Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > The Fantasy Trip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2018, 11:54 AM   #1
Cat
 
Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default Optional Squares?

While this game was designed quite well to work on a hex grid, I hope there might be an appendix with optional rules on translating to use on a square grid.

For those of us who have built 3D model dungeons, they are overwhelmingly (if not entirely) built with squares not hexes.
__________________
All-Purpose Gaming Blog: Goblinhall
Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 12:08 PM   #2
Rick_Smith
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
Default Re: Optional Squares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat View Post
While this game was designed quite well to work on a hex grid, I hope there might be an appendix with optional rules on translating to use on a square grid.

For those of us who have built 3D model dungeons, they are overwhelmingly (if not entirely) built with squares not hexes.
Hi Cat, welcome!

It would not be hard to do so. You would have to decide on the facing of the various figures. For example a 1 hex figure might be...


Front ....... Front ........ Front


Front ........ Hero ........ Front


Side ......... Rear ......... Side

(Maybe add an extra side on the off hand side?)

TFT uses "Megahexes" to help count off ranges of missile weapons and spells. For example, the Dazzle spell will hinder all within 5 megahexes. You could say one 3 x 3 meter area (10 feet on a side) is a Megahex. And go from there.

Finally you have to decide what you are going to do about diagonal movement. I like to say moving vertically or horizontally costs 5 movement, and moving diagonally costs 7. (This is accurate to within 2%.) But more usually, games say moving v. or h. costs 2 and d. costs 3. (You would likely want to double the movement of all characters if you are using this latter system.)

And that is it. Ranges of missile weapons would also use the adjustments I gave in movement, and everything else should be easy to adapt.

Warm regards, Rick.
Rick_Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 02:13 PM   #3
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Optional Squares?

That's funny because I've been thinking about the same thing. There IS a megaton of attractive battlemaps out there for sale and download.

Diagonals are easy - 1.5 mp cost. If only one diagonal move is made, it costs 2 mp.

But one thing that bugs me is that in a hex based system, a maximum of 6 opponents can engage you. I personally think even that's too many, based on personal experience in martial arts (admittedly not necessarily representative).

In a square based system, 8 opponents can engage you. Does that matter? I'm not sure, candidly. If it is a problem, what's the solution? One idea that comes immediately to mind is to say that only 3 opponents can attack from side or rear squares. And how are facings handled? Some possibilities:


Fr Fr Fr
Sd XX Sd
Re Re Re

Fr Fr Fr
Fr XX Fr
Sd Re Sd

Fr Fr Fr
Sd XX Sd
Sd Re Sd


Or, a fussier solution proposed by a GURPS player:


Fr Fr Fr
Fl XX Fl
Sd Re Sd


A figure in the "Fl" (flank) can be attacked but at -2 DX. A shield will protect from attacks from the right or left flank (depending on the figure's handedness).

Another issue is the scale of typical square grid tiles: 1 square = 5' x 5', which makes standard dungeon corridors 2 squares wide. I personally think that this is too constrained; 3 spaces would be better (and was what AD&D envisioned, per the 1st edition DMG).

I've always considered a Melee hex to be about 1 pace wide (3 paces per 10') , so a 10' dungeon corridor would be 3 paces wide. That gives far more scope for maneuvering. So if I went with a square grid, I'd probably use that scale if possible. Fortunately, the downloadable tiles often come with gridless versions, so you can re-grid them.

Oh, a "megahex" could be interpreted as a 3 x 3 block. Or like this:


. X .
X X X
. X .


The affected squares are marked with X.

Last edited by tbeard1999; 06-14-2018 at 02:19 PM.
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 03:18 PM   #4
Cat
 
Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default Re: Optional Squares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick_Smith View Post
I like to say moving vertically or horizontally costs 5 movement, and moving diagonally costs 7. (This is accurate to within 2%.) But more usually, games say moving v. or h. costs 2 and d. costs 3. (You would likely want to double the movement of all characters if you are using this latter system.)

