The Gaming Den

Blah Blah Blah, someone mentions something, Blah Blah, Big Fat Squares Blah Blah.

Right Intro done.

So to recap. Once upon a time I bad mouthed non arbitrary specific placing and measurements in real world units, especially formalized into a weird arbitrary grid as a big smelly pile of doo doo with some stupid on top.

I proposed that a larger scale with greater abstraction would be beneficial for a wide variety of reasons and proposed a moderately specific implementation in the form of "Big Fat Squares".

In that particular implementation a battle map is NOT represented by hundreds upon hundreds of rather small square shaped areas needlessly associated with real world measurement units and arranged in a fixed arrangement of adjacency.

Instead a battle map is broken up into a much smaller number of much "larger" entirely arbitrary organic blobs with any adjacency arrangement you like with a "size" based off their relevance to game mechnics like standard movement actions, ranges and areas and NOT associated with specific real world measurements.

So anyway. Some benefits and drawbacks of...

Normal Tiny Squares in a stupid fricking grid
1) Partial squares are a bitch
Not everything is made of 5x5x5 lego. Rooms are round, tables are 7x13, characters are tiny or gigantic, etc... These are all problems not properly represented by the granularity of the system.

2) Relative LOS/Cover is a bitch
Relative LOS, ranges and cover probably don't actually adhere well to a small square based system, or any grid/hex system. The grid/hex is essentially irrelevant. Worse because your positioning involves very SMALL fixed increments in position taking cover isn't something you really do so much as a matter of where you are standing relative to some other dude adjudicated by whoever can yell the loudest (seriously, someone recently said that range measurement was too open to abuse and subjective confusion, relative LOS is way worse than that)

3) Why does everyone move 30 feet in 6 seconds (or whatever)? I can totally move 37 in that time and I'm agile like an elf, Billy is fat like an orc and he can only do 19, so I should totally outrun that Orc.
Using real world measurements confuses people and leads them to believe the game is some sort of attempt to accurately simulate something to do with real world measurements and their arguments and beliefs pertaining to them. That is very annoying. You should never use real world measurements for anything game mechanical. Ever.

4) Stupidly small Range increments
Having a 30 foot range attack in the same game as a 100ft range attack is cool. Also having a 35 foot, 40 foot, 45 foot, 50 foot, 55 foot, 60 foot, 65 foot... That is not so cool.

5) Administrative Difficulties
There are LOTS of small squares to deal with, in d20 for instance any character with a tiny stick threatens like EIGHT squares for AoOs. Even a small combat is probably over a hundred squares in area and contains maybe a dozen "character" squares and as many as eight times or more threatened squares and every spell effect covers some weird pixelated area of maybe 10s or 100s of squares in size. Every move sees you move like between 1 and 20 or so squares which is effectively as many as 20 "then I move from this square to this square" moments and all that may entail for AoOs and other effects.

6) Rook Spell
So you have a spell that seriously moves like a Rook. If you are lucky it might ALSO move like a bishop. Anything in between... kinda hard for a grid to deal with. A free measuring system might handle it better. But crap, its still just a god damn rook spell. There's no real room for dynamic feeling forked lightning, blazing lances slashing wild arcs and swathes or other fun junk. Just god damn rook spell, god damn large square area of squares at range spell, pixelated shape spell and selective targets that doesn't give a shit about the grid spell.

7) Emergent Difficulties
Small individual squares makes for many serious problems when you try to integrate cool junk like simultaneous resolution, AoOs or other Interrupts, transitions into or out of Chase, Sneak or Transit type modes, actual resolution of chases etc... This happens for a number of reasons the most immediately obvious being the high administrative overhead of dealing with so many squares in such circumstances.

Qualities of a Free Measurement System
(Not big fat squares or abstracted at all but worth a mention).
Essentially just the same as a small square grid system without the actual a grid. Everything is ranges and vectors, things like threat areas are more a radius than a set of squares etc...
1) LOS just slightly less of a bitch.
Since LOS just ignored the grid it now works the same. Only without having the grid being there to be painfully ignored. So plus plus good! Well maybe, plus plus eh at the very least.

2) No partial square issues, kinda...
OK so now there are no ACTUAL partial squares. But there are as many OR MORE circumstances were areas and ranges are going to partially cover targets and things like that... So I don't know, good, bad, no change?

3) Rook Spell slightly less rooky
Rook spell is no also bishop spell and all the vectors in between. Which is cooler than it was. Round explosions are actually round, sweeping arcs are actually arcs triangles are actually triangles etc... Still all very static and annoyingly specific for my tastes but whatever.

4) Stupidly small range increments still needlessly supported.

5) Bob-The-Orc-Is-Slow-And-Fat arguments still encouraged

6) Administrative Difficulties still abound
OK so now it looks like one smooth 100 foot long movement vector. But the potential squares which might be threatened in the path may now be... what? A number of increments broken down to as small as the players can manage to measure? And as tedious as "and then from this square to the next" may be at least its hard to slip in an extra square or three. Measurement is open to subjective influence and slight of hand with all the resulting disputes and difficulties.

7) Emergent Difficulties still basically as bad or worse

Something Like Big Fat Squares
1)Relative LOS still a Bitch, Cover a bit more dynamic.
Relative LOS will ignore big fat squares just like it ignores a grid. But now your character inhabits a square much larger than themselves dealing with taking cover can become an action or state rather than a complex exact relative positioning thing. Suddenly you can either reduce or eliminate all the arguments about relative positioning and string lines and laser pointers and bullshit.

2) Partial Squares no longer a problem.
The system is built to accommodate things smaller than a square, almost everything is smaller than a square. If you need to represent that something, like say a bridge is longer than a square... you just do because squares are fricking arbitrary and if you say the bridge is 3 squares long it just is.

3) Adjacency is your tool
Some squares are only adjacent to one other square. Sometimes to reach all those squares on the other side of the chasm you MUST transit through the bridge square. Choke points and other tactical features of topography are simpler and easier to represent.

4) Range Increments not so stupidly small.
The battle map rarely consists of more than 5, maybe at a stretch 10 squares. (often as not it can just be between 1 and 3). There is no reason, or way the system differentiates between 30 and 35 foot ranges, they are both, 1 square, or something.

5)Bob the fat orc is dead
Standard moves are 1 square. Also you move from SOMEWHERE inside one to SOMEWHERE inside the other, perhaps you went all the way across the furthest edges or maybe you just stepped over the border. No one knows how far that is. No one can argue bullshit about it.

6) Rook Spells can eat it
System cannot represent them well. We don't even know EXACTLY where characters are standing. So area effects work like multi target effects and burning hands and whirlwind suddenly move into line with flurry of blows and two weapon fighting with unified and improved mechanics. With less niggling measurements (compared to free measurements) and less weird pixelated bullshit (compared to tiny squares).

