PDA

View Full Version : Non-Tactical Movement



Darkdreamer
11-19-2014, 06:18 PM
Is there any discussion of daily movement or the like anywhere in the books? Since my Korcari Wilds game will involve a lot of slogging around over hill and marsh, I need to either have or come up with some rules regarding how far people can move in a day.

Red Eye
11-19-2014, 07:20 PM
This is a good point, and I think something I will probably try to tackle before I start my campaign. There are a few movement related aspects that I think could use some further clarification - overland travel (walking, horse, cart), jumping, climbing, swimming, and running - that could probably stand for a little House Rule supplement on my part.

Obviously a major consideration for most characters will need to come from Speed, and will need to cover distance and trying to push oneself to their limit to get more out of it with potential consequence. I'll probably actually take a stab at this after I finish off the Random Pickpocket system I am working on right now, Diseases will have to take a back seat for a bit as this is a more practical system to build.

Darkdreamer
11-20-2014, 08:40 AM
Its not the first game I've seen that was sloppy about discussing overland travel, but its always a little annoying; this isn't always something that can just be handwaved to "needs of the story" and can use some consistency.

As an aside, I'm not sure Speed is the best thing to base it on; travel time tends to turn much more on endurance than pace, honestly, and the distance someone can cover in tactical terms doesn't directly relate to maintained travel time. Its not tidy, of course.

Red Eye
11-20-2014, 09:33 AM
Well, here is why I was thinking of Speed as the initial basis. The Speed rating tends to be the comfortable moving pace, or essentially the pace one can continuously move without much effort or exertion. Now, when we move into things like running, swimming, jumping, climbing, and forced marches we should start looking at Constitution. Basically, Speed would give us a common point to start from, and allow us to set a travel speed that is reasonable and not require players to make any unneeded checks ("We walk at a normal pace to Lothering" to which the GM can simply calculate the distance, divide by the slowest party member Speed, and we now have number of days of travel - unless they want to slip in a random encounter roll and such).

Now, as we get into some of those other options, we would need to take some more things into consideration and the players would need to be making some checks for us (that stuff requires more than a declaration of "we go there"). What I am inclined to try and push for there is to have it all come down to Basic Tests to help keep things simple and moving along quickly (after all, travel is not the exciting or fun part of the game, so we want a little realism but not to have this area of the game get bogged down and bore the players). Anyways, that is my thought process on it right now.

shonuff
11-20-2014, 03:11 PM
If you based it on a stat, I'd use CON. Or you could just say traveling speed is 2-3 mph on normal ground, especially if you didn't want to be fatigued. In my younger (more athletic) days I hiked 20 miles in a day, with extreme elevation changes and a good deal of broken ground, but that sucked!

I know horses can travel 20-25 miles in a day fairly regularly but that's over even terrain.

Darkdreamer
11-20-2014, 10:04 PM
I was considering something much like that; the numbers they used in Runequest years ago always seemed more or less reasonable, and those were 30 km a day on foot, or 40 km a day on horseback, again, assuming flat terrain; needless to say, you need to adjust even for hilly terrain, let alone things like mountains or swamps. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't reinventing the wheel.

eliastion
11-21-2014, 02:06 AM
One additional problem with speed stat is that it seems... strangely off in some imporatnt bestiary entries as well as when it concernes PC. Mule has speed of 10 - less than average (dex 1) human. Draft horse according to the stat block has 8 - appropriate for kinda slow (Dex 0 dwarf). On the other hand we have high-level rogues, quite likely to have Dexterity of, say, 7. Should we really assume that such a character, being an elf (speed 12+7 = 19) should be faster in both running and traveling if he decides to leave any steed he could have in home?

Basically, the speed stat is one of weaker points in the game and possibly requires heavy houseruling as it is - I don't thing it would be wise to rely on it where it's not necessary.
What would possibly be much better solution would be determining some more general "travel speeds" for common modes of transportation, say "fast mount", "slow mount", fast cart", "walking", "slow cart" - combine it in a grid with some descriptive types of terrain like (its just example of classification crated while writing this post, so it may have serious flaws ;) ) "ideal: Imperial Highway-grade", "good: average traderoute", "average: roadless flatlands/poor roads", "poor: hills", "terrible: wetlands, forest", "abysmal: high mountains, jungle, swamp".
Such table would be both quite general and helpful, I think. Possibly a note would be that some modes of transportation can't pass at all in terrain bad enough (the only type of cart I can see crossing heavy forest or mountain range without proper roads leading through would be an aravel drafted by halla and assisted by some awesome off-screen keeper magic).

Red Eye
11-21-2014, 10:57 AM
Well, if we want to go super simplistic for this (which is fine and in spirit with the core rules), and without making it all nicely formatted yet, we could run something like this:

Overland Travel
The character will be able to walk at a rate of roughly 3 mph when they are not encumbered (minimal gear, no armor or large weapons, namely clothing and such). They would also be able to walk for 8 hours of the day (the rest of the time would be spent on breaks, setting up and taking down camp, sleeping, etc). If a character is encumbered (geared up and hauling stuff) they will move at a rate of roughly 1 1/2 mph over the same time frame. This will equate to getting 12 miles when encumbered and 24 miles when not encumbered in a single day on foot. A character can choose to do a Forced March and push on for more than 8 hours in the day. Each additional hour they walk they must make a Constitution (Stamina) test at a TN of 11 for the first hour, and +2 to the TN each additional hour. If the character fails the test they take 1D6 penetrating damage (no armor reduction) in Health Damage to represent the fatigue of pushing themselves (since Health is so abstract in DA).

We would want to make some modification based on the type of terrain and such, so we could say a road has no penalty (obviously), and then modify accordingly for different types of terrain and circumstances of travel (trail or trackless lands). These could be handled in a biome type of concept. Additionall, we would need to apply some details for different animals, all of which I could easily abstract from such a base component. I'll try and work this up tonight after work, lunch break is over so I will have to leave it there for now

Red Eye
11-21-2014, 08:18 PM
And posted in my House Rules thread. Feel free to look it over, modify it as you see fit, and apply it to your games. Should be a good enough framework to mod.

eliastion
11-23-2014, 12:04 AM
Your rules won't work well with forced march. Healing is easy and reliable and health pools are vast - I'd say there is a need for some other punishment (instead or in combination with health loss - and also it should be health loss since penetrating damage can be reduced by armor in case of armor masters... which is stupid but oh well). Possibilities that come to mind would be a penalty to all checks or reduction of breather - or even healing of any kind - effectiveness. And those penalties should probably go away gradually so a week of forced marching 16 hours a day, day after day, would be pretty much crippling and require more than one night of proper rest to recover.
Basically, if we want to create actual rules for straining oneself by traveling faster, such rules would probably need a bit more consideration.

Red Eye
11-23-2014, 12:44 AM
Your rules won't work well with forced march. Healing is easy and reliable and health pools are vast - I'd say there is a need for some other punishment (instead or in combination with health loss - and also it should be health loss since penetrating damage can be reduced by armor in case of armor masters... which is stupid but oh well). Possibilities that come to mind would be a penalty to all checks or reduction of breather - or even healing of any kind - effectiveness. And those penalties should probably go away gradually so a week of forced marching 16 hours a day, day after day, would be pretty much crippling and require more than one night of proper rest to recover.
Basically, if we want to create actual rules for straining oneself by traveling faster, such rules would probably need a bit more consideration.
Well, for starters on that a Breather is not an option as that can only be done after a Combat Encounter per RAW and a Forced March does not qualify as a Combat Encounter. You can also rule simply enough as a GM that Armor has no bearing on this and so the bonus for the Master Level of that Talent does not apply in this case and they just have to eat the damage (a GM could even argue that the heavier the armor they are wearing that it adds additional damage). Prevalence of Healing items would be based on GM balancing in their own game, and it could easily be ruled that a Heal Action cannot repair the damage as it represents Fatigue and not wounds (again, simple GM balancing). This leave us with the Mages having to burn through their Mana casting Heal Spells on the party (thereby leaving them down on Mana if there happens to be a Combat Encounter or needing to Sleep or meditate for at least an hour to recover the spent Mana) or the party having to Sleep to recover (assuming there is time for this). Finally, if the level of damage being applied is too low for your tastes you can again easily rule that the amount of damage rolled at your table is higher, there is nothing wrong with that and helps ensure they will not recover all of it in a single night of rest.

