Play Example: RAL

[Ice9]

Those numbers should be public knowledge, it makes tactical choices deeper.

See what their friends are planning - probably. See what their enemies are planning? Well, maybe for someone swinging back a giant club, or a mage charging his hands with thunder, but what about the sneaky ones, eh?

The whole point of most "sneaky guy" maneuvers is that the target doesn't see them coming. Hell, quite possible the person who's doing the action is invisible/hidden from everybody before they strike. In fact, any maneuver can fall into that category if the person doing it is hidden.

And "keep the rolls secret and rely on the honor system" or "pretend like you didn't see them" is fail in a tactical combat system - where presumably, people actually do want to pit their wits against each-other, or else they would use MTP / super-lite rules to resolve things in 1/10 the time.

[eeuuugh]

See what their friends are planning - probably. See what their enemies are planning? Well, maybe for someone swinging back a giant club, or a mage charging his hands with thunder, but what about the sneaky ones, eh?

The whole point of most "sneaky guy" maneuvers is that the target doesn't see them coming. Hell, quite possible the person who's doing the action is invisible/hidden from everybody before they strike. In fact, any maneuver can fall into that category if the person doing it is hidden.

And "keep the rolls secret and rely on the honor system" or "pretend like you didn't see them" is fail in a tactical combat system - where presumably, people actually do want to pit their wits against each-other, or else they would use MTP / super-lite rules to resolve things in 1/10 the time.

You might see an enemy's roll, but that doesn't mean you know what's on their ability list.

If someone's hidden, you can either assume they're Focused, so they get to choose their WoF result; or the GM can roll their WoF at the beginning of the turn they act. Rolling early is just for convenience's sake.

[Grek]

That could seriously be a power that people get "Can hide WoF/Line rolls from the other side."

[Username17]

OK PL, this is the last time I am responding to you here, because it's pretty clear you are trolling. The basic options, while strictly inferior to advanced options that they are similar to, are very much not necessarily tactically useless.

Example 1: You are in a zone with an enemy. You want to stay in that zone. You want to kill that enemy. Therefore the basic Attack maneuver is 100% acceptable to your life goals. You might have an area attack or a powerful assault, or a marking withdraw come up, but none of that shit matters. Because in that circumstance what you actually want to do is to make a basic attack.

Example 2: You have line on an empty zone that the enemy has previously claimed. You're stuck, so what you're going to do is to advance into that zone and claim it back. It doesn't matter if you have some kind of killer attack or AoE fire option, you're going to assault an empty zone. So you're probably just going to use an Advance option.

And yes, the Berserker might have a superior version of Attack come up, and then do something like Flurry of Blows instead of Attack in Example 1. And the Scout might have something better than a simple move option come up in Example 2, and use Trail Blaze instead. But there are a lot of different basic maneuvers and characters don't have advanced versions of all of them. And there are reasons to use all the basics that can be compelling enough to make you use one instead of whatever super maneuvers you have available at the moment.

And if you continue to refuse to accept this explanation, it is because of you and not because of me. And I not only won't respond to you anymore on this thread, but I'll put you on ignore for a while and see if you calm the fuck down and stop trolling before I bother reading your posts again.

-Username17

[virgil]

This is the impression I'm getting from PL: much of the in-game tactical complexity is outside your control, largely decided by the WoF & line dice. This is even worse than having your actions be nullified by the whim of dice (attacks, saves, etc). It evokes the feeling that you could be replaced by a FFXII gambit program.

As it stands, the thing isn't complete yet, so it's hard for me to form a complete opinion about it. I am curious about more solid rules on the creation of new zones and its interaction with the line roll, especially when you get more/less than 6. And the whole thing needs a compilation of feature qualities that would interact with the RAL system to be that workable, which is heavily dependent on the attack/damage system itself.

[Murtak]

This is the impression I'm getting from PL: much of the in-game tactical complexity is outside your control, largely decided by the WoF & line dice. This is even worse than having your actions be nullified by the whim of dice (attacks, saves, etc). It evokes the feeling that you could be replaced by a FFXII gambit program.

But that's the entire point of the WoF system. I don't care for it myself. I would probably prefer even something as bad as vancian style casting instead. But that is just me. Others may actually like an abstracted ebb and flow of battle. And the mechanics do look like they work. Continuing to complain about the feel of WoF mechanics, in a thread about an entirely different system which merely happens to have WoF layered on top of it, just serves to derail the thread. We should be talking about the usefulness of claiming regions, not about dice rolls taking away our precious resource management.

