Combat positioning in D&D (all editions) and other games

[Fenes]

In a miniatures game, the battlespace is preset from before initiative is rolled. There is no rule for allowing the players to modify the absolute positions of things, and I think in a subtle way this confirms the boardgame mentality "This is the situation, end of story." The actions your characters may take can affect things, as specified in the rules, but the players have no input on it.

To answer your second question, the game Burning Wheel handles positioning in a very abstract manner, but I like the concept. Each character makes a statement of intent which includes a positioning manoeuvre (either close, maintain distance or withdraw). Then you all test your Agility. The highest roller gets his intent, then the second highest (unless it conflicts with the first), then the third, and so on.

So if A wants to close with B, and B wants to withdraw from A, whoever gets higher succeeds. It still doesn't answer the question of who gets caught within an area of effect, but GM adjudication is used for those cases. The important thing is not the absolute position but the relative position.

Once you have closed with an enemy, you can be within lunging distance, optimal distance or inside (the enemies guard). This gives you interesting tactical options which the D&D reach weapons don't quite match.

I use a similar approach. In a way, it's like the "the PCs are central, the world is described as relative to them" from 4E, but with regards to battlespace: Until someone wants to charge or shoot at something no one needs to know exactly how far that something is away.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Battle maps and minis/markers can be a valuable playing aid for any edition. 3E and 4E rules have had an ever increasing dependency on thier use.

In earlier times maps could be used to make it simpler to see ranges, relative position and line of sight issues. Combatants moved according to thier movement rates and were simply either in melee or at range. If you didn't want to bother with a map for a quick battle it was no big deal.

3E brought a level of detail to movement and positioning with opportunity attacks that made knowing the exact positioning of opponents and how far they moved more important. The combat rules were more tightly integrated with the details of movement.

4E expanded this detail to include many abilities and powers that move combatants around the grid. Push, pull, slide, teleport minor distances. All of this tightly connected to the combat rules, and a great deal more difficult to play without a board and markers without throwing off the balance of powers. This is also the first edition that labeled the area in squares instead of having the square represent a scale. This last detail is pretty minor in practice but it all aids in adding to the boardgame feel.

Some say that such fixation on the board detracts from the narrative of the action but it doesn't have to.

Personally I find all the rules that make playing without such aids difficult to be more annoying than actually using the stuff. The narrative can still be great but for me the movement fixation can slow down play too much.

I really enjoy GURPS advanced combat for its detail, movement, richness, and degree of realism but all that detail comes with a price of extra time. For typical D&D style play I like fast moving and little complication. That means using a combat system that a battlemap will enhance rather than require.

 

[Elrohir_of_Kellemar]

I agree with Orryn. Some players may find the miniatures battles very exiting as almost a sub-routine of the D&D game. They can use all sorts of tactical moves to defeat the enemy.

One of my concerns, however, is the situation for people who do not have the interest or ability to use battle tactics effectively. I have encountered numerous people who have enjoyed the role-playing of D&D, solving puzzles, and figuring out answers to problems, but have very little interest in actual battle situations. They tend to resort to "I'll swing at the Orc nearest me". A DM can take players like that and make the battle interesting to them through flavor and description. That same player may feel lost when other players are shifting positions, counting squares, and using all of their amazing abilities.

Are we going to lose players who can't keep up with the complexities of table-top battles?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

snip
Are we going to lose players who can't keep up with the complexities of table-top battles?

Dunno, but if the DM is willing they can take on the battle management functions for the players, if the players are that disinterested in the battle and allow the players to announce intention and tell them of any enemy triggered options as they occur.
I would not like it, nor my players but it is an option.

 

[Umbran]

So, if D&D has always assumed a 3D space, and there were no rules for determining where your PC is standing in that space relative to NPCs, walls, traps, etc., why did TSR never provide the PCs with a concrete way of determining where they were inside that 3D space? Maps were for DMs and combat was narrative.

I don't have my older books with me, but I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong in this statement. Older editions included rules for use of miniatures. Many groups simply ignored them.

 

[TerraDave]

I would see it as the "mainstreaming" of dry erase battlemaps (or pre printed posters, if you can get them). As other have noted, there have always been varying ways to use minis and mats, with many games building that right in (even AD&D had things in "inches", and of course licensed minis).

For D&D, the first official reference to 1" square battlemats I know of was in Combat and Tactics (2E AD&D). Then 3.0, with 3.5 making them "official" (thanks to DDM). But I was using one (just) befor C&T, and from what I know, they took off pretty quickly once you started to see them at cons, about 20 years ago.

 

[Delta]

So here's my question and the topic for discussion: Is there anyone who disagrees with the above statement that can show how previous editions would allow a PC to "prove" to the DM that he was not standing in a certain place, but rather a few feet to the left? If the answer is "No, but I prefer it that way", why is that?

As others have pointed out, OD&D/1E AD&D comes out of wargaming, official AD&D miniatures, ranges in inches, and 2 paragraphs of optional minis rules in the 1E DMG (and OD&D). No one I knew was using those when we were teens or younger.

I think you overlooked that in theory, the DM should be describing situations adequately in advance to avoid confusion. Or that in 1E rules, even the location of minis was only approximate -- shoot at someone in a melee, and you just have to roll purely randomly for who is the ultimate target. So in some sense the occasional confusion is actually a good simulation of "fog of war".

As someone has for a sig, the early Basic rules actually used as advertising copy/selling point the fact that "This game requires no board because the action takes place in your imagination." That was in large part the defining and distinguishing characteristic of an RPG circa 1980, and precisely what set it apart from other games as really unique.

 

[Allister]

*Shrug*

We always used some form of battlemat/miniatures since 1e.

How else could you judge spell effects

 

[DragonLancer]

I've only used mini's and floor plans in a handful of campaigns over the years but I still find it invasive to the game and yes, to me it feels like chess (rather than a boardgame). From my experience, it detracts from the flow of the game.

 

[malraux]

I got into this hobby in 02, so for me the game has always had a board game element. But even though there's a tactical element, I can't say that diminishes my fun.