I am sorry you didn't like the house rule, but no rule is going to accommodate all play styles. I think it may be a little much to say the rules won't work well though, as with some simple modification it seems it can be made to work just how you would like it to, and the framework sure covers a lot more than just the Forced March details that were not present in the game prior. Of course, I am likely just being defensive of the work I put into it, since it also seems by your comments that you feel I put no thought into it at all (and it was quite the contrary). Either way, thanks for taking the time to look it over.

eliastion
11-25-2014, 05:59 AM
When talking about breathers, I meant it as "if you happen to fight after forced march - no breathers for you" (or at least not fully effective ones).

Sorry that you felt attacked by my comments. Still, I stand by my opinion that damage is not a good way of modelling fatigue resulting from forced march, even with how abstract the health pool is. Regardless of all the technical details that can be fine-tuned / further houseruled to prevent abuse, what remains is the fact that health loss is solely combat-related mechanic and doesn't map well to any other area.

shonuff
11-25-2014, 06:36 AM
I think the distances are too large. By the nature of the beast, anyone traveling would be moderately encumbered (tents, food, armor, etc.). I think a more reasonable approximation of travel would be 15 miles/day "unencumbered." Maybe 20-25 miles with nothing, or a forced march. And 5-8 miles per day if actually encumbered.

Darkdreamer
11-25-2014, 08:58 AM
I think the distances are too large. By the nature of the beast, anyone traveling would be moderately encumbered (tents, food, armor, etc.). I think a more reasonable approximation of travel would be 15 miles/day "unencumbered." Maybe 20-25 miles with nothing, or a forced march. And 5-8 miles per day if actually encumbered.

Without baggage train, but with kit, Roman legions were supposed to march 25 miles a day. Mind you, that was probably a forced march, but keep in mind it also was with large groups, which historically traveled slower than smaller ones. It also ignores the fact that military have been trained for marching in a way that even active civilians in low-tech culture aren't, which is why I thought Con (with a possible focus) would be a good limiter basis. I doubt most PCs are going to be carrying things personally as bulky as tents; they're probably getting by with a bedroll or even just a good cloak in a lot of cases (yes, that's a problem in bad weather, but I still expect its how its playing out).

shonuff
11-25-2014, 09:57 AM
I've seen a lot of estimates for how far legions traveled in a day. 25 miles approached forced march territory. Many of the estimates were between 10-20 miles per day. You could also look at the Mormon hand cart trains. They were very lightly weighted down and went about 15 miles/day - the ones with children were slower, obviously.

So PCs might be a little faster, but there would still be time for foraging food and wood, setting up camp, etc. especially with a lot of that requiring daylight. So maybe a little faster, but not by much.

Red Eye
11-25-2014, 11:54 AM
When talking about breathers, I meant it as "if you happen to fight after forced march - no breathers for you" (or at least not fully effective ones).

Sorry that you felt attacked by my comments. Still, I stand by my opinion that damage is not a good way of modelling fatigue resulting from forced march, even with how abstract the health pool is. Regardless of all the technical details that can be fine-tuned / further houseruled to prevent abuse, what remains is the fact that health loss is solely combat-related mechanic and doesn't map well to any other area.

Hey, no worries on it. Ok, so your issue with it is the Health Points loss in general, feeling this should only make an impact on Combat Encounters. Well, that is true if you have a troupe who does not roleplay much and simply only cares about the numbers and mechanics (and so will thus just ignore that they are fatigued and simply play as though they were not since the stats allow it). Well, that is fine, you can always award more XP to players who properly portray their character in a realistic context (much of this game design would support that). If that does not trip your trigger, however, you could always substitute the Health Points loss with another mechanic entirely that you feel would better compensate at your own table. Maybe say a -1 to all tests until the character rests (this could even be cumulative) if they fail the Constitution (Stamina) test. Heck, if you didn't want to worry on it at all you could just remove the Forced March completely and only let characters travel a specific distance in a day of travel period.

All I was really trying to say is don't discount the whole of the system just cause you don't like how I approached the Forced March aspect. It would seem better to just remove that or modify that so you can make use of the rest of the framework that presently doesn't exist in the game. Of course, the rest is only important if you care about certain details regarding the passage of time in your campaign, so maybe the system just isn't right for you whole sale - that is also cool. No one should tell you how to play at your own table. it just felt like the critique was more negative for the sake of it as I read it and thus my defensive nature (plus, if you do want to use it but have an issue with it I would love to help you find a means to work that out).


I think the distances are too large. By the nature of the beast, anyone traveling would be moderately encumbered (tents, food, armor, etc.). I think a more reasonable approximation of travel would be 15 miles/day "unencumbered." Maybe 20-25 miles with nothing, or a forced march. And 5-8 miles per day if actually encumbered.


Without baggage train, but with kit, Roman legions were supposed to march 25 miles a day. Mind you, that was probably a forced march, but keep in mind it also was with large groups, which historically traveled slower than smaller ones. It also ignores the fact that military have been trained for marching in a way that even active civilians in low-tech culture aren't, which is why I thought Con (with a possible focus) would be a good limiter basis. I doubt most PCs are going to be carrying things personally as bulky as tents; they're probably getting by with a bedroll or even just a good cloak in a lot of cases (yes, that's a problem in bad weather, but I still expect its how its playing out).


I've seen a lot of estimates for how far legions traveled in a day. 25 miles approached forced march territory. Many of the estimates were between 10-20 miles per day. You could also look at the Mormon hand cart trains. They were very lightly weighted down and went about 15 miles/day - the ones with children were slower, obviously.

So PCs might be a little faster, but there would still be time for foraging food and wood, setting up camp, etc. especially with a lot of that requiring daylight. So maybe a little faster, but not by much.

This was a bit that I was expecting a good string of debate over. There is so much range involved in how far a person might be able to travel in a given day from my research into this online (part of the original reason I was inclined to incorporate Speed into the equation to begin with). After presenting this here and to my players I have gotten a mixed response of numbers are too low and numbers are too high for the distance (an area where you know you cannot satisfy all parties involved without a much more complex system that is not in the spirit of DA). My thoughts here, again, would be similar in approach as I have suggested with the Health Point loss deal - modify it to fit your own vision. Again, the supplement provides a framework that should allow for the modification of some of the details while allowing it to all still kick out an end product for you in a straight forward manner.

Personally, I fall in the line of the numbers are probably a bit on the high side and could be safely reduced a small amount. Another option would be to quickly add Speed back into the equation and simply state a character can travel a number of miles equal to their Speed in a given day (this would also give ranges between characters and give a benefit to higher stats which essentially indicate better conditioning and overall fitness). This should throw us firmly into the 10-20 miles range that shonuff was mentioning. All in all, there are a few ways this can be easily modified to push it more into the direction a particular GM might be looking to portray with the Overland Travel.

shonuff
11-25-2014, 12:12 PM
Part of the issue that I have is that I don't know if a travel system is even necessary. Typically, travel time doesn't matter, so you go at the speed of plot. If travel time does matter, then you most likely have enough variables to throw in - terrain, night, forced marches, food supply, weather, etc. - that you're going to be off system anyway.

