How much Combat?
- Thread starter Shadowfax
- Start date
like today, only larger
IMTU experience:
There is (almost) always an opening with violence as the catalyst, then much avoiding of further violence. Followed by occasional talks of wishing for a chance at some ‘action’ which is then further avoided. Till finally, violent confrontations MUST be dealt with and then it ends with brave words spoken at a grave or at an award ceremony or both.
Deadly combat is a staple of the game I enjoy because it causes PCs to think through problems instead of taking on every Tom, Dick and Eneri in the Universe.
IMTU experience:
There is (almost) always an opening with violence as the catalyst, then much avoiding of further violence. Followed by occasional talks of wishing for a chance at some ‘action’ which is then further avoided. Till finally, violent confrontations MUST be dealt with and then it ends with brave words spoken at a grave or at an award ceremony or both.
Deadly combat is a staple of the game I enjoy because it causes PCs to think through problems instead of taking on every Tom, Dick and Eneri in the Universe.
Op, which question are you asking:
a) Percentage of combat in typical adventures?
- or -
b) Percentage of adventures, out of all adventures, that involve combat?
Only a small amount of focus is generally on combat in my adventures - i.e. combat is not the primary focus. (Maybe 10~30%.) But almost every adventure has some combat in it. (90~100%.) [Over half of my adventures only involving some combination of non-lethal or not intentionally lethal combat - ala fist-i-cuffs and scare tactics...]- or -
b) Percentage of adventures, out of all adventures, that involve combat?
Somebody somewhere is allways too stupid to figure out how to accomplish their mission without combat. Then there are the animal encounters, that 10,000 Kg animal with a thrasher and piercing attacks thinks you should run away very fast, and never come back. (think African elephant)
Good question. Thanks for asking. I was primarily more interested in a, but having the answer to b is also interesting.
I have discovered there is a lot of combat in my adventures. Some of the adventures (merc campaigns, pirates, rogues, bounty-hunters etc.) revolve around it and we play a lot of those. Even the other Adventures we run have a lot of combat in them. My players seem to like it and often we end up playing something more like a tactical tabletop wargame than a role-playing game. I don't think there is anything wrong with that and about 60% of my players like it. However, I have a couple players and they are the hard core types, who also like to role-play. I like them a lot, because they challenge me as a referee and because they are probably the more interesting people in the game, so I want to make sure that they get enough role playing in and enough "non-blam-blam!" action.
Yet, I have to admit I sometimes find it hard to keep the games like that going. I can build suspense in a game, but it is hard to top the fear and suspense of a good firefight and I need to work on better developing the alternatives.
Most adventures I've run have involved fighting or at least defense against some kind of creature. Fighting against other armed men is rare.
LMAO!
Combat = drama. Right up the alley of roleplay centric Players. But, combat mechanics generally encourage tactical gaming over RPing... especially when Players are armed with books and rules they can prep with.Shadowfax said:
A mix of Player types is good - trick is to get the gamers to see the 'tactical' benefits of good RP and the RPers to get into the tactical game.
Practically every adventure I run has combat in it, in some form or other, but my games are RP focused. For me, the key is simplifying and de-codifying combat RAW - decoupling the RPG from wargaming. I provide for combat actions (versus a lot of dice modifiers) and situational target values (for rolls
). Custom made gear - especially non-lethal, but also high tech - with custom attributes that Players can roleplay (such as selective power levels and nature of damage). Most of all, ditching 'turn mechanics' and cut and dry initiative and providing more descriptive and functional wounding (some table driven, some adhoc) vs simple damage points. Basically combat mechanics just becomes task rolls - like everything else. This flows naturally from the rest of the game - instead of the disjoint of suddenly and intrusively interrupting the roleplaying game for the equivalent of a tactical board game.So, I drop the fiddly stuff and avoid a lot of compound DMs. However, I keep complexity and even pile it on - just keep the implementation, i.e. gaming aspects, simple.
