Zones, a reintroduction

Following on the great comments in the last post, I sought to reintroduce zones and answer some general questions. Tomorrow I'll post a more specific discussion that delves a bit deeper into the various parts of zone combat. The goal is to get a basic understanding of zones and hopefully have ya'll catch/critique any issues before I keep building. Hence, as always, feedback is appreciated and please fire away.

Why use zones?

Zones change the level of abstraction of combat from a micro- to a more macro-level. Instead of occupying a 5’x5’ piece of dirt, characters occupy cinematic zones like the ruined tower. That change in focus is naturally more cinematic and exciting. More importantly, zones provide a different mechanism to understand the relationships between creatures in combat such that knowing the precise placement of any one creature is not important. This allows a combat to be played abstractly (without a battle map or miniatures) while still presenting interesting and diverse tactical challenges.

The overall complexity of combat can be increased, though, by adding more zones or zones with greater complexity. This increase in complexity uses the same rules as simpler versions and the change is driven purely by changing the specific zones. In this way, a single session can contain quick, simple battlefields and more elaborate battlefields all while using the same rules and powers.

As the tactical complexity increases, the reintroduction of a battle map and miniatures will likely facilitate understanding. Even with such accessories, combat should still be quicker because the greater level of abstraction allows miniatures to simply be moved instead of counting squares, ranges, and area of effects.

What is a zone?

A zone is an area of a battlefield sharing a unifying trait. A zone could be a forest clearing, a narrow hallway, a cluttered kitchen, or a portion of a gladiatorial arena littered with enough corpses to make it difficult to maneuver through. Zones can be any shape or size and do not necessarily have discrete borders; a forest clearing can gradually give way to a forest without any hard lines and each is a separate zone.

The unifying trait of a zone is reported as a concise description such as a kitchen being “cramped, messy, and full of sharp objects.” Characters can then build upon those descriptions to try and interact with the zone. For instance, a character in a tavern zone described as “cluttered with tables and benches” could spend a minor action to flip a table and take active cover behind it.

Sometimes the zone will have additional rules and the description is a clue to what those rules might be. For instance, a zone between two platforms in the treetops might be described as a “rickety rope bridge” and require a Dexterity check any turn that you begin in the zone or fall. Players should have a good indication of what they’re in for, but not necessarily know DCs or the specific consequences. In essence, a player has a good idea what their character is in for if they run up and attack the ogre, but they don’t specifically know his defense or what he can do when he attacks back. The same relationship is true for zones.

Are players aware of zones?

Yes. Ideally the battlefield would present a dynamic environment that characters move through completing heroic actions, but this places unfair expectations on players. In the struggle between trying to satisfy characters and players, players have to win. The reason is that if zones are not explicitly delineated, players cannot be sure if a target is in range, if they are likely to be able to move that far, and so on.

Their characters, though, would have that information. The only reason the player doesn’t have that information is that they are forced to view the world through the lens of the GM’s words. By making zones explicit, players have a better understanding of the world their character inhabits and can better play that character. Bringing zones “behind the screen” also forces the “Mother-may-I?” mentality of older editions that many players (rightfully, in my opinion) are no longer willing to accept. The player declares, the GM adjudicates, the dice resolve. Making zones explicit is the most efficient way to maintain that trinity of relationships.

Do zones differ when you break out the battle map?
No. The rules don’t change and you can run combat identically. Once the battle map is out, though, it is easier to communicate greater complexity because of the additional medium. In that sense, play may become more tactical, but only because you are choosing to twist the dial up to 11. To reiterate—no rules change but how many rules you choose to use may increase. (In one of my previous posts I mentioned that I was happy the rules would be easy to house rule to further hone in on tactical complexity. I did not mean to imply that the rules would *have* to change to effectuate this change. Tactical complexity is really, really easy to dial up or down using the same rules. Despite that, I am still happy that this looks like it’d be much easier to house rule than D&D).

Do powers differ when you break out the battle map?

No. Powers operate identically whether or not a battle map is used. A basic attack allows you to target any creature in your zone whether that zone is in your imagination or on the table. The tactical options are identical at any level of complexity. The only change is that at a higher level of complexity, you may have more tactical options merely because there are more zones, causeways, stuntways or other mechanics added in. The rules remain identical.

How do you create battlefields?

Zones are an important part of encounter design and, just like picking the right mix of monsters, the mix of zones can make or break a combat. Fortunately, it seems unlikely that a bad mix of zones will “break” a combat so long as a few simple criteria are met. As zones see more play testing (i.e. any play testing), these criteria can be refined and explored to fully unlock the strengths of zones.

Ultimately, the combat should justify the battlefield. A quick random encounter with a pack of wolves might need only two or three zones linked by causeways with a smattering of other elements. A crucial fight through the castle and its many secret passages might warrant dozens of zones laid out with special rules on how each secret passage is accessed and opened.

When in doubt, defer to simple and build on player suggestions during play. Any room with a window technically has a stuntway even if it wasn’t stated out. Any tree can be climbed even if that zone didn’t include a note that the trees can be climbed. One of the strengths of zones is that the higher level of abstraction allows the GM and players to ignore the little things while preserving tactical options. Imagination should always be a tactic.