TheRPGSite

In grubman's 4e D&D thread, I read this:

Quote from: Christmas ApeYou know something?

I hate minis too. The game-within-a-game of square-counting and path mapping is just as fuckstick awful for immersion, so far as my group is concerned, as personality mechanics are for some others. I'd like 4.0 to go the "minis optional" route, rather than the "minis strongly recommended!" approach of 3.5. I know it won't happen, but I'd like it.

It caused me to think again about something that's been rolling around in my brain cage for awhile now, and that's the tactical elements of roleplaying games.

Most times, combat in roleplaying games, leaving aside pure description, just bores me.  I like there to be a bit of meat on a game's bones, tactics-wise, but most games just boil down to a back-and-forth of "roll to hit, roll damage" with whatever extra steps or variants are in the way.

That shit is dull.  And even dressing it up with descriptions doesn't really save it.

I have, however, run across a few games that get around this problem.  Deadlands Classic (and its sister games) solved the dilemma by giving a variety of options and allowing players to manipulate action / initiative through the use of playing cards in a way very similar to poker, and in giving them tactical choices on the to-hit roll with meaningful results (called shots were a big part of the game, and each hit location had separate wound capacities).  In that way, it was tactically complex and rewarding, without being about movement.

D&D goes the other route.  Tactical choices have less to do with initiative and actions and more about maneuvering for position and manipulating the battlefield.  That's why miniatures are so important.  Yet again, D&D combat avoids being dull because there is real tactical depth to the combat game.

Weapons of the Gods has you tracking resources and playing yachtzee.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, other than to say that I really appreciate games with this sort of depth.  They give you something to do, gameplay wise when the roleplaying is interrupted by combat.  I think that's great and I wish more games would follow suit.

So far as tactical interest in the combat, RedFox, I'm with you 200%. I cannot abide "I attack him" "He attacks you" "I attack him" combat. If I don't have something to play with I'm absolutely uninterested in the events; however, I require it to be fast, fun to play with, and encourage variety in tactical thinking.

I find, personally, that D&D in its 3.5 incarnation does very little of that for me. I find the rules fiddly and riddled with exception-based sub-rules, and the general use of AoOs tends to prevent fun combat options rather than encourage them. Minis are yet worse for this; by the time you get the battle map out, find the minis you want or need, set up terrain, and arrange everything, half the group is pouring through a new sourcebook and the other half has forgotten precisely why (or who!) they're fighting. I consider it an excellent game that totally fails to work for me or my group as it was intended to be played.

Obviously, individual mileage will vary.

Indeed, and I didn't mean for the post to come off as a condemnation of your preference, Christmas Ape.  D&D combat doesn't work for a lotta folks, and I think that's perfectly valid.

It's not about particular solutions, but rather that there be something there aside from just hit/miss/damage.

Well, the combat scripting in Burning Wheel is certainly different, though I am as yet unconvinced it's better.  Well actually I think I will get onside with better but I'm not going to label it "great".  The "something to do" is the positioning tactics and the scripting.

Agon's positioning system is wonderful especially in the context of the player competition that's going on under the covers -- being able to use your tactical prowess to maneuver other players into danger so that you can save them and gather the glory is mighty cool, but narrowly constrained to a certain kind of game.  Pretty much to Agon really.  The "something to do" here is all in the positioning I think, and the meta-tactical game going on between players.

Fate v3 in the Spirit of the Century is also a nice variation and is easily used to increase or decrease crunch as needed.  We've never bothered with a map at all with it and stripped down the combat substantially for speed with the consequence that there's little difference mechanically between combat and anything else -- there's just a smooth ride with the same mechanics throughout.  With all combat rules in play, though, it does bog down into hit, damage, and hit points which was disappointing but easily side-stepped.  The "something to do" here is abstracted "zoned" positioning and the inherent play with the economy of fate points that is not constrained to combat but plays a big part there.

That's what we're playing right now and I'm not comfortable commenting on anything I can't back up with actual (and recent) play, but there are other examples as well.

Quote from: RedFoxIndeed, and I didn't mean for the post to come off as a condemnation of your preference, Christmas Ape.  D&D combat doesn't work for a lotta folks, and I think that's perfectly valid.

