Sarim Rune said:
Everybody can have a valid opinion. Some people like their tactical combat.
I, like some here, do not. I find it interesting that some people can be so opposite.
Isn't it great that we live in a world where everybody is different? I've spent 18 years learning how to retain atmosphere during tactical scenes. It's not something that every GM can do, but once you figure it out you don't want to go back.
Herr Arnulfe said:
I'm not.
monkeylite said:
I'm not.
TELL me about it. 
"Some girls are bigger than others. Some girls' mothers are bigger than other girls' mothers."
- the Smiths
monkeylite said:
Herr Arnulfe said:
I'm not.
But you are! You're just different in a different way.
monkeylite said:
Herr Arnulfe said:
I'm not.
=)
Herr Arnulfe said:
Sarim Rune said:
Everybody can have a valid opinion. Some people like their tactical combat.
I, like some here, do not. I find it interesting that some people can be so opposite.
Isn't it great that we live in a world where everybody is different? I've spent 18 years learning how to retain atmosphere during tactical scenes. It's not something that every GM can do, but once you figure it out you don't want to go back.
I like to add atmosphere as well and have spent about the same amount of time learning the tricks. However, there are some systems that support you, some that do not get in your way and some that do get in your way.
I happen to find that Warhammer is a system that supports you in this endeavor. D&D 3.X didn't support you and 4th edition happens to c-block you. I'm not saying that you can't add narrative flair to combat with any system but some systems just seem to work against you rather than for you.
Sarim Rune said:
I happen to find that Warhammer is a system that supports you in this endeavor. D&D 3.X didn't support you and 4th edition happens to c-block you. I'm not saying that you can't add narrative flair to combat with any system but some systems just seem to work against you rather than for you.
Keep in mind, I'm coming mainly from WFRP v1 and v2, not D&D (nothing against D&D though!). WFRP v1 was the epitome of rules-light tactical combat. v2 added some gamist combat options that took awhile for pro-atmosphere GMs to get used to, but it still felt pretty simulationist. v3 takes a very different approach to combat - much more gamist than simulationist.
commoner said:
CMtheGM said:
I have the exact opposite opinion as the OP. After years of playing games with tactical combats, I've finally put my finger on what things with those games always felt off to me and lessened my enjoyment: Tactical Combats!, I want fast, dirty, quick combats. I don't need 60 minute chessmatches. If this game had tactical combats I wouldn't be interested, plain and simple.
I am with you there. I do not even draw maps or layouts unless it is absolutely necessary. I even let my players make up terrain as they go along as long as the feature fits the setting, like they cannot find magical fairy mushrooms in a bar for instance. But in a bar they can create banisters, by simply saying "I hop the banister" or stairwells and the like. It gives a much more cinematic feel and I reward great stunting and player imput with dice. They stunt everything and every roll when we fight add flavor to the fight. We stopped doing task resolution all together and focus on conflict resolution and I find it is not only faster, but more engaging. Players love to be able to grab the story, the setting and scenario and shake it around. Warhammer lets me do just that. We use the range system simply to say, you are close to that guy. That guy is farther away, medium or so, or you are engaged with three guys. Just that simple. It really helps when we do not have to confine combats to grids and every game we have played we scrap the grid immediately and takes, low and behold, ten minutes.
To the OP, hey, I am glad you had us write your range system for you since you did not want to do it yourself! LOL, sarcasm intended and I am Totally kidding of course. I am glad we brought you to look at it a different way.
Honestly, if you want a detailed range and movement system dropped ontop of this system you do not create yourself, check out a little game called Mordheim. It is totally free, downloadable from Games Workshop. It has nearly every race imaginable outlined in terms of how many inches (just convert them to squares if not using inches) they move. The range for each type of weapon listed in the Warhammer Roleplay Core. They have just about everything you could want in terms of giving it a system. If players want to advance their movement, just let them buy for 1 Advance +1 inch (1 Square of movement) per rank. Oh, did I mention since Warhammer is a detailed tabletop-rpg hybrid of sorts, it has tons of detail for death from above, cover, defending your comrade, etc. Some of that is in the Warhammer core, but if you want details, hit up Mordheim. I would probably kill the run move in Mordheim and stick with a run sort of move costing fatigue for each additional 2 inches you want to run up to a maximum double your move (which is how far people can run in Mordheim).
