That is, where you create the idea of abstract "zones", either literally termed that way or just generic "point blank-pretty close-medium-far away-hugely far" kind of ranges; so that instead of saying "a gun's range is 600m, so if I'm 601m that means I can fire at the guy but he can't fire at me" or "I move 30ft per round, quintuple for running because i have the good running feat, then I can move diagonally at one-half running speed for half an action, and I have to reduce speed for obstacles so I move 109ft this round", you can just say "i shoot the motherfucker (at medium range)" or "I move to the next closer zone".
Do you like this innovation (I use that term loosely, because I've basically been using that for ages now, and suspect others have as well)? Do you hate it? Why?
RPGPundit
Traveller's done that since day 1.
It's pretty good for narrative play with scale shifts where a battle cruiser's close range isn't the same as a peashooter's.
I don't particularly "hate" it. I just don't see much of a point to yet another abstraction of that type when plain distances work fine the way they are. It's just a matter of not getting anal about them in actual play.
I like it because it lets me strike a middle ground between precise miniatures play and no miniatures. Without miniatures, some of my players tend to get confused about spatial relations and "teleport" themselves wherever the action is. But full-on minis play is frequently too slow for me. So for very fast, non-tactical games, I think it's a good fit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;429917Do you like this innovation (I use that term loosely, because I've basically been using that for ages now, and suspect others have as well)? Do you hate it? Why?
My main concern with it is that unless it's a representative abstraction, it's going to suffer from the same problem that all non-representative abstractions suffer from, which is that it will break down if it gets used outside of the range of situations where the non-representative abstraction is designed to work. Specifically, what happens when many combatants are engaging each other and coming to the aid of each other in a single combat? Yes, it's easy to say I'm "medium range" from a single target but how does one keep track of the range to all possible combatants without keeping track of more exact positions or running the risk of the various ranges not all being possible to represent or visualize in real space?
The main reason why my group uses hex or grid maps and movement rules is that we frequently have combats with many combatants vs. many combatants with people switching who they are fighting or coming to each other's aid (which makes both time and space important) and trying to handle that in the abstract seems like it would be even more confusing than just using a hex or grid map.
I'm split. I like them some of the time... for example the D20 Starwars game used something similar to resolve chases, and I've seen it well used for other chase mechanics in other games, vehicular or otherwise.
As a replacement for real measurements I find it can actually get in the way. Some players, myself included, don't want to be told I'm 'sorta close' to the other guy, I want to hear that I'm thirty meters.
The problems with direct measurements can be, yes, anal players trying to game the margin for error and more likely game designers failing to actually think about what those distances represent. Seriously, I don't think you could sell a game designer on five foot squares for D&D if you took the design team and actually STOOD them in five foot squares. At the very least it would have forced them to consider less than marginal cases where people really want to crowd in a lot closer...
Seriously: A lot of games seem to use real measurements in abstract ways and that irritates. On the other hand, full on OCD Gurps (a la third edition at least) made it almost impossible to 'roll through' 'combat' because it focused TOO MUCH on distances, and the modifiers for even reasonable distances broke the dice curve into little pieces.
So...yeah. Everything has its place.
Quote from: David Johansen;429918Traveller's done that since day 1.
It also appeared in the
Star Wars Introductory Adventure Game where it has worked very well. I think that is where it functions best, in introductory games to get new gamers started in the hobby.
I like it, because guns and such don't really have exact ranges, bullets go until they run out of applied energy behind them. Sure they get inaccurate, but that's taken into account with major penalties in most games.
People also don't all run an exact speed, even when their life is in danger. Better to be vague and let it make game sense. Not worry about specific meters and feet.
Quote from: John Morrow;429968Specifically, what happens when many combatants are engaging each other and coming to the aid of each other in a single combat? Yes, it's easy to say I'm "medium range" from a single target but how does one keep track of the range to all possible combatants without keeping track of more exact positions or running the risk of the various ranges not all being possible to represent or visualize in real space?
This is where WFRP3 falls on it's face. Take a standard type of encounter - PC's in the center, bad guys all around in an ambush/bushwhack attack. WFRP3's range system combines the worst of both systems. It uses miniatures in play, has a set system for movement but that movement is between abstract zones, not any defined distance. It's a useless mess.
Now abstract ranges are great for chases, there you have the chased, and the chasers who are presumably behind. It's easy to measure distances this way when everyone is in a line. For regular play, I just use minis and map, if it gets down to life or death situation involving diagonals I'll just err on the side of the characters.
TSR's Marvel Super Heroes used loosely defined "areas" for measurements. The maximum size topped out at 44 yards in wide-open space, if memory serves me right, but could be any size under that, especially in a cramped urban setting. Most characters had a movement rate of 2-3 areas per round and all powers and weapons had ranges defined by a certain number of areas. It worked well for supers action.
Quote from: CRKrueger;430020Now abstract ranges are great for chases, there you have the chased, and the chasers who are presumably behind.
A good chase system, especially one that accomodates a wide range of transport modes, must include abstract ranges. My favourite remains the James Bond RPG, and I keep trying to adapt it to whatever game I'm running. It continues to amaze me how many games that should know better keep presenting chases as an afterthought to the combat system.
Loosey-goosey range bands are generally preferable to me over grids. However, you have to be able to accommodate loosey-goosey movement rules, and abandon strict time frames for combat and movement rounds. You have to be comfortable with the idea that some players in a particular moment are going to want to do something that would take a long time, while several will want to do things that would take a short time. You need a method to adjudicate that fairly.
