PDA

View Full Version : Tactical combat without a grid?



Kensen
2011-04-07, 02:16 AM
A combat grid is useful for keeping track of movement and location, but in PbP's it can be painfully slow to update the grid each time someone moves. In old (Japanese?) computer RPGs, on the other hand, the combatants stand in two lines and attack whichever opponent they wish. This is a simple way to do it and works well in PbP's, but it doesn't offer a lot in the way of tactical options.

So, do you, fellow Playgrounders, know any elegant ways to represent tactical combat without using a grid?

paddyfool
2011-04-07, 02:27 AM
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay has a very simple combat system (more of a line than a grid) that pretty much just differentiates between taking a position at long range, close range or in the front line; not a million miles from JRPGs.

Fri
2011-04-07, 02:30 AM
I'm actually thinking on homebrewing a system based on SotC for my Top Gun styled fighter-pilot campaign.

SotC is a lightly ruled system that uses a somewhat abstract fights. Basically, I'm just going to give a lot of formal maneuver that players can use to complement their aspecttagging, something like the maneuvers from Mecha and Manga book from the Mutant and Mastermind series. Something like, a choice of slow, mid, or high speed that give different dodge and attack bonuses, aiming, loop, defensive flying, feinting, and such. With this, I'm attempting to get the tactical combat feel from the choices of maneuvers that players can choose depending on the situation and the maneuver that their enemies use. Fighting against a group of low grade mook for example, one of the player could use something like 'drawing fire' maneuver or 'defensive flying' maneuver and his partner would use 'multiple target strafing' that reduces his attack bonus but let him strafe multiple enemies with machine gun, or something in that line.

And yeah, there would only be like, three or four relative 'range.' something like, close-medium-long/beyond combat range

This all is still in my mind though, I haven't even thought up the complete list of maneuvers I'd like, moreover the maneuver's effects or balance.

jiriku
2011-04-07, 02:08 PM
IRL, I just draw stuff on a whiteboard and eyeball the distances. It's worked for our play group for many years. As the DM, you do have to be very fair (even a little generous) in your calls about who has cover or is drawing an AoO, in order to earn and keep the trust of your players. But if anything is really contentious we just flip a coin, accept the outcome, and move on.

Cieyrin
2011-04-07, 05:45 PM
I found that EditGrid.com works amazingly well for PbP without getting tedious, since it's easy to update without messing with {table] tags in the forum. Just have the DM include the link at the end of each update in combat and it keeps things organized and simple without any forum diving for the link and whatnot.

Incedentally, I got that site from you, Kensen, for the Goblins Tactical Game. Too bad that didn't get far after the first playtest. :smallfrown:

BarroomBard
2011-04-08, 09:35 PM
There's a game called Agon (it's kinda like playing 300), that uses a line thing.

Every encounter starts at a certain range based on the environment (if you're in a dark forest, you start closer than in a field at noon). At the start of every round of combat, players make positioning roles, and then you can either move your self or someone who rolled lower than you forward or back one space.

PbP combat gets difficult and tedious not so much because of grids, but because having to go in order draws things out significantly.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-04-08, 09:47 PM
I typically just draw the battlefield on a piece of paper and tell how far apart everyone is.

Also, this belongs in the roleplaying forums.

Mutazoia
2011-04-09, 10:12 PM
Um....you do know that there are vinyl maps you can buy that have grids on one side, hexagons on the other, that you can draw on with dry erase markers....these are available at any store that sells RPG's....

Hiro Protagonest
2011-04-09, 10:18 PM
Um....you do know that there are vinyl maps you can buy that have grids on one side, hexagons on the other, that you can draw on with dry erase markers....these are available at any store that sells RPG's....

Those are the ones he doesn't want to use.

Unless everyone except you misunderstood the first post.:smallannoyed:

Mutazoia
2011-04-10, 08:30 AM
Those are the ones he doesn't want to use.

Unless everyone except you misunderstood the first post.:smallannoyed:

Well it helps if I wear my glasses when I read... he's doing PbP...I read PnP lol.

Try Kloogeworks. Its set up for gaming over a network connection and I've used it for projecting maps and such onto a table with a digital projector. It comes with icons to represent players and monsters and other things (though I don't use them for my application). You can upload your own custom maps pretty easily.

There is a server and client (each player uses a client copy obviously) but for what you are doing you would only need the server with all the DM tools

Kensen
2011-04-11, 03:32 AM
Thanks for the replies! I guess I should have stated my intent in my first post more clearly. :smallsmile: I'm aware of different ways to handle grid-based combat online in play-by-post games, but I'm specifically looking for ideas for a combat system that does not require the use of a grid. I design and play play-by-post games, and I've noticed that in most RPGs combat either takes too much time, or it's too abstract and simple to offer tactical challenges. So, I want to design a combat system/game that (hopefully) avoids the pitfalls of grid-based systems without being too simple/abstract. It can't be very hard, right? :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:

I know that it's possible to make combat faster by making turn order more flexible or making combat more deadly, but that's off-topic; I really only want to discuss combat systems that do not require the use of a grid, such as Agon and the Warhammer RPG that BarroomBard and paddyfiil mentioned.