7) Administrative difficulties reduced
Less squares exist. Less squares need to be moved across. Checked for LOS, Cover, AoOs, terrain effects, other bullshit.

8) Emergent advantages
Suddenly the administration for simultaneous resolution is attainable. Interrupts are as easy or easier than ever. Transitions in and out of the abstract area can be, well, abstracted. If all standard movement is one square and rare super fast movement options are restricted (either entirely or by loss of a chase encounter) then chase/combat boundaries are easy.
You can even do fun stuff with dividing or moving squares in combat, changing adjacencies. Having one guy go into guard mode to hold the orcs at the bridge (and who cares if the bridge is god damn 20 foot wide and there for unguardable without an extra square of reach weapon),


End Bit
Anyway I still think the original (or semi-original) thread is way better so go read it. http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=39406 I feel like I'm lacking even my usually minimal eloquence tonight.

Also I hope that people can discuss the relative advantages of not just Big Fat Squares but all positional resolution systems including those bullshit chess board antics on this thread.

First of all, here is the link to PhoneLobster's old thread: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=39406

Phonelobster,

I tried to slog my way through that thread, but I only made it halfway through the first page before I gave up. Even so, I already have come to some conclusions. In describing default Dnd 3.x you make numerous statements and assumptions about how the game is played. I have come to realize that we play radically different games under the same heading of Dnd. It is almost as if we are playing in different game systems, and I'm not even talking about your proposed rules, just your statements about 'normal' Dnd. The most important realization for me is the fact that how I play Dnd would be impossible under your system of new rules.

In any case, I have no interest in arguing about different playstyles and whose is better/worse.

_______________

That said, we could still discuss the 'problems' with default Dnd grids and possible solutions.

PhoneLobster wrote: 1) Partial squares are a bitch

How? So a table is 7 feet by 13 feet. How is this a problem?

PhoneLobster wrote:2) Relative LOS/Cover is a bitch

I don't know what you mean by "Relative" here. Either you have Line of Effect or Cover from a creature. The Dm tells you which it is. It takes 3 seconds. How is this a problem?

PhoneLobster wrote:3) Why does everyone move 30 feet in 6 seconds (or whatever)?

The game simply does not support the level of granularity that gives each individual a different movement score. There is no reason to. Being a Barbarian or Monk, or having a mount, or any number of other things alters your movement speed. Those things matter. They are distinct and interesting.

PhoneLobster wrote:4) Stupidly small Range increments
Having a 30 foot range attack in the same game as a 100ft range attack is cool. Also having a 35 foot, 40 foot, 45 foot, 50 foot, 55 foot, 60 foot, 65 foot... That is not so cool.

I have no preference here. You may be right. It is just a matter of how you want to scale ranges.

PhoneLobster wrote:5) Administrative Difficulties
There are LOTS of small squares to deal with, in d20 for instance any character with a tiny stick threatens like EIGHT squares for AoOs. Even a small combat is probably over a hundred squares in area and contains maybe a dozen "character" squares and as many as eight times or more threatened squares

...

Every move sees you move like between 1 and 20 or so squares which is effectively as many as 20 "then I move from this square to this square" moments and all that may entail for AoOs and other effects.

Yes. That is fun. That is one of the goals of tactical movement, to protect people by restricting enemy movement. "...Over a hundred squares in area" So? That is 10 inches by 10 inches on the battlemat. What is the problem here?

PhoneLobster wrote:...and every spell effect covers some weird pixelated area of maybe 10s or 100s of squares in size.

You may have a point here. The "pixelated" area of squares affected can be annoying for some groups. It might not be for others. I would say that it is mostly the fault of the evocation school of magic, which is simultaneously the weakest/least interesting school of magic. A fix or change for this could be developed further in later posts.

PhoneLobster wrote:6) Rook Spell

It took me forever to understand what you meant by this. I assume you are referring to the "pixelated" problem of spell area effects. As I just said, this might be fixable.

PhoneLobster wrote:7) Emergent Difficulties
Small individual squares makes for many serious problems when you try to integrate cool junk like simultaneous resolution, AoOs or other Interrupts, transitions into or out of Chase, Sneak or Transit type modes, actual resolution of chases etc... This happens for a number of reasons the most immediately obvious being the high administrative overhead of dealing with so many squares in such circumstances.

I thought the verdict was in on simultaneous resolution. Not only is it crap, I even think Frank stated that this was the case. (Correct me if I'm wrong here Frank) Sequential initiatives are better than simultaneous resolutions in all your examples except for possibly Chases (which you mention twice). We just need to find a way to resolve Chases with the initiative system.

____________________

So. In summary, the only real problems here are the following:

-You don't like incremental ranges on spells (personal preference)
-You don't like "pixelated/Rook" spells (This could use some work, then again, so could most evocation spells)
-We need a Chase mechanic.

All those problems seem like they are surmountable. If we assume that TNE will have as many and as interesting tactical options as Dnd 3.x, then we should just focus on those issues.

Thoughts? (PhoneLobster and any other posters)

Keeping track of locations in "zones" is a perfectly workable alternative in abstract. But if you're going zone, they should probably be dynamic zones, rather than fixed zones. In a zone representation what is important is whether you are on this side or that side of the wall of fire or the line of skeletons. Those sorts of barriers are dynamically moving, being created, destroyed, and rendered irrelevant.

When you make arbitrary and fixed topology between zones that's bad. That's computer game logic. We know that we can go from one side of the chasm to the other without using the bridge. We just have to fire a rope across or turn into a bird or whatever. And while it will sometimes be important if people are near one edge or the other or near the center, sometimes it won't be. The bridge could be one, two, or three zones.

Bottom line: I have nothing against zone-based location, and it's a raw necessity for games that take place over the internets or without a battle map. But your Big Squares system in particular rubs me the wrong way. I don't believe that it does what I want such a system to do.

Close terrain makes for smaller Big Squares. And that means that you're putting less people in a zone, and that means that area effect weapons become less effective when people are in rooms than when they are dispersed across a field in your system as you've described it. That's bad.

---

Basically when you're going Zone, the areas and ranges probably want to be in real world measurements. The zones are for keeping track of positional effects. Zone Top of Stairs is higher than Zone Stairs or Zone Lower Floor and has positional advantage. That kind of thing.

-Username17

In the games I run, we simply use homemade maps without squares. 5' in game=1" on the map, or whatever you want to use. It has worked great for my group so far.

In any case, I have no interest in arguing about different playstyles and whose is better/worse.

I do because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

How? So a table is 7 feet by 13 feet. How is this a problem?

Aaaand, what squares is it in?

How does it effect movement, cover, etc... in those squares it is entirely in and those it is partially in?

Yes. That is fun. That is one of the goals of tactical movement, to protect people by restricting enemy movement. "...Over a hundred squares in area" So? That is 10 inches by 10 inches on the battlemat. What is the problem here?

