PDA

View Full Version : Facing and Grids



Fhaolan
2008-03-08, 11:43 AM
Since everyone's nattering on about things they like/dislike about various systems, I thought I'd throw something in.

I like facing, but I dislike grid-based combat. I know, that probably sounds contradictory, please bear with me.

As mentioned in other threads, I started gaming as an old-school wargamer. Chainmail, plus Napoleonics and WWI type games. On sandtables with no grids at all. Everything was done with tape measures, knotted string, and if facing was important with the particular maneuver, protractors. I remember some games with vehicles we would have maneuver keys, little pieces of cardboard cut to quickly measure side-slips and turn radii. Area of effects done with cardboard templates or the like.

Once you've gotten used to not being bound by grids, all sorts of interesting effects happen. For example, 3D combat becomes a lot easier. Once I played over at a friends place where he had glued cork board all over the ceiling, so he could push tacks in with fishing line to suspend minis at the correct heights. We were doing a scenario with griffon and pegasus riders hunting down a dragon. That was a fascinating game.

Going 3D also introduces ballistics into the game. This is a lot more difficult of a conversion than the rest, because you have to work out which ranges in the rules are based on ballistic trajectories for outdoor use, and which are based on in-dungeon, down-corridor straight lines. 1st ed AD&D actually made this easier by saying ranges indoors were in feet, but outdoors was in yards, which gave you a pretty good idea of the assumed ballistics involved. It makes for interesting scenarios where you lob a fireball *over* a castle wall, which you technically can't do in 3.x D&D. We had spring steel arcs for different 'thrust' ratings. So if you had a catapult with a rating of 10, you'd use a #10 arc. By pulling or pushing the ends together, you'd have a reasonable approximation of how high up the shot would go before it fell down to the ground, what obstacles it would clear, etc. This is very much beyond what most gamers would deal with, but we were engineering students at University at the time.

Now on to facing. Personally, I think facing is important. Especially when you bring in vehicles with definitive firing arcs, but even with one-on-one melee combat. Flanking and coming up behind someone are valid tactical maneuvers. I was very disappointed in 3.5 when they got rid of facing.

This one's harder to deal with. Once a game has eliminated facing in the rules, it's very difficult to put it back without replacing the combat system itself.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. Time to go do some wiring upgrades in my house. The building code out here allows for the worst electrical runs I've seen in my life. :smallsmile:

Mike_G
2008-03-08, 12:06 PM
We've always used facing and measuring tape, or hexes. Once again, since we started as wargamers, playing miniatures and Squad Leader.

We do use a grid marked, dry erase, plastic mat since it's easy to draw nice square rooms and straight hallways on, but we measure for diagonal movement and ranges.

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-08, 12:12 PM
I envy you guys. I wish my players would be more open to the ideas ofnon-grid based combat, but alas I'm stuck with the way they are. There are a lot of things I wish was different about my group (though a lot that I love about them). I've tried to implement facing and it just fell apart, I never attempted further except for a few cinematic M&M battles, but they struggled with that.

TheThan
2008-03-08, 12:18 PM
I play warmachine, warhammer fantasy, Babylon 5 a call to arms, and a few other tabletop games. I whole heartily agree with you on the grid system. Not being bound to a grid feels much more dynamic and natural than counting squares.

Besides I think some of the movement rules are borked. Like double movement for diagonals… that make me go WTF? Why is it harder to move diagonal relative to something than it is to move straight, straight away from it or at right angles to it?

The idea of suspending things from the ceiling is pretty cool. But it’s not something most people would want to do to their house.

Here’s an alternative idea. Go to a junkyard and pull out as many telescoping antenna as you can. Then mount the bottom of the antenna to the base of your model. Attach the top (the telescoping part) to the bottom of the models (most war game models even have a hole for this), you might have to drill a little hole, but you’ll end up with a flying model that can change altitude.

