Quote from: TonyLBSure, 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.

Actually his argument sounds word-for-word like what my friend mrlost says about it.  Including the "combat is boring" and "it drags on too long" stuff.  Hell, I think he made a thread about it on rpg.net months ago.

I think it boils down to these people's experience being tedius and bereft of meaning or excitement.  If the combat isn't interesting, then of course you're going to get bored and want to skip it.

I've felt the same way in certain games before.  Notably bog-standard D&D games where we deal with boring encounters ala "You're traveling to Tilverton and are attacked by a bunch of kobolds. *draws rough shrubbery on a battlemat and plops down minis*  Roll for initiative."  I think it's a lack of enthusiasm, flavor, and excitement in combat.  If you're playing a lackluster tactical board-game with "I hit for five damages," as the baseline descriptive, it's going to set teeth a-grinding for some folks.

edit: cross-posted with Red Fox. This is a reply to JimbobOz.

Sorry dude, gotta call BS on the rules are boring thing. Fules can be fun. I happen to love reading new rules for D&D. Even though I'll probably never get a chance to run a Truenamer or Scion of Tiamat, that's some pretty cool shiznit.

The rest of your mini-rant comes down to personal opinion. A truly manly GM can run a great game without having to wuss out and throw rules out the window.

Quote from: RedFoxActually his argument sounds word-for-word like what my friend mrlost says about it.  Including the "combat is boring" and "it drags on too long" stuff.  Hell, I think he made a thread about it on rpg.net months ago.

I think it boils down to these people's experience being tedius and bereft of meaning or excitement.  If the combat isn't interesting, then of course you're going to get bored and want to skip it.

I've felt the same way in certain games before.  Notably bog-standard D&D games where we deal with boring encounters ala "You're traveling to Tilverton and are attacked by a bunch of kobolds. *draws rough shrubbery on a battlemat and plops down minis*  Roll for initiative."  I think it's a lack of enthusiasm, flavor, and excitement in combat.  If you're playing a lackluster tactical board-game with "I hit for five damages," as the baseline descriptive, it's going to set teeth a-grinding for some folks.

 My "argument" is not one--I'm just mentioning things offhandedly. The fact that some people have gone of the deep end with it indicates that some people take things a bit too seriously.

I don't want combats to be boring--I don't let them be when I run games, but I choose rule sets that allow me the leeway.   (Godlike is a game which didn't--because damage+to hit+hit location were all tied into the roll)


I don't like violence for its /own/ sake. There should be a clear goal and a reason to pursue victory either to hand down justice, or to remove a threat.

As a player I prefer combat to allow for a more than "brutalize the enemy"--for defeat, surrender, flight, all to be things GM's take into account and use for their NPC's both for believability and because I despise useles slaughter..

If there are OPTIONS for resolving things other than violence (I hate "required" combats"), I want them to have meaning to the player--especially if I'm that player.


Example: In a recent test of my FRPG. There were two PC's a human farmboy with a powerful magic sword, and a Dwarf warrior. They were traveling to a temple of healing to see if they could do something about what they believe to be a plague in a village on the river. The Dwarf has a challenge "hunted by a troll-pack", so when they encountered trolls on the way--I made sure that it was THAT troll-pack, the one that is hunting him in order to give him a sense of both being hunted, and have that investment.

Quote from: RedFoxIf the rules are sucking the fun out of your game, you need to change them or transcend them.

I like buying my transcendence. It can be surprisingly cheap.

EDIT: I will on occation though get my transcendence via other means, but it's got to be a pretty important trancendence to overcome the hassle. Usually it involves wholesale meshing together of two really good transcendences that don't really need much work themselves. :^)

Quote from: SilverlionMy "argument" is not one--I'm just mentioning things offhandedly. The fact that some people have gone of the deep end with it indicates that some people take things a bit too seriously.

Gone off the deep end?  :confused:

Quote from: SilverlionI don't want combats to be boring--I don't let them be when I run games, but I choose rule sets that allow me the leeway.   (Godlike is a game which didn't--because damage+to hit+hit location were all tied into the roll)

Okay, so having an entire attack resolved with one roll is what makes combat boring to you?  I don't understand that, but okay.

