Ending TNE Work Stoppage

[Username17]

Being surrounded is always a condition imposed from an outside source. After all, there is nothing inherent about having a circle of eight people up to 10 feet away from and around a person that would inherently make that person unable to run between his assailants. There is literally enough room between those guys for a person to fit through with arms at full extension spinning around like the Tazmanian Devil. That such a setup automatically means that all exits are blocked is a completely arbitrary win condition of the 5' square system and has little relevance to realspace considerations of any kind. The 5' square is at least as prone to bullshit as a completely abstract system is.

That being said, there are real advantages of arbitrary squares. Mostly involving the fact that it is easier to handle battles involving more than 10 specific participants if their positions are left as markers on the table between their actions; and the enhanced secrecy of tactical goals. In a system of squares, you can move to E4 without telling a single other person why you are moving to that location and thus surprise other people at the table. In an abstract movement system your movement towards the idol's resting place actually gets stated in those terms and thus the other players know what you are up to when you start moving. That's also an advantage for abstractification though, so whatever.

---

Spear formations really benefit from having models on a table with or without a grid. Other systems of battle do not. Guns in particular are concerned with lines of fire that are far more complex than anything that a system of squares can hope to deal with, and a duel of swords ideally involves people moving and slashing quickly enough that one's location in any particular square does not matter.

So the grid looks good if:

• I would otherwise be expected to remember the location of 10+ dudes who are declaring different actions.
• I am overly concerned with the interaction of formations of troops.

And I don't currently think that the intention is to do any of that.

-Username17

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I find that melee combat is far better done with abstract positioning. We're talking about small groups, not pike walls. Position should be fluid and changeable because that fits the style of combat that the game is actually attempting to simulate.

Flanked should just be a natural consequence of getting attacked by several enemies at once. Combine with a bonus for unengaged individuals and you get the emergence of attempting to engage your opponents whilst providing flanking bonuses. The best combination of the two will require tactics just as surely as chain-tripper area denial.

I think the whole abstract positioning thing becomes simpler if you just don't bother trying to keep track of positions within a group of melee combatants most of the time. That way, instead of keeping track of identical or similar distances to each character in a melee, you simply keep track of everybody's distance from Melee Group A. Within Melee Group A, any combatant can attack any other engaged combatant on any turn. Flanking would just be something that happens when you're attacked by two people in the same round (or possibly attacked twice on two consecutive initiative counts if you want readying actions to be an important tactical option).

I'm thinking there could also be rules for specific formations. For example, if the PCs decide to form a wall of four warrior types to protect the fireball-lobbing mage in the back, they can dictate their positioning from left to right within the line. Then every enemy who engages the line must specify which person in the formation is their focus (usually meaning the person directly in front of them) and is limited to attacking that focus or adjacent targets on the line. However, all NPCs only need to worry about their distance from the line, rather than from any particular member of the line.

[RandomCasualty2]

The main problem with not having a battlemap is handling area effects. It doesn't really have to be squares exactly, It can be arbitrary "zones", where any area effect hits everyone in that zone, but I think we probably do need some kind of map system.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The main problem with not having a battlemap is handling area effects. It doesn't really have to be squares exactly, It can be arbitrary "zones", where any area effect hits everyone in that zone, but I think we probably do need some kind of map system.

Having a map is useful when you're running a dungeon crawl or any location where persistent terrain (like an often-visited city) is an issue. That doesn't mean that you need a "map system", although a map system would be useful for visually keeping track of how locations affect characters.


On the other hand, once you get into 'making shit up' territory a map system is almost beside the point. You can grab the white board and sketch something out, but worrying too much about "zones" is probably counter-productive.

[Tydanosaurus]

The main problem with not having a battlemap is handling area effects. It doesn't really have to be squares exactly, It can be arbitrary "zones", where any area effect hits everyone in that zone, but I think we probably do need some kind of map system.

That depends on what sorts of area effects you have. Web in D&D is defined be area, but it could be based on a character instead.