And that is it. Ranges of missile weapons would also use the adjustments I gave in movement, and everything else should be easy to adapt.
I've played other square grid games, and greatly prefer the simpler route of doubling movement and ranges and counting orthagonally as 2 and diagonally as 3. This worked great for movement and passing in Bloodbowl.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
But one thing that bugs me is that in a hex based system, a maximum of 6 opponents can engage you. I personally think even that's too many, based on personal experience in martial arts (admittedly not necessarily representative).
I've also done a lot of SCA fighting, Renaissance style fencing, and Roller Derby — 6 engaging at a time is quite excessive. In other skirmish games I play, like Donnybrook, we just place a maximum limit of 3 attackers on a single figure and don't worry about placement. The same could work in TFT on either type of grid, just cap that at most only 3 or 4 can attack regardless of which adjacent spaces they are in.

Simpler is always better than fussier! I certainly wouldn't want to fuss over a 4th facing of 'Flank'.

I've never fretted over exact scale of my dungeon modules. Each space accommodates 1 regular sized figure, and so would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3'–5'. My corridors are mostly 2–3 spaces wide, but some narrow passages of 1, and some broader at 4+.

A 3 x 3 megasquare is certainly the easiest translation of a megahex.

Many commercially available 3D bits are 1" squares (Dwarven Forge, etc.), but I dislike going that small. I aim for 30mm as much as possible to allow room for minis in action poses to easily fit into the space and up along walls and each other. That helps when facing is important and you don't want to twist figures around just to get them to fit.

I build my dungeon rooms in various sized shadow boxes from the craft store, so the space size in each one is partially determined by available floor space and working around fixed features. Often I'll do variable sized spaces, with the larger ones along the walls to alleviate placement constraints of minis.

In recent years, my Fantasy gaming has been with chibi miniatures, so the dungeon tends towards the sparkly and colourful too. Here are some sample rooms:

https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c.../02/3rooms.jpg

https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c...glassrooms.jpg

https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c...newbaseszd.jpg

****
edit: hmm, not sure why the images aren't displaying, but the links work...
__________________
All-Purpose Gaming Blog: Goblinhall
Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 03:36 PM   #5
tbeard1999
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
Default Re: Optional Squares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat View Post
Many commercially available 3D bits are 1" squares (Dwarven Forge, etc.), but I dislike going that small. I aim for 30mm as much as possible to allow room for minis in action poses to easily fit into the space and up along walls and each other.
Agreed. Most normal sized 28mm miniatures have a 1" circular or square base. That makes them way too cramped on a 1" grid in my opinion.

I've been advocating 1.25" squares and hexes, which are slightly larger than yours. My thinking is that 1/2" walls can be centered on the edge of two squares and still leave enough room for a figure to comfortably occupy the space.

Quote:
hat helps when facing is important and you don't want to twist figures around just to get them to fit.

I build my dungeon rooms in various sized shadow boxes from the craft store, so the space size in each one is partially determined by available floor space and working around fixed features. Often I'll do variable sized spaces, with the larger ones along the walls to alleviate placement constraints of minis.

In recent years, my Fantasy gaming has been with chibi miniatures, so the dungeon tends towards the sparkly and colourful too. Here are some sample rooms:

https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c.../02/3rooms.jpg

https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c...glassrooms.jpg

https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c...newbaseszd.jpg

****
edit: hmm, not sure why the images aren't displaying, but the links work...
My daughters would've loved those dungeons!
tbeard1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2018, 04:28 PM   #6
Cat
 
Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default Re: Optional Squares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbeard1999 View Post
My daughters would've loved those dungeons!
The rooms with the glass tiles also have working secret doors!
=^,^=
https://goblinhall.files.wordpress.c...lasssecret.jpg
__________________
All-Purpose Gaming Blog: Goblinhall
Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.