One of my fellow players likes the 3-D aspects of table top /rpg play... today we mused about the combat system and using miniatures?

Anyone else try this?

Bleddyn

No, not yet anyways.

I think the key would be to keep it simple-ish. I'm not sure I would even deal with squared maps and precise distances but if you do, a good starting point would be to built on the range of bow and throw weapons, which oddly enough is the only part of the combat system that uses precise measurements.

Assuming that most combat only allow 1 opening volley and that opening volley is performed at short range (i.e. no penalty), this would mean a movement of 10 yard per round (+ body rating???) when charging the enemy.

This would be more or less consistent with the typical 30 feet per round that many games use.

'findel

Someone put together a nice-looking miniatures mat where you can place miniatures in bands representing combat stances. I don't have the link but I think it's in the sticky TOR Resources thread.

EDIT: So, apperently [sblock][sblock] doesn't work here? Is there an equivalent I just can't find?

In any case, sorry for the long post. With spoiler code in place it would have been much more manageable.

I wonder if Glorfindel's thoughts could be combined with the "Arena" concept of Old School Hack.


On Arenas:
[sblock]Basically, an arena is a specific area in which you might fight, separated from other areas in which you might fight. So, a large battle taking place at a bridge over a wide but relatively shallow river (fordable, but high enough to require slow movement), with an open field on one side and a forest on the other would feature 4 (or more, if you break up the field into multiple arenas due to it's size) distinct Arenas.

The bridge is a Tight Arena, meaning that it is narrow or otherwise cramped. In OSH, light weapons have a bonus in these arenas.

The river is a Hazardous Arena, meaning that footing is difficult or potential dangerous, and/or visibility is noticeably decreased. Reach weapons have a bonus in these arenas.

The Forest is a Dense Arena, with lots of fiddly/breakable bits that may get in the way during combat, and heavy/very heavy weapons have a bonus here.

The field is an Open Arena, which is self explanatory and favors ranged weapons.


I don't know if giving weapon based bonuses based on terrain/arena makes sense for TOR, but the arena system itself may be useful.

Would require a new type of action, of course. Move action to move between arenas.

This style of movement favours narrative style combat, and works a bit faster, but in less detail and strategic depth than grid combat. [/sblock]

Discussion of different movement/distance rules
[sblock]
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of 3.5 DnD style exact distances but no grid combat. To me, if you want one, you should include the other as well. Otherwise, you just confuse, and thus arbitrarily punish, those who aren't as good at spatial imaging in their head. They guy who has trouble picturing how big a five foot by five foot space can't just fall back on the concept of a square or hex, and locks down game time with questions about placement, speed and distance.

In my experience, at least. YMMV.


The hex grid map is superior to the square grid map, IMO (mostly because you can move in any direction without anyone at the table rolling their eyes at diagonal movement being the same as linear movement, or using overly complicated square cost rules), but it should be noted that there are some very well rendered square grid maps out there covering a very wide ranged of terrain and other features. Even in high quality vinyl wet erase mats, which is a huge bonus for me, as I'm much more into cool detailed terrain elements than shiny spot on miniatures.

Of course, there are all kinds of tools for making 3d terrain using molds and such, not to mention printable stuff that you can use with card stock to make decent 3d "dungeon tiles".[/sblock]

With all that in mind, it might be best to start by establishing a basic movement in real world terms and then translating it to hexes and squares. Or, perhaps, inches.

Like I said, Glorfindel's thoughts on that seem spot on to me.


The next question becomes, do we want to add another layer to the combat round, or should there be a choice between moving and attacking?

Personally, I much prefer a move and attack system of the move or attack, unless we're using an arena type system. Move and attack is much more interesting and fun, to me, than move this round, attack next round.

Also, charging. +basic body score to movement (in yards? how would that work out when translating to a hex or square that is multiple yards?) makes sense, with a decreased parry against the next attack made against you, but a bonus to damage on the next attack you make?

Please, no "strait line only" rule. There is no logical reason that a charger can't curve or dodge around a pillar while charging. A much more reasonable solution is to restrict it to "each increment of movement must take the charger closer to his/her target".


So, those are my thoughts on combat movement. I hope they help.

Here you go: http://www.voidstate.com/rpg/voidstate_one...ce_mat_v1-1.pdf



We use minis on this and keep everything else fluid. I did however run one battle on a battlemap and it worked fine. PCs still declare stances and I allowed movement between "zones" (or "arenas") as an action (or for free with an athletics roll).

One could allow players to move their characters in a free-form manner, provided that those in a rearward stance were not in striking distance. This would have little effect on the mechanics of game play, but would let players enjoy the spectacle of miniature figures.

