Movement and Mayhem

[Username17]

So I was looking at what would go in to making a 4e character class, and honestly I got bored and abandoned the project because 4e characters don't do anything interesting. But it occurred to me while I was doing it that while the whole squares thing they got going on for 4th edition D&D while sterile is not actually super bad. It does cover the basics, it just isn't very interesting.

So it got me thinking: what is actually required to make a system of position actually interesting?

Abstract or Fixed?

Having actual hexes or squares has real advantages. Leaving things abstract and dealing with things in zones has real advantages as well. On the one hand counting hexes is annoying, but on the other hand moving your pieces to check mate an ogre is satisfying. On the one hand having everyone in the room being in the "room zone" can be confusing, on the other hand speed of resolution is a clarity all its own. Tradeoffs either way.

How Far Away?

While I was pushing things around I noticed that "ranged" attacks in 4e don't really feel like they go very far. I mean part of it is certainly that I get the strong impression that 5 squares is seriously only 25 feet. That I seriously live in a dorm room which is out of range for short bow fire from the ground. And that seems wrong in many ways. But regardless, a game could very easily set 5 hexes or even 1 hex into being far away. The hexes in Battletech are like 100m on a side or something.

The big problem I think is that there's no effects of things being far away. If things actually had some sort of accuracy penalty after 5 squares or something it would lend itself to interpretation that things beyond that were "far away." As is, if everything in range uses exactly the same attack rolls, nothing "feels" like it is far away.

-Username17

[virgil]

Well, the more intricate movement systems tends to make that a focus of the system, so as to keep the learning curve reasonable.

[Maxus]

You want the system to be provide real bonuses that'd make you pay attention when the situation calls for it. Like a bonus for getting the high ground, whether it's a hill slope during a battle or jumping onto a table during a bar fight.

Personally, I'm in favor of absolute positioning when you have a means to conveniently keep track of it. Most of my DnD games have been online, so most distances/positions have been subject to DM fiat, with questions like "Any lines or cones that get more than one person"?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

I strongly vote for fixed positioning.

So it got me thinking: what is actually required to make a system of position actually interesting?

You need different movement modes, and abilities that key off of those different movement modes. The most enjoyable Pc I ever played was based around this idea.

I've said something similar to the following a while back, but it bears repeating here. A good example is Spider-Man. He has a very unusual mode of movement using his webs. He utilizes this movement in order to make his most cinematic and devastating attacks.

Thor (comic book version) is also a good example. He doesn't jump really high, or fly, or run fast. Instead he throws his insanely heavy hammer with such strength that it flies hundreds of feet into the air. And he holds on for the ride.

The Incredible Hulk in the first movie could jump so high and so far he was virtually flying. But he couldn't change direction in mid-air.

Nightcrawler from X-men is awesome. His ability to make nearly instantaneous teleports virtually defines his combat ability.

Here is a video that shows these different movement modes in action, and how cinematic and awesome they can be:

The action ends at the 3:30 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzIRmo1v ... re=related

[Ravengm]

All the pushing and sliding also does precisely dick when you can simply charge back in (getting a bonus to boot) and continue smacking someone over the head.

If you could push someone back far enough where it actually mattered, it'd be a different story. But 2 squares isn't going to do anything when you can move 12 in a single round.

Now, if you slide someone and they can't take a move action for a round, that'd be useful.

Edit: Or, for that matter, knock them prone. It'd be more realistic anyway. If an attack sends me sprawiling 15 feet back, I'd more than likely land on my ass.

[Draco_Argentum]

I'd like there to be knock-backs (preferably through walls) because its cool.

Abstract or Fixed: I can see it either way, as long as the 5ft step and act unhindered thing is gone. So either zones large enough that that is impossible or no 5ft steps.

I can't think of any intelligent reason to disagree about ranged stuff being ranged. I will point out that the 3.x idea where wizards have no ranged increments and archers do is stupid.

[Username17]

If you could still do 3rd edition style spear fences then knocking someone out of melee range would matter. If forced movement counted against your movement for the next turn, then knocking someone around would matter. If you could smack people into things and damage them Champions style then knockback would matter. If people had to make rolls to stay standing after forced movement, then knocking people around would matter.

