Abstraction & Movement
In the
recent online discussion of monster design, partially inspired by my Trick
Monster post earlier this week, I’ve crystalized a few of my views on designing
monsters for the type of battlemap free OD&D I prefer. I find trying to use exact positioning and even
calculated missile range hard to do in the context of an active game. Early D&D shows its wargame roots though,
adopting distances and strict movement ranges without examining these choices. These rules have always frustrated me, and
like many others I’ve largely ignored them. The issue then is how to better
make use of the abstract elements and to create the same sort of tactical
considerations and tensions without any sort of concrete or empirical spatial
considerations.
Specifically,
I want to look at rules for two kinds of special attackers that are extremely
dangerous and should likely be treated similarly, Dragon Breath weapons and
artillery (or any kind of heavy siege weapon really).
Range
 |
| Goya, Disasters of War I Think. |
The first
consideration is range, as there needs to be some consideration for range to
keep tactical options open, but breaking it into broad classifications is
better for my goals than tracking combat movement. This treatment of rsnge may seem cursory and makes closing
range easy, but given that the majority of D&D combat happens in poorly lit
mazes of 10’ wide stone corridors I think it will serve.
Range should be
determined by movement and in an abstract tabletop game combat movement is
really only important in attempting to flank, charge, and most important for
retreat. I think a simplification (one I
am undoubtedly stealing from someone) of movement into a value from 1-6 and
treating it similarly to a specialist skill for difficult combat movement,
while using opposed rolls for flight, is appropriate. Since the unarmored D&D human, or at
least most humanoid monsters in the old monster manual, seem to have a movement
rate of 40’, setting ‘movement’ at 4 of 6 seems about right. Being encumbered
or wearing armor one lacks skill in using reduces movement by ‘1’ point per
level of armor (light, medium, heavy) or based on the level of encumbrance. Thus a magic-user wearing plate armor has a
movement of 1, meaning they move very slowly.
Movement works
two ways, first in combat and second in pursuit. My range categories (below) consists of five
basic combat ranges (Grappling, Melee, Short, Medium and Long) and it takes a
movement value of 2 to close one increment of range, or to attack (though
attack ends any movement). Likewise most
actions take 2 movement points (swapping weapons or removing something from a
pack for example) Charging allows an attack at the end of a full movement
(meaning an attacker can charge from medium range to attack with associated
penalties and bonuses). Unless someone
is actively trying to impede this movement in combat or the movement is tricky
(pushing past allies into the front line) there’s no need to roll, but if there
is a doubt about the viability of the movement a roll on a 1D6 under the movement
value should suffice. The reason I am
simplifying movement to this extent isn’t just practicality, it’s because
removing specific distances creates abstraction and should help with arguments
about what a ‘real’ character could or couldn’t do, in the same way the
abstraction of hit points decreases the number of arguments about character
injury and death.
I think
this simplified movement will work well in pursuit scenarios, as the runner and
the pursuer can each roll a movement check on a D6 and the amount of success or
failure creates a number representing distance gained or lost between the pair
in that round of flight.
