to hex or not to hex

[Old Man]

I'm going to be starting my campaign soon and was considering which way I should go in regards to a playing surface. Hexes or no hexes? This is for Fantasy Hero and I don't have a spell caster in the group (yet) so explosions will probably be rare. Recommendations? Problems?

[Monolith]

It really depends on what you are looking to do. No hexes leads to more descriptive combats Having hexes leads to more tactical combats. There really is no perfect one way to do this. I have played the game both ways, and have found both to be enjoyable. But be prepared if you decide to go the no-hex route. The GM will be required to be FAR more descriptive in his game play and how he sets up the field and gets the players involved.

[Keneton]

I just don't see how you can play any Fantsy Game without tacticle movement. What about range for bows, half moves, dungeon crawl maps, traps, and all of these other elements. Spend $25 on a battlemat and have fun. You'll never regret it.

What advantage could there be to not having it. An even if no spellcasters, are you going to disallow any creatures with area attacks or reach?

How about flying? Youve got toconsider what you give up and that you gain nothing simplifying the game.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Keneton
Youve got toconsider what you give up and that you gain nothing simplifying the game.
There is a lot to be said for just using descriptive role-playing. While the HERO System's roots are firmly imbedded in tactical games, it can be run quite well and quite beautifully without ever needed a battlemat or even a table to play on. It is just more work on the GM's part.

[mattingly]

I played HERO without maps for the first ten or so years. When we needed to get really complex, we'd do the quick "draw in the dirt, I'll be the bottlecap and you be the pebble" kind of maps to plan out, and then we'd run in screaming, abandoning our careful planning anyway, just like we still mostly do. :D

[Ben Seeman]

Originally posted by Keneton
Youve got toconsider what you give up and that you gain nothing simplifying the game.

Just because you give up hexes doesn't mean you give up measurement. You could always bust out a ruler or measuring tape to get your range modifiers and AoE's correct. I would love to play a Champions game without having hexes limiting your movement.

[ferat]

The only thing I've really 'given up' by not using a battle map is wasted time. Players carefully counting out where they can go and doing that several times to look for the best way to cheese their movement. Or those that need to know measurements to the finest detail so they can best exploit the fact that they know their opponent can't both move up to them and attack them if they are 'just so' far away.

Tactics are all well and good, but remember they are deciding their actions in less than a second. Letting players sit around for 5 minutes planning the best tactical approach is quite unrealistic in combat.

[Keneton]

How is combat more descriptive with less information? Why does not really knowing where you are lead to a more descriptive or enlightend style? How is less more?

Monolith, I am not implying you mean this but it seems in the tired spirit of "rules light = good roleplaying." I thinks that knowing wher things and people are make things better for the players and the GM in every instance. What do you gain playing without hexes?

Mr. Mattingly: You bring back found memories of our group using hex paper, pencils and erasers. That was fun. Nowadays we use a battlemat and or MasterMaze. We also use stand up and cardboard heroes.

Ben: Rulers are great as well, but just wait until you use an area con or en explosive EB and we'll see which way is more complicated!

Ferat: How much time does counting take? Are your players so dim they have to count like the guy from seseme street. "On hex, two hex, three hex hahaha!" (I don't mean this personally just kidding around) Without the hexes how do hey know the range or where to stand? And since when are tactics bad? It sounds like the problem is not hexes but a group of players that play like chess masters and not superheroes. Tell them "This isn't battletech lets' go!". Dont give up a good tool for a bad player.

My main poit is that people are always simplifying Hero, taking out parts of the game, to speed it up. I can understand this, but in most cases the fixes are worse than the problem. What is wrong with tacticle movement? Why have to play in your head? Not every GM is Gary Kasparov!! ;)

[TheEmerged]

We've been messing around with using HERO Clix the last couple of sessions instead of our traditional battlemat (it was getting ratty anyway).

1> To say it's faster is only half true: because you're using the ruler instead of counting. I'd wager that if you used a ruler on a hex map that was appropriate in size, it'd be faster too.

