Miniatures, TFoB, and Line of Sight

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

A couple of years ago...

... I actually discourage using miniatures except for the most basic understanding of a scene, and using terrain rolls whenever movement is a crucial factor...

I can't remember the last time miniatures weren't used to represent the tactical (that is, combat) environment in our gaming group. I can't see any other way of having players and referee quickly agreeing on what the characters can see and therefore react to. In particular, it stops the problem of characters reacting inadvertently to things they shouldn't be able to see and the issue of the PC group moving with an uncanny degree of synchronisation.

Now bearing in mind Jake's comment above and the much anticipated arrival of TFoB I'd like to know:

Has anyone come up with a mechanism for replacing or modifying the Terrain roll to reflect a miniature-based display of the combat scene?

If TFoB includes Skirmish rules, where one miniature equates to one character, will there be a modified Terrain roll mechanism or a mechanism for determining the facing of miniatures during combat?

Without the use of miniatures, in practice how do referees control issues of line-of-sight and knowledge of events that are taking place in other parts of the combat area?

Cheers,

[Lance D. Allen]

I would like to see expanded rules for miniatures in TFoB as well, even though I don't use them. I think they should be a supported means of play, even if they're not preferred by the majority of TRoS players.

However, I think the rules need fairly little tweaking to support miniatures.

For terrain use, remember than up to 1/2 movement is considered standard for any mobile combatants. If a terrain roll needs to be made, the minis can be moved up to 1/2 of their move score to reflect the results of the terrain roll.

Remember that you cannot have more than three attackers on one, unless they are using spears or some such. Reflect this on a hex grid as requiring the hexes to the left and right of front to be clear to be able to swing without accidentally hitting an ally, or an unintended opponent.

Facing is fairly easy, and is mostly a matter of perception. A combatant can choose their own facing freely so long as they are aware of their surroundings. If you require a mechanic, perhaps have them roll against Battle to determine if they are able to turn to face a new opponent.

When not using minis, line of sight and perception issues are much more abstract. Can I see so-and-so? Yes or no. Can I move to where I can get a clear shot of him? Yes or no. Do I notice the guy coming up behind me? Perception -vs- Sneak, or just Perception, or Surprise, as the situation warrants.

Very little in the way of additional rules are needed, simply application of existing rules to different modes of play.

[Malechi]

In answer to your question regarding limiting out-of-character player responses to the environment...

In general this hasn't been a problem, but then I encourage a kind of Author-Director stance play (to use some Forge-isms).  Generally I run a combat for 2-3 rounds with one melee group, then swap to another.  If one melee group concludes (via retreat, death or what-have-you) I generally get the combatant to roll a Battle or Tactics skill to survey the situation, using either Per or Wit.  Then if they wish to advance upon another melee group, I work out the distance in my head, match it with their speed, find the required movement rate and get a Terrain roll going with Ag being the required attribute.  Works a charm.  

Occasionally though we've been known to use counters (tiddly-winks) to have a tactical display of complex situations, but in general we don't worry about facing etc (Terrain rules again) too much.  The counters only generally signify the vague status of the battle, and we only bring that onto the table when someone moves, thus changing the setup of combat.  

I agree with both Wolfen and Ian though, skirmish mini rules, if simple enough and elegant in their ruleset (if a different ruleset is used to the Tactics-Battle-Terrain roll situation that I guess is the norm) would be a boon for the game.  It might just attract more people to the game though it certainly wouldn't impact upon our play significantly (unless they were mind-blowing)

cheers

Jason K.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

For terrain use, remember than up to 1/2 movement is considered standard for any mobile combatants. If a terrain roll needs to be made, the minis can be moved up to 1/2 of their move score to reflect the results of the terrain roll.

How do you handle the effect of one combatant not being able to move freely -- say protecting a fallen comrade, defending a causeway or doorway, that sort of thing? The rules seem to assume that part of the offense and defense process is movement. What then if that freedom of movement is not available due to tactical considerations?