It's not about particular solutions, but rather that there be something there aside from just hit/miss/damage.

Didn't take it that way, chief. Just seemed like as good a place as any to explain myself in further detail.

I am in agreement with you, RedFox.

I like tactical combat but, for me, I do not think it's important. What I prefer to see in combat is a measurable progression that it is going somewhere on a round-by-round basis.

I adore tactical combat, I love it. When I say tactical combat, I mean meaningful choices during combat*. Lately I've been playing Aquelarre, and although I like it a lot (if you don't know it, the system is a flavor of BRP), I wasn't having as much fun during combats as I had with, for example, combats in Rolemaster or Capitán Alatriste. And this is the reason, I missed the meaningful choices during combat.

By the way, that the reason why I fell in love with The Riddle of Steel. On tuesday we're going to play for the first time, wish me luck! :haw:

*=I love tactical combat, but I dislike boards and minis. Well, I like minis, but not when you use rules that apply to them.

Quote from: ClaudiusI adore tactical combat, I love it. When I say tactical combat, I mean meaningful choices during combat*. Lately I've been playing Aquelarre, and although I like it a lot (if you don't know it, the system is a flavor of BRP), I wasn't having as much fun during combats as I had with, for example, combats in Rolemaster or Capitán Alatriste. And this is the reason, I missed the meaningful choices during combat.

By the way, that the reason why I fell in love with The Riddle of Steel. On tuesday we're going to play for the first time, wish me luck! :haw:

*=I love tactical combat, but I dislike boards and minis. Well, I like minis, but not when you use rules that apply to them.

Good luck with that! What's your weapon of choice? I ran about 2000 combats on their simulator, I may have vague wisdom to offer.

Quote from: HalfjackWell, the combat scripting in Burning Wheel is certainly different, though I am as yet unconvinced it's better.  Well actually I think I will get onside with better but I'm not going to label it "great".  The "something to do" is the positioning tactics and the scripting.

I'd like to try Burning Wheel someday. I would GM it now if I didn't like The Riddle of Steel and GURPS more.

Quote from: Christmas ApeGood luck with that! What's your weapon of choice? I ran about 2000 combats on their simulator, I may have vague wisdom to offer.

Thank you! ;)

You won't believe me, but I didn't try the combat simulator, ever. :o Me and the players are complete TROS virgins. :o  If I make mistakes during combats, it doesn't matter, they'll hack my NPCs to pieces and that's OK, what I'm worried about is killing too many NPCs. I plan to be VERY generous with drama points.

Going back to tactical combat, I didn't have a problem with lack of options during combat before, but lately I can't live without them.

Do I have to bust out the details of actual play with D&D 3.5 to show how you can do deeply tactical and role-play in combat?

I mean, there I was lying on the ground, reaching out to the character next to me to heal him with my lest breath because that's what St. Cuthbert would want me to do...

We lost Narfink in that fight, sadly... He fell to the dire wolves, but not without a fight...

Quote from: James J SkachDo I have to bust out the details of actual play with D&D 3.5 to show how you can do deeply tactical and role-play in combat?

I mean, there I was lying on the ground, reaching out to the character next to me to heal him with my lest breath because that's what St. Cuthbert would want me to do...

We lost Narfink in that fight, sadly... He fell to the dire wolves, but not without a fight...

Word, dawg.  

I've had some wicked cool scenes play out in D&D3 fights, like getting caught in between a vamp-werewolf war in the middle of a run down old church.

In fact, I find that the detail that D&D affords to combat encounters actually makes them more exciting, because the level of decisions being made gives me a better mental picture of what's really happening.

Hey, that shit obviously works for tons of people, right? It's D and fucking D. As I said, I consider it an excellent game that totally fails to work for me or my group as it was intended to be played.

I've played D&D. I've had a lot of fun with it, combat included. My speed monkey shank & plank half-elf was a blast to play - one my few really enjoyable melee fighters. But I've never had fun when the minis come out, and we only got to fun in tabletop by skipping big portions of the rules.

But you know, this thread - unlike many, many others here - has not a lot of reason to end up being about D&D. Let's generalize. If you'll permit, I'll use my ape-like strength to haul this back on track.