2> Some of the disadvantages associated with things like Turn Mode don't translate well to pure-miniature -- or I'm missing something obvious. Might be better if the miniatures had a hex base instead of a circular one...

3> Since none of us are especially talented with this sort of thing, accounting for environmental items isn't working as well yet. I have some stuff I want to try in relation to this in the near future, though (not in time for our next session, maybe the one after that).

[mattingly]

The nice thing about HeroClix is that Chessex now puts out 1.5 inch hex battlemats.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Keneton
How is combat more descriptive with less information? Why doMonolith, I am not implying you mean this but it seems in the tired spirit of "rules light = good roleplaying." I thinks that knowing wher things and people are make things better for the players and the GM in every instance. What do you gain playing without hexes?
What I mean is that there is a very big difference in the game between a player having a lead figure on a map which shows a small stream and three boulders and six goblins standing on the otherside of the stream 8" away, and the GM describing the situation.

If the GM has to "describe" it, rather than just letting the players look at the tactical situation on the map, this leads to more descriptive role-playing on the player's part because they are not just moving their lead figures, they are decribing what they are doing to the GM.

"You come into the clearing and you see 6 goblins on the otherside of a small ditched stream. The goblins are about 50 feet away from you but apparently have not seen you yet. There are three fairly large boulders, two on the goblin's side of the stream and one on your side of the stream. The boulder on your side of the stream is about 20 feet away from you. The boulders apprear to be large enough to hide 3 people behind, but it will be cramped. Two would be better."

That adds much more flavor than the ranger moving his lead figure on the board up to the boulder and say: "I'll use the rest of my move to draw my bow."

It does to me anyway. YMMV.

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Ben Seeman
Just because you give up hexes doesn't mean you give up measurement. You could always bust out a ruler or measuring tape to get your range modifiers and AoE's correct. I would love to play a Champions game without having hexes limiting your movement.

It can be a lot of fun. When I was running a campaign like this, I just made templates for different areas (both type and size) and we used rulers for everything else. It worked quite well.

[mattingly]

Keneton, I'm comfortable playing with or without. Each offers its own benefits.

If I'm playing on a drawn on map, with miniatures, I know exactly what's there, and might be inspired by it to do something cool that I might not have otherwise thought of. "Hey, there's a coffeepot in the office! I grab it and throw hot coffee into his face!"

I as a player also know (or can quickly determine) exactly how far away something or someone is. My character usually will not know to that level of precision, and trying to run up and punch a guy might take one Phase or two, the character won't necessarily know. "I rush the guy, and tackle him! Uh oh, he's leveling his gun at me, and I'm still ten feet away..."

If I'm playing without a map, then I'm not limited by the environment. "Before he can fire, I quickly fling open the closet door next to me, and use it for cover!" GM: "Sure, there's a handy door there. Give me a DEX roll."

I won't know exactly how far away someone or something is, which adds an element of guesswork and danger to declared actions. "He's around 30 feet from you," "The forklift forks are about 4 feet long," "She can't possibly make it to the self-destruct button before you can stop her... or can she?" On the plus side, it's a little more thrilling, but on the downside, it can be easy for the GM to forget or fudge the results.

So, by not using a map and miniatures, the players aren't necessarily "giving something up," they're just playing differently.

[Keneton]

Great Thread

I agree about playing differently as opposed to giving something up. I do not think that adding a map makes the GM or players describe less. That is a concious decision by a mature or immature roleplayer. I will agree that the pure pen a paper approach I used years ago playing Basic D&D was really fun, but like I said earlier, playing on a battlemat and with figs is a plus and not a minus. You can have fun either way (agreed) but technically having the tools does not necessitatte the lack of descriptive roleplaying.

In fact every other solution seems toapply more work and more stress on an already burdened GM.
:cool:

[Old Man]

I have both a plain mat and a Battlemat. I was wondering about the expereiences of people who used either or both. I did run a succfessful campaign (Shadowrun) on a Battlemat. For the most part the mats and minis only really come into use during combat because range and movement matter. Everything else only requires role playing.

Thanks for the input guys, this is quite educational.

