Hex(agon)ed

[FeiLin]

I have played quite a few games with hexagonal grids of movement, but the more I use it with GURPS, the more constraining it feels compared to the wonderful freedom GURPS otherwise offers.

My primary concerns are that a) most room walls line up in varying degrees of ugliness regardless of grid rotation and related issues, b) movement/facing restricted except in six directions, and c) figure shapes wider than one tend to be unpractical and/or plain weird.

For the life of me I cannot figure out how to handle a shape that’s only slightly bigger than one hex? A shape that’s ”3x2” hexes, how does that look???

While intuitively a square grid feels more limiting, I’m wondering if it really is. It’s not perfect either, but rooms line up better and movement/facing is slightly less restricted (with diagonal movement and facing).

So, I’m thinking three things:

1. How does GURPS play with squares?
2. How does GURPS play entirely freeform (a la Warhammer, for instance)?
3. What about a mix where a plastic sheet is used to draw layouts etc, and a slideable hex grid is placed underneath to guide movement more dynamically? In effect, a mix of hex and freeform.

[Obbian]

A square grid will have its own set of issues. Diagonal movement and range and reach will be its own headache. Facing rules might become wonky with squares as well. Area spells and surrounding might become weird

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

My primary concerns are that a) most room walls line up in varying degrees of ugliness regardless of grid rotation and related issues,

I can't help you with aesthetics, but in general you don't need to align your maps with the hex grid. The simple rule to follow is that any partial hex counts as a full hex.

For the life of me I cannot figure out how to handle a shape that’s only slightly bigger than one hex? A shape that’s ”3x2” hexes, how does that look???

Don't draw your shapes according to hex sizes. Draw your shapes according to whatever size they actually are, then overlay the hex grid — or ignore the hex grid while drawing.

How does GURPS play entirely freeform (a la Warhammer, for instance)?

No reason at all you can't do that. GURPS fourth edition always provides the free-form rules and then says something like, "If you're using a hex grid..." Just ignore that part.

[ham2anv]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

So, I’m thinking three things:

1. How does GURPS play with squares?
2. How does GURPS play entirely freeform (a la Warhammer, for instance)?
3. What about a mix where a plastic sheet is used to draw layouts etc, and a slideable hex grid is placed underneath to guide movement more dynamically? In effect, a mix of hex and freeform.

(3) is your best option. It's trivial if you're playing online on your VTT of choice. (2) is acceptable if you have tape measures, but you'll run into arguments about precise facings and such. (1) will require you to completely rework vision, explosions, and other rules.

[Rolando]

you can always use staggered squares if it helps you to make it feel better.

Playing without a grid is a good option, just use inches, like with a miniatures game, facing and other similar things is easy to guess right. Everythng else is simple measure in inches, linear distances and radius.

[Polkageist]

Ranges are laid out pretty clearly, so freeform (a la warhammer) works fine BUT facing can get funky.

Two ways to get around that. First is to ignore facing, which ain't a bad choice since it can be finicky. I tend to overlook it unless it's really a major factor in a given combat. With freeform you could probably eyeball it without too much trouble.

Second is to use minis with hexagonal bases. As long as one face of that base is the 'front' then you can easily determine if an attack is coming in along a particular facing at the same time as you're doing measurement.

Freeform takes time since you have to whip out the tape or string every time you determine ranges, arguably slower than counting out hexes.

For squares, I remember I think from 3/3.5 dnd was a 'one-two' counting scheme for diagonal square movement and measurement. On a square grid a diagonal square is roughly the distance of 1.5 squares. So for the first square moved or interacted with diagonally it counts as one square, and the second costs 2 to interact with for a total of 3. For example, I want to move two squares diagonally. The first one costs 1 movement to enter, and the second costs 2 movement to enter for a total of 3 move to get to that square. If I want to go one more, it's again just 1 move (total of 4) to get there because of the alternating 'one-two' counting. The fourth square would then cost 2 (total of 6, pretty hard now) and so on.
Trust me, this makes a lot more sense on a diagram, but I have to write it out :)
For weapon reach, it works pretty much the same way. Squares immediately adjacent to the token are 1 square away, orthogonally and diagonally, reachable by all reach 1 weapons. For reach 2 weapons, you can reach all squares adjacent to you, and an additional square (so 2 squares away) orthogonally but still only 1 square away diagonally since that second square on the diagonal axis counts as three away, so you'd need a reach 3 weapon to hit that square.

It's honestly not a bad way of doing things if combat doesn't need to be super precise. For a less combat heavy game with lots of maps it'd probably work just fine. Everything's close enough and you still get pretty maps.

[bocephus]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

So, I’m thinking three things:

1. How does GURPS play with squares?
2. How does GURPS play entirely freeform (a la Warhammer, for instance)?
3. What about a mix where a plastic sheet is used to draw layouts etc, and a slideable hex grid is placed underneath to guide movement more dynamically? In effect, a mix of hex and freeform.