Ymmv

Red Eye
11-25-2014, 12:25 PM
You pose a good point, many GMs probably don't need such a tool in their campaign, and in that case simply don't use it. My reason for needing it personally is that my campaign is designed to take place over the course of a longer stretch of time (similar to Dragon Age II being over a decade or so). As such, we will have seasonal changes and things of that nature going on (and also bits and bobs of rumors about what is happening in Kirkwall alongside the actions of my troupe elsewhere, so timing these out will be easier with this), and it will help me to track how much time is passing over the course of the campaign to keep that flow feeling somewhat consistent. In such a case, all I really need to see is time passing and give the players an option to push the characters. Starvation and thirst I handle differently than this, it is its own beast that works rather simplistically as well so they need not be factors (something akin to needing to eat a meal or rations and drink each day - water skins can hold 1 days of water). The system already accounts for Terrain differences and Forced Marches so those are covered from the complications you mention. I am actually making a Weather System as well, which could be easily patched to this one and then covers that complication at which point you no longer would need to go off system really. Should you need to account for all of that, I should say.

All in all, this is something that can be handy is some instances, and should be simple enough to plug and play when needed in a campaign that calls for these types of rules. I agree that most sessions likely would not need them, and probably why GR didn't include them to begin with in the product, but there are some instances that they can certainly come in handy. I also tried to build it in a way that you can just use the parts you need for your campaign, things should be able to be easily pulled out or added in as the case may call for.

Darkdreamer
11-25-2014, 05:03 PM
Part of the issue that I have is that I don't know if a travel system is even necessary. Typically, travel time doesn't matter, so you go at the speed of plot. If travel time does matter, then you most likely have enough variables to throw in - terrain, night, forced marches, food supply, weather, etc. - that you're going to be off system anyway.

Ymmv

I indicated why I need it at the start; deciding where they're going is going to be a thing the PCs do frequently, and some idea how long it takes is going to be necessary for that to be sensible; it also will require some consistency. So "speed of plot" (not a concept I'm fond in sandbox and quasi-sandbox games (this is the latter) at the best of times) is not going to cut it.

shonuff
11-25-2014, 07:13 PM
I indicated why I need it at the start; deciding where they're going is going to be a thing the PCs do frequently, and some idea how long it takes is going to be necessary for that to be sensible; it also will require some consistency. So "speed of plot" (not a concept I'm fond in sandbox and quasi-sandbox games (this is the latter) at the best of times) is not going to cut it.

Well, you're still going to run into it, as most of the maps don't have distances, and the ones that do don't have detailed paths. :)

Red Eye
11-25-2014, 08:25 PM
Well, you're still going to run into it, as most of the maps don't have distances, and the ones that do don't have detailed paths. :)

Those are things that GMs can extrapolate themselves though, so are less of an issue really once you have a framework in place.

shonuff
11-25-2014, 08:38 PM
Except there are no distances. How far is it from Vintiver to Lothering? What if you take the back roads? What if you stop off at Flemeth's hut (out of the ways, sure, but how out of the ways)?

Red Eye
11-25-2014, 09:26 PM
There is a scale provided on the maps of Fereldan (1 inch is 18 miles) and Thedas (1 inch is 70 miles), and the map also shows us the Highway (which would qualify as one of the terrain options). It would be up to a GM to decide if there are any roads or trails in any particular area of their game world (the lore hints at them existing, but none of them are directly mapped so this just boils down to GM making a quick call - maybe noting it for later to keep consistency in their world). Additionally, Vintiver is not a plotted location so it would depend on where the GM choose to place it at in the world. So, we just have to have these details quickly set by the GM, the players to choose the route they wish to take (since distance travel always has options), and then a quick calculation by the GM would give us total distance. We then use the same system to see how long it would take them to travel that, with the GM probably checking for random encounters as the troupe moves along.

So, again, with this framework all of that is easily extrapolated. The same can be done for town maps (assuming you intend to use Overland rules for that, but I think that is probably a bit much. This is where "pace of the story" works wonders in table top), though these will not have the scales added in many cases (well, some do if memory serves me correctly - I think the Chantry of the Stilled Tongue map included a scale). Even with town maps not having a scale provided though, a crafty GM can quickly extrapolate that based on general average size of a home for the region (since these would be marked one can start developing the needed scale). Though, as I stated, I don't think Overland works well for in town and pace of story works better here.

eliastion
11-25-2014, 09:31 PM
Hey, no worries on it. Ok, so your issue with it is the Health Points loss in general, feeling this should only make an impact on Combat Encounters. Well, that is true if you have a troupe who does not roleplay much and simply only cares about the numbers and mechanics (and so will thus just ignore that they are fatigued and simply play as though they were not since the stats allow it). Well, that is fine, you can always award more XP to players who properly portray their character in a realistic context (much of this game design would support that). If that does not trip your trigger, however, you could always substitute the Health Points loss with another mechanic entirely that you feel would better compensate at your own table. Maybe say a -1 to all tests until the character rests (this could even be cumulative) if they fail the Constitution (Stamina) test. Heck, if you didn't want to worry on it at all you could just remove the Forced March completely and only let characters travel a specific distance in a day of travel period.
You know thath health loss is just as "unnecessary" as any other penalty, right? Lack of any penalty for forced march only is a problem when players don't roleplay and want their characters to act as perfectly rested since numbers don't make them take into account that they're not.
Basically, good roleplaying is a wonder-cure for many mechanical problems, but crafting rules for people is a task where we try to reinforce roleplaying with numbers - in this case by including fatigue for making extra miles a day. And yes, I know that at my table I can make my own house rules; but I still believe voicing my concerns here could either make you consider re-thinking some aspects (that could help someone looking for ready travelling times) or at least bring spotlight to some problems that otherwise would be find only when they emerge during play - if someone wants to make use of your rules, it's better if he knows where they might fail him, why and to what extent.


Except there are no distances. How far is it from Vintiver to Lothering? What if you take the back roads? What if you stop off at Flemeth's hut (out of the ways, sure, but how out of the ways)?
You know, Shonuff, you're absolutely right that "how far is it from X to Y" is a question that GM need to just "guess". However, if characters tend to go there and back again - thing that could well happen especially between cities and such - it would be desirable that the guessed distance between fixed points in space remains more or less fixed as well.

EDIT:
As for city maps, that's where speed actually starts to matter more than constitution and all those things like setting up camps and such gets scrapped altogether. It definitely isn't "travelling" scale movement, using travelling rules for distances covered in minutes rather than hours (let alone days) would be... strange.

shonuff
11-25-2014, 10:18 PM
There is a scale provided on the maps of Fereldan (1 inch is 18 miles) and Thedas (1 inch is 70 miles), and the map also shows us the Highway (which would qualify as one of the terrain options). It would be up to a GM to decide if there are any roads or trails in any particular area of their game world (the lore hints at them existing, but none of them are directly mapped so this just boils down to GM making a quick call - maybe noting it for later to keep consistency in their world). Additionally, Vintiver is not a plotted location so it would depend on where the GM choose to place it at in the world. So, we just have to have these details quickly set by the GM, the players to choose the route they wish to take (since distance travel always has options), and then a quick calculation by the GM would give us total distance. We then use the same system to see how long it would take them to travel that, with the GM probably checking for random encounters as the troupe moves along.

As soon as the GM starts making judgment calls, it loses consistency. You're not dealing with detailed topography maps - they don't even show most towns and villages. Obviously there would be more roads, otherwise Gwaren would be completely isolated. The point I'm making is that even if there are scales (and I thought there wasn't on at least the Thedas map), there is little existing information to draw enough conclusions from. For example, few trails are straight, so a three inch distance could theoretically be much more than that.

Anyhoo, ymmv, but unless you have specific rate of travel and distance, you're still going to be having the GM tell you how far you are going.

shonuff
11-25-2014, 10:24 PM
You know, Shonuff, you're absolutely right that "how far is it from X to Y" is a question that GM need to just "guess". However, if characters tend to go there and back again - thing that could well happen especially between cities and such - it would be desirable that the guessed distance between fixed points in space remains more or less fixed as well.

