Combat molasses
JoyWriter:
Quote from: Hereward The Wake on February 11, 2010, 02:21:03 PM
minis don't have to slow things down
Could you give an example? I can't picture how to avoid taking a while setting up the map for the miniatures; it takes me ages to make a good map, which is one of the things that stalled our old shadowrun game.
Hereward The Wake:
I'd set up the rough layout as I described it to the players, it doesn't need to be hyper detailed or realistic as such, it is just giving a rough visual referance as to where the action takes place and rough spatial relations of where people and major objects are. This isn't something that works with precise measurements of distance or numnerous modifiers and complex calculations when rolling dice. when arrows are flying, swords biting or bullets and grenades exploding it is chaotic. The detail and the tactics should take place before hand when the plan, if their is one, is devised to that when the s**t hits the fan, that when the GM points at you you you don't go "errrr well I think......." instead you know what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, you telll the GM and it works or not based on quick rolls etc. as in real Life KISS applies here, Keep It Short and Simple for plans and mechanics then let the action take care of the rest.
Best
JoyWriter:
Ok so the mini's are working like monopoly pieces then (acting as memorable position markers so you can quickly tell where people are)?
I can understand that, part of what slows me down is my architect/level designer tendencies, and trying to work out the scale of the various distances and bottlenecks choke points etc, (while still being spatially appropriate to wherever it's supposed to be) with the scale of the mini's translating that into physical distances in the actual drawing.
If you take exact measuring out of it, then yeah I can see what you mean, it does get a lot easier. Thinking back I have done something similar, (sketch an outline and people enter/defend general spaces as if they were flowchart points, with the mini's moving to represent changes), but it got really static, and the motion of the characters became quite irrelevent.
Now that was in D&D3.5, which is pretty damned static anyway, but I've never done that and had complex cover shifting+manoeuvring and the sort of ebb and flow that are supported in miniature games. Do you have anything like that in your gaming experience? And if so what kind of things did you do to pull it off?
Weirdly, I've had complex and dynamic flow stuff where we used no miniatures at all, but nothing between that and fully scaled maps!
Locke:
1. tell them to get to the point, but thank them for their enthusiasm
2. tell them if they don't have the attack ready in a reasonable amount of time they have to make a basic attack or none at all. encourage them to READ THE RULES
3. tell them they are CHEATING called metagaming and that it takes time actions and resources to plan attacks that must be done before combat. every player thinks for themselves, and that the GM will let them know if the character has more knowledge then the player and that another course of action might be better taken that the character knows but the player doesn't.
Jeff B:
I agree with Meramec: By adding tactical detail, you might accomplish exactly the opposite of what you want. Play may become mired in players taking a long time considering their options, and additional time to resolve subtle maneuvers.
Furthermore, simply having a long list of options for what may be done is not enough to ensure diversity in the action itself. Unless the GM engineers dozens of different situations for characters to be in, dozens of distinctly different opponents that suggest different tactics be used, there will tend to be a single best-move option that will cause the others to be ignored. Even the addition of something such as a shield-bash raises questions: How often should I shield-bash my opponent? Always? Only if they're smaller than me? Only if they're larger than me? What tactical intelligence do I have (or need to have) to guide my decision?
The best game experience may indeed come not from highly detailed mechanics but rather from the rapid resolution of combat where every player felt they played an active role got to see their characters dishing out damage, period. It's entirely a matter of what your game is supposed to be about, in your own mind. There is an economy of time: The more your game is about Thing A, the less it is about Thing B. So if tactical detail is a priority, that's fine. But the additional time invested means the game will be less about others things, such as dialogue and plot, because the total time available to play is limited.
So, that said, here's a sort of answer to your actual question -- something I've been toying with for some time: Let's go back to the shield bash. There is more than one way to administer a special move like that bash. The common way, as was discussed here, is that the player opts to use the special tactic and therefore generates a different combat result if he succeeds (that is, knocking the opponent down, rather than inflicting a normal weapon hit). This creates the burden of creating situations where the bash is meaningful and a logical and better alternative than a regular attack.
Imagine instead that by taking the shield bash skill/maneuver/talent, the player has added one more possible outcome to combat that didn't exist before. Each time a melee round occurs, the player makes a normal attack roll. In addition to the chance of a normal weapon hit, there is now the chance of a shield bash occurring. It must be a bonus, not a replacement of the normal result. It either happens along with a normal hit, or else it happens when the character would otherwise have missed.
For the sake of example, let's say that if the number required to hit the opponent is exceeded by a margin of two, then a regular hit PLUS a shield bash occurs, and the opponent may be knocked down or stunned. In this way, the variety of results grows but there is virtually no increase in complexity of play. If the character has several special maneuvers, perhaps he indicates which one the character will employ if the opportunity presents itself (i.e., if he gets the correct margin of success), or perhaps the specific tactic is randomized somehow. There are many possibilities of determining precisely what happens. The important thing is, it benefits the character and does not burden play, since it is a random result rather than a decision-making process. My two cents' worth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page