Which you can do by giving people an AoO when someone moves out of your zone instead of the bullshit administration of several hundred individual grid locations.

Restricting enemy movement is easier and faster with LESS squares.

All those squares are is just a big pile of masochism.

A fix or change for this could be developed further in later posts.

It kinda isn't.

See any fix for that problem in a grid based system means essentially ignoring the grid and going with grid independent areas (essentially free measurement) and all the partial hit antics of that or range+targets which is essentially what you are doing in a healthy Fat Squares type zone system.

I thought the verdict was in on simultaneous resolution. Not only is it crap, I even think Frank stated that this was the case.

Sorry. But if that's the case Frank is full of shit.

Simultaneous resolution has some very nice effects, for a start...

1) Static unresponsive characters while others take their turn? Thing of the past. As it should be.

2) AoOs? Who needs them, If you move instead of melee I get a response alright, my simultaneous action that I can spend on an attack OR WHATEVER.

3) Just copped it? No problem you still have your final action right now to use as you are going down. And that is cool.

I've been experimenting with various ways to make simultaneous resolution faster and more workable for ages and frankly, it ISN'T HARD TO DO.

The standard turn based initiative order type set up is far from the best solution to order and timing of resolution. In fact it is clunky, inelegant and causes a number of niggling problems.

Anyway, its not the ONLY emergent benefit of a better positional system that simultaneous resolution becomes more viable. I just mentioned it because one of the biggest hurdles of simultaneous resolution is dealing with characters potentially simultaneously being in 100s of squares at the same time while other characters are simultaneously in 100s of other (or the same) squares at the same time.

With my proposal, or something like it you only have to deal with characters being in one or two "squares" at the same time and one of the big ugly bits of simultaneous resolution is not so bad any more.

It is one of the reasons I adopted the method in the first place. I felt it was worth a mention as an advantage.

When you make arbitrary and fixed topology between zones that's bad.

Did I say fixed? I may have, I'm not at 100% posting skill for some reason.

I think I did mention as one of the advantages of such a system that changes like dividing zones, altering adjacency, adding zones, removing zones, or even moving zones around would be relatively quick and easy to administer.

Close terrain makes for smaller Big Squares.

The zones involved are, well, whatever size you need to represent. If the combat happens in a single small room it can be just a single zone combat. You do not NEED to make area effects SEEM smaller (and it is just an illusion even if you do).

Basically when you're going Zone, the areas and ranges probably want to be in real world measurements. The zones are for keeping track of positional effects. Zone Top of Stairs is higher than Zone Stairs or Zone Lower Floor and has positional advantage. That kind of thing.

That is... kinda silly.

You see there you are basically using a system of free measurement/vector based system with fixed highly granular positions for characters and all it entails for disadvantages AND then overlaying a zone system exclusively for some subset of occasional terrain effects.

I think I've said before I prefer that sort of set up to anything involving a god damn grid or hexes but it still has any amount of problems.

Also like I said do not use real world measurements, why would anyone even want to do that?

PhoneLobster wrote: I do because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Ok. I'll list some of the statements you made in the other thread about how Dnd is played, and how they are divergent from my experiences.

PhoneLobster wrote: No attacks of opportunity, in a way. Everyone gets ONE action per round which happens simultaneously, earlier resolved actions do not prevent later actions, therefore moving away as your action does still allow those who were in range of you to make one last attack. But then that is their action for the round. They might be better off following or trying to grab you, but then if you have the higher initiative and resolve your escape after their actions they miss out on that choice.

PhoneLobster wrote:Thats got relatively little to do with ganging up on one target. Either you get your full attacks in some contrived way or you don't, only rarely does selection of target make a difference there, so if most of you have to move to find a target to attack anyway there is rarely anything stopping you from all moving to the same target.

PhoneLobster wrote: Hold on up there. Detail, or at least tactical detail, or as you put it there "what people can do" is entirely separate to how precisely you can do it. RPG or even strategy combat games can be boiled down to a set of choices, states and results. For instance in d20 a character who can move into one of the 4 and two thirds squares that provide them with cover or opt to do something else and stay in the open. He can do this to the detail of five foot increments but its the same take cover/don't take cover tactical choice that a less precise system offers.

PhoneLobster wrote: Precisely and accurately explain to me how in a small square system the small squares, all alone, grant the ability to guard the wizard? Or block the door (let alone interact with unblocking it)?

PhoneLobster wrote:Extra options require extra rules. They don't have to be altogether too complex, they can be fairly uniform and fit within a similar and hopefully intuitive frame work but for another option there needs to be another rule. Without a grapple rule there is not grapple simple as that.

_______________________

Ok. I think the easiest way to illustrate how your system couldn't handle my version of Dnd is to sketch out an average encounter in my group.

Place: A Dungeon. Specifically, in a large room (100ft x 100ft x 25ft) with multiple smaller adjoining rooms (~25ft x 20ft x25ft) and exits (4), all with different Lines of Effects to the larger room.

Party: (some units have overlapping roles)
-What I call a "Pillar" character. His role is to defend other party members and to restrict enemy movement. There are many variations on this role, the prototypical example is: A large (tall) character with 20+ ft reach + high Str/Dex + Combat Reflexes + Large and in Charge (feat) + Hold the Line (feat).
-Wall/Fog 'omancer
-Horde 'omancer (Enchanter, Necromancer, Summoner, etc.)
-Chargers
-Ranged Attacker
-Nuke-Mage
-Grappler

Enemy: (Npc's)
-Nuke-Mages
-Scary Melee Monsters (Ex: 3.0 Animal Growthed Dire animal companions, at higher levels: Living Spells Mordenkainen's Disjunctions/Meteor Swarms)
-Chargers
-Horde

Ever-changing Battlefield:
2-6 Wall spells. Units inside of Walls of Water.
1-4 Fog spells. (Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog, Freezing Fog)
Multiple Large or bigger creatures with overlapping threat ranges.
Packs of monsters alternately mobbing units or failing to do so.
Multiple unit reinforcements/retreats.
Transdimensional Spells being thrown around.
etc.

Movement modes/speeds:
-most units between 30-80 ft land speed
-some flying units (more at higher levels*)
-some ethereal/incorporeal units *
-teleporters *
-Dimensional Anchors/Dimensional Locks thrown around *

________________________

As you can see, that battlefield is so complicated that your system could not handle it. Each unit has so many ever-changing Lines of Effect/Cover /Concealment/etc to all other creatures that it would be impossible to manage in your system. All those battlefield control spells and abilities are there to restrict enemy unit movement/ options/access/actions/etc.

That is why I say we are playing different versions of Dnd. I am not saying that all groups play Dnd like my group, most don't. What I am saying is that the playstlye in my example encounter wouldn't work in your system, and most groups would likewise have some degree of the same problems.

I apologize if I sound harsh but you seem to demonstrate a truly breathtaking lack of understanding here.