[Herolover]

I have gamemastered both ways and find which way you choose depends upon the campaign you want to run. For more "loose" and very cinematic campaigns the "no mapping" thing works pretty well. For more "realistic" campaigns I think mapping is a definant way to go.

The one problem I have had with the "no mapping" thing is that no matter how descriptive you are as a GM the players end up asking something about the combat that they should immediately know. I know Monolith will insist that if you are descriptive enough that won't happen. However, once combat starts you are inevitabley going to have to answer some very simple questions.

What I have started doing is mapping without scale. Don't worry about distance, just worry about relation. One in front of the other, not how far. This allows the players more of an idea of the situation, but keeps down the counting.

[DoctorItron]

It seems that we're discussing 3 options, not 2 as some people have assumed:

1) Use a hex map.

2) Use a map or table of floor without hexes. Use a ruler to determine attack range and movement. This is just like a "standard" miniatures wargame.

3) Don't use any map. The GM and players describe everything.

I prefer 1 or 2 for important combat scenes. I'll use #3 only when it's a quick and easy combat, such as superheroes against some unpowered thugs.

[Old Man]

Right, I was asking about option 1 & 2. Option 3 isn't an option for me as I think my players kind of need a map for combat. It's a lot easier for everybody to see right away how far things are and what modifiers for range and such exist. Being descriptive is good but what it would come down to in that case is whether the GM wants to be a jerk or not (in the player's perception).

[archermoo]

Originally posted by Shadowpup
Right, I was asking about option 1 & 2. Option 3 isn't an option for me as I think my players kind of need a map for combat. It's a lot easier for everybody to see right away how far things are and what modifiers for range and such exist. Being descriptive is good but what it would come down to in that case is whether the GM wants to be a jerk or not (in the player's perception).

And going off that, 1 is the easiest to run. 2 can be a lot of fun, but is a bit more work. Although for the people that are worried about everyone always counting everything out before they do anything, don't let anyone measure anything until they are doing it. For explosions and AE attacks, make them say where they are centering it before they measure things out. Things like that, if you're worried about it. Using a hexless map makes that kind of thing much easier, as they don't already have the demarkations on the map to use. They have to estimate things before they move/shoot/whatever, just like in real life. :)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Ben Seeman
Just because you give up hexes doesn't mean you give up measurement. You could always bust out a ruler or measuring tape to get your range modifiers and AoE's correct. I would love to play a Champions game without having hexes limiting your movement.

I very much prefer this method to hexes. For one thing, it makes absolute range sense a little more enforceable.

[Daeglan]

One way to make using the measuring tape method easier is to make wire templates for area affect. take white string and make range bands in different colors. etc.

[L. Marcus]

... Whooo-eee! This gotta be the record for Thread Necromancy! I mean, wasn't Feb 13th -03 the first day of the new boards?

[lemming]

I think it might be a record. And my favorite non-hex unit of measurement is the standard Lego brick lengthwise.

[Daeglan]

Fear my Necromancy Powers. I was looking for Threads on not using hexes and my search fu found it.

[L. Marcus]

Your Search Fu is indeed powerful!

[ghost-angel]

I prefer combats without any grids. If you need distanves I use a tape measure. Grids (hexes or otherwise) always break the mood for me a little bit.

Non-hexed does not mean non-mapped, I see no loss of tactical play.

[steamteck]

Either one can do just fine. you just need a ruler or such if no hexes, The advantages of using maps are almost infinite to me. no way I would ever go back to non mapped combat But that's really not what you asked anyway.

[CrosshairCollie]

I'm all for hexes.

[GhostDancer]

Our crew complains about GMs that never use battle maps. Sometimes I'll use a supertac scale: one hex = one meter. Next game features superdupertac maps: one hex = 1/2 meter (small rooms).

[The Main Man]

I prefer combats without any grids. If you need distanves I use a tape measure. Grids (hexes or otherwise) always break the mood for me a little bit.

Non-hexed does not mean non-mapped, I see no loss of tactical play.
That's my view. I like that 6e has the positive externality of removing the necessity of hex maps so that players can decide what they prefer to use on their own and to what scale they prefer.