J, tell me about this "level of decision" thing you speak of. How would you describe that level, and why does it help you?

It's hard for me to explain precisely, Ape, as it's kind of one of those feel things.  I guess I just feel like the more things I can do in a fight, and the mroe detail presented, the better idea I get in my head as to what is going on in the combat.

Whereas your typical abstract RPG combat like you get in, say, Storyteller games like Vampire, doesn't give me that feeling, because all I'm really given on a system level is "I roll to hit, roll to damage, rinse, repeat".  

Perhaps when it comes to combat sequences, I'm just not imaginative enough, to want to have to come up with ALL the detail of what's happening in a fight, whereas with a more detailed game like D&D, I've already got a pretty good head start given me by the system.

I dislike using miniatures in games, but I understand the desire for greater depth and description in combat.  This is one of the good things about the ICE games (MERP/Rolemaster2e/HARP) IMO, despite the charts.  They don't rely on miniatures, yet give players important tactical decisions to make during the game.  And the critical results can be extremely vivid!

:raise: Huh. Keep in mind I'm gonna talk 2nd edition here, but...have you played an oWoD game with all the options on?

W:tA had a shitload of combat options (including rules for minis) in the core alone, plus the later introduction of Klaive Dueling rules in the Player's - which fucking rocked on toast for Storyteller combat rules. I think Vampire packed all its good combat shit into the Player's guide too. I find your assertion there's nothing to the system for tactical options to be misleading. Fuck, they released a general oWoD sourcebook called Combat. IMXP, there were more tactical options in a Storyteller game than a 2e AD&D game, before Combat & Tactics hit.

That said, your GM has got to be ON to spin a good fight scene out of those massive hand-cramping dice-offs. If you let the description drag, it'll be one of the most boring combats ever played.

I agree with you RedFox.  I like the GAME part of role playing game as much as the ROLE part.  I just wish mini haters would agree to live and let live on this.  I never go around saying "you must play with miniatures or you're a dumbass", but I constantly hear people imply that there is something wrong with you if you like miniatures, or bitching about how certain games employ them.  If you don't like minis in an optional RPG, don't use them.  If you think D&D sucks because it's too miniature friendly...play something else.  I don't understand where all the hate comes from, really.

I never used minis before I got into Warhammer Fantasy Battles (in an 8 year period I played WFB almost exclusively).  I returned to role playing when D&D 3.5 came out.  Coincidentally, it put some emphasis on using miniatures and tactical combat.  It was the missing element for me, since, as a kid I never really understood how the whole miniature thing worked (and the fact that I didn't actually have any miniatures didn't help).  D&D 3.0 did a service IMHO in teaching us how miniatures were supposed to be used in the first place.  Really, D&D was always a miniature game, just look at the old rulebooks.  The use of miniatures was just explained very poorly, but most of the same rules are there, ranges, movement, positioning...and I hate to open up this can of worms, but, from a tactical miniature point of view AoO really went a long way to clearing up a lot of "can I do this" questions when it comes to using miniatures.

P.S.  I don't think it was my D&D 4th thread?

CA - with all due respect, I wasn't the one who brought up D&D.  I was responding to your comments in the OP.

So I was just kinda saying that even with those stupid little figures on the table (and let me tell you from someone coming back to the game after a long hiatus, 3.5 was a bit of a shock in the specificity of the mini aspect), we were still able to pull off both deep tactical play and role play.

But I digress - you are right, CA, that this isn't about D&D; though to leave it out completely might be as glaring as only talking about it.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI find, personally, that D&D in its 3.5 incarnation does very little of that for me. I find the rules fiddly and riddled with exception-based sub-rules, and the general use of AoOs tends to prevent fun combat options rather than encourage them. Minis are yet worse for this; by the time you get the battle map out, find the minis you want or need, set up terrain, and arrange everything, half the group is pouring through a new sourcebook and the other half has forgotten precisely why (or who!) they're fighting. I consider it an excellent game that totally fails to work for me or my group as it was intended to be played.

Obviously, individual mileage will vary.

This was largely our experience.  On one hand, if we didn't use the figures, D&D 3/.5 combat felt really "off", especially when factoring in AoOs, some of the feats, etc...