[A Man In Black]

OK PL, this is the last time I am responding to you here, because it's pretty clear you are trolling. The basic options, while strictly inferior to advanced options that they are similar to, are very much not necessarily tactically useless.

There are two sets of moving parts here: the winds of fate and the abstract maneuvers system. I'm interested in this abstract maneuvers system, but trying to tease it out of the combination of the two is a headache and is leading to lots of distracting noise arguing about WOF.

What does this system look like with just the basic maneuvers, and how is it superior to a system that merely uses really large boxes?

[PhoneLobster]

Continuing to complain about the feel of WoF mechanics, in a thread about an entirely different system which merely happens to have WoF layered on top of it, just serves to derail the thread. We should be talking about the usefulness of claiming regions, not about dice rolls taking away our precious resource management.

Murtak, I KNOW you are a screaming imbecile who believes that his RNGs can "go to 130% Lolz!" but I will try and explain this in very slow words one more time for you.

The only significant observable difference between what aspects of this system have actually been discussed and big fat squares is the WoF and Line mechanics. That is it. Period.

It is still a "large fuzzy abstract space" system with a bunch of "fiddly exceptions thrown on top".

You SPECIFICALLY hated on things that did NOT have a specific high resolution positioning system in big fat squares. You hated on that aspect specifically, at length and with no apparent appealing to ANY form of reason on your part. But in this system, which lacks that same specific positioning you are oddly fine with it and go around kissing ass.

So seriously discussing the primary differences between this and big fat squares IS a big deal, certainly from my perspective.

But hey yeah SURE, cut out the line and the WoF talk, go ahead Murtak, tell us WTF it is that is so different about rest of the actual positioning and zone control system itself?

What is there here that ISN'T a big fat square style positioning system with exception based rules to implement things like zone control and grappling?

What about THESE incredibly similar looking exception based rules allows them to trump your rather petulant demands that a positioning system should not be allowed to use such rules from back in the big fat squares threads?

[Murtak]

But in this system, which lacks that same specific positioning you are oddly fine with it and go around kissing ass.

Goddamn it you little asswipe, get it already I don't like this system.

But it happens to be mechanically sound and it does not attempt to have positioning more exact than it's most exact positioning. Probably because that would be idiotic. Tellingly that is exactly what you tried to do when you tried to preserve mechanics that just don't fit with abstract positioning systems. The closest comparison I can find is Frank's "linked" mechanic vs your interpose mechanic. Both can be used to guard another character. You can link yourself to another character and wherever you are, you are next to that character. Note that the basic resolution, specifically "a character's position is determined by the zone he is in" is not violated. You however decided that the best way to handle this is to allow a character to be positioned relative to other characters, but within the same zone. And that is bullshit, because it violates the basic resolution that was the entire point of your big squares.

[violence in the media]

I think this idea is growing on me, as I like the aspect of being forced to make the best of what you're arbitrarily given.*

Having your tactical choices constrained is not the same thing as having them denied. If the GM throws an encounter at you that would be trivially easy if you had a Sleep spell available, but you cast your last one in the previous encounter, is that a denial of player agency?

Personally, I enjoy encounters where you're scraping the bottom of the metaphorical barrel for solutions because your high-caliber stuff is offline for whatever reason. It's just those encounters are incredibly few and far-between in regular D&D, and this system seems to generate those situations frequently as a feature.

A question with this system, since I need to roll for the zone I can target and the attack I can make, do I also need to roll some sort of attack roll? Or does my maneuver just work and relevant defenses might mitigate the effects?

*edit to add: I should clarify that this limitation is acceptible if it is arbitrarily decided and universally enforced. The dice telling me that I can't use my Charm right now is acceptible, the GM capriciously blocking it or fly-nerfing it is not.

[Username17]

So I think it is probably helpful to show how this turn would have played out had the players made worse choices. So we start like this:

Zone	features	Occupants	Claimed?
1 - 10	Trees (2, Generic) Stream (6)	Ahu Darcy Helen Kokor Heckus	Blue
2 - 19
3 - 13	Trees (2, Generic)
4 - 10	Trees (2, Generic)
5 - 16	Trees (2, Generic)	Goblin A Goblin B Goblin C	Red
6 - 13	Trees (2, Generic) Hill (4)	Ogre Goblin D Goblin E Goblin F	Red

