Hex vs Square

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Varyon

The obvious method to handle exact(-ish) facing is to demarcate the angles on the base of the miniature itself - say, a mark every 5 degrees (for a total of 72 marks) and a label every 90, 60, or 30 degrees (for 4, 6, or 12 labels, respectively). I shudder to think of a rule system where differences of 5 degrees in facing have an actual effect, however.

Harpoon allowed turns of arbitrarily small angles IIRC.

[Michael Thayne]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

But GURPS facing rules use 60° intervals because that is the interval between hex sides. Most games that use facing and don't use hexes use 90° intervals, either parallel to a square grid, i.e. left front, right front, right rear, left rear, or rotated 45° to give front, right side, rear, left side. In truly freeform movement, you could make facing exact, i.e. if you want to turn 82°, you turn exactly 82°, though you may need a protractor to regulate facing.

I realize that, and indeed I assumed that GURPS would require using different intervals. The "rotated 45°" approach is probably the most natural fit for GURPS but would tend to make getting in those attacks from the rear / side easier, which could affect how the game plays. Alternatively you could say that in melee each figure has three "front" squares", four "side" squares (two for each side), and one "back" square, which I suspect would play more similarly to RAW but wouldn't be exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

They're unlikely to be "over-rated." If you want a grid that doesn't leave inaccessible gaps between points, there are only a few options: triangles, squares (and rectangles), and hexes. The benefits of a particular choice are independent of the game they're used for.

Most designers have come to the conclusion that for wargames and wargame-like boardgames, hexes tend to be the optimal choice. As mentioned in my earlier post, most designers go not only with a hex grid, but specifically with a SPI hex grid.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I suspect that "hexes are overrated" comment really means "grids that don't line up with neatly with floorplans are overrated.

Partly, but also consider that if two lines of combatants are meeting up in an open field, they either won't be able to form straight lines, or won't be able to shoot/run straight. Seems not ideal!

Originally Posted by Polydamas

If you look at the plans of homes, workplaces, and forts before the 19th century, the angles are almost never right. Anything between 70 degrees and 110 degrees was usually 'good enough'. Street plans are even more irregular (and forced later buildings to fit onto not-rectangular plots defined by the first not-rectangular building built on them).

Huh interesting. I knew old cities often have funky street layouts but would've expected angles pretty close to 90° would be the norm unless a street, fence, adjacent building etc. was forcing you to do otherwise.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I realize that, and indeed I assumed that GURPS would require using different intervals. The "rotated 45°" approach is probably the most natural fit for GURPS but would tend to make getting in those attacks from the rear / side easier, which could affect how the game plays. Alternatively you could say that in melee each figure has three "front" squares", four "side" squares (two for each side), and one "back" square, which I suspect would play more similarly to RAW but wouldn't be exactly the same.

Alternatively, you could (le gasp) modify the RAW a bit to accommodate the differences. The character has three Front squares, two Side squares, two Rear-Side Squares, and one Rear square. Front and Rear squares would function the same as Front and Rear hexes. Side squares would be -1 to defend normally, but this would jump to -3 if trying to Block or Parry on the wrong side. Rear-Side Squares would be -2 to defend normally, and you'd be unable to Block or Parry on the wrong side (that is, Rear-Side squares would function like Side hexes). Or something else similar.

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Partly, but also consider that if two lines of combatants are meeting up in an open field, they either won't be able to form straight lines, or won't be able to shoot/run straight. Seems not ideal!

Personally, I don't have a lot of difficulty internalizing the idea that a slightly zig-zagged formation or route is simply an approximation, just like adjacent characters being exactly 1 yard apart, but I can certainly see where this could cause a bit of a disconnect.

[Agemegos]

As well as having a smaller discrepancy with distances at off-grid angles, hex grids also have the advantage over square grids of having only one type of adjacency, i.e. not having cells that meet only at a corner, which can make some reach and movement rules simpler.

[Bengt]

SJG did use squares for Car Wars (at least the 80s version, I'm not familiar with the more recent version). You were not strictly tied to the grid though, you could turn in 15 degree intervals and drive across the squares. There was free maneuver to realign vehicles with the grid if you were just a little off after returning.

[Duringar]

How often does one use miniatures in GURPS? I figured it would be rare, but by the sounds of it, it seems quite often. Which system (genre) uses miniatures more than another?
I am mainly playing 3e Fantasy.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Duringar

How often does one use miniatures in GURPS? I figured it would be rare, but by the sounds of it, it seems quite often. Which system (genre) uses miniatures more than another?
I am mainly playing 3e Fantasy.

GURPS supports minis for tactical combat. It's not used much in high tech combat because using a yard-scaled tactical battle map with engagement ranges of hundreds of yards doesn't work terribly well.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Duringar

How often does one use miniatures in GURPS? I figured it would be rare, but by the sounds of it, it seems quite often. Which system (genre) uses miniatures more than another?
I am mainly playing 3e Fantasy.

This is another not unique to GURPS idea. Role-playing games, particularly Dungeons & Dragons, grew out of miniatures wargaming, so the idea of using miniatures was there from the start. D&D originally billed itself as "wargaming with pencil and paper." The biggest problem initially was the dearth of genre-specific miniatures, so several games provided cardboard counters in lieu of miniatures.

By the mid-1970s, there were at least four miniatures manufactures that had small, circa 25 miniatures, lines of fantasy figures. By the early 80s it was possible to find miniatures for almost any role-playing genre. Often there were lines specifically designed for a particular game or game setting. The largest selection of miniatures was always for fantasy, with science fiction (more specifically space) running second. There were also miniatures, sometimes in unusual scales, for westerns, superheroes, post-apocalyptic, espionage, gangster and a few toons. The only genre that I can't recall ever seeing miniatures for were for pirates and buccaneers.

Miniature use in GURPS reflects miniatures use more broadly within the industry. While Steve Jackson Games has in the past manufactured its own miniatures, both metal and cardboard (Cardboard Heroes), and licensed other manufactures to produce miniatures based on its games, e.g. Car Wars, The Fantasy Trip and Ogre, it no longer does so. Like every other RPG, GURPS is dependent on the supply offered by outside miniatures manufacturers, which currently is very close to being exclusively for fantasy games.

GURPS doesn't actually demand the use of miniatures, though it does offer a detailed treatment for combat, if you should chose to go that route. Most GURPS GMs do seem to prefer using miniatures in their games, when available. However, you aren't bound by what other GMs prefer. If you'd rather not use miniatures, GURPS has you covered for that option as well. Your players choices in combat will be more heavily influenced by your ability to verbally "set the scene," and arguments will be more likely to arise if there's a difference in interpretation of where the verbal scenery is, or isn't, placed.

[Bengt]

Originally Posted by Duringar

How often does one use miniatures in GURPS? I figured it would be rare, but by the sounds of it, it seems quite often. Which system (genre) uses miniatures more than another?
I am mainly playing 3e Fantasy.

If you play remotely, RPG centric virtual desktops (e.g. Roll20) often has support for square and hex grids. So not miniatures per se but images of characters and a grid to snap them to.

[sir_pudding]

I personally find theater of the mind very frustrating to run, because either I'm not great at conveying spatial relationships verbally or people aren't great at maintaining a mental model of them. I don't mind playing with it, but I still prefer mapped. When it's my game it's always mapped.