I've used voidstate's excellent combat mat (thanks, voidstate!) and minis, but I'm not too interested in making it more mini-driven than that.

Which is odd, since I'm usually the first to set up the minis and elaborate Dwarven Forge terrain layouts. Something about Tolkien makes me want to keep things a bit more abstract.

That sounds pretty good. How did you break up zones?

With the exception of rearward, stances aren't physical s; they're... stances. They're not really something you can show with miniatures on a normal playing field.

For online gaming, I've been using the tokens on a stance sheet to indicate the character combat stance. This has worked well and given a handy guide to the initiatives for the characters. The stance sheet I'm using has the areas for each stance and the will values along the base. The token/miniature can be placed above their will value to indicate where they act in combat.

we place miniatures on that sort of sheet.....mostly cos one of our players works for games workshop and has awesome collection and loads painting talent

Yeah, that was my take on them, too! When I have ran combat, I describe who is engaging who and that establishes the physical . At the beginning of each round, each player decides the stance they will take on that round (they do a "group consensus" thing in order to determine who gets to shoot their bow that round ... soooo many archers! ). When the Company has initiative, in Wits order, they state their actions (who they are attacking, whether they will use any available bonus dice, etc.). When the Enemy has initiative, I say which one is engaging which hero and resolve the attack(s). But the stance that the hero has chosen determines the base TN for every attack that round. I try to describe the way in which the Enemy performs their actions and relate it to the physical that the combat takes place in ... I encourage the players to do the same with their heroes, but jump in with a description if inspired (especially when a bonus die is used, but sometimes without).

It has been a learning experience as we are so ingrained with a "miniatures & terrain" mentality. We ARE getting better at it, though. When trying to explain how the system works (in my head, at least), I've told my players to think of the combat system (i.e., the stances) in terms of "it's not a place you're standing, but an attitude you have ... how aggressive you're being ... or how careful ... if you're having trouble hitting, you probably need to take some risk to get a hit."

Just my take on it. Hope it helps.

Just so you know - that's an older version of the stance mat. The newer one lets you mark if characters have fumbled and can't change stance next round.

Is this available for FG2 Which I have?

Not yet. I'd like permission, checking that it won't breach any agreed license, before I release - either as a community set (without rules modules) or, if Cubicle 7 and Sophisticated Games wish to (and are able to), release as a commercial set.

So far, there's a functional character sheet and NPC sheet, which include die roll functionality. I've still got to tackle the combat tracker.

"Forward Stance" in many ways is similar to charging as far as I'm concerned. I don't see stances as just a "this is how I look/stand ready against my enemy" but instead is an abstract ideal that encompasses many facets, including (but not limited to): one's relative defense/offensive aggression, how reckless one is being with their movement (i.e. charging or throwing himself at the opponent, exposing his own weaknesses to have the opponent lured into attacking leaving itself open, moving up close and personal, perhaps drawing an "attack of opportunity" etc) all rolled up in a stance. Which explains why it's easier to hit and be hit.

If we assume that "Open" is the default stance (being the middle of the three melee stances), then equating these to 3rd edition D&D terms, Forward is charging and drawing Attacks of Opportunity, and Defensive is using Combat Expertise and/or Fighting Defensively.

If this therefore up to the LM and players to describe the action - based on the stance. Someone in Forward Stance should be describing his character charging headlong into the fray, throwing caution to the wind, being heedless of the warnings of his fellows, ignoring obvious threats, savagely or barbarically barreling into the enemy, without care for his own safety etc.


Thus for my part - I do not see the need to truly add more complexities to the system as is - since the the stance itself already factors in the 'modifiers' to a the standard default stance. In fact I've fallen in love with TOR and slowing gravitating to it as my defacto choice of RPG away from D&D 3.5/Pathfinder RPG specifically because I'm tired of all the various complexities of movement, and modifiers with the combat system therein.

its complexity is spot on

I too have been thinking how it could be ported over to pathfinder, which is my other weekly game

I think in D&D terms, it's more like forward being a full attack and defensive being a full defense. The description is spot on though. Forward attackers are concentrating on the attack, to the detriment of their defense. Open is a balanced attack and defence. Defensive is passing up the openings in favour of a fuller defense, and the opportunity to leap in to the breech if needed.

Perhaps; however "Full-Attack" as defined by D&D doesn't add/subtract to one's ability to hit or be hit. In contrast, Forward vs Defensive stances doesn't grant any more or less number of attacks than another nor does Forward stance seem to imply one cannot move (except for that proverbial 5' step) - which are staples of "Full Attack" action. Instead, the stances mechanically just swap offense for defense etc. Which by way of comparison is precisely what Charging does in D&D 3rd edition (sans the 'can only move in straight line' restriction).

