Some games that is.

They encourage violence to create excitement but its not the ONLY kind of excitement to be had, just the cheapest.

I prefer games which take the fact that animals and creatures don't often just stand there and take it--if things go wrong they try and flee.

  At least OLD D&D/AD&D suggested rolling for monsters morale when things get bad, some games don't even provide that option. (Or suggest its possible to end encounters other way than sheer bloody butchery.)

Too often combats drag and drag, and get boring. I hate that.


I like action to be fast, furious, and at least give me as GM some way to end it quickly so it doesn't get boring for the PC's or their players.

Okay, so ... why do you dislike combat?

I'm hearing that you dislike boring stuff.  I'm hearing that you like things other than combat.  I agree with you on both those points.

But your subject title promised that you'd tell why you dislike combat, and you haven't done that.

If you're GMing, and combat is boring, it's your fault.

As GM, you control the rules, the NPCs, not just whether they fight but how they fight, the descriptions of the action, and so on.

It's not the game's fault, it's your fault. Liven it up.

Oh, and also - since in combat life and death of the characters are at stake, if you can't make combat interesting, then the rest of the game, where the stakes are much lower, must be even more boring. Liven that up, too!

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you're GMing, and combat is boring, it's your fault.

As GM, you control the rules, the NPCs, not just whether they fight but how they fight, the descriptions of the action, and so on.

It's not the game's fault, it's your fault. Liven it up.

Not always--some games create a situation where dice rolls dictate (all) outcomes--and a string of failures on either side doesn't decide the battle, but just keeps it going. That's the games fault. While I can house rule, if I'm going to do that, I won't pick up the game in the first place--and you can't always tells how crappy a game is until its played (like Godlike..which is the game I'm thinking of specifically)

It sounds like maybe you don't like combat for the sake of your character just hitting stuff? Which like TonyLB says in different that not liking combat.

Me, I like combat there as an option.  Occationally as the main option, but I like options. Thank goodness nobody has snuck into my house and blacked out the combat sections of CoC like has apparently happened to other people here.

Bollocks.

As GM, you can roll your dice behind a screen or your hand, and in any case the result's up to your interpretation - on every single roll. And don't come along with that old saw, "oh if you have to house rule the game then it's broken!" Rubbish. That's like saying that if you have to adjust the seat in your car then you should get a new car. There's a difference between minor adjustments (house rules) and major ones (new system).

As GM, the game is under your control. If it's not going the way you want it to, it's your fault. You master the game, the game does not master you. If the rules are always followed to the letter, and the dice to the number, what do the players need the GM for?

The GM is there to offer PCs options and choices, and to smooth out the inconsistencies and stupidities that rules and dice and whimsical players naturally give you.

Quote from: SilverlionNot always--some games create a situation where dice rolls dictate (all) outcomes--and a string of failures on either side doesn't decide the battle, but just keeps it going. That's the games fault. While I can house rule, if I'm going to do that, I won't pick up the game in the first place--and you can't always tells how crappy a game is until its played (like Godlike..which is the game I'm thinking of specifically)

No, despite his gruff demeanor, I think JimBob has the right of it.  You're letting the system dictate things when you should be dictating things.  Remember that it's your job ultimately to interpret and chuck those rules when they're fucking with ya'll's good time.

If there's some big series of misses on both sides and you think combat's dragging, then hey...  it's a good time for the NPC to consider a stalemate or pause in the battle.  Maybe it's a lightsaber lock and time for some good ol' back-and-forth dramatic dialog.  Maybe it's time for someone to realize that everyone's too evenly matched and they want to call truce.  Maybe they should try something desperate to lever in an advantage.  This is all stuff under your control.

If you can't think of something, shoot the question to your players.  "Hey, this combat's really dragging.  Anyone else feel the same way?  If so, maybe we can just call it a draw."

Worrying too much about what the system is doing can really hamstring you.  Don't give in to the dark side!

Quote from: SilverlionToo often combats drag and drag, and get boring. I hate that.

RTFP, TLB.

TTFN.

I like big combats (shit, I used to play WFB,) but I think that there's a point in every fight where things should be sped up at the cost of the rules.  When inevitability is reached for one side or another, it's time to spice things up (may the House suggest spider-riding raptors wielding light crossbows?  We also have some fine Ice Pirates of 1984 vintage.) or call "Scene!" and move on.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs GM, the game is under your control. If it's not going the way you want it to, it's your fault. You master the game, the game does not master you. If the rules are always followed to the letter, and the dice to the number, what do the players need the GM for?