If all area effects are mob based, you don't need any geography to define them at all. You could then define Area effects as Close, Local, Medium, Far, and Room. Then let each combatant take a Stance that broadly defines how closely they are to friendly mobs. Say you have Shieldwall, Support, Skirmish, and Separate. The Stance lets you know which friendlies get hit by which effects. Close hits Shieldwall friendlies. Supportive hits Local. Etc. Stances could then have other effects as well, such as defense and attack bonuses. (Stances could also apply automatically, depending on what you're doing - if you're all in melee with the same opponent, you're in Support.)

To simplify things, you could just say that harmful area effects only affect enemies, and helpful area effects only affect friends.

So now you'd say that Web is a Medium area spell, targetted on a Mob, that effects all mobs in Skirmish stance in the area.

[Username17]

I would go so far as to say that web would work spectacularly better in a non-grid system. The area is seriously a 20' burst cylinder that only stays up if there is stuff to be "between." For areas with a 20' or less ceiling or closed in walls, this is no problem: it simply fills up the requisite number of squares or the whole room respectively. And that's fine and all. But what about a forest? No one really knows what is supposed to happen, where the exact borders are supposed to be.

Having a web effect that created a web that covered everyone who was "in" an area that was definable by attachment points that were at most a certain distance one from another would actually be easier in a completely abstract setup. People are either circling or fighting in the area or they aren't, and those who are get a chance to get out and those who are not are already out. And that's that. The resolution time for this effect is way shorter f you just handwave it all.

Frankly, for small groups fighting in enclosed spaces, even fireball is easier. No longer are people picking points that exact draw squares which include enemies and not allies (trivially easy to do with a square grid), now people just have to accept that their area attacks hit people in areas. Explosions are no longer usable in melee, but honestly they were never supposed to be usable in melee.

-Username17

[Tydanosaurus]

I think we're saying the same thing. If I read him right, RC's getting at something slightly different, which is that spells have different areas of effect. 4E has Burst 1, Burst 2, all the way on up. If you just define an AoE as "Area," you lose that. That might not be a big deal, but IMO it's fun to have some spells that clear out tons of space, and others that are more discriminating.

IMO, it's pretty easy possible to different types of AoE in a mapless system by defining AoE relatively. I was just roughing out one system.

[Bigode]

Multiple settings: first, putting "India", "West", "Far East" and whatever in the same world just isn't gonna fly, for reasons Catharz mentioned. Second, isn't it going to run into rules problems with the multiple implied settings?

Minigames: should be combat, diplomacy and navigation (though the latter might not fit the "opposed activity" requisite); chasing should use as much the exact same rules as combat as possible, just because one turns into the other extremely easily; crafting should be just power level guidelines and not take time (though getting components might well be an interesting endeavor, but not crafting at all); and overland travel's mostly montage stuff, except for parts treated as small-scale navigation (crossing peaks) or combat (kraken attacks ship), so I don't see how "travel" would be a minigame distinct from dungeon exploring. Another thing I wonder about's making army gathering be treated more like crafting than diplomacy, but I'm not sure where that'd lead.

Abstract positioning: first, I have a creeping impression that the whole idea fails to take NotePad into consideration (as to "how hard it is to keep a map"). Second, I haven't ever used an actual map, but I do describe things in actual metric distances, and I'm not seeing not doing so being, for example, more intuitive; in the "I attack orc/block door" example, if you use a map, attacking the orc's just a matter of asking the player whether they want to circle the orc first, and blocking the door, for most doors, just a matter of choosing 1 of 2 positions, so I fail to see complexity.
Also: trying to keep ranges for every creature/important location pair seems vastly more complex than keeping track of distances (perhaps because I do expect 10+ combatants in battles, and even a spear wall or 2). Not to say I don't see the advantages of abstraction (especially for fencing) ...

---

EDIT:

Frankly, for small groups fighting in enclosed spaces, even fireball is easier. No longer are people picking points that exact draw squares which include enemies and not allies (trivially easy to do with a square grid), now people just have to accept that their area attacks hit people in areas. Explosions are no longer usable in melee, but honestly they were never supposed to be usable in melee.