You don't need new rules for it. Just some mean for keeping track of what would likely happen when. Then resolve it in order. Some guy in the bunch will think it unfair that the guy at the bottom of the stairs can get several shots off as he's running up two flights, even though it's the same bit of game time. But it seems to me to be something folks get used to after a while.
Yeah, its widely preferable to me to use abstract measures of distance than to have to figure out movement, range, etc. which often requires the use of minis to adjudicate.
RPGPundit
i didn't "get" the abstracts at first, back when i played B/E & ad&d. then i was pretty much a straight range numbers guy. (also didn't really grok MSH's areas). but then when i started reffing classic/megatraveller, suddenly it just made sense. much easier all around.
I think these can be very useful. I don't use them all the time, and it really depends on the needs of the campaign and the moment being played out.
I hate minis, so abstract zone distances are a must. If the game mentions actual distance, I'll ignore it and just handwave it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;430020This is where WFRP3 falls on it's face. Take a standard type of encounter - PC's in the center, bad guys all around in an ambush/bushwhack attack. WFRP3's range system combines the worst of both systems. It uses miniatures in play, has a set system for movement but that movement is between abstract zones, not any defined distance. It's a useless mess.
.
Not to say your playing it wrong but.....
The system works great. The problem you are seeming to have, which is unfortunately a simple enough problem to have is that you are still trying to play the encounters out like a traditional mini-based setup. While you can do that, it's not how it's really supposed to work.
The mini's are there to just show relevant ranges of groups of encounters. Not to be spread out over a battle map. If the monster is long range from the group it's at the long range grouping with every other opponent. It's simple and elegant. Where it does get messed up is if you are trying to run a tactical based game with miniatures and still working about range and specific ranges between every monster and variable positioning and all that crap.
You can do it, but it's far more complicated and servers little purpose when everything else in the game is more narrative and abstracted. It's designed kind of around old school play of saying you are here the monsters are about there and it'll take you 2 rounds to get to them, 1 if you push it.
Quote from: Esgaldil;430033A good chase system, especially one that accomodates a wide range of transport modes, must include abstract ranges. My favourite remains the James Bond RPG, and I keep trying to adapt it to whatever game I'm running. It continues to amaze me how many games that should know better keep presenting chases as an afterthought to the combat system.
Totally agree and I also steal it for use with chases in any games I run.
I do agree where there are some circumstances that would demand more accurate range-coverage; they just come up so rarely for me that I don't see the point, really.
RPGPundit
I use this abstract way of determining range all the time.
In the past I used to determine range more accurately, but it always ended up being more hassle than it was worth in the end.
Quote from: kryyst;430244The mini's are there to just show relevant ranges of groups of encounters. Not to be spread out over a battle map.
I guess narrative encounters means you'll never get ambushed along a road with 4 archers who aren't all travelling together. ;p
Archers ABCD, Melee 1234. 1234 are there to engage melee and cover archers, ABCD are there to pincushion the group/carriage/whatever. Basic bandits not being idiots. (Had to include periods to get spacing to show up.)
A...............................................................B
1...............................................................2
----------------Party on Road------------------
3...............................................................4
C...............................................................D
If the party wants to spread out to attack the archers, then I have a myriad of relative range zones I have to freeball and keep track of with friggin counters instead of looking at a map and getting it right within a square or two.
I guess it comes down to whether you're playing a pulp version of Warhammer where Big Damn Heroes stomp the baddies or a gritty Warhammer where some tactics actually matter.
WFRP3 has some cool aspects to it, but by and large it just makes me want to shout "KEEP YOUR FUCKING STORYGAMES OUT OF MY RPGS!"
Quote from: CRKrueger;430654I guess narrative encounters means you'll never get ambushed along a road with 4 archers who aren't all travelling together. ;p
Archers ABCD, Melee 1234. 1234 are there to engage melee and cover archers, ABCD are there to pincushion the group/carriage/whatever. Basic bandits not being idiots. (Had to include periods to get spacing to show up.)
A...............................................................B
1...............................................................2
----------------Party on Road------------------
3...............................................................4
C...............................................................D
If the party wants to spread out to attack the archers, then I have a myriad of relative range zones I have to freeball and keep track of with friggin counters instead of looking at a map and getting it right within a square or two.
I guess it comes down to whether you're playing a pulp version of Warhammer where Big Damn Heroes stomp the baddies or a gritty Warhammer where some tactics actually matter.
WFRP3 has some cool aspects to it, but by and large it just makes me want to shout "KEEP YOUR FUCKING STORYGAMES OUT OF MY RPGS!"
Yeah pretty standard - but just in doing that you've already setup your 4 encounter areas, 5 if you include some people probably battling it out in the middle. The party is probably medium range from any of the 4 groups and from the looks of it each of the 4 groups is probably long or extreme range from each other.
Pretty simple. To make it more interesting allow players and NPC's to gain bonus from cover in trees, using a cart for cover, the muddy terrain on the road hinders charges and makes dodging difficult. Perhaps the archers have lined the sides of road with tar and set it ablaze the first moment the PC's charge.
There is so much more to tactics then figuring out how to move/shift on a battle grid to gain the maximum mount of ground and to avoid attacks of opportunity while using making sure you are 3 squares over to the left so that you are at the exact specific range limit to make the other archers shot harder blah, blah, blah.
I mean that's all well and good if you want to play a tactical war game. But if that's your goal there are far better products to do that with then RPG's in the first place.
I only use defined distances in 4e or minis wargames. Everything else I do on the abstract, even if I am using minis for positional representation.