Commoner, Mordheim is a good possibility. I'll check it out!
What do you guys think of individual terrain rules cards? That way, you can mixmatch cards to quickly create unique locations and mods/rules are on the table for all to easily see and recognize.
Like:
Slippery with Blood. The floors are covered in blood and viscera. Add a mishap dice to all combat and move related checks. Two banes indicate the character falls down. If a character falls down in the muck, he must make an easy Insanity check.
Light Rubble. Uneven stones and/or timber are strewn about. Movement is slowed by 1/2. If you run, make an Ag check. Three banes indicate you take 1 wound and fall down.
Heavy Rubble. Collapsed structures have left large piles of rubble, splinted timbers, and shattered glass. Movement is slowed by 3/4. If you run, make an Ag check. One bane = take 1 wound. Two bane = 1d6 wounds and fall down. During combat, add 2 mishap dice. 1 bane = fall down, 2 bane = fall down and take 1 wound, 3 banes = fall down, stunned, and take 1d6 wounds.
Vicious Bunny Meadow. Enraged, carnivorous bunnies randomly leap from hidden burrows during combat. Two banes = 1d6 wounds from vorpal buck teeth.
Lonely Shack. Only 3 people in engagement in shack. Ranged combat into shack is at +3 difficulty.
Heavy Rain. Ranged combat 2 difficulty. Reduce missile range by 1/2. Add mishap die to all combat dice.
Actually, I like this idea. I'll see if I can sell this to my players.
I bet that FFG could sell packs of these. I'd buy them. Especially if they had cool pics on them.
(Obviously, I like official cards and bits instead of home-made stuff.)
(Apologies if I've mixed up the terminology.)
Sinister said:
I like the a abstract system but i did something beyond what the game intended. I place a dry erase map under the pcs and draw in the terrian, and then put out the distance markers. It works great and doesn't have the players freaking out about their being no map. IMO it's much easier to add terrian in an abstract game, then play without it in a very crunchy move system.
I had a nice post but the system ate it. Long story short. FATE 3.0 uses a zone map system like what you describe and there are free SRD for a simple version (Spirit of the Century) and a detailed version (Diaspora). You should check them out. Let me know what you think.
Spirit of the Century, Running Conflicts
http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html#running-conflicts
Diaspora, Mini-games (start here and go through the different types of conflict, there are maps used in a lot of cool ways throughout)
Ekek said:
What do you guys think of individual terrain rules cards? That way, you can mixmatch cards to quickly create unique locations and mods/rules are on the table for all to easily see and recognize.
Great stuff. I may use some of those!
A lot of these details are being written into my campaign as a sidebar for encounters/Scenes/Acts (eg.: sword fighting on top of a carriage going full speed in a thunder storm- WHOA).
Ekek said:
Slippery with Blood. The floors are covered in blood and viscera. Add a mishap dice to all combat and move related checks. Two banes indicate the character falls down. If a character falls down in the muck, he must make an easy Insanity check.
Light Rubble. Uneven stones and/or timber are strewn about. Movement is slowed by 1/2. If you run, make an Ag check. Three banes indicate you take 1 wound and fall down.
Heavy Rubble. Collapsed structures have left large piles of rubble, splinted timbers, and shattered glass. Movement is slowed by 3/4. If you run, make an Ag check. One bane = take 1 wound. Two bane = 1d6 wounds and fall down. During combat, add 2 mishap dice. 1 bane = fall down, 2 bane = fall down and take 1 wound, 3 banes = fall down, stunned, and take 1d6 wounds.
Heavy Rain. Ranged combat 2 difficulty. Reduce missile range by 1/2. Add mishap die to all combat dice.
They have a section on things like this in the Tome of Adventure, including suggested difficulty levels for checks, if movement takes extra manoeuvres, fatigue or wounds depending on dice results, etc.
Edit: And one of the Wood Elf racial abilities balances well against this in wooded areas.
Here are some examples of cards that could be helpful. Obviously, these are limitless as you get more specific.
Drizzling Rain.
Heavy Rain.
Strong Winds.
Gale-force Winds.
Hurricane.
Thunderstorm.
Dim Light.
Many Shadows.
Full Darkness.
Pleasant Falling Snow.
Heavy Falling Snow.
