Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone has played with battlemaps such as ones by chessex. Specifically movement speed and ranged of throwing weapons. Is 1 increment of speed equivalent to 1 yard, I want to keep things simple in terms of measurement and movement, but allow tactics. I was thinking of treating 1 speed and 1 range as 1 square on the battlemap.
Playing with battlemaps
Re: Playing with battlemaps
Personally, I have almost never used miniatures or battlemaps in role-playing, so I honestly don't have a very constructive opinion to provide. I'd say the best way to see if that works is to experiment! Don't hesitate to put your ideas to the test and share them here.
However, one thing that strikes me is that I don't think Speed should be used for Movement speed, since in Esteren, Speed is used as an Initiative rating, and not for movement rate.
However, one thing that strikes me is that I don't think Speed should be used for Movement speed, since in Esteren, Speed is used as an Initiative rating, and not for movement rate.
Allez, come on, allons-y, here we go, en avant, godspeed, hardi, let's do this!
Re: Playing with battlemaps
I used to use minis in every game, ages ago, when I had many players ...
Anyway, I believe you should just get the movement speeds from you second best game (Esteren's first of course, isn't it?). As far as I know, Savage worlds use that very specificity: battle maps, squares et so forth. You shouldn't have any problem using these datas.
As far as I'm concerned, I would use the minis only for angles of view. They are very useful to make players decide where they are looking, how they stand, do they turn the next corner of the street and so on. This is, I believe, a nice way to deal with danger/ no danger in dungeon crawling games.
Of course, Esteren isn't focused on dungeon crawling but still, I don't see anything wrong using them. As a matter of fact, I'm a painter and miss miniatures in my rpg games.
Anyway, I believe you should just get the movement speeds from you second best game (Esteren's first of course, isn't it?). As far as I know, Savage worlds use that very specificity: battle maps, squares et so forth. You shouldn't have any problem using these datas.
As far as I'm concerned, I would use the minis only for angles of view. They are very useful to make players decide where they are looking, how they stand, do they turn the next corner of the street and so on. This is, I believe, a nice way to deal with danger/ no danger in dungeon crawling games.
Of course, Esteren isn't focused on dungeon crawling but still, I don't see anything wrong using them. As a matter of fact, I'm a painter and miss miniatures in my rpg games.
- Ultimate horror often paralyses memory in a merciful way.
Re: Playing with battlemaps
I see, well I found it odd that for example the ranged weapons give precise measurements in terms of range, but there is no formula for combat movement, eg: how far a character can move in a round.
Actually in the Movement Stance/Attitude, the books says a character may move 10 yards. So perhaps I will say characters may move up to 5 yards and still attack. Maybe half that for difficult terrain. Then again 5 yards is a lot of ground to cover in one turn, seeing as how one round is equal to 6 seconds. Maybe another, more realistic approach would be to say, a character may move 1/2 of his base speed while in combat.
There reason I wish to use a battle map and mini's is that several of my players have very limited or no experience with rpgs, and one player in particular really struggles with imagination. Unless she has pieces on the board to focus her, she doesn't know what to do in terms of participating in a fight.
Actually in the Movement Stance/Attitude, the books says a character may move 10 yards. So perhaps I will say characters may move up to 5 yards and still attack. Maybe half that for difficult terrain. Then again 5 yards is a lot of ground to cover in one turn, seeing as how one round is equal to 6 seconds. Maybe another, more realistic approach would be to say, a character may move 1/2 of his base speed while in combat.
There reason I wish to use a battle map and mini's is that several of my players have very limited or no experience with rpgs, and one player in particular really struggles with imagination. Unless she has pieces on the board to focus her, she doesn't know what to do in terms of participating in a fight.
Re: Playing with battlemaps
Oh, I didn't remember the part about the 10-yard move... this shows that I still don't know Book 1 by heart, in spite of all the time I have spent working on it!
Anyway, the idea in Esteren is to apply common sense: it's very difficult to give precise rules for movement, so the GL is the one to dictate whether an action is possible or not.
However, if you want to put more precise numbers on what is possible or not, your approach seems good. Still, 10 yards may seem like a lot, but remember that a lot of things can actually happen in 6 seconds: if the Character can properly run (or at least jog), making 10 yards in 6 seconds seems reasonable to me.
