Play Example: RAL

[Orion]

PL,

It's almost as if, when storming the throne room of the goblin king, you might be forced to spend a few rounds hacking away a his waves of goblin soldiers before breaking through the lines to get at him and his vizier.

[TheWorid]

PL,

It's almost as if, when storming the throne room of the goblin king, you might be forced to spend a few rounds hacking away a his waves of goblin soldiers before breaking through the lines to get at him and his vizier.

Because that totally can't be represented in a simpler fashion by any other tactical positioning system.

I'm going to throw my lot in with the anti-RAL side. The system doesn't seem to accomplish much except add more rolls and make the battlefield abstract and weird. Also, the vast majority of the examples focus on the "clearing the chaff" aspect, which is only relevant in certain fights; how does this system create interesting choices when you're facing a single monster, or several equally-powered guys?

[Username17]

If you're facing off against a single monster, then YOU are the chaff and the monster is the one being hemmed in. At that point it becomes the PCs' job to take territory and lock down the monster.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Because that totally can't be represented in a simpler fashion by any other tactical positioning system.

I'm going to throw my lot in with the anti-RAL side. The system doesn't seem to accomplish much except add more rolls and make the battlefield abstract and weird. Also, the vast majority of the examples focus on the "clearing the chaff" aspect, which is only relevant in certain fights; how does this system create interesting choices when you're facing a single monster, or several equally-powered guys?

I think your interesting choices in those situations involve trying to prevent the single monster from targeting the specific character that it wants (or would be most beneficial) to kill. The battle against a small number of competent opponents would probably play out a little bit like it does now, only without the ability to easily focus-fire.

I think the focus on "clearing the chaff" is because that's one of those things that doesn't happen often in D&D. And those battles can be a lot of fun. Anecdotally, the most entertaining fights seem to be the PCs vs. a horde or vs. a single honkin' dangerous monster. The fights against equally matched opponents seem to be the most tedious.

[virgil]

When you Assault or Withdraw into a feature inside a zone, does this not trigger a Crossfire for everyone in the zone? Also, how do you represent appreciable differences in speed (such as the tortoise and the hare)?

[Username17]

When you Assault or Withdraw into a feature inside a zone, does this not trigger a Crossfire for everyone in the zone? Also, how do you represent appreciable differences in speed (such as the tortoise and the hare)?

If you take a feature it is generally treated as if the feature and the rest of the zone were two separate zones. So you could withdraw up a tree to avoid getting crossfired by a bear at the base, but you' still get crossfired by the snake in the branches for doing it.

Maneuverability abilities are mostly in the sense of having things in your WoF that let you move and still do other things (someone who gets Cut and Run and Trail Blaze feels much faster than someone who has to move or attack). But for larger areas, extreme speed may get represented by being able to change your modifier to your line before you roll. Extreme slowness can be represented by confiscating the "normal" Advance and Retreat options and putting them in the WoF. The Stone Turtle Golem only gets Advance on a 6, for example.

-Username17