So thematically and for the purposes of narration, I liken Forward stance more akin to Charging and/or ignoring the possibility of "provoking attacks of opportunity". In contrast Defensive stance can be likened to "tumbling to protect yourself from an attack of opportunity", or "withdrawing" so as to not provoke, and/or Fighting Defensively or even fighting with your wits (such as using Combat Expertise) to use the battlefield etc to your advantage - which mechanically does just the opposite of charging: swaps out attack benefits for the purpose of making your AC/defense better.

If you can abstract that your lower TN when in Forward Stance needed to hit another comes from the inertia, and momentum from charging and being reckless, and the congruent easier TN of being hit yourself for being more reckless and allowing the opponent openings and making opportunity attacks from the simple mechanic of the Stance, it all seems to make sense. In 3rd Edition D&D, this higher chance of being hit comes from a -2 to AC when charging, and/or more attacks afforded the opponent due to uncaring or ignoring the fact that you're provoking an attack of opportunity by your movement into or within the threatened area. In TOR, this is represented all inclusively by a lower TN to hit and damage you when taking a forward stance. Less attacks but easier to hit. Less attacks also means a lot less rules, dice rolling, math, modifiers, adjudication etc that goes into each round of combat; which is far simpler, more streamlined, quicker, and more efficient, and less distracting and more engaging as the less you deal with mechanics, the more immersed you can remain in the action within your imagination.

As far as I'm concerned when it comes to TOR: less is more

Robert

lol I that that those few of us who seem to want more combat complexity might be best off discussing it elsewhere. Meaning no disrespect to other on this forum, I simply mean that another forum might have more posters who actively enjoy the grid, as it were. More heads tossing the idea around can directly lead to a better end result.

Personally, I find the complete lack of movement/distance rules (other than ranged weapon ranges) to be almost off-putting. But then, I've been play DnD since ADnD, and I've almost never voluntarily played without a battle map of some kind.

Anyone know where a good place to start a thread would be? I don't normally frequent rpg.net or enworld, so...I'm not familiar with game-neutral gamer forums.


Meanwhile, I think that zones/arenas are a good way to go, but it also wouldn't be that hard to port a movement in squares/hexes/inches system onto TOR.

In a detailed movement by distance system, basic move could be ten yards, maybe 5 squares/hexes. Moving can be done as part of an attack, including moving, attacking and moving again.

Charging could be move+body, maybe costing a point of hope. It would require that all movement be forward, either directly, or by diagonal, so long as it's forward, not lateral. (no reason a charging person can't curve around a pillar) It could also require that all the movement be before the attack, no charge, attack, move.

Hobbits could be move 4 while elves are move 6, but honestly we might be getting into "this makes things less fun without adding anything" territory, there, unless we give hobbits something extra to make up for a worse move and weapon selection than everyone else.

I'd also add a tumble action. Move no more than three squares/hexes/6yards, and make an attack. You are now flanking the target of your next attack, and are not flanked by anyone on this or the next round, regardless of positioning. This costs a point of hope. (You tumble around, throwing opponents off-guard, making your next attack easier, and making it harder for a short time to get into advantageous positions against you.)

And then there's flanking. The requirements for flanking depend on whether we're using hexes, squares, or RL distance to define things. I'm also not sure what benefit to give it. Maybe a flanked combatant get's a penalty to parry?

I don't think I'd add in opportunity attacks, unless maybe in the form of someone in an open or defensive stance "waiting for an opening" or something like that.

Hey Doctorbadwolf,

For my part - I'll apologize for not adding constructively to what your goal in mind is; I realize my posts have been more in line with downplaying the need for the complexity and thus not being very helpful to your call for feedback.

If I'm being honest what I see you doing is just making the game D&D again - just set in Middle-Earth.

Not that there's anything wrong with this; but I'm not sure where I can suggest you go for help on that. Perhaps on the Paizo messageboard which has a section for other RPGs. I'm sure you're not the only one who wants more "grid" play in your combat - so there are probably some here who can brainstorm with you. And while I'm very well versed in the complexities and know the rules inside and out when it comes to D&D 3rd / Pathfinder RPG, I am turning to TOR to remove myself from having to work so hard. My experiences have been that the more rules saturation you provide, the more rules discussion (read - arguments) that ensue. I have found my games turn to very bland and dry discussion of mechanics - even during the heat of a battle; and while this is indeed more an issue withe actual "players" than with the system per se, less rules in place does tend to curb a lot of the annoying habits of players who do wish to metagame, min/max, and discuss/argue rules ad nauseum.