True, but that would only work for those fixed points. Say our heroes are familiar with Lothering and the West Hills, and it's 12 miles between the two. They can go back and forth, twelve miles every day. But what if one day they travel further south to Sothmere? What if their return trip skips the West Hills?

Red Eye
11-25-2014, 11:07 PM
You know thath health loss is just as "unnecessary" as any other penalty, right? Lack of any penalty for forced march only is a problem when players don't roleplay and want their characters to act as perfectly rested since numbers don't make them take into account that they're not.
Basically, good roleplaying is a wonder-cure for many mechanical problems, but crafting rules for people is a task where we try to reinforce roleplaying with numbers - in this case by including fatigue for making extra miles a day. And yes, I know that at my table I can make my own house rules; but I still believe voicing my concerns here could either make you consider re-thinking some aspects (that could help someone looking for ready travelling times) or at least bring spotlight to some problems that otherwise would be find only when they emerge during play - if someone wants to make use of your rules, it's better if he knows where they might fail him, why and to what extent.
The thing here is that I think we still just have a difference of opinion on this. For me the Health Point loss is sufficient, and for my players it will work just fine. So unless someone going to use this also fundamentally disagrees with the use of Health Point loss then the concern is not there. I was simply pointing out that with this, just like any other game mechanic in any game, things that you don't like about them can be easily changed and that does not detract from the overall value of the framework being provided. It felt as though your sentiment was the whole of the system was worthless because you did not agree with how Forced March was handled in it, and my argument has simply been I do not see that being the case (and as a helpful person have been trying to provide alternatives for use as well since a concern was levied against it).


EDIT:
As for city maps, that's where speed actually starts to matter more than constitution and all those things like setting up camps and such gets scrapped altogether. It definitely isn't "travelling" scale movement, using travelling rules for distances covered in minutes rather than hours (let alone days) would be... strange.
Agreed, as I stated when I brought the whole point up (and it was only brought up to illustrate the fact that the only maps presented that do not provide scale are city maps since shonuff had commented on that specific facet). So, yea, right there with you on that.


As soon as the GM starts making judgment calls, it loses consistency. You're not dealing with detailed topography maps - they don't even show most towns and villages. Obviously there would be more roads, otherwise Gwaren would be completely isolated. The point I'm making is that even if there are scales (and I thought there wasn't on at least the Thedas map), there is little existing information to draw enough conclusions from. For example, few trails are straight, so a three inch distance could theoretically be much more than that.

Anyhoo, ymmv, but unless you have specific rate of travel and distance, you're still going to be having the GM tell you how far you are going.
But this is the whole job of being a GM, making those judgement calls for your own games. It is spelled out almost explicitly over and over again that this is the case. And making those calls does not have to mean a loss in consistency if you are making note of these choices as you go (which a good GM should be, simply making an arbitrary decision each time the characters do something when it is a repeated task is a bad idea, you need some sense of consistency for the game to be enjoyable for everyone). So I suppose I just do not see the issue or argument as it were here, as this is all stuff that GMs have had to do since the inception of gaming to some degree - some just do it more than others is all.

Darkdreamer
11-25-2014, 11:29 PM
Well, you're still going to run into it, as most of the maps don't have distances, and the ones that do don't have detailed paths. :)

I'm making my own maps up front. The won't have paths, but that part I can abstract, just like everyone in virtually every game does, and they will have distances.

Darkdreamer
11-25-2014, 11:30 PM
Except there are no distances. How far is it from Vintiver to Lothering? What if you take the back roads? What if you stop off at Flemeth's hut (out of the ways, sure, but how out of the ways)?

The campaign is set primarily in the Korcari Wilds, and as I said, the maps will be made up front. I'd do the same thing if it was elsewhere.

Darkdreamer
11-25-2014, 11:33 PM
As soon as the GM starts making judgment calls, it loses consistency. You're not dealing with detailed topography maps - they don't even show most towns and villages. Obviously there would be more roads, otherwise Gwaren would be completely isolated. The point I'm making is that even if there are scales (and I thought there wasn't on at least the Thedas map), there is little existing information to draw enough conclusions from. For example, few trails are straight, so a three inch distance could theoretically be much more than that.

Anyhoo, ymmv, but unless you have specific rate of travel and distance, you're still going to be having the GM tell you how far you are going.

In most cases, all they'll need to know is the rules for terrain type modifications and speed. I won't need to make judgement calls on the fly at all generally.

Honestly, this is no different than a dozen other games do, except DA doesn't actually supply us with the tools. I don't understand why you think it has to be done down to "the paths run here" for it to be useful.

Darkdreamer
11-25-2014, 11:36 PM
But this is the whole job of being a GM, making those judgement calls for your own games. It is spelled out almost explicitly over and over again that this is the case. And making those calls does not have to mean a loss in consistency if you are making note of these choices as you go (which a good GM should be, simply making an arbitrary decision each time the characters do something when it is a repeated task is a bad idea, you need some sense of consistency for the game to be enjoyable for everyone). So I suppose I just do not see the issue or argument as it were here, as this is all stuff that GMs have had to do since the inception of gaming to some degree - some just do it more than others is all.

I think it also ignores the fact that matters of degree matter. If I have to make a judgment call once or twice a game for an issue of +/- 20% that has a vastly different impact than having to pull the total travel time out of my behind every time.

Red Eye
11-25-2014, 11:40 PM
I think it also ignores the fact that matters of degree matter. If I have to make a judgment call once or twice a game for an issue of +/- 20% that has a vastly different impact than having to pull the total travel time out of my behind every time.
Indeed. I hope you find the framework useful, even if you need to apply some tweaks to it for your own table.

shonuff
11-26-2014, 05:47 AM
But this is the whole job of being a GM, making those judgement calls for your own games. It is spelled out almost explicitly over and over again that this is the case. And making those calls does not have to mean a loss in consistency if you are making note of these choices as you go (which a good GM should be, simply making an arbitrary decision each time the characters do something when it is a repeated task is a bad idea, you need some sense of consistency for the game to be enjoyable for everyone). So I suppose I just do not see the issue or argument as it were here, as this is all stuff that GMs have had to do since the inception of gaming to some degree - some just do it more than others is all.

I know the GM is making the judgment call. My point of contention is that you don't have standardized distances, speed, or time. Towns and villages aren't located, let alone diagramed. So it's all speed of plot - no matter how many tools you use to standardize it, you still arrive at your destination when the GM says you do.

Darkdreamer
11-26-2014, 09:05 AM
I know the GM is making the judgment call. My point of contention is that you don't have standardized distances, speed, or time. Towns and villages aren't located, let alone diagramed. So it's all speed of plot - no matter how many tools you use to standardize it, you still arrive at your destination when the GM says you do.

Yes, but it isn't based on plot, unless you use plot extremely broadly, since in my case I've placed these long before the PCs decide to do so, and decided the movement rules long before. If you go that far, then anything any set of rules do is based on "plot" and I think that's a bizarre usage.

eliastion
11-26-2014, 09:09 AM
It might be that towns are not canonically located when the game starts. It doesn't mean they are not located in the gaming world. The GM points at the map - figuratively or literally - and says "town X is here". And it is there, whether it is a town that was already placed there, mentioned but not really placed, created in this very instant by GM that needed there to be a city or even placed cannonically (that is, in source material) somewhere else.
The thing is, that once established, the town remains in that spot. And if it is ever revisited - it should still be there. GM makes judgement calls, but each of them creates, defines and establishes elements of the world - including position of certain places and road network. In fact you could start with no world at all - the GM could just tell you the name of city you're in, the fact that there is forest to the east and some road to the still-unnamed capital of as-of-yet-unnamed kingdom and guidelines concerning travelling could still be useful. Because when some player asks the GM how far it is to the capital - and gets the answer - suddenly relative position of those two towns gets much more defined, even though one of them STILL HAS NO NAME.
The fact that source material does not give you some important travelling-related geographic information, it doesn't mean that such information will never be available - since a couple GM's decisions will create said information.

shonuff
11-26-2014, 09:35 AM
Yes, but it isn't based on plot, unless you use plot extremely broadly, since in my case I've placed these long before the PCs decide to do so, and decided the movement rules long before. If you go that far, then anything any set of rules do is based on "plot" and I think that's a bizarre usage.