Quote from: SilverlionI don't like violence for its /own/ sake. There should be a clear goal and a reason to pursue victory either to hand down justice, or to remove a threat.

That's part of what I was saying with my previous post:  meaningless combats can bore the living crap out of some people.  See the kobolds example.

I think it's this very thing that cuts to the heart of the matter:  You and mrlost both hate combats and consider them boring when there's no clear point to them.  Am I right in assuming that these things feel like pointless speed-bumps to you?

Quote from: SilverlionAs a player I prefer combat to allow for a more than "brutalize the enemy"--for defeat, surrender, flight, all to be things GM's take into account and use for their NPC's both for believability and because I despise useles slaughter..

I can't really parse this, sorry.  What are you trying to say here?

Quote from: SilverlionIf there are OPTIONS for resolving things other than violence (I hate "required" combats"), I want them to have meaning to the player--especially if I'm that player.

Again, it's that same thing that I've heard time and again. The GM is failing to make combats engage you.  That's a system-independent issue.

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.

Or learn how to use them.

Different games have different "optimal modes" for combat. You approach combat the same way in Call of Cthulhu as you do D&D, you are going to be disappointed in one or the other.

Quote from: TonyLBI 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.

One of the issues is that there is no game where the rules cover every eventuality. On top of that, there's often a lot of leeway in how the rules are applied - it's not "fudging" to much as "implementation". It's what happens when the rules meet the real world of game play.

For example, most games say nothing about me randomly adding a bonus to all of the PC's die rolls during a fight to help speed it up. In fact, there are few (if any) games out there that explicitly forbid, promote, or otherwise limit this kind of thing any kind of extraneous modifiers. If it's not in the rules, it can hardly be called "fudging".

Quote from: RedFoxGone off the deep end?  :confused:

Yes, I wasn't referring to you..

QuoteOkay, so having an entire attack resolved with one roll is what makes combat boring to you?  I don't understand that, but okay.

No again its Godlikes entire system--especially the "projected" results--an a average PC combatant will fail a lot, failures in combat  extend combat and turn it into a comedy of errors. It's not the "one roll" its the "one roll plus hinky dice mechanic as presented in Godlike"

QuoteI think it's this very thing that cuts to the heart of the matter:  You and mrlost both hate combats and consider them boring when there's no clear point to them.  Am I right in assuming that these things feel like pointless speed-bumps to you?

Don't attach me to someone else's opinion please, you aren't a telepath and can't read minds, I don't /hate/ combats.  I just want them to be exciting and have a point.

QuoteAgain, it's that same thing that I've heard time and again. The GM is failing to make combats engage you.  That's a system-independent issue.

No, its system dependant in the case I pointed out above because the system dictates too much of the result.(D&D and Godlike)

Quote from: WilFor example, most games say nothing about me randomly adding a bonus to all of the PC's die rolls during a fight to help speed it up. In fact, there are few (if any) games out there that explicitly forbid, promote, or otherwise limit this kind of thing any kind of extraneous modifiers. If it's not in the rules, it can hardly be called "fudging".

I don't follow that logic... It certainly doesn't seem to be true in other kinds of games.  

It basically sounds like the "Rule Zero" found in some RPGs -- since the GM is encouraged to change/ignore any rule, it means they're never breaking the rules -- no matter what they do.

If there were no "Rule Zero" in a game, then randomly adding numbers to dice rolls, while not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being forbidden, would still be breaking the rules.  So would millions of other possible things that you could do, and couldn't realistically be written in the rulebook.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadOr learn how to use them.

Different games have different "optimal modes" for combat. You approach combat the same way in Call of Cthulhu as you do D&D, you are going to be disappointed in one or the other.

Hey Slaad, do you have some examples of optimal combat methods in different systems?  The concept is something that I agree with in principle, but it would be nice to have something concrete to work with.

Quote from: James McMurraySorry dude, gotta call BS on the rules are boring thing. [R]ules can be fun.

I think it depends on whether you view manipulating and using the rules to be part of the fun (or even the whole fun) or whether you view the rules as a means toward another end, the end usually being figuring out what's happening in the game world.