But with the minis, while combat worked a little better, the payoff wasn't worth it after stopping, getting minis, laying out the battlefield, etc.

What the tactical element of positioning of miniature-based play seems to add is an actual challenge of skill for the player, rather than just rolling dice and comparing the result to a table or target number or whatever. A game where you had to describe things in detail to recieve a mechanical bonus might pose a similar kind of challenge (Wushu does something like this, for example) as would one where you essentially treat combat or challenge-resolution as a kind of minigame where the actual combat is abstracted into actions in the minigame. The minigame might be a resource management system, a card game, or whatever you liked. The challenge of skill for the player is important to keeping the player's attention on what's going on, since simply rolling and saying "I get a 9. That hits, and I do... 5 damage. I punch him in the face and he pukes and cries," isn't really that engaging.

Quote from: grubmanI agree with you RedFox.  I like the GAME part of role playing game as much as the ROLE part.

I'm another of yours. I like both the roleplaying part and the game part of roleplaying game.

QuoteI just wish mini haters would agree to live and let live on this.  I never go around saying "you must play with miniatures or you're a dumbass", but I constantly hear people imply that there is something wrong with you if you like miniatures, or bitching about how certain games employ them.  If you don't like minis in an optional RPG, don't use them.  If you think D&D sucks because it's too miniature friendly...play something else.  I don't understand where all the hate comes from, really.

My problem with boards and minis is that there are certain rules in certain games that only make sense if you use them with minis and boards, but should make sense without them.

I'll cite as an example a game I like (GURPS) instead of a game I don't like (D&D), so I'm not accused of D&D-hater. GURPS has rules for weapon lengths (a sword is longer than a dagger, so using a sword is better), but those rules only make sense if you use boards and minis. If you don't use them, no weapon lengths. And I want rules for weapon lengths (as in The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel and Ars Magica 4th), but without the board and the minis, dammit!

Other than that, you're right. I can understand the dislike, but not the hate.

Quote from: Tommy BrownellThis was largely our experience.  On one hand, if we didn't use the figures, D&D 3/.5 combat felt really "off", especially when factoring in AoOs, some of the feats, etc...

But with the minis, while combat worked a little better, the payoff wasn't worth it after stopping, getting minis, laying out the battlefield, etc.

See, my group found that to be rather easily solved by simply having this stuff ready before the game.  

Usually the first thing the GM did before the game actually started, was getting out the minis necessary for each of the evening's encounters, and PC minis were always ready and either individually kept with each of our charsheets, or in a special box of their own for easy location.

The map board was just a wet erase mat.  If there was an especialyl complex layout planned, the GM would draw it out before hand, otherwise, it was just a matter of drawing some quick lines.  

Really not that difficult.  You wouldn't wait until half an hour into the game to actually write up your PC, and sure as hell most GMs are more than familiar with prepping all kinds of things before a game, so really I don't see what the problem is.

Quote from: Claudius... My problem with boards and minis is that there are certain rules in certain games that only make sense if you use them with minis and boards, but should make sense without them...

:ditto:

I have no problem with people who prefer playing their games with minis.  I just don't care for them myself, and prefer to play without them.  Thus it grates on me when a rules system assumes that minis will be used.

Also, there are ways to give players meaningful tactical options and/or descriptive combat without minis.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI require it to be fast, fun to play with, and encourage variety in tactical thinking.

I listen with bated breath. This is exactly what I would like to explore. I've been thinking about it a lot recently, almost to the point of trying to design my own system for it.

D&D has a lot of fun in its tactical options, but I'm not quite satisfied with it. it is very miniatures-based, which is one of those "cool if you like that sort of thing" deals. Most folks I've played with eschew the grid 9 times out of 10, which annoys me to no end when I want to know how many Owlbears I can catch in my Lightning Bolt spell. it seems like D&D without a grid ends up either a simple "I attack/he attacks," bit of pattycake, or else hampers the cool tactical options when they do come up. I'd really like to play more D&D with the grid. I call that "playing the game as it was designed."