For a start you have a mix of comments regarding my statements as to my squares system, my initiative system AND comments on stuff that has nothing to do with my material.

You even have some quotes that I would have thought quiet adequately explain some of your supposed "unhandled" material you later mention.

Well, let me try to explain in detail perhaps?

Place: A Dungeon. Specifically, in a large room (100ft x 100ft x 25ft) with multiple smaller adjoining rooms (~25ft x 20ft x25ft) and exits (4), all with different Lines of Effects to the larger room.

Under a small squares grid system that is... an incredibly complicated space.

One of the various problems with its complexity is that as a GM if I were to lay out that map... I don't actually entirely understand the potential tactical implications of the adjoining rooms. With "different lines of effect" wildly varying ranges and unknown proximity to things of tactical importance.

Well, at the least I can easily see one or all of those 500+ square side rooms just not being of tactical importance. Or alternately a single one of them might (unpredictably) become almost game breakingly ridiculous. And there are a LOT of numbers and lines of sight and potential positions to consider to try and determine that.

Now my particular zone based implementation can map the same space in a variety of ways. The simplest being one or two large adjoining zones for the big room and have each of the small rooms be additional single adjacent zones.

You go from literal thousands of squares of adjudication to less than ten. But more than that it is very easy to determine the tactical relevance of the various zones that have been created. And if you want to manipulate the tactical relevance by varying the layout, it is really much easier to do with predictable and useful outcomes.

What I call a "Pillar" character. His role is to defend other party members and to restrict enemy movement. There are many variations on this role, the prototypical example is: A large (tall) character with 20+ ft reach + high Str/Dex + Combat Reflexes + Large and in Charge (feat) + Hold the Line (feat).

OK sorry but that archetype is a big pile of bullshit. Its not that its a bad IDEA its that it is a massively stupid implementation.

D20, and small static square based systems in general simulate that role REALLY BADLY. The character build required is ludicrous, the adjudication of his effects in game is massively complex and his effectiveness as a character is massively circumstantial.

And the greater part of that awkwardness comes from the fact that you inhabit a very narrowly defined fixed position with a very narrowly defined fixed range.

If you could share a larger zone with the targets you want to protect, or the targets you want to inhibit the movement of you are more effective and can have simpler, faster, BETTER mechanics to block movement and attacks.

If you didn't have to worry about using your bullshit barbed chain+large size+five billion incremental feats to increment your reach to massive distances because any choke point a single five foot square longer than you can reach isn't really a choke point then you would be better off. And a system where a GM can put down a choke point zone and BY DEFINITION it must be passed through... again your mechanics to achieve this archetype can be faster, simpler and better.

-Wall/Fog 'omancer

With a small square grid creating walls is a matter of remarkable complexity with the massive number of squares they occupy. The limitations are very similar to those of your "Pillar" fancy. Wall mancers walls often need to be longer than choke points are wide (and taller, etc...), their implications are massively variable and unpredictable and rely on all kinds of insanely complex relative positioning bullshit.

Now in my zone based system placing a wall simply divides an existing zone into two new zones that share a border with each other that is blocked by the wall. You develop a mechanic to determine which characters are placed on which sides of the wall if they were already in the zone and BAM. We know what walls do EXACTLY, they are now an ability that we can balance with other abilities with a great deal more confidence and an ability we can resolve on the field with a great deal more simplicity, speed and balanced character effectiveness.

-Horde 'omancer (Enchanter, Necromancer, Summoner, etc.)

OK so the only way I can assume you think this is a problem with my positional system is if you are basically using these guys to summon speed bumps and continue to labour under the rather vast misapprehension that a system that deals with speed bump characters in an insanely complex manner that makes them less effective to play is somehow better than what I am proposing. See "Pillar".

-Chargers

OK, so what do chargers do? They gain benefits on their attacks by combining them with a move action.

So under small squares they make massively complex move actions and then deal a bunch of charge damage. On someone. Somewhere. In a variable and unpredictable range. They are simultaneously harder to block with their poor dysfunctional counter the speed bump character, and at the same time somehow apparently have to perform ludicrously complex character builds and movement actions to do so.

In my zone system its simple, the charge guys are dudes who can move into an adjacent zone, make a close attack and gain a benefit. Predicting range, interdiction with a speed bump character, and adjudication of both their actions are much easier and all round better.

Ranged Attacker
Nuke-Mage

Is basically the same with a smaller annoying variation of range increments. Also as mentioned Cover and AoO mechanics are vastly improved.

Grappler

So the grappler you see, barely gives a fuck about positional mechanics. d20 and pretty much every grappling mechanic ever is basically already state based so I really don't understand why this rates so much as a mentioned.

Scary Melee Monsters

?

Yeah, zone based system, totaly can't have scary melee monsters...

?

2-6 Wall spells. Units inside of Walls of Water.
1-4 Fog spells. (Stinking Cloud, Solid Fog, Freezing Fog)

Zone creation, division, modification and removal is one of the advantages held over a small square system where such actions are needlessly detailed, harder to adjudicate and less predictably effective.

Multiple Large or bigger creatures with overlapping threat ranges.

Overlapping threat ranges are seriously not a problem, they still exist only with less stupid complexity and other unfortunate complications.

Whopping oversized dudes also not a problem. You can be whatever size you want and it won't impact the system. You are still as easy to adjudicate as a standard size character and you can STILL have "I Is Giant" flavoured attacks and junk. Meanwhile you DON'T have to be harder to adjudicate than a regular character because you take up 4, 10 or 20 times the number of discrete grid locations and threaten a couple of hundred discrete grid locations.

Movement modes/speeds:

I find it hard to imagine how you can believe there is anything about a zone system that might prevent you from you know, MOVING.

I mean why the hell do you think flight or teleportation would even begin to be a problem?

And ETHERAL characters? You understand that is like a state or set of abilities and not a position... right?

As you can see, that battlefield is so complicated that your system could not handle it.

Ridiculous. What you have is a bunch of concepts and imagined options, primarily just map modification and speed bump characters... that just don't function. And do so in a manner that eats up needlessly wasted hours of play time to boot.

A simpler system actually designed from scratch to incorporate those concepts with higher level of effectiveness and speed, like my zone implementation is in fact VITAL for that battlefield to be anything other than a stupidly annoying headache.

Each unit has so many ever-changing Lines of Effect/Cover /Concealment/etc to all other creatures that it would be impossible to manage in your system.

I'll grant you this ludicrously large variation in constantly changing lines of effect/cover is something it doesn't handle.

And frankly it shouldn't because it is totally bullshit.

Speed bump character burns out his entire build because the "choke point" was five feet too wide? Fuck off.

Charge character fails the charge because the target moved one extra five foot square away? Fuck off.

Ranged Character can't attack because the target is one five foot square to the left? Fuck off.

Wall-mancers wall fails because the room is five foot too wide? Fuck off.

