[General Tabletop gaming] How important is tactical movement to you?

[Proven_Paradox]

Exactly What it Says on the Tin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin). I'm brainstorming for a project I've been wanting to write up for a while--a tabletop conversion of the combat system of Digital Devil Saga's combat--and I find myself wondering how much people would miss combat movement if I were to simply leave it out. No positioning to agonize over, no spell ranges and radii to worry about, just powers and passives. Multi-target spells would simply hit all enemies/<X> enemies, no need to draw shapes to figure out who's hit and so on.

So. Tactical movement. Izzit okay to just scrap it?

Cross-posted over on Myth Weavers--just to prevent any confusion.

[Random832]

Exactly What it Says on the Tin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin). I'm brainstorming for a project I've been wanting to write up for a while--a tabletop conversion of the combat system of Digital Devil Saga's combat--and I find myself wondering how much people would miss combat movement if I were to simply leave it out. No positioning to agonize over, no spell ranges and radii to worry about, just powers and passives. Multi-target spells would simply hit all enemies/<X> enemies, no need to draw shapes to figure out who's hit and so on.

So. Tactical movement. Izzit okay to just scrap it?

Cross-posted over on Myth Weavers--just to prevent any confusion.

Sounds a bit like Final Fantasy - though that at least has a back row / front row system (melee fighters in the front, ranged and casters in the back - except when you abuse the system by putting all your characters in the back at lower levels)

[Duke of URL]

Tactical positioning is as important as the specific game requires. No more, no less.

If you are making a game that says that positioning isn't important, then it isn't. The game rules should be balanced around the fact that tactical positioning isn't important.

In a game system where positioning normally is important, then making it unimportant may involve tweaking other rules for balance reasons, but sometimes, a "dramatic" system is more in line with the style of game than a "tactical" system is.

[Kiero]

Somewhere between "not really" and "not at all".

[valadil]

If you're going to have a battle map at all, tactical movement should be important. In 3.5 it seems like the groups approach each other and then stop and slug it out. This bores me. I'd much rather have a dynamic 4e battlefield.

OTOH, something like WoD which takes the focus off of combat can be just as fun too. I guess my feeling is that if you're going to have a grid, go all out and do it right. But you need to figure out if the grid is important to your game.

[Proven_Paradox]

Sounds a bit like Final Fantasy - though that at least has a back row / front row system (melee fighters in the front, ranged and casters in the back - except when you abuse the system by putting all your characters in the back at lower levels)This system, if I manage to get it, could be used to replicate Final Fantasy battles with a few minor rule tweaks and re-naming techniques. Both games being jRPGs, there are going to be obvious similarities.

[bosssmiley]

On a scale of 1-10? (with 0 being "irrelevant" and 10 being "mandatory")
I'd say about 3.

Non-abstract tactical manoeuvre is nice to have if you want it, but totally not a necessity of play.

Even in a crunchy combat-heavy game like D&D (at least prior to 4E) you can reduce tactical combat to one axis - relative range - and apply all lateral and vertical movement as 'jockeying for position' modifiers to AC, to hit, miss chance, save, etc. Just use the "positive/negative circumstance gives a +/-2 modifier" universal rule.

[Doc Roc]

Incredibly crucial. I won't play systems without support for it, hence my tendency to just be a GM for D&D, rather than a player.

[Epinephrine]

VERY important. Tactical play is a big part of our games.

[oxybe]

i'm usually very wary of a system that doesn't allow me to know where i am in relation to my enemy with some degree of precision.

even if you have a sliding scale of Melee > Reach > Short > Medium > Long you need to apply this to everyone in the action. most of the time you'll be using the first 3, but deciding if Player A is in Melee of monster A & B and Short of C, while player B is within Reach of A but short of B & C, ect... is too much of a hassle for us.

even if it's a quick scrawl with X's and O's on the back of a napkin, knowing where everyone is in relation to each other gets everyone on the same page much faster then asking the DM for the information.

as for "all enemies/X enemies" how do you decide if they are close enough to be targeted? does cover of some sort help?

