Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Mahlkihl on <12-12-13/1427:50>
-
Okay, I'm new to GMing Shadowrun.For Dungeons and Dragons battles I used models on a game mat, the square sides with lots of squares.
We used the rule that every square represented a 5x5ft area.
If I use this grid mat with Shadowrun what should the squares represent during combat?
-
Depending on the size of the squares and the size of the map, I'd go anywhere between 1m and 5m per square. Keep in mind a fight will normally happen within 30m at best, only big fights take place at a range past that. A city block is somewhere around 100mx200m.
-
Let me try to ask this again.
Does anyone have a general rule for movement squares during combat on a game mat?
-
If you insist on pinning me down on a number without any further info, I'd go with 2m. Movement allowance, Sprinting for Trolls/Dwarves aside, is in multiples of 2m. This also lets you fit a drawing of a decent 30m-wide area in a not-too-massive part of the map. It wouldn't work with big tactical battles, but as general rule it may suffice provided you meet enough of the unlisted variables.
-
The "general" rule is "whatever works for you".
-
Thank you.
-
Honestly though, it depends on the size of the map, size of the grid-squares, size of your figures/miniatures, what kind of maps you're dealing with, weapon range, group tactics and more factors.
-
You shouldn't let yourself be too limited by your map scale, though. The fact is, a lot of common weapons (rifles, whether assault or sniper) can shoot quite a bit farther than your maps might allow. You can deal with this by having some combats take place at a different map scale (5 or even 10 meters per square in extreme cases), or by taking a "mind's eye theater" approach to long range conflicts. Just don't let your maps steal away the advantages of long-range weapons (as well as spells, since all they require is line of sight).
-
I feel like the big thing is going from DnD's imperial to Shadowrun's metric. I got a large pad of grid paper for use since I'm also used to grid gameplay, but I think something good to do in that case would be to do up the layout of a floor, and whenever you get into combat, "zoom in" on the area by redrawing the specific scene, without most of the surrounding rooms that won't come into play.
-
For the record, I am very glad that SR5 does not include rules for playing on a grid.
-
A bit off topic, but I though I'd mention I'm running the Brackhaven Investments part of Splintered State this Wednesday using Roll20.net. I decided I did not want to draw out the entire 10th floor by hand (not to mention keeping track of where the guards are, etc). I'll let you all know how it goes.
-
For the record, I am very glad that SR5 does not include rules for playing on a grid.
While I fully support your play preference, the problem with not including them is twofold.
1. It totally disregards the contingent of players that prefer a grid, and
2. It is far easier to disregard the grid rules for abstract playstyles, than it is to create detailed movement rules for a grid.
This is not a question of right or wrong, but rather a question of game system flexibility.
-
A non-grid system is more realistic. While yes, it means you can't as easily determine distances covered, it means you don't get nonsense movement where moving in way X lets you cover a different distance than way Y.
-
This is not a question of right or wrong, but rather a question of game system flexibility.
No, it is a question of genre. If you're playing a board game, you use a board. If you're playing a war game, you use a table. If you're playing a roleplaying game, you don't need to use a board or a wargaming table.
That is the point of a roleplaying game as opposed to war game or a board game. The only difference is that lately, a lot of board and war games have been released calling themselves roleplaying games which has confused newer players to the hobby into wondering why every other roleplaying game doesn't include board and war gaming rules by default.
-
I find that providing my players with a map and letting them put tokens or markers down helps them with visualization. But that's not always necessary, because this is a roleplaying game that requires the players to use their imaginations. Too much reliance can be placed on props, handouts, and maps. But in some cases it's particularly useful. Determining that the team has split up for example, can make using a map a lot easier for all of us.
-
This is not a question of right or wrong, but rather a question of game system flexibility.
No, it is a question of genre. If you're playing a board game, you use a board. If you're playing a war game, you use a table. If you're playing a roleplaying game, you don't need to use a board or a wargaming table.
That is the point of a roleplaying game as opposed to war game or a board game. The only difference is that lately, a lot of board and war games have been released calling themselves roleplaying games which has confused newer players to the hobby into wondering why every other roleplaying game doesn't include board and war gaming rules by default.
[/quote
I respectfully disagree with your opinion. A good RPG has a strong element of story to support the roleplay aspect backed by a solid ruleset to determince success, failure, and to support play/gm visulization. In many cases this visulization requires a grid/hex based movement system. It seems that you and I are blessed with capable visulization skills, unfortunately not everyone is, and I think a system should cater to the widest cross section possible in order to promote the game. I am of the opinion that RPGs have evolved into this hybrid model and that is a good thing unless the ruleset forces the use of the tabletop to make it functional. Most of the Good RPGs that come to mind can still be played abstractly, but have strong tabletop rules as well. Best of both worlds and a win/win in my book.