willh
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 220
|
Post by willh on Feb 27, 2012 14:44:34 GMT -8
Sierra Nevada Torpedo IPA = stunned (from the hops) Newcastle Brown = skunked Stone Brewery Arrogant Bastard = humbled You're running this at Gamex, right?
|
|
|
Post by heavymetaljess on Feb 27, 2012 14:56:44 GMT -8
What more do you need to know? How bout how far is that shelf from my character? how high up is that shelf? Where are they in relation to the other players? Where are they in relation to the other enemies on the field? Is there cover? How far is that shelf from any other enemies? And so on. These are all things that can effect your decision. These are also all things your character would be able to judge and also things the GM may forget to mention or have difficulty verbalizing the full layout easily. The Ledge might be too high. Maybe there is a door behind them and that's how they got up there. maybe the latter requires 2 turns to climb. It is not a douche move and by using a map and telling players upfront while laying out the map eliminates the fuzzy ness of describing the scene in your head and makes you less likely to leave out details. Often times as the GM is laying out the map you can ask questions. Yeah, I gotta say these are all the kinds of things players ask me or just assume. Maybe I want to add a door at the last minute to give one of the bad guys a chance to escape. Maybe I don't want the characters to see all the assassins heading down the back alley because they're in a dense crowd. Maybe my players want to make up that there is a nearby barrel to bust over someone's head or a tree to swing down from a building on. Maps take away the fuzziness of these things to let us bend the game to the fun. I think what hyvemynd is saying is that his games also work this way. Though, as an artist I wouldn't be adverse to everyone having little minis of their characters just in case something crazy comes up (which it sometimes does... players draw their own map and I make any corrections that would be obvious to them). In fact, I would probably volunteer to paint them. Oh yeah, and Old Rasputin would totally represent a character who was unkillable.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 27, 2012 15:25:44 GMT -8
WillH -- maybe, but you can only put a condition on a bad guy if you've emptied the bottle first...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 5:08:36 GMT -8
Sierra Nevada Torpedo IPA = stunned (from the hops) Newcastle Brown = skunked Stone Brewery Arrogant Bastard = humbled So what causes a character to become "skunked" during a fight?
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Feb 28, 2012 7:45:03 GMT -8
<probably senseless illustration> GM: There are archers on the ledge shooting down at you. PC: <expletive deleted> Can I jump up there? GM: You could try it's about 40' though. PC: Well that's not going to work, how'd the archers get up there? GM: Looking more closely there's an opening in the wall behind them on the ledge. PC: Is there a door from here that might lead there? GM: There's a doorway on that side of the room. PC: Cover me! *bolts for the doorway* </probably senseless illustration>
Using the exact scenario that daeglan used without any need for miniatures. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE miniatures.
The point I'm seeing coming out in this discussion actually has NOTHING to do with miniatures, and actually very little to do with the point I originally brought up. Rather, it has to do with who's side the gm is on. In other words if the game has taken a me vs them stance it seems (to me) much more likely that there is going to be a much greater likelihood of conflict over specifics. That will in turn lead to a need for more precise definitions and exact measurements. That problem in my opinion has NOTHING to do with miniatures.
If, however, the game is more collaborative and the gm and the players are working together to tell a more heroic story, I find that level of precision to be largely unnecessary. That said, I always have the battlemat on the table in front of me, and if I'm narrating a fight and even one pc says that they're not seeing what's going on, I stop and sketch the map out so we can all see it.
The point I originally brought up is this (and only this), I have observed that often when minis hit the battle mat roleplay either stops outright or is diminished in favor of the tactical game that is now in front of the players. Others have had different experiences and that's awesome. I originally raised this point to see if others had observed the same thing. Some have and some have not.
If there are disagreements and hard feelings over semantics and details in a fight in a game I think that's a different problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with having or not having minis on the table.
As always, just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Feb 28, 2012 10:43:03 GMT -8
Surely there's no big mystery about the benefit of laying things out in "real space"? Even if the GM can describe things so that players can visualize the layout, not all GMs are equally good at this, and not all players are equally good at picturing things in their heads. Besides, sometimes a mini layout can make things clear that wouldn't necessarily be obvious from description alone and thereby suggest strategies that might not have been thought of otherwise.
Whether you think this benefit is worth getting, or whether it interferes too much with other parts of the game that you prefer, is up to the individual group and GM. I'm just surprised that so many on the thread are dismissing it as nonexistent.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 28, 2012 12:47:42 GMT -8
I will reach for the battle mat when things get complicated, otherwise, I'd rather not use it.
Example: during my SMERSH game, there were three combats.
The first involved a slow moving truck, 5 hostiles, a distant sniper and the entire party. Because it could get complicated, I put out the mat and drew in the details. (the sniper was far off the map, so that was denoted with an arrow and a distance marker).
The second combat involved the kidnapping of one guy by two members of the party. This combat started when the kidnappee drew a gun and there was a three-way Mexican standoff at point-blank range around a desk.
Drawing out a map for it was not necessary. It would have taken 3 or 4 times as long to draw it out as it took to resolve it.
Back when I ran a lot of GURPS, I would normally start out every combat w/out a mat, and would only draw the combat out if the players or I felt it was getting too complicated to visualize.
It would also depend on the characters' personalities. Some characters (exmilitary, for example), might ask me very specific questions, which would get me to bring the map out early.
Other characters had no business asking me those kinds of questions.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 28, 2012 12:55:57 GMT -8
Also, without the map, people can't metagame the stuff they wouldn't notice (like the guy sneaking up behind the PC who is engaged in melee, or the fact that the healer just got attacked in the next room, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 28, 2012 12:58:34 GMT -8
Exception: If the location has its own intrinsic complications (ie, it's maze-like, many obstacles to movement, etc), then I almost always draw it out first.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Feb 28, 2012 13:52:06 GMT -8
I'm kind of surprised to hear that you prefer not to use a mat/minis, Stu, since you're such a GURPS fan. I mean, the thing GURPS really goes for (and prides itself on) is detailed modeling of "how this would really play out," and it seems to me that minis would further enhance that effect.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 28, 2012 14:15:37 GMT -8
There are several scenarios I can think of when I would use a mat by default (as I said before: very complicated combats, complicated environs, or if the party had the opportunity to do extensive planning -- like an assassination, etc.).
My preference, however, has to do mostly with the amount of time spent on combat.
Unless it's the "big fight" of the session/scenario, I'd rather get it resolved quickly and get on with the aftermath or rest of the story.
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Feb 29, 2012 17:53:45 GMT -8
Also, without the map, people can't metagame the stuff they wouldn't notice (like the guy sneaking up behind the PC who is engaged in melee, or the fact that the healer just got attacked in the next room, etc.) I would really love something that was kind of a mix of a first person shooter and a virtual tabletop.
|
|