[TheCountAlucard]

So. Tactical movement. Izzit okay to just scrap it?For my D&D game on Friday, the only tactical movement is when the Warlock wants to apply Point Blank Shot to his Eldritch Blast.

I don't think anybody in the group minds.

[satorian]

Not at all. DnD was more fun to me when we played without any sort of markers. Of course, once 3e came out, it became harder to find games like that. I also dig the oWoD's complete lack of tactical visualization.

[shadzar]

Tactical movement rules are only needed for a miniature wargame.

HeroScape, DDM, Warhammer, Mage Knight, Hero/Horror/Kitchen sink Clix, etc, etc, etc.

Basically games with a board...otherwise known as board games.

Things where you are required to have pieces on the table to show where they are in relation to other pieces.

RPGs, do not require or even need tactical rules, as they never have full advantage of the "board" as it takes place in a three dimensional space that is impossible to represent even with the best (Dwarven Forge, Fat Dragon, etc) 3-D terrain pieces.

It is best for tabletop games where there is a two dimension surface that is all that is taken into account for actual tactical rules to exist since you CAN display fully that 2-D surface to enact the rules upon.

You can still have relative distances without full-blown tactical rules for things involving 3-D spaces because they would be measured and assumed for the range of something. But stepping into the third dimension means any tactical rules would fall apart unless the third dimension is accounted for in all the rules, as well the playing surface.

You can remove all ranges by just simplifying it doen to something keps going until it goes out of sight for all present, or it hits or misses something because after that it doesn't matter.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I find that tactical movement is more important than either tactical movement or tactical movement, which is to say that having the ability to use the environment to your advantage is good but focusing on the minutiae of movement is not.

In other words, if I'm in a cave and we're being attacked by ogres on a ledge above us (for instance), I would expect a couple things: that being underground means the battle will play out differently than if we were aboveground, that the ogres attacking from above has a mechanical meaning and that I could negate the advantage by moving to the same level, that I could do something when an enemy is surrounded that wouldn't work as well if they weren't, etc. However, it shouldn't matter exactly how far you move, it shouldn't require perfect measurements, and movement-qua-movement shouldn't matter except for how it affects other things.

...that probably isn't very clear, so to summarize: If you require a structured system of movement and can't get by with a few marks on a whiteboard and have to have precise measurements instead of "Sure, you're 10-ish feet from the bad guys. Call it 8 or 9 if you want" or movement is irrelevant and characters can move around (or be moved around by others) with impunity, it's too focused on either tactics or movement; a happy medium is best.

[Roderick_BR]

Sounds a bit like Final Fantasy - though that at least has a back row / front row system (melee fighters in the front, ranged and casters in the back - except when you abuse the system by putting all your characters in the back at lower levels)

That. A RPG without tactical movement becomes a JRPG, where the rogue with the dagger can hit anyone in the battle, even if he's in the other side of the room, and casters never need to worry about being hit, even if they are face to face to an enemy, and spends several minutesseconds preparing to cast a spell.
I remember my group didn't care much for it in AD&D, it didn't get much in the way.

[Keld Denar]

I enjoy 2 (well, 3 really, but character building is non-relevant to this thread) different facets of D&D. I enjoy roleplaying, and if I didn't, I'd probably play Warhammer or Mageknight or D&D Minis. I also enjoy tactical combat, though. One of my favorite characters is a FS Conjourer who just loves to teleport. He teleports in combat, and out of combat. He teleports himself, his allies, and sometimes even the bad guys. He lines everyone up in his huge game of chess, and watches as his pawns take the king. I couldn't imaging playing that type of character not on a battlemat. Its just too much effort to have to describe everything when you can just pick up a mini and move it somewhere else.