Admittedly, I'm using it fairly broadly, but that might because I don't really see the need for specific rules for general travel. Basically, I use 15ish miles per day for general travel. But my PCs typically stick to roads/paths. If your PC are sticking to the Wilds, then not only will they be slower, but I shine there will be more Per checks to see if they are going the right way.

But basically PCs get to places about when they want to (obviously within reason)- I personally don't do too much with random encounters. I find they often lack earnest.

It's not that distance/traveling isn't helpful, it's just that I think extra rules for generic travel just bog down gameplay.

shonuff
11-26-2014, 09:40 AM
The fact that source material does not give you some important travelling-related geographic information, it doesn't mean that such information will never be available - since a couple GM's decisions will create said information.

True, but it all ends up being GM judgment. Time of day, exact location, travel routes, etc. once a location is placed, you're right it's placed, but the route from 1-2-3 may be different than 1-3. What I'm saying is that it's all abstract, so applying specifics to abstraction is (in many cases) difficult.

Darkdreamer
11-26-2014, 11:22 PM
It's not that distance/traveling isn't helpful, it's just that I think extra rules for generic travel just bog down gameplay.

This, however, assumes they aren't part of gameplay, a view I don't share. Dealing with weather, getting lost and running into problems not planned are all important elements of gameplay in some kinds of campaigns.

Darkdreamer
11-26-2014, 11:24 PM
True, but it all ends up being GM judgment. Time of day, exact location, travel routes, etc. once a location is placed, you're right it's placed, but the route from 1-2-3 may be different than 1-3. What I'm saying is that it's all abstract, so applying specifics to abstraction is (in many cases) difficult.

Frankly, in my experience, you're all making this more difficult and complicated than it needs to be; having a map laid out, some base rules for movement, and modifiers for terrain and weather is all that's needed, and that's neither difficult nor pointless.

shonuff
11-26-2014, 11:41 PM
Frankly, in my experience, you're all making this more difficult and complicated than it needs to be; having a map laid out, some base rules for movement, and modifiers for terrain and weather is all that's needed, and that's neither difficult nor pointless.

My point is that the more you abstract, the less you can say you have consistent rules. Like rainy weather - is it rainy all day? Which parts? Would that factor into movement?

My issue is that unless it's realistic and consistent, then it's not. And saying that you're fine with guesswork +/- 20% doesn't really strike me as terribly consistent. And you can have realism or you can rely on GM fiat, and either method is fine... However, I grow a little weary of inaccurate campaign descriptions.

Darkdreamer
11-27-2014, 03:57 PM
My point is that the more you abstract, the less you can say you have consistent rules. Like rainy weather - is it rainy all day? Which parts? Would that factor into movement?


That's not inconsistent; that's just not hyper-detailed. If I go "if it rained for more than six of the daylight hours, it applies" all that assumes is its close enough for rounding--and that's no different than any other mechanical process.



My issue is that unless it's realistic and consistent, then it's not. And saying that you're fine with guesswork +/- 20% doesn't really strike me as terribly consistent. And you can have realism or you can rely on GM fiat, and either method is fine... However, I grow a little weary of inaccurate campaign descriptions.

And I don't think that degree of variance is inconsistent by most people's standards, especially since it often won't matter in practice.

shonuff
12-01-2014, 01:21 PM
And I don't think that degree of variance is inconsistent by most people's standards, especially since it often won't matter in practice.

But that degree of variance weakens the need for detailed rules regarding movement more than a blanket x amount/day.

Red Eye
12-01-2014, 05:17 PM
I think the trick with all of this is perspective. While the GM using these rules to help plot their stories will have to accept that it is not a true simulation providing realism, for the player who is not looking at the mechanics but rather the story driven results it adds to the suspension of disbelief in the world they are in. For them they see something that rings of some semblance of consistency that relates to their own world and helps to immerse them in the world the GM is painting for them.

And you are correct, this system would not do anything that GM fiat could not accomplish just as well (and probably even as consistently), but that is a skill that not all GMs possess (much like there are different styles of RPG players there are different styles of RPG GMs). Some are not good at simply managing a framework based on fiat alone and require a little something to be in place to help accommodate this. That is exactly what this system provides, a general framework for a GM to build their fiat on.

Darkdreamer
12-02-2014, 04:35 PM
But that degree of variance weakens the need for detailed rules regarding movement more than a blanket x amount/day.

Not from where I sit, since the coarse effects of things like mountains and swamp still factor in. If I'm dividing your movement by 4, the fact there's a 10% because it looks to me like you can use some passes still hasn't changed the fact they could reasonably see it was going to take a long time to move through the mountains and plan accordingly.

Darkdreamer
12-02-2014, 04:39 PM
I think it does do something pure fiat doesn't, Redeye, just like most rules; it provides a degree of predictivity. It isn't complete, but then, that's going to be true with any rules set with randomizers anyway. Among other things, if I've got a set of rules about how long it takes to move through a swamp, a map that shows how much of the ground I'm covering is swamp, and how much I normally move, even if there's a small whiff factor I can make a pretty good approximation of how long it'll take me to get there. With purely fiat I have no assurance of that, since the GM may well not even remember how long he said it took the last time. In addition, as a player I can discuss the rules with the GM in downtime if they seem unreasonable instead of having to fight that battle out during the game, and possibly more than once.

shonuff
12-02-2014, 06:23 PM
I think it does do something pure fiat doesn't, Redeye, just like most rules; it provides a degree of predictivity. It isn't complete, but then, that's going to be true with any rules set with randomizers anyway. Among other things, if I've got a set of rules about how long it takes to move through a swamp, a map that shows how much of the ground I'm covering is swamp, and how much I normally move, even if there's a small whiff factor I can make a pretty good approximation of how long it'll take me to get there. With purely fiat I have no assurance of that, since the GM may well not even remember how long he said it took the last time. In addition, as a player I can discuss the rules with the GM in downtime if they seem unreasonable instead of having to fight that battle out during the game, and possibly more than once.

Not really. If the GM says base movement rate is 15 miles per day, I can predict that I'll move at 15 miles per day. Saying a GM will forget a movement rate is sorta silly - by the same logic, they can forget the movement rules, or maybe they forget what game they're playing.

Besides, complex movement rules are mostly unnecessary. You don't need to know everyone's movement rate, just the slowest. And without a sense of weight, adding rates/rolling for walking seems kinda leggy to gameplay.

I can understand having more exploration encounters, but IMO there's adding predictivity and then there's just adding complexity.

DrawGreeny
12-03-2014, 07:34 AM
Not really. If the GM says base movement rate is 15 miles per day, I can predict that I'll move at 15 miles per day. Saying a GM will forget a movement rate is sorta silly - by the same logic, they can forget the movement rules, or maybe they forget what game they're playing.

Besides, complex movement rules are mostly unnecessary. You don't need to know everyone's movement rate, just the slowest. And without a sense of weight, adding rates/rolling for walking seems kinda leggy to gameplay.

I can understand having more exploration encounters, but IMO there's adding predictivity and then there's just adding complexity.

