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.

[Guest 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.

[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.

[Guest 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.

[Guest 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.

[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]

Re: to hex or not to hex

 

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]

Re: to hex or not to hex

 

... 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]

Re: to hex or not to hex

 

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

[Daeglan]

Re: to hex or not to hex

 

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

[L. Marcus]

Re: to hex or not to hex

 

Your Search Fu is indeed powerful!