Frankly, I would like to do all of these things. The only caveat I can think of off hand is that I'm not sure I feel about the possibility of having the best way to smash through a brick wall to be to line unconscious gremlins up and hit them with smash moves in the direction of walls. Although even then that's sufficiently out there that I might be OK with it.

-Frnak

[SunTzuWarmaster]

"If you were to Bull Rush or Knockback an opponent through a wall, it does d6 of damage to both the opponent and the wall (resistance and hardness count normally) If one (or multiple in the case of large creatures) square of wall has taken more than it's hitpoints of damage, it breaks and the opponent is knocked through and no further damage is dealt to the opponent. A broken wall may or may not induced structure failure at the discrepancy of the DM".

Then you can have Juggernaut add it's +4 wall damage ability and stuff and it can still be awesome to knock people through walls. Also, you don't want to be next to the wall because your movement is limited and people can seriously use it as a weapon when they are unarmed.

[PhoneLobster]

You know I vote for zones and I've elaborated on that a fair bit too.

But if you are leaning toward squares then I point out that there is a lot to be learned from the square system in the board game "Descent".

I mean sure you end up spending more than half the game counting squares and interacting with them but at least its engaging and seems to mostly function in appropriate ways.

Things to learn from Descent.

1) There are relatively few squares. Corridors aren't very wide, rooms are relatively small, ranges and movement aren't far. 4 squares is a LONG way. If you ever want anything to ACTUALLY block anything that's a must.

2) Line of sight is highly formalised, REALLY easy to judge, and actually interacts clearly with the square system and model/terrain placement.

3) Movement, area attacks and range are actually very costly in character resources and actions. Every square counts, a lot.

[MartinHarper]

If you could still do 3rd edition style spear fences then knocking someone out of melee range would matter.

Kobolds can kinda do spear fences. Or pike fences.
"If a piker readies an action to make a basic melee attack against a foe that enters a square adjacent to it, it gains +4 damage on that attack".

Pretty meh, still/

[Manxome]

2) Line of sight is highly formalised, REALLY easy to judge, and actually interacts clearly with the square system and model/terrain placement.

It does have some problematic edge cases due to the fact that creatures can only be targeted in the center of their square but block LOS through their entire square.

[virgil]

In retrospect, abstract systems tend to be the ones where strategy of position doesn't matter as much, which I think is counter to the sim-combat that TNE/D&D offers. Also, wouldn't abstract tend to make one imagine the equivalent of a card game where you lay out your card while the room card determines the 'environmental' effects?

I guess I'll take a solid choice of fixed positioning, just hopefully not soo fixed that you NEED a miniature board to do it.

One thing I've thought would be cool, just as a related tangent, would be a related way to use a chess board for our minis board instead of the mat. That doesn't work all that well in D&D when you have outdoor combat though, since we're talking about only 40' wide section of forest.

[Koumei]

One thing I've thought would be cool, just as a related tangent, would be a related way to use a chess board for our minis board instead of the mat. That doesn't work all that well in D&D when you have outdoor combat though, since we're talking about only 40' wide section of forest.

A chess board is a handy thing to use for miniatures in D&D. Hell, you can even use the pieces. The Cleric is the Bishop, the Tome Fighter is the Knight or Rook (Castle), the Wizard is the King, and the kobolds are Pawns.

One friend of mine owns a glass table. He used semi-permanent markers (the kind that can be easily washed off, but takes more than a simple wipe) to put a grid on the entire underside of it. He also marked out little crosses so that Go can easily be played on it (note: you can't place the stones properly, as it'd probably crack the glass) and shaded enough squares to make an easy chess board as well.

It was pretty successful.

[Username17]

Yes, abstract position systems are well modeled in card games. Shadowfist for example has people either at one location or another, and characters can defend characters and sites at their location without moving and have to move to attack or defend at another location.

Fixed position systems can go the Necromunda method where you literally just have figures running around on actual terrain or the Battletech option where you have arbitrary hexes and your figures are in one or the other. The latter option has advantages and disadvantages.

One of the biggest disadvantages for hex systems I think is that almost no building is actually large enough to accommodate a decent number of them. For example, my dorm room is seriously two 5' squares. I can and often do have 4 or more people in here.