The first thing that happens is Darcy decides to use his open line to snipe at the Ogre with some sort of Fire option. With his bow. Then Goblins A, B, and C advance to 1, 3, and 4 as before. Helen now gets a Line on 5 and has no Mark, so she attacks Goblin A, doing it some damage. Ahu gets a Frenzied Assault possibility, but only has Line on 3, and in any case would be crossfired for doing that. So Ahu is also stuck in place and makes an attack on Goblin A, finishing it off. Goblins D, E, and F act, one of them shoots a bow at one of the PCs and Goblin E and F advance into 1 and 2. The entire battlefield is now Red controlled except 1, which is Contested. Kokor Heckus Fireballs the Ogre (as before he got a Line on 6 by chance), and the Ogre gets to do his Ogre Rampage on Zone 1. The finale for the turn looks like this:

Zone	features	Occupants	Claimed?
1 - 10	Trees (2, Generic) Stream (6)	Ahu Darcy Helen Kokor Heckus Goblin E Ogre	Contested
2 - 19		Goblin F	Red
3 - 13	Trees (2, Generic)	Goblin B	Red
4 - 10	Trees (2, Generic)	Goblin C	Red
5 - 16	Trees (2, Generic)		Red
6 - 13	Trees (2, Generic) Hill (4)	Goblin D	Red

The PCs do much worse, because at their first opportunity to claim territory and lay down helpful marks they didn't. The total is that the Ogre has taken more damage and the Goblins are less damaged, but the PCs are effectively locked down and have taken way more pain.

---

A question with this system, since I need to roll for the zone I can target and the attack I can make, do I also need to roll some sort of attack roll? Or does my maneuver just work and relevant defenses might mitigate the effects?

This is actually just a proof of concept for the system of choices made during the game. I actually don't really know what the rest of the system would look like. I lean towards to-hit checks and soak rolls in general, but since you are already rolling dice for other things, it might be better to make damage static. I don't think that combining the attack and damage roll really saves any time, because it takes at least as much time to calculate a to-hit differential as it does to roll for damage.

-Username17

[Ice9]

Actually, while I don't much care for WoF for powers, this movement system looks interesting. Definitely a departure from standard positioning, but it has its own tactics and would be a better way to represent a chaotic environment, even setting speed aside.

I think it could use another basic movement option though:
Full Push - Full-round action, move to any zone, regardless of Line. Provokes Crossfire from both the zone you enter, and the one you leave.

Yes, usually Focus would give you same effect, but sometimes you need to flat-out run to reach the escape pod / magic circle / whatever on this turn.


Also, while I don't find this a problem, this doesn't quite reduce fiddly-ness across the board - it sets it to a certain value. For a previously fiddly combat like a bunch of melee types in a room with lots of pillars, rubble, and pits, it speeds it up considerably. For a previously movement-irrelevant combat like some horse-archers versus a dragon on an open field, it would probably be slower, assuming you didn't previously feel the compulsion to count squares when there was no point.

[Username17]

I think it could use another basic movement option though:
Full Push - Full-round action, move to any zone, regardless of Line. Provokes Crossfire from both the zone you enter, and the one you leave.

I don't get it. What is this for?

All it seems to do is give people the ability to advance into any unoccupied zone, claimed or unclaimed, without rolling for line, at no cost, provided that they are currently standing in an uncontested zone. I can't really see what that would add to the game except making groups of mooks really annoying to fight.

-Username17

[Ice9]

Provides the ability to get to a particular location, when that location is extremely important? Currently, in D&D (or in fact, almost every system), you can get to almost any location on the battlefield, if you're willing to take the AoOs. Unless there are actually enough enemies to form a solid wall, or an effect like Wall of Force, then you're not physically unable to move across the room. Also, it doesn't let you move into contested zones at no cost - you take Crossfire attacks, and you spend your entire turn, negating any Move+Attack abilities you may possess.

A potential idea, however, is that you're considered to be moving "through" the zone that you have Line to, so you provoke Crossfire from that zone as well. No freebies with that rule!

[ckafrica]

How would this system work in a situation where exact positioning is important and access between one zone and another might limited if not outright prohibited.

Example a battle in a castle hall where you have multiple balconies and stairwells overhanging as well as adjacent rooms that the fight might spill into/from?

[Username17]

How would this system work in a situation where exact positioning is important and access between one zone and another might limited if not outright prohibited.

Example a battle in a castle hall where you have multiple balconies and stairwells overhanging as well as adjacent rooms that the fight might spill into/from?

In general, I would do most castle hall fights exactly the way I would do forest fights - there are many paths you can take to get from one part to another, and I just don't care. Movement is supposed to be more "Hollywood" with the game telling you only that a path is blocked or not, without bothering to give you the specific layout in any kind of meter by bloody meter tactical layout.

However, if I did want to do a dungeonesque layout where individual jail cells and closets were controlled by choke points, I would make those things features inside zones. So the jail cell with the duke in it is a feature inside zone 5. So one of the orc jailers can defend the cell by occupying zone 5. Even linking himself to the feature if he so chooses.