I will say as an anecdote that we played two sessions of TOR so far, and we had most if not all of the types of descriptions you suggest wanting such as tumbling, charging, etc, but was done without the need for rules to govern them. I included in the game only those players who I give credit for being able to abstract well and not need to discuss every last rule detail, and they all loved the removal of the grid board and tedious combat schematics. And it's worth noting that the combats were more fun and descriptive than they ever used to be, and were far more rewarding aesthetically.

These are some of the things that the players narrated during the games:

"I tumble through the trolls legs slicing out at it's thigh as I pass"
"As the troll misses with his club, it slams in the ground, I jump on his arm run up to his shoulder and stab out at his neck."
Then in retaliation: "The troll slings you forward flopping you to the ground and swings a mighty arc with his club slamming down into your prone body!"
"I attack behind the marsh dweller, then drop to my hands and knees to allow a fellow to knock him backwards over me."
(my description): "The troll powerfully swings his club square on your chest (to the one in the forward stance). Wow - hit and great success! The troll lands a solid blow right into your chest - knocking the wind from you; the collision so mighty that you are knocked backwards into the campfire; sending sparks and ash exploding into the sky"

None of these required any rolls other than the actual Stance vs TN roll to hit. Because I didn't grant the troll any "bonus" to hit the elf that was thrown off his should and layed him prone, there's no reason for the player to call foul. It was just for the flavor and narration of it; there was no "in-game mechanical" benefit to any of the tumbling, prone, moving through threatened areas etc. The narration just added to the flavor and we went with it. Since no one benefited or was penalized by the circumstances, there didn't need to be any rules to govern it.

In D&D (and other more thorough or complex systems) they would have required a plethora of other sub-rules and dice rolls to adjudicate - and unfortunately the drama of it, and the immersion within the imagination to suspend disbelief of it falters a bit with so many mechanics and dice results adjudicated - basically it takes people out of character.

While I agree there is room for more complexity, and while there's something to be said for more simulation/realistic approach to things via rules, and D&D is one of the best at doing this (IMO), I just feel that the flavor and story of Middle-Earth and TOR is much more appealing, rewarding, and measurable so as to not need or deserve being bogged down by it. Again this is my take on it, and YMMV by far. And I certainly don't begrudge you or anyone else wanting to take it to that level, I just feel you're better off playing D&D and inserting the world of Middle-Earth and their adventures to the rules. Afterall, Pathfinder RPG is designed to be useable in many world campaigns - it's generic just as D20 D&D is/was; yes there's the World of Golarion for Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean the rules of the game are not also compatible with a number of worlds. It seems this would be more ideal than simply trying re-invent the wheel. YMMV.


Robert

First, I totally understand your desire for a simpler ruleset, and to have more left up to narrative description. I would never begrudge someone their playstyle preference.

I just figured that somewhere more system neutral might be a better place for a thread like this, but then thought, what the heck, I'll keep going here too.


I will say, though, that I'm definitely not better off playing DnD or PF set in Middle Earth. Someone else might be, but not me. I've tried, in two editions of DnD, and it just didn't work. The magic is all wrong, building characters like the ones in the books is never satisfactory, etc.

And honestly, I'd rather use DnD for what it's best at. That is, playing in a modern fantasy world with all manner of strange creatures, magic items and powerful magical abilities. I love that, but I don't want to try to mix it with my LoTR experience.

I also know what you mean about movement, distance and positioning rules slowing down the game and taking people out of character. For me, and my groups, that issue disappeared as soon as we got the hang of 4e, but it was always there before that, in every edition we played (and in d20 star wars games, and to a lesser extent, in GURPS).

If something like Old School Hack had come out sooner, we may have ditched DnD altogether for it, and never even thought to try 4e or Pathfinder when they came out.

But through 4e, I've learned that, at least for my groups and other people I know who love 4e, the problem goes away when it's a system that is clean, consistent, and doesn't involve weird subsystems to handle things, all interacting with eachother. That's my biggest gripe in any system that has it. I HATE unnecessary subsystems.

I just feel like TOR (for me) is missing something. I've only played it a little bit so far, and I might change my mind as we go, but right now that's where my group and I are in the game.

I agree.

And I simply feel complicating the combat system of TOR w/ movement, facing/flanking, using grids etc for more than just frame of reference is in fact having unnecessary subsystems in a game that is perfect for the free-form narrative descriptive nature of roleplaying that isn't needing to rely on hard-fast complex rules.

Robert