Cheers,

[Dain]

Another concern with miniatures...who moves when and by how much. Like others, our group favors minatures just to keep track of who is where. In a recent combat, we were trying to protect a non-combat oriented companion from attack, and when you run a "you move, now you move, now you move,..." scenario the opponents simply walk around you and butcher the poor slob. Even if you run (forgive me) D&D'ish opportunity attacks on hexes surrounding your character, movement is large enough that they can completely curve around the hexes surrounding your character and still butcher the poor slob. Some rule would need to be put in place regarding "protecting" a companion. In the hexless world, I THINK (please correct me if I'm wrong...I'm new here) it's just a terrain roll on behalf of the individual trying to stay out of combat (or the "protector" maybe) to keep the "protector" between the enemy and the person not wanting to be in combat. Please forgive if this is all giberish...like I said, I'm new to the system, have only been through the books twice, and not all of what I read is sticking yet and I'm probably getting it all goofed up.

[Lance D. Allen]

In the case of someone whose mobility is restricted, then restrict their mobility accordingly. If it means that they can't move enough to attack someone, that's realistically portrayed. If, for some reason they can't turn to face someone, then they take severe penalties on defensive and offensive actions against that person. You don't need new rules, you just need rulings.

Most everything you come up with, I could answer within the rules as they exist, but it's not my job to make rulings for you. I can give you my take, but it's ultimately up to your Seneschal to make the decision.

By the by, I think Jake answered someone else's question on the "required" movement question in situations like defending a given point, such as a bridge.. But I'm not totally sure where that was. It was fairly recent, and though it didn't deal with minis specifically, the ruling would still be applicable.

As for timing.. you move at the same time, essentially. If it's any sort of opposed movement, such as one person trying to intercept another who doesn't want to be intercepted, you'd determine first if such an interception is possible (via the move score) then roll terrain. Once you've done that, you move the miniatures accordingly. Definitely do NOT do a your turn-my turn method, as TRoS isn't meant to be played like that.

I'm telling ya, the rules don't really need to be expanded, just interpreted. Anything going into TFoB for minis shouldn't be additional rules, just an explanation on how to make the existing rules apply to minis. With a little thought, I could run a full on melee with minis using the existing rules, esp. considering that there are a few rules already in place for miniatures. (see movement, p. 92)

Give me a hex grid and a dozen minis, and see if I can't.

Jake, Brian? Is something like this a worth attention?

[Ingenious]

My take on this, is that mini's or at least a sheet of paper and a pencil can help visualize the field of battle in TROS no matter how big that battle may be.

In DND we used a sheet of paper and a pencil to mark where we were, where our opponents were.. and that went a long way to helping us select targets and to formulate some strategy/tactics. This ties into TROS because there are a set of skills accordingly for 'tactics' etc. It also is easier to see if something is possible in combat like 'can I reach that guy in this exchange?' and so on before you even attempt to do it. Rather than just leaving it up to the imagination... But you'd have to ask the seneschal anyways on his official take on a specific distance anyways.. so what's the point eh?

I find that missing in our sessions, but I chalk that up to being used to one method and having to learn a different one. The way I actually see it, is that using either mini's or the pencil-paper method will make combats longer and less stream-lined.. and TROS combat is fast so I would not want to weaken one of its stronger points...
Though depending on how much experience you have with the combat system, if you are really used to it.. it might not make much difference.

YMMV
-Ingenious

[Brian Leybourne]

Jake, Brian? Is something like this a worth attention?

Personally? Not a big fan of mini's in combat. Maybe just to show relative positions etc, but certainly not in a all-inclusive D&D type way of using them. TROS is an RPG, not a wargame.

Jake has much the same opinion as me on mini's too, so I wouldn't hold your breath for minis rules in TFOB. Having said that, I don't speak for the man, and anything's possible.

Brian.

