GGambrel

2014-06-21, 10:05 AM

So like many others before me, I am working on my own TTRPG system. I'm pretty happy with the base mechanics, though I need to flesh things out a bit (read: a lot) before I consider it ready to share. One of the things that I'm wrestling with is the kind of grid (or lack thereof) I should use. I've read a fair amount of the relevant literature around the internet and done some calculations of my own, but I keep going back and forth on what I want to use. I'm hoping that you all can help me to determine a suitable way of doing things, and let me know if one of my solutions is too tedious to bother with.

Squares

Pros: easier to fit inside conventional floor layouts, easier for many to grasp, Cartesian coordinates

Cons: diagonals are sqrt(2)x as long a step as squares sharing an edge

Sol: treat diagonals as 1.5 (with fractional movement values or alternating between 1 and 2)

Hexagons

Pros: 6 spaces one unit away, easier for "organic" maps, hexagons spreads are naturally more circular than those of squares

Cons: either East-West travel or North-South travel (depending upon layout) will cost 2 spaces instead of sqrt(3)

Sol: ignore the problem, treat these "diagonals" as 1.75 (similar to the way done for squares)

Measurements

Pros: freedom of movement in any desired direction without distortion

Cons: human error, everything must be to scale, anisotropic penalties to movement (such as different terrain) may be harder to handle, may be slower

Sols: ?

Confession: I've never used a grid-less system to actually move miniatures

Note: I desire well-defined movement rules and the use of maps for my game, so I have omitted the option of simply describing where characters go relative to others.

As of right now, I think either squares or hexagons could be fine so long as suitable solutions for diagonal movement are used. I imagine many of you are comfortable with the alternating approach used in D&D 3.5, treating diagonals as 1.5 spaces effectively. My system allows fractional movement if players desire doing so, so I'd probably just count each as 1.5. However, weapon attack distances might work better with hexagons as I intend to have 3 melee weapon ranges instead of the 2 in D&D, making diagonals kind of weird (Is my opponent in range along the diagonal? Am I?).

With hexagons, implementing a "diagonal" rule is less trivial though. One possibility I'm considering is that each time a character zig-zags between two hexes (in an unobstructed way) they add 0.25 to their movement for the duration of the turn, treating the sqrt(3) movement as 1.75. So every 4 times they did so, they could move an additional hex. If they didn't zig-zag 4 times, then my rules for fractional movement could come into play (if the players desired).

Which do you prefer, squares, hexagons, or something else (offset squares count as hexagons in my mind)? How does the idea of adding 0.25 or subtracting 1.50 from movement values during movement sound to you? Is it needlessly complicated for hexagonal spaces? Do you think anyone would bother?

Thank you for your input! :smallsmile:

Squares

Pros: easier to fit inside conventional floor layouts, easier for many to grasp, Cartesian coordinates

Cons: diagonals are sqrt(2)x as long a step as squares sharing an edge

Sol: treat diagonals as 1.5 (with fractional movement values or alternating between 1 and 2)

Hexagons

Pros: 6 spaces one unit away, easier for "organic" maps, hexagons spreads are naturally more circular than those of squares

Cons: either East-West travel or North-South travel (depending upon layout) will cost 2 spaces instead of sqrt(3)

Sol: ignore the problem, treat these "diagonals" as 1.75 (similar to the way done for squares)

Measurements

Pros: freedom of movement in any desired direction without distortion

Cons: human error, everything must be to scale, anisotropic penalties to movement (such as different terrain) may be harder to handle, may be slower

Sols: ?

Confession: I've never used a grid-less system to actually move miniatures

Note: I desire well-defined movement rules and the use of maps for my game, so I have omitted the option of simply describing where characters go relative to others.

As of right now, I think either squares or hexagons could be fine so long as suitable solutions for diagonal movement are used. I imagine many of you are comfortable with the alternating approach used in D&D 3.5, treating diagonals as 1.5 spaces effectively. My system allows fractional movement if players desire doing so, so I'd probably just count each as 1.5. However, weapon attack distances might work better with hexagons as I intend to have 3 melee weapon ranges instead of the 2 in D&D, making diagonals kind of weird (Is my opponent in range along the diagonal? Am I?).

With hexagons, implementing a "diagonal" rule is less trivial though. One possibility I'm considering is that each time a character zig-zags between two hexes (in an unobstructed way) they add 0.25 to their movement for the duration of the turn, treating the sqrt(3) movement as 1.75. So every 4 times they did so, they could move an additional hex. If they didn't zig-zag 4 times, then my rules for fractional movement could come into play (if the players desired).

Which do you prefer, squares, hexagons, or something else (offset squares count as hexagons in my mind)? How does the idea of adding 0.25 or subtracting 1.50 from movement values during movement sound to you? Is it needlessly complicated for hexagonal spaces? Do you think anyone would bother?

Thank you for your input! :smallsmile: