Don't get me wrong, using and manipulating them to achieve the end goal of a fun and interesting game session is my personal choice. I was just responding to the seeming demarkation of "either this or this". Some folks might like "that" instead, and others prefer to combine all the options.

@Wil

I think it might be worth making the distinction between this:

"Randomly adding a bonus to all of the PC's die rolls during a fight to help speed it up."

eg.  Okay guys, everyone just add +3 to your to hit rolls.

And this:

"Introduce an element to the game world that adds a bonus to all of the PC's die rolls during a fight."

eg.  The dark clouds part and sunlight shines down on the battlefield.  Everyone add +3 to your to hit rolls against the orcs.

Same results, but very different approach.

Quote from: Stuart@Wil

I think it might be worth making the distinction between this:

"Randomly adding a bonus to all of the PC's die rolls during a fight to help speed it up."

eg.  Okay guys, everyone just add +3 to your to hit rolls.

And this:

"Introduce an element to the game world that adds a bonus to all of the PC's die rolls during a fight."

eg.  The dark clouds part and sunlight shines down on the battlefield.  Everyone add +3 to your to hit rolls against the orcs.

Same results, but very different approach.

Completely different approach, but for someone who espouses only running the rules as written they're fundamentally the same.

I was going to mention this earlier and maybe it's a much easier way of illustrating my point. Playgroups sometimes suffer from "white room" syndrome during combats - that is, the characters might as well be standing and fighting in a blank, white room. All games suck when under white room conditions, whether it be combat or social interaction or skill checks or whatever. Very few games, even ones I enjoy, do much to help address "white room" combats.

That's very true, that "white room combat" comment. I wish  could say I always do better than that when GMing, but unfortunately it'd be a lie. I do try, though, and when I've tried, things have been more memorable.

For example, in one opening session of a campaign, the characters were at a spring festival, with many competitions. The wrestling competition was a circle in the dirt, if you went out you lost - one sneaky player-character simply dodged a slam from their foe so he went running past them and out, and lost. Short match! In the swordsmanship competition played with wooden swords, people fought on a narrow log, so they could just go back and forth but not around... changed tactics a bit, and gave a feeling of "on the edge" for the fight.

In the most recent session I've had, they wrestled a guy to the pavement in the street of a modern city, and were asking if there were alleys... they took him down one, and beat him up. Okay, the mud and the garbage smell didn't alter the combat at all, but it added to the ambience, I think! I honestly think it saved the NPC-victim's life, that ambience. It made it all feel more nasty and seedy, and helped inhibit the players from having their characters kill him.

It's pretty rare that the physical environment becomes part of the combat, though - columns to duck behind, chairs to chuck in the way, etc.

I think this is something we can all work on, this White Room Combat thing, adding description and environment so that players have something to interact with in the combat other than their opponents, and so that it's more atmospheric and interesting.

Like I was saying, GMing skills.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's pretty rare that the physical environment becomes part of the combat, though - columns to duck behind, chairs to chuck in the way, etc.

I think this is something we can all work on, this White Room Combat thing, adding description and environment so that players have something to interact with in the combat other than their opponents, and so that it's more atmospheric and interesting.

Like I was saying, GMing skills.

In some respects, maps and miniatures and rules that dictate who can move where and what locations are hit and such help in this respect. But, like I said, if the rules themselves aren't exciting it gets tedious.

Many years ago, I actually wrote an article on just this sort of thing. It needs some heavy revision, but it gets the point across.

I'd strongly urge people to read The Risus Companion.  S.J.Ross has an excellent section on what makes a conflict a conflict.  Sure, his focus is on the Risus system, but the ideas work for any system.  

To paraphrase, he basically suggests there are three types of action resolution mechanics;

1. Character versus Character - one roll.
2. Character versus Character - series of rolls.
3. Character versus Difficulty Number - one roll.

Two gunfighters face off in a showdown, you might judge this is a single opposed roll (Option 1).  The higher roll wins the showdown.  Two pirates face each other in a duel of cutlasses?  That might be an extended conflict with a series of opposed rolls (Option 2).  A sniper takes a shot at an unknowing victim?  That's probably a single roll versus a fixed difficulty number based on range (Option 3).  

But the important thing is that all three methods can be used in the same situation.  It really depends on how important you want to make the conflict.  A sniper shot could be played out as an opposed roll - the skill of the sniper versus the perception of the victim.  Or, you could drag out the conflict even longer by making it a series of opposed rolls.

What about the two gunfighters facing off in a showdown?  Against a nameless, faceless bad guy, you might decide the PC will automatically win the fight.  So really, it's just a question of how well they do.  So make a single roll versus a difficulty number.  Miss the difficulty number, and maybe the PC muffs the shot but the bad guy flees in a panic.  Make the difficulty number, and the PC gets a bullseye and the mook goes down.  Like Indiana Jones facing off against a sword wielding thugee.