Considering there are tradeoffs for avoiding blasting allies even in that, I fail to see a problem (especially because it's easy - it's not some arcane trick to put newbies down, IMO).

[CatharzGodfoot]

So, circling. Circling seems to tie into the chase mechanics quite tightly. That's an excuse to make it a little more involved that one might otherwise do. I can imagine a number of setups, all with varying levels of complexity, engagement, and 'realism'.

The easiest would be for the circler/evader choosing what defense they will evade with, and then each chaser make a roll to 'catch' the evader. The defense would carry some fluffy flavor text that amounts to 'Make up something that seems relevant given the attribute and environment'. The roll could simply be 'choose your highest attribute and roll', or it could be determined through some matrix by the defense.

A similar method which seems more in tune with the mechanics but less intuitive is to have the evader make an attack on each chaser. In this case the attack chosen will carry the flavor text as well as all attributes used in defense. It makes a single character roll all the dice (which sucks), but it does have the advantage of using existing mechanics.

You could also have a more 'stance'-like system, where the evading character and each of the the chasing characters decide on an ability to use, and then there is some alternate (opposed skill check) resolution system.

If we have a strong, general 'opposed checks' mechanic, that might be best. The evader rolls only one and each chaser rolls once as well. Then we have to consider if we use an opposed checks system that allows degrees of success (which is best for chasing) or is binary (best for circling). That's actually a decent argument for keeping the systems separate.

[Username17]

Having a decent chase mechanic is I think key. It's probably the single worst thing about D&D is that no one ever catches anyone else unless they win initiative (and then the other can't get away).

I think a simple opposed 3d6 roll with speed modifiers would be best. Although I could easily be persuaded that what needs to happen is a single 3d6 roll made by the chaser that is modified by a flat speed number from the pursued character.

In any case, I think that a standing rule of impediments and stunts can be put into place. If you get chased across a impediment (stairs, market stalls, streams, whatever), you have an increased chance of getting caught that round, but the distance between you isn't affected if you aren't caught. Either you or the pursuer can attempt a "stunt" to make it across the impediment without slowing down. If only one person stunts across, the impediment value turns into a real and persistent bonus to their chase test. If both characters stunt across, the impediment turns into nothing at all (or a real and persistent bonus to both sides depending upon how you look at it). But failing a stunt causes you to stop and/or fall or take damage depending. Some impediments can only be passed with a stunt (example: pit).

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Having a decent chase mechanic is I think key. It's probably the single worst thing about D&D is that no one ever catches anyone else unless they win initiative (and then the other can't get away).

I think a simple opposed 3d6 roll with speed modifiers would be best. Although I could easily be persuaded that what needs to happen is a single 3d6 roll made by the chaser that is modified by a flat speed number from the pursued character.

Well I don't know if I really want to do out a chase in feet. Most of the time you want to use a chase mechanic in settings and situations where you're covering vast amounts of terrain, like chasing someone through the city streets or the wilderness, and likely you haven't got that mapped out, so 150 ft is the same as 400 ft.

The only thing you really care about is relative positions, and even then I figure it's better to abstract them and not worry about it. Being faster should be a bonus, but that's it.

As far as obstacles, offhand I would say that chases should be a series of chase turns. Each turn, the guy escaping has an option to try to shake his pursuers, and based on the chase setting you'd have a variety of options.

So you'd basically have a variety of obstacles like "Low branches: Character must duck or jump over the branches to proceed." This means you're making some kind of skill check and the winner of the skill check wins that chase turn. If you win by 5 or more, then you get a major success.

Chases are determined by fail points. Everytime you win you can assign a fail point to one person that you beat. If you win by 5 or more, you can assign a fail point to *everyone* that you got a major success on. This is cumulative with the original fail point.

Anyone with say 5 fail points drops out of the chase. If you were pursuing, then you lost the guy you were after. IF you were being pursued, then you got caught.

