Hi folks!

There´s a growing tendency in mainstream gaming, as well as in my own gaming, to use FlipMats, Dungeon Tiles, Counters and Miniatures.
There´s nothing wrong with it. I dig miniatures, I love my Dungeon Tiles, and I´ll keep using them. They have their advantages. This thread is not about them.

BUT:
When reading the Saga Edition, my resentment against it stems mainly form the fact, that I can´t wrap my head around using discreet movement and AOOs for Star Wars. I know it´s my fault, and I don´t want to discuss the merits & flaws of these D20 principles.
At all.

My thoughts wandered off, and I remembered all the ultra fast paced combats we had with Star Wars D6, Traveller and MechWarrior 2nd or even HarnMaster, without a Battlemat, and oftentimes even without a quick drawing.

Now, as a discussion starter:

Why didn´t we miss anything back then?
What techniques are used, to make abstraction of location in combat playable?
Which of these techniques are worthy of preservation and documentation?
Which things do I really trade in, when I chose to use or not to use a movement grid?

I have some ideas and preconceptions,  but I would love to hear your ramblings first.

I use only abstract combat, because my players have no interest in the game-within-a-game that is miniatures-based combat. I was writing a bunch of stuff about this, then my Firefox crashed and I lost it all. So now I'm tired and cranky, so I'm gonna think and sleep more about it and get back to you.

Seriously.

I´d greatly appreciate if you re-do your entry.

(re-did?)

I think we didn't miss much because we had little to compare it to, gaming-wise. Speaking for myself, we had started using minis and battlemats long before d20 was released, because we were tired of ADnD fights turning into blow-trading and debates about whether the orc could've made it all the way from where he was to where the wizard was before the wiz got off his hold spell, or whether the thief got caught in the cleric's flamestrike. Don't get me wrong, we would abide by the DM's ruling on such matters, but that didn't prevent us from debating said matters anyway D20 combat for us has ended up being, most times, actually quicker than the old days just because we all know what's going on tactically. We wouldn't trade our minis and mats for anything anymore.

I agree with Sigmund.  In abstract games, without a clear division of authority between GM and players, they end up devolving quite a bit into "he can/he can't" arguements.

We used minis in AD&D, but it was hard, as you had to bust out the ruler to measure distance.  I like how standardized minis/combat rules are now.

There's an interesting system which is both abstract and crunchy in Burning Wheel Revised.

Other than that, I think a system that works OK and isn't quite freeform is to make people roll Strength/Athletics/Get Your Move On when they want to do a move-type thing that might be resisted by another entity in the game, like charging between two goblins to climb the horrid face and get to the gems...normally the running isn't a roll, the climbing is, and the goblins are either ignored or the GM says 'you can't do that'. D&D3 has good ways of dealing with this but they rely on minis. Another way, as I said, is that if you're playing abstractly, and you as GM feel that the field is crowded and a certain movement action is problematic, you have the person trying it roll: if they fail the action stops there, if they succeed it's on to the next part of what they're doing.

I never used miniatures in AD&D1st (starting for me in 78), and in indeed, throughout the entire 1990s, no matter what system. By the time I was in college I was one of those who (along with everyone else) sneered at the idea of a 'top down' viewpoint into a tactical scene. I think there are still posts by me on the Gaming Outpost doing that, in fact*.  But anyhow, even in the earliest days we never ever used any kind of marker except as an abstract "marching order" that was never touched. I don't think we even played around a table back then-- often just sort of lounging around a living room or whatever.

 When I first picked up a couple of Reaper minis in 2001 I was amazed at the utility. I'm not sure if I could go back, really.

I mean, I guess I could.

(*Although I had a girlfriend who was into collecting and painting miniatures around 1990, and I learned how to paint and drybrush back then)..

I first started playing with minis. Borrowed minis, mind you, but minis.

Since I don't have anyone to mooch off of (I'm running the games nowadays) I generally just use graph paper and quick sketches. Has a nice effect of "trashing the room" what with all the eraser marks, and my tendency to ad-hoc collateral damage.