[Muggins]

I think miniatures spoil the idea of combat somewhat. It is only in recent d20 D&D sessions we have ever used them, with mixed results. As Brian says, this ain't a wargame. The Seneschal just needs to be a little clearer on the starting positions, and be prepared to repeat the situation to the player who fell asleep or was reading something he shouldn't have inthe rulebook. Especially in TRoS, with very fast combat turns and the division of the fight into small groups, miniatures are less useful- by the time somebody is free to move, break, someone else's combat, break.... A little malice on the part of the Seneschal for innovation, Bob's your uncle!

James

[Lance D. Allen]

See now, I mostly agree with you and Jake on minis for my own uses, but at least a couple people have expressed an interest in using them, so the question isn't really whether or not you like them as whether or not you think that supporting miniature play would be a worthwhile addition to the game for those who do like them. As I said before, it's not like it would require a bunch of new rules, just a few paragraphs explaining how to apply the rules as they currently exist to miniature play.

In my opinion, miniatures add to the combat scenarios. They're good for getting a feel for what the battle looks like from the character's point of view, as well as a general overview for the players. The main reason I'd never bother with 'em is because it's too much handling. First I'd have to own enough appropriate minis. Second I'd have to own a hex-map. Third, I'd have to clear table-space for the whole shebang. If not for that, I might actually use them.

Might. ::shrugs::

Either way, it's no skin off my nose. I just think a small section on minis might be a good idea.

[Dain]

Point appreciated good sir Wolfen. Lots of good comments here all around, indicating miniatures (if used) should be used more intuitively than mechanically. I.E. rather than counting off hexes and such, combat results/terrain roll results/etc,.... should be used to determine positioning, and then the figures should be re-organized (without counting off hexes) to reflect the end results of the dice rolls involved...kindof what you do in your mind, just set to a hex mat. No one counts off hexes in their mind when they envision what it would look like in real life, they more envision a movie screen or something real.

Which brings up a special point for our group (that may not exist in most other groups). We have a few people that have trouble "painting the picture in their minds" without a visual reference to get them started. In particular, we have one individual who is quick as a whip and absolutely brilliant when it comes figuring out plot twists and noticing subtle clues that show what's really the source of the problem in the current game (as opposed to the wild goose chases), but due to a concentration/learning disability (in the truest sense of the word disability) seeing the battlefield laid out (even if only loosely as described above) is almost an absolute must. Without that visualization tool, immense frustration would probably result, and that person might have severe difficulty in participating in the game...and if they COULD manage without a map, their enjoyment of the game probably would diminish. Now granted, this disability situation is a very unusual one at best, but the "difficulty visualizing without a reference to get them started" is a little more common (I think).

Thanks again to Wolfen for making the point:

See now, I mostly agree with you and Jake on minis for my own uses, but at least a couple people have expressed an interest in using them, so the question isn't really whether or not you like them as whether or not you think that supporting miniature play would be a worthwhile addition to the game for those who do like them. As I said before, it's not like it would require a bunch of new rules, just a few paragraphs explaining how to apply the rules as they currently exist to miniature play.

Like Brian and Jake, I too am not a fan of miniatures. I use them only when the rest of the group wants/needs to use them. I DM'd 1st Ed D&D (forgive me) for 13+ years without miniatures without the slightest problem, and didn't miss them a bit. In more recent years I've been involved in groups as a player who rely heavily on battle mat visual aids (partially due to the above reasons, partially due to various systems that need one to handle the system mechanics (such as 3rd Ed D&D...ok, sorry again...I'll stop using "foul language" now)).

long story short, even "unofficial guidelines or suggestions" for at least limited miniature usage would probably be appreciated by many gamers, even if given under the strong recommendation that they not be used if possible, and the disclaimer that the designers are not fans of their usage and that it is believed that their usage in most cases will detract from the enjoyment of the game and lengthen combats.

Just one gamer's opinions...anyone can feel free to tell me I'm wrong and to go shut up...I won't be offended in the slightest.

