Walking Dad
First Post
The ascii maps look better, IMHO, if you use the courier new font:
xxxxx
xxBxx
xxxOx
xxxxx
Any letters use the same space there...
new guy
- Thread starter skeldesblade
- Start date
The ascii maps look better, IMHO, if you use the courier new font:
xxxxx
xxBxx
xxxOx
xxxxx
Any letters use the same space there...
Scott DeWar
Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
normally I would complain about the faint viewing of those letters WD, but with the cateract surery today I expect to see better reeeeeeely soon!!!!
I can hardly wait! barely slept!!
I can hardly wait! barely slept!!
Rhun
First Post
Good advice. Thanks WD!
When my mom had it done, they corrected her sight to perfect. So I hope yours turns out just as good!
Malvoisin
First Post
I appreciate all the comments re: mapless combats, guys! 
The heart of the issue isn't that I don't want to make maps. I've actually had pretty good luck using Maptool screenshots layered over published maps. They're a bit time-consuming to create, but no more so than generating everything in an Excel spreadsheet, or creating an ASCI map, probably.
It's more that I am interested in a different way of thinking about combats. In 3.x/OGL gaming (and probably even moreso in 4E, though I have no personal experience), everyone thinks about the grid, the positioning, the spacing. It's all so tactical, and I think that can get kind of sterile. I want more imagination, more narrative, more of a cinematic feel to combat. I'd like things to be a little wilder, maybe a little less predictable.
Maybe OGL based systems are just the wrong rules for that type of combat, but I fear if I deviate too far from that beaten path, I'll struggle to generate interest in a game.
Do you guys think there would be interest in a game where the characters are created using an OGL system (3.5 or Pathfinder, most likely) but the combats are run more 'fast and loose'? Not exactly freeform, but something approaching that?
The heart of the issue isn't that I don't want to make maps. I've actually had pretty good luck using Maptool screenshots layered over published maps. They're a bit time-consuming to create, but no more so than generating everything in an Excel spreadsheet, or creating an ASCI map, probably.
It's more that I am interested in a different way of thinking about combats. In 3.x/OGL gaming (and probably even moreso in 4E, though I have no personal experience), everyone thinks about the grid, the positioning, the spacing. It's all so tactical, and I think that can get kind of sterile. I want more imagination, more narrative, more of a cinematic feel to combat. I'd like things to be a little wilder, maybe a little less predictable.
Maybe OGL based systems are just the wrong rules for that type of combat, but I fear if I deviate too far from that beaten path, I'll struggle to generate interest in a game.
Do you guys think there would be interest in a game where the characters are created using an OGL system (3.5 or Pathfinder, most likely) but the combats are run more 'fast and loose'? Not exactly freeform, but something approaching that?
Rhun
First Post
I think there would certainly be some interest. Anything to speed up combat is a good thing. Hell, we hardly ever used maps for combat back in the AD&D days when we played.
Personally, I think you could use imagination to generate the same effect, but you're players would have to be keen on the "loose" rules. Something like:
Player 1: Bob the warrior attacks the first orc.
Player 2: Ted the rogue moves to flank the orc.
DM: That will draw an AoO, unless you want to make a tumble roll
Player 2: Alright, Ted tumbles into position to flank the orc.
etc, etc...
Then you would't have to worry about exact positions. Just some thoughts. Like I said, we managed to make it work in AD&D, but there weren't nearly as many tactical options.
Malvoisin
First Post
Yeah, Rhun, you're coming pretty close to what I had in mind there. My only thinking is that the extra step of saying "Whoops, hold on there, that will draw an AOO," would be a dangerous speed bump in PBP (though it would be fine for a face to face game). I wonder if it would be feasible to spell out things in advance in such a way that the players know what actions will and will not draw an AOO, but in a manner that is not as dependent on precise positioning. For example, 'Any movement with intent to flank subjects you to AOOs from any nearby enemy who is not already engaged in melee.' Or, something to that effect.
The more I think on it, I wonder if potential players would be interested in playing a game wherein the rules were developed as a work in progress, rather than trying to have everything worked out in advance. Essentially, a playtest opportunity. Hmmm....
The more I think on it, I wonder if potential players would be interested in playing a game wherein the rules were developed as a work in progress, rather than trying to have everything worked out in advance. Essentially, a playtest opportunity. Hmmm....
Rhun
First Post
I think it would be to throw together some fairly simple rules to handle situations like that.
I'd be up for giving it a try.
Malvoisin
First Post
I'd be up for giving it a try.
You just made my day!
Let me mull over some things, and we shall speak more on this.
In the meantime, are there any other 'new guy' posters that might want to participate in something like this? I envision a really collaborative process. Who knows where it might lead?
Thanks for the forum, new guy!
Similar Threads