Note that in a case of multiple guys running, you may only catch one of them.

A group can also choose to stick together. In such a case, they always use the weakest bonus among their group and share a universal fail count, being considered as one entity.

Also, a group of those being pursued can choose to split up completely, heading in entirely different directions. This means that anyone following them must split into separate chases involving only the split groups. So if a gang of thieves suddenly scatters, your party must decide to split up itself to pursue each of them, or you must decide to only pursue one.

I think that would work fairly well.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Jesus, how much of a game do you want to spend running away?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well, it's not all about running away. Sometimes it's about running down punks.

Chase scenes are an important subset of action sequences. They have a very well staked out piece of psychic real estate. If you're going to have them, it's important to do them well.

[Manxome]

The "kiting" strategy should probably be kept in mind in deciding how chase mechanics should work and how they interact with battle mechanics. I'm not sure what degree of kiting is desirable.

Regardless, we've had a lot of discussion about chases before, and IMHO, the following are key issues (though perhaps not the only key issues):

1) The chase rules need to say what it means to be "caught," in terms that carry over into whichever minigame you play next. If the chase rules just say "the chase is over, go to combat" and the combat rules say "you can choose the 'flee' action to initiate a chase," then you'll just start running again.

2) The chase rules should accommodate more than two sides; e.g. a bounty hunter should be able to chase a thief at the same time as the city guard, and if the hunter catches him first, that shouldn't necessarily mean that the city guard finds them both.

3) The chase rules should accommodate chasing and being chased at the same time; e.g. the party is chasing the thief while the guard chases the party.

4) The chase mechanics should accommodate people joining a chase mid-scene; e.g. the party is running from orcs for a while, and then a balrog shows up and everyone has to run from it.

5) People will try to conduct a chase using regular battle mechanics instead of the chase rules if they can gain an advantage from doing so; this should therefore either be impossible or not advantageous.

6) The chase rules should work whether or not we already know a lot of details about the environment in which the chase is occurring.

[RandomCasualty2]

The "kiting" strategy should probably be kept in mind in deciding how chase mechanics should work and how they interact with battle mechanics. I'm not sure what degree of kiting is desirable.

Honestly, I'd probably eliminate most of the kiting problem, or at the very least implement some kind of facing rules for ranged combats to make it harder. The idea that you can somehow run in one direction and fire a bow in the other just shouldn't work at all.

1) The chase rules need to say what it means to be "caught," in terms that carry over into whichever minigame you play next. If the chase rules just say "the chase is over, go to combat" and the combat rules say "you can choose the 'flee' action to initiate a chase," then you'll just start running again.

Offhand, I'd say that coming into combat from a chase means that the guy who got caught takes a penalty to movement, probably like half speed. That way he can't run away.

5) People will try to conduct a chase using regular battle mechanics instead of the chase rules if they can gain an advantage from doing so; this should therefore either be impossible or not advantageous.

This one I'm not quite so sure how to deal with. It's inherently going to be a more abstract system for running through arbitrary "city streets" than it is to run through a city street that has been thoroughly mapped out for battle. So the transition from chase mode to combat mode is something I'm not particularly sure how to deal with.

Of course, if we don't use a battle map, I guess it would be easy enough. It only gets hard when you try to switch from concrete grid movement to abstract movement.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

The idea that you can somehow run in one direction and fire a bow in the other just shouldn't work at all.

Horses.

2) The chase rules should accommodate more than two sides; e.g. a bounty hunter should be able to chase a thief at the same time as the city guard, and if the hunter catches him first, that shouldn't necessarily mean that the city guard finds them both.

This one is easy. The thief pulls off an evade stunt, the bounty hunter pulls off his pursue and capture stunts, and the city guards fail their pursuit stunt. If you had various levels of success, the city guards might stumble upon the thief and bounty hunter in the middle of a discussion/fight, or after the bounty hunter has killed the thief and taken his ears.

[K]

4) The chase mechanics should accommodate people joining a chase mid-scene; e.g. the party is running from orcs for a while, and then a balrog shows up and everyone has to run from it.