Blizzard.
Thin Mist/Fog.
Thick Mist/Fog.
Shallow Snow
Deep Snow
Wet Ground.
Muddy Ground.
Boggy Ground.
Quicksand.
Sandy Ground.
Slippery Ground.
Icy Footing.
Precarious Ledge.
Hillside.
Knee deep water.
Waist deep water.
Neck deep water.
Deep water.
No cover.
Medium Cover.
Lots of Cover.
Too Much Cover.
Frequent Boulders.
Heavy Forest Undergrowth.
Sparse Trees.
Thick Tree Trunks.
Thick Trees.
Tall Brush.
Scree.
Pit Trap (Hidden).
Spiked Pit Trap (Hidden).
Narrow Corridor.
Wide Corridor.
Small Room.
Medium Room.
Large Room.
Huge Room.
Torture Implements.
Blacksmithing Implements.
Raised Throne.
Large Carriage.
Runaway Carriage.
Runaway Carriage Roof.
Eye-watering Sewage Smells.
Mouthwatering Pastry Smells.
I love both tactical and abstract combat..I play 4e dnd which is very tactical and i would not give it up for the world, but i find abstract combat is better for making the players engage with the scenery, in 4e they will use everything i place on the map, but will rarely ask questions about what is not there, with an abstract system they will use everything i describe and ask about what i have omitted or not thought about. Both systems work well, and i dont think either is better than the other.
I do however feel, that warhammer suits a abstract system better, in 4e combat is essential, the main part of the game in fact, where in warhammer i find you can move through various sessions without just the threat of combat looming thus an abstract system seems more fitting with the roleplay elements at hand.
Herr Arnulfe said:
Sarim Rune said:
I happen to find that Warhammer is a system that supports you in this endeavor. D&D 3.X didn't support you and 4th edition happens to c-block you. I'm not saying that you can't add narrative flair to combat with any system but some systems just seem to work against you rather than for you.
Keep in mind, I'm coming mainly from WFRP v1 and v2, not D&D (nothing against D&D though!). WFRP v1 was the epitome of rules-light tactical combat. v2 added some gamist combat options that took awhile for pro-atmosphere GMs to get used to, but it still felt pretty simulationist. v3 takes a very different approach to combat - much more gamist than simulationist.
Sure, but WFRP v1 and v2 are fine examples of games which did not support you. They provide you with nothing to actually help you (but nothing that detracts you) from making combat include more of a narrivate flair. I would say that the vast majority of games fall into this category. Tactical games tend to block you, only because they are very structured.
3rd edition here promotes the GM to add narration and flair, via extra dice and interpreting Boons, Banes, Comets and the Chaos Star.
Sarim Rune said:
3rd edition here promotes the GM to add narration and flair, via extra dice and interpreting Boons, Banes, Comets and the Chaos Star.
Outside of combat and social conflict I'd agree with you, because there are no cards for other skills. However, in combat Bane and Boon results are dictated by cards.
Herr Arnulfe said:
Sarim Rune said:
3rd edition here promotes the GM to add narration and flair, via extra dice and interpreting Boons, Banes, Comets and the Chaos Star.
Outside of combat and social conflict I'd agree with you, because there are no cards for other skills. However, in combat Bane and Boon results are dictated by cards.
Only if you let them. You are free to add setting effects to help tell your story. The location cards are prime examples of this. The game wants to encourage you to change things around. You get to decide how Bane results are interpreted. The Action cards give you one primary example. There is also a generic effect in the book (Fatigue gain). Locations are a third way of how to use them. You could also include a situational appropriate result, as needed.
Also, you decide which actions gain recharge tokens (or if their initiative changes). You decide when to add those Fortune, Misfortune and extra challenge dice. This game is only as structured as you make it out to be.
Sarim Rune said:
This game is only as structured as you make it out to be.
v3 combat is about as structured as WFRP v2's (but in a different way), and more structured than v1's. That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. Many people prefer a more gamist combat system.
All three versions of the game are structured; first edition was the simplest.
You can make this edition simpler or more complex. It's all in the dice.
You can look at a roll and see a Chaos Star and know "Great Sigmar's Sausage! Something bad happened!" and narrate that based on location/situation "A tree falls on you." This is simpler. And narrative.