However, I would love a game with gridless, but meaningfully tactical, combat. I don't think D&D is the source for it. I mean obviously, it's explicitly designed for the minis, and I find that their philosophy of "list all the possible maneuvers to create a big menu" approach is somewhat unsatisfying. What I'd like is a system of elegant simplicity that yields itself to a plethora of tactical variations.

What I came up with is a shameless theft of Vince Baker's Mechaton. (I started explaining it, but got pretty involved, so I moved it to its own thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=98948#post98948). Short version: three pools, Attack, Defense, and Maneuver. You've got X number of dice that you can assign to the different pools, weighting resources toward the aspect of the fight you value.) Sounds like Burning Wheel, Fate, Agon and Riddle of Steel are being advanced as games that handle this concept interestingly. Anyone care to elaborate?

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: DeadUematsuI like tactical combat but, for me, I do not think it's important. What I prefer to see in combat is a measurable progression that it is going somewhere on a round-by-round basis.

Could you please explain what you mean by this? I'm a bit in the dark here. What kind of "meansurable progression" are you talking about here? Where is the "somewhere" it should be going? If you simply mean the progression caused by repeated attack rolls and depletion of hitpoints, fine, but in that case I wonder why you made special note of it. It's kind of like saying "you know what I like in trees? Leaves." Y'know?

Peace,
-Joel

I don't use minis an awful lot, but i find that sometimes it's almost impossible to run a combat without them, whatever system i'm using. It's all about visualisation for me. Up against 6 Orc warriors, 3 archers and a shaman?

Non-mini scenario

PC 1: I charge into the Orcs' front line. How far is that?
GM: About 20 feet.
PC 1: Ok, i go for the right edge. That's nearer the shamen right?
GM: No, the shamen is at the back behind the front line
PC 1: Ah, right. Hey, PC 2, can you fire some arrows at the front line, while i try to skirt around them?
PC 2: Yep ok
PC 3: My Rogue tries to sneak towards an archer. Where are they again?
GM : 2 are flanking the warriors, one is guarding the shamen.
PC 1: Oh. The shamen isn't alone? OK. Perhaps we should go frontal assualt and let the wizard take the shamen then. Wiz?
PC 4: Um, can i see them clearly?
GM: They have cover behind the warriors.
PC 4: Bugger! um...

10 minutes later....right, we attack!
PC 1: Where are the archers again?

Mini scenario

GM (laying figures on the table): OK, these 6 orc warriors are shielding a shamen and archer and these two archers flank them. Place your figures about twenty feet away. What do you do?
PCs (a couple of minutes later): Right, we do this...

I might just be forgetful and have a forgetful group, but that sort of scenario happens a lot in larger fights. Minis speed things up in my experience, not slow things down. YMMV.

James - Man, I know I started on D&D...I was more continuing my thought from the other thread than anything when I posted that. I believe 100% that for some people, it's golden. I recall Kasumi over at tBP talking about his experience with minis and immersion; to whit, being more than a little concerned when the GM laid that Colossal Red Dragon on the table next to their tiny (in comparison) human minis. I get where that would work for a lot of people. Not for my group.

I figured I'd veer it away from D&D in the early stages just to try to spark more conversation on the topic in general. I actually meant to write it as "not JUST about D&D", but I'm dim. My stuff about Storyteller games was just that I saw the opposite of J Arcane's experience.

J Arcane - I dig that setup is the kind of thing you can largely do ahead of time, but to a degree that depends on knowing where the PCs are headed. I don't know about your players, but mine start the most unlikely fights, run from the ones I figure they'll jump on, arrange things to fight where -they- want rather than where the enemies want, summon weird-ass monsters, and generally wreak havoc with the ability to have terrain ready. I'm not suggesting it only works on the railroad, man, just that I have enough trouble predicting what NPCs they'll bother with, let alone when they'll risk their lives.

Melinglor - Dammit, that's something Vincent Baker's done I actually like, then...I've been toying with a system that works something like that, but with more possible pools. I sadly don't have anything more interesting to offer your bated breath, but what I'm hearing about REIGN's Martial Techniques sounds like it'll be right up my alley. I lack AP experience with the games you mention, so I'll refrain from getting too deep into explaining them.