As a GM, it's up to YOU to decide which method you use.  If typical combat isn't working for you, then speed it up.  Give the PCs a single target difficulty number to defeat the bad guy.  Then, when they come up against "The Boss", you might want to draw out the combat.

Very, very good comments regarding white room combat and S. John's conflict bit.

Silverlion: I apologize for misrepresenting your position.  Knee-jerk reaction from dealing with mrlost and thinking I was hearing a version of the same old song.

I don't actually have any experience with Godlike at all, so I can't comment on that.

Different levels. Everyone loves moving up and down in a fight. It's the secret behind the Mario Bros. series and now it's yours.

I have a friend who does not like combat when he plays he much prefers stuff, like investigation, intrigue and character conflict but when he runs games, he's does a pretty damn good job of running combat.

JimBob's got it right. White Room combat can have the affect of draining the excitement out of combat and in the heat of the moment, most GMs I suspect, let description (the enviroment etc) slip away. (Interesing article Will)

Regards,
David R

Wil, your article's fantastic.  I don't have any experience with Silhouette but the advice in that article has given me a lot to mull over.  Some of it's old hat.  Some of it's stuff I've just figured out recently on my own (such as forcing myself to stop looking things up).  Some of it's brand spanking new to me and sounds great (like how to handle "roll for initiative", which I was trying to get a handle on rather clumsily, as you can see here.  I like your advice better!)

Thanks for that.  Really.

Quote from: RedFoxWil, your article's fantastic.  I don't have any experience with Silhouette but the advice in that article has given me a lot to mull over.  Some of it's old hat.  Some of it's stuff I've just figured out recently on my own (such as forcing myself to stop looking things up).  Some of it's brand spanking new to me and sounds great (like how to handle "roll for initiative", which I was trying to get a handle on rather clumsily, as you can see here.  I like your advice better!)

Thanks for that.  Really.

No problem. I'd heavily, heavily revise it were I to rewrite it (and I think a lot of the links are dead).

Interestingly enough, I have a hard time with systems that micromanage combat because I don't feel I have the leeway to narrate things to make them interesting or make more sense. It's a combination of wanting to use the rules as written ("Okay, you stubbed your toe. Let me looked up the 'Stubbed toe modifier'"), the scale  (i.e., there's only so much narrative that can be wrung out of a one-second combat round) and sometimes a lack of support overall for narrative flexibility. In those combat systems, the combat is supposed to write itself via the die rolls and the rules - there's not a lot of room for interpretation.

Quote from: fonkaygarryHey 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.

Okay, lessee...

Painting in broad strokes, it seems to me that most systems can fall into categories like:

• Never lethal (TOON)
• Lethality only by GM mandate (or some other "storytelling" factor) (FUDGE)
• Lethal only if opposition is powerful or PCs are exhuasted (D&D 3e)
• As above, with chance of quick lethality by PC or other special characters (Spycraft 2.0)
• Any combat carries chance of lethality, with limited allowances for PCs or other "special characters" (Warhammer)
• Any combat with deadly weapons could be lethal (Rolemaster)
• Any combat with deadly weapons is likely to result in one or more player fatalities (Traveller is a light example, Twilight 2000 is a heavy example.)

Of course, I image that this list is far from complete and cobbles in more factors than I cite (I only focus on lethality, but other factors like subdual, persistent injuries, maiming, etc., might also be factors.) But it should be pretty clear that these examples alone serve a variety of different purposes when it comes to campaign style and goals. If you want a gritty game where violence is a last resort, D&D may not give what you are looking for. If you want a longstanding campaign with great respect for character continuity, Call of Cthulhu may not be best for you.

Quote from: WilI was going to mention this earlier and maybe it's a much easier way of illustrating my point. Playgroups sometimes suffer from "white room" syndrome during combats - that is, the characters might as well be standing and fighting in a blank, white room. All games suck when under white room conditions, whether it be combat or social interaction or skill checks or whatever. Very few games, even ones I enjoy, do much to help address "white room" combats.

This isn't the way I do things--I've weather, environments, other conflicts (from irritating a bee hive in battle, to drawing in other friends or foes if in a NPC rich environment).

I once had an entire scene in game revolve around the pc's dealing with an environment they had no experience in and all the sounds, scents and issues it created particularly a near-arctic one. It was interesting especially when dealing with unknown enemies in that environment to have the echoes sound like more than one battle, and threaten ice breaks off the ridges nearby.

Of course I also ran a horror game where in a battle with a werewolf near a ski resort the players triggered, inadverdently, an avalanche that killed everyone--players still beg me at game sessions to "run that world again" *L*





  I've experienced the white room syndrome  as a player--as if we were in just the combat with nothing else going on outside it. (To be fair to the GM, the last one who did this really had too many PC's among many other problems, so this wasn't the SOLE issue.)

Sometimes its interesting to go from a GM to a player to see how others play or run things.