Quote from: CalithenaThere's an interesting system which is both abstract and crunchy in Burning Wheel Revised.

Exactly. That a system is abstract doesn't mean there are no rules.

I like a lot abstract weapon range systems, like the ones in Burning Wheel Revised, The Riddle of Steel and Ars Magica 4th.

I'm not a fan of using rules for minis. They might be cool, but they're not for me.

I don't particularly like minis, due to a multitude of reasons. I don't want to paint them, I don't want to draw battle maps, there's hardly enough space on the table and it takes away the focus from pure imagination. With games like D&D, I sometimes get over that, as the rules don't really focus on simulation that much. As the strategic choices are about positioning _a lot_, using a map seems the right way to do. For the simpler stuff, I usually get by with free form object placement ("So, if you're this eraser and the pizza box is the Wall of Fire...")

With other games, fighting isn't as concerned with positioning, so I can get by fine without maps. That doesn't neccesarily mean they're simpler, they just focus on different things.

I also kinda liked maneuver rolls to abstract positioning. RoleMaste and Torg come to mind, and I think that Riddle of Steel had something similar. I never really liked the way Burning Wheel handled it, turning positioning into a whole parallel activity. It just didn't "flow" enough during my test combats.

We used minis as soon as they became available... but we never used a measuring system (we never painted them, either--I still think most minis look better as is). We did use dungeon tiles extensively, when those became available in the later 80s.

Even for Call of Cthulhu. Seriously, Citadel had an awesome range of investigators and monsters (Shoggoth, Dark Young...), and there were horror-themed cardboard tiles that are better than anything on the market now.

So, combat accoutrements yes: but for dramatic focus, not for tactical minigames. It's messy of course, but I still prefer that set-up to the extreme poles of battlemat on one hand, nothing at all on the other.

Wow, nobody's mentioned Spirit of the Century yet. SoTC divides environments into Zones. The zones are defined by the GM and affect movement - covering multiple zones at once requires the player to roll. In addition, zones can have borders that reduce the character's effectiveness when crossed. The cool thing about them is some things that might traditionally might be statted out as monsters or creatures can be treated as borders for zones. For example, an alligator filled moat - high border rating. A press of zombies just outside the entrance to the mall
 - high border rating. I really like the way that the zones and borders work together.

While not a pulp fan, I have to admit: that zone thing does sound spot on for the genre, and like a lot of fun to boot.

While it suffers from several weaknesses, 7th Sea has interesting movement rules which go into the direction that you might seek.

You use a freeform map without grids; the only thing that get's distinguished are height levels. So, the floor might be lvl1, the stairways and the tables are lvl2, the balustrade and the chandelier are lvl3...
As long as you stay on the same level, movement is for free. Only if you change the height level it costs you an action.


What is told here about SotC sounds similar, but I haven't read it myself so I can't tell that for sure.

Quote from: SkyrockWhat is told here about SotC sounds similar, but I haven't read it myself so I can't tell that for sure.

I think the biggest difference with Spirit of the Century and most other games that have abstracted movement are the borders. It's basically a penalty, up front, the character takes (borders are automatic stress the character takes when crossing them - kind of like taking damage, but not quite). In many games - particularly simulationist ones - the alligators in the moat would be statted out individually, or the concertina wire would have some kind of stats.  In SoTC, unless you are creative or know the right stunts, moving across the border results in (basically) automatic damage. When you think of the genre - fighting through the hordes of temple guards to stand in front of the high priestess, bloody and bruised from the fight - it makes sense. You could use the minion rules for the temple guards, but if even that is more than what the GM and the players want you just set up the zones between the PCs and the high priestess and use a border value to represent the guards.

Also, I can see an environment naturally breaking down into zones. You can probably look at a map of an area and say, "Here's a zone where that fence is...that hill would be a zone, the roadway would make up one side of this zone".