Anyway, the idea in Esteren is to apply common sense: it's very difficult to give precise rules for movement, so the GL is the one to dictate whether an action is possible or not.
However, if you want to put more precise numbers on what is possible or not, your approach seems good. Still, 10 yards may seem like a lot, but remember that a lot of things can actually happen in 6 seconds: if the Character can properly run (or at least jog), making 10 yards in 6 seconds seems reasonable to me.
Allez, come on, allons-y, here we go, en avant, godspeed, hardi, let's do this!
Re: Playing with battlemaps
While I certainly agree that Shadows of Esteren doesn't require miniatures or a grid map, the players that I will be running the adventure with play dungeon crawler rpg's almost elusively(long time DnD'ers). So I am trying to make the new system as similar to them as possible.
Personally I do enjoy using mini's to represent the battlefield. I feel it adds an extra layer of excitement, and prevents a lot of players questions like, "Can I see enemy X", "Am I in range to shoot him?", " Can I move up behind him?" and while some might argue this detracts from the narrative, or prevents players from describing their actions, I feel it speeds up combat a lot. With mini's players can accurately distinguish how far away they are from an enemy by seeing the entire battlefield, and plan their movement and approach before their turn comes up.
While I am not advocating one style is better than the other, I am simply saying why I like to use mini's. As always to each their own!
Personally I do enjoy using mini's to represent the battlefield. I feel it adds an extra layer of excitement, and prevents a lot of players questions like, "Can I see enemy X", "Am I in range to shoot him?", " Can I move up behind him?" and while some might argue this detracts from the narrative, or prevents players from describing their actions, I feel it speeds up combat a lot. With mini's players can accurately distinguish how far away they are from an enemy by seeing the entire battlefield, and plan their movement and approach before their turn comes up.
While I am not advocating one style is better than the other, I am simply saying why I like to use mini's. As always to each their own!
Re: Playing with battlemaps
I understand that perfectly! And if you don't mind, do tell us about the results of your session, so that we may see how Esteren fares with a D&Dish gaming style.
Allez, come on, allons-y, here we go, en avant, godspeed, hardi, let's do this!
Re: Playing with battlemaps
I'm another one who's used to playing with a battlemap from D&D, especially 4th edition where a battlemap is almost essential in order to have proper strategic awareness. So I assumed that my group would be using a battlemap for every battle. Nope!
Even though I often struggle with remembering or understanding the fictional positioning of characters on the field, combat in Esteren is much easier to visualize for two reasons:
1) It's over more quickly, meaning that there is less to have to remember.
2) There aren't as many options baked into the mechanics, meaning that you have less to keep track of.
3) Combat in Esteren doesn't begin until two combatants are engaged. This is different than in D&D, where combat is assumed to begin as soon as you can see the enemy.
For that third point, here's how it usually works: A player indicates that he wants to attack someone/something. I say, "Okay, what's everyone doing?" The players tell me: "I'm going to move up and attack one of the bandits," "I'm going to attack the other one to keep him off the other PC," "I'm going to stand back at range and attack with my bow," "I'm going to sneak off to the side and look for a way out."
Once we have an idea of where everyone is in relation to everyone else, then I tell the players to roll their initiative, and we go from there.
It gets a LITTLE trickier when you have people attacking at range: If it's just one person, I usually handwave it and run it as I do above. If it's multiple people attacking at range, or if one side has the jump on the other, then what I have done is start the combat with everyone as they are, and have them all roll initiative. If someone moves up close to a ranged attacker before the attacker can fire, then I say that he's lost his chance this turn -- neither of them can attack, but the archer can't use his weapon.
Usually, battles take place at such close range that you can assume that if the character can see an enemy, then the enemy is within short range. With things like throwing daggers, however, I require players to keep note of their distance.
Anyway, I've found that the battlemap has been useful for our purposes only to keep track of relative positions, so if, for example, you're fighting in a narrow hallway, on a narrow bridge, in a small room, etc., it's easy to keep track of who's where because most people won't move much. We've only used the battlemap for a battle that took place in a room with varying levels of elevation and a variety of potential ways for PCs to interact with it, and one that was in a wide open field.
I think I declared that 1 square or hex was equal to 1 or 2 yards. 2 yards is 6 feet, and in D&D 1 square is 5 feet, so it's *close*.
