Not pretty, but here are some Stance Cards that I will be using on the weekend to record which Stance each PC is in and noting some relevant information.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14355510/StanceCards.pdf

They are designed to be printed, folded and placed in card protectors or folded as stand ups.

Nice work, I like them. They will be very hepful especially with new players.
Also to be honest, unless you are really hot on them looking pretty, functional is best as extra graphics etc can be unkind on toner levels.

E

Agreed! It would be nice to have some pretty ones floating about, however, they're far from needed.
Maybe I'll give it a shot at a later date if I'm not beaten to it.

I'll print some of these out tomorrow. I'm still further from getting a game together than I'd like, but it doesn't hurt to get all this ready.

I've been tossing around different consepts and ideas for this since I started reading the combat rules. (I guess we all have huh?)

My approach was to use Miniatures (or paper tokens with pretty pictures) to place on a Stance Mat. Along with the monsters.

That way you can a) see what stance you have and b ) see how many monsters are engaged with you.

First draft became something like a football-field type mat with Forward Stance on Top, and Rearward at the bottom.

But since I did not want the mat to be bigger than A3 Format, I had problems fitting everything into the "Stance Zones" and still make it look good. (and by fitting I mean; a plausible selection of Miniatures should be able to stand there AND you should still be able to read the info Text in the box.

So My current Version will feature Separate (i.e Not Printed on the same sheet) Circular Zones that can be place anywhere in the centre of the table.

I'll let you know when I'm done.

/wolf

Cool! Thanks.

I am playing around with a sheet similar to the one wolf mentioned. I want to get the design right and then make it look pretty. This could be either A4 or A3 as the detail is off to the side.

http://t.co/pftzqPB

This time a little prettier.

http://twitpic.com/68cnub

Still not settled on final design and I am no graphic artist so something much much better could be done by anyone with any photoshop skills. (I just knocked this up in paint).

In action (excuse the print quality my printer is running low)

http://twitpic.com/68cvd7

It will do for my needs tho.

Ooops. Guess someone didn't like that post (it was deleted). Sorry. I'll wait for a PM.

/wolf

Ok... so no PM... I'm not sure what happened.

It could be

1. That it was deleted because I have used some lovely art from the game or,
2. It was deleted because I embedded the images into the Post itself so the thread became "wider" (and takes longer to load) or...
3. That I accidentally deleted it myself when I edited it...

If it was 2 or 3 I can post a link to a zip file instead or you guys can e-mail me and I'll send the file.

If it was 1 I would like to know via PM or e-mail from C7... I will respect that and not distribute this if it is, even though I have to admit I was not expecting that from C7.

What do you guys think? What should I do here?

/wolf

Lol, I am not sure if their is a problem with using the art but you posted it in the mounted combat thread.

E

LOL!!!

I posted in the wrong thread!....

Stupid... that's me.

*blushes in shame*

Here is the link to the file for anyone who wants it.

Stance Document

What I intend to do is, print it and laminate each "Stance" to make a separate little "board" where you can place your Miniature and the monsters engaged with you.

/wolf

Yepp... noticed... so stupid. Thanks for pointing it out.

Don't know why it ended up there... I don't even like that thread.

Old post deleted BY ME NOW... since it was misplaced.

/wolf

Thank you very much for your work.

I like the idea of little aids in game. The stance cards or the battle map with advice about what you can do in each stance is great!
Some of my friends need that kind of things to get used to the rules. Loremaster screen come to me!!

Thank you! These look good!

Oops! One little nitpick. You've misspelled "Order" on all the cards. Looks like a cut & paste error. It happens to the best of us!!!

That picture of the map in play it kinda reminds me of a Japanese RPG, not a bad thing, quite interesting actually.

If I wanted to be really critical, there seem to be quite a few "boxy" areas on the file, but the function seems god.

Out of all the abstracted positional systems I've seen, the one in TOR is pretty slick, however, when it gets to the point of figuring out stances (you can have one rearward for every two in combat provided you're not outnumbered, or X ability or Y ability can alter this, etc...) I end up asking myself, why not just use minis and a mat? I'm gonna end up using something anyway to keep track of who is engaged with who and what stance they're in, why not just have the positions actually there in front of everyone instead of some abstract system that actually increases complexity?

I don't know, I think I see a houserule coming. The cards are cool though.

Dang!.... gotta fix that one.

/wolf

FWIW I think the stance system focuses the mechanics on choices that matter. As such though it adds a little complexity for those choices, it manages to remove a lot of stuff that don't really matter or would just add bookkeeping which a mini and map would probably need to include to operate successfully.

So I consider that there is a net gain in that the system in TOR is focussed, quicker and simpler overall compared to most simple spatial/map alternatives. Especially when you add the not always beneficial addition of physical representations. A stance is a loose description of what the PC is doing that can be more freely narrated than seeing a map with minis showing position.

To be honest I just scribbled the endurance for each monster and put a notation for which hero is engaging which monsters.

But if having minis works for you then go for it

E

I've made some stance cards that are about 4x3 inches.

You plop the hero mini on the appropriate box which has the TN printed next to it.

I intend to drop the monster mini(s) in front of the hero.

The cards are small enough not to clutter the game table.

"Choices that matter" is a typical narrative buzzphrase that in this case means absolutely nothing.

If I choose to place myself between the enemy and my comrades, that choice can be represented by any number of systems, from simply free-form narration with no system at all, to the ridiculously complex wargame of D&D4.

This game's positioning, like most of it's systems, rides the line between narrative and immersive, leaning towards narrative. However in this case, going the narrative route doesn't gain you anything complexity-wise, as there are plenty of games out there with very simple movement and range rules that don't take three pages to explain the numbers game in determining who can be Rearward. One glance at the table, it's obvious who is engaged and who isn't.

Can the Hobbit fire from the rear? Are there any goblins fighting him, if not, then he can.

Can a goblin run up to attack the Hobbit? Are the Hobbit's companions in between? if not, then it can.

I don't have to count or compare group ratios, I look at the table, whether it's minis and mat or just X's and O's on a piece of paper.

I understand the latest reaction to the uber-complexity of 3.5/4e, but RPG's got along just fine for 20 years using simple positional systems without going narrative. Assuming you need narrative positioning to escape the complexity of 4e leaves out a gigantic excluded middle.

The beauty of the stance system, however, is that the main focus of it is to give you a very elegant and simple method of determining how you are fighting. It can be completely decoupled from the abstract positioning and have no effect at all the character's flexibility in combat.

CRK I get it that you don't like narrative gameplay. You seemed pretty clued up on the issue and have made your mind up on it. However as you have said, there is nothing specifically wrong with that approach. It's a matter of preference, and one that is popular in RPGs at the moment for one reason or another.

As such, given your position, your conclusions do not surprise me and I don't see the issue benefit of butting heads what will remain a point of preference.

FWIW I am not using 3.5e or 4e as a point of reference. When I refer to simple spatial combat systems I am referring to the likes of Castles and Crusades, Fabled Lands, AD&D1e, WFRP 1e/2e and AFF, all systems I still play and run reasonably actively.

I agree with you that having a map would remove some of the rules that are added in TOR to deal with special cases. However, using a map also adds a number of additional matters which add little to the overall combat scene. Spatial positioning that is represented visually asks questions of distance, terrain effects, movement etc that TOR can avoid relatively elegantly. These questions arise even in a very simple map based system, unless you are prepared to hand wave them to the point of invalidating the benefits of that approach.

This makes TOR a much tighter and simpler system in play IME. You get the flavour of the fight and what people are doing without worrying where everyone is exactly or how that piece scenery may impact on this action. As players you focus on a few big decisions and get exciting results. As a GM I can focus on comparatively less decisions which is respectful of the practicalities of my role as GM.

I don't think being able to just point out a few special case rules in TOR without referencing any other benefits of the approach is a fair basis for saying that TOR's approach adds needless complexity.