One Horse Town - Fair enough; my group is largely content with scribbling an outline of the battle scene on a piece of scrap paper. It's not precise, but knowing precisely where everyone is in a combat is hard anyway, and I lean on the player's side in judgement calls. "How many orcs can I get in one fireball?" If it looks like about 5 on the map, I'll say 6. That I slip in more orcs than I need during prep isn't revealed, of course.... :keke:

Quote from: J ArcaneSee, my group found that to be rather easily solved by simply having this stuff ready before the game.  

Usually the first thing the GM did before the game actually started, was getting out the minis necessary for each of the evening's encounters, and PC minis were always ready and either individually kept with each of our charsheets, or in a special box of their own for easy location.

The map board was just a wet erase mat.  If there was an especialyl complex layout planned, the GM would draw it out before hand, otherwise, it was just a matter of drawing some quick lines.  

Really not that difficult.  You wouldn't wait until half an hour into the game to actually write up your PC, and sure as hell most GMs are more than familiar with prepping all kinds of things before a game, so really I don't see what the problem is.

In our case it was largely an issue of a limited selection of minis plus a relatively small gaming area that had to be cleared out again every time we moved into combat.

Ultimately, I have never found minis to make combat any more exciting or immersive than non-minis combat...though it did tend to serve to make D&D combat simpler.

Of all my group, only one comes from a wargaming background (and even he tends to eschew minis in RPGs), so that could well affect our preferences.

Quote from: One Horse TownI don't use minis an awful lot, but i find that sometimes it's almost impossible to run a combat without them, whatever system i'm using.

What about a system where the precise position of opponents isn't relevant?  Your example underlines why minis are very handy for certain systems and hard to get away from there, but doesn't really paint the general problem convincingly.

Dice rolls are omitted from this example narrative:

GM: You burst into the room to find Doctor Nein surrounded by his henchmen.  Some nearby engineers are refueling some kind of aircraft and the clamshell doors of the hangar are opening slowly.
Jack Speed: I blaze away with my .45 to try to get the hencmen to take cover!
GM: Your intense and accurate fire forces them to cower behind crates and machinery!
Dana DeNiall: I hold the Jewell of Darian close to my breast and begin summoning the Revenge Spirits while informing Doctor Nein that he is about to be entrapped for...
Dirk Blade: Fuck that.  I leap over the cowering Nazis and cleave Doctor Nein in the face with my blade, Silverfang!
GM: Whoah, a legendary blow!  Doctor Nein staggers back, his face a ragged mess!
Jack Speed: I'm gonna go figure out how to fly this thing.

Positioning in this case is handled in reverse -- rather than deploying and decoding it, the narrative (and the mechanics) forces it out.  Good rolls make things happen rather than events being fixed and rolls determining only quality of response to them.  I think that if you want to remove the minis from the game you have to adopt this kind of model to some extent, and it's enough of a shift in concept that most who are used to fixed representations will balk at it.  At least until they play it.  Well even then many will not be swayed.  :D

I like tactical combats, with or without minis.

Seanchai

Quote from: Christmas ApeMelinglor - Dammit, that's something Vincent Baker's done I actually like, then...

Heh. Sorry you had to hear it from me. ;)

If you don't know, Mechaton is a simple tactical wargame using Lego mechs. He provides a blueprint for a basic mecha frame, then you assign ratings based on the actual pieces you use. Chainsaw arm? Put those dice in Melee. Gauss Rivle with sniper scope? Long range. Jump Jets? Extra movement, etc. . .

Then you roll some generic dice each turn and assign them to whatever categories you want. Damage an enemy and they have to choose the piece to get actually blown off. Looks like hella fun, I just need to get the legos together to try it. I've only read the simple "Beta" version that was up on his site (doesn't seem to be anymore). There was much playtesting and rules elaboration and now there's a pay version incorporating the elaborations that worked out.