That said, when I use a map, I do prefer hexes if only because it makes diagonal movement more fluid.

[Daeglan]

I prefer combats without any grids. If you need distanves I use a tape measure. Grids (hexes or otherwise) always break the mood for me a little bit.

Non-hexed does not mean non-mapped, I see no loss of tactical play.

In fact it is more realistic if you don't allow measuring range till you make the shot. Unless you have absolute range. IE a laser range finder. I have been making miniature terrain for use with RPGs.

[GhostDancer]

I ran a Dark Champions convention game set in August 2003, Detroit, during the international power failure. I made a hex map of St Anne's church. My players decided to check out the Detroit Institute of Arts- no power meant prime time for a big robbery, yes? I erased part of each church pew, transforming them into glass display cases. Cathedral chapels became art museum galleries. My players were none the wiser.

[Mister E]

I picked up a bunch of cheap used heroclix for my game. I generally keep things abstract on the table by only using linear maps that tell how close characters are to each other.

That being said, my knowledge of where the minis are is inversely proportional to my mental image of where the characters are.

[RexMundi]

I use Hexes, I just call them 1 Meter now instead of 2, since if you take some masking tape and plop a 1 meter hex on the ground, you can reach half way or slightly more into the next one without leaving your own, and if REALLY friendly, get two normal sized people into the same Hex.

So my Battle Mat still works just fine.

~Rex

[CrosshairCollie]

In fact it is more realistic if you don't allow measuring range till you make the shot. Unless you have absolute range. IE a laser range finder.

That would drive me up the wall, personally.

[Daeglan]

That would drive me up the wall, personally.
Move, say you are going to make a shot, Measure, apply modifier and roll. We can't measure distances in real life why should we be able to in the game?

[Mister E]

Move, say you are going to make a shot, Measure, apply modifier and roll. We can't measure distances in real life why should we be able to in the game?

This is the way table top war-games (e.g., WarHammer 40k) are generally played. These are competitive games & not RPGs (unless you play against me... in which case, it is a little of both).

HERO has rules for allowing PCs to have precise range-detection.

I think it boils down to how much you want to meta-game.

[lemming]

Move, say you are going to make a shot, Measure, apply modifier and roll. We can't measure distances in real life why should we be able to in the game?

Personally, I think my combat trained super has a much better judge of range than my eyes would have.

[Daeglan]

Having talked to people who have been in gun fights they say things like they were about blah feet away. IE people who are the boots on the ground have a general idea of how far things are. But they are going to be about as good at judging distance as we are going to be judging on a table. And you will get better at it if you practice. Just like your character will. But your character will still be guessing and will not have an exact measurement so why should you get an exact measurement?

[Hugh Neilson]

Personally, I think my combat trained super has a much better judge of range than my eyes would have.

Why should that not mean that your combat trained Super buys Absolute Range Sense?

I think my combat-trained Super will be more agile, faster reacting and more skilled in combat than I am. He pays for higher DEX, higher SPD and OCV, DCV and/or combat skill levels to reflect that.

There's a big difference, in my opinion, between "having a pretty good idea how far away someone is" and being able to assess whether he is exactly 16 meters away, or 16.5 meters away (adding 2 to the range penalty). Evaluate that for 5 possible targets in 1 second (a half phase for a 6 SPD character) and I don't think that level of precision is likely.

That doesn't mean it's wrong to allow players the wargamer option of precise targeting, but it also doesn't mean it's wrong to prohibit such exact measurement (at least without shelling out the points to have this amazing ability). Rather than "Hmmm, I'd like to attack him[count count count], oh, he's 16 meters away and my half move is only 15 meters. Take that back. I'll...ummm...[count count count count count] go after that other guy who's 10 meters away so I can get there in a half move, and so I'm within 15 meters of the first guy for next time if he doesn't move away", the result becomes "I'll target that guy - if I get there in a half move, I'll Punch him and, if not, I'll Move Through." [or Move By, or just close and wait for next phase - whatever tactic you feel best].