You can look at a roll and see a Chaos Star and comb through your charts and location/action cards looking for what game effect that symbol has in that situation "You get a crit." This is more complex. And gamist.
FFG gives you a little of both "Here are some examples of effects for your symbols; but PLEASE narrate it!" You can push it either way.
As far as movement being abstract in a combat situation, I don't see how the combat itself would not be tactical or interactive. Take the below image (obvisously the setting is off) and imagine a combat there. There is so much going on, but you don't need a rule for each part of the location. If this were laid out as a map for an encounter there are so many possibilities.
A Chaos Star when you're near the dog houses could mean you're in range of the dog's and get attacked. You could be knocked into the barrels. Climb up on a car for a combat advantage. Sprain your ankle in a rut.
What makes it less fun if you can look at it and say "I'm at the digger and long range from the gates. It'll take 3 manoeuvres to get there, but I have to try before more beastmen come pouring through."? You get fatigue for that, so there's a consequence. If it were not an abstract system the player would sit there counting squares to determine which path to take and then count them out. That takes them out of the story and limits the situation "Oh I can only make it to the billboard this turn."
Mordenthral said:
As far as movement being abstract in a combat situation, I don't see how the combat itself would not be tactical or interactive. Take the below image (obvisously the setting is off) and imagine a combat there. There is so much going on, but you don't need a rule for each part of the location. If this were laid out as a map for an encounter there are so many possibilities.
That's how I treat v2 tactical combat as well. You don't need a rule for every location, and players are often free to narrate their own interactions with the terrain. v3 gives you explicit permission to use this approach, but I don't require explicit permission because I was already doing it before.
Mordenthral said:
What makes it less fun if you can look at it and say "I'm at the digger and long range from the gates. It'll take 3 manoeuvres to get there, but I have to try before more beastmen come pouring through."? You get fatigue for that, so there's a consequence. If it were not an abstract system the player would sit there counting squares to determine which path to take and then count them out. That takes them out of the story and limits the situation "Oh I can only make it to the billboard this turn."
In v2 you would either use the Run action to reach the desired location (which means you can't Dodge or Parry) or else you'd spend a Fortune Point for an extra move. So it's just a different means of achieving the same result. The major difference is that in v3, the map would be littered with chits indicating the distances between each combatant.
Herr Arnulfe said:
The major difference is that in v3, the map would be littered with chits indicating the distances between each combatant.
Are you really unable to eyeball the distances or make a judgement call? I won't be littering my map with chits. The book suggested it in an example that was not using a map, to help people visualise it. If there's a map, you certainly don't need distance chits.
Mordenthral said:
Are you really unable to eyeball the distances or make a judgement call? I won't be littering my map with chits. The book suggested it in an example that was not using a map, to help people visualise it. If there's a map, you certainly don't need distance chits.
Then how far do combatants move with a single manoeuvre? What looks like 2 range bands to the GM might look like a single range band to the player. Most people can eyeball 8", give or take, because inches aren't a subjective unit of measurement.
Why isn't it possible to suggest 8" = close? Or whatever you think the approrpriate equivalent is? Maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of the problem.
HedgeWizard said:
Why isn't it possible to suggest 8" = close? Or whatever you think the approrpriate equivalent is? Maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of the problem.
In that case, we're back to using a full-sized table for tactical combat scenes, and we've come full circle.
Herr Arnulfe said:
HedgeWizard said:
Why isn't it possible to suggest 8" = close? Or whatever you think the approrpriate equivalent is? Maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of the problem.
In that case, we're back to using a full-sized table for tactical combat scenes, and we've come full circle.
Full circle would be back to saying "I wanted to play it, but... abstract movement."
This is actually "Here's a way to change the abstract system to something tactical based on the scale of my map and minis."
Your map could be printed/drawn on one piece of 8"X11" paper. 8" would not equal Close, but having a map would still rid the need of using chits for range bands. From the book: Close, you can speak comfortably; Medium, you have to raise your voice to be heard; Long, you have to YELL.
If you have a map you can use your imagination to visualise yourself in different positions. Do you think you'd have to yell to be heard from one part of your map to another? If so, it's Long range between those points. Everyone around the campfire is Close. Medium is opposite sides of the stream.
If you can't visualise it, then make a scale for each map. "OK guys, on this map Medium range is 4", which is different from the other map"