All those ranges being so variable that you really cannot predict as a regular player or GM what the implications are when the map is laid out? Fuck off big time.

See those are all BAD THINGS. You are taking valid character concepts, making them do maths and then arbitrarily and ACCIDENTALLY punishing them because on the spot the GM felt that the bridge choke point would look cooler if it were a more monumental 10 feet wider...

That is why I say we are playing different versions of Dnd. I am not saying that all groups play Dnd like my group, most don't.

Whatever, but I think this guy's quote is important...

In the games I run, we simply use homemade maps without squares. 5' in game=1" on the map, or whatever you want to use. It has worked great for my group so far.

That's the way I do d20. Its a way a lot of people do it. Because when you play without minis, and many, many groups do. That is an easier way to scribble out on a piece of paper or describe to a group.

Even with Mini's it is popular because grids a really a rather modern and unpopular "innovation".

But really that methodology, much like the similar thing with an imposed grid, is inadequate for the task. You need a system that you can describe and have everyone understand clearly the specific tactical implications of without the aid of seven different measurement disputes and a bunch of needlessly painful maths (note those measurements and maths still exist in the grid system AND you get to have a juvenile little grid map).

That's what zone systems bring. And frankly the majority of RPG table top gamers need that.

What I am saying is that the playstlye in my example encounter wouldn't work in your system

I strongly suspect you not only do not understand how my system works but that you do not entirely understand how the existing system you describe works, or even what your own playstyle actually consists of and demands.

I say this for many reasons, but most of all because you seem to think you have in your hands a good implementation of a speed bump character... and, just, really?

Congratulations, PhoneLobster, for being the first person to ever speak of a "game breaking" closet.

PhoneLobster,

PhoneLobster wrote: Zone creation, division, modification and removal is one of the advantages held over a small square system where such actions are needlessly detailed, harder to adjudicate and less predictably effective.

How would your big sqaure system handle it? With that many rooms/walls/ fogs/reach/etc you would have dozens of big squares. All affecting units differently, and changing every round. How is this easier to keep track of?

PhoneLobster wrote: I find it hard to imagine how you can believe there is anything about a zone system that might prevent you from you know, MOVING.

You seem to have missed the point. In your own words, a zone system doesn't prevent you from moving. No tactical choices are needed, no reactions to enemy units exist, etc. The grid system *restricts* your movement based upon battlefield control.

More generally, you seem to have overlooked the point of my example. I was sketching a combat, and all the factors in it. My listing of game elements such as Chargers or Flight individually has nothing to do with the argument.

PhoneLobster wrote: Ridiculous. What you have is a bunch of concepts and imagined options, primarily just map modification and speed bump characters... that just don't function.

I don't understand how they don't function. Could you explain?

PhoneLobster wrote:See those are all BAD THINGS. You are taking valid character concepts, making them do maths and then arbitrarily and ACCIDENTALLY punishing them because on the spot the GM felt that the bridge choke point would look cooler if it were a more monumental 10 feet wider...

That is the point of tactical gaming. A Dm sets up a situation and you make choices that affect the outcome. You react to the enemy, adapt to unfavorable environments, and try to impose your will.

PhoneLobster wrote:I strongly suspect you not only do not understand how my system works but that you do not entirely understand how the existing system you describe works, or even what your own playstyle actually consists of and demands.

I set up a situation, and you declare that I don't understand how the game works? While not true, even if it was you couldn't provide evidence of such, so it is a worthless line of discussion.

PhoneLobster wrote:I say this for many reasons, but most of all because you seem to think you have in your hands a good implementation of a speed bump character... and, just, really?

Care to elaborate? A character with reach can have a big impact in an encounter.

With that many rooms/walls/ fogs/reach/etc you would have dozens of big squares. All affecting units differently, and changing every round. How is this easier to keep track of?

Because its the same keeping track as in the grid example only with the grid you have countless THOUSANDS of squares to keep track of.

We are talking multiple orders of ten here, wake up and smell the roses.

No tactical choices are needed, no reactions to enemy units exist, etc.

What the heck? What about a zone system prevents the existence of AoO or other speed bump mechanics?

In fact haven't I explicitly pointed out that you can not only have such mechanics in a zone system but that they will be easier to administer and balance in such a system.

What about the standard AoO range of the same zone as yourself do you fail to understand? What about that is NOT superior to eight separate tiny squares that are harder to administer and will only rarely matter?

The grid system *restricts* your movement based upon battlefield control.

Here is the thing.

No it doesn't.

Special case rules restrict your movement.

Barriers, characters, threatened squares, terrain. These are all individual special rules that are merely measured in grid squares.

You actually can just change the measurement unit.

Perhaps the simplest way to explain this is to point out that in fact a grid system IS a zone system, only all the zones are of a fixed size, and arranged in a fixed pattern, and there are stupidly large numbers of them.

I don't understand how they don't function. Could you explain?

I thought I had covered a fair portion of that by explaining the whole ludicrously strained character build required to create a true choke point blocking dude and how easily that fails in the majority of grid based maps?

That is the point of tactical gaming. A Dm sets up a situation and you make choices that affect the outcome. You react to the enemy, adapt to unfavorable environments, and try to impose your will.

No, that is a minuscule fluff element interfering with the tactical gaming.

That is a minuscule fluff element interfering with an entire characters thing that they are built from the ground up to do. To make a bullshit AoO character in d20 who even begins to be effective you have to burn everything, feats, attributes, even your own damned fluff.

And a fluffy bridge being just slightly fluffy too wide destroys your whole "and I'm the guy who stands between them and us on the bridge" thing.

That isn't "tactical game play" it's just retarded.

I set up a situation, and you declare that I don't understand how the game works?

You set up a rather laughably irrelevant situation that took a bunch of things that are major weaknesses of a system and then declared them all to be major strengths.

That seemed like evidence enough to me. Also you just said this...

My listing of game elements such as Chargers or Flight individually has nothing to do with the argument.

Which is just... it blows my mind.

Care to elaborate? A character with reach can have a big impact in an encounter.

So.

You lose the option of having sword style fluff for your brave fighter who holds the line. He has to have like a Pike or Chain or something.

You expend your choices in investment of character resources.

You limit or entirely burn your action in combat.

And if you are LUCKY and the enemy CHOOSES to cooperate.

You get an attack that is no better than standard. At best.

And in a tiny square system you can do it in a really hard to arbitrate way and leave hundreds and hundreds of squares un-threatened by your oh so mighty vengeance.

Meanwhile another character can invest in doing stuff that is more effective than a standard attack, looks cooler, is significantly easier to arbitrate, can effect targets at ranges of tens or hundreds of squares and most of all does not require enemy cooperation.

PhoneLobster wrote: Because its the same keeping track as in the grid example only with the grid you have countless THOUSANDS of squares to keep track of.