In addition to the above, there are other matters that factor in here, again the benefit of which will depend on preference. The use of tools matter. Map and minis have an impact on importance placed on the scene as imagined versus the scene as presented visually. The distinction is something I have been making use of since my earliest days of RPGing and GMing. Some people prefer one of the other and some people (like myself) will prefer one sometimes and not others depending on how the system as a whole is designed.

For TOR, the use of maps and minis seems inconsistent with the overall approach and as such, I think even if it was simpler to do so, there would be a serious negative impact in using maps and minis in the manner you describe. YMMV in regard to this last aspect, of course.

If I went aggro there, my apologies, it's just that "Choices that Matter" is a phrase that's become a personal pet peeve of mine as I've seen it used frequently in discussions of narrative gameplay and all too often all it offers no real difference in choice or effect from immersive gameplay. What it does offer is choice from a Player Consciousness point of view rather then a Character Consciousness one.

I don't have a problem per se with Narrative Mechanics. Narrative mechanics sometimes can actually speed up gameplay, as certain elements are abstracted, handwaved, or simply narrated. OD&D is much less complex (and more abstracted) then D&D4 for example. However where I have a problem with narrative mechanics is when they don't really save you any complexity from more immersive mechanics. They just trade one mechanic for another. In that case, you usually end up with some form of metagame that can actually become more complex then the original immersive mechanics it is trying to "fix".

I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether I'm going to use the actual positioning rules out of the box, which is why I said originally "I think I see a houserule coming." I do, however, agree that the stances themselves are an elegantly abstracted mechanic allowing you to say a lot about what's going on in combat with very little record-keeping.

Which is why the cards are cool.

Nah, it's cool. I find myself in an interesting position in these discussions in that I tend to dislike storygaming. I wont play FATE, Mouse Guard or WFRP 3e as I dont like how those systems drive players to consider mechanics first over what your PC would do.

However, it's not the concept of narrative responsibility for players that I dislike. It's just that I dislike it as it is so jarring in play, which creates the dual perspective issue as you point out. However, if a way can be done to introduce such consideration "by stealth" or in a way that can coincide with PC perspective I like it a lot.

I find TOR (possibly) does this. For example, when I said choices that matter I wasn't meaning from a player's point of view necessarily. The choice of Stance, as you point out, is an important decision for the PC as it reflects how they are fighting. It feels to me like the big decision for the PC from round to round. At the same time, TOR doesn't ask a lot of the little questions that a map and mini system probably would on some level, even a simple one. It leaves all that to players to decide on in a relatively freeform manner. Players can approach that flexibility from a PC perspective or they could do so from the POV of the best narrative. TOR allows for both without any jarring change of perspective.

As such, this is the kind of coincidence that I personally like and don't often find in RPGs it is also why I am reluctant to use tools that impinge that flexibility as I suspect is that it's the essence of TOR's appeal. The idea behind the Stance cards is to assist the players in tracking Stance but I will be keeping track of engagements as GM allowing PCs to imagine the scene and be in character as much as possible.

I think Stances -- as opposed to explicit positioning -- may be the single most defining feature of TOR's gameplay. Other things may be more unique, but this is right at the heart of Combat -- the life-and-death moments we concentrate most on, and which we do time after time.

There's no saying whether the other PCs are between the Adversaries and the guy trying to adopt Rearward Stance to use his missile attack. The assumption is that the combat round sees everyone running here and there all over the battlefield for a long enough period of time ('up 30 seconds, if you insist on needing to define it') that anyone can get to anyone else, regardless of who's briefly standing between them.
But if two guys are both working to keep the Adversaries off a third guy, then he gets enough freedom to do a missile attack, wherever everyone happens to be at the moment when he gets to loose.

I've got lots of beloved minis. But I suspect that a stance-plan with minis could be too prone to being mistaken (even subconsciously) for a physical expression of who's near who.
And in fact after running D&D4e with minis and floorplans and power cards, and playing in Savage Worlds with initiative done with playing-cards and bennie-tokens flying to and fro across the gaming table, I think I'm gonna try not to use any tangible 'props' when I run TOR.

Whether my players grok it, we'll have to see. I may well be back for Stance Cards after the first session of actual play!

Cheers,
--Os.