The first approach can be anoying because of the delays and counting. The second can be annoying because my Hero doesn't properly estimate distances, so he doesn't accomplish what he sets out to do. I suspect the second game would see higher movement rates, and more use of Range PSL's and/or modifiers that remove range penalties - removal of a metagame element isn't really possible.

[CrosshairCollie]

Move, say you are going to make a shot, Measure, apply modifier and roll. We can't measure distances in real life why should we be able to in the game?

Because games should be better than real life.

[Daeglan]

And how does this make it better? Have you tried it or are you just basing your objection how you think it will be?

[Mister E]

... - removal of a metagame element isn't really possible.

Well... yeah.

I suppose it is a matter of awareness of the meta-game element that counts to me.

If it is acknowledged & represented in-game with HERO-System rules, then a distinct game element is made of it.

If the burden of making the distinction (between in-game & out-of-game knowledge) is left to the players to do at the table, then it is merely a more meta-game-ish game element than otherwise.

HAHA! :dh:

[CrosshairCollie]

And how does this make it better? Have you tried it or are you just basing your objection how you think it will be?

I like having some idea, before I attempt an action (be it combat or otherwise) what my probability of success is. I would not enjoy having the value of a critical combat modifier denied to me. That's just how I am; if your way works for you, knock yourself out.

[Hugh Neilson]

I like having some idea, before I attempt an action (be it combat or otherwise) what my probability of success is. I would not enjoy having the value of a critical combat modifier denied to me. That's just how I am; if your way works for you, knock yourself out.

Do the opponents also need to come neatly labelled by DCV? I can't imagine that, when you estimate distances, you are likely to be off by more than one range increment, for a 2 point penalty, and (at least in my games) the mix of DCV's spreads out by more than 2.

Different play styles, of course - I do know some gamers who will insist the necessary roll be disclosed before the dice are rolled, and some games where that is the standard.

[CrosshairCollie]

Do the opponents also need to come neatly labelled by DCV?

I'm usually pretty forthcoming with the information, just because it's usually not too hard to figure out. They go on, say, DEX 23, so their base DCV is 8. Figure plus or minus 2 for levels in most cases, and you can eyeball it pretty well.

[Daeglan]

Ahhh so all the bad guys have neon signs above their heads stating their dex and OCV and DCV... good to know.

[Mister E]

Ahhh so all the bad guys have neon signs above their heads stating their dex and OCV and DCV... good to know.

Analyze is in the tool-kit. The game is what you make of it.

[CrosshairCollie]

Ahhh so all the bad guys have neon signs above their heads stating their dex and OCV and DCV... good to know.

Me: "Okay, Dex 26 ... 25 ... 24 ... 23. Thunderbolt and Arsenal go."

Yes, the players then know the bad guy's DEX and likely OCV and DCV. So what?

[Daeglan]

Or the GM could keep track of everyone's turn and say Fred its your turn George you next. Poof suddenly the players no longer know the Enemies Dexs other than they go before or after Fred. Thus eliminating some meta gaming.

[CrosshairCollie]

Or the GM could keep track of everyone's turn and say Fred its your turn George you next. Poof suddenly the players no longer know the Enemies Dexs other than they go before or after Fred. Thus eliminating some meta gaming.

Also slowing the game down, since the players don't have the numbers needed to do the computations. The GM has enough to keep track of, IMO; concealing that information from the players doesn't add enough to the game to warrant the additional hassle to me. YMMV.

[Mister E]

Meta-Gamer.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4745/catreach.jpg

[dmjalund]

Why isn't the range divided into -1 penalties instead on -2's anyway?

[L. Marcus]

Ease of use and tradition, I guess. At least in FREd, -1 penalties with more granular range increments was an optional rule.

[Hugh Neilson]

Me: "Okay, Dex 26 ... 25 ... 24 ... 23. Thunderbolt and Arsenal go."

Yes, the players then know the bad guy's DEX and likely OCV and DCV. So what?

Again, it depends on the game style you're looking for. Some are fine with the tactical structure where the players have information that their characters don't really have a logical means of discerning. We could easily take this further. For example, we could announce "FireDude is going to use his 16d6 Fire Blast against Heroic Lass. Any actions?" We could distribute copies of the bad guys' character sheets and all the players could do their own analysis. We could provide OCV and DCV figures so the players always know what they need to roll on any given attack. There's tons of information that can be readily accessible to the players, or not so readily accessible.

