Would you be interested in a compromise to the miniatures-centric combat of D&D?

[The Grackle]

Interested how? If someone wnated to run a game like that, I'd probably play it. Would I buy an OGL/d20 game advertised as D&D w/o the grid? Probably not.

You could probably manage it as long as you were willing to play in "playtest" mode, and change things as they come up. D&D rules are pretty tightly knit, and changing one aspect of the game can have a lot of unexpected consequences.

 

[Umbran]

I don't currently need anyone to present me with such a compromise as a separate rule set, if that's what you mean. I have developed a compromise that works well for my players in my games, and don't see much need for a product to do it for me.

 

[Azlan]

Interested how? If someone wnated to run a game like that, I'd probably play it. Would I buy an OGL/d20 game advertised as D&D w/o the grid? Probably not.

I don't currently need anyone to present me with such a compromise as a separate rule set, if that's what you mean.

I guess I asked, "Would you be interested in... ?" because I've noticed there isn't anything like this, currently on the market, and I was wondering why. It appears either a RPG combat system is extremely tactical (e.g. D&D, GURPS, and Hero) or it is extremely abstract (e.g. World of Darkness); there appears to be no middle ground, i.e. a compromise. But why is this? Is it because no one is interested in such a compromise? Or is it because such a compromise can't be done?

I have developed a compromise that works well for my players in my games, and don't see much need for a product to do it for me.

Well, tell us more about it, why don't you!

 

[Azlan]

You could use something similar to Traveller's "range bands" (i.e. using a rowed sheet of paper rather than one with a grid/hexes) - basically tracking movement over a single dimention rather than two. Ranges were divided into five ranges (close, short, medium, long and very long) and each of them into several bands of 25 or so meters. Close and Short were within the same range-band (the one in which the enemy was), with Close being in physical contact and Short within larger-weapon melee range; Medium was 1-2 range-bands away from the target; Long was within 3-10 range-bands; Very Long was within 11 to 20 bands. Movement was relative - you could walk across one range-band in one turn, or run across two in a turn (though you could run a limited amount of times per battle before getting tired).

In D&D, such a system will probably use smaller bands due to the shorter combat turn (6 seconds rather than Traveller's 15); characters within Short range with an opponent will be subject to AoO's; if two characters would be within Short or Close range of the same target they'll flank it; and Point-Blank attack will work only within Short or Close range.

Hmm-mmm! This is thinking outside the conventional box.

By confining combat to a somewhat abstract, football field-like grid, you would need one – and only one – "combat board" (or "combat mat"), used for all encounters, no matter what the location, or what or how many combatants involved. No more need for pain-saking and time consuming drawing out of scaled floorplans, with eraseable markers on a re-usable mat. You wouldn't need scaled miniatures, but you'd still need to mark where player characters and their opponents are, on the board. (So, don't throw away those eraseable markers yet.) But since movement and position would be more abstract, there wouldn't be as much of it.

But would something like this work for D&D 3.5? After all, combat in Traveller was practically all done with ranged weapons. I think the answer to this is "yes... maybe". After all, I've seen this sort of abstract/tactical combat done in many console RPG's (such as Final Fantasy), and even in older computer RPG's (such as Wizardry).

Any more ideas or examples? Suggestions? Solutions?

 

[McBard]

Any more ideas or examples? Suggestions? Solutions?

Whatever form of the non-grid approach you try, it might not be too difficult to redefine certain feats or rules that seem bound to a grid approach. For instance, "flanking" could be redefined as: "a creature gets the flanking bonus if two or more other allied creatures also have melee contact against the same enemy (a creature with the sneak attack ability only needs one other allied creature to also have melee contact against the same enemy)."

(Btw, the above definition is exactly how WoTC defined "flanking"--they renamed it "the multiple attackers bonus"--in their gridless minis game called Chainmail.)

 

[rgard]

Would you be interested in a combat system for D&D that is a good compromise between the miniatures-based tactical-ness of D&D 3.5, and something that is totally abstract? That is, a compromise that incorporates most (if not all) of the detail and variety of D&D 3.5 combat, but does not require the use of miniatures (or cardboard counters in lieu of miniatures), as well as for a scaled map of the encounter area to be drawn out, each time. Of course, this compromise would have to streamline (i.e. simplify, in the process of making more abstract) many of the rules for movement, flanking, reach, ranged attacks, attacks of opportunity, etc.

When I first started playing D&D, decades ago, my group at that time had neither the money nor the means to use miniatures, a re-usable "battle" mat, and eraseable markers. So, pretty much all the placement of the player characters and their opponents, in combat and on the encounter field, was kept track of within our heads. Occasionally, I (as the DM) would say, "Hmm, this is getting confusing. Here's what it looks like... ", and then I would illustrate the combat encounter, from an overhead view: first, drawing the area where it was taking place, on graph paper, and then marking where each and every player character and their opponents were. However, more times than not, one or more players would say, "That's not at all the way I was picturing it."

