Combat Spaces: Squares, Hexes, or Zones?

[Thomas Shey]

This is only an artifact if you assume that the map was drawn for a square grid and then converted to hex. If you assume that a map is drawn for a hex grid and overlay a square on top of it, you'll get similar issues. It's only the fact that players are taught to draw maps on a 5' grid that leads to these conversion artifacts.

Uh, no. I've done maps that were done without a grid at all initially and they still had the problem. Its an artifact any time you have two corridors at right angles that have the same measurable length and are of any length at all.

If you draw an arbitrary map without any grid and then overlay a pattern on it, you will generally have less errors with hexes than with squares. The key word here is "arbitrary", in terms of lengths, angles, and rotations. The real world does not actually align itself to 5' increments or right angles.

It not infrequently absolutely does use similar lengths when measured in real measurement, though, and that's where this problem comes in. Its an artifact of the way any right angle set of corridors work with a hex grid. It doesn't matter how you originally positioned it as long as you're using an actual scale at all. You might be able to disguise it a bit if you twist the map so it doesn't line up with the hexes at all, but that's all.

 

[Sir Brennen]

One place hexes beat squares for interior maps is for circular structures, like a wizard's tower. But generally, squares more easily "fade into the background" for buildings, which do use right angles most often, regardless of scale.

 

[uzirath]

Yeah, I've seen that issue with hexes. In our normal usage, it doesn't matter much because any spatial warping is applying to everyone equally (PCs and their foes). I could see it having an impact if it were a set of interconnecting hallways and chambers with people racing around in various directions. In that case, some passages would be inexplicable short-cuts.

If I were faced with that situation, I would whip out the tape measure that we keep at the table and gain more precision with that. (Normally we only use it for long-range situations where we don't want to keep counting hexes. It's easier to just measure 150 inches for the bow's range.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

One place hexes beat squares for interior maps is for circular structures, like a wizard's tower. But generally, squares more easily "fade into the background" for buildings, which do use right angles most often, regardless of scale.

I suspect its as much visual impact as usage there, as hexes more approximate a circle themselves, though there's some usage elements too.

 

[TheSword]

Squares all the way.

 

[J.Quondam]

Generally I prefer zones. (Though grids- esp hexes- are really helpful for defining those zones on the fly, or even for "attaching" them to a character, especially on a VTT.)
Often I'll use squares for more complex tactical encounters, and for rule sets that support a lot of richness in comombat. Also will reference a square grid (eg, on VTT) to help sketching of indoor & urban encounters .
Hexes I reserve for outdoor or large scale maps, and usually not for tactical (except maybe vehicles).
And for all my cyclopean madness & non-euclidean needs...

Spoiler

I might use something like this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I've seen that issue with hexes. In our normal usage, it doesn't matter much because any spatial warping is applying to everyone equally (PCs and their foes). I could see it having an impact if it were a set of interconnecting hallways and chambers with people racing around in various directions. In that case, some passages would be inexplicable short-cuts.

That was exactly where I saw it years ago, when people were trying to get to a location down to sets of corridors.

If I were faced with that situation, I would whip out the tape measure that we keep at the table and gain more precision with that. (Normally we only use it for long-range situations where we don't want to keep counting hexes. It's easier to just measure 150 inches for the bow's range.)

That'd probably be best, but at some point if it comes up all often, it brings into question why to use a grid at all (this is why its more noticeable with systems with bigger movement-per-action numbers).

 

[Thomas Shey]

And for all my cyclopean madness & non-euclidean needs...

Spoiler

I might use something like this.
View attachment 146496

Complex zone setup I'm guessing?

 

[J.Quondam]

Complex zone setup I'm guessing?

I've used soemthing like that as one layer of a multi-layer grid where each grid is for a different tracking mode, if that makes sense. For example, magical rays might follow a path from center to center of those cells, whereas regular walking and line-of-sight would still be along straight lines. Or vice versa. The wonky grid is just a way to keep that wonkiness somewhat consistent for the player's sake.
It's not a thing to do often, but it can make for a bizarre encounter now and then.

 

[dbm]

These days I would vote “none of the above”. Savage Worlds just uses distance, measured with a tape in any direction you like. Total freedom of movement

Ganging up is just done based on numbers and being in combat range, rather than precise position. It gives enough tactical nuance without bogging down counting squares or hexes and dealing with moving in non-cardinal directions.