Of course, the balance also depends on whether the GM plays the opposition with a full knowledge of the PC's capabilities. If the GM works on the basis that the villains know the heroes' OCV and DCV, it's pretty unfair not to share the same data on the villains.

In the course of the combat, the players will get a sense of how difficult their opponent is to hit, and how good a shot he is, as they will see how often they hit, and how often he hits. How much of a sense again depends on the level of secrecy in the game. If the GM rolls dice in the open, the players will know that the villain hit even on a 13, or has not rolled a to hit above 8, which may influence their evaluation of his combat skills. If the GM rolls behind a screen, they have less information (unless he announces the villain's OCV and/or his own rolls).

If the GM rolls openly, I know how many dice he's rolling, so I know that's a 12d6 Blast. if he rolls behind the screen, I don't know whether 50 STUN was a super roll for a 10d6 Blast, a good roll for a 12d6 blast, a marginally above average roll for a 14d6 blast or a poor roll for a 20d6 blast, so I have less idea what to expect from the next attack.


Or the GM could keep track of everyone's turn and say Fred its your turn George you next. Poof suddenly the players no longer know the Enemies Dexs other than they go before or after Fred. Thus eliminating some meta gaming.

With 6e severing OCV and DCV from both DEX and each other, knowing the action order is a lot less informative. And what stops the villain from delaying his action? Here again, the GM can give information ("It's DEX 29 and Archer can move, but chooses to delay") or withhold it ("No one moves before Heroic Lass at DEX 26."). Even in prior editions, the opponent can certainly have skill levels, but the variance depends on how frequent skill levels are, and how many characters tended to have. Skill levels weren't a great buy in 5e compared to DEX, so they weren't that common, and it was pretty unlikely the target's OCV or DCV was less than the base implied by their action order, although (overpriced) lightning reflexes could have that result.

I don't see a right or wrong amount of information to give. It's a matter of the group finding a level of info provided and info withheld that everyone is comfortable with. Counting the hexes between the hero and every target so every move distance, ramge modifier and AoE sizing is known with absolute certainty before an action is committed to is one approach, and a blank map requiring estimates (absent some special ability which provides the character with a more precise ability to assess distance, spatial relations, etc.) is another.

[Mister E]

[...]
And what stops the villain from delaying his action? Here again, the GM can give information ("It's DEX 29 and Archer can move, but chooses to delay") or withhold it ("No one moves before Heroic Lass at DEX 26."). [...]

This reminds me of a hilarious story on the inter-webs.

The "Number Of Attacks" Scam



NSFW

[SPOILER]One of the most important attributes a WFRP character has is his number of attacks. A starting character has one attack per round. Later, as you proceed through the career structure, you can gain a second attack, and perhaps even a third. As you can imagine, extra attacks massively increase your effectiveness in combat. If you make two attacks to your opponent's one, you're likely to wear him down long before he wears you down, especially as characters have to sacrifice attacks if they want to parry.

This particular scam is one which TAFKAC had been running for more than a year of real-time (and we probably play around 40 or 50 sessions a year of WFRP).

Me and John are playing rogue-fighter types, so we were fairly useful in combat. After perhaps 70 or 80 sessions (we've played this campaign a lot) we'd managed to claw ourselves up to three attacks per round.

Wolfgang, by contrast, was a wizard who'd only done a few non-wizard careers such as Templar, and so had only two attacks per round. This was quite a disadvantage, as we get in some pretty extreme fights, and since there's only three of us, we all have to get involved.

One time, for example, we were walking along a causeway in a swamp, when some tentacled creature grabbed each one of us, and hauled us off the path. The three of us were each held under the water, drowning, hacking away at the tentacles with everything we had. I really thought we'd bought it, but John's character Ulrich managed finally to hack his way free, make his way to the surface, gasp some air into his screaming lungs, then dive down to hack me and Wolfgang loose.