That said, I've played with a lot of people who can really streamline mini-combat to speed it up. Lots of tools like spell templates that you can leave in place for ongoing effects, tokens with rules printed on them (like, a base for Enlarge Person that says +2 str, -2 dex, -1 hit, -1 AC that covers 4 squares that you can set your 1 square mini on), range finder and LoS miniature bases and all sorts of little things. A magnetic init board also helps keep things progressive. But yea, I really enjoy tactical D&D combat, and I think without it, I would lose a part of the game I really love.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It depends on the game. In 3.5, incredibly - we used to play 3.X without a map or miniatures, but once we started using them there was no going back. In 4E, it's absolutely necessary because of all the powers that work explicitly on the assumption of using the battle grid.

All other games: completely unnecessary. The only games I have that even remotely need tactical movement and battle maps are D&D.

[daggaz]

If you are able to easily exclude tactical movement from your 3.5 DnD game, then your DM is not taking advantage of a huge amount of possibilities that are intrinsic to the combat system, and frankly, you are missing out.

There is a reason that things have reach, movement, and range. Toss in all the other variables like terrain types, cover, lighting, and even the weather, and you have a system that is loaded with a rich complexity waiting to be taken advantage of. Either by the PC's, or those ogres in the cave above.

If I wanted to play a game that removes this, I would play Final Fantasy or one of the RPGs that is heavily story dependant and has little need for mechanical rules. DnD is intrinsically built up around heavy tactical combat, so be prepared to disappoint some of your players if you remove it (not to mention you may very well find it throws things out of "balance.")

Just my two cents.

[valadil]

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever mixed the use of battlemap and verbal combat in a game? Unimportant random encounters could be reduced to verbal descriptions while boss fights or otherwise tactically interesting fights would get a battlemap.

[Keld Denar]

No, but I include an option to push the mop-up button in combat if it looks like the hero's have things well at hand. Not all encounters are created equal, and you can't live life going through noting but EL+3 encounters. Sometimes you get a couple EL-1s or EL+0s and quick application of a small amount of resources is enough to end the encounter without dragging it out for 12 rounds while your Evard's Black Tenticles slowly insert themselves further and further into your unfortunate foes unprotected orifices.

[Proven_Paradox]

Based on response I'm getting from both boards, I fear I have perhaps framed this question poorly. The emphasis here is intended to be on movement rather than tactics; "I try to hit it" will never be what combat would come down to here. One of my major sources of inspiration for how the game would play aside from DDS is DnD 3.5's Tome of Battle, for those familiar with it. Warrior types will have options for several different types of attacks beyond just trying to hit it to do damage. However, position will not be relevant to these decisions.

That's not to say that you can just hit anyone on the battlefield necessarily. I'm still working to get a clear idea of how things will look at the moment--hence my posing this question; this decision is rather pivotal for the game's development--but I fully intend to include methods of redirecting and inhibiting attacks whether I include positional play or not. However, checking information about whether they're within this spell's 30' range or if someone is within the 25' radius of an AoE--something I often find cumbersome in DnD--will not be an issue anymore. Essentially, I'm talking about removing the game grid from the table; this would be played entirely with the rulebook, dice, and character sheets.

For clarity, Digital Devil Saga is a jRPG in many ways similar to Final Fantasy, Dragonquest, and so on. It's part of the Shin Megami Tensei series, which includes Nocturne (Lucifer's Call in Europe) and Persona. DDS's combat system contained a depth that I've yet to see replicated elsewhere, and I'm hoping to capture that for a tabletop.


Also, DnD is a huge part of this system yes, and I will be using 3.5 as a baseline. However, I'm not trying to create the same kind of experience one has when playing DnD 3.5. For that, I'd just play 3.5 after all.

[Doc Roc]

Savage worlds desperately wants to be played on a map of some flavor. All the measurements are, if I remember correctly, actually given in _inches of range_ on a map, allowing you to scale them, etc, to fit your game and the scale of your map.