Keld Denar
2008-03-08, 12:19 PM
Yeah, maybe, but mid level combat takes long enough as it is...I don't want to sit around for 20 min to decide whether or not my archer can shoot over the grand canyon, I'll just take my -2 and move merrily along my way.

Getting rid of facing did a lot to simplify and streamline combat in 3.x and beyond.

Fhaolan
2008-03-08, 12:44 PM
Here’s an alternative idea. Go to a junkyard and pull out as many telescoping antenna as you can. Then mount the bottom of the antenna to the base of your model. Attach the top (the telescoping part) to the bottom of the models (most war game models even have a hole for this), you might have to drill a little hole, but you’ll end up with a flying model that can change altitude.

I tried that a long time ago, and the results were amusing. I was using old radio antennas, which really didn't 'hold' their extension very well with the weight of the minis. You had to game very fast, as the minis would slowly lose altitude.... :smallbiggrin:

TheThan
2008-03-08, 01:22 PM
I tried that a long time ago, and the results were amusing. I was using old radio antennas, which really didn't 'hold' their extension very well with the weight of the minis. You had to game very fast, as the minis would slowly lose altitude.... :smallbiggrin:

maybe it'll work better with new ones. but that costs a bit more.

[edit]
Hmm i might head over to Napa or somewhere and see if they have any and how much they'll cost.

were you using metal or plastic minis? that'll probably make a huge difference. since metal ones are much heavier.

Chronos
2008-03-08, 01:31 PM
Besides I think some of the movement rules are borked. Like double movement for diagonals… that make me go WTF? Why is it harder to move diagonal relative to something than it is to move straight, straight away from it or at right angles to it?Are you sure about that? I thought that diagonals counted as 1.5, not 2. Which does make sense, since you're moving further when you move one space diagonally than one space orthogonally, and 1.5 is a reasonable approximation to sqrt(2).

Squash Monster
2008-03-08, 04:25 PM
Are you sure about that? I thought that diagonals counted as 1.5, not 2. Which does make sense, since you're moving further when you move one space diagonally than one space orthogonally, and 1.5 is a reasonable approximation to sqrt(2).Instead of looking at how close a system is to approximating the square root of two, I find it more useful to see how close a system is to approximating a circle. In D&D, a "circle" is an octagon. It's one of the better approximations you can get with a grid, certainly better than that hexagon nonsense.


Anyway, I think gridless systems are great, if you have the patience to run one or you have a computer to be patient for you. Facing, on the other hand, is silly in a turn-based system. You can change facing as fast as you can swing a weapon, but in most facing-enabled systems you have enough time to run around a guy and smack him before his turn happens again.

horseboy
2008-03-08, 05:13 PM
Wow, I'm surprised I never thought of the cork on the ceiling, especially given my love of Aerotech.
Yeah, I find the whole "grid" thing to be one of the more trying aspects of D&D. The only time I've ever had to deal with the ludicrous concept of movement costing extra depending on what direction I want to go in is when I'm playing Eldar in BFG. And that's because it's SAIL BOATS IN SPAAAAAACE!

Of course, I'm also not a big fan of minis in RPG's. As inevitably someone starts picking up their mini and bouncing it quickly up and down and talking in a squeaky voice. Then it's all "Alright, clear them off! This is entirely too silly."

Chronos
2008-03-08, 05:15 PM
Instead of looking at how close a system is to approximating the square root of two, I find it more useful to see how close a system is to approximating a circle. In D&D, a "circle" is an octagon. It's one of the better approximations you can get with a grid, certainly better than that hexagon nonsense.Well, that too, but I couldn't figure out how to say it without devolving into mathematical jargon. Note that if you treat diagonal moves as 1 step, or if you treat them as 2 steps, either way you end up with your "circles" being squares (which are, of course, much worse than hexagons or octagons).

Cuddly
2008-03-08, 05:20 PM
Are you sure about that? I thought that diagonals counted as 1.5, not 2. Which does make sense, since you're moving further when you move one space diagonally than one space orthogonally, and 1.5 is a reasonable approximation to sqrt(2).