How very....Scooby Doo.

[Manxome]

Honestly, I'd probably eliminate most of the kiting problem, or at the very least implement some kind of facing rules for ranged combats to make it harder. The idea that you can somehow run in one direction and fire a bow in the other just shouldn't work at all.

Even if you're mounted, a passenger in a vehicle (carriage, boat, etc.), or levitating?

Is it similarly unworkable to cast an area-affecting spell that will encompass your pursuers, or last long enough at a fixed point for them to run into it? (e.g. wall of fire) You could make it totally impractical to cast magic while moving, but that doesn't leave the wizard much to do during a chase scene.

Could you alternate between running away and pausing to let off an attack? (Assuming you're fast enough compared to your pursuer to make this worthwhile.) Or maybe just literally walk backwards if your opponent is a zombie or forced to crawl or something similarly slow?

Just tossing out ideas...

Offhand, I'd say that coming into combat from a chase means that the guy who got caught takes a penalty to movement, probably like half speed. That way he can't run away.

That could work, provided that the rules for transitioning from the combat minigame to the chase minigame have some conditions that can't be easily fulfilled when you're moving at half speed.

It doesn't seem to make a lot of narrative sense, though. You've been running away from these people, but they turned out to be faster than you, so when they catch up, you trun around to fight, and...you're at a speed penalty, putting you at a tactical disadvantage even if you weren't planning on running away. Why? You could argue that you're winded or some such, but the chase mechanics I've seen suggested so far don't appear to provide any narrative reason to believe that the person who's failing the opposed movement tests is necessarily getting any more winded than the opposition.

That also means that if you're running from a cheetah, and it catches you, and then all of a sudden a tortoise shows up, you can no longer run from the tortoise (or at least, not as effectively), even after you deal with the cheetah. Which also kind of strains narrative credibility.

Of course, not every mechanic necessarily has to make narrative sense, but my intuition is leaning more towards a mechanic that allows the pursuers to attack their quarry without anyone actually leaving chase mode, so you can hinder people with the same attacks you'd use to restrict enemy movement in combat (eventually forcing them out of chase mode if you slow them enough), or even just pelt them with arrows until they drop dead, assuming you can keep up and they never decide it would be a better idea to turn and fight.

4) The chase mechanics should accommodate people joining a chase mid-scene; e.g. the party is running from orcs for a while, and then a balrog shows up and everyone has to run from it.

How very....Scooby Doo.

It could just as easily be that you're chasing a thief and he calls for help and now his buddies are chasing you chasing the thief, but that involves a combination with #3, so it doesn't make for as clean an example.

[virgil]

Or you could say that 'winning' a chase merely puts you in melee range of your target, which allows for a chance to grab them or just plain hit them. When there is an opposed check for the pursuer entering his target's melee range, the pursued could choose to oppose via moving back (using speed modifiers) or stabbing the face (using reach modifiers).

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Of course, not every mechanic necessarily has to make narrative sense, but my intuition is leaning more towards a mechanic that allows the pursuers to attack their quarry without anyone actually leaving chase mode, so you can hinder people with the same attacks you'd use to restrict enemy movement in combat (eventually forcing them out of chase mode if you slow them enough), or even just pelt them with arrows until they drop dead, assuming you can keep up and they never decide it would be a better idea to turn and fight.

Yeah. So if the pursuer 'catches' his target while running, he can take a combat option against him. The target cannot take any combat options while fleeing, so they have to make a choice. They can stop to fight and get a combat action. Or they can continue to flee, eating sword swipes at their back along the way, while desperately searching for an opportunity for a 'stunt' that is favorable to them (Ex: a dex stunt for a Rogue target being pursued by armored guards).

[CatharzGodfoot]

So, why not use the same rules for chasing and circling (which eliminates the 'combat starts, now you can run away' problem)?

[RandomCasualty2]

Even if you're mounted, a passenger in a vehicle (carriage, boat, etc.), or levitating?