This, basically, is freaking amazing, like much of savage worlds. Oh, a working cover system? Huh, how odd, I can use my existing tactical dioramas? Man, almost like someone on the design team actually played games. Let me recommend that you consider just making it a savage worlds setting, or something similar. Having built and tested (extensively) two separate RPG systems in the last four years, I can tell you it's more work than its worth unless you plan to use it with tremendous regularity and consistency.

I've gone through more than twenty actual revisions of the core generic system I use, maybe upwards of fifty mostly invisible rebuilds. This is for a ten page document across the course of two and a half years. Serious system building is hard, painful, and fraught with unexpected failure.

[valadil]

Based on response I'm getting from both boards, I fear I have perhaps framed this question poorly. The emphasis here is intended to be on movement rather than tactics; "I try to hit it" will never be what combat would come down to here. One of my major sources of inspiration for how the game would play aside from DDS is DnD 3.5's Tome of Battle, for those familiar with it. Warrior types will have options for several different types of attacks beyond just trying to hit it to do damage. However, position will not be relevant to these decisions.


I think you may have to be a little more explicit with what you're going for.

I like movement on the battlefield. It helps make the fight dynamic. Each turn you should have to re-evaluate the situation and find a new course of action.

I'm working on a game right now too. One of the ideas I'm playing with is to treat move and attack as separate actions that won't take place in the same turn. I've also included some options for pushing your enemies around the board. I'm hoping that this has the effect of making pushing enemies more valuable as it will eat up their actions. But I have yet to playtest it, so we'll see how that works it.

[Tengu_temp]

I generally don't care much for tactical movement - the only game where I put more accent on it is DND 4e, because it's an important part of that game's mechanics and not doing so would be unfair for the characters that specialize in it. In other games it's much less specific - players and NPCs can hide behind covers and use the terrain to their advantage in other ways, and I keep track on who is close to who for AoE attacks, but that's pretty much all of it.

[Talya]

Exactly What it Says on the Tin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin). I'm brainstorming for a project I've been wanting to write up for a while--a tabletop conversion of the combat system of Digital Devil Saga's combat--and I find myself wondering how much people would miss combat movement if I were to simply leave it out. No positioning to agonize over, no spell ranges and radii to worry about, just powers and passives. Multi-target spells would simply hit all enemies/<X> enemies, no need to draw shapes to figure out who's hit and so on.

So. Tactical movement. Izzit okay to just scrap it?

Cross-posted over on Myth Weavers--just to prevent any confusion.


I hate it and tried to leave it out, but my players always pushed for more positional and tactical detail once combat began. I've got a few players determined to do stuff that the rules do not describe, trying to look "innovative." (Listen, guys, this ain't exalted! I'm not giving you stunt dice!) As a player, I roleplay for the roleplaying. Combat is something I want to be good at but not have to think about.

[Tengu_temp]

I've got a few players determined to do stuff that the rules do not describe, trying to look "innovative." (Listen, guys, this ain't exalted! I'm not giving you stunt dice!) As a player, I roleplay for the roleplaying. Combat is something I want to be good at but not have to think about.

Why do you treat combat and roleplaying as separate, disattached things? Doing innovative maneuvers during battle and talking with the enemies makes it much more interesting and memorable. And what exactly is bad in giving players bonuses for cool actions?

[Knaight]

I don't particularly like a tactical, turn based, grid based movement system, as it simulates multiple people moving simultaneously in different directions with others trying to intercept them poorly, which is what would really be happening with a bunch of people in melee. That said, I do like the ability to take advantage of terrain.

To make things simple, basically one would describe the battle field. Then people might go up against a wall(limits the number of attackers), in a doorway(further limits the number of attackers), in front of an archer with another friend(both limits the number of effective attackers on an individual and protects the archer), etc. This gets added to when there are things in a room, or in an outdoor environment with trees and hills and such, or any number of other places. Plus all the movement could be resolved simultaneously, without a map.