I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me long to consider the importance of an empty square. I take it this is not the case for you. In that case, yes big squares would be better.

PhoneLobster wrote:What the heck? What about a zone system prevents the existence of AoO or other speed bump mechanics?

Perhaps the following threw me off:

PhoneLobster wrote:No attacks of opportunity, in a way. Everyone gets ONE action per round which happens simultaneously, earlier resolved actions do not prevent later actions, therefore moving away as your action does still allow those who were in range of you to make one last attack. But then that is their action for the round. They might be better off following or trying to grab you, but then if you have the higher initiative and resolve your escape after their actions they miss out on that choice.

___________________________

PhoneLobster wrote:Perhaps the simplest way to explain this is to point out that in fact a grid system IS a zone system, only all the zones are of a fixed size, and arranged in a fixed pattern, and there are stupidly large numbers of them.

You are right here. However, the restrictions you put on your particular zone system, (the big square system) remove combat tactics/depth/etc. If your system didn't do this, it wouldn't be a problem.

PhoneLobster wrote:I thought I had covered a fair portion of that by explaining the whole ludicrously strained character build required to create a true choke point blocking dude and how easily that fails in the majority of grid based maps?
...
To make a bullshit AoO character in d20 who even begins to be effective you have to burn everything, feats, attributes, even your own damned fluff.
...
You expend your choices in investment of character resources.

Cleric 1. Casts Enlarge Person. So a level 1 character has 20 ft reach. I fail to see how a level one spell is "burn[ing] everything." Or hell, I am currently playing a Beguiler in a game, and I have a charmed "Pillar" character. Is one spell cast every weak too much of an investment?

PhoneLobster wrote:You lose the option of having sword style fluff for your brave fighter who holds the line. He has to have like a Pike or Chain or something.

Unlike you, some people want to use weapons other than swords. Some people want to use a pikes, chains, unarmed attacks, natural weapons, bows, crossbows, nets, bolas, blowguns, boomerangs, orc shotputs, and a hundred other weapons.

__________________________

On to your next point: I'll list my example again: A large (tall) character with 20+ ft reach + high Str/Dex + Combat Reflexes + Large and in Charge (feat) + Hold the Line (feat).

PhoneLobster wrote:You limit or entirely burn your action in combat.

You mean the part where the character takes no actions to threaten an area?

PhoneLobster wrote:And if you are LUCKY and the enemy CHOOSES to cooperate.

You mean the part where you force the enemy to decide between: not approaching to attack you or any of your allies, or approaching and being pushed back and losing his turn (and attack)?

PhoneLobster wrote:You get an attack that is no better than standard. At best.

You mean the part where the character can get half a dozen or more free attacks in a round? Or the part where the character is preventing half a dozen or more enemy units from attacking him or his allies for a round? All as free actions. Or the part where he gets a turn in addition to all the aforementioned?

Ok, so I was hoping for some actual reasonable conversation but if its just you and you are going to actually say transparently stupid stuff like...

You mean the part where the character takes no actions to threaten an area?

Then I'm out.

I can't deal with that level of corrective explanation without getting really angry.

This is the consistent problem every time you've dragged up zone mechanics. In D&D you do threaten areas as a non-action. Every character has a zone-of-control that happens automagically. Characters who invest in making their zone-of-control really large and really important really do create a zone of real effect based on their mere presence. That's how it works in D&D.

Now I'll freely admit that the threatened area of a wizard with a dagger or a staff may as well not even exist. But a high end spear fighter with combat reflexes and such actually has a zone of control which has real effect on battles. As much as solid fog? Of course not! But the effect is real, automatic, and does not cost actions to employ.

Having you just turn red and shout every time this comes up doesn't help anything. I seriously don't understand what yo consider to be unsalvageable about having characters have fixed-length real-distance zones of control with real and specific effects around them. Wargames have been doing this for decades and it works fine.

-Username17

But the effect is real, automatic, and does not cost actions to employ.

You threaten a fixed area based on position right?

To be in a position that it is beneficial to threaten you have to take an action that happens to place you there.

You cannot take an action that places you, you know, some place else.

If you are lucky you get a pretty good action and you get to threaten as a bonus.

But if you are functioning primarily as a speed bump you will have to limit your choice of action or even forgo your action regularly.

That is an action cost.

That is so transparently an action cost I dismissed feet man out of hand without an explanation that it is clearly an action cost.

I seriously don't understand what yo consider to be unsalvageable about having characters have fixed-length real-distance zones of control with real and specific effects around them. Wargames have been doing this for decades and it works fine.

Wargames have different demands.

Like I said. I don't have to describe a wargame to some guy with hand waves and words and a scribble on some paper and have him understand what his real tactical options are.

How many times have you had someone say "Oh, I thought I was over there", "I thought they were in range", "I would have stood here if I new he had an extra 10 foot move on Wednesdays", "What the hell? I totally have 50% cover from that angle"

Like when I commented on free measurement being something I prefer over grids and Crissa said it would cause confusion and disputes in play. I thought, well, yeah. It's true. I don't need that shit in my game and I fail to understand why you apparently defend it.

When I point out that you are administering hundreds and thousands of squares worth of effects, I mean it, it is really genuinely a very major problem.

And in the light of that, what the heck benefit does it bring? For that massive over head of cost what have you done is unique and unrepresentable with a more stream line and functional system?

And anyway. If you have such desire for the "bonus" AoO that you believe has no action cost... Why is that better delivered in a complex grid than with a zone mechanic.

Forget my specific implementation for a second, I had kinda assumed that since this was spawned by some discussion about what your latest project was up to that the thread was more about zone type systems in general divorced from the other mechanics I use. What the heck is wrong with a one zone AoO?

Is it just too damn easy to administer, describe and transparently understand the implications of in play?

Is there some BENEFIT of making us count out 40 squares and check relative line of sight between miniatures with to scale accurately represented terrain with a laser pointer every damn time a character fires a bow?

More complexity and higher granularity is not automagically good in its own right. You need to focus a lot more heavily on elegance in your design and removal of needless complexity and avenues of in game confusion or dispute.

PhoneLobster wrote:That is a minuscule fluff element interfering with an entire characters thing that they are built from the ground up to do. To make a bullshit AoO character in d20 who even begins to be effective you have to burn everything, feats, attributes, even your own damned fluff.

And that isn't a problem with the grid. Or rather, it could be fixed by reducing the costs. This is why you aren't convincing people, you're making a false dichotomy. You're presenting a problem that can be solved by dumping the grid and then claiming that only dumping the grid can solve it.

[Edit] Tags. [/Edit]

Or rather, it could be fixed by reducing the costs.

True enough to some degree. I mean there will always be that slight increment of grid size greater than you investment out there somewhere but at some point it does become acceptable.

Though I think trying to use d20 as an example of an acceptable point in that regard is ridiculous.

Still even if dumping the grid isn't the ONLY solution to that particular problem it is a solution to that and other problems and one that should be very seriously considered.