Exacty. The rules are a means to an end - the end of having a fun and interesting game session. The rules are not an end in themselves.

You can have a game session without rules and if run well it'll be fun, but rules without a game session are just words on a page. My hobby is playing games, not reading games.

Incidentally, why is "combat" in quotation marks in the title? Does this have some hidden meaning, or what?

Quote from: John MorrowI think it depends on whether you view manipulating and using the rules to be part of the fun (or even the whole fun) or whether you view the rules as a means toward another end, the end usually being figuring out what's happening in the game world.

Well, as I said in my post, I view the rules themselves as fun. Not manipulating them, not using them, and not viewing them as a means to an end.

Quote from: StuartIt basically sounds like the "Rule Zero" found in some RPGs -- since the GM is encouraged to change/ignore any rule, it means they're never breaking the rules -- no matter what they do.

Absolutely correct.

In different terms, you can run a game where only things that are included in the rules can be done. The vast majority of people, even those that espouse running games as written, do not do this. The reason why is that there are no games in existence that cover every eventuality that any potential play group can come up with. There are few games that explicitly prevent the GM from whipping up an ice storm in the middle of combat in an effort to end it or at least make things start going differently. That's just not something that most rules sets seek to cover. The social ramification (i.e., the players' outrage or bewilderment at the sudden appearance of an ice storm) is a different matter entirely. The games that might explicitly deny the GM the ability to do such a thing tend to be games that have some kind of metagame mechanics that allow vetoing or introduction of elements by players and GMs alike (like Wushu) - and, even then, that's nothing to do with the combat system specifically.

QuoteIf there were no "Rule Zero" in a game, then randomly adding numbers to dice rolls, while not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being forbidden, would still be breaking the rules.  So would millions of other possible things that you could do, and couldn't realistically be written in the rulebook.

Right, which is my point in the first place. RAW stops being RAW the moment that it is implemented by the play group - even if they're following all of the rules.

This is a really common situation in programming. Sometimes, a specific implementation defies what the rules say are possible. You get unexpected behaviors when two applications, or APIs, or whatever start working together. Sometimes it will be explicit that certain things can't be done, and sometimes that's wrong - spammers, malware coders and virus writers do these things all the time. Sure, they use established loopholes and vulnerabilities but often they simply try something to see if it works, all of the rules be damned.

To make this more directly relevant, let's assume there are two kinds of combat systems in RPGs: ones where the system itself is supposed to do all of the legwork and ones where all it provides is a framework or structure to help guide GM and player interaction.

In the former, everything is handled by the system down the smallest minutae and if it's not in the rules it can't happen. In this case, the system itself needs to be exciting. The results need to be interesting enough to catch the player's and GM's attention, even if the combat takes hours. Basically, the events of the combat are being written for you without any interpretation. I kind of generally lump WFRP, RoleMaster, HERO, GURPS, and a few others in this category. If the system sucks, combat is going to suck and it is probably the system's fault (or at least, just a conflict between the players' preferences and the game's design goals). For example, I have much fonder recollections of WFRP and RoleMaster than HERO or GURPs for these reasons.

In the latter case, there is more onus on the GM and the players to make something out of the die rolls. Exalted is like this, as is SilCore and a few other games. There are no hit locations, or critical hit tables, or anything like that. If the GM or the players aren't really into it, or aren't aware that they need to be the ones filling in the blanks, combat is going to suck. It will devolve into die roll after die roll and be just as bad as one of the "programmatical" systems.

This doesn't preclude games giving mixed signals, or even being poorly designed to the point that they can't decide where in the spectrum they want to sit. A game that is fairly vague in terms of character options but then switches into a chart-and-roll-fest when it comes to damage is probably going to suck pretty bad.

And that was much longer than I intended

Quote from: James McMurrayWell, as I said in my post, I view the rules themselves as fun. Not manipulating them, not using them, and not viewing them as a means to an end.

Correct.  And that's going to give you a different perspective on what "good rules" are than someone else for whom they are a means to an end (even if your fun doesn't come from manipulating or using them).