Provides the ability to get to a particular location, when that location is extremely important?

You can already Circle or use an ability that provides a mark and then assault. I really truly don't see how this is in any way a desirable thing for a basic maneuver to do (although I could see the existence of a "Mark then Assault" special maneuver for the Scout or Rogue).

Currently, in D&D (or in fact, almost every system), you can get to almost any location on the battlefield, if you're willing to take the AoOs.

This is nothing like true. Your movement rate in D&D is very small unless you run. And you can't run if there is anything obstructing a straight line path. And you can't enter squares with enemies in them like at all. And large enemies are "in" four squares at a time. If I was in my flat and there was a minotaur in the hallway, I would be literally unable to leave my room except by jumping out the window.

-Username17

[Ice9]

You can already Circle or use an ability that provides a mark and then assault.

That gets you to the zone on your next turn. This would get you to the zone on this turn, at the cost of more Crossfire attacks, and you don't have it Marked. Fairly niche, yes. Sometimes desirable.

This is nothing like true. Your movement rate in D&D is very small unless you run.

With any kind of improved mobility (common beyond low-level), in the size of area that combat normally occurs in, you can cross the entire area with a double-move. And if the area is too big to cross in a round, then how the fuck are your foes able to Assault your position from any given zone?


Basically, it comes down to a verisimilitude issue. I'm fine with things being abstract to a certain extent - especially when it comes down to which actions are effective at a given point in time. But in the end, I do want concrete information to exist when necessary. The fight is happening in a location, and that location does have a Euclidean layout, even if we don't always need to know it.

And so sometimes a player might say "I don't care if I get attacked, I need to run for that teleport circle before it vanishes". And "you can't get there because the dice don't say so (but somebody standing next to you might be able to)" is not the kind of answer I'm happy with.

[Koumei]

...hmm, if there was a Minotaur in front of the front door, I could not escape my room: forget his reach and the AoO, his occupied space includes "in front of my door".

I probably don't need to plan for that kind of situation though: if I'm seeing Minotaurs in the house, there are bigger problems than 5' squares.

[Username17]

With any kind of improved mobility (common beyond low-level), in the size of area that combat normally occurs in, you can cross the entire area with a double-move. And if the area is too big to cross in a round, then how the fuck are your foes able to Assault your position from any given zone?


Basically, it comes down to a verisimilitude issue. I'm fine with things being abstract to a certain extent - especially when it comes down to which actions are effective at a given point in time. But in the end, I do want concrete information to exist when necessary. The fight is happening in a location, and that location does have a Euclidean layout, even if we don't always need to know it.

WHAT THE FUCK?

OK, first of all, if you are using "a mobility ability", you might very well be able to get to the zone you want to get to. Mobility abilities are going to be common at every level.

Secondly, your whole premise is based on something that is not true about movement in 3.5 D&D. If there is shit in your path such that to trace a path from you to the target without going through enemy spaces and/or difficult terrain and/or walls you need to take diagonals zigzagging across the battlefield, then your double move is 8 squares instead of 12. If you have a straight line to an enemy, you can charge 12 squares. And if you have a completely unobstructed pathway, you can run 24 squares.

In 3.5 D&D you accept that sometimes there is an ogre in the way and it would take you two turns to move up and attack the necromancer. Why are you refusing to accept that the exact same situation could happen in an abstract location system? If it can't ever take longer than a single round to get to any specific point, then nothing it going to feel like it is any real distance from anything else.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Frank, how about rolling a single line die for a set of linked creatures? I realize that there are some cases where this doesn't make sense, but in general it does and also adds some options for fighting as a unit. This already has to hold true for the case of mounts and riders.

[ETortoise]

Forgive me if this is stating the obvious.

Originally I thought the combination of two random roles (Line and Wof) were combining to dictate to the player their entire action (Cut and Run to zone 3). I did not like this.

Then I thought for a moment and realized that the players were able to influence their Line though marking and holding territory and lo, a light shined down upon me. This is where the tactics really come in. The more territory you hold, the more likely your side will be able to use their super moves when they come up on the WoF. So taking territory is a good, general purpose tactic. More specific tactics come into play with the fact that players roll their WoF at the end of their turn. So if Kokur Hekus rolls up his "Blood Boil" attack on the WoF Darcy's player knows to drop a Mark on the Ogre's square so KH can ruin his day. You could even have special Mark attacks that also lower resistances.

[Ice9]

OK, first of all, if you are using "a mobility ability", you might very well be able to get to the zone you want to get to. Mobility abilities are going to be common at every level.

