My players say that they miss the grid and the tactical development for fights.

My players say that they miss the grid and the tactical development for fights.

My players say that they miss the grid and the tactical development for fights. What’s the best solution, adopt the grid battle system for DW (hack) or just play again PF for a while?

22 thoughts on “My players say that they miss the grid and the tactical development for fights.”

  4. Also – there is nothing stopping you from taking all the things you love from DW to PF. They fail a roll? Advance your Threat. They have a narrow success, tell them the price and ask? Their PC dies? Make them roll Save vs. Death and use the Last Breath. If you want to take an extra step you may even add some of the moves as skills for PF.

  5. It depends a lot on what they miss. If they just want minis and maps and general positioning then go for it. Maybe it helps them visualize things. Maybe they have a bunch of cool minis they want to use. Used this way, It’s just a descriptive tool that is reflective of the fiction.

    But if they miss precision positioning, counting squares and fine grain tactics, then yes, the game may be a mismatch.

  9. In addition to the above…. you could:

    Say Great, which one of you is willing to do all the work to run the game?

    You could also look for a new group.

  13. 13th Age is a pretty fun compromise (to my mind) between free-form combat and grid-based.  It doesn’t use a grid and the positioning is a bit more abstract, but the powers are more discrete.

    It also has some more narrative-type stuff like “what is unique about your character in the world” and how skills are handled.

  17. There are a ton of grid – based combat games out there, everything from Bloodbowl to the D&D boardgames. I agree, the old Descent campaign is well worth playing.

  20. Torchbearer looks fun, but not very grid-y, given the nature of the combat resolution system.

    Lamentations of the Flame Princess maybe?  It’s an easy learn, free player book, grid-based dungeon crawl, comfortably D&D/PFish, but a lot of arbitrary GM control.

  21. Before you switch to another system, try running DW combat using minis and a floor plan/terrain.  That will:

    – let your players visualize the combat far better

    – ensure your conception of the scene matches theirs 

    – allow them to make tactical choices that take advantage of the situation

    – give you all a far better (and shared) understanding of how those actions affect the combat.

    You don’t need a grid, movement rules, or any of the other complex combat rules other systems use – just go with what makes sense in the fiction.  With the scenario laid out for all to see, you’ll all have a far richer understanding of what’s happening in the scene, and it will be much easier for you to make GM calls that reflect the way the players are visualizing and working the combat.

    Some examples:

    – They run past a mook to get at the boss: the mook will try to engage them as they go by (Defy Danger or get hit by the Mook = ‘attack of opportunity’)

    – They charge at an enemy on the far side of the room: if it’s a short distance they get there and engage; if it’s a longer distance, they expose themselves to fire and/or someone else may get to act before they get to their target (= full round movement)

    – They use a piece of terrain for cover: they’re safe until they poke their head out to fire off an arrow (The 10+, 7-9 and fail results = the effects of cover after a roll).  

    – They flank an opponent or catch it in a cross fire: give the flanking character a free hit or have their attack ignore armor (= flanking bonus).

  22. I treat the ranges like this, give or take:

    Hand (within square)

    Close (adjacent square)

    Reach (two squares)

    Near (2-5 squares)

    Far (6-10 squares)

    And then I assume that characters can move Near and still perform an action, but move Far as their whole action (a bit like Numenera).

Comments are closed.