Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544530it depends on the test. I must admit I doubt your ability to test fairly or accurately on this subject.

It's simple.


I describe the current state (i.e. position) at the beginning of a combat round for a game that uses range and line of sight rules (i.e. D&D in all in flavors and many others beside).

From there I describe the positions in what is mostly relative terms.

Example:

- PC Bob is at the center of the combat area, North is defined so that the directions in terms of angles can be given...

- Orc A is 45' away at an angle of 40 degrees from PC Bob.

- PC Tom is 50' south of PC Bob, at an angle of 170 degrees

- Orc B is 75' due west of Orc C

- A 4 meter diameter boulder 2 meters in height lies 20' to the west of PC Bob at an angle of 310 degrees. The 20' distance mark is the center of the boulder.


From there I ask some basic questions that can be answered nearly instantly with maps and minis- you attempt to answer nearly instantly without the use of maps and minis (no more than a few seconds per question). The answer must be accuracte (i.e. to the closest degree and meter) and complete.

Then I tell you how some of the PCs and Orcs move, and give another set of questions to be answered again.

The last time I offered this test here, no one would take it.

Quote from: beejazz;544531Movement ranges work out to about what they would be in 3x. There's little specific granularity in weapon ranges, but the rules in this case are more for resolving combats than for simulating them. The decisions available to players approximate the decisions available to characters and the results approximate the likely outcome of the engagement, and that's really all most people are looking for in a game.

The correct statement is 'that's really all some people are looking for in a game"

...and that's assuming you've describe the outcome of your rules correctly- I find that designers seldom are capable of that feat. But free feel to email the rules in question and I'll let you know.

Edit: Actually don't bother, you've already admitted it's not a simulation- and that's all I want.

Quote from: gleichman;544539-

The last time I offered this test here, no one would take it.

I can see why. It is designed so the person fails and framed in language that will not result in accuracy.

Quote from: gleichman;544539It's simple.


I describe the current state (i.e. position) at the beginning of a combat round for a game that uses range and line of sight rules (i.e. D&D in all in flavors and many others beside).

From there I describe the positions in what is mostly relative terms.

Example:

- PC Bob is at the center of the combat area, North is defined so that the directions in terms of angles can be given...

- Orc A is 45' away at an angle of 40 degrees from PC Bob.

- PC Tom is 50' south of PC Bob, at an angle of 170 degrees

- Orc B is 75' due west of Orc C

- A 4 meter diameter boulder 2 meters in height lies 20' to the west of PC Bob at an angle of 310 degrees. The 20' distance mark is the center of the boulder.


From there I ask some basic questions that can be answered nearly instantly with maps and minis- you attempt to answer nearly instantly without the use of maps and minis (no more than a few seconds per question). The answer must be accuracte (i.e. to the closest degree and meter) and complete.

Then I tell you how some of the PCs and Orcs move, and give another set of questions to be answered again.

The last time I offered this test here, no one would take it.

The specificity of the measurements and angles here tells me you haven't played many games where description was the norm.

Usually, games I've seen that use description use landmarks and regions, and describe direction based roughly on a "left/right/forward/backward from the door you came in" sort of way. Most actions amount to moving towards or away from a landmark or enemy, or firing on an enemy or object, none of which calls for much back-and-forth.

Personally I use sketches if things are going to get at all complicated, but minis hardly seem necessary to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544543I can see why. It is designed so the person fails and framed in language that will not result in accuracy.

It done in game terms- range in meters (i.e. HERO and I believe GURPS uses those as well).

Quote from: gleichman;544539The last time I offered this test here, no one would take it.

Because it's a total waste of time, since that's not how it works when you play without miniatures. Have you ever played a RPG without them, honestly?

Here's how it goes:

DM: You are entering a large square room. Perhaps 50 feet on a side. Each side of the square has an opening/door in the middle of it. You reach the room through one of them, on the south wall. There is a 10-foot pit in the middle of the room. A hooded figure is praying close to it surrounded by some worshippers, all humanoids it seems, but all wearing black hoods. They are humming slowly and don't seem to have noticed you.
Player 1: how far are we from them again?
DM: You'd say about 20 feet. It's dark in the room, and they are all looking at the pit in the center of the room right now, which probably explains why they didn't spot you.
Player 1 (turning to the others): we could rush to them and take them on quickly. We'd have surprise at least. We can cover that distance in a few seconds.
Wizard player (to DM): How spaced are they? Are they all in a group around the pit, or spread out in the room beyond or what?
DM: The former. You'd say that they're spreading 5 or so feet around the pit in all directions, all pretty close to the edge.
Wizard player (to the other players): I could fireball them.
Player 1: Are you crazy?! That's going to be visible in all directions, not to mention, you might actually cook us all too!