Mobility as in "Boots of Striding and Springing" or "Fly spell". You know, the kind of thing that's pretty damn common? So that's 120' as a double move - big enough for most battles I've seen, assuming you weren't way off to the edge.

In 3.5 D&D you accept that sometimes there is an ogre in the way and it would take you two turns to move up and attack the necromancer. Why are you refusing to accept that the exact same situation could happen in an abstract location system? If it can't ever take longer than a single round to get to any specific point, then nothing it going to feel like it is any real distance from anything else.

Then that necromancer would also take two turns to move up and attack you. And your ally standing near you wouldn't be able to reach the necromancer either. But in this abstract movement system, it's entirely possible for either of those things to happen. The only explanation that fits is that everyone can reach each-other, but some moves are less effective due to enemy positioning. Enemy positioning that it should be possibly to move past if you don't care about getting attacked.

[CatharzGodfoot]

OK, first of all, if you are using "a mobility ability", you might very well be able to get to the zone you want to get to. Mobility abilities are going to be common at every level.

Mobility as in "Boots of Striding and Springing" or "Fly spell". You know, the kind of thing that's pretty damn common? So that's 120' as a double move - big enough for most battles I've seen, assuming you weren't way off to the edge.

Flight opens up a new--possibly uncontested--zone to move through.

Boots of S&S might help in evasiveness or charging.

[PhoneLobster]

a light shined down upon me. This is where the tactics really come in. The more territory you hold, the more likely your side will be able to use their super moves when they come up on the WoF.

Allow me to turn that light back off.

Because the reverse of that is true, and a significant problem.

The lessterritory you hold the less options (or chance rather of options) you will have. Walking into a fight on enemy ground when outnumbered will be common, if not the standard, for PCs and when they do during the first half of any combat they will very rarely get to make choices and line will almost always be dictatorial.

Only AFTER an extended period of basically no targeting choices will they START to get Line results that let them actually choose targets, but actual choice in Line correlates directly to a reduction in available targets to choose from. Meaning that sometime mid to late fight you have the height of actual targeting choice due to there (Maybe!) being more than one target you care about AND a chance of controlling some territory for line rolls, but before that you didn't control the territory for line rolls, and after that there aren't enough targets for there to be any actual real choice!

Not only that that means that the "choice" to try and take territory early battle A) is not a choice and B) is not a task you can go about using tactical choices but instead a task that can only occur with random targeting. "Clearing the chaff" is not only involuntary it is unpredictable and uncontrollable, even if you want to do it you won't do it in a reliable, predictable or controllable manner.

And really by the time you ARE making "choices" thanks to controlled territory... you have basically already won more than half the battle and there is a good chance it's just mopping up the left overs and we no longer even CARE now that we FINALLY have some real choices!

And anyway since this entire line business is apparently a mechanic (and apparently the only or at least by far the primary mechanic) used to prevent focusing down the BBEG that means focusing down the BBEG will remain so compelling that basically any "open" line result in mid-late battle will basically be just as good as saying "BBEG" and as such doesn't constitute much of a "choice" either.

[Endovior]

PL, that makes no sense. The scenario you present is not actually the scenario the rules present. Even when you're attacking the Necromancer's evil fortress of doom, all the territory isn't necessarily his by default; only territory that starts with his troops actually occupying it is so (presuming, of course, that you didn't drop him a note to let him know you're coming). Far more often, there'll be initially empty zones between 'throne room' and 'outside'... perhaps 'entry hall' or 'drawbridge', while the necromancer has his troops holed up in places like 'barracks'. Also noteworthy; most fights that don't involve a specific siege scenario will be all about neutral, unoccupied territory, as per the example.

Also notably, even in a siege scenario where the enemy starts with lots of mooks and a number of controlled zones, it's entirely possible that there'll be more then 6 zones, thus giving the PCs room to spread out and hit the fortress from multiple sides, thus getting that crucial terrain advantage.

That said, if you as DM want to arbitrarily restrict choice by placing a mook zombie in every single area, you can (and the resulting effects of that are your fault)... but even then, the PCs should have tactics of the 'move then attack' type to deal with precisely that situation. Arguing that you can prevent the players from having any options like that is like arguing that Wizards are weak because you as DM can declare that the entire dungeon is covered by an Antimagic Field. Yes, technically you as DM can do that, but it's called 'being a dick'.

tldr; normally, the situation should not start with the enemy controlling all the zones. If that situation arises, it should be because either the players have tactically erred or are losing as a course of the battle's progression; not as the starting point of the conflict.