One of the biggest disadvantages of the tape measure method is that ironically exact distances are hard to gauge. People will constantly measure from near the end of the model to the end of the model where its new position is.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

imagine the equivalent of a card game where you lay out your card while the room card determines the 'environmental' effects

And what the hell is wrong with that? It's tactical, its simulation, its potentially complex and engaging. And if you find card games offensive then someone should get on Frank's ass about the whole annoying Magic The Gathering theme thing...

But no, you people LITERALLY want to play on a chess board now.

Oddly enough the mechanics and dimensions of a chess game are NOT actually particularly productive for RPGs, but you know go ahead, saddle TNE with that lumbering archaic bullshit.

Just, I don't know, check out Descent or someone else who got halfway right and don't model it off anything that looks like anything WOTC tried.

And just remember Descent is a board game, not an RPG, and as very simple as their movement and positioning rules are they are massively complex in their actual play, and not even close to covering all the bases you will need for TNE.

But hey, what do I care? You people seem absolutely set on writing a set of fixed positioning rules with bullshit grids out the yin yang until we all die of square counting disputes.

just hopefully not soo fixed that you NEED a miniature board to do it.

Sorry that goal isn't really doable.

You effectively have to make the fixed positioning not actually matter (or be so simple as to effectively be "abstract" for that to work. In which case you, well, aren't actually using fixed positioning...

PS
One other point. Grid and hex systems are also abstract, just a different more complex abstract. Even tape measure positioning systems are an abstraction.

Its a pedantic point but important as some folks will not realise that and thus stupidly mistake those systems as "more like reality" and therefore "better".

[Koumei]

I think I prefer abstract, if only because I'm lazy/I play online, where it's annoying to have to make ASCii maps or whatever. Abstract can be made into a fast-moving, smooth system, and people who want to use minis are still totally able to do so. Just now, instead of drawing 100 squares on the table, you draw big boxes of different colours to represent the different abstract areas, then place the minis in those sections.

So I don't have the kind of ire and hatred for grids and tape measures that PhoneLobster has, but still prefer abstract, for what it's worth. Sure, it's a big difference from the traditions of D&D, but it's okay to change things - the current changes are pretty huge as-is.

[virgil]

The reason I thought it would be cool to use a chessboard is because of reduced costs and portability. When I said you shouldn't NEED a mini's board, but still have fixed positioning, I figured you would actually be able to make a simple deduction...something not as rigorously detailed as 3.5 yet not as vague as your obese polygon thing, you know, a merging/compromise between the two.

[Amra]

Kounmei, if you want to talk "traditions of D&D" I'm afraid that, as an ex-pre-Combat & Tactics-2nd-Edition player, I'm right at home with "no map whatsoever". Of course, there weren't a bunch of abilities in 2e that relied heavily on relative placement so it wasn't too big a deal. I really hated the move to the 3e combat style inasmuch as it made everything more mechanistic and war-gamey [1], although of course it reduced ambiguity in combat resolution.

I for one find the idea of an abstract system much better for the purposes of an honest-to-goodness role-playing game, as oppposed to a tactical-wargaming-with-swords borefest like 4e. But, you know, that's purely personal preference and I wouldn't argue the right or wrong of it.

[1] Note that I'm not saying that's necessarily a Bad Thing (TM), just that *I* didn't like it

[Koumei]

I never really played much 2E - by the time I got into roleplaying with stats, 3.0 was in, and although I tried 2E before 3E, there were fewer games of it available, and I ultimately didn't enjoy it as much as I did/do 3E.

By the time I actually decided to start learning rules (as opposed to saying "You make the sheet for me." and thinking Con is the second most important stat for everyone and that fireball is an awesome spell), 3.5 came in.

So I really couldn't say whether 2E was designed with grids in mind or not. I get the feeling it wasn't, from what you said.

[Username17]

While it is demonstrably true that you catch more flies with vinegar than honey, I think Phone Lobster is overstating his case a lot. Fixed positioning is quite valuable, especially for things for which facing and weaponry frontage is important: spear formations and naval vessels being the obvious examples. But as Koumei pointed out it's basically a closed issue for online play. You physically can't move little minis around whatever Mr. Rouse wants to tell you about the Virtual Table Top.