Actually you can't really shoot backwards while mounted. You can do side attacks though, this is why the basic horse archer tactic was to circle their enemies. If you're riding directly away, you really can't fire backwards, unless you happened to be sitting backwards in the saddle, which would just be stupid since you couldn't control the horse and wouldn't be able to see where you're going.

Certainly archers on true vehicles should be able to fire backwards, similar to magic carpets. For flight it depends on the manueverability. If you're talking about perfect maneuverability then they may be able to go backwards and fire, but honestly, I'd institute some penalties as far as navigation. Going fast flying backwards should be dangerous.

I think D&D lets people get away with far too much in terms of maneuverability, especially with flight. It should require some kind of check to maneuver your way through a forest or you hit branches and start crashing, and this check should be at a severe penalty if you're doing it while flying backwards.

Is it similarly unworkable to cast an area-affecting spell that will encompass your pursuers, or last long enough at a fixed point for them to run into it? (e.g. wall of fire) You could make it totally impractical to cast magic while moving, but that doesn't leave the wizard much to do during a chase scene.

Really, I'm looking for more of a facing system, so that you'd have to turn around to cast something on people behind you. GURPS handles this pretty well in its tactical combat system. You can if you want either step backwards or alternate between turning and running and attacking, but either slows you do significantly. I probably don't want to get as indepth as GURPS does, but I'd like to simulate that feel. Where you can't just run full speed in one direction while firing in the other without special circumstances. Either you have to cut your speed because you're just stepping backwards, or you've got to turn around at times.

It's one aspect of GURPS that I really like, in that it handles the kiting phenomenon pretty well from what I've seen. I like the D&D omnifacing for most things, but for running away the rules really get abused.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Even if you're mounted, a passenger in a vehicle (carriage, boat, etc.), or levitating?

Actually you can't really shoot backwards while mounted. You can do side attacks though, this is why the basic horse archer tactic was to circle their enemies. If you're riding directly away, you really can't fire backwards, unless you happened to be sitting backwards in the saddle, which would just be stupid since you couldn't control the horse and wouldn't be able to see where you're going.

Wow, that's going to be news to the Empire of Parthia. Not to mention the Huns, Magyars and Mongols, all of whose warriors routinely did exactly what you are claiming is impossible.

[Ice9]

5) People will try to conduct a chase using regular battle mechanics instead of the chase rules if they can gain an advantage from doing so; this should therefore either be impossible or not advantageous.

This is a tricky one, because sometimes the party is the chaser, and sometimes they're being chased. So whether the combat mechanics make it easier or harder to catch someone than the chase mechanics, there'll be a time when that's advantageous. For that reason, unifying the chase and circling mechanics (at least to the extent that chasing is an expanded form of circling) seems like the best bet.


I'm visualizing a system somewhat like this:
You have a chasing/chased people on a linear track, either a specific or abstract distance apart.
So either: Balor <- 50' -> Warrior <- 20' -> Goblin
Or: Balor <- Medium -> Warrior <- Close -> Goblin

Then each party makes a movement check, with bonuses/penalties determined by their speed, any special chase abilities they have, and what kind of terrain hazards they have to deal with. They move an amount forward based on this check, which will result in the distance between parties changing if their checks are different enough.

Attacking someone in front of you can be done if you're close enough, with a minor chase-roll penalty, but attacking someone behind you gives a more significant penalty, and might interfere with "stunting" past terrain hazards.


The problem I'm seeing with this is that between two people of roughly the same speed, a chase is likely to remain inconclusive. Especially with 3d6, chance variations are likely to balance out, leaving us in the same situation when they stop running that we were when they started.

[Draco_Argentum]

What if circling/closing allows you to also take a normal action and flee/chase only allows chase actions? Combine with arbitrary positioning and chasing becomes the same thing as combat.

Losing a chase should probably effect the terrain where the participants end up. So losing in a city might have a "dead end alley" result. This would mean the quarry ends up in a dead end alley with the pursuers blocking the exit terrain feature.