And I'm going to repeat one of the points I made about AoO mechanics and grids/zones. Using the simpler measurement/placing mechanic when building your speed bump mechanics (including the cost of character investment) makes those mechanics easier to administer in game play AND to design and balance in the first place.

Needless complexity is the friend of no rebalancing task.

Phonelobster wrote: When I point out that you are administering hundreds and thousands of squares worth of effects, I mean it, it is really genuinely a very major problem.

I understand that you mean that. And I believe that you believe that. And you're wrong.

Squares exist to formalize and administer small distances and they do it very well. You don't really have to count distances of 4 squares, so when you're dealing with rooms that are 7m on a side (or less), those squares make things a fuck tonne easier. When distances get larger the formalization gets in the way. It becomes easier to just bust out a tape measure after a while. Battletech would be a better game if it didn't have a hex map and people just figured everything with a laser pointer. a tape measure, and a cone template.

D&D uses squares because at the end of the day it is primarily concerned with melee combat, and thus distances of 1-4 meters are paramount for most of the game. This makes sense and it works.

The fact that D&D is set up so that the people who actually do the melee combat are total chumps compared to the guys who have powers that affect whether people engage in melee combat is a separate issue. The focus is still on whether you are 2m or 4m from the edge of the web, and thus squares are effective and useful. Abstracting whether or not people are in melee range of each other is in no way going to help the melee combat guys. Dumping the grid isn't necessary for a game like D&D. It isn't desirable for a game like D&D.

It is desirable for a game like Shadowrun, where the players are expected to have guns and for battles to take place at a hundred meters or more. Good lord man, trying to deal with a grid under those circumstances would be pure hell. But you've got your causes and effects totally confused in this presentation. Your proposed solutions don't address the perceived problems and your perceived problems don't match up to the real issues that cause problems in the areas you are highlighting.

There are lots of good reasons to go Zone. But you aren't presenting any of them in this or the previous angry tirade.

-Username17

I'd have got back to this sooner if I could.

Squares exist to formalize and administer small distances and they do it very well. You don't really have to count distances of 4 squares, so when you're dealing with rooms that are 7m on a side (or less), those squares make things a fuck tonne easier.

This is the primary point at which you are making a fundamentally false assumption.

You DO have to count even 4 squares and it is insanely complex and far from a means of making things "easier".

Lets consider the sort of difficulties involved in executing a short move action.

Every single square you move into is checked for terrain, ongoing area effects, and threat ranges.

In the ideal circumstance those checks all come back negative and you move on fairly quickly. (but there is still a measurable time and complexity cost).

In the worst circumstance you will have to apply and execute an unknown number of effects PER SQUARE.

Most of the time your move is something in between those extremes. And at a mere four squares, especially in a "very small" combat that you claim is ideal that is going to lean toward the complex end rather quickly.

But that's just EXECUTING the action. The reality is that we need to consider the complexity and time overheads of DECIDING the action. And that is REALLY bad because now even before you have the terrain, threat and area effects to consider you have a very large number of permutations of potential paths even at a small number of moved squares like 4 or so.

Throw half those permutations out just because they are headed in the general wrong direction or whatever without detailed consideration and you STILL have large numbers of permutations of potential paths that have to be considered square by square, and effect by effect.

That is a heck of a lot of bullshit.

But wait, we can't just consider execution costs and decision costs. We have to consider the predictive costs. We expect GMs to be able to set up encounters and predict how those encounters are going to effect outcomes and tactical options. Now we have to consider not just one move at a time with its countless permutations and potential checked or resolved effects per square but in fact ALL the moves for an entire combat. And that's just short of ridiculous.

When YOU were discussing the 4th ed play testing methodology as massively inferior and spoke about how to consider the various permutations of effects and tactics I'm pretty sure you spoke about an abstracted simplified positioning system for the calculations. Because such a system is REQUIRED to make such considerations anything short of computationally massive.

And its not just execution, decision, and prediction in combat set up, its design and balance in the first place as well. All those same stupidly massive complexity costs hit you in the nuts from the word go.

Zone based systems including my own suffer from a similar multiplication of complexity as you condsider such things, but if I start with a standard small combat area of 1 zone and you start with say 25 squares you multiply it all by 25 before you have even started.

But most importantly of all we have to consider what we GAIN from all this additional complexity in resolving small room type areas.

You have already told me that what we have lost is a sensible means of resolving longer ranges and areas larger than a 20 foot square room, which you declare are apparently of little interest in D&D (aren't there creatures larger than that? Ranges and areas stupidly larger than that?)

But you also claim that such detail makes resolving those small combats very good, and very easy.

Well. Its clear enough the very easy bit is, well, false. The question is is that complexity very GOOD?

Are the choices and results in game play the ones that we really desire and is this very cost intensive manner the only and best way to emulate them.

You certainly haven't yet presented an explanation as to why it is good and how that goodness is unique to a small grid system.

Basically all the rules from wrestling to AoOs to terrain are all special case rules that can easily be represented faster and more smoothly with states and lower granularity ranges.

So where is the wholesome in this crunch? All I see is crunch without wholesome.

PhoneLobster wrote:So where is the wholesome in this crunch? All I see is crunch without wholesome.

The crunch I see is that squares (or hexes) handle positioning well enough to let you interpose yourself between the squishy wizard and the mean monster while being significantly simpler than going with infinitely small squares and a tape measure (which is what my group usually does, except we mostly eyeball stuff).

Once your squares get bigger than your creatures you lose that positioning.

In DnD when you have 10 supertiny creatures in the same square in front of you there is no way for the fighter pixie to jump between you and the wizard pixie, because they are already in the same place as far as the system is concerned.

And when you go to "big squares" the exact same applies to humans, ogres and dragons, too.

I think I have explained before that guarding a character is an option better executed as a state based effect than a relative positioning effect.

And look at the ways d20 (around here anyway) handles it, special case rules like AoOs with oodles of character build investment to back them, or characters like Frank's knight that draw attacks away with special powers rather than location, etc...

And look at which effects fail and which succeed. AoOs are generally second rate compared to zany special effects like a challenge. They can work if they are big enough to fit lots of enemies and whatever you are protecting inside your threat range, but that's the damn same as a one zone threat range anyway.

Also worth noting is if your mechanics for guarding (or your mechanics in general) are actually designed to deal with multiple enemies and allies sharing a zone that is way better than a system where some enemies are so tiny they share zones ANYWAY and there are no good rules to deal with it.

Anyway, the point is. The guarding wizard option. Is it best represented in a small squares system as a (hopefully) emergent effect of the interaction of positioning, blocking and AoO rules (assuming none of the plethora of emergent encounters counter it) or is it best to actually write the option in as a specific state based option that the guarding type character gets to take (and frankly that could be written up in a zone system OR a small squares one, though in a zone one the numbers would all be smaller and friendlier)?