Which means that no matter what system of movement and position is used, it is important that it be at least reducible to something that can be played in this format:

• thrustguy1: I want to run up and stab the gremlin bandit in the face.
  HoboKen: The skeleton is in the way, are you trying to push past?
  thrustguy1: Yeah, that skeleton is bullshit, I'll take the hit to try to shield bash it over on my way through.

And that means that even if specific details of specific location and facing are present in the game, they have to be something that you can potentially ignore.

-Username17

[Koumei]

While it is demonstrably true that you catch more flies with vinegar than honey, I think Phone Lobster is overstating his case a lot.

I think he's just in a shitty mood today.

But yeah, if I can't easily play it online, I can't play it at all, these days. And it'd be even worse for IM-based games, as they can't even attempt ASCii maps (at least, not without holding the game up for longer than a 4E boss fight).

[Maxus]

While it is demonstrably true that you catch more flies with vinegar than honey, I think Phone Lobster is overstating his case a lot.

I think he's just in a shitty mood today.

But yeah, if I can't easily play it online, I can't play it at all, these days. And it'd be even worse for IM-based games, as they can't even attempt ASCii maps (at least, not without holding the game up for longer than a 4E boss fight).

One day, someone's going to write a multiplayer, dice-rolling online program that'd be able to display an uploaded grid map. With preferably as low-tech a graphics and RAM requirements as possible--just a chat interface, the map window, and the dice-rollers.

Well, I hope someone does, anyway.

[PhoneLobster]

I think Phone Lobster is overstating his case a lot.

Am I?

I think the Descent square system is about everything you could hope it would be. It's great. And its significantly simpler than what we would want for the equivalent in an RPG.

But I cannot after multiple attempts round up four experienced gamers culled from a larger community of experienced gamers who can actually remember, understand and properly use that system without making simple errors or failing to perceive obviously more beneficial permutations of movement. ,

Even with miniatures sitting there on a grid on a table, even after multiple multi hour games under their belts.

Sadly that is a problem that you are going to have with ANY system sufficiently complex to handle the stuff we want RPGs to do.

But really the more Frank's example of what needs to be handled is the actual in practice dialogue the better.

The more we add stuff like "I want to move to the gremlin along one of 6 different 5-8 square paths" and the more the response is "Well the best path I can manage to discern takes you through 1-3 of the 4-7 square skeleton interception ranges" the more problems will occur.

I mean I can't even go through a game of Descent without facing someone saying "Oh, I didn't know you could move through other players squares" or "Oh, you can move diagonally?". Let alone "Oh, so puddles don't block LOS?" "What? Familiars can share squares with any other model?" "Monsters don't block LOS for spawning?" etc...

[JonSetanta]

Kounmei, if you want to talk "traditions of D&D" I'm afraid that, as an ex-pre-Combat & Tactics-2nd-Edition player, I'm right at home with "no map whatsoever". Of course, there weren't a bunch of abilities in 2e that relied heavily on relative placement so it wasn't too big a deal. I really hated the move to the 3e combat style inasmuch as it made everything more mechanistic and war-gamey [1], although of course it reduced ambiguity in combat resolution.

I for one find the idea of an abstract system much better for the purposes of an honest-to-goodness role-playing game, as oppposed to a tactical-wargaming-with-swords borefest like 4e. But, you know, that's purely personal preference and I wouldn't argue the right or wrong of it.

[1] Note that I'm not saying that's necessarily a Bad Thing (TM), just that *I* didn't like it

I agree completely.
Relative distances, as I call it, work better in a world where grids and tiles are not desired.

It's a bit disturbing that 4e attempts to force players to use grids but I will resist every step of the way.

Quote:
I think Phone Lobster is overstating his case a lot.

Am I?

You are.

[Draco_Argentum]

Am I?

I think so. I play Descent too and I don't find issues as bad as what you do. "Oh you can move diagonally" is an absolute noob mistake. I don't think you're presenting a good case by bringing up something this stupid.

Oh btw, there is an online RPG program, at least two actually. User input map with grid option, dice rollers and character sheets. I've played on it and its pretty decent. But 1280x1024 is just too small to have all that stuff on the screen simultaneously and really be able to see the map properly.

No I don't remember what its called.