Yeah, that's how we play. Every other square on a diagonal counts as two movement. So to move 10 feet diagonally takes up 15 move.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-03-08, 05:44 PM
Yeah, that's how we play. Every other square on a diagonal counts as two movement. So to move 10 feet diagonally takes up 15 move.That's how it should be, and how it is now, but they're changing it for 4.0 to 2 spaces for a diagonal. WotC apparently failed middle-school geometry.

Fhaolan
2008-03-08, 07:11 PM
were you using metal or plastic minis? that'll probably make a huge difference. since metal ones are much heavier.

Metal. Lead, actually. It was before all that kerfuffle that made them switch to pewter. And we were experimenting on taking Star Fleet Battles to 3D, so they weren't exactly lightweights. :)

Farmer42
2008-03-08, 07:33 PM
That's how it should be, and how it is now, but they're changing it for 4.0 to 2 spaces for a diagonal. WotC apparently failed middle-school geometry.

Actually, 4E is making all movement 1 for 1, not 2 for one diagonal.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-08, 08:16 PM
They only went to grid system because it eliminated the need for a tape measure.

Swiftblu
2008-03-08, 09:35 PM
Current DnD is incredibly easy to convert to a gridless, wargame-style system.

1"=5'

Apply facing rules as needed. You generally won't need to apply any movement cost for turning.

Matthew
2008-03-08, 11:10 PM
Let's see...

I started gaming with Hero Quest, then moved on to Advanced Hero Quest. At the same time, I was playing War Hammer Fantasy Battle, War Hammer 40,000 Rogue Trader and War Hammer Space Marine Epic Scale. Eventually we moved on to War Hammer Fantasy Roleplay, then Basic Dungeons & Dragons, and then Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. And, of course, we played plenty of other RPGs and WGs in the meantime.

When it comes to movement, I don't use any sort of grid. However, when I draw up dungeon floor plans, I tend to use squares. Just habit, I think, or maybe convenience for quickly eyeballing distances.

Facing, I'm not really that fussed about, but since we use simultaneous movement, it's no big deal. For my AD&D camapign we use the flanking rules from this thread: Initiative, Closing and Flanking (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3778)

Fhaolan
2008-03-09, 01:46 AM
They only went to grid system because it eliminated the need for a tape measure.

You see, this is a fascinating statement to me.

A cloth tape measure costs $2 in any fabric store, has a pre-printed scale on it, and can be rolled up to fit very nicely in your dicebag along with all your dice.

A battlemat costs anywhere from $15 to $50 depending on size and grid pattern, and the really usefull ones are about 3'x4' in size. Or you can make your own, if you've got access to large format printer/plotters, or by hand if you've got the paper. Or you can draw the grid on a hard surface like a whiteboard or blackboard. Or there are those carboard pieces with dungeon corridors printed on them. Or if you're *made* of money, the giant interlocking terrain pieces that i've seen the Warhammer guys use in the hobby stores.

This feels a lot like what my co-workers would call 'false economy'. You're 'saving' a small amount of effort, by throwing a lot more money and effort at the problem. :smallsmile:

horseboy
2008-03-09, 02:08 AM
This feels a lot like what my co-workers would call 'false economy'. You're 'saving' a small amount of effort, by throwing a lot more money and effort at the problem. :smallsmile:Merchandising! WotC sells battlemats and interlocking tile pieces to go with their minis. They wouldn't want you to only spend $2 when you've got to buy, buy, buy more!

Miles Invictus
2008-03-09, 02:16 AM
I prefer grids because they eliminate ambiguity. I don't have to measure out my moves or my attacks; I just count squares.

AslanCross
2008-03-09, 02:29 AM
I only started tabletop gaming last year, and I started with D&D. I have no experience with wargaming and gridless combat. Since my players are all beginners, they'd rather stick to the grid-based rules and a battlemat. Mine was handmade. An A3 size sketch pad cost me the equivalent of about US$2, while laminating cost US$10 for two mats.