I would look into Fate if I were you, particularly the part about Zones and Room aspects. It seems like a good reference for what your going for.

[Morty]

And what exactly is bad in giving players bonuses for cool actions?

Because if something looks "cool" doesn't mean it should be for some reason more effective?
Myself, I'm perfectly indifferent to tactical movement. I like to know exactly where everyone is on the battlefield, which is why I like to use grid - I have a horrible spatial memory and descriptions just don't cut it - but I don't require meticulous square by square positioning a la D&D. I don't mind it either, though.

[Tengu_temp]

Because if something looks "cool" doesn't mean it should be for some reason more effective?

This depends on whether you want a game with a more realistic or cinematic feel to it. I prefer the latter, but even in the former it is possible to describe your actions in ways that can grant bonuses - you just put accent on clever and efficient rather than flashy.

Giving bonuses for interesting actions encourages players describing their actions in combat. Giving penalties for interesting actions ("sure, you can flip over the enemy and slash him in mid-air - if you roll enough on Athletics, and take -2 to attack roll") encourages boring "I hit the guy" descriptions. Which ones do you prefer?

[Talya]

I like Exalted. I'm just not playing it in D&D. :p

[Tsotha-lanti]

I should probably bring this up: the best, most tactical RPG combat system there is is the one in The Riddle of Steel, and it includes absolutely no tactical movement or positioning. There's only two kinds of "proximity" - relative weapon reach (having a longer weapon is an advantage until your opponent hits you and gets inside your reach, at which point it's a disadvantage), and whether you're engaged with someone or not. You can make Terrain Rolls, devoting dice from your pool to trying to avoid enemies or perform neat tricks, and you can attempt Evasions (dodging and retreating) to avoid your enemy or break from combat.

I really recommend checking it out if you can find it. The way the dice pools, combat action order, and maneuvers work, it's incredibly tactical and incredibly realistic (my players got into it very fast, and loved it; they immediately started making use of feinting - and then started preparing for enemy feints - and moves like beats or expulsions).

[Epinephrine]

Movement is just as important. Use of terrain, battlefield control, flanking, blocking hallways - these are all very important to my group(s).

[Doc Roc]

I like Exalted. I'm just not playing it in D&D. :p

I love playing Exalted in D&D* but hate Exalted. How deeply ironic. :)

[Morty]

This depends on whether you want a game with a more realistic or cinematic feel to it. I prefer the latter, but even in the former it is possible to describe your actions in ways that can grant bonuses - you just put accent on clever and efficient rather than flashy.

Those are two entirely different things. I'm all for rewarding cleverness in combat and in challenging situations in general. But not flashiness.


Giving bonuses for interesting actions encourages players describing their actions in combat. Giving penalties for interesting actions ("sure, you can flip over the enemy and slash him in mid-air - if you roll enough on Athletics, and take -2 to attack roll") encourages boring "I hit the guy" descriptions. Which ones do you prefer?

I'm not a fan of mechanical encouragement to roleplaying. If a player isn't inclined towards roleplaying, mechanical bonuses won't force him to do it. And besides, it penalizes players who are good roleplayers, but don't have a knack for "cool" combat descriptions. Now, as I said above, rewarding players for coming up with clever solutions is entirely different thing. I'm in favor of it, provided they're actual ideas rather than "I back-flip and slash the guy 'cause that looks cool".

[Eurantien]

About the only proble with this would be things like how you work out who you can fight hand-to-hand. You don't really want all the enemies in your encounter simultaneously attacking your wizard or cleric.

[valadil]

I'm hesitant to reward flashy descriptions with mechanical bonuses. I worry that my players will learn that evoking a certain phrase always gives them +2 to hit or free passage through threatened squares. Realistically it doesn't make sense to only give out a reward the first time the players invent a maneuver ("but the backflip got a bonus last time, why doesn't it get +1 damage now?") but it also isn't balanced to give them the bonus every time they make an attack.