Dunno if any of that has much relevance to the topic, except that it is a model for one type of tactical engine. 'Course, it most definitely uses minis and a map surface, though ironically enough I want to harness its ideas to bypass the minis for tactical goodness. . . :D

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: HalfjackGM: You burst into the room to find Doctor Nein surrounded by his henchmen.  Some nearby engineers are refueling some kind of aircraft and the clamshell doors of the hangar are opening slowly.
Jack Speed: I blaze away with my .45 to try to get the hencmen to take cover!
GM: Your intense and accurate fire forces them to cower behind crates and machinery!
Dana DeNiall: I hold the Jewell of Darian close to my breast and begin summoning the Revenge Spirits while informing Doctor Nein that he is about to be entrapped for...
Dirk Blade: Fuck that.  I leap over the cowering Nazis and cleave Doctor Nein in the face with my blade, Silverfang!
GM: Whoah, a legendary blow!  Doctor Nein staggers back, his face a ragged mess!
Jack Speed: I'm gonna go figure out how to fly this thing.

That's some hot shit right there. Exactly the sort of effect I'm looking for.

Quote from: HalfjackGood rolls make things happen rather than events being fixed and rolls determining only quality of response to them.

That's a great way of putting it. Seems like things would be A) much more dynamic and B) not fall into that deflating mode of declaring a super-cool intention and then whiffing, having to revise and say "Oh, well I guess I tried to shoot the gun out of his hand but I, uh. . .missed or something. . ."

I'd be interested to see your example with the dice rolls in, to get a handle on how actual play would look.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorSeems like things would be A) much more dynamic and B) not fall into that deflating mode of declaring a super-cool intention and then whiffing, having to revise and say "Oh, well I guess I tried to shoot the gun out of his hand but I, uh. . .missed or something. . ."

I'd be interested to see your example with the dice rolls in, to get a handle on how actual play would look.

Well the joy of SotC (and that was SotC in case it wasn't obvious) is that if you manage your fate points properly you can have a base to work from that should put you in a position to solve plot-critical issues.  And if you fail it won't be for lack of trying.  I cycle through players in turn in tense situations, so I'll break out the GM/player pairs too.  Here's a stab at AP for the example:

GM: You burst into the room to find Doctor Nein surrounded by his henchmen. Some nearby engineers are refueling some kind of aircraft and the clamshell doors of the hangar are opening slowly.

GM and Jack Speed
Jack Speed: I blaze away with my .45 to try to get the henchmen to take cover!
Jack has Guns at Great (+4) and rolls ++b- for a total of Superb (+5).  The henchmen are just mooks so I choose to roll for all of them on one roll against their average (+1) resolve.  I get +++- for +2 giving them a Fair result.  Not good enough and Jack gets his way.  We could have gone into more detail and track composure points and so on but honestly it didn't suit the pace so we just bulled on.  Hence:
GM: Your intense and accurate fire forces them to cower behind crates and machinery!

GM and Dana DeNiall
Dana DeNiall: I hold the Jewell of Darian close to my breast and begin summoning the Revenge Spirits while informing Doctor Nein that he is about to be entrapped for...

GM, Dana, and Dirk Blade
Dirk Blade OOC: I think Dirk would totally interrupt here and just attack.
Dana DeNiall OOC: Definitely.
GM: Okay, roll it.
Weapons is Dirk's apex skill -- Superb at +5.  He rolls ---b for -3 cutting it down to Fair.  He doesn't think that's going to be enough so he invokes an aspect -- "Exposition?  Fuck that, it's time to fight" (hence the narrative) -- to get a re-roll.  He pays his point and rolls +--b for +1, giving him +6 -- Fantastic.  He still doesn't think it's enough for the boss bad guy so he invokes the aspect for his legendary Berber blade, Silverfang for +2 on the roll (and another fate point) putting his blow at +8: Legendary!  Doctor Nein rolls his Athletics to dodge, but Athletics aren't his strong suit (Average) and despite burning a fate point on a re-roll the best he can come up with is -bbb for -1: Mediocre at +0.  The difference between attack and defense is 8, which is way off the map for health points so we call curtains on Doctor Nein.  If we wanted to stretch out the fight we could give him a Consequence and keep fighting but the scene was viscerally complete at this point so we put him down.
Dirk Blade: Woo!  Fuck that. I leap over the cowering Nazis and cleave Doctor Nein in the face with my blade, Silverfang!
Doctor Nein: Argh!  Curse you Dirk Blade!
GM: Whoah, a legendary blow! Doctor Nein staggers back, his face a ragged mess!