[Lance D. Allen]

You're wrong, shut up.

Err. Sorry. Had to do it.

Mini-rant: D&D isn't a bad game, and we shouldn't feel apologetic for playing it, and even enjoying it. In my opinion, and most opinions around these parts, TRoS is better, but that doesn't make D&D bad. I dislike D&D because of specific reasons, and generally will refuse to play it anymore.. But because the game does not match my play style, I don't disparage it. It is a good game for many, many gamers.. Just not all gamers.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Lots of good comments here all around, indicating miniatures (if used) should be used more intuitively than mechanically. I.E. rather than counting off hexes and such, combat results/terrain roll results/etc,.... should be used to determine positioning, and then the figures should be re-organized (without counting off hexes) to reflect the end results of the dice rolls involved...kindof what you do in your mind, just set to a hex mat.

I don't really mind whether TFoB includes mechanics for skirmish rules or even the use of miniatures with TRoS. However, if something was to be produced I hope that the above suggestion is not the result. I have no idea whether our use of miniatures is typical. From the points that have been raised I suspect that it is atypical. However, for our gaming group, using figurines in a tactical combat environment is useful. However, the idea that you would resolve the combat using abstract mechanics that ignored the tactical display, and then rearrange the tactical display to reflect those results, defeats the purpose of having the tactical display as far as I'm concerned.

For us, while visualisation and so on are useful benefits, the main purpose of having the tactical display is to catch anomalies in results before they happen. In an abstract system the dice will sometimes produce a result that jars with players and referee alike. The result will seem illogical. Sure, the PC made their terrain rolls as all SAs were firing -- but how exactly did the PC manage to dodge past the two guards and through the door they were specifically protecting without getting hit? That sort of thing, as an extreme example.

IMO, a tactical combat environment speeds up play in two key areas.

Firstly, description of the combat environment is as simple as overlaying the hex mat with a CC2-generated (CC2 - Campaign Cartographer 2 from Profantasy Software) map of the area printed on overhead projector stock. No verbal description required.

Secondly, in our game archers and mages are completely dependant on line-of-sight. If you can't see it you can't shoot it. The need to describe the unique perspective each character has in the tactical environment and how it has changed after each combat exchange disappears when miniatures are used in a tactical combat environment.

Now, the only time I've seen hex counting while using miniatures is for determining whether something is within the spell casting range of a mage (we use a low-magic gaming environment where mages are very limited in ability). It doesn't come up very often in our game.

Anyway it has been interesting to discover people who like and advocate abstract combat systems.

Cheers,

[Dain]

DOH!....<sniffle>, <sniffle>, Wolfen, you hurt my feelings.  Just kidding. No, actually I'm not that down on D&D either...just didn't want to offend anybody here who might be.

Actually I'm still running a 10+ year campaign in 1st ed that I'm trying to wind down...only problem is the darn players are still all obsessed with the story line and don't want to see the game go away...whether that is by "and they all lived happily ever after" or by "and their ravaged corpses were driven on stakes enchanted to remain ever white hot while continually resurecting their tormented bodies, as a warning to all those foolish enough to oppose True Evil". Part of it is character investment....they don't want to see something vanish they've spent 10 years giving life to, but I don't think I can keep giving them story lines intriguing enough to keep them enthralled much longer in the same old game setting at their current (enormous) level of power...getting to the point where I've pretty much tapped all the unique situations the environment has to offer, and I'm getting a little bored with it after all these years (which doesn't help either). Time for a switch of setting and a breath of fresh air methinks...before my story lines completely dry up and leave everyone feeling let down.

[November Kilo]

TROS is Jake's baby.  If he doesn't use 'em & doesn't like 'em, I certainly don't want him wasting brain cells on my account just cause I do.  Personally, I think those of us who want them should cobble together a mini-sup for them.  Hopefully, Jake can stomach hosting the pdf.  <grin>

My $0.02.