Personally to me the answer is crystal clear. One of those systems is very very complex and MIGHT provide functional guarding options (sometimes) and the other is very simple and definitely will provide guarding options.

Ok, let me put it more generally.

Whatever kind of measuring you use, from infinitely small squares (aka tape measure) up to squares that are miles in length, you can not have any positioning mor eprecise than the size of your squares, correct?

That in turn means that you can not have any mechanics built upon positioning more precise than the precision of your squares.

To me it seems vastly more feasible to go with squares and then build simple mechanics upon squares than to build a new exemption mechanic every time you find something you would like to handle but that your square size does not allow for.

Just a few examples:
- Bodyguarding
- Reach weapons
- Interposing (may tie in with bodyguarding)
- bullrushing

All of these and probably dozens more need complicated rules as soon as you step up the square size and require only simple rules if you don't.

To really discuss this we need to see your basic rules though. Please tell us how big your squares would be and sample mechanics for the above examples.

you can not have any positioning mor eprecise than the size of your squares, correct?

Not entirely correct.

Take for example LOS in standard d20.

Or objects/areas that take up partial squares.

That in turn means that you can not have any mechanics built upon positioning more precise than the precision of your squares.

Actually. You can. By using a mechanic that ignores the standard positioning.

Such as drawing LOS with a laser pointer or string across what is normally a formalized grid.

I don't especially advocate that sort of thing but its damn important to point out that that is how business as usually actually functions.

To me it seems vastly more feasible to go with squares and then build simple mechanics upon squares than to build a new exemption mechanic every time you find something you would like to handle but that your square size does not allow for.

For that to be a reasonable statement then the squares actually have to bring something to the table that achieves your desired tactical options without the need for individual special case mechanics to handle each of those options.

But what do we have in reality that requires individual special case rules?
Terrain and Area Effects
AoOs and speed bump effects
Movement tumbling etc...
Grabbing and wrestling
LOS and Range

In a small square based system I have to write up a big fat pile of complex "exemption" (odd word choice) rules before there is actually ANY effect that creates a Guard type tactical option. And on top of that the complex hard to administer result is... inferior.

To really discuss this we need to see your basic rules though.

No, we really don't. This is supposed to be a discussion about using A zone based positioning system in games other than my own homebrew and contexts other than my own additional interesting rules.

All the same though, here are some nice generic proposals...

Just a few examples:
- Bodyguarding
- Reach weapons
- Interposing (may tie in with bodyguarding)
- bullrushing

Body Guarding-
A character may (somehow, action cost to be determined) enter a state in which they can nominate an ally in the same zone and substitute themselves as a target when that ally is attacked. This may also (or instead) grant them an AoO of some form vs the attacker.

Reach Weapons -
Can go away as far as I'm concerned. There are other ways we can differentiate a spear and a sword. But if you INSIST you can be a dick and give a first strike AoO bonus to reach weapons.

Interposing -
? How about we call it preventing movement? Anyway. You can enter a state that prevents anyone from making a move OUT of the zone you are in as long as you are in that state. They can take try to take a special over run (bullrush?) type action to get past you anyway. AoOs may be added to taste.

Bullrushing -
Over running a guy standing in your way is covered under interposing. Pushing some chump into a chasm is a special attack action available in zones bordering on chasm zones, or containing chasm features. Moving someone into another zone is part of the grappling rules, which will probably look pretty familiar since that's all state based junk anyway.

Now I want you to note a few things about these proposed generic mechanics.

They are really very simple, and very intuitive. We can look at these right now and have a pretty good idea how they would function in a fleshed out system. They do things that in a square based system would require complex ranges and additional rules to deal with the complex positioning, if it were feasible at all.

I mean Bullrushing in a square system? Ick. Let alone the sad excuse that is "interposing" or guarding.

The problem is granularity - many people, including myself, enjoy the tactical granularity that squares bring.

Sure, you could replace threatened areas with a guard/interpose option. But then, you cut things down to a binary choice - you have those abilties, or you don't. Whereas with the existing reach rules, there's a range of different guarding capabilities:
* Human with a sword - Could still defend a hallway or narrow chokepoint.
* Human with a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes - Can control movement within a small room.
* All that and large sized - Can control movement within a fairly large room.
* Battlefield control specialist - Can control an area large enough to stop Close range spells or thrown weapons. Can control even large rooms with ease.

And IMO, that's not a flaw, that's a feature. If someone invests levels/feats into battlefield control, they're going to be better at it, the same as someone who invests levels/feats into SoD spells will be better at them.

Same thing with spell areas, incidentally - someone who positions their spells wisely will get more bang for their buck.

But battlefield control depends on the battlefield. For warriors, you will always be on the defensive, reacting to the environment.
Spellcasters create terrain where there was none before; a proactive force.

The problem is granularity - many people, including myself, enjoy the tactical granularity that squares bring.

That is positional granularity, not tactical granularity.

Your tactical options do not increase, only your positional ones.

But then, you cut things down to a binary choice - you have those abilties, or you don't. Whereas with the existing reach rules, there's a range of different guarding capabilities:

I think you may be a tad confused in your use of "binary choice" here. There is plenty of room in a state based guard mechanic for varying capabilities and additional options between characters.

Meanwhile even in a small square based the alternative is a set of special case mechanics each of which you either just have, or just don't have.

* Human with a sword - You either have it or you don't
* Human with a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes - You either have it or you don't
* All that and large sized - You either have it or you don't
* Battlefield control specialist - You either have it or you don't.

The difference is that in the small squares option you first of all either have those abilities or not, AND then you have a second "binary option" of whether the complex battle field supports their use, which requires significantly more administrative overhead and room for total unanticipated stuff ups than the zone system has at that stage in the procedure.

incidentally - someone who positions their spells wisely will get more bang for their buck.

And you know how insanely bad that is for game balance?

I'll highlight again that if you were designing say, 4th ed D&D, and running exhaustive tests you are forced to make an assumption/estimation of the number of targets that an area effect will encompass.

If some jerk walks in and uses the fact that the specific selection of near infinite permutations of positioning you happen to use lets him squeeze out higher than average target yields then he is using a power that is level inappropriate compared to characters who use fixed or single target selection.

Not to say the same problem couldn't occur in a Zone system, all targets in a zone for instance, if allowed, could well be a variable number. But from a game management at the table point of view it is much easier to realize that you are setting up to boost the power of the "all targets in one zone" character than trying to determine if you have laid out models such that one of a very large set of differently shaped area templates are going to leave the magic missile type spell feeling inadequate.

This is especially annoying because from a design standpoint I can balance a magic missile type spell vs single sword strike based on the optimal number of targets being effected. But Fireball needs to balance based on AVERAGE number of targets effected while it could instead in game effect optimal targets for ludicrous damage (or just somewhere in between for simply rather unfair damage).