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

[Irda Ranger]

D&D has become a board game!

That's a summary of course, not a quote of anyone in particular. But I was thinking about this, and thinking about my AD&D days. Back in the 1990s I was mostly playing AD&D 2E, but also some Magic: The Gathering and the occasional board game. If some time-traveler from ~2008 had gone back to 1995 and showed me a pic of a fully accessorized 4E group, with their power cards, Dungeon Tiles and D&D Miniatures, I think I would have assumed that said group was playing Magic: The Board Game. I'd be curious why one player got to hide his cards behind a screen.

Now, this post is not a bash on 4E or WotC (really!), because I'm now thinking my AD&D self would say: "Wow, that sure would save me a lot of time and headaches. No more arguing over who got hit by the Lightning Bolt reflection; no more describing the contours of the room for a third time, etc."

Further, we've obviously had (square and hex) maps published by TSR since the very beginning, and TSR obviously assumed that the DM would be relying on those maps as the arbiters of what a room/cave/kingdom looked like (spatially). "You are standing in a 10x15 room." "It's 20 miles to the Keep." etc.

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. For all "close calls" it was pure DM fiat whether they were within the blast of the dragon's breath weapon or just outside it. I don't think WotC changed D&D nearly as much as it just recognized a shortcoming that had existed for 25 years.

I think the battlemat has been a huge benefit to PCs (they can control where they're standing with specificity) and a time saver for everyone (see above). Moreover, I think a battlemat would provide these benefits to OD&D, RC D&D, and AD&D as well. I made a lot of judgment calls in my RC & AD&D DMing days that were "beyond review" as far as the players were concerned, and while that's fine for world-design stuff, I think players should exercise full control over where their PC is standing. I recall many statements similar to "I'd never have done that if I'd known" or "Korgoth wouldn't have been standing that close." Lots of retconning (or overrides) would have been avoided with a battlemat.

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?

--------

Sub-topic #2 is: What games do you know which have abstract positioning rules that give PCs control over their position but don't require a battlemat? Can you briefly describe how that works?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can't answer any of your questions, but I agree with your analysis on why the "board" is helpful (even if sometimes intrusive), and I would love to see examples for #2. I am not aware of any games that create a board-less abstraction for position. I know that some games just don't make positioning very important, but once you add area effects or ranged weapons, you would need some idea of the "layout". I tried to come up with a system in my blog: Abstract Positioning System for D&D (4E) and Space Combat scenarios?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah this is exactly why very serious/complex combat I use a board while simple combat, I don't since it isn't needed for really fast/simple combat.

For #2 hmm... Trying to think if there was a real way it was measured in my non-board based rpgs... hmm... I dunno, nothing really beyond, "okay he is now 20 feet from you", etc.

 

[Mark Hope]

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. For all "close calls" it was pure DM fiat whether they were within the blast of the dragon's breath weapon or just outside it. I don't think WotC changed D&D nearly as much as it just recognized a shortcoming that had existed for 25 years.

Simply put, TSR and other companies did provide the PCs with concrete ways of determining where they were withing that 3D space. Elaborate battlemats and dungeon tiles may not have been as widespread as they are today, but they certainly existed, as did accompanying miniatures. I have several sets of vintage dungeon tiles (although they were called different things) that date back to the early days of the hobby. The 1e DMG (page 10) outlines the use of miniatures in the game. It advises against using floorplans for routine dungeon movement but recommends using them for encounter areas, and says that sheets of 1" squares are the best for such situations. So while TSR was not producing tiles or flipmats or the like, it was clear that they considered it possible or likely that some DMs would draw their own encounter areas and use minis to play out those encounters. We used minis in that way from time to time and the chief reasons we didn't do it more often were cost (lead minis weren't cheap for a 12 year old kid) and space (no huge gaming tables back in the day).

It's also not the case that combat was purely narrative. Right from the start of the game, spells have had areas of effect measured in precise increments - early versions of D&D took into account differing ranges for outdoor and dungeon environments. Characters likewise had movement rates measured in inches and the DMG had plenty of diagrams for dealing with issues like flanking, seeing where your grenade-like weapon fell, etc.

So while I agree that the use of minis is definitely more widespread these days, it isn't true that it was absent from early D&D games. It had its place - supported by rules - then, just as it does now.

