Grid Movement - 2 Squares

[CharonsHelper]

I'm working on a space western TTRPG system: Space Dogs. It's nearing completion (in signature), and I recently got some rather extreme negative feedback on a piece of it, and I wanted to run it past you all here.

Space Dogs is a grid system, and the basic movement for humans (all PCs unless in a mecha) is just 2 squares. Is that inherently off-putting to anyone here?

The game dynamics are very little like other grid TTRPGs I've played before. Everyone is expected to have ranged weaponry (guns - it is sci-fi), and it's designed so that you do generally need to burn a full turn to close to melee range - which is a high risk/reward tactic. Initiative being side-based keeps turns pretty quick, and the 2 square movement actually helps with that too.

Anyway - I was just curious if others had the same negative impression of a 2 square base movement system, or if that reaction was an outlier.

[Zhorn]

So what exactly was their primary complaint about?
"Two squares of movement is bad because ___________"

Not knowing the context of their complaint it's hard to tell if it comes from a genuine concern on the impact on play the limited movement would cause, or if it was just a knee-jerk reaction against such a limited movement range compared to other games.

If the game is primarily at range; the lower movement might not be an issue.
But it would take a while to read through the rules before i could say for one way or another on that (there's a lot of pages).

[CharonsHelper]

So what exactly was their primary complaint about?
"Two squares of movement is bad because ___________"


That was pretty much it. They mentioned hating it because it would make combat static and force melee troops to waste turns closing - neither of which are really on point for Space Dogs.

I was largely just curious if others would have the same initial recoiling reaction to the 2 square movement.

[Khedrac]

I think saying that movement is "2 squares" is nearly meaningless without some context.
For example:
What's the average weapon range (both individual portable and not)?
What's the average encounter distance?

If the range is less than the encounter distance then you have a real problem.
More to the point may be the time taken to close to melee, but that would depend also on what range is being modelled. E.g. getting shot at once (or possibly twice) while running forward to grapple or shut a door may be realistic but isn't fun; getting shot at 4 or 5 times makes this suicide - so if the distance is 10 feet the first should apply, if 50 the second it probably to be expected. If the distance is 15' and the second applies then there's probably something wrong with the system.

[erikun]

I'd say it depends on what those squares mean, and what turns mean in context of the game. If the grid refers to five-foot steps and each turn is 6-10 seconds (or even a full minute) then I'd wonder why it's impossible to take two steps within that time frame. Sure, it would be dangerous in a gunfight, but not every encounter is going to be firearms and being unable to walk more than sixth feet in a minute seems ridiculous. On the other hand, if the grid refers to ten-foot increments and each turn is 2-3 seconds, then it makes a lot more sense that I can't just hop twenty feet in half a second before firing off a rifle.

The other thing to consider is if a character can get behind an opponent in one turn or not. Can they move diagonally and so be behind their enemy in one turn? Or can they only move orthogonally, and so can only end up by an opponent's side if they try to move and attack? What is the reason for this? It is fairly easy to step behind somebody if you are quick and want to do so. Perhaps if the game system is intended to simulate characters burdened by gear or in mech suits or something which would limit their movement, it might be understood why they can't simply slip behind an enemy so easily. But if this is a general system, then I'd wonder why repositioning is such a difficult maneuver.

You mention that it's expected for melee to close distance in one turn or so. Just how far out do combats occur? Because if most fights start off at 4-6 squares maximum, then it sounds more like a zoomed out version of the movement grid as opposed to D&D but everybody running in mud.

[CharonsHelper]

Well - it sounds like the instant recoil was a one-off.

The squares are 2 meters, and each round is 3 seconds - which seems to better fit firearms anyway.

You can go faster then 2 squares (4 meters) if you give up your attack to Run, moving an additional 4 squares, or 5-10 in a straight line (depending upon your Athletics skill rank).

Guns don't have a max range, but they take range penalties every 5 squares (penalty varying from 1 for rifles to 5 for shotguns). The mechanics are designed so that it's really easy to hit someone at close range in the open, which does make crossing open ground dangerous.

[Composer99]

The very fastest sprinters can manage around 10 m/s once they hit their stride. (Usain Bolt's record-setting sprint was 10.438 m/s on average.)

Now, that's someone whose life is dedicated to sprinting, who has trained almost exclusively to sprint, and is doing so in carefully controlled conditions. Probably not your typical Space Dogs player character in a typical combat situation.

Based on your description, someone who "dashes" in your game (to borrow the 5e D&D term) moves up to 6 squares normally (so 12 metres) in a 2-3 second round. That's an average of 4 m/s. Someone with training in Athletics who runs in a straight line can move 7-12 squares (14 to 24 metres) in a 2-3 second round, or 4 2/3 to 8 m/s.

Moving up to 2 squares, or 4 metres in a 2-3 second span when you want to do other things (such, say, as shoot someone) entails moving at 1 1/3 m/s.

2 squares could be slow, I suppose. But if it is, it's not unreasonably so: three seconds isn't a long time if you're trying to do more than just running.

[Bjarkmundur]

What's the range of a standard buff? (=sanctuary)
What's the range of the basic ranged attack? (=shortbow)
How many squares does it take to get from one side of your enemy to the other? (2 squares in 4e)
How many squares does a light source illuminate? (=torch equipment and light spell)
How far can you throw stuff? (=javelin)

This should give us all the relative distances we need to answer your question.