As far as movement, Book 1 says that a character can move "a few steps" during combat, which I have ruled is analogous to "shifting" 1 square or a "five-foot step" in D&D, i.e. you can attack and move 3-6 feet in a round, and an opponent can't pursue you (although he could just step up to you on his turn). I only let PCs move the 10 or 20 yards if they choose the Movement attitude.
Even though I often struggle with remembering or understanding the fictional positioning of characters on the field, combat in Esteren is much easier to visualize for two reasons:
1) It's over more quickly, meaning that there is less to have to remember.
2) There aren't as many options baked into the mechanics, meaning that you have less to keep track of.
3) Combat in Esteren doesn't begin until two combatants are engaged. This is different than in D&D, where combat is assumed to begin as soon as you can see the enemy.
For that third point, here's how it usually works: A player indicates that he wants to attack someone/something. I say, "Okay, what's everyone doing?" The players tell me: "I'm going to move up and attack one of the bandits," "I'm going to attack the other one to keep him off the other PC," "I'm going to stand back at range and attack with my bow," "I'm going to sneak off to the side and look for a way out."
Once we have an idea of where everyone is in relation to everyone else, then I tell the players to roll their initiative, and we go from there.
It gets a LITTLE trickier when you have people attacking at range: If it's just one person, I usually handwave it and run it as I do above. If it's multiple people attacking at range, or if one side has the jump on the other, then what I have done is start the combat with everyone as they are, and have them all roll initiative. If someone moves up close to a ranged attacker before the attacker can fire, then I say that he's lost his chance this turn -- neither of them can attack, but the archer can't use his weapon.
Usually, battles take place at such close range that you can assume that if the character can see an enemy, then the enemy is within short range. With things like throwing daggers, however, I require players to keep note of their distance.
Anyway, I've found that the battlemap has been useful for our purposes only to keep track of relative positions, so if, for example, you're fighting in a narrow hallway, on a narrow bridge, in a small room, etc., it's easy to keep track of who's where because most people won't move much. We've only used the battlemap for a battle that took place in a room with varying levels of elevation and a variety of potential ways for PCs to interact with it, and one that was in a wide open field.
I think I declared that 1 square or hex was equal to 1 or 2 yards. 2 yards is 6 feet, and in D&D 1 square is 5 feet, so it's *close*.
As far as movement, Book 1 says that a character can move "a few steps" during combat, which I have ruled is analogous to "shifting" 1 square or a "five-foot step" in D&D, i.e. you can attack and move 3-6 feet in a round, and an opponent can't pursue you (although he could just step up to you on his turn). I only let PCs move the 10 or 20 yards if they choose the Movement attitude.
Re: Playing with battlemaps
Ah Interesting. When I ran it I ruled that PC's could move up to 5 yards and still attack.Dragoslav a écrit : As far as movement, Book 1 says that a character can move "a few steps" during combat, which I have ruled is analogous to "shifting" 1 square or a "five-foot step" in D&D, i.e. you can attack and move 3-6 feet in a round, and an opponent can't pursue you (although he could just step up to you on his turn). I only let PCs move the 10 or 20 yards if they choose the Movement attitude.
So your players were only able to move 1 square a round while in combat?(assuming they did not take movement attitude)
All in all I found the combat entirely too easy in my first run of Poison. They PC's were never sufficiently challenged. Except in one fight, which they had assistance in anyway. So i think i might limit their movement more in line of what you proposed.
Re: Playing with battlemaps
Well, combat is fast and deadly in Esteren, so if your Players are all playing Characters who are skilled in Close Combat, is stands to reason that they can steamroll their opponent(s) with relative ease provided they have initiative. It is all the truer when the foe(s) are not that good at fighting and/or have been ambushed by the PCs.
I guarantee that against a team of well-prepared fighters, even a group made entirely of fighter PCs will have a hard time! It just takes clever preparation for the group of opponents to be swiftly overwhelmed.
I guarantee that against a team of well-prepared fighters, even a group made entirely of fighter PCs will have a hard time! It just takes clever preparation for the group of opponents to be swiftly overwhelmed.
Allez, come on, allons-y, here we go, en avant, godspeed, hardi, let's do this!