 

[jmucchiello]

I have played D&D in almost all its forms and I can count on my hands the number of times I played in a combat without miniatures on a tabletop with a (1" square) battlemat, each mini in its own square. Similarly, games of Champions played in the early 90s were always played with minis on a tabletop with a (1" hex) battlemat. Late 80s games of Marvel Super Heroes were played on a tabletop with minis on the large printed battle areas provided by TSR (as areas in MSH are not always the same size).

Most of those times I was subjected to miniatureless combat were far less satisfying experiences than combats were everyone shared one visualization of the combat environment. YMMV.

 

[Thanee]

Yep, miniatures and a battlemat have been in use long before they were assumed standard equipment.

Biggest difference... in 4E it's next to impossible to play without them, while in 2E and before it was optional (with the implied benefits and shortcomings of either method).

Bye
Thanee

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have been playing since the early eighties, not alway D&D and minis were always used or at least we had a drawn map of the combat area and people recorded their moves in pencil marks.
Minis were considererd the prefered option but not alway available and some times in bedsits in Dublin tables were not avaialble, hence the pencil method of movement tracking.
In earlier edition only relative positions were important because of area effects or bouncing lightening bolts. In 3 and 4 e D&D movement became more of a thing to track because of attacks of opportunity.
For me prepainted minis were a God send since I hate painting.

 

[Fenes]

I do not use a battlemap, or minis. I don't like the chessboard effect they have, not at all. I may sketch down a room if needed for clarity, but I dislike the rigid movement and position limits imposed by a battlemap. I prefer if people describe their actions, and we then check how that's handled by the mechanics.

If a player disagrees with a positioning call, a dice roll usually solves it. Players also can easily ask "Can I reach him with a charge?" before comitting to an action.

 

[Orryn Emrys]

I suppose the interest in tactical play may vary a bit from group to group. In my own experience, both with and without minis and maps over the years, I've learned that the battlemat can be more of a detraction from my game than an advantage. The flavor of my narrative is very fluid and visual, and despite the rare occasion where someone expresses some confusion over positioning, my players have demonstrated a willingness to trust my exposition to give them everything they need to suitably enjoy the encounters. Use of a tactical display has proven to distract them significantly from the narrative, creating an odd sense of disassociation as players shift their focus from the scene occuring in their imagination to the static figures and symbols presented on the table.

I do have a few players who enjoy both approaches to gameplay, and participate in another game on another night that uses tacticals. They find themselves more immersed in the roleplaying in my game... which is consistent with my goals. They certainly enjoy both kinds of games, but I've learned that the other group has to listen to a lot more dramatic reminiscing about my game that we do about theirs.

Hardly proof of anything... just an opportunity to observe the contrast. I'll readily admit that the insistence on maps and minis kinda soured my group's experiments with 4E. I insulated the group from any popular online discussions regarding the new game, and we approached it with enthusiasm. Even so, by the second session, I had at least one of the players referring to her miniature as a "Monopoly piece".

*shrugs*

Despite that, we do intend to play some more 4E at some point... just not as our primary campaign.

EDIT: Incidentally, I do keep a map with counters on my computer... so I suppose that makes a bit of a difference. I'm the only one who sees it, but it's a huge help in describing the scene to individual players from their characters' perspectives...

 

[Yavathol]

Good post...thinking about it has helped me realise one reason why 4e feels more like a boardgame to me (and I don't like that!) In previous editions, we used minis, but the main uses where for area effects, cover from ranged attacks and charging. Now there are far more effects that need you to stay within range of another character or that key off shifting and opportunity attacks (which were less important in 3e and didn't exist before then.)

Secondly, my group has taken to placing markers next to each miniature, to indicate marking, bloodied, etc. Now I realised, yes, that makes it far more obvious for everyone who is on fire, who has been cursed by the warlock, etc. That's what boardgames do. Previously, it may have been a pain to keep asking the DM "how badly injured is the orc?" "Has John put himself out yet?" However, that communication means a) the players have to pay attention to the DM, instead of looking through their powers during other people turns, and then having to study the mat. b) The atmosphere is better - instead of visually seeing the orc is bloodied marker, the DM can say "The second orc is staggering, with part of his chest caved in. The hate in his eyes says he won't give in, but he is struggling to hold his battleaxe!"

I hadn't realised 'til now, but that verbal description of the battlespace was what I had been missing.

Also, in a narrative game, the battlespace can be shaped by suggestions from the players like "Can I use my spell to block off the area between the wall and the pit?" The DM may not have consciously thought about the distance between those two things, but he thinks it sounds cool, so he gives it the ok.

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.