Based on the relative distances in 5e, you could divide distances like this:

Melee Range
Medium Range: Within range of buffs and thrown items, but out of melee range
Long Range: The edge of the range of buffs and thrown items, and the edge of average movement speeds.
Out of Range: Only reachable by ranged weapons or spells, or by sacrificing your action.

This means that 3 squares of movement makes more sense then 2.

2m in 3 seconds is the same speed as having 13 feet speed in 5e, if my maff is right. So yeah, people might find it a bit slow.

[Gallowglass]

I'm working on a space western TTRPG system: Space Dogs. It's nearing completion (in signature), and I recently got some rather extreme negative feedback on a piece of it, and I wanted to run it past you all here.

Space Dogs is a grid system, and the basic movement for humans (all PCs unless in a mecha) is just 2 squares. Is that inherently off-putting to anyone here?

The game dynamics are very little like other grid TTRPGs I've played before. Everyone is expected to have ranged weaponry (guns - it is sci-fi), and it's designed so that you do generally need to burn a full turn to close to melee range - which is a high risk/reward tactic. Initiative being side-based keeps turns pretty quick, and the 2 square movement actually helps with that too.

Anyway - I was just curious if others had the same negative impression of a 2 square base movement system, or if that reaction was an outlier.

As others have said, we need additional context.

But, giving my initial impression, if I envision a large grid map and I'm in the middle of it and there are a bunch of enemies, say, 20 squares away and a scattering of terrain features and every turn is "move your miniature one or two spots, then fire".... Yeah... I guess it seems like it would seriously hamper any tactical gameplay and leave me with hoping my bullets hit better than theirs.

If i'm playing on a battlemat I want there to be DYNAMIC movement, not plodding near stationary getting riddled by bullets for rounds before I can reach cover.

[CharonsHelper]

2m in 3 seconds is the same speed as having 13 feet speed in 5e, if my maff is right. So yeah, people might find it a bit slow.

Sorry - it's not 2 meters per 3 second round. It's two squares, each of which is 2 meters. So 4 meters if you're doing something else. 12 meters if you focus on moving, and 14-24 meters if you sprint in a single direction (technically the first 4 meters doesn't have to be in a straight line).

[Bjarkmundur]

Ah, gotcha. Honestly, I've never played a system with more speed range than 5-7 squares per round, so I have no idea how this would play out. I mean, in civilization 4 we got pretty used to having just a couple of squares of movement per turn, and movement sometimes meant you couldn't attack. We managed just fine, although maneuvering AND attacking was sometimes impossible and you were just stuck there fighting until the unit died. I'd bump it up to 3, just for the sake of comfort, but I think a system specifically designed after a movement of 2 squares obviously is designed to fix any issues that it might cause.

[CharonsHelper]

but I think a system specifically designed after a movement of 2 squares obviously is designed to fix any issues that it might cause.

That's the intention. I just had a somewhat visceral *nope* reaction to the idea of a 2 square movement recently, and I was wondering if that would be common.

And yes - some semi-unique to my game help make the slower base movement work. A few examples:

1. Human scaled characters can share a square with their buddy. This keeps you from tripping over each-other.

2. Side-based initiative. This speeds up turns and further avoids the PCs crowding each-other. The 2 square movement also helps speed up turns.

3. Melee & ranged attacks work substantially differently. Ranged attacks aren't just sub-par melee attacks at a distance, so closing to melee changes the game.

4. Firearms have substantial range penalties every 10 meters, so it's hard to pick people off from extreme range.

5. The game is sort of designed around happening in starships & space stations, so not generally extreme ranges in the first place.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The point of using a grid is to make movement tactical--if only approximate positioning matters, something like Fate's zones is much more graceful. And I just... don't know that 2 squares will be enough. The scale doesn't really matter; it's that fitting tactics and terrain into such a small space (ie, there's cover HERE, a mounted gun HERE, and a coolant leak HERE) seems difficult at best.

Also worth keeping in mind that spending your whole turn moving can feel frustrating. The more real time a round takes the worse it gets, but even if it's back around to you in five minutes it won't feel as good as actively interacting with the fight

[CharonsHelper]

Also worth keeping in mind that spending your whole turn moving can feel frustrating. The more real time a round takes the worse it gets, but even if it's back around to you in five minutes it won't feel as good as actively interacting with the fight

I definitely agree, though I've found that going side-based as opposed to individual initiative reduces that feeling substantially, and not just because it makes turns faster.

I think that it's because in individual initiative it's "I wasted MY turn" while in side-based it's "I moved during OUR turn". At least that's been the feedback in playtests thus far.

[Zman]

Interesting. My gut reaction would lean towards recoil. Having two squares of movement, given the size of the standard battle maps and realistic limits on table space etc, having a movement of two squares feels extremely limiting. It is hard to imagine being able to move from cover to cover, or have much of a tactical movement given that scale. I mean, its hard to imagine a usable form of cover being available within 2 squares most of the time. My initial reaction is unfavorable at what I immediately perceive to be a lack of granularity.

Now, given that you're using a short round, 3s, vs a longer round of 6s, and that the character and expend their normal actions for additional movement, that initial revulsion is greatly alleviated and not terribly warranted.

Our initial perception to a rule matter, but what matters more is how those rules and nuances are communicated.