Isn't saying "complex movement rules are mostly unnecessary" the same as saying "complex movement rules are partly necessary"? :P

At any rate, I think it's less a matter of "the GM forgetting a movement rate" and more "the GM forgetting the amount of time it took the players the last time they tried to get from point x to point y". If I'm playing, and I notice that the journey from Denerim to the village of Ravenwood has taken us 5 days--whereas it took us only 2 days when we last made the trip, using the same route, and nothing out of the ordinary happened on either occasion--that's going to bother me. The GM *could* just keep notes about travel time from one location to the next, and refer to those whenever the PCs are travelling somewhere, but that seems like way more bookkeeping than Darkdreamer's plan to use a map and make up some rules for moving through different kinds of terrain. On the other hand, the GM could say that we can journey 15 miles in a day, and that's that--but a.) it's also going to bother me if I know that travelling 3 miles through a swamp isn't going to take any longer than travelling 3 miles on a highway, and b.) that's *still* going to require the GM to know the distance between any two points ahead of time (or else make up the distance on the fly, but I'd recommend writing it down somewhere and oh god we're back to keeping notes about distances again).

Basically, I'd be in favor of Darkdreamer's idea. It doesn't sound all that complex--players figure out the route they want to take, GM works out distances spent through the relevant terrains, GM does some math (possibly while the players continue their preparations) and lets everyone know how long the journey will take. I don't envision the 2nd and 3rd steps taking more than 10 or 20 seconds, unless the players have chosen a particularly complicated route--in which case, it may be better to break it up into smaller steps and complete each leg of the journey before calculating the next.

Darkdreamer
12-03-2014, 07:44 AM
Not really. If the GM says base movement rate is 15 miles per day, I can predict that I'll move at 15 miles per day. Saying a GM will forget a movement rate is sorta silly - by the same logic, they can forget the movement rules, or maybe they forget what game they're playing.



I don't know about you, Shonuff, but when I come up with houserules, there's this useful tool for my not forgetting them. Its called writing them down. And even come up with a base movement rate is a houserule, currently. But the difference is a movement rate, and some common modifiers provides far more predictability than movement alone.



Besides, complex movement rules are mostly unnecessary. You don't need to know everyone's movement rate, just the slowest. And without a sense of weight, adding rates/rolling for walking seems kinda leggy to gameplay.


I think you're conflating my position for someone else; I never was suggesting that. All I've been suggesting was a rate and terrain modifiers.

Darkdreamer
12-03-2014, 08:02 AM
Basically, I'd be in favor of Darkdreamer's idea. It doesn't sound all that complex--players figure out the route they want to take, GM works out distances spent through the relevant terrains, GM does some math (possibly while the players continue their preparations) and lets everyone know how long the journey will take. I don't envision the 2nd and 3rd steps taking more than 10 or 20 seconds, unless the players have chosen a particularly complicated route--in which case, it may be better to break it up into smaller steps and complete each leg of the journey before calculating the next.

Honestly, in most cases I don't even need to do anything; they can pick a path, look at the terrain, and know approximately how long it'll take. Maybe I have a second modifier for weather. If I happen to have decided some specifics around the terrain, I might mention a small modifier, but chances are that'll only be relevant at the point they're approaching the final location, if it matters at all. Most of the time I'll just assume its lost in the general noise of the travel.

shonuff
12-03-2014, 08:26 AM
I don't know about you, Shonuff, but when I come up with houserules, there's this useful tool for my not forgetting them. Its called writing them down. And even come up with a base movement rate is a houserule, currently. But the difference is a movement rate, and some common modifiers provides far more predictability than movement alone.

Of course, if you can write things down, so can others. :) there was actually a handy-dandy spreadsheet that had a lot of the Ferelden locations and the distances/travel times between them.



I think you're conflating my position for someone else; I never was suggesting that. All I've been suggesting was a rate and terrain modifiers.

That may be. There have been a few ideas tossed out here.

Regardless, I would keep the general movement simple - for example, I use 15/25/20 miles per day (walking/horseback/with mules), and half that in rough terrain. Using stats doesn't work even for tactical movement, really - a person with a speed of 16 is running a 14 minute mile using regular movement rules.

shonuff
12-03-2014, 08:50 AM
Isn't saying "complex movement rules are mostly unnecessary" the same as saying "complex movement rules are partly necessary"? :P

More along the lines of a meteorologist study that was done recently. In a nutshell, it was found that meteorologists in extended forecasts were accurate with predicting rain about 80% of the time, which seems like a fairly accurate rate. But they would have been even more accurate had they just said it was never going to rain past a three day window.

A lot of extra work for ultimately no gain.


At any rate, I think it's less a matter of "the GM forgetting a movement rate" and more "the GM forgetting the amount of time it took the players the last time they tried to get from point x to point y". If I'm playing, and I notice that the journey from Denerim to the village of Ravenwood has taken us 5 days--whereas it took us only 2 days when we last made the trip, using the same route, and nothing out of the ordinary happened on either occasion--that's going to bother me. The GM *could* just keep notes about travel time from one location to the next, and refer to those whenever the PCs are travelling somewhere, but that seems like way more bookkeeping than Darkdreamer's plan to use a map and make up some rules for moving through different kinds of terrain. On the other hand, the GM could say that we can journey 15 miles in a day, and that's that--but a.) it's also going to bother me if I know that travelling 3 miles through a swamp isn't going to take any longer than travelling 3 miles on a highway, and b.) that's *still* going to require the GM to know the distance between any two points ahead of time (or else make up the distance on the fly, but I'd recommend writing it down somewhere and oh god we're back to keeping notes about distances again).

Neither of which is what I'm saying. Flat movement rate, with basic terrain adjustment. But individual rates, or rolling to walk distances? Not worth the effort, IMO. Obviously, this would be excluding specific instances - getting lost, chasing, forced marches, etc.

Red Eye
12-03-2014, 05:00 PM
So, I am lost then on the conundrum here, since the Movement rules I actually upped are basically what you are now describing (Base Movement and Terrain Modifiers) - the specifics on each of those being easily modified to fit particular GM/Player tastes while keeping the simple framework in tact. The discussion of complex movement was very brief, as it was decided quickly it wasn't needed for this application (and also would be less fitting of the games context being simple in nature). So, if your argument has been solely based on complexity, we kicked that a few pages back here and so I don't know why this debate is still ongoing...

DrawGreeny
12-03-2014, 07:28 PM
More along the lines of a meteorologist study that was done recently. In a nutshell, it was found that meteorologists in extended forecasts were accurate with predicting rain about 80% of the time, which seems like a fairly accurate rate. But they would have been even more accurate had they just said it was never going to rain past a three day window.

A lot of extra work for ultimately no gain.



Neither of which is what I'm saying. Flat movement rate, with basic terrain adjustment. But individual rates, or rolling to walk distances? Not worth the effort, IMO. Obviously, this would be excluding specific instances - getting lost, chasing, forced marches, etc.

I confess that you kind of lost me with the reference to the meteorologist study--mostly because the claim "they would have been more accurate had they just said it was never going to rain past a three day window" doesn't make any sense to me, at least not the way it's worded. Did you mean that meteorologists are more likely to be accurate if they keep their predictions limited to the next three days (which *does* make sense)?

