Revision as of 00:52, 22 January 2013

I just spent about 2 hours reading threads on the Fantasy Flight forums as well as rpg.net. It has caused me to harken back to something that I think continues to come up in our games, and yet for some reason we rarely address it.

How do we want to deal with combat?

The Conundrum

Here is the issue as I see it. Some of us want to have tactical decisions that matter. Some of us want to do something cool. Some of us dont really care how the combat is handled as long as it is easy to grasp. Yet, when we actually sit down at the table how different are we?

This is one of those discussions where 'system matters' makes the most sense. Part of the reason we really glaze over combat in Star Trek: The Triangle Missions is that it is poorly implemented. In a way it makes sense, they have implemented what you see on tv: get hit with a phaser, go down. I tried adding a new system so you might survive a hit, just for drama sake, but I am not sure that made the combat more 'desirable' from a player standpoint.

I have often said I want the combats to be more interesting from a system perspective, more 'tactical'. I want the decisions I make to matter. But where does this lead? What if the mechanics say one thing should happen in a series of attacks, but logic says another (this came up in Exposure).

Maybe I have been guilty of something and that has then become endemic to us all: making combat uninteresting from a players perspective.

Think back to the combats we have had. How often is the setting well described? Sometimes we draw a map, but is that the same? Now a follow up, how often have the players utilized the environment to good effect during a combat?

We rarely run for cover, we rarely maneuver other than 'I engage him'. I am thinking this could be a relatively new phenomenon, and it might be part of why we have had a bit of trouble with continuity (or maybe it is caused by it?).

Remember the first session of Serenity Bebop? The players had a fight in a bar with some mobster toughs while attempting to save another group of mobsters. At one point, Rumis character (a combat medic) grabbed an injured NPC and pulled him to the floor while simultaneously kicking over the table to provide cover. She then proceeded to administer first aid on subsequent turns. In other words, she described her action well and added to the scene. We have gotten away from this somewhat, and I think she was also almost punished for trying to be creative in the The Riddle of Steel game when she wanted to pin or break the enemy spear. It just devolved into a system discussion where her eyes glazed over and she got the 'just let me roll the dice' look.

I think we need a strong example, and normally this can come from the GM. I think a lot of what I have been doing less and less in my time shackled to the GM chair is providing leadership in terms of narration. Dieter mentioned this as well in a recent email. Where the GM goes, players follow.

One other point is that in Serenity Bebop, Charles was a player and this is something he excels at. He is excellent at using the scene to his advantage or providing narrative hooks based on action. With him doing it, we all kind of did. We need to find out how we can cultivate this kind of groupthink again. Or at least, I think I would like it if we did.

One consequence of this is the plots take longer to resolve. I would welcome this, but I am not sure this is universal to the players. When plots take more sessions to unfold, the GM has more opportunity to tailor the action to what the players are doing.

Proposed Solutions

We dont really have a problem per se, so solution might be too strong a word, but we could certainly improve. Currently we rush from encounter to encounter, throwing out short sentences, grabbing dice and screaming for resolution. This is true both in and out of combat.

This is not always a bad thing. The frenetic environment of Fractured Reflections was a choice on my part, and I think it contributed to the atmosphere. We should put some thought into pacing, and this is not always the GM who controls this. More correctly, if the players might enjoy a different pace, they should elucidate that to the GM.

This is not something we can address mechanically. In fact, it might not be something we can address at all until we have a consistent group and game. Maybe we need to be more comfortable with one another and 'immersed'. Both Allen and I have expressed some difficulty in getting immersion in one shots or certain atmospheres.

Thoughts

Is this accurate?

--Dieter the Bold 23:52, 21 January 2013 (MST) Combat for me consists of two types: The kind that has important implications and the kind that doesn't. In the latter case, I just want to be able to throw a few dice and get it over with so I can get to the juicier meat of plot or interaction. That's not to say I don't want to have that combat there, as it can be a very personally satisfying experience to lay the beatdown on some mooks or make a statement through superior violence. In these cases I want combat to be like a skill roll. Figure out the modifiers, maybe some minor scheming to tilt said mods in your favor, and just make some rolls.
When the combat has important implications, I suddenly get schizophrenic. On the one hand, combat that will resolve important plot points falls more into roleplaying for me. Which makes it important that the mechanics support me in being able to make decisions that have real effects. This isn't just waving my arms about, this is roleplaying through a sword, or gun, or spell. So I want to have full expression of my creativity within a system that gives my decisions meaning. The mental-split comes about because of how long this type of roleplaying takes. A serious combat between a group of PCs and a group of NPCs can last for hours. And I am kneejerk against spending hours of real-time resolving what will be 10 minutes of game-time.

Go here for a tangent into why I think I game like I do.