1) Dunno never did it, but if your just tracking movement its probably going to work "more or less".

2) Works fine, as someone noted a hex shaped mini base will help with facing/direction.

3) This is pretty much what I do but only for combats that are really involved battlegrounds where terrain or walls/windows/doors might make a difference in combat.

I usually use a piece of A2 paper (maybe 2ftx3ft) with ~1in hexs if I'm using minis, and I have a piece of A2 with ~1/4in hexs for outdoors and big maps just so I can give the PCs a visual of whats going on.
I use dry erase markers on a clear plastic "Art pocket" (its really heavy clear plastic on both sides with a taped/sewed edge and holds an A2 page with room to spare). I have the grid prints in the pocket 1in on one side and 1/4in on the other side or I can swap out any other print I want to by just putting it in the pocket.

I mostly only use it to give an idea of scale, and occasionally do full on combat with facing and actual movement and LoS. I don't get deep in the weeds on maps, preferring streamlined combat to detailed combat.

Once in a while I have to use it because the PCs dont get my description of something. Example: traveling through a "dense hardwood forest". Yes there are a lot of trees but hardwoods usually have a pretty fair clear space around them because they block so much light. What kind of cover/distance could an ambush come from? Well it could be pretty far away if the location is carefully selected to give a decent field of fire, but likely you could move out of it, or at least find some cover in one or two moves if you can figure out where the shots are coming from.
That same description of a dense pine forest would cut your distances down a lot. Pines grow closer together and they have a lot more branches at low levels than hardwoods.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by FeiLin

While intuitively a square grid feels more limiting, I’m wondering if it really is. It’s not perfect either, but rooms line up better and movement/facing is slightly less restricted (with diagonal movement and facing).

I have read that when Steve Jackson was doing the original design work for GURPS. he spent considerable time trying to make tactical combat work on a square grid, but was unable to find a way to do it that satisfied him.

[Anaraxes]

Staggered squares (where every other row is slid over half a square's width) has the same layout as hexagons, but has straight lines and 90 degree corners. This satisfies some people that are mostly just unhappy with trying to fit their square rooms on the grid lines. You can still wind up with half squares along walls or in corners, so you need need the same kind of rule. (Either declare the half squares/hexes unusable, or declare they are usable, as you prefer.)

Facing with staggered squares would be better thought of as facing a particular adjacent square, not a side or corner of your own square. Square counters aren't going to fit inside of the square when rotated. This is not really much of a problem unless you're using physical objects which have square bases. (Try round bases and circular VTT tokens.) Front/side/rear remain the same as in GURPS, as there are six squares around the center point.

If you want an ordinary square grid, then you have 8-point facing (sides or corners), and you need to redefine "front", "side", and "rear" squares. This is pretty easy; 3 adjacent squares are "front", one square to each side, and three squares in the "rear". If you hate rear attacks, maybe you want to make the sides two squares, leaving just one for the rear.

*edit: this paragraph relocated from its earlier location between two on staggered squares*
If you count square movement as 2 units, with diagonals being 3, then you have a distance measure that's actually more accurate than hexagons (which themselves beat squares if you count 1 in all directions). Rather than use a half-yard grid, it'd be easier to simply double Move scores. (And ranges, if you want them to be stated in "grid units" rather than yards.)

With ordinary squares, you'll still need a rule for allowing use of partial squares -- unless your world is the sort where each and every room strangely corresponds to an exact integer multiple of the base unit side (5' for D&D, 3' for a GURPS yard, 10' for old-school dungeon maps, whatever), not to mention all being aligned to perfect east-west and north-south directions. But if that kind of thing doesn't bother you, then having a hex grid doesn't seem like it'd be too bothersome, either. The map is not the territory, as the saying goes.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Staggered squares (where every other row is slid over half a square's width) has the same layout as hexagons, but has straight lines and 90 degree corners. ... If you count square movement as 2 units, with diagonals being 3, then you have a distance measure that's actually more accurate than hexagons (which themselves beat squares if you count 1 in all directions). .

Are you talking about counting square movement as 2 units, diagonals as 3, with ordinary squares? Because you wouldn't do that with staggered squares; movement works the same with staggered squares as with hexes. Staggered squares essentially are hexes. Shaped like squares. : )

Facing with staggered squares would be better thought of as facing a particular adjacent square, not a side or corner of your own square.

Right. That's the only tricky thing with staggered squares (if it could even be called tricky). When a figure is facing down a straight row of squares, there's a temptation to address foes off to the side by turning 90°. That leaves the figure facing the line between two squares in the adjacent row, and that's a no-no (unless the group wants to invent rules for that). You have to make a mental note to view squares as hexes, and always orient a figure toward an adjacent square, as you say, and not toward a cardinal direction.

I've played a lot on a staggered-hex battlement filling in for a hex map, and I like it. There's no real downside for me. No real benefit, either, other than aesthetics and the perceived ease of fitting maps to buildings. Again, it really is the same thing as hexes, just a different look.