Scales of maps and play

[larsdangly]

One of the things I like about TFT is the notion that play can flow from one length/time scale to another with relatively uniform approaches to maps, game turns, etc. I have two questions for the hive mind:

1) What scales do you prefer? The ones presented are 1.33 m/hex with 5 s turns, 4 m/hex with 5 s turns, 20 m/hex with unspecified time scale (at least, I think...) and 12.5 km/hex with 1 day turns. Do you think this is the appropriate set or would you prefer another?

2) Personally, I feel the idea of self-similar rules across different scales should be developed in a more concrete way to encourage/support modes of play besides combat - particularly exploration at the scales of dungeons and challenging overland travel. E.g., I would prefer that the basic structure of the TFT turn (initiative/select from 3 movement options/perform 1 action from a list permitted to your movement option) applied at all scales, and that the time and distance scales allow you to just use your MA as your rate of movement in hexes/turn at every scale. It would take, like 5-10 pages of rules to lay out how this would work at a huge range of scales of play, and would support a lot of different activities that are currently relegated to the usual 'make it up as you go along' fall back plan. What do you make of this idea?

[JLV]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

One of the things I like about TFT is the notion that play can flow from one length/time scale to another with relatively uniform approaches to maps, game turns, etc. I have two questions for the hive mind:

1) What scales do you prefer? The ones presented are 1.33 m/hex with 5 s turns, 4 m/hex with 5 s turns, 20 m/hex with unspecified time scale (at least, I think...) and 12.5 km/hex with 1 day turns. Do you think this is the appropriate set or would you prefer another?

2) Personally, I feel the idea of self-similar rules across different scales should be developed in a more concrete way to encourage/support modes of play besides combat - particularly exploration at the scales of dungeons and challenging overland travel. E.g., I would prefer that the basic structure of the TFT turn (initiative/select from 3 movement options/perform 1 action from a list permitted to your movement option) applied at all scales, and that the time and distance scales allow you to just use your MA as your rate of movement in hexes/turn at every scale. It would take, like 5-10 pages of rules to lay out how this would work at a huge range of scales of play, and would support a lot of different activities that are currently relegated to the usual 'make it up as you go along' fall back plan. What do you make of this idea?

Conceptually, I like the idea, but I don't want 10 pages of additional rules to cover something as simple as changes in map scale.

I can see why you would guess that many additional pages, if you want to formalize movement, etc. at each scale with options, etc., at each level of mapping; but is all that formalization really necessary? Really all you need to do is figure out some way to determine which group moves first, whether or not your group becomes lost, and how far they can see. Even Barbarian Prince (which is not the best written set of rules I've ever seen) handled this in only two pages of rules and two pages of charts (one of which is specific to the game booklet contents and would either be radically simplified or shortened if adapted to another, more generic, game), which is pretty short for a core mechanic such as map movement was for BP.

[larsdangly]

This is a matter of taste, of course. One could say everything you wrote about melee combat as well, and there are games that treat combat with the broadest of brush strokes. So, the question is whether or not one likes the idea of treating exploration of dungeons, cities, landscapes, wilderness travel, etc. as a game-within-a-game, much as we do fighting. Personally, I think this is a very good idea because it brings the same immediacy, challenges and player decision making that makes combat fun.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

This is a matter of taste, of course. One could say everything you wrote about melee combat as well, and there are games that treat combat with the broadest of brush strokes. So, the question is whether or not one likes the idea of treating exploration of dungeons, cities, landscapes, wilderness travel, etc. as a game-within-a-game, much as we do fighting. Personally, I think this is a very good idea because it brings the same immediacy, challenges and player decision making that makes combat fun.

Yes, but Combat was part of the game already, whereas this idea was not.