Etc.

That's how it works. You provide the information as DM. The Players ask questions and strategize. If you need to, you can make a drawing on a blank sheet of paper. It's not rocket science really.

Quote from: gleichman;544540The correct statement is 'that's really all some people are looking for in a game"

...and that's assuming you've describe the outcome of your rules correctly- I find that designers seldom are capable of that feat. But free feel to email the rules in question and I'll let you know.

It's less a complete set of rules and more just house rules for 3x. The outcome is pretty much unchanged from grid-based play.

I intend to extend these movement rules to a more complete game at some point, but I intend to fully playtest when things get more complete. I'll make sure and send you a copy of the playtest rules when they're ready. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts and check the chatlog from any sessions you happen to run.

QuoteEdit: Actually don't bother, you've already admitted it's not a simulation- and that's all I want.

I've found few players are interested in precise simulation. There are better media for that than a turn-based game, IMO.

Quote from: beejazz;544544The specificity of the measurements and angles here tells me you haven't played many games where description was the norm.

Usually, games I've seen that use description use landmarks and regions, and describe direction based roughly on a "left/right/forward/backward from the door you came in" sort of way. Most actions amount to moving towards or away from a landmark or enemy, or firing on an enemy or object, none of which calls for much back-and-forth.

Personally I use sketches if things are going to get at all complicated, but minis hardly seem necessary to me.

This is the key. I will admit gleichman is right you are not going to get the kind of granularity and precision that a map offers by going freeform. But it is a question of being able to yield good enough approximate results using things like landmarks like you describe above. And over time it becomes quite consistent in my experience (it is fundamentally an issue of gm and players being able to communicate these things to one another). It is also fairly common for the gm himself to use a map (for example hex paper with character positions tracked by pencil) but for the pcs to go purely by his description. This produces a bit more accuracy.

Quote from: gleichman;544546It done in game terms- range in meters (i.e. HERO and I believe GURPS uses those as well).

As others have pointed out, this isn't how people describe things sans battle map in actual play. See benoist's post for example. Things tend to be oriented around clear landmarks.

Benoist got it with his example.

Quote from: beejazz;544544The specificity of the measurements and angles here tells me you haven't played many games where description was the norm.

I won't play in games where it's the norm, although I have observed them.

And yes, you are correct. Typically they lack even the most basic information (such as range) to correctly use the rules they'd declared as their game. They are in fact, free form.

Hence, it's all about asking the GM "Am I in range to do x" (i.e. mother, may I make an attack from here).

Sloppy, ruins simulation and slows the game down besides if any player should have the backbone to point out clear errors in the DM descriptions and rulings.

My point is that anyone who has already given up that much of objective information is likely more willing to accept any degree of 'mother my i' resolution in their games. They're already bought into it nearly completely anyway- so much so that they are actually incapable of noticing it.

Those who value real simulation in the rpgs however are going to object to mechanics and methods like this.


ADDED: In addition, I should not that dungeons are more accepting of free form due to the intense constrints on movement. A 10' hallway for example allows for little variance. Those only playing in this style start to see the world in terms of only one dimension. And combat in one dimension can be dealt with without a map.

For those who have long abandon dungeon crawling, the matter is more complete to say the least.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544549This is the key. I will admit gleichman is right you are not going to get the kind of granularity and precision that a map offers by going freeform. But it is a question of being able to yield good enough approximate results using things like landmarks like you describe above. And over time it becomes quite consistent in my experience (it is fundamentally an issue of gm and players being able to communicate these things to one another). It is also fairly common for the gm himself to use a map (for example hex paper with character positions tracked by pencil) but for the pcs to go purely by his description. This produces a bit more accuracy.

There's a player side to this as well, Benoist describes players asking how far apart the orcs are, where mine would probably ask a more results-oriented question like "how many can we hit" or "do we risk cooking ourselves?"

I don't think too many people care whether the orcs are 5 or 10 feet apart if they can get that kind of information. YMMV and all that.

Quote from: Benoist;544547That's how it works. You provide the information as DM. The Players ask questions and strategize. If you need to, you can make a drawing on a blank sheet of paper. It's not rocket science really.

this happens a lot. One measure of how well a gm describes dungeons for example is ti check his players maps after exploration. If they pretty much match your gm notes, you know you are communicating things clearly. If they are off you work to improve.

Quote from: gleichman;544554My point is that anyone who has already given up that much of objective information is likely more willing to accept any degree of 'mother my i' resolution in their games.

It's called "talking to each other," you moron.

'Real simulation' is the realm for people who have no social skills whatsoever.

PCs don't tend to have caliper eyes or tape-measure/protractor beams coming from their heads - anymore than you or i do.