Any work done on "zones"?

[Dahak]

I was initially very interested in these games when the first info was released.
My interest waned quite a bit when I learned about the emphasis on tactical/mini combat
(which I rarely use). I backed at the PDF level, anyway, as Russ said there might be
zone-based combat as an alternate to using maps and minis. Has there been any further
development of that idea?

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, I have a whole document on it. I'm not happy with it yet though!

 

[Dahak]

Glad to hear it's still being considered. Thanks for the quick reply!

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I would be interested in seeing that document

I have been using a zone-based combat in OLD for a number of combats in recent sessions, and will be using it for the next session {two weeks} as the group chases the remaining Wraith into the darkness. There is no way I could manage the in-combat chase on a grid as I fully expect the Wraith to remain just out of reach..but I don't want to use the chase mechanic either since the chase starts from grid combat with the majority of the group on the first level and the Wraith on the second level.

 

[Morrus]

It's not suitable for use yet. And has some ... errr ... exclamations in it where I got frustrated. It's a fairly common zone system -- divide the encounter into a bunch of zones (in the woods, on the roof, etc.) and those in the same zone can melee and those who are not can't, zones can have their own qualities (grant cover, slippery, etc.), moving from one zone to another is an action, some zones have attribute check entry requirements ("on the roof" may have a Difficult AGI check, for example) and your action is wasted if you fail. My sticking point is movement and speeds, as I still want speed to matter. I originally had moving from one zone to another taking a SPEED check (using SPEED as an attribute) but that really didn't work.

So yeah. It's still kinda frustrating me. But I'll get there. I fully intend to include zone rules for theatre of the mind play.

One idea that has occurred to me is that the zones can be near or far. To go from near-near is one action. To go to or from far is a check; if you fail the check, you haven't gotten there yet. So you could have these zones:

On the hill (far, height advantage)
In the woods (far, grants cover)
Outside the farmhouse
On the farmhouse roof (Difficult AGI, grants cover, height advantage)
On the road

So if you have a group, one in the woods, two on the road, and one outside the farmouse. The guy in the woods wants to circle round to the hill, so that's a far -> far, requiring a check. He fails it, so he hasn't made it there yet. The two on the road close to the farmhouse as an action (near -> near, no check). The guy by the farmhouse climbs to the roof (near -> near, but AGI check required to access roof) and does so.

 

[RisTigger]

This sounds like a cool idea. I've never heard of zone play before. I can't wait to read it.

The first session of my revamped campaign will be a "theater of the mind" game. I want to see if the group enjoys it more than the tactical combat.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

In the variation I was using I had the characters Speed reduced to Dice per the Attribute scale. Then moving into a new zone cost 1 die. Engaging in melee {or disengaging} cost one die. Some zones where 'large' that cost a die to leave as well as a die to enter.

Entering a zone grants enemies a 1 die bonus to attack you that turn. If you enter via a 'stunt-way', which requires an agi check.. things like leaping from the balcony to the chandelier or sneaking through the woods, then the enemies don't get that bonus.

In play my group didn't have issues. The 'engaged' condition settled flanking and kept the rest of the rules pretty well in line. My biggest issue was handling spells. I ended up having to wing it for some things, but assumed a 30' radius covered everything in the zone. 30' distance was in the same zone... all in all it worked out okay.