BarroomBard
2011-04-26, 10:04 PM
I think another way to go with this is to replace the kinds of tactical choices that the players make.

If you remove positioning from the equation, you can replace that with other tactical choices. For example, you can give them different maneuvers they can pull off that change the tactical situation.

For example, you could give a fighter character the following options:

Attack: Basic offensive move.
Block: Basic defensive move.
Charge: lowers defense, increases offense, repositions yourself.
Feint: lowers offense, increases defense.
Sand in the face: non-offensive, lowers target's defense.

etc.

Wushu (the RPG, not the martial art) is very abstract, but it is tactically flexible. The players gain dice based on the number of details they narrate. What they narrate doesn't matter, just how much. The tactical choices come in because the players then divide those dice between multiple goals and between defense and offense. (For example: the character racks up 6 dice. He has to choose whether to tackle the boss, the boss's henchmen, or some secondary goal. Then, he splits the 6 dice between defeating the obstacle and defending himself.)

Tactics basically come down to choosing how to use resources to achieve a goal. The more choices you give, the more tactical your system is.

Knaight
2011-04-27, 09:48 AM
Thanks for the replies! I guess I should have stated my intent in my first post more clearly. :smallsmile: I'm aware of different ways to handle grid-based combat online in play-by-post games, but I'm specifically looking for ideas for a combat system that does not require the use of a grid. I design and play play-by-post games, and I've noticed that in most RPGs combat either takes too much time, or it's too abstract and simple to offer tactical challenges. So, I want to design a combat system/game that (hopefully) avoids the pitfalls of grid-based systems without being too simple/abstract. It can't be very hard, right? :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:
Use Burning Wheel. The scripting system allows for very tactical, very complex fights which nonetheless can be handled relatively quickly, including over play by post.

101jir
2011-04-27, 01:17 PM
I have an untested system that I have been planning on using. You can attack or defend. Both roll, and the result is either + or -. A ++ attack means both take damage. A ++ defend means no one takes damage. A +- defend means failed defender gets damage. A +- attack means that only the player with the successful attack deals damage. +Defend -attack means that the defender gets a counter attack, and may deal damage. - defend +attack obviously defender loses. I have more information if you are interested as far as feats and such.

ericgrau
2011-04-27, 06:42 PM
IIRC 2e was fairly similar. Basically there wasn't location based tactics though. There were some optional rules around the speed of doing X and the effects of disrupting it before that time is over IIRC. Try that.

I suppose you could do it this way:
1. Assign a 1-20 initiative order delay for each action, where 20 is a full round. So a typical action might take 10 or so, plus a little more if you need to move up to someone else (no attacks of opportunity nor etc.).
3. Whenever you declare an action everyone knows about it but it hasn't happened yet. Subtract the initiative order delay from that person's initiative to determine when it happens (which is also when he gets to act again). If the resulting number is negative, then add 20 to it and put it in the next "round" (though really time is continuous).
4. Some actions can be disrupted, such as spells and special attacks, if the user is hit after declaring the action but before it resolves.
5. Build from there however you want. For example held actions could work normally. Readied actions could subtract half of the initiative order delay to determine when you're "ready" then the other half the moment the trigger happens. Thus some extremely quick actions could not be interrupted by extremely slow actions even if readied. Feats and spells could speed up spells, special attacks, regular attacks, etc. For example improved grapple could, besides the +4 bonus, speed up grapple initiation so that it's harder (but not impossible) to disrupt. Whereas the normal version could be slower than a normal attack so that it's easier to disrupt.
6. Wallow in despair at the game balance nightmare I just gave you :smallbiggrin:.

Or do what many 2e people did: Ignore the optional rules and don't have tactical movement. Players just say "I walk up to so and so and hit him", roll to hit and damage.

WeLoveFireballs
2011-04-27, 09:05 PM
Just take your models (or coins) and put them on a table. Then I use wooden blocks for all terrain. Measure move and range in 1" per 5 ft. Works just fine. Sorta guesswork for flanking though but not much of a problem. Though tactical options are expanded when you aren't moving on a grid and moving diagonal is easier.

Not so much on the "Elegant" but certainly effective.

jmelesky
2011-04-28, 01:46 PM
Just take your models (or coins) and put them on a table. Then I use wooden blocks for all terrain. Measure move and range in 1" per 5 ft. Works just fine.

That's how it was handled in 3.0, actually. All the 3.0 PHB diagrams are gridless, and all cones/bursts/whatnot were analog. Flanking was just when your opponent was "directly between you".