Turns abstract time, now for abstracting space (grid, zones)

[OgreBattle]

Been pondering turn order, action order, initiative a lot for a tabletop game but also got to thinking "how well can we abstract space in a coherent game mechanics way along with time?"

In D&D you move one at a time, everyone is still... but the default assumption is having a grid or some mental representation of exact distance and placement as you fire an arrow 30ft away to hit someone who has stopped their movement this turn or yet to move.

After Sundown's "you occupy every space you moved through this round" sounds solid but I've never actually used such exact measurement in play.

Fate Core's zones have worked for me:
https://fate-srd.com/fate-system-toolki ... ne-aspects

passive rolls for hazards or spending character resources to improve rolls, or bypass them.

Perhaps something like grouping characters, so a knight can shield the maiden at his side. Like you have someone at the Front, then people behind and at the Back, and a stealth or maneuver roll lets you hit someone in the middle or back instead of front.


There's different ways of turn order too, so lots of potential pairings.
Anything stand out to y'all?

[Foxwarrior]

Fiends & Fortresses has "you occupy every space you moved through this round" like After Sundown, but has actual tactical combats unlike After Sundown, so it's a better place to try out the idea. Sometimes I forget to mark the movement paths of the creatures in roll20 and then placing AoE templates in the best places becomes a bit vague.


Abstracting things generally makes tactical and strategy elements better, since you can focus on making good combat puzzles, but I think it tends to make the roleplaying elements worse, because the representation is intentionally fuzzier so when you say things like "I jump out the window and onto the top of that passing truck" the other players are less on the same page as you about what that looks like in Fate than they would be in D&D. At least, that's why I've spent a long time considering abstractions for space and being dissatisfied with all of them.

[deaddmwalking]

So with movement, one of the most basic questions you want to be able to make clear to all the players is 'can I move to attack X?' and 'can I move so that Y cannot attack me?'.

When a system is abstract it may not be clear, and that can be a frustration. Effectively, people are trying to use movement to create a state that is favorable for them and unfavorable to their enemies and vice versa; if it seems like they should be able to do that, but they're NOT, that can be a problem.

If your character is squishy (like a typical wizard) you may have a lot riding on your ability to put yourself in a position to target enemies with ranged attacks but not to be targeted with melee attacks (and/or have cover against ranged attacks).

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

I wrote up a post this morning and deleted it because I hadn't had enough coffee yet, so let's try again.

I think people can accept abstracting time away in phases or turns, but have more difficulty doing the same thing with space because the human brain already abstracts time far more than it does space. I could boot up SMAC right now and piss away the next 10 hours, and to my brain it would feel like 1 or 2. However, I can look outside my window right now and be confronted with a plethora of purely visual information that more immediately relates to my current situation, and my brain can (sort of) process all of that in an instant.

Like Foxwarrior said, Fate zones can be rather nebulous. I, personally, never really felt like I was inside of a particular environment during tactical engagements. A vampire shootout between a couple of 1800's-era wagons feels weirdly similar to playing football with a bunch of zombies, just with a different coat of paint on it.

To kind of help you out a bit, Ryuutama has a similar setup to what you described (which sounds a lot like the early FF games to me). At the start of battle, everyone puts themselves in either the Front Area or Back Area, and there are 5 Objects (10 for boss fights) scattered around the battlefield that can be used in combat. These range from carts to stone walls, and it's said that the players and GM should come up with them right before the fight starts. Is that kind of what you were looking for?

[K]

The goal of good abstracted movement system is that fighting in a forest should feel different from from fighting in a plain or a crowded bar. Also, the ability to cast wall of stone should mean something.

[Sigil]

You can get pretty abstract with combat zones, especially if the scope of your rpg is fairly narrow. The public test of the Hyper Light Drifter RPG has a 3x3 battle grid with different attacks and moves that shift you around the grid or require you to be in certain locations:

[Stubbazubba]

The One Ring had an abstract positioning system where you were in one of four positions relative to the bad guys, which it somewhat misleadingly called Stances: Forward, Open, Defensive, and Rearward. The first three were all melee stances, with Rearward being ranged. Stances determined the initiative order, the base TN for attacks both for and against you (that's right, the bad guys don't pick their own Stance, they are just a mass of units whose attacks are contingent on the player characters' Stances), and which special maneuvers were available to you. Terrain features were all abstracted. Assuming neither side was ambushed, then both sides exchanged 1-2 ranged volleys as they closed to melee and then the above setup kicked in.

It was terribly boring and dull, like most things in Middle-earth, but it could be overhauled into a workable almost boardgame-like setup. The first thing I did was house rule a Hidden stance where you cannot be attacked but can attack as usual (yeah, there were no rules in a Lord of the Rings game for attacking someone who couldn't see you, like when you wear the Ring that's in the title of the book). But to get much mileage out of the idea you'd want to go back to the drawing board.

Imagine opposing sides, three rows on a side, Rear, Middle, and Front. If neither side is ambushed, you determine how far away the two sides are and give both sides an appropriate number of volleys. Once the melee has formed, you place the combatants on the field: the Front and Middle lines are melee lines, where the Rear line is ranged only. Your side must have someone in the Front line to use the Middle or Rear line. The Middle line gets a defensive bonus but an attack penalty (though reach weapons might negate the penalty). The Rear line can only be attacked by ranged attacks, creatures with special movement that allow them to attack the Rear (e.g. a mighty leap or flight), or creatures who have succeeded on a check to sneak or charge their way past the melee. At the top of the round, both sides roll for initiative, and the winning side gets to change positions/interact with the terrain first, followed by the other. Then initiative proceeds from Front lines to Back, the side that initially won initiative going first in each line.

Conditions change the way you can move or attack between the lines. Fighting in a forest might give everyone Cover from ranged attacks. Maybe you use Obstacles like a bar table to get out of the Middle line's reach or to make the Front lines fight like the Middle lines. A horizontal wall of stone could prohibit/force a check to move between lines, while a vertical wall of stone could cut the melee into two halves, with the units in the middle making a check to determine which side they end up on. If you successfully Hide behind an obstacle or a larger ally, you can't be attacked and get a bonus to your own attack.

That's...well, it's pretty abstract and it presents a number of explicit tactical choices. No idea if it has much depth, but it's a place to start.