The compromise I've come up with is to reward descriptive players with more description. Usually the person trying to backflip into position is the one who wants to look cool. I try to work with their description (players like it a lot when you use things they made up) and incorporate that into the next couple rounds of action. This doesn't always work, but it's something. It also keeps the flashy moves to the characters who are into them instead of the powergamer who is fishing for a +1.

[Tsotha-lanti]

About the only proble with this would be things like how you work out who you can fight hand-to-hand. You don't really want all the enemies in your encounter simultaneously attacking your wizard or cleric.

Never been an issue. Everything is done by description. "I stay between the wolf and the girl." "I block the doorway." "I stay near the wizard and try to get in front of any enemies going for her." If there's some kind of conflict or uncertainty, you roll some dice.

[Comet]

Moving miniatures around has always been my least favourite part of D&D. I prefer to keep the roleplaying in my head. This is why I usually tend to favour other systems than D&D (tho 3.5 can be played rather well without miniatures).

On another note, a roleplaying game based on Digital Devil Saga sounds completely awesome.
And of course, what I most admire about a good RPG system is how faithful it is to it's chosen genre/Style of play. Your project sounds like it does not need tactical combat at all, just cinematic description.

[Yora]

I try to avoid using markers if possible. With 4 PCs and 2 monsters, you can remember all the important details.

The fighter and the rogue are in meele with the ogre, while the wizard stays back and the cleric is holding three goblins at bay at a doorway. The ogre has to move to attack the wizard, so he'd get AoOed by the fighter and rogue. Fighter and rogue are both flanking the ogre and the goblins can't get in unless they move through the clerics square. The room is small enough, so the cleric could move up to the ogre and attack in one round without problems. As the goblins are in a hallway, they can't make range attacks on the wizard.
It's pretty simple.

For more complex situations, I just put some markers on the table, but I don't count sqaures or distances or bother for exact line and area of effect. A fireball just affects the whole kitchen or just the area around the front door of the throne room.
I hate playing RPGs as tabletop-wargames.

[Winterwind]

In our groups, we never play with any sort of grid - we run purely on descriptions ("somewhere to your left, you see the orc fighting with X, while on your right, slightly farther away, another orc is engaged with Y...") and estimations of how long it will take to reach any location ("to get to where X is fighting with the orc, so you can help him, you will need two rounds. Roll for [insert whatever is appropriate in system at hand here]. Success? Okay, you manage to reach them in just one.").

And I wouldn't ever want it differently. The characters do not have a clear tactical overview, and this is about the decisions the characters make, not chess; I'd consider a board disruptive for immersion and imagination, and wouldn't want to shift the focus too much from mood and personal character decisions in the heat of combat to a strategy game detached from all that.

In other words, to me, tactical movement is not only not important, but in fact detrimental.

[Saph]

I've played both with tactical movement and without. For several years my old groups played without it, just using quickly scribbled maps. Then for a few years more my new groups used a battle mat and dry-erase markers.

My conclusion?

Using tactical movement and a map and miniatures is SO much better. All of a sudden, there were no arguments over where everyone was, no "Wait, I thought X was over there and Y was over here". It takes a lot of pressure off the GM and allows players to work stuff out without having to bug the GM with constant questions.

- Saph

[Tsotha-lanti]

Sue me if this was touched on already, but there are also types of games where using a battle map would detract from the game hugely. For instance, I never understood the existence of official Call of Cthulhu miniatures for two reasons: first, the point of the monsters is that they're indescribable, and almost all the depictions just end up looking like B-movie special effects: second, miniatures and battle maps distract immensely from the horror and immersion.

This is basically true of all horror games and settings, including D&D ones like Ravenloft: tactical movement and tactical decisions are contrary to the whole point of playing horror, where you should be bewildered, making snap decisions, choosing what feels safest over what is smartest.

