many generic npcs that indicate that 4th level is about first level in first edition when it comes to fighting ability.  Magic is the other way with first level magic-users being at least as good as two or three third or fourth level magic-users.

Some of the fifth edition Rogue and Monk abilities do make for more dynamic movement in combat.  Being able to disengage and move is crucial since moving out of melee provokes a free attack.

I have to admit, that I was going to mention 4th Edition, and the movements it had.  It was very grid based, though.