Anyway, it may be that I misinterpreted what you're saying, for which I apologize. Having said that, it sounds like *you've* been misinterpreting what Darkdreamer is talking about (unless I've misread his/her comments as well, which is certainly possible). Nothing I've seen from D indicated anything about individual rates or rolling to walk distances. On the contrary, a flat movement rate (adjusted for terrain) essentially seems to be what he/she has decided on...a system which you keep arguing is too complex, or "a lot of extra work for ultimately no gain" if I correctly understand the purpose of your meteorology comparison. Again, what Darkdreamer is proposing doesn't seem like it would be much extra work; the benefit is that it (hopefully and, I think, probably) adds some verisimilitude to the game in terms of travel times being more or less consistent. By way of comparison, some of your earlier comments *seem* to suggest just making up a reasonable-sounding number and saying that's how many days it takes the party to get from one point to another--which is fine, as far as it goes, but has the potential for player confusion/frustration if those numbers aren't actually tied to anything. Even if that method allows you to come up with believable, consistent travel times, I have to think that Darkdreamer's method will result in travel times that are even *more* believable and consistent--in which case it's actually a small amount of extra work for some amount of positive gain. For some GMs, that gain will be worth the extra work; for other GMs, it won't.

shonuff
12-03-2014, 10:56 PM
So, I am lost then on the conundrum here, since the Movement rules I actually upped are basically what you are now describing (Base Movement and Terrain Modifiers) - the specifics on each of those being easily modified to fit particular GM/Player tastes while keeping the simple framework in tact. The discussion of complex movement was very brief, as it was decided quickly it wasn't needed for this application (and also would be less fitting of the games context being simple in nature). So, if your argument has been solely based on complexity, we kicked that a few pages back here and so I don't know why this debate is still ongoing...

I don't know. Once any discussion left this page, I kinda ceased to follow it. I think the debate is still ongoing because my "15 miles/day" has been misinterpreted as handwavery. :)

shonuff
12-03-2014, 11:25 PM
I confess that you kind of lost me with the reference to the meteorologist study--mostly because the claim "they would have been more accurate had they just said it was never going to rain past a three day window" doesn't make any sense to me, at least not the way it's worded. Did you mean that meteorologists are more likely to be accurate if they keep their predictions limited to the next three days (which *does* make sense)?

At the time of the study, and I'll admit I'm going to make up some numbers, once a forecast went past three days in the future, it became much less accurate. So forecasting rain (after "rain" had been defined) had like an 80% accuracy rating. However, if meteorologists had said it would never rain (after 3 days in the future), they would have had like an 82 or 83% accuracy rating.

So what I'm saying is that more complexity doesn't necessarily portray reality more accurately, it's just more complex.


Anyway, it may be that I misinterpreted what you're saying, for which I apologize. Having said that, it sounds like *you've* been misinterpreting what Darkdreamer is talking about (unless I've misread his/her comments as well, which is certainly possible). Nothing I've seen from D indicated anything about individual rates or rolling to walk distances. On the contrary, a flat movement rate (adjusted for terrain) essentially seems to be what he/she has decided on...a system which you keep arguing is too complex, or "a lot of extra work for ultimately no gain" if I correctly understand the purpose of your meteorology comparison. Again, what Darkdreamer is proposing doesn't seem like it would be much extra work; the benefit is that it (hopefully and, I think, probably) adds some verisimilitude to the game in terms of travel times being more or less consistent.

I could be misinterpreting what he said. I tend to reply if I'm being addressed, and I don't always go through previous posts to refresh myself on every poster's opinion. Maybe I should, but I tend to stick to the post at hand.


By way of comparison, some of your earlier comments *seem* to suggest just making up a reasonable-sounding number and saying that's how many days it takes the party to get from one point to another--which is fine, as far as it goes, but has the potential for player confusion/frustration if those numbers aren't actually tied to anything. Even if that method allows you to come up with believable, consistent travel times, I have to think that Darkdreamer's method will result in travel times that are even *more* believable and consistent--in which case it's actually a small amount of extra work for some amount of positive gain. For some GMs, that gain will be worth the extra work; for other GMs, it won't.

The "reasonable sounding number" of 15miles/day (good terrain), which is based on historical movement? I fail to see how that causes confusion. Yeah, we use averages, which implies some amount of handwavery, but they are based on historical transportation modes.

I think the confusion may be coming from when I am saying that I am using a travel rate that I'm also saying there is GM fiat involved. I'm highly aware that any travel rule will have a high degree of fiat - just some more than others.

DrawGreeny
12-04-2014, 05:24 AM
At the time of the study, and I'll admit I'm going to make up some numbers, once a forecast went past three days in the future, it became much less accurate. So forecasting rain (after "rain" had been defined) had like an 80% accuracy rating. However, if meteorologists had said it would never rain (after 3 days in the future), they would have had like an 82 or 83% accuracy rating.

The way you word that is still confusing though. It sounds like what you mean is "If meteorologists never said whether or not it would rain more than three days in advance, they would have an accuracy rating of 82-83%"--so it would go something like, "Here's your Monday morning forecast! Today, it'll be sunny. Tomorrow and Wednesday, it's going to rain, so bring your umbrella. Tune in tomorrow, and we'll give you our first predictions about Thursday's weather.") The way you've phrased it, the forecast would be more like, "Here's your Monday morning forecast! Today, it'll be sunny. Tomorrow and Wednesday, it's going to rain, so bring your umbrella. After that, just throw your umbrella away; starting Thursday, we're entering a drought that won't ever end." Yes, I know I'm being kind of nit-picky about this--but word order matters, dang it!


The "reasonable sounding number" of 15miles/day (good terrain), which is based on historical movement? I fail to see how that causes confusion. Yeah, we use averages, which implies some amount of handwavery, but they are based on historical transportation modes.

The issue, I think, is that 15 miles/day (or whatever travel rate you settle on) isn't useful by itself; you also need to know how long the characters will be travelling in order to determine how far they'll get, or (more likely) you need to know the distance they'll travel in order to determine how long the trip will take. Some of your earlier comments indicated, perhaps erroneously, that you didn't care enough to make sure the distances between locations consistent from trip to trip.


I think the confusion may be coming from when I am saying that I am using a travel rate that I'm also saying there is GM fiat involved. I'm highly aware that any travel rule will have a high degree of fiat - just some more than others.

Especially if you're actually driving a Fiat!

shonuff
12-04-2014, 06:29 AM
The way you word that is still confusing though. It sounds like what you mean is "If meteorologists never said whether or not it would rain more than three days in advance, they would have an accuracy rating of 82-83%"--so it would go something like, "Here's your Monday morning forecast! Today, it'll be sunny. Tomorrow and Wednesday, it's going to rain, so bring your umbrella. Tune in tomorrow, and we'll give you our first predictions about Thursday's weather.") The way you've phrased it, the forecast would be more like, "Here's your Monday morning forecast! Today, it'll be sunny. Tomorrow and Wednesday, it's going to rain, so bring your umbrella. After that, just throw your umbrella away; starting Thursday, we're entering a drought that won't ever end." Yes, I know I'm being kind of nit-picky about this--but word order matters, dang it!

I have to agree, you're being kind of nit-picky! :)

Kidding aside, what I'm saying is your second example (in the study) would have been more accurate than traditional extended forecasts.




The issue, I think, is that 15 miles/day (or whatever travel rate you settle on) isn't useful by itself; you also need to know how long the characters will be travelling in order to determine how far they'll get, or (more likely) you need to know the distance they'll travel in order to determine how long the trip will take. Some of your earlier comments indicated, perhaps erroneously, that you didn't care enough to make sure the distances between locations consistent from trip to trip.

That's kind of been my point. In order to have an exact rate, you need to have a lot of information, which isn't readily available. There isn't really a time system, locations are spread out over a good deal of terrain, etc. as for exact distances, they can wildly vary from the approximate distances gained from a large-area map. For example, there are two trails in the Grand Canyon that start and stop at the same locations - one is 6 miles or so, and the other is about 10.

My issue isn't with consistency, it's with the degree of accuracy. So 150 miles? About 10 full days of travel time. About 10 miles? Arrive in the early afternoon. 30 miles in a swamp? About 4 full days. Then, how it wants to be broken up is up to the players, but I find that travel time is typically just that - travel time. Extenuating factors (broken bridges, foraging, pathfinding, etc.) always extend things.

Darkdreamer
12-04-2014, 09:57 AM
That may be. There have been a few ideas tossed out here.