[larsdangly]

Just to put it all into perspective, the very first version of the very first table top roleplaying game had a larger volume of more detailed support for km-scale wilderness exploration and skirmish or large unit mass combat than it did for small group close combat. D+D assumed you had and used Chainmail as your main combat engine, and suggested you run out and get Outdoor Survival. And one of the earliest new contributions to the hobby was En Garde!, which focused on very organized, structured week time scale campaign play. So, for sure the hobby has come to focus most of its rules for structured play on personal combat, and TFT is mostly in that camp...but not entirely. Even as simple a game as this spent a surprisingly about of its sparse page count on jobs, paying taxes, the difference between play at 1-m and 3-m scales, 20m scale maps, etc. These are really just seeds of a deliberately crafted set of rules for such things, but the idea is there. Of course if you don't like it then don't do it. But I think it is just a better way of playing such games, whatever your core system.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

Just to put it all into perspective, the very first version of the very first table top roleplaying game had a larger volume of more detailed support for km-scale wilderness exploration and skirmish or large unit mass combat than it did for small group close combat. D+D assumed you had and used Chainmail as your main combat engine, and suggested you run out and get Outdoor Survival.

Which primarily shows that they really didn't focus on either of those topics very well -- since they wanted to use outside systems for the purpose of those (fairly key) functions. It would be like telling a Melee/Wizard player to go buy a copy of Pathfinder for all that "role-playing stuff." (And yes, I started playing D&D with the White Box in 1975, so I remember this well.)

Originally Posted by larsdangly

And one of the earliest new contributions to the hobby was En Garde!, which focused on very organized, structured week time scale campaign play.

Though again, as I recall, they didn't spend even ten of their smaller pages on the details of that. You picked one of three or four things to do, and you worried about what regiment you were assigned to and what clubs you could join, and that was about it. It was all primarily a mechanism to force duels on people, as I recall... (My rules went away over a decade ago, so I can't quote specifics anymore.)

Originally Posted by larsdangly

So, for sure the hobby has come to focus most of its rules for structured play on personal combat, and TFT is mostly in that camp...but not entirely. Even as simple a game as this spent a surprisingly about of its sparse page count on jobs, paying taxes, the difference between play at 1-m and 3-m scales, 20m scale maps, etc. These are really just seeds of a deliberately crafted set of rules for such things, but the idea is there. Of course if you don't like it then don't do it. But I think it is just a better way of playing such games, whatever your core system.

Mixing apples and oranges there a bit -- jobs is not the same as differing play scales, and mixing the two sets of rules to make your case isn't really fair -- it's like saying D&D had 200 pages of roleplaying rules; yes, yes they did, but only about ten of those pages addressed any single specific issue. I can see a couple of pages of rules on jobs, and a couple of pages of rules on game scales (though of note, "1-m and 3-m scales" are really the same scale). In other words, the length of the rules is probably about right, IMHO, though I can see that a ruthless rewrite would make them clearer and tighter...

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

1.33 m/hex with 5 s turns, 4 m/hex with 5 s turns

A minor issue: the distance between two megahex centres isn't three times the distance between hex centres, in fact the ratio is only the square root of 7. (You can calculate this with Pythagoras or just notice that there are 7 hexes in a megahex, answer's the same either way.) So the size of a megahex is about 3.5 metres.

As a consequence: if you're counting hexes instead of megahexes for archery range, and want to impose a penalty of -1 DX every 2 megahexes, it's actually a closer approximation to save -1 DX per 5 hexes than -1 DX per 6 hexes.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

A minor issue: the distance between two megahex centres isn't three times the distance between hex centres, in fact the ratio is only the square root of 7. (You can calculate this with Pythagoras or just notice that there are 7 hexes in a megahex, answer's the same either way.) So the size of a megahex is about 3.5 metres.

As a consequence: if you're counting hexes instead of megahexes for archery range, and want to impose a penalty of -1 DX every 2 megahexes, it's actually a closer approximation to save -1 DX per 5 hexes than -1 DX per 6 hexes.

Or, since I prefer not to perform geometry functions every turn during a game, I can just go with the existing statements in the rules... ;-)

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by JLV

Or, since I prefer not to perform geometry functions every turn during a game

I'm confused, why would this be necessary?

I can just go with the existing statements in the rules... ;-)

"And if congress resolves that pi is equal to four, then by jiminy ..."

[JLV]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I'm confused, why would this be necessary?



"And if congress resolves that pi is equal to four, then by jiminy ..."

Or perhaps we can discuss this principle referred to as KISS...