Years later, when D&D 3.0/3.5 came along, as the combat system became more miniatures-centric, I began to realize how useful miniatures, a re-usable battle mat, and eraseable markers could be. (We still lacked the money for real miniatures, so instead we used cardboard counters, which served just as well.) Our interest in D&D was re-newed as we became engrossed in the implementation of the new edition's rules for movement, flanking, reach, ranged attacks, attacks of opportunity, etc.

However, after having done this for a number of years, my players and myself are finding it tedious and time-consuming to keep using such a miniatures-centric combat system. Mind you, we still want to continue playing D&D, but we are growing tired of our roleplaying game getting bogged down into such a tactical, miniatures wargame, like we were playing Warhammer 40K or something.

So, I'm wonding if there might be a good compromise? Problem is, I'm seeing that most other comparable RPG systems – GURPS, Hero, etc. – have gone the way of D&D 3.5. (Or is that the other way around?) Whatever, we don't want to stop playing D&D 3.5. (We really like the character races, classes, skills, feats, magic, world settings, etc., of D&D.) We just want a more abstract "encounter field" and "combatant placement/position tracking" system that retains all (or at least, most) of the combat detail and variety that D&D 3.5 affords us.

For me and those I game with, the minis and the grid are the best way to keep things straight.

In the late 70s, we used metal minis on a hex grid or minis alone on the table and in both cases used dominos to mark the rooms and corridors. It helps avoid, "How did the dragon end up next to my MU?"

Today, we have bucket loads of plastic and metal minis with washable mats. This helps avoid, "How did the dragon end up next to my Wizard?"

If we lacked the resources to buy minis we'd use cardboard cut out minis (you can make these with your favorite photo software downloading images from the web) and a grid (using same software) taped together for the playing area.

Which reminds me...

Warning, human interest story:

Met one guy who came into my shop and wanted to run a FR campaign. He was in his mid to late 20s. My youngest wanted to play in the campaign, rolled up a dwarf fighter, and brought the sheet, dice and D&D mini to the FR table. The FR DM then told him, "I'm old school and don't use minis." I bit my tongue, but was thinking...'hmmm, old school? My friends and I were using minis in D&D before this guy was born.'

D&D veteran snobbery aside, the guy was a great story-teller for the 2 sessions he showed up to DM the game.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[BryonD]

I don't currently need anyone to present me with such a compromise as a separate rule set, if that's what you mean. I have developed a compromise that works well for my players in my games, and don't see much need for a product to do it for me.

I love minis.

But I've heard from plenty of people who are exactly like what you describe.
And I really don't see why being somewhere without my minis would prevent me from running a game.
So I agree completely. No new products are needed.

I guess I see that 3X works great with minis, but don't agree with the claim that it requires them.

 

[Shadeydm]

I love minis and have used them since back in the ADnD day but I have mixed feelings about all the square counting, AoOs, etc. that go hand in hand with it in 3.5. A compromise that made combat less about counting squares, tumbling and AoOs would be nice.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

While I suppose it can be a pain in the ass, I actually prefer the use of a grid + cheap mini's. The reason I like this is because in 2nd Edition, whenever someone throws a fireball, it had a tendency to hit all the bad guys and never hit any of the good guys.

I like attacks of opportunity since it forces the players to be a bit smarter with respect to what they are doing.

I also like that it becomes self evident when someone is or is not in range of something else.

If the fight is going to consist of the players vs 1 big bad guy, there is not much to be earned. But the battle mat keeps everything honest. It lets the players know that I am not making stuff up when 6 goblins manage to dogpile one person when they were previously some distance away. It lets the players identify where cover may be if they need it. It also lets the players cut off a corridor and keep from getting surrounded, no matter how much I may have been wanting to do that.

On the flip side, it prevents every combat encounter with mooks get solved trivially by a fireball once I manage to put someone into melee.

While the current combat system may get in the way of story telling and bog things down for some people, I contend that it does make D&D a better game, at least for my purposes.

About the only thing I really want from the rules that is anywhere near combat related is a workable chase mechanic, and a better idea how to run a mini based combat that starts at long range for a long bow without needing a battlemat the size of my kitchen. The existing system could certaintly be streamlined and simplified, but I am satisfied with it for the moment.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Doug McCrae]

DM: Because I say so, that's why.

Ultimately, doesn't everything depend on DM say so? We play without minis and mostly without a map, occasionally drawing one with pencil and paper for a more complex fight. There aren't many problems, we just trust the DM.

Most of it is fairly straightforward. For example, if a human attacks a non-flat footed ogre with a weapon that doesn't have reach, the ogre gets an AoO. You don't need a map to know that.