Of course, when I say that we were hacking away with everything we had, what I meant to say is that me and John assumed that we were hacking away with everything we had. Given that we were like, dying.

Then one day we were in an even worse combat with some kind of elemental creature, and John and me had been pretty badly knocked about. So Wolfgang casts a spell on himself called Hammerhand.

"Hammerhand..? That's the one that doubles your attacks, isn't it?" asks John.

"Err... Yeah," admits TAFKAC, in a tone which suggests that he'd rather John hadn't known that.

"First attacks!" says General Tangent (the GM). We all take our first attacks, followed by the elemental creature.

"Second attacks!" Again, we all take our second attacks.

"Third attacks!" Me and John take our third and final attacks, along with Wolfgang. "Ah!" we think, that's because of the Hammerhand doubling his attacks!

"Fourth attacks!" General Tangent often used to say that, which always used to piss us off, because how hard was it for him to remember that we only had three attacks? But this time, for once, it was justified, because Wolfgang's two attacks doubled gave him four attacks.

So Wolfgang takes his fourth attack.

Then...

"Fifth attacks!"

And Wolfgang takes a fifth attack, which puts me and John deep into "What the fuck?" territory.

"Since when have you had three attacks?" we demand.

"Little while," says TAFKAC shrugging.

"Sixth attacks!" Wolfgang takes his sixth attack.

At this point me and John, a little pissed off about TAFKAC keeping it secret that he had three attacks, pick up our dice for the start of the next round.

"Seventh attacks!"

TAFKAC picks up his dice and throws.

WHAT THE FUCK!

"You've got four attacks?"

"Yeah."

"But no-one has four attacks! Well... no-one except for assassins!"

"Yeah."

"What?"

Turns out that about 60 sessions previously, while we were "encountering" Luigi Belladona, crime boss of a city down south, Wolfgang had been recruited, and trained, by said Luigi as an assassin.

Something that he'd neglected to mention to us. And to preserve that secret, he'd spent 60 sessions pretending to only have two attacks per round, when the truth was that he had four! Pretending even when we were fighting for our lives.

This was why General Tangent sometimes asked for fourth attacks.

Well as you can imagine, it led to a somewhat heated discussion, with a raking up of every single desperate combat we'd had since that time. ("What! Luigi trained you! But that was *ages* ago! How many times have we been in the shit since then, and you just fucking sat there when you had two extra attacks?").

And the final kicker? We only know this out-of-character. As far as our characters know, the wizard cast a spell which allowed him to move four times as fast as he normally can...

Bastard.

[brionl]

Tactics are all well and good, but remember they are deciding their actions in less than a second. Letting players sit around for 5 minutes planning the best tactical approach is quite unrealistic in combat.

So don't let them. Bust out a timer and when they take too long "OK, while you guys are standing around talking, the enemy opens fire." Just set a time limit for moves and stick to it.

[Hugh Neilson]

So don't let them. Bust out a timer and when they take too long "OK, while you guys are standing around talking, the enemy opens fire." Just set a time limit for moves and stick to it.

Or just don't let them measure distances out beforehand, bringing us back to the start of the discussion. I don't see a lot of difference between denying the ability to measure beforehand and denying the time to do so.

[Captain Obvious]

This reminds me of a hilarious story on the inter-webs.

The "Number Of Attacks" Scam



NSFW

[SPOILER]One of the most important attributes a WFRP character has is his number of attacks. A starting character has one attack per round. Later, as you proceed through the career structure, you can gain a second attack, and perhaps even a third. As you can imagine, extra attacks massively increase your effectiveness in combat. If you make two attacks to your opponent's one, you're likely to wear him down long before he wears you down, especially as characters have to sacrifice attacks if they want to parry.

This particular scam is one which TAFKAC had been running for more than a year of real-time (and we probably play around 40 or 50 sessions a year of WFRP).

Me and John are playing rogue-fighter types, so we were fairly useful in combat. After perhaps 70 or 80 sessions (we've played this campaign a lot) we'd managed to claw ourselves up to three attacks per round.