Similarly, I can't really imagine using battle grids in White Wolf games. HeroQuest has no concept of movement rates (beyond the chance to have skills like Run, Fast, or Run Like the Wind, which are measured and used similarly to every other skill in the entire game, and could be pitted against someone's Orate, Boast, Big, or Huge Muscles skills), much less distances in combat.

Using grids for Mutants & Masterminds would be ridiculous; it's easy to create a fairly low-powered character who could run around the world in one turn, and you could easily punch an enemy so hard they hurtle five hundred feet and crash through an office block.

[Saph]

Using grids for Mutants & Masterminds would be ridiculous; it's easy to create a fairly low-powered character who could run around the world in one turn, and you could easily punch an enemy so hard they hurtle five hundred feet and crash through an office block.

We used a grid for our M&M game, and found it was fairly useful. Remember, you still have AoE effects, and figuring out who's in the blast radius is important.

- Saph

[erikun]

Yes, you can remove tactical movement from D&D. However, I think the biggest problem you'll find with your system is that several otherwise intituitive actions stop making sense.

The first, and most obvious is flanking: where does the rogue go to flank someone? What does the fighter do to get away from the troll trying to grab him? How does the wizard move around to ensure that the bugbears don't interrupt his spellcasting? Where does the cleric need to be to ensure he can heal any wounded teammates, without monster interferance?

Grappling is an especially wierd one, because you'd expect someone attacking the grappler would hit either person. Yet in this system, it makes the most sense to charge into the middle of a group, grapple one enemy, then smash several bottles of alchemist fire over your opponent's head. Everyone around them takes damage, but the PC is fine?

What's to stop the fighter from walking past the minions, and throwing the BBEG into a fireplace? What's to stop the giant from marching past the rest of the PCs to step on the wizard? Why would a Fireball hit everything surrounding the fighter, but leave the fighter in place.

Other spells cause subtle but even more usual situations. Grease. Sleet Storm. Wall of Fire. Heck, Wall of Fire will give you no end to headaches - when is an enemy in or out of the Wall? Can the PCs repeatedly hide behind it? Can they force enemies to stay in the damaging area, preventing them from leaving? Can they grapple an enemy and shove them into the wall?

Some issues may seem obvious to resolve, but others not so much - if a wizard ducks behind a wall and a fighter is attacking a kobold, can he grab a second kobold going after the wizard? If so, what's to stop him from doing it every time? Is he just lucky enough to be standing in range of every enemy who tries to go after the wizard?

[infinitypanda]

-SNIP- The Riddle of Steel -SNIP-

I agree. TRoS is one of my all-time favorite systems, for reasons similar to what you've said.

On a slightly unrelated note, I run 4e without a battlemat and my players don't really mind at all. And they still use sliding powers to great effect as well, as long as everyone knows in general where enemies are. Having a battlemat makes me feel like I'm playing Warhammer, or some other competitive game. But maybe that's just me.

[Proven_Paradox]

Keep it coming, I'm taking notes. One thing I want to touch on...

On another note, a roleplaying game based on Digital Devil Saga sounds completely awesome.
And of course, what I most admire about a good RPG system is how faithful it is to it's chosen genre/Style of play. Your project sounds like it does not need tactical combat at all, just cinematic description.I'm glad to see someone else who likes the game, but I must say that I completely and wholly disagree with the sentiment of your second paragraph. Combat in DDS was not terribly cinematic (the more impressive boss attacks aside); part of what I want to do with this system is capture the tactical depth combat in this game had; it deeply impressed me and I've yet to see its match. And there was no concept of position at all, the battle with Varin Omega/Beck/Ravana aside.

[rampaging-poet]

The major purpose of tactical movement is to show a) ranges between any two combatants and b) their positions relative to any terrain features such as bridges, pillars, pits, and giant pools of lava. It's possible to do all that without tactical movement, but difficult. If you think you'll need to know that kind of stuff on a relative basis and with many creatures on the field (party of four attacked by a pack of seven ghouls, for example) over different ranges, you'll probably want some form of tactical movement.

