Quote from: gleichman;533077My first D&D session used a chess board and some plastic knights we had from an old toy set. Battle maps and mins weren't availble yet although that quickly changed.

I originally used graph paper (1/4" and 1/2") and small Legos for markers.

Quote from: gleichman;533077This seems to be the case with most of the members of this site. One-dimensional combats (forward/reverse) or limited to very small numbers of characters and a GM and players willing to ignore the rules and just have things go the way they want them to.

If people enjoy one-dimensional combats or combats with limited tactical details, I'm fine with that.  Given that I found Wizardry entertaining in High School and college, there must have been something enjoyable about it, though I'm at a loss to remember what it was.

Quote from: gleichman;533077The course of this thread would have been very different say 10 or 15 years ago.

I do wonder if the people most interested in tactical combat have migrated to MMORPGs, first person shooters, and other online games that are all about representing the tactical situation of characters.

Quote from: gleichman;533077This seems to be the case with most of the members of this site. One-dimensional combats (forward/reverse) or limited to very small numbers of characters and a GM and players willing to ignore the rules and just have things go the way they want them to.

For simple combats I'll eyeball it - for more complex encounters, out comes the tape measure and the protractor.

Grids are for pussies.

Quote from: gleichman;533080That sort of thing would cause me a real problem as a player because normal humans shouldn't have a Strength at that level. It would unhinge my ability to make sense of his world unless I started to treat it like a cartoon where normal men hurl cars whenever they want to.

That GM is a die-hard comic book fan so he tends to think in terms of superheroes with superhuman abilities and we were playing a superhero game.  I tend to think in terms of humans with special abilities.  Maybe if I told him to start with Normal Characteristic Maxima and build from there, the results would be closer to what I'd build myself.  Basically, if I don't communicate something to the person creating my character and an assumption is left unspoken, the other person can make different assumptions.  I generally don't have a lot of interest in playing characters that can hurl cars.

Quote from: gleichman;533080It's all good if the GM signs off on it. And it doesn't appear that he's a very demanding sort.

The GMs in my group try to work with what the players want to play, but will tell the player if the concept doesn't fit.  That GM tended to run Hudson City a lot like a sandbox, with a lot of things going on and the players getting to pick what interested their characters to pursue.  I really liked that sort of game but it has more in common with episodic television or comic books than epic literature, which requires a lot more unity of theme.

Quote from: John Morrow;533082If people enjoy one-dimensional combats or combats with limited tactical details, I'm fine with that.

I'd be fine with it too if they weren't pushing it on game design as a requirement.

First HERO removes grid and mini supports and now they are calling for D&D to do the same. They're killing the table top hobby because they are too lazy to kept doing what they've claim they've always been doing- ignoring the rules.

Quote from: John Morrow;533082I do wonder if the people most interested in tactical combat have migrated to MMORPGs, first person shooters, and other online games that are all about representing the tactical situation of characters.

Perhaps, but few of those games actually offer a true tactical experience, although some do. And unlike table-top games, one doesn't own them. You're at the mercy of the developer's whims. You might log on one day to find your class gone from the game.

I think the cause is more cultural than that myself.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;533085For simple combats I'll eyeball it - for more complex encounters, out comes the tape measure and the protractor.

Grids are for pussies.

I like sand tables myself, but the overhead was too much for me.

In complex terrain, a tape measure and protractor (or templates) work fine.

Quote from: gleichman;533087First HERO removes grid and mini supports and now they are calling for D&D to do the same. They're killing the table top hobby because they are too lazy to kept doing what they've claim they've always been doing- ignoring the rules.

It's a lot easier to ignore what's there than to add what's not there.  I think the problem is that D&D 3.5e and 4e tied too many character abilities to the grid so that it was very difficult to ignore, leading those who couldn't ignore it to want to eliminate it.  The solution is to going back to making it easier to ignore the grid if the GM so chooses, not to eliminate it from the rules.  I was not aware that Champions 6th Edition removed the hex map.  Now that I know that, I'm even less interested in buying it.

Quote from: gleichman;533087I think the cause is more cultural than that myself.

That, too.

I'd prefer no minis - though I'd draw a sketch for a big battle. Just because its easier, admittedly.

Just to try to give give gleichman some seizures though, I'd like to point out that minis - even with an exact positioning system - are going to give you unrealistic results unless you have a turn-based action system that basically lets everyone move and act realistically.

Not sure about Hero, but by way of example in 3E/4E D&D for example you're tracking movement in 5' squares to determine opportunity attacks etc, with fighters who can instantly zoom 30ft on their turn.

Quote from: gleichman;533038The GM is as bound by the rules as the players. He can't handwave away blocking terrain or alter distances at his whim.

Any GM willing to do so is not worthy of the title and responsiblity granted him.

Not everyone is after simulated realism when playing an RPG.  I have noticed though that any other game (Milton Bradley, Parker Bros, Jumbo, Wizk!ds, Hoyle, etc) will be played by its written rules.  But for an RPG, players all of a sudden don't play by the rules.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;533095Not everyone is after simulated realism when playing an RPG.  I have noticed though that any other game (Milton Bradley, Parker Bros, Jumbo, Wizk!ds, Hoyle, etc) will be played by its written rules.  But for an RPG, players all of a sudden don't play by the rules.

Perhaps because they are competitive games, rather then cooperative, as RPGs are? Comparing RPGs to other games in regard of keeping to the rules is RPG Fallacy #2, straight after "RPGs as technology" one.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533096Perhaps because they are competitive games, rather then cooperative, as RPGs are? Comparing RPGs to other games in regard of keeping to the rules is RPG Fallacy #2, straight after "RPGs as technology" one.

If rules don't matter in an RPG, then why all the fuss about which RPG game has better rules or not?  

Quote from: gleichman;533087I'd be fine with it too if they weren't pushing it on game design as a requirement.

First HERO removes grid and mini supports and now they are calling for D&D to do the same. They're killing the table top hobby because they are too lazy to kept doing what they've claim they've always been doing- ignoring the rules.




Perhaps, but few of those games actually offer a true tactical experience, although some do. And unlike table-top games, one doesn't own them. You're at the mercy of the developer's whims. You might log on one day to find your class gone from the game.

I think the cause is more cultural than that myself.

You need to go back to playing wargames.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;533098If rules don't matter in an RPG, then why all the fuss about which RPG game has better rules or not?  

I don't care about such fuss. I play RPG whose level of abstraction is most fitting for my needs at a given moment. There is however a difference between "fuss about rules" and "rules that make a game unplayable".

As of the nature of the thread, honestly - so far, the biggest reason for lack of GURPS/HERO's unpopularity may be the fact, that were I to announce such a game, the likes of Kewlman would perhaps try getting to my table.

Quote from: Rincewind1;533105There is however a difference between "fuss about rules" and "rules that make a game unplayable".

I'm guessing that RPGs that have "rules that make a game unplayable" don't get much coverage on forums.  Or do people fuss over those RPGs as well?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;533092Just to try to give give gleichman some seizures though, I'd like to point out that minis - even with an exact positioning system - are going to give you unrealistic results unless you have a turn-based action system that basically lets everyone move and act realistically.

Complete realism isn't the goal, and may not be desired at all.

Instead the goal is an objective resolution according to the game's rules. If range (and/or position) has an effect, it should be determined to the level of abstraction contained in the rules.

Quote from: 1989;533104You need to go back to playing wargames.

Sorry, I like table top RPGs.

Although wargames are cool too to kill some time.