Regardless, I would keep the general movement simple - for example, I use 15/25/20 miles per day (walking/horseback/with mules), and half that in rough terrain. Using stats doesn't work even for tactical movement, really - a person with a speed of 16 is running a 14 minute mile using regular movement rules.

I think somehow we've talked past each other, since that's pretty much (with the addition of terrain modifiers) the sort of thing I was talking about too.

shonuff
12-04-2014, 04:03 PM
I think somehow we've talked past each other, since that's pretty much (with the addition of terrain modifiers) the sort of thing I was talking about too.

Yeah, because even if you are arguing the same point, if you're still debating you're arguing different points.... Or something. :)

DrawGreeny
12-04-2014, 05:16 PM
I have to agree, you're being kind of nit-picky! :)

Kidding aside, what I'm saying is your second example (in the study) would have been more accurate than traditional extended forecasts.

Wait--are you saying that the prediction about never-ending drought would have been more accurate than traditional extended forecasts? If so, what exactly do you mean when you refer to "traditional extended forecasts"? Better yet, do you have a link to this study?


That's kind of been my point. In order to have an exact rate, you need to have a lot of information, which isn't readily available. There isn't really a time system, locations are spread out over a good deal of terrain, etc. as for exact distances, they can wildly vary from the approximate distances gained from a large-area map. For example, there are two trails in the Grand Canyon that start and stop at the same locations - one is 6 miles or so, and the other is about 10.

My issue isn't with consistency, it's with the degree of accuracy. So 150 miles? About 10 full days of travel time. About 10 miles? Arrive in the early afternoon. 30 miles in a swamp? About 4 full days. Then, how it wants to be broken up is up to the players, but I find that travel time is typically just that - travel time. Extenuating factors (broken bridges, foraging, pathfinding, etc.) always extend things.

Right--*your* issue isn't with consistency, but (so far as I can tell) complexity. Some of us, however, *do* have an issue with consistency, whereas the complexity of the proposed solution (so far as some of us are concerned) seems negligible. I don't think anyone is looking for super-precise answers, here; approximate ones are fine. I don't need to know that walking from X to Y, using the roads typically takes 2 days, 5 hours, 17 minutes, and 38 seconds; saying it takes two and a half days (or even 2-3 days) is sufficient. Should I repeat that trip under the same circumstances, I just want it to be about two and a half days again. If it takes much more (or, somehow, much less) time--say, more than four days or less than one--then I want a reason for it, and I want it to have been a conscious decision on the part of the GM, rather than a case of adding obstacles just to avoid having to keep track of how long he/she said the trip took last time.

Also, I want a cast iron skillet, the new season of "Doctor Who" on DVD, a copy of "Dragon Age: Inquisition", and a ukulele.

shonuff
12-05-2014, 04:31 AM
Wait--are you saying that the prediction about never-ending drought would have been more accurate than traditional extended forecasts? If so, what exactly do you mean when you refer to "traditional extended forecasts"? Better yet, do you have a link to this study?

It was in the book Freakonomics. Here is a link to part of it (maybe all - it's been a while since I read it):


http://freakonomics.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/


Right--*your* issue isn't with consistency, but (so far as I can tell) complexity. Some of us, however, *do* have an issue with consistency, whereas the complexity of the proposed solution (so far as some of us are concerned) seems negligible. I don't think anyone is looking for super-precise answers, here; approximate ones are fine. I don't need to know that walking from X to Y, using the roads typically takes 2 days, 5 hours, 17 minutes, and 38 seconds; saying it takes two and a half days (or even 2-3 days) is sufficient. Should I repeat that trip under the same circumstances, I just want it to be about two and a half days again. If it takes much more (or, somehow, much less) time--say, more than four days or less than one--then I want a reason for it, and I want it to have been a conscious decision on the part of the GM, rather than a case of adding obstacles just to avoid having to keep track of how long he/she said the trip took last time.

Also, I want a cast iron skillet, the new season of "Doctor Who" on DVD, a copy of "Dragon Age: Inquisition", and a ukulele.

No, my issue isn't with accuracy. Once it's established it's established, but exact rates, distances, etc. don't concern me because they're all approximates. Because of that, I'm using basic rates, one basic modifier, and approximate distances. I don't, for example, do a different weather randomization per day to see how it affects travel.

DrawGreeny
12-05-2014, 06:00 AM
It was in the book Freakonomics. Here is a link to part of it (maybe all - it's been a while since I read it):


http://freakonomics.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/

Ah, thanks for the link! The relevant passage appears to be this one:

"The graph above shows that stations get their precipitation predictions correct about 85 percent of the time one day out and decline to about 73 percent seven days out. On the surface, that would not seem too bad. But consider that if a meteorologist always predicted that it would never rain, they would be right 86.3 percent of the time. So if a viewer was looking for more certainty than just assuming it will not rain, a successful meteorologist would have to be better than 86.3 percent. Three of the forecasters were about 87 percent at one day out a hair over the threshold for success."

If I understand that correctly (and once again, it may be that I don't) they're saying that on any given day in Kansas City, there's an 86.3% chance that it won't rain; thus, anyone--meteorologist or not--would be right 86.3% of the time if they predicted it wouldn't rain that day. I note that the report also uses the phrasing "predicted that it would never rain", rather than "never predicted that it would rain"; I still feel the latter is a better word choice, but whatever. In any case, it's important to note that a meteorologist who never predicts rain will turn out to be right on 86.3% of those days (or roughly 315 days out of the year). This is *not* the same as saying that someone predicting it will never rain again has an 86.3% chance of being right. That chance, barring some sort of ecological catastrophe, is basically 0%.


No, my issue isn't with accuracy. Once it's established it's established, but exact rates, distances, etc. don't concern me because they're all approximates. Because of that, I'm using basic rates, one basic modifier, and approximate distances. I don't, for example, do a different weather randomization per day to see how it affects travel.

Fair enough.

Darkdreamer
12-05-2014, 07:37 AM
No, my issue isn't with accuracy. Once it's established it's established, but exact rates, distances, etc. don't concern me because they're all approximates. Because of that, I'm using basic rates, one basic modifier, and approximate distances. I don't, for example, do a different weather randomization per day to see how it affects travel.

I'm hit or miss about weather; the reasons I do it when I remember is because it has other effects besides just travel issues if an encounter comes up during the day.

shonuff
12-05-2014, 01:33 PM
If I understand that correctly (and once again, it may be that I don't) they're saying that on any given day in Kansas City, there's an 86.3% chance that it won't rain; thus, anyone--meteorologist or not--would be right 86.3% of the time if they predicted it wouldn't rain that day. I note that the report also uses the phrasing "predicted that it would never rain", rather than "never predicted that it would rain"; I still feel the latter is a better word choice, but whatever. In any case, it's important to note that a meteorologist who never predicts rain will turn out to be right on 86.3% of those days (or roughly 315 days out of the year). This is *not* the same as saying that someone predicting it will never rain again has an 86.3% chance of being right.

Ah, I see your point. Of course, to be fair, when meteorologists make predictions in extended forecasts, it is almost always on a daily basis in the future.


That chance, barring some sort of ecological catastrophe, is basically 0%.

Unless it happens... Then it's about 100%. :)

shonuff
12-05-2014, 01:35 PM
I'm hit or miss about weather; the reasons I do it when I remember is because it has other effects besides just travel issues if an encounter comes up during the day.

Yeah, I pretty much ignore it. It's usually predetermined if I'm going to use it, although I did find a handy generator:

http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/weather/

Darkdreamer
12-06-2014, 08:21 AM
Yeah, I pretty much ignore it. It's usually predetermined if I'm going to use it, although I did find a handy generator:

http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/weather/

I've actually got an old, probably Win98 era program called AKS_Weather I use when I'm going to do it. Its one of those things I like to not do entirely internally since I tend to fall into patterns if I do that.