*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 17, 2014, 09:39:09 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
46709 Posts in 5588 Topics by 13297 Members Latest Member: - Shane786 Most online today: 32 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Combat molasses  (Read 2914 times)
Daniel B
Member

Posts: 196

Co-inventor of the Normal Engine


« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2010, 03:23:50 PM »

@ no one in particular

Come to think of it, the nature of a roleplaying game really runs counter to that essence of person-to-person combat, don't you think?

In an RPG, you must depend on the GM and other players to tell things "as they really are", and by the same token, you must trust the other players to believe you when you make statements. Without this trust, you can't really construct an SIS. "Haha players, TPK. I lied when I said there was no dragon sleeping on top of the treasure hoard."

This requirement to trust and be truthworthy hinders capturing the feeling of person-to-person combat because it disallows players from seeking and taking advantage of all the tiny little opportunities that open up. For example, you might get lucky in real, physical simulated combat by, say, ducking left to dodge the enemy's swing and then finding yourself facing his now-exposed left flank. In a game, either the player specifically requests that his PC set this up, or the GM offers "you've ducked the swing and your PC is now in a better position to hit the enemy." In either case, it must be "artificially" added to the SIS; it does not emerge "naturally".

What I'd really love to see is a system that has simple and streamlined rules, but which has lots of leeway for some serious emergent complexity.
Logged

Arthur: "It's times like these that make me wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was little."
Ford: "Why? What did she tell you?"
Arthur: "I don't know. I didn't listen."
FetusCommander
Member

Posts: 42

also Rudy


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 08, 2010, 10:26:38 AM »

This requirement to trust and be truthworthy hinders capturing the feeling of person-to-person combat because it disallows players from seeking and taking advantage of all the tiny little opportunities that open up. For example, you might get lucky in real, physical simulated combat by, say, ducking left to dodge the enemy's swing and then finding yourself facing his now-exposed left flank. In a game, either the player specifically requests that his PC set this up, or the GM offers "you've ducked the swing and your PC is now in a better position to hit the enemy." In either case, it must be "artificially" added to the SIS; it does not emerge "naturally".

What I'd really love to see is a system that has simple and streamlined rules, but which has lots of leeway for some serious emergent complexity.

That's a good point tbh, and I'd like a system like that too

A system where it's possible to "do something wrong" that mechanically exposes you, but where that "something" isn't tied to the book research that trick is talking about. 

That said, I don't find the other two of those combat phases that uninteresting, only when they bog as someone mentioned.  I think the things that frustrate me most about combat are 1) lack of real stakes in the combat (i.e. you're fighting 20 kobolds and know you'll win, but you've got to fight them), and 2) that glaze that happens when its not your turn and nothing is affecting you directly. 

Time limits can actually help with both of those if done right.  A GM from my group once used a system that relied on people to dictate actions within a certain time frame, then the situation was debated by the group, and ruled on.  That definitely made paying attention a lot easier, and elevated the fear of "real" consequences a bit.

Overall, i think some metagame tactics discussions are important for the fun, as long as they don't become rules disputes, looking up rules, or delay the game indefinitely.
Logged

Rudy Johnson
trick
Member

Posts: 18


« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2010, 11:54:49 PM »

In an RPG, you must depend on the GM and other players to tell things "as they really are", and by the same token, you must trust the other players to believe you when you make statements. Without this trust, you can't really construct an SIS. "Haha players, TPK. I lied when I said there was no dragon sleeping on top of the treasure hoard."

I think this is a significant part of the problem. The thing is that combat "as it really is" is chaotic, and can often go easily one way or the other. Of course if the GM tries to enforce this to the PCs' detriment, their players get unhappy. I think the solution for this is to use mechanics that are inherently chaotic. One idea (inspired by Black Cadillac's Death Die) would be to get wound counters or something during a combat scene, but the actual result of wound damage be calculated after a combat scene. The result is that nobody knows how much your character is hurt till after the scene is over. Another possibility is to allow players to reroll dice a certain number of times, but for every time they do it, the GM gets a free dice to roll at his choosing. If the GM collects a big enough pill of dice, that could be really bad news.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!