Ex: range. I adjust target values based on abstract range and how it effects a particular type of attack. No solid numbers - but Players generally know in advance (or are informed on the spot) of what is better and worse. A laser weapon is a lot more effective at good range with regards to hitting (simplicity of aiming/ballistics) in atmo, but can be less effective at damage (optimized for standard atmo) than say a modern day slug thrower. Further, range gets better in vacc, but beam is not visible, reducing 'aim' benefits (especially to moving targets). Lasers are immune to standard gravity effects, while slug thrower aiming and range can be adversely affected. Slug throwers perform poorly in water (ballistics and aiming), but, unless optimized for the purpose, portable lasers generally are totally ineffective through anything but shallow water. Gauss weapons can overcome a lot of typical slug-thrower disadvantaged, yet have vulnerabilities of their own - like effective firing into water, but not firing underwater.
Note that I am in no way trying to be 'more realistic', but rather am borrowing ideas from reality (right and wrong - its 'Science Fiction') in support of roleplaying as well as giving strategic/tactical considerations (without hard numbers) for both gamers and roleplayers to grab onto.
I avoid simulation - focusing on good story and drama. The 'to-hit' for first firing from a 'Mexican Standoff' state vs. the firestorm of a potential ensuring firefight are quite different. Such is pretty hard to numerically simulate, IMO, when taking into account amount and nature of cover, dangers of environment (ricochets, shattered glass, burst pipes, etc.) and the motivation of each party. For RP, I think having more open options dynamically taken into account by the Ref - such as shooting to wound, vs shooting to negate a threat, vs shooting to kill - is better than having more raw mechanics.
In my games it is a delicate balance. If I was just running for my eldest son, he'd be happy with lots of pure roleplaying and intrigue, with occasional combat only as required by the plot. My youngest son, however, gets quickly bored unless there is some combat going on, and we want to include him in the game as much as possible, so we end up with more combat than might be strictly required by the story.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
I'm with BytePro. All my games have combat in them somewhere, but combat is infrequent in all of them.
This wasn't always the case. I find it's strongly influenced by the gaming environment.
Once upon a time, when I had local players gathered round a table looking at carefully painted metal figures and cardboard or resin scenery, we jumped from one combat scene to another, with only a few rolls to open doors, etc, between them. There didn't seem much point in buying costly action figures bearing interchangeable weapons, and intricately detailed sci-fi scenery, then lovingly painting them up, if all you were going to do was plot 'intrigue' in your heads.
However, when RL dispersed my gaming groups, everyone became busier and I moved to PbP to get my fix, I had the opposite situation. It became difficult to 'see' a combat situation in text-based posts. Ten years ago drawing and posting a battlemap was a major undertaking and VTTs were unheard of, so my games evolved into a much higher proportion of RP and much less combat.
Today, of course, virtual gaming environments and real-time online communications have swung online games back to a recreation of the old tabletop experience, but I'm afraid this old fogey hasn't evolved with the technology and I still game in PbP. As a result, it can take the best part of a week to adjudicate a round of combat, even with the simplest rules, so I tend to use it sparingly as an 'adrenaline recharge' perhaps one scene in five or maybe one in ten.
This wasn't always the case. I find it's strongly influenced by the gaming environment.
Once upon a time, when I had local players gathered round a table looking at carefully painted metal figures and cardboard or resin scenery, we jumped from one combat scene to another, with only a few rolls to open doors, etc, between them. There didn't seem much point in buying costly action figures bearing interchangeable weapons, and intricately detailed sci-fi scenery, then lovingly painting them up, if all you were going to do was plot 'intrigue' in your heads.
However, when RL dispersed my gaming groups, everyone became busier and I moved to PbP to get my fix, I had the opposite situation. It became difficult to 'see' a combat situation in text-based posts. Ten years ago drawing and posting a battlemap was a major undertaking and VTTs were unheard of, so my games evolved into a much higher proportion of RP and much less combat.
Today, of course, virtual gaming environments and real-time online communications have swung online games back to a recreation of the old tabletop experience, but I'm afraid this old fogey hasn't evolved with the technology and I still game in PbP. As a result, it can take the best part of a week to adjudicate a round of combat, even with the simplest rules, so I tend to use it sparingly as an 'adrenaline recharge' perhaps one scene in five or maybe one in ten.
I tend to always include a combat-focused objective in every adventure session (though there are exceptions), but the characters need to have done their legwork ahead of time or they'll be in for a world of hurt.