GM and Jack Speed
Jack Speed: I'm gonna go figure out how to fly this thing.
Jack rolls his Pilot (Superb) and invokes "If it flies I can fly it" and manages to figure out the controls to Nein's city-sized zeppelin, flying it home to drop off Nein at Scotland Yard.

I would love a game to have simple and flexible rules for making mechanically significant tactical decisions during combat.  The game should also be fairly rules light with quick chargen.

I ain't found it yet though.

Quote from: BalbinusI would love a game to have simple and flexible rules for making mechanically significant tactical decisions during combat.  The game should also be fairly rules light with quick chargen.

I ain't found it yet though.

Yeah, ouch.  That'd be a dream game, but it's hard to pull off.  I think the closest I've found has been Savage Worlds, and I don't think that's perfect by a long shot.

Quote from: BalbinusI would love a game to have simple and flexible rules for making mechanically significant tactical decisions during combat.  The game should also be fairly rules light with quick chargen.

I ain't found it yet though.

It's the Grail, no?

IMHO, the problem is that it's difficult to facilitate mechanically significant tactical decisions without getting into more complex, usually less flexible rules.  To add rules light and quick chargen is like a dagger in the heart...

But that's just my opinion. And please note I did not say impossible, just difficult (extremely, IMHO).

I wonder if a computer would help...

Quote from: James J Skach...I wonder if a computer would help...

It surely would.

Quote from: RedFoxYeah, ouch.  That'd be a dream game, but it's hard to pull off.  I think the closest I've found has been Savage Worlds, and I don't think that's perfect by a long shot.

It's far from perfect, but about as close to the ideal as I've come across too. In the right hands SW can be quite a tactically intense game, although the choices and maneuvers selected mid-combat never seem to bog play down. Given how many games have abjectly failed when trying to get this kind of balance right I'd have to declare it a roaring success, warts and all.

I love mini and map tactical play because it actually feeds both story and action for me.

As an example, last weekend in a game I was running: The group was spelunking in some caves for various purposes, and they stumbled upon a colony of cave beasties, a la The Descent.  They were quickly separated, and one group got boxed in.

We'd been running the chase without visual aids up until that point, but we busted out the minis and they put their characters backs to the wall of my hastily sketched out cul-de-sac.  

Combat with jumpy, clawed things ensued, including one character being dragged kicking and screaming down the hall, another attempting to push the beasties back to a choke point he'd noticed (which was entirely due to my wavery hand when drawing the hallway) and lots of dead beastie bodies.

The thing that really got me was when the spirit warrior stalked past his childhood friend, who was lying on the ground about to be eviscerated by two of the nasties, to save his shaman, who was in similar dire straits.  We could watch his stalking thanks to the minis and map.  As soon as he moved his little spirit warrior dude out of sword range, making his conscious decision to leave his friend to her fate, everyone around the table, seriously, erupted with an "Ohhhhh!"

The shaman lived, the friend died, and now in the larger game the spirit warrior is guilt- and doubt-ridden.  Sweet.  And tense.

Now I could have come up with that scenario or one of my players could have suggested it, but it would have lacked, I dunno - weight?  A feeling of strange organic-ness? Spontaneity?  That's not to say that others should play with maps or minis - whatever makes you go, go with it; for me, though, those organic, yummy, second-by-second circumstantial discoveries are a basic part of the experience.

I think that's an excellent example of miniatures aiding immersion.  Thank you for sharing that, Reimdall.

We were playtesting our SotC -> Traveller re-set space combat rules last night using an Agon-like 1 dimensional position abstraction and Star Wars Starship minis for the ships.  The minis *definitely* added substantially to the feel of the game once we got the rules hammered out so they were fun.  In fact there was an actual cheer when the little 200 ton scout vessel scored a major hit on the 400 ton heavily armed pirate pursuing it and the player of the scout slowly turned it around -- the hunter just became the hunted!

Quote from: RedFoxI think that's an excellent example of miniatures aiding immersion.  Thank you for sharing that, Reimdall.

You're welcome, Red!  I figure it's about time for me to stop lurking and get after posting a bit more.