My current design was going to go all out with miniatures and battlemaps, but I recently started considering doing without it, for a variety of reasons. When I started to conceptualize how I would handle spatial relations (e.g. movement, ranged weapons, etc.), I thought back to my old 1e and 2e D&D days. I only vaguely remember what gameplay was like back then, and I can't even remember how we dealt with spatial relations. I remember there were some very specific values for range increments (e.g. 20/40/60) and movement rates (e.g. 12 for a human, 9 for a halfling), but I don't remember why/how such (relatively) fine-grained distinction mattered in a system where "space" was dealt with narratively. Our GM (who I haven't seen in ages, and couldn't find even if I tried) wasn't the type to (arbitrarily) say how many rounds it would take to cross a room or at what range a target was. My vague recollection was that there was a more objective way that this was managed.

I've checked out quite a few other systems to see if any managed spatial relations in a non-miniatures system in a more objective way, but haven't come up with anything yet. So, I thought I'd bring it to the community, start some discussion, and maybe get some suggestions. Thanks.

Check out Agon if you get the chance.

It handles spatial relations in a really elegant manner.

Ironically, when we played for the first time two weeks ago, we used miniatures with the system (because it was a shame to see those scantily clad amazon hoplite miniatures going to waste...)

V

I read the sample materials for Agon and got the gist of the battle system.

It was interesting, and definitely in the direction I'm looking. The only strange thing about it is that it would seem (based in the sample materials) the battle field is one dimensional. So, if I were to move one unit closer to the enemy, I'm actually moving closer to everything on that side of the field, and one unit away from everything on the other side. I don't see how lateral or non-linear (e.g. circling a melee to get closer to a ranged attacker on the other side) movement would be possible.

This probably isn't strange for that game's theme and setting; for some reason it seems smooth to me using such a system in a slightly cheeky ancient greek game. However, something like a kung fu fight with multiple combatants probably wouldn't flow so elegantly.

Regardless of my opinion, I do want to highlight something about this mechanic that is the point of my post. That is, while miniatures optimize for "realism", a mechanic like this recognizes that the simulation of combat (and everything else, for that matter) in a RPG is actually an abstraction of a reality. So rather than attempt to force an abstraction intro a "realistic" simulation (with game elements measuring "real" features like ranges and distances), it opts to improve the abstraction and develop a "realistic" objective abstraction. I hope I made sense, I almost got lost myself at one point there.

I disagree with the notion that miniatures optimize for realism, especially so for skirmish games or the kung fu confusion you are talking about. Perhaps for formation battles, where formations are less maneuverable and generally less reactive miniatures could do "realism" some justice. But for an action scene I really doubt so. At least this is my opinion.
Try to treat space and perhaps even time as in-game mechanics like defenses. Think it like this: one needs some space to be able to try to achieve certain things. If he has no space then he is in a disadvantage for some options-actions. You'll rather have to develop these parameters in relation to what happens in the scene of action regarding the participants. How one threatens each other, what reactions one might draw doing certain things, what is the price to pay in terms of space and time comfort.

I think a prime example of this type of game play is the Burning Wheel system. It does not use miniatures at all, but still deals with the concepts of cover, range, and positioning with probably more detail than than most miniatures based systems. For most of the sub systems it is some sort of roll off, the winner sets the position, and things like additional success can go to cover or other combat advantages. This also works as a way to do initiative. It does look rather complex, specially when you hand out the scripting sheet to your players, but really once you do it the first time it moves about as fast say 4e, or SWEX in the tactical minis sort of way.

Since my last post, I put this element on the back burner to let it simmer while I worked on other parts of the system. Now, I'm at a point where I need to figure this out before I can finish up the system.

I've had a chance to check out BW. The melee bits were pretty interesting, but it doesn't help me much with ranged combat. In particular, I'm thinking ahead to a contemporary setting with gunfights where cover and line of sight is going to be especially important.

I've yet to piece together an elegant way to manage such a thing without a map. I'm open to more tips. :)

A lot of it was done in AD&D 2nd ed by "mapping".  So when entering an area the GM would describe it in specific measurements, and the players were expected to record this on their graph paper map.  As such, even if minatures were never used, if you knew that a room was 40 feet by 60 feet, you could relate this directly to your movement rates.  In my games, small marks would often be made on the players maps to indicate specifics if required, but this seldom reached the point of actual minatures, nor the specificity of the current incarnation of the rules.

We did try using minatures, but found them irksome and slow by comparison to handling it by description.  On the other hand, I became aware over time that this gave me as GM a great deal of leverage over what happened, and when we moved out of the dungeon, and environments consequently became more complex, I used "sketch maps" without fixed scales for representative purposes and judgement, supplemented by player argument and appeals, to come to a satisfactory solution.  We did not have an adversarial atmosphere at the table, so there were very few significant disputes.

I'd still like to see a more abstract and rules-bounded system of some variety.