We're in agreement there. Some people see similarities in TOR and WFRP3, however, WFRP3 for me somehow crosses my personal "role-playing line" similar to FATE and MouseGuard. Burning Wheel, The One Ring, and Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying though, don't, even though they all contain narrative elements.

This is probably the biggest strength of this system I think is the way that mechanics are constructed to give a Middle-Earth feel without being a jarring impediment to role-playing.

I'm beginning to see this as one of the hallmarks of good "new school" design, a flexibility that can be used to approach gameplay from more then one player viewpoint without impeding either. I think (based on that other thread) that Peregrin is right, this is why FATE is popular, it gives people the narration they want, without sacrificing the immersion they enjoy. However, that fulcrum point is going to be different for every person. FATE weights too heavily on the narrative side for me to effectively roleplay, but I can understand how others could see things differently.

I can see how finding a rare balance, you wouldn't want to upset that by removing flexibility of viewpoint. I personally find it difficult to find a game that strikes that balance well. It's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to do too much house-ruling of SIFRP and I imagine once I get some sessions under my belt, TOR will be much the same.

We are eerily similar in position The only exception is BW which breaches my complexity levels which is a separate matter. But I agree BW, TOR and SIFRP are good examples of mechanics that direct players to story appropriate choices but fall short of breaching the 4th wall.

I got my first use of Stance Cards today. They worked very well on that each player selected the Stance card they wanted but otherwise they were relatively invisible in play. It also tailored the mechanical information each had in front of them to be a lot less than a full battle grid or map.

You made great works! I've already downloaded all!
In my opnion it should be also useful concentric circles representing stances, like a butt for bows.
In the medial circle we can place miniatures in attack stances and monsters engaging them, in the next circle miniatures in open stances (and monsters engaging them).....and in the more external circle miniatures in Rearward stance.
I imagine this map printed on transparent plastic that, if you want, you can overlap on another miniature map represnting battleground specifics (trees, boulders etc....).

This proposal can be useful for preserve a more realistic combat with miniatures beacuse you're not forced to dispose miniatures in a row, but you can scatter them around the battleground, represnting also encirclments (i.e. the combat descripted in LM book with spiders around heroes).

I still hadn't tested this proposal but is an idea I like to share with you.

Ok, I hope you can understand my english :-)

Your English is great The idea would be cool for relative positioning system like that in Dragonlance Saga, Agon or WFRP3e. I am not sure it would be a good idea for TOR though.

The current system in TOR does not force a linear disposition of combatants in a way that a relative positioning system does. Osric gives a great summary as to how it operates a few posts up. I think you would need to significantly read down the 4 Stances to be just different distances from the same singular target point. I think the system as it stands handles encirclements, or could do with a few minor specific add ons to what's there.

As such, it may be worth considering that the linear disposition that you are trying to avoid may actually be being created by adding an overlay that somehow adds a more definite and detailed concept of distance and direction.

Nothing better or different from what has already been posted, but I made up some stance cards myself as well:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28390964/Combat%20Stances.pdf

Very nice.

I do like these.

Those are NICE Narl. I like them especially for beginning players. Something I definitely would want to see on a Loremaster's Screen.

By the way, how did you link to a PDF? I want to create some stuff in the future and I would like to share it too.

We are both using Dropbox. Grab a free account and it includes a public folder which gives a link to each document in it, which you can post.

Ok. Thanks. I just researched it and they do have dropbox for mac, so that's cool. Well, perhaps you will be seeing some of my creations in the future. I did create a Shadow document listing all enemy stat boxes. Cutting and pasting from the official PDFs do not produce the greatest quality. I can share it as a PDF or .odt (OpenOffice) file. Sounds like I have some work to do...

My Link was to the PDF-doc at Google Docs where you can set a Document up for sharing with (in this case) anyone who has a Link to it.

/wolf

Very nice Narl! If I can get my game scheduled, I'll be giving these a try.

John

By the way, Narl, what font did you use for the stances? I might have missed that somewhere.

For fonts, I used Ardagh and Alois, which are used in the TOR rulebooks. There are some other nice fonts in the rulebook that I wasn't able to find.