Wolfgang, by contrast, was a wizard who'd only done a few non-wizard careers such as Templar, and so had only two attacks per round. This was quite a disadvantage, as we get in some pretty extreme fights, and since there's only three of us, we all have to get involved.

One time, for example, we were walking along a causeway in a swamp, when some tentacled creature grabbed each one of us, and hauled us off the path. The three of us were each held under the water, drowning, hacking away at the tentacles with everything we had. I really thought we'd bought it, but John's character Ulrich managed finally to hack his way free, make his way to the surface, gasp some air into his screaming lungs, then dive down to hack me and Wolfgang loose.

Of course, when I say that we were hacking away with everything we had, what I meant to say is that me and John assumed that we were hacking away with everything we had. Given that we were like, dying.

Then one day we were in an even worse combat with some kind of elemental creature, and John and me had been pretty badly knocked about. So Wolfgang casts a spell on himself called Hammerhand.

"Hammerhand..? That's the one that doubles your attacks, isn't it?" asks John.

"Err... Yeah," admits TAFKAC, in a tone which suggests that he'd rather John hadn't known that.

"First attacks!" says General Tangent (the GM). We all take our first attacks, followed by the elemental creature.

"Second attacks!" Again, we all take our second attacks.

"Third attacks!" Me and John take our third and final attacks, along with Wolfgang. "Ah!" we think, that's because of the Hammerhand doubling his attacks!

"Fourth attacks!" General Tangent often used to say that, which always used to piss us off, because how hard was it for him to remember that we only had three attacks? But this time, for once, it was justified, because Wolfgang's two attacks doubled gave him four attacks.

So Wolfgang takes his fourth attack.

Then...

"Fifth attacks!"

And Wolfgang takes a fifth attack, which puts me and John deep into "What the fuck?" territory.

"Since when have you had three attacks?" we demand.

"Little while," says TAFKAC shrugging.

"Sixth attacks!" Wolfgang takes his sixth attack.

At this point me and John, a little pissed off about TAFKAC keeping it secret that he had three attacks, pick up our dice for the start of the next round.

"Seventh attacks!"

TAFKAC picks up his dice and throws.

WHAT THE FUCK!

"You've got four attacks?"

"Yeah."

"But no-one has four attacks! Well... no-one except for assassins!"

"Yeah."

"What?"

Turns out that about 60 sessions previously, while we were "encountering" Luigi Belladona, crime boss of a city down south, Wolfgang had been recruited, and trained, by said Luigi as an assassin.

Something that he'd neglected to mention to us. And to preserve that secret, he'd spent 60 sessions pretending to only have two attacks per round, when the truth was that he had four! Pretending even when we were fighting for our lives.

This was why General Tangent sometimes asked for fourth attacks.

Well as you can imagine, it led to a somewhat heated discussion, with a raking up of every single desperate combat we'd had since that time. ("What! Luigi trained you! But that was *ages* ago! How many times have we been in the shit since then, and you just fucking sat there when you had two extra attacks?").

And the final kicker? We only know this out-of-character. As far as our characters know, the wizard cast a spell which allowed him to move four times as fast as he normally can...

Bastard.

That guy's like the Keyser Soze of WFRP...

[lapsedgamer]

Some people love meta gaming for whatever reason. I don't let it bug me unless it starts to ruin the game for folks who don't. When I DM I try to strike a balance between good gaming and practicality. Often I just don't want it to bog down. If I have experienced guys who know the rules on the other side of the screen and can be mature about it, it's easier for me.

I have a lot of stuff with hexes on it, so I will continue to use it, but I also have a ruler, so I can go hybrid depending on what map I am using.

[CrosshairCollie]

So don't let them. Bust out a timer and when they take too long "OK, while you guys are standing around talking, the enemy opens fire." Just set a time limit for moves and stick to it.

No, when they take too long, that means they're Holding Their Action deciding what to do, so you can move on to the next combatant. And make sure the timer is a reasonable length; the PCs might be experienced combatants with high statistics, but the players are not. And don't count time they spend gathering information their characters would have, but the player isn't sure about ('does that guy have a visible forcefield', for example). Don't penalize a player for the medium.