Footnote:

The eventual evolution of our play style, which arose expecially because of firarms and other ranged weapons in modern and future settings, is in a sort of unsatisfying limbo.  Ptrecisely becuase the time to make an attack is so small, and cover etc. so important, in order to get any speed out of play at all in effect everything comes down to GM fiat.  I can do that, becuase as I said the style is non-adversarial and I go tyo some lengths to get a consensual decision.  But, its very hard to write a textual rules description for this sort of process, and equally leaves me with a niggling feeling that I would like the players to be more independent and assertive.  At the moment the state-of-the-art is that, in effect, round and turn structures don't exist, and players act when I tell them they have an opportunity to act.  Time has vanished totally as an element of system.  With a sense of fairness and an eye drama, to this works out fine in practice, but of course plenty of games have rules about time increments for good reason and I feel their absence as real concerns to engage with.

If you plan to have a lot of gunfights you could make the notion of "cover" central to the spatial representation/description.

You could describe spaces using the points of interests (objects and features that provide cover or other tactical bonuses) and roughly describe the distance/orientation respect one another. A character or npc position is determined by the nearest point of interest, if two or more are located around a specific point of interest they are at close range. The effectiveness of the bonus provided by sitting on a particular feature could be dependant on skill and weapon.
A character that enters an area should then first take position near a feature moving onto it and then use a skill to get the related bonus (take cover). A feature could in turn have particular bonuses like increased frontal cover (cover against last targeted position) or rear cover (cove angainst not targeted position).

punkbohemian wrote:
Since my last post, I put this element on the back burner to let it simmer while I worked on other parts of the system. Now, I'm at a point where I need to figure this out before I can finish up the system.

I've had a chance to check out BW. The melee bits were pretty interesting, but it doesn't help me much with ranged combat. In particular, I'm thinking ahead to a contemporary setting with gunfights where cover and line of sight is going to be especially important.

I've yet to piece together an elegant way to manage such a thing without a map. I'm open to more tips. :)

A lot of it was done in AD&D 2nd ed by "mapping".  So when entering an area the GM would describe it in specific measurements, and the players were expected to record this on their graph paper map.

At the moment the state-of-the-art is that, in effect, round and turn structures don't exist, and players act when I tell them they have an opportunity to act.  Time has vanished totally as an element of system.  With a sense of fairness and an eye drama, to this works out fine in practice, but of course plenty of games have rules about time increments for good reason and I feel their absence as real concerns to engage with.

If you plan to have a lot of gunfights you could make the notion of "cover" central to the spatial representation/description.

Burning Empires has a Firefight subsystem that plenty of folks have spoken highly of.

Hi there,

Why do you care about spatial relationships?  I assume it is so that players can make decisions using all the info that their characters would have.  If that's right, then you need a system that provides the players and GM this info when and only when it's relevant to a pending decision.  When your options depend on how far away you are, or how narrow the angle is, or what's visible around the corner.  Right?

Why do you not want to use mapping?  I can think of a lot of reasons -- it's boring, and time-consuming, and can distract from character POV.  However, measuring out relationships before they're needed, even if done only verbally, or int eh GM's head, has a lot of those same drawbacks.

My solution is to use a cooperative process where the GM describes the obvious basics of an environment, and the players ask questions to fill in what they need to know.  The GM responds to these according to whatever's important to the game -- fidelity to a particular setting, level of challenge, mood & atmosphere, etc.  These conversations are held in functional terms.  If I need to know whether I can jump a chasm, "a tough jump, but not impossible" is better data than "13.5 feet".

Even if your group enjoys doing calculations, comparing 13.5 to the average roll outcome of a character with a 3d8 jump skill, that 13.5 can still be ad-libbed when needed.

If you're less worried about establishing spatial facts, and more worried about tracking them once they've been established, then there really is no substitute for some sort of diagram.  Players could of course take notes, updating "37 feet from garbage can, 45 degrees around corner" to new values every round... but ugh.

All this was not supposed to be any sort of pronouncement.  The questions are actually questions, and the assumed answers were just so I could illustrate some of the options I like.  I have no idea whether I'm helping your issue or merely dodging it.  But I'll hope for the former.
-David

I have no idea whether I'm helping your issue or merely dodging it.  But I'll hope for the former.

That sounds totally fun, but also very different from a style of character-POV sense of place.  In the Burning Empires firefights I've played, I very much felt like a general making decisions from up above the fray, and my group was only occasionally interested in what the experience looked or felt like.  I would definitely be curious to try it in a more "immersive" style, attaching colorful descriptions to all the numerical quantities on the map.  I don't know if the game really supports that; it certainly wouldn't stop you, but there is a lot of other info to track.  The list of strategic options is vast, and they all interact wth each other in different ways.  There's definitely a learning curve there.

As I don't know your play style, I don't know whether all this is good news or bad news.  A map is crucial, though (though it needn't be remotely to scale).

"Adjectives to describe navigation between positions" sounds ripe with potential for coolness to me.