Of course, I try to work with my players to determine if they want more or less combat in any given session, and luckily I've never really had to worry much about a 'stupid' decision by a player causing problems in combat.
Of course, I try to work with my players to determine if they want more or less combat in any given session, and luckily I've never really had to worry much about a 'stupid' decision by a player causing problems in combat.
Baron
SOC-12
When I run a game I like to keep combat to a minimum, playing up story, character development, plot, atmosphere and mystery. Problem solving is usually possible through clever play, rather than shoot-em-ups. If players like to roll dice, I let them roll dice -- doesn't have to be about combat.
I can relate and commiserate, but my group never left that first universe. We don't meet often, but when we do out comes the battlemat and the case water soluble crayola markers. Every year there are more and more incredibly detailed and finely painted lead and plastic 8mm or 15mm minis -with everything from infantry to dropships, tanks to monsters. I am really impressed at the lengths my players go to to paint this stuff. They are painting insignias and eyeballs on 8mm figures that I can hardly even see except for with a magnifying glass!
My guys all play PC games, but there is still nothing like meeting in a basement around a table with a few beers or firing up the BBQ and gaming the old way! The two experiences are simply incomparable.
I don't usually draw the terrain until the first few rounds have been fired. Descriptions are vague in the beginning and then suddenly they realize the terrain confronting them when the map is drawn. I try to give them the feeling of getting sucked into things, because trouble usually comes when you aren't looking for or expecting it. Even sometimes when you are expecting it, its sudden appearance takes you by surprise. "This isn't happening! This isn't happening!", but it is!
Sometimes through the use of the battle-mat though, I see things becoming more like a set-piece wargame. I don't like that. If I have combat I want to try to transmit the confusion, the shear fear and the adrenaline rush to my players (without the real danger).
The battle-mat and minis sometimes work against me because they make things measurable, empirical, calculable everything that a real battle is not.
Where-ever possible I try to get a good mix, using the mat and the minis to display and describe the situation and keeping things vague to draw them in and surprise them.
Where I feel I need to get better, is keeping things vague, shrouded and confusing to give the players that oppressive feeling of tunnel vision, being out of breath and having everything just happening so fast, but at the same time going by in a kind of slow motion.
Often you never know what hit you other times you see it coming, but are powerless to change the flow and sometimes if you are lucky everything just flows, you are at the right place at the right time, the training kicks in and you attain almost a trace-like state, that if you survive turns into one hell of a high (at least in the short-term). It is not always easy to transmit that feeling to people, especially those who have never felt it, but that is how I would like it to come across.
The hardest thing is finding a way to tell the players, that although they can see everything on the mat in front of them, it is not as easy for their characters to react as it is for them to move their minis on the map. I keep saying things like, "You hear so many bullets whizzing around you that you are just sure you will get nailed if you poke your head up over the wall!" Sometimes that is a warning they should heed and sometimes poking their head up over (or around) that wall is exactly what they need to do.
I have to constantly remind them that even-though they see the mini of one of their comrades to the left of them on the battlemat, they don't necessarily KNOW that he is there let alone what targets he has picked to shoot at. My objective I guess is to make things realistic to them, to transmit that rush safely, so that they will have the most fun from the encounter. I don't always know though, if this is the right thing to do.
I used to think it would be nice to have that rush without the danger, but sometimes now I wonder if it might be irresponsible? It is nearly impossible to transmit the feelings of all that and the aftermath that follows and I wonder if one should? Sometimes I think it helps me even if it is sometimes difficult for me on some level.
My ultimate goal is to try to get other people to understand what it is like. Yet I know that there is no way to really build a bridge between those three worlds of the realities of war, the drudgery and and shear taken for granted bliss of civilian life and pure high fantasy.
"Better to live a long life eating millet."
I have met a number of gamers over the years, it didn't matter to them what game system they were using, it was 100 percent hack and slash/gun combat.
I would think so. Me too.
Yeah, that's it. I have some guys like that and they get bored when there is no "action".
I should clarify my response here; there was combat in every adventure, but not every adventure was heavy on combat. It's just that most of the players I interacted with wanted to mix it up. Just kind of the nature of the beast.
Similar threads