To portray the NPCs, to present the world, to frame scenes, to invoke the rules, to provide adversity, to assist in dramatic pacing ...

Should I go on?

I mean ... fine.  You like to be able to house-rule and fudge stuff.  That's cool.  Some of us play the games straight by the rules.  I think that's cool too.

Quote from: RedFoxNo, despite his gruff demeanor, I think JimBob has the right of it.  You're letting the system dictate things when you should be dictating things.  Remember that it's your job ultimately to interpret and chuck those rules when they're fucking with ya'll's good time.

To a point, maybe. But there is a lot of merit in chucking the whole damn book and getting a different one that got it 'right' for them.

Because WTF should you have to spend your time fixing somebody else's half-assed job? Or rebuild something that was meant for a different purpose?

Quote from: JimBobOzBollocks.

As GM, you can roll your dice behind a screen or your hand, and in any case the result's up to your interpretation - on every single roll.

No, there are games where the results are NOT up to interpretation. Godlike is one D&D another (you roll to hit, the monster's ac is the target number, and the damage done is dice determined).

Now sure you could adjust the Hit points of a monster--but that's not using the game rules as written. Which is what I'm talking about here. I can't use "Jimbobs Personal Table rules" for talking about games with other people.

QuoteAs GM, the game is under your control. If it's not going the way you want it to, it's your fault. You master the game, the game does not master you. If the rules are always followed to the letter, and the dice to the number, what do the players need the GM for?

I can think of lots of things: Running the NPC's, setting up the events the pc's interact with.

QuoteThe GM is there to offer PCs options and choices, and to smooth out the inconsistencies and stupidities that rules and dice and whimsical players naturally give you.

I don't disagree--but when the rules don't work right in the first place, its better to choose a new game IMHO, or write one, rather than spend my time working over someone else's mess.

Quote from: TonyLBTo portray the NPCs, to present the world, to frame scenes, to invoke the rules, to provide adversity, to assist in dramatic pacing ...

Should I go on?

I mean ... fine.  You like to be able to house-rule and fudge stuff.  That's cool.  Some of us play the games straight by the rules.  I think that's cool too.

Not if it's boring.

If the rules are sucking the fun out of your game, you need to change them or transcend them.

Quote from: blakkieTo a point, maybe. But there is a lot of merit in chucking the whole damn book and getting a different one that got it right.

Okay this is sidelining into a whole fudging debate.  And fudging isn't the point.

As JimBob points out, the GM has a ton of control over the game.  You can skip boring combats without breaking the rules.  You can have NPCs get scared and run away without relying on morale checks.  That isn't cheating, that's good GMing.

Quote from: RedFoxNot if it's boring.

If the rules are sucking the fun out of your game, you need to change them or transcend them.

Sure, I'll stand with ya on that.  If you're going to use the rules straight up then you want to make sure that the straight-up rules are doing what you want.

I'm still sorta interested in why Silverlion dislikes combat.  I'm hearing a lot about why he dislikes rules-systems that don't give him what he wants from combat, but it's still not striking me as the same thing.

I like fish and chips.  I don't like the soggy cardboard and greasy mystery-gunk that I got in London one time when I tried a local chipper van.  But that doesn't mean I don't like fish and chips.  I dislike terrible fish and chips, and for the most part I assume that's a majority opinion.  To love that stuff ... that's an acquired taste.

All rules are inherently boring, in the end. The fun comes from interaction with other people, from the joy of success and the misery of failure. The rules are just a tool to that end. If the rules are not giving you the results you want, that's not the rules' fault. It's a bad craftsman who blames their tools, and the rules are a tool for crafting an interesting and fun game session.

It's not the tool, it's the tool using the tool.

The game is not the rules, any more than the carpenter's chisel is the chair they craft, or the programmer's keyboard is the software they write. The game is what you, the GM, create with the rules.

You master the game, the game does not master you. Are you the Game Master, or the Gimp of the Rules? Who's in charge of your game? A grown adult, or three hundred pages of over-priced, poorly-organised, badly-edited, sloppily-written, saucily-illustrated book? Or some oddly-shaped pieces of plastic?

Look into the mirror and say the words, "I am a strong, independent, Game Master. I master the game, the game does not master me. The game will succeed or fail because of me. I own the game."

If that's not enough, buy yourself a viking hat, and say to yourself in the mirror, "I am the the GM, I wear the Viking Hat. It's my game, bitches!"

Fuck the rules. Fuck the dice. Fuck the game designer. It's YOUR GAME.