This has also reminded be of a thread on another board that proposed a bit of a comprimise: PhoneLobster's Big Fat Squares (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=39406). The idea wasn't well received, mostly because nobody thought non-standardized squares could have any purpose, but it does have its merits.
The gist of the idea is having big zones, each of which is a terrain feature. For example, there might be some open zones, several pillar zones, a row of chasm zones, and a bridge zone that crosses the chasm. You keep track of which zone a character is in, but you don't care about where they are in the zone. Two characters in the same zone can engage in melee combat, and ranged abilities have a reach of one or more zones. This way, one can easily see where everyone is without having to track every five feet of movement.

[Pronounceable]

Slightly to none.

[Fishy]

What's important is a system that gives players interesting options. For Fighter-y types in D&D, their options consist of "Who do I attack, and how much do I Power Attack for?" Tactical movement makes those choices meaningful- take that away, and you're left with "I kill an orc." (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1098)

On the other hand, in Digital Devils, Final Fantasy, Pokemon and suchlike, 'who' you attack is pretty much decided for you, and your options are how you attack it, which is hopefully in a variety of interesting ways. There, tactical movement is basically meaningless.

So... yeah.

[huttj509]

How important tactical movement in combat is to your system depends on the system, its features, and focuses.

If you have any incentive to have characters fight in melee, I think it's important. More on that later. It might instead be firearm-heavy, where things like "I duck behind the couch" can work fine, without fine details, or combat might more frequently be something you want to avoid, like Shadowrun can be (I'd say tends to be, but I don't know how others do Shadowrun, the combat tends to be rather dangerous in my experience, and you more want to be fighting your way along while trying to get somewhere rather than fighting just to fight), or it might be a system geared more towards investigation, discovery of cosmic truths, and trying to retain your sanity as you realize humanity doesn't even come up to the level of pawns in some cosmic goings on, we're just bystanders, at best we're natural resources to be used by the real participants (Ah, Lovecraftian horror).

With melee combat, you start getting into situations where the player asks "can I move to occupy both of these enemies?" From what I remember over the years with DnD, even in ADnD it was useful for the DM to have a general sketch of who was where in order to keep track of who could reach whom when. Eventually the system moved solidly towards making that sketch more detailed, and bringing it in front of the DM screen in order to make things more easily understood and avoid confusion (not every DM is really as clear as they could be in who can reach whom, the layout of the room, and this can lead to the players thinking something's viable when it really isn't). I think it was around DnD 3E when the readily visible battle grid became more recommended or assumed (though not required). 4E enhanced the assumption, and I think either explicitly or implicitly turned it into a requirement for combat. What started as more of a tool of convenience has become, with its increased visibility, a center of focus (for both designers, and players, in varying degrees). DnD 4E is not just a miniatures wargame, but since the assumptions of minis for combat and the battlemat were stated, and visible, it's easy for people to focus on those well defined aspects and forget there's more to the system.

If you do not want to have a tactical movement experience frequently in the game, the thing to do is define what the focus of the game is. Then you can form the mechanics AROUND the focus, rather than trying to match up a focus and mechanics which may not work together. From what I have heard, for example, Exalted does not have much need for "detailed" tactical movement. I theorize that this is because the focus is more on the player descriptions of what happens, rather than on what can be done, which the player then uses to describe the result (while in ADnD you could describe the attack however you like in general, it had the same mechanical effect, in general, no bonus points for describing it as striking forth towards a weak spot in the armor, unless you had the ability to sneak attack, while Exalted I hear gives bonus stuff for neat descriptions).

If the focus of the game is on infiltration, where combat is supposed to be so dangerous you want to avoid it when you can (and have guns when you fail to avoid it), you won't need miniature-type combat in general. If the focus is on hand to hand fighting, where you can give bonuses by flanking an enemy, hit them when they move away from you, and fireball only half the room (but which half